Fixation on Casualties and Collateral Damage?

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Hello everybody,

Thought I would take a moment to explain this.

Each day at my university, Gallaudet University in Washington DC, I get many comments on the American military machine and how awesome it can dish out damage to anybody daring to stand in its way.

Most of these comments were like, "Dan (my real name), haven't you heard in 1991, Americans killed these 100,000 Iraqis, they were innocent, what have they done to you? And the sanctions are killing a lot of women and children, in fact, Iraq is low on the medical supplies and other essential humanitarian items...."

Most people believe, including a few Americans, that the American military machine is fixated on causing serious civilian casualties, by that, I do not mean ethnic cleansings nor it means a new kind of mass massacre, nobody believes America would do that kind of thing, but I think the majority of world believe America intends to harm the civilians.

Thought I would post this one because it appears the majority of people here on the board believe in pacifist ideals.

First, these 100,000 Iraqis were not civilians, they were soldiers caught up in middle of withdrawing from the frontline, which Americans poured heavy firepower on the withdrawing units. Let me make clear on this, it was a proper tactical manevuer, and it wasn't illegal to open fire on a retreating unit because by then the ceasefire was not in effect. It later became the famous "Death on Highway." Hundreds of supplies, trucks, and other military hardware were destroyed in these few minutes of intense gunfire.

Second, the sanctions placed on the Iraqis were not meant to cause misery and death to the average Iraqi citizen, they were meant to deny Saddam the means to buy new updated military hardware and technology needed to build a new generation of WMDs. Saddam has used the misery to exploit the shortcomings of such sanctions, for these, I refer to Globalsecurity.org's PDF "Apparatus of Lies." I showed this to many of my friends and teachers who oppose the war with Iraq. In retrorespect, I think it was a mistake to place the sanctions on Iraq simply because it was not effective in preventing Saddam from exploiting such shortcomings, and was mainly counter-productive at least in long terms.

I strongly urge Marko and other people who oppose the war on this forum to read the short paper on such techniques used by Saddam from 1990 to 2003. Hopefully, this will change some of the misperceptions about the impending Iraqi conflict.

Further, it is not the main policy of the United States of America's armed forces to pursue the civilian targets that would cause the timely death of civilians. It is unfortunate that there will be collateral damage, which is common even with latest modern weapons, however, we do best to avoid such death.

I don't know why so many people continue to be mistaught about the rules of engagement in my American armed forces.

At times, I think a new course on the main roles of the armed forces is needed in the elementary schools, junior high, and high schools to educate these future generations on how the military operations are conducted in an orderly manner and compatible with these political objectives.

I honestly think the US armed forces are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world, due to so many harsh criticism of its military operations and political leaders as well.

I think a US Army recruiter would be benefical to show that the US Army and other branches do care about collateral damage and try their best to avoid this kind of damage and civilian deaths.

Dan
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello everybody,

Thought I would take a moment to explain this.

Each day at my university, Gallaudet University in Washington DC, I get many comments on the American military machine and how awesome it can dish out damage to anybody daring to stand in its way.

Most of these comments were like, "Dan (my real name), haven't you heard in 1991, Americans killed these 100,000 Iraqis, they were innocent, what have they done to you? And the sanctions are killing a lot of women and children, in fact, Iraq is low on the medical supplies and other essential humanitarian items...."

Most people believe, including a few Americans, that the American military machine is fixated on causing serious civilian casualties, by that, I do not mean ethnic cleansings nor it means a new kind of mass massacre, nobody believes America would do that kind of thing, but I think the majority of world believe America intends to harm the civilians.

Thought I would post this one because it appears the majority of people here on the board believe in pacifist ideals.

First, these 100,000 Iraqis were not civilians, they were soldiers caught up in middle of withdrawing from the frontline, which Americans poured heavy firepower on the withdrawing units. Let me make clear on this, it was a proper tactical manevuer, and it wasn't illegal to open fire on a retreating unit because by then the ceasefire was not in effect. It later became the famous "Death on Highway." Hundreds of supplies, trucks, and other military hardware were destroyed in these few minutes of intense gunfire.

