Announcement

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:23

The root cause is US support for Israel

A useful way to pull in the masses, but not a root cause.

support for the despotic regimes of the ME

This is part of the root cause. People hate their governments and turn to the only movement available (fundamentalism). The US needs to stop supporting despotic regimes and the creation of a democracy in Iraq would allow us to start cutting ties.

as well as the perception that the US cares nothing for the people and only about the oil

What better way to disprove this than by freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator?

Attacking Iraq will only outrage those who are not already siding with the terrorists. Far from dealing with the root cause of terorism, it will further enflame terrorism against us.

This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

**Ramo** · February 8, 2003, 19:28

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism is so popular is that it is the only viable political movement in the region. People who are unsatisfied with their governments (and there are a lot of them) have no political movement to turn to other than fundamentalism. If America can successfully create a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq, it would help the region out immensely by creating a real alternative to fundamentalism. The only way to defeat terrorism is to dry up its popular support and you can't do that if there is no political movement other than fundamentalism for the masses to subscribe too.

The whole reason the Islamist movement has any power nowadays is because we've been destroying the leftist movements in the region for the past several decades.

This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

The Arab people clearly oppose the possibility of Gulf War II immensely. Their gov't's are more lukewarm of course. And they may very well fall to Islamist rebels in the event of such a war.

**chequita guevara** · February 8, 2003, 19:32

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

They don't give a rat's ass about Hussein. He ruined his cred as the new Nassar/Saladin long ago. What the Arab street cares about is the bombing of Arab civilians, mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, etc. The last time through, the US comepletely destroyed the country's infrastructre: bridges, electrictal grid, hospitals, schools, etc.

Apparently (I haven't verified this yet) the current plan for opening hostilities calls for 800 cruise missiles to hit Bahgdad. The plan assumes civilians will flee the city, where they will have no food, water, and will be exposed to the elements. Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

When thousands of Iraqi children die, Arabs will be enraged, and rightly so.

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:33

The whole reason the Islamist movement has any power nowadays is because we've been destroying the leftist movements in the region for the past several decades.

No ****, Sherlock. It's a problem inherited from the Cold War that needs to be fixed.

And they may very well fall to Islamist rebels in the event of such a war.

Wanna place a bet on that?

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:37

Apparently (I haven't verified this yet) the current plan for opening hostilities calls for 800 cruise missiles to hit Bahgdad.

I think it's 8000 missiles at target throughout Iraq. I've also heard that US planners are intentionally avoiding vital infrastructure to make the post-war reconstruction easier.

Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

There's a good chance that they won't be. Our planners are probably trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

**Ramo** · February 8, 2003, 19:38

No ****, Sherlock. It's a problem inherited from the Cold War that needs to be fixed.

What makes you think it will be? Our allies in the region
like Musharraf aren't exactly supportive of trade unions or land reform in these countries. Nor are we.

Wanna place a bet on that?

I never said I was sure it would happen. But I wouldn't suprised if one or more governments fall to Islamists in the event of Gulf War II.

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:45

What makes you think it will be?

I'm not saying it will be fixed; there are many difficulties inherent in achieving it. I'm saying that the US would be stupid and selfish to not attempt to fix it. We helped make the problem that bit our ass on 9/11; it's time we tried to undo the damage.

Our allies in the region
like Musharraf

Musharraf isn't in the region...

But I wouldn't suprised if one or more governments fall to Islamists in the event of Gulf War II.

I would. The war would have to go horrifically bad for that to happen.

**Ramo** · February 8, 2003, 19:50

I'm not saying it will be fixed; there are many difficulties inherent in achieving it. I'm just saying that the US would be stupid and selfish to not attempt to fix it. We helped make the problem that bit our ass on 9/11; it's time we tried to undo the damage.

What you think should or shouldn't happen isn't relevent. The only thing that is relevant is what Shrub et al. think should or shouldn't happen.

Musharraf isn't in the region..

Methinks you need a geography lesson.

Pakistan is pretty damn close to Iraq. Just on the other side of Iran.

I would. The war would have to go horrifically bad for that to happen.

The Afghan War certainly didn't go "horrifically bad," yet there were large increases in Islamist support in quite a few countries.

**chequita guevara** · February 8, 2003, 19:51

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

There's a good chance that they won't be. Our planners are probably trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:56

The only thing that is relevant is what Shrub et al. think should or shouldn't happen.

Exactly and there have been indications that the Shrubya team is thinking along the same lines as I am. Nothing definite has appeared, but the glimpses have been telling.

Methinks you need a geography lesson. Pakistan is pretty damn close to Iraq. Just on the other side of Iran.

Pakistan isn't a part of the Middle East and has little effect on the politics of the region. Pakistan is part of the Central Asian or South Asian regions. Totally different ballpark.

Nice talking with you Ramo, but I gotta leave for the night. Don't have too much fun without me.

**Drake Tungsten** · February 8, 2003, 19:58

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

I don't remember hearing about huge civilian casualties in Yugoslavia. Maybe I need to start reading different newspapers...

**chequita guevara** · February 8, 2003, 19:59

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

I don't remember hearing about huge civilian casualties in Yugoslavia. Maybe I need to start reading different newspapers...

Like non-American ones.

**Ramo** · February 8, 2003, 20:07

Exactly and there have been indications that the Shrubya team is thinking along the same lines as I am. Nothing definite has appeared, but the glimpses have been telling.

Glimpses?

Pakistan isn't a part of the Middle East and has little effect on the politics of the region. Pakistan is part of the Central Asian or South Asian regions. Totally different ballpark.

I was under the impression that there were some Islamic states in Central Asia where Islamism is rampant, like, gee let me think... AFGHANISTAN. Our allies in the Middle East are right-wing autocrats to.

So supporting a brutally authoritarian right-wing dictator in a generally secular Islamic country doesn't say anything about what kind of regime there'll be in Baghdad?

Announcement

Anti-War Signs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment