Honestly . . .

[chequita guevara]

I'm rather ambivalent at this moment.

The US is going to pound the bejeezuz out of Baghdad. A lot of civilians are going to die. This is a bad thing. A very, very bad thing. It will be a war crime.

One the one hand, you hope that the Iraqi military surrenders quickly so that or that there's a coup before the bombing begins, so that the Iraqi people don't have to suffer more bloodshed at the hands of Hussein and his accomplices in Washingon. On the other hand, if the military survives intact, that means they'll be available to become part of the new government in the "new" Iraq. Just like how most of the Nazis were "rehabilitated" to form the West German government (in the East the country was thoroughly de-Nazified, so it could have been done in the West), just as how we "rehabilitated" the Frap in Haiti, just as we "rehabilitated" the butchers in Bosnia, we will "rehabilitate" all but the very worst of the Baathists. This isn't good of the Iraqi people either.

So what's better? Being killed in the cross fire and having a purged government or surrendering and having the new boss being the same as the old boss?

We're about to be fooled again.

[Dis]

why do you say a lot of civilians are going to die?

I say less than 200 directly by U.S. hands. Saddam could kill his own people and blame it on the U.S. though.

[carnide_]

Interesting.
I think you just realized there is no absolute true, no absolute wrong, no absolute good or evil.
There is an age where we believe in Sta. Klaus. There is an age where we believe the world is fair.
Looks to me you just realized the world is not fair, and, whatever option, some bad things will happen anyway.
- - -
Choosing options in a imperfect world: Thats the price of freedom. If you dont want that responsability, just obey orders.

[chequita guevara]

If the Iraqi military resists, house to house fighting will mean a lot of civilians get killed in the crossfire. As well, the massive amount of bombing that's going to occur is going to kill some people. City fighting is bloody. The US killed hundreds in Mogadishu in one running battle, and they were just trying to escape, not take the city.

It's not gonna be half a million dead like paitkis thinks, but it's gonna be more than a couple hundred.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by carnide_
Interesting.
I think you just realized there is no absolute true, no absolute wrong, no absolute good or evil.

No, I'm just disparing.

[Dis]

we will see. it is too soon to tell.

I posted in the other thread that Iraqis are preparing to surrender.

The road to Bagdhad will be easy.

But I do worry about the republican guard blending in the civilian population as you do. I hope for the best.

[carnide_]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, I'm just disparing.

Obey orders! Stop thinking!
That will help.

[Spiffor]

Since the US don't have any short-term enemies to fear, the Bushies will most likely try to give Iraq a token democracy. Even if the old generals stay in power, they might be forced by the US not to be too oppressive, to avoid a catstrophic PR and terrorist backlash.
There would be nearly no gain by having a bloody battle : the US-imposed aftermath will not be better with the old junta gone; another junta of corrupt generals will replace them soon.
Plus, a bloodbath during war would create much more destruction, death and suffering than a militaristic authauritrian regime would create in years.

Clearly, a no-no to the bloodbath.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Dissident
I say less than 200 directly by U.S. hands. Saddam could kill his own people and blame it on the U.S. though.

How many more by US actions?

If I were to go into a small, old city and pour poison into a water well, I haven't directly killed anyone.....But I have indirectly killed MANY.

[Zylka]

Re: Honestly . . .

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Just like how most of the Nazis were "rehabilitated" to form the West German government (in the East the country was thoroughly de-Nazified, so it could have been done in the West)

Just wondering, I honestly don't know but am in assumption... is "de Nazified" a euphemism for "sent to Siberia and/or shot in the back of the head"?

[Spiffor]

Tass :
8/10. Artistic

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the Iraqi military resists, house to house fighting will mean a lot of civilians get killed in the crossfire. As well, the massive amount of bombing that's going to occur is going to kill some people. City fighting is bloody. The US killed hundreds in Mogadishu in one running battle, and they were just trying to escape, not take the city.

Yeah, the mother****ers in the Mog had Kalashnikovs, Bronwing M2-HB's, a Mark 19, a ****load of RPG-9's, and every other piece of hardware they could find, and they tried to overrun US troops. They paid for it.

US urban warfare doctrine has evolved since then, house to house fighting will be largely unnecessary due to the differences in organization and motivations of the Iraqis vis-a-vis the Habr Gidr and their allies, and bombing in the cities will be limited to very specific types of targets.

Another big difference is Iraqi civilians will be mostly looking to get out of the fight, not join it, and the US will have heavy fighting vehicle support.

It's not gonna be half a million dead like paitkis thinks, but it's gonna be more than a couple hundred. [/QUOTE]

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Tass :
8/10. Artistic

Wow Thanks.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
How many more by US actions?

If I were to go into a small, old city and pour poison into a water well, I haven't directly killed anyone.....But I have indirectly killed MANY.

I believe you misspelled UN, because it is UN sanctions that are imposed on Iraq.

And don't forget, you're saintly Russian government could have used its veto. So don't blame us alone for what your motherland was involved in.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Honestly . . .

Originally posted by Zylka


Just wondering, I honestly don't know but am in assumption... is "de Nazified" a euphemism for "sent to Siberia and/or shot in the back of the head"?

Denazification was the process of removing Nazi party members from positions of local authority - everything from running transport and utility systems to local mayors. As chegitz pointed out, in East Germany, they were much more thorough in doing this, removing anyone vaguely connectable to the Nazi party (never mind whether they did anything, had any power, or influenced anything), regardless of their competence, and replaced them with good communist lackeys, regardless of their incompetence.

The subsequent economic performance of the two Germany's illustrates the intelligence of the Soviet approach in East Germany. As for counting trees in Siberia or being bullet testers, the Soviets did a fair amount of shipping Nazi party members east, but they didn't really shoot many of them, the occasional summary executions & stuff aside. Military prisoners were another story, but that varied widely in different theaters of the war and different timeframes.