Second, the sanctions placed on the Iraqis were not meant to cause misery and death to the average Iraqi citizen, they were meant to deny Saddam the means to buy new updated military hardware and technology needed to build a new generation of WMDs. Saddam has used the misery to exploit the shortcomings of such sanctions, for these, I refer to Globalsecurity.org's PDF "Apparatus of Lies." I showed this to many of my friends and teachers who oppose the war with Iraq. In retrorespect, I think it was a mistake to place the sanctions on Iraq simply because it was not effective in preventing Saddam from exploiting such shortcomings, and was mainly counter-productive at least in long terms.

I strongly urge Marko and other people who oppose the war on this forum to read the short paper on such techniques used by Saddam from 1990 to 2003. Hopefully, this will change some of the misperceptions about the impending Iraqi conflict.

Further, it is not the main policy of the United States of America's armed forces to pursue the civilian targets that would cause the timely death of civilians. It is unfortunate that there will be collateral damage, which is common even with latest modern weapons, however, we do best to avoid such death.

I don't know why so many people continue to be mistaught about the rules of engagement in my American armed forces.

At times, I think a new course on the main roles of the armed forces is needed in the elementary schools, junior high, and high schools to educate these future generations on how the military operations are conducted in an orderly manner and compatible with these political objectives.

I honestly think the US armed forces are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world, due to so many harsh criticism of its military operations and political leaders as well.

I think a US Army recruiter would be benefical to show that the US Army and other branches do care about collateral damage and try their best to avoid this kind of damage and civilian deaths.

Dan
Firstly, you have your view Dan and I accept and respect that. However, I also have a view. I realise that the US military would never intentionally kill civilians and I am fully aware that the 'Road to Basra' incident was a military operation. The point is Dan that civilians will die, we all know that civilians deaths are expected due to missile inaccuracy, bad info or just plain human error. TThe difference is that in today's world it is just not good enough, you can't simply say '...cvilians will die and it is regretted...'. You hreally have to use your empathetic powers. How would you feel if your family were incinerated in a missile attack ? What if you couldn't have a life saving operation because the US jets had knocked out the electricity. Now if Iraq invaded Kuwait again then that would be a different story, but they have done nothing to deserve WAR. Think about it, people will die for absoulutely nothing. It is futile and it is not part and parcel of War because this is not war, it is a US led invasion - an aggressive act. And innocent men, women and children will die in horrendous circumstances because their leader is mad. It is simply not justified. Why kill the Iraqi soldiers who are simply following orders ? War is just wrong in the current context, civilian casualties would be much more tolerated in a just war, but not in this one.
 

Rooster

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
145
Reaction score
1
Location
Northern California
Country
llUnited States
Civialian casulties is expected in all war. It is not neccessary in Iraq either, but of course you have a leader in Iraq that does not care if civilian life is lost. His use of human sheilds, parking weapons next to masques, hospitals, and his plan of deploying his republican guard in the city is his choice not ours.

Saddam made choices in first Gulf too to attack with scud missles into civilian targets. We also know that the he is willing to use chemical weapons too.

I believe that 12 years of peace has done nothing but do more harm to Iraqui people and now we must give war a chance. The pressure on Iraq of War has still not done enough to produce a willingness on their part to disarm, and for countries to continue to supply dual use supplies that can include WMD as late as of December, so I see US making the attack sometime in next three weeks and Saddam's Regime will fall, and then the clean up will take place. In the last two weeks the UN, EU, and Arab dimplomats have met and have started to plan for the post Saddam regime (They too see the writing on the wall). NATO is even holding meetings for post war planning.


Even now the EU, The non-aligned nations, have said that he must disarm NOW... If he does not disarm NOW, he again makes the choice and War will come quickly and then he will be disarmed.

The evacuations of embassies in Iraq in recent weeks also point to something having to give soon.

The best thing that could happen is that Saddam leaves the country, and his troops stand down...
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
[Q]Each day at my university, Gallaudet University in Washington DC, I get many comments on the American military machine and how awesome it can dish out damage to anybody daring to stand in its way.

Most of these comments were like, "Dan (my real name), haven't you heard in 1991, Americans killed these 100,000 Iraqis, they were innocent, what have they done to you? And the sanctions are killing a lot of women and children, in fact, Iraq is low on the medical supplies and other essential humanitarian items...."
[/Q]

It is my standard policy to ignore and avoid discussions with these kinds of people. They have no clue about war, and most of their opinions lack appropriate research and knowledge to be respected. Most people in college are just developing their opinions and ideals. They don't understand why we fight, and if left on their own would become slaves. It's our job to protect them.

People at this forum are quite different. They have well-researched, and developed opinions. Even if we disagree with the conclusion, one has no choice, but to at least consider our opinions.

The actual number of Iraqis killed during DESERT STORM was far less than 100,000. CENTCOM grossly overestimated casualty reports. The actual number is around 20,000-40,000. There were between 2,500-5,000 civilian casualties I believe.

[Q]Further, it is not the main policy of the United States of America's armed forces to pursue the civilian targets that would cause the timely death of civilians. It is unfortunate that there will be collateral damage, which is common even with latest modern weapons, however, we do best to avoid such death.[/Q]

The US military tries to avoid killing civilians. However, we do plan to attack them. The civilian population is critical to maintaining an country's ability and will to fight. Ret. USAF Col. John Warden's concept for conducting an air campaign places greater importance on the population than the military in the field. Our forces attack utilities, such as water supplies, and electricity to make life harder on the general population and degrade it's morale.

Sanctions are a similar tactic. While it can be more targeted, in order for any sanctions to force political changes, you must negatively impact the populations way of life. Sanctions failed in Iraq for several reasons. One of those being our inability to target the Iraqi regime, along with it's population. Saddam's center of gravity, the Republican Guard has not suffered due to the sanctions. Because of this, this policy is doomed to failure.

[Q]I honestly think the US armed forces are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world, due to so many harsh criticism of its military operations and political leaders as well.[/Q]

Why bother. Few people care to understand. You can show people all the data you want, if they are convinced otherwise, that's it.

Politicians deserve to the public torture they receive. You have to pay the cost to be the boss. That's how it works.

[Q]Now if Iraq invaded Kuwait again then that would be a different story, but they have done nothing to deserve WAR. Think about it, people will die for absoulutely nothing. It is futile and it is not part and parcel of War because this is not war, it is a US led invasion - an aggressive act. And innocent men, women and children will die in horrendous circumstances because their leader is mad. It is simply not justified. Why kill the Iraqi soldiers who are simply following orders ? War is just wrong in the current context, civilian casualties would be much more tolerated in a just war, but not in this one.[/Q]

If the situation was that simple, I might have to agree.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, most of the US Executive Branch were drawing up plans on how to deal with it. No one cared about the Kuwaitis. Everyone thought about how this situation would effect my country.

The same is true today. Your comment about Iraq invading Kuwait means that you are willing to sacrifice their people before you consider taking action. How many people would Kuwaitis would die along with the Iraqis all because you wanted to wait?

I don't care too much about your country or anyone else's. I am only concerned with US interest. Every government on both sides of this argument feel the same way. The thought process begins with self-preservation and expands outward. You might be different. If so, I commend you. However, I don't buy the argument that Iraq hasn't done anything or whatever. This is not an issue of morality. It's self-preservation on a grand scale. Most people might not see what that means. However, in ten years, they'' probably have a different opinion.

You might not support my belief of striking first "in this case." However, I believe waiting until the Saddam does something to warrant military action is equally just as bad of an ideal.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I am not yet sure whether I am in favour or again a US invasion of Iraq.

However, the number of people dying in such an invasion need to be put into perspective with what happens otherwise. If the US doesn't invade, the sanction and no-fly zones will fall and Iraq will raise to its old military power. Under Saddam that means he will start war with somebody.

The perspective to be drawn here is how many people die in the middle east if the US stay away. The first gulf war had single attacks in single battles with more than 20000 Iranians dead. Western journalists try counting and stopped at 23000 after a single human wave attack. While all these were soldiers on an attack, they were also mostly less than 17 years old. Death tolls like these are to be expected.

As I said initially, I am undecided.

