Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

[Ben Kenobi]

And here I thought Agathon was a philosophy TA paid to make arguments.

Cut & paste just doesn't cut it here.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ramo
If Saddam is such an irrational nutcase, why didn't he use chemical weapons on us during Gulf War I?

More than likely, it was due to the fact that the objective of the 1991 Gulf War was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and nothing more. Add to that mix the implicit threat from Bush Sr. and other U.S. officials that we would respond in kind to any WoMD attack, and that's probably why Saddam didn't use them.

But let's assume for the moment that what you're saying is correct. That he's trigger-happy when his power is the least bit threatened. Then isn't war precisely the LAST thing we should be doing? I mean, wouldn't this trigger an orgy of death where Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons on us without restraint?

I honestly don't know, but off the top of my head, I'd say, "Yes, he likely would use WoMD."

But that's not what I debate so much. What I debate is the timeline of things, and that's what I tried to illustrate to you in our previous conversation. I think it's a given that Saddam will use any WoMD that he gets his hands on — it's just a matter of when, not if. DinoDoc, however, did post a rather enlightening article in another thread that made some very good points about containment and the old MAD doctrine. Perhaps such a long-term approach would work, but that's assuming Saddam stays rational and doesn't pull a North Korea (where they're now saying that sanctions would lead to war). Then we also have to live with the fact that the Iraqi people likely will not know true freedom for years, maybe decades, to come. And, mark my words, some folks will yowl about that and how the U.S. "abdicated" its responsibilty in that arena by choosing containment over ouster. Hell, the sanctions were originally intended to be a peaceful and non-violent means of getting rid of Saddam, but it hasn't worked and now you have a good deal of the original sanactions proponents screaming about how "U.S. sanctions" are killing millions of innocent Iraqis. Sheesh! It's a no-win situation at times, it seems.

I don't think anyone should die over a pissing contest.

Then the U.N. and other nations have to live up to the promises they make in order to avoid said pissing contests, which would most likely not occur if the offending party knew the offended party carried a big club to back up his or her soft words.

This is just an example out of the blue, but look at who now heads the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Libya! They're hardly a democratic nation, and yet look at the sheer number of *abstentions* that came in (32, I believe) when the votes were tallied. I don't know ... maybe it was the African continent's turn to head that particular U.N. office and there was no way to avoid that part of it ... but surely Africa, in that case, could've selected a more appropriate candidate nation, like South Africa (I bet you wouldn't have heard that one 20 years ago). Where were nations' spines for that one? In the chiropractor's office?

My view is fairly simple. We have no responsible plan after Gulf War II, so we have no business whatsoever threatening war.

If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine).

It's clear that the Turkish alliance is more important to Shrub et al. than the welfare of the Iraqi Kurds; that's been demonstrated by our attitude towards Iraqi Kurds over the past decade and Turkish Kurds over the past two decades.

I imagine the Turkish thing hinges on more than just the Kurds; for starters, they're the only Muslim-majority member of NATO; secondly, they're pretty much a *secular democratic* Muslim nation, which is a rarity, IMHO; thirdly, Turkey is seeking membership in the European Union. Those are three strong reasons to keep ties w/Turkey amiable (in addition to realpolitik concerns regarding using Turkish territory as a launching pad for an invasion of Iraq).

As for the Kurds, those who reside under the protection of the northern no-fly zone in Iraq seem to be doing quite well from what I've read.

When did they first rebel against Saddam's rule? I know they did and we *didn't* exactly fly in air support and ground troops to back them then, and I think the guilt from that lack of action led to the establishment of the no-fly zones.

It's also clear that Shrub et al. don't want to upset the balance of power in favor of Iran what with Iraq being a primarily Shia country. All this means we'll have a situation after the war worse than the status quo, even if the impact on Iraqi lives and property will be minimal in this upcoming war.

My understanding of the Shi'ite (Shia?) population in Iraq is that they're quite secular and even joined Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s (in terms of serving as willing soldiers). They wouldn't, IMHO, automatically gravitate towards the mullahs in Iran should Saddam fall; even if they did, I'd be more inclined to lay the blame for that at the feet of Saddam, et al., and "rabble-rousers" who came in from Iran to exhort their Iraqi cousins against Saddam's regime and, of course, the Western world.

Thus war is not justified. Period. At least not until we make definite promises that spell out the obligations we have in post-war Iraq, and until these promises and obligations are adequate.

Well, hey, you're talking to the guy here who thinks there should be a Marshall Plan II for Afghanistan ... so we likely agree on that statement above.

Gatekeeper

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sikander

Which treaties have we broken?

One that comes to mind quickly: Consular protection. On a regular basis.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine).

A bit I reckon, but not by much. Iraq was the best developed country in the region before Gulf War, in which large parts of the country was destroyed by bombing. The ensuing decade of embargo killed Iraq's economy, that its dollar devalued by over 90% (compared to before the war).

Another thing is - will the US be able to establish a stable government that controls all of the country, or will some warlords arise to fragment it?

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't really see why warlords would arise - in Afghanistan they were already there, but in Iraq they'd have to develop before the US could establish contorl over the whole country - and as they won't be relying on said warlords to keep control of the country, there's nothing to prevent them from crushing any warlords that do appear.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't really see why warlords would arise - in Afghanistan they were already there, but in Iraq they'd have to develop before the US could establish contorl over the whole country - and as they won't be relying on said warlords to keep control of the country, there's nothing to prevent them from crushing any warlords that do appear.

Unless the US can establish effective control over the whole country, which I doubt - they certainly didn't in Afghanistan - then what stops a whole bunch of armed people ganging together? Perhaps a former army official with his soldiers? Warlords appear exactly in a country where the central government is weak.

