How long till Iraq is at war? What happens during it, and after?

[SKILORD]

You'll just put another dictator who will bow to your ill interests (hint: oil oil oil.

Who we put in power will not affect oil at all. Whatever form of government, whoever the leader faces bankruptcy as a nation or selling oil at competetive prices. They can not afford to hoard their oil, with the distributioin of wealth in those nations it would do them little good to have it, thus they must sell it.

[SlowwHand]

You'll have to forgive Zylka, Kramerman.
He stays heavily medicated, most of the time.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You'll have to forgive Zylka, Kramerman.
He stays heavily medicated, most of the time.

I forgive no one...

[cgannon64]

I did not vote, but here is my 2 cents:

Iraq is the next Vietnam. We hit a brick wall b/c Bush (or next PResident) does not want to commit too many troops. Iraqi soldiers perfect guerrilla tactics, American army has problems taking and holding many areas. Morale declines. President because afraid to commit more troops, public support falls, Bush calls on the "Great Silent Majority" ($10 if you know what that is and didn't live in the late 60s early 70s) to stand up to the enemy. Protests abound. The average American is against the war, support for government falters.

Now, in my mind, there are three ways the war ends:
1-We win. A huge commitment of troops finally gives a victory.
2-We pull out. US humilated, the world says "I told you so."
3a-Saddam develops WMD, uses them on US troops. US retaliates with WMD (not likely)
3b-Saddam develops WMD, uses them on US troops. Bush completely pulls out of Iraq.

I think this won't be AS BAD as Vietnam, because of total media shutdown. This kills freedom of the press, Government breaks American ideals for sake of war. IF this happens, I still think a few horrifying media pictures still get through.

Unfortunately I am seeing MyLai all over again...

[Cybergod]

I'm short-sighted? And you think Saddam just flys airplanes himself and sprays DU and causes cancer, poisons water and food supplies etc.???

Why would the US want to put a dictator in power???

Good old Uncle Sam put Saddam in power long time ago, while he obeyed you. As a matter of fact you feared another Iran and you'd rather have him and stop the spread of Islam.

The reason why Afghan women wear veils (they are not made to by the government, most are either willing cause they feel it is their culture or they are made to do it by their relatives or locals) is because it is in their culture. Even if the Afghan democracy wants to make their women wear them, who is the US or anyone else in the world to say they cant do this? They are their own nation now.

One of the ways CNN describbed backwardness under the Taliban regime was its maltreatment of women, who were beaten and forced to wear veils over their faces and were banned from education etc. Not a single change has happened under the new regime.

And the US is responsible for the crapy living conditions in Iraq how? Sanctions you say?

Have YOU ever lived under sanctions? I guess not so don't even think on basing an argument purely on that Saddam could divert more money in infrastructure when there is no way of making an income or importing essential goods. And the ways shipments of medicines for cancer and similar diseases has been banned because chemicals used in them could be turned into weapons makes me sick.

Why would the US want to put a dictator in power??? Our interests in the middle east would by far be best served by a moderate arab democracy.

Because a trully democratic regime wouldn't care less about your interests and would not let its country be manipulated by corporate power. Plus placing another dictator wouldn't be the first time.

hmmm, lets try to blow things out of proportion just a little more, ok?

Stating the facts in the way the rest of the civilized world sees it doesn't mean blowing things out of proportion.

as Cybergod has so graciously pointed out, under Saddam's regime a WTC amount of civilians die regularly under Saddams regime, and thats just from poor standards of living.

I graciously said that the number of children that die each month is roughly the same as the number of civilians killed on 9/11. Not to mention the rest of the adult population. And their deaths are partically if not mostly caused by the US army. Yeah, radiation and cancer just happen out of poor standards of living, right?

Regaurdless, anyone who has taken a high school chemistry class knows that the radioactivity of Uranium can only cause cancer to those through 'large' doses and long periods of exposure, unless one is genetically predisposed to cancer, which 1 in 3 humans are anyway. Anyway, anylong term deaths related to the limited use of dpleted uranium rounds is minimal.

THAT IS A LOAD OF BLATTANT LIES I need only state that in Bosnia and Serbia (including Kosovo) cancer rates have soared since the "humanitarian" interventions. And any number of deaths by this way is inhumane IMO.

EDIT: Lets not forget that Saddam, being the brave man that he is, has clustered his military installation in cities and other densly populated areas so he can use the civilians as human shields. You can blame the US for the enevitable civilian casualties, but IMHO, Saddam is ultimately the bastard responsible.

Same exuses you use in every war you get involved in. When Yugoslavia was bombed, on the news there were claims that there were mass arsenaries of weapons in hospitals, schools and factories. I watched one NATO missile bomb video on how the bomb aproached a building that was a typical Belgrade block of flats - later on, the video was shown no more and no one uttered a word of its existence.

I read a report some while ago about an Iraqi family of shepherds who had a gathering in a valley, and they were bombed to bits by the US aircraft. Yeah, sheeps had uranium-rich wool I should think. Of course, this was never mentioned by the media.

[SlowwHand]

Do you Markos and Dan would let this poll be fine-tuned a little bit?
Maybe get down to the hour and minute, like a child birth?
Kick in some coin that goes to the winner?
Come on ! Let's gamble!

[SKILORD]

October (February) 13th (12th if Feb), 9:00, 30 seconds on the clock.

i put 60cents on them each.....

i will graciously leave CyberGod's post for cooler heads.

[Dr Strangelove]

It will take at least 6 months to get a decent sized military force deployed to the area, so the war could not possibly take place before March or April 2003. Take into consideration also at least 2 months for the UN to debate the thing out, and that the US will not start deploying major element until then, so I don't think that the war could possibly start before May 2003.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I did not vote, but here is my 2 cents:

Iraq is the next Vietnam. We hit a brick wall b/c Bush (or next PResident) does not want to commit too many troops. Iraqi soldiers perfect guerrilla tactics, American army has problems taking and holding many areas. Morale declines. President because afraid to commit more troops, public support falls, Bush calls on the "Great Silent Majority" ($10 if you know what that is and didn't live in the late 60s early 70s) to stand up to the enemy. Protests abound. The average American is against the war, support for government falters.

Now, in my mind, there are three ways the war ends:
1-We win. A huge commitment of troops finally gives a victory.
2-We pull out. US humilated, the world says "I told you so."
3a-Saddam develops WMD, uses them on US troops. US retaliates with WMD (not likely)
3b-Saddam develops WMD, uses them on US troops. Bush completely pulls out of Iraq.

I think this won't be AS BAD as Vietnam, because of total media shutdown. This kills freedom of the press, Government breaks American ideals for sake of war. IF this happens, I still think a few horrifying media pictures still get through.

Unfortunately I am seeing MyLai all over again...

Where did you get your, for want of a better word, facts on any of the long-winded drivel?

[Zylka]

It's going to be another Slowwhand

Uh huh

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We try to leave that to the Russian army.

I knew someday this link will be usefull. Have a nice reading DinoDock:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtml

This quote is for you Kramerman:
"One Afghan, shown in battle fatigues, says of the treatment of prisoners in the Shibarghan camp: “I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner’s neck and poured acid on others. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them.”"
Btw, you could also watch "The platoon" movie, if you think that your soldiers 'do not rape, pillage, plunder, or murder. '

It was my two cents to warm up this discusion.
Have a nice day

[David Floyd]

Of course, Serb, to be fair, we shouldn't forget about, say, Katyn Forest, or what Soviet troops did to Germans in Soviet-occupied territory.

And no, years of Nazi occupation did NOT justify any atrocities against German civilians

[Serb]

And no, one day of September 11 did NOT justify any atrocities against Afghan pow.

[David Floyd]

Certainly not. But then again, I've never claimed otherwise

Remember who you're dealing with - one of the most politically consistent people on Poly. You're not gonna get anywhere with this one

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Certainly not. But then again, I've never claimed otherwise

I know. I was trying to say that sh*t could happens everywhere abd with everybody.

Remember who you're dealing with - one of the most politically consistent people on Poly.

You Really?