But a big factor in my pro/con thinking is that the middle east without a superpower pressing its thumb may be a very different, much worse, place than with the superpower(s). It would be the first time that this explosive region would be left with modern military equipment and noone to moderate. I wouldn't like to see Americans die solving these problems, and I wouldn't like the US to ruin the UN, but as far as death tolls are involved an invasion is, in my opinion, preventing more death and suffering than it causes. The real question is: will the invasion lead to a long-term committment and do we care for these people enough or is it hopeless anyway?
 
Last edited:

Tzar

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Country
llCanada
It is not the first time people debate about civilian casualties and collateral dommage on this forum, but it is the first time I say something about myself. The reason I usually don't discuss this issue is because it is a never-ending one, and there are no true or even logical answers to give to those protesting civilian casualties, whatever way we try to put it.

I know that contrary to Iraqi civilians, I won't be affected by this war. I am sitting comfortably in front of my screen in probably the safest Western country of all, Canada, where shit never or rarely happens whether it be terrorism or social conflicts.

Whatever the number of rationalizations I will try to make to put some sense into it, civilian casualties will still happen and it is tragic, period.

I only hope that the standard of living of the Iraqis will increase once this war is over and Saddam is gone, and that the level of misery of this bright people will be reduced.

I only pray that the United Stated will try to do with Iraq what they successfully did with Japan and Germany after 1945: uphold them and make them live better than they were before.

For this to happen though, it means that the U.S. need to go there for much more than WMDs and oil. Let's all hope these rumours of a great strategic plan where reconstruction of Iraq figures in prominent place are all true, at least.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by Rooster
I believe that 12 years of peace has done nothing but do more harm to Iraqui people and now we must give war a chance. The pressure on Iraq of War has still not done enough to produce a willingness on their part to disarm, and for countries to continue to supply dual use supplies that can include WMD as late as of December, so I see US making the attack sometime in next three weeks and Saddam's Regime will fall, and then the clean up will take place. In the last two weeks the UN, EU, and Arab dimplomats have met and have started to plan for the post Saddam regime (They too see the writing on the wall). NATO is even holding meetings for post war planning.
The past 12 years have seen Saddam be contained, he is no threat to anyone, not even his own people. He may have used chemicals before...but do you seriously think he'd do it again ? The Iraqi armed forces are a shadow of there former selves - the army of Gabon could probably defeat the Iraqi army. This talk of 'disarming' is also pathetic. What does Iraq have to disarm ? They have been told to destroy some missiles which they are going to comply with. So what else needs disarming ? The inspectors still have not found anything.
 

Wolfe Tone

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
The military and civilian casualties in GWII were exaggerated. It’s impossible to know how many died but that info might come to hand if the Iraqis kept records and the can be found amongst the ruins in Baghdad in a few weeks time.
However Dan and Deltapooh, you have to understand that to many people in this world the US military appears to be indifferent to casualties caused by collateral damage. The US Government also appears to be indifferent to the deaths of tens of thousands of children through sanctions. Madeleine Albright, asked in 1996 what she thought of the effects of sanctions killing half a million children, replied ‘’ we think it’s worth it’. (CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996). Apparently this has become one of the most famous (or should that be infamous?) phrases of the late 20th Century on the Arab ‘Street’.
Does the US military command or the US government care…. not really. They might not set out to directly kill innocent people but if it happens well the attitude seems to be ‘ shucks, what a shame’.
Deltapooh, your attitude towards other peoples in this world typifies an attitude that many people associate with America’s relations with others….lack of empathy and understanding. You are of course perfectly entitled to put your own country first. But to many other peoples it’s an attitude of us first and everyone else can go jump. Other countries put their own interests first, but they also co operate, (like in the EU) and the thought that innocent civilians elsewhere would die by the thousands as a result of actions by their military and Government would appall them. Also you seem to see nothing wrong in attacking civilian infrastructure, like say electricity, power plants, water plants etc. re your:

Our forces attack utilities, such as water supplies, and electricity to make life harder on the general population and degrade it's morale.