[GeneralTacticus]

Then I guess it would depnd on whether the US really cares about the emergence of warlords, because if some do arise, they have the troops to beat them. They won't be relying on them to keep control of the country, so there'll be no reason not to eliminate them.

[Nubclear]

All of you are wrong.

But all of you are right.

But if all of you are wrong, how can you all be right? Debate that for a while.

Oh wait...you are....

[Docfeelgood]

Do you think GOD would approve?

[Ramo]

More than likely, it was due to the fact that the objective of the 1991 Gulf War was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and nothing more. Add to that mix the implicit threat from Bush Sr. and other U.S. officials that we would respond in kind to any WoMD attack, and that's probably why Saddam didn't use them.

But you think Saddam is not rational, right? Why would any of this matter?

Then the U.N. and other nations have to live up to the promises they make in order to avoid said pissing contests, which would most likely not occur if the offending party knew the offended party carried a big club to back up his or her soft words.

Hmmm I'm not sure what you're getting at...

If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine).

We've left Afghanistan in the hands of warlords who "hunt terrorists" by day and rape and pillage by night. Even sharia is making a come-back under their territories. The government in Kabul is totally powerless to stop them. We haven't acted responsibly, in the least.

I imagine the Turkish thing hinges on more than just the Kurds

Ummm no. I'm saying that our gov't has been ****ing over the Kurds in favor of the Turkish alliance (which has been important to them for the reasons you mentioned).

As for the Kurds, those who reside under the protection of the northern no-fly zone in Iraq seem to be doing quite well from what I've read.

Exactly. They live in relative prosperity without being subject from the tyranny of Baghdad or Ankara (besides the occasional bombing etc. in response to "Kurdish terror").

However, once Saddam is gone, what do you think will happen? If the new regime is democratic, Kurdistan will declare independence, and Turkey will invade, leading more "ethnic cleansing" from them. If the new regime is autocratic, the Kurds will be once more be subject to the authority of Baghdad, and there'll be an invasion and likely some ethnic cleansing to bring them under heel. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

When did they first rebel against Saddam's rule?

Do you mean, after the start fo the Gulf War?

My understanding of the Shi'ite (Shia?)

Shia = Shi'ite.

[qutoe]population in Iraq is that they're quite secular and even joined Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s (in terms of serving as willing soldiers). They wouldn't, IMHO, automatically gravitate towards the mullahs in Iran should Saddam fall; even if they did, I'd be more inclined to lay the blame for that at the feet of Saddam, et al., and "rabble-rousers" who came in from Iran to exhort their Iraqi cousins against Saddam's regime and, of course, the Western world.[/quote]

I agree. I also don't think Iran'll try to pull off a coup to bring Iraq under their influence. However, I don't know if Shrub sees it that way. He's been acting paranoidly idiotic with respect to Iran ever since he undermined what little authority Khatami had over the Mullahs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

However, once Saddam is gone, what do you think will happen? If the new regime is democratic, Kurdistan will declare independence, and Turkey will invade, leading more "ethnic cleansing" from them. If the new regime is autocratic, the Kurds will be once more be subject to the authority of Baghdad, and there'll be an invasion and likely some ethnic cleansing to bring them under heel. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

RAMO, if the Kurds declared independence against the wishes of both the government of Iraq and of Turkey, they might both invade. This why I thinks they will initially join the new Iraqi government. Thereafter, they may seek autonomy or seek to become an integral part of the larger Iraq. Time will tell. But at this point, I don't believe they will unilaterally declare independence.

[Sandman]

Abbreviated reply to MtG:

Inaccuracy of scuds: Well, ok, scuds are crappy conventional missiles. That means they'd be little better for chemical weapons.

Delay of cleanup time: You don't have to proceed with the assumption that everything is contaminated, you could just take a chance. Furthermore, a chemical attack would not always paralyse a unit's function, it could have only a small effect. I'm just an ignorant armchair general, but what effect would gas have on, say, an anti-aircraft missile battery (assuming that the operator has suited up)?

Gas mask deployment time: If there's gas about, I'm assuming that each soldier has a gas mask personally available, and that he's had time to practise putting it on. It surely can't take too long to put one on, even if they've been put to ground.

Combat capability: Ok, so gas can cause anxiety and render things ineffective. So can plenty of conventional weapons. Not really mass destruction is it?

VX injections: Hmm. I was under the impression that the VX antidote could be administered to a body part where it would quickly reach the heart, i.e the thigh.

Secondary gas effects: Fair enough, although, again, it's hardly mass destruction.

Disabling base: Point taken about wanting to capture it later, although it can still be partially effective even when doused with gas.

VX versus HE: Fine.

Anthax infested buildings: Well, anthax is common enough in the soil, and it takes thousands of spores to infect a human. Still, that is actually not a bad application (amorally speaking).

Nitpicking aside, you've not really demonstrated the mass destructiveness of chemical weapons, sure, they're useful in certain situations, but does that really put them on a par with nukes?

Not to mention that certain aspects of 'banned' weapons are shared by the aspects of legal weapons, i.e. napalm, pressure bombs (don't know the technical name) and landmines.

[Nubclear]

This is stuipd. No one can answer my question!!!

[Ramo]

RAMO, if the Kurds declared independence against the wishes of both the government of Iraq and of Turkey, they might both invade. This why I thinks they will initially join the new Iraqi government.

If you really believe that after their period of autonomy, after they're given guns to liberate their comrades to the South, they'd be willing to hand them back in and once more be subject to the tyranny of Baghdad, you're crazy!

If they don't defend themselves, they'll be an extremely bad situation, as an ethnic and religions minority in Iraq. They'd be in a much worse situation than they currently are in.

[The diplomat]

1 million casualties is absurd!

There will probably be 1000 Iraqi civilian casaulties or less. And there will probably be no more than 100 Allied losses!