So then if OBL attacks targets like that in the USA and innocent people die that can be termed ‘collateral damage’. To most people such acts are terrorism! If you want to fight a war, fight it clean. I for one will not blame any soldier or airman who attacks clear military targets. Wars are bad enough so surely everything humanly possible should be done to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
 

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
The US Government also appears to be indifferent to the deaths of tens of thousands of children through sanctions. Madeleine Albright, asked in 1996 what she thought of the effects of sanctions killing half a million children, replied ‘’ we think it’s worth it’. (CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996).
The problem is that it is not the sanctions of the U.S. that is killing the children. The sanctions are from the entire U.N. It is Saddam Hussein killing the children by diverting the neccessities to his military build up.

Originally posted by Wolfe Tone

Other countries put their own interests first, but they also co operate, (like in the EU) and the thought that innocent civilians elsewhere would die by the thousands as a result of actions by their military and Government would appall them.
Then they either didn't vote for the sanctions or by voting for the sanctions they were not responsible for the thousands of civilian deaths.

Originally posted by Wolfe Tone

Also you seem to see nothing wrong in attacking civilian infrastructure, like say electricity, power plants, water plants etc. re your:

Our forces attack utilities, such as water supplies, and electricity to make life harder on the general population and degrade it's morale.

So then if OBL attacks targets like that in the USA and innocent people die that can be termed ‘collateral damage’. To most people such acts are terrorism! If you want to fight a war, fight it clean. I for one will not blame any soldier or airman who attacks clear military targets. Wars are bad enough so surely everything humanly possible should be done to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
I believe that U.S. attacks on civilian infrastructure are at a minimum compared to attacks that specifically target military targets. Once again it Hussein who is trying to protect his military by hiding it in civilians; placing AA on hospital roofs, building mosques in military bases, etc.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
[Q]However Dan and Deltapooh, you have to understand that to many people in this world the US military appears to be indifferent to casualties caused by collateral damage. The US Government also appears to be indifferent to the deaths of tens of thousands of children through sanctions. Madeleine Albright, asked in 1996 what she thought of the effects of sanctions killing half a million children, replied ‘’ we think it’s worth it’. (CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996). Apparently this has become one of the most famous (or should that be infamous?) phrases of the late 20th Century on the Arab ‘Street’.
Does the US military command or the US government care…. not really. They might not set out to directly kill innocent people but if it happens well the attitude seems to be ‘ shucks, what a shame’.
Deltapooh, your attitude towards other peoples in this world typifies an attitude that many people associate with America’s relations with others….lack of empathy and understanding. You are of course perfectly entitled to put your own country first. But to many other peoples it’s an attitude of us first and everyone else can go jump. Other countries put their own interests first, but they also co operate, (like in the EU) and the thought that innocent civilians elsewhere would die by the thousands as a result of actions by their military and Government would appall them. Also you seem to see nothing wrong in attacking civilian infrastructure, like say electricity, power plants, water plants etc. re your:

Our forces attack utilities, such as water supplies, and electricity to make life harder on the general population and degrade it's morale.

So then if OBL attacks targets like that in the USA and innocent people die that can be termed ‘collateral damage’. To most people such acts are terrorism! If you want to fight a war, fight it clean. I for one will not blame any soldier or airman who attacks clear military targets. Wars are bad enough so surely everything humanly possible should be done to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.[/Q]


There are two ways to prevent or halt civilian casualties.

1. Not go to war

2. End war quickly

Since not going to war isn't an acceptable option for me at this time, the only way I can stop the killing is to achieve victory quickly. That appears to be a lesson many European governments, and some people, can't understand. War is sometimes a neccessaity. The frequency of conflicts is determined by a number of factors, but it's inevitability is constant. If this weren't true, everyone would disarm.

Once you decide that killing is sometimes necessary, the only humane thing to do is device tactics and doctrine to ensure the war ends as quickly as possible. You force people to give up their political ideals and see salvation through submission. That's how you win a war.

The politicians and "experts" on US policy only promote the ideal that Americans care less about the lives of other people because it's the only to validate their own tainted opinions. Most European nations are saying "so what Saddam has WMDs, let him, when he does something evil, then we'll address it." Does that sound like a population of caring people.

I'm simply applying a more realistic opinion to counter the political hype being pushed on television each day. None of the government care about the Iraqi people. This is a debate of self-preservation at the global scale. The US wants to better it's status. And Most European nations want to wait until they have no choice, but to go to war, even if that means massive loss of life. No one has a good argument to justify, or not justify war, because we're all basing our opinions on a positive or negative ideal that hasn't been proven. The bottomline is that alot of people will die unnecessarily if either side is wrong.

Do you think Chirac cares about the Iraqi people?

HELL NO. He just looks at Iraq and sees a pit his nation could fall into and want to avoid it. He doesn't care if Saddam starts gasing people or not.

Heck, in the Gulf War, the French President was the one who wanted to delay the final phase of the conflict citing the eventual success of the air campaign. Doing so meant prolonging the hardship of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people. He didn't care though. All he was concerned with was protecting his troops.

I have adopted such a hardline because that's what required to end these kinds of wars. Conflict is not about tipping around trying to avoid civilian casualties. As long as bombs are dropping, innocent people are dying. There is nothing precise about a 2,000lb bomb made of Tritonal 80/20.

I don't see Europeans as anything mroe than selfish people who are willing to sacrifice people like me. If your government evaluates your foriegn policy to promote and ensure America's well-being every day (sometimes it's important), then you should clean political house.

We're all concerned with our own lives and those of our loved ones. If people think Americans don't care about non-combatants, it's a pity. Last time I checked we've invested the big bucks to ensure carpet bombing isn't necessary. The US military trains with doctrine meant to consider the impact a military action might have on the civilian population. Hell, we changed METT-T to METT-TC to ensure commanders consider civilians when planning a military operation.

However, all that is just meant to halt unnecessary slaughtering and protect the political agenda. When Col. John Warden developed his air campaign doctrine, he took an honest look at the importance of the civilian population to maintaining the enemies ability to resist. Soldiers fight for their people. You attack to ensure the people of a nation looses it's will to resist. Wars are not won solely through destroying the army. You achieve victory by breaking the people's will to fight. The faster you achieve this, the fewer people that will die.

Most militaries draw daily and weekly casualty predictions. It doesn't long to realize that a shorter war saves lives. And that's what I promote. If we're going to commit to killing, let's get it over with quickly. That doesn't make me inhuman. It just means I understand what war is about and want to bring people home alive.

Finally, it doesn't matter how many nations are supporting one person's opinion. Each are doing so for their own selfish reasons. That's true in any organization. Like I said, everyone is worried about their own people first. Why do you elect a particular leader? Because he seems more likely to make life better for me, you would likely say. So why would a government get stupid and chase other people's agenda. Many British think Blair is Bush's lapdog. However, he's no fool. The US is likely going to come out on top in this thing, and he will be able to capitalize on the political capita. The United Kingdom will be able to dictate it's own terms to the EU; something people already believe occurs too often.

So it's not about being unhuman. I support what my country is about to do. However, I realize that the longer the fighting, the more people, including my own will die. So I want to end the war ASAP. That way, the killing stops for sure.

I hope I didn't come off harsh. Sorry if I did.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
So what is wrong with the first option ? The do not go to war option. Then no civilians will die. Easy.
 

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Marko
So what is wrong with the first option ? The do not go to war option. Then no civilians will die. Easy.
How many Iraqis are you condemning to death, suffering under the sanctions which then must continue, because Saddam Hussein will never comply with the terms to end them? 50,000/year? for how long?
 

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
eh tiberus, good point and all, but i suggest you ditch your avatar/picture looks like a big cheese already has it. And uh the sanctions, not as bad as the dictator that imposed them on his own people. Lets not blame America for what saddamn has done, im sick of people blaming the US for husseins actions. Sure bush may have a bit of an itchy trigger finger, but saddamns the evil one, lets keep that in mind.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
So what is wrong with the first option ? The do not go to war option. Then no civilians will die. Easy.

Marko, I believe that Saddam will never give up his desire for greater power. Either he, or his successor will use weapons of mass destruction to influence foreign policy in the region. We can not take for granted that the US, and the world will be able to neutralize such a move.

More importantly, I believe there is a grave threat on the horizon. Once China has completed modernization of it's navy, it will be able to expand their influence well beyond the Sea of China. It would be a mistake to assume their expansion will not include a move on the Middle East.

Iraq's stability is very fragile. Civil war lay just beneath the surface. Removing Saddam Hussein brings about the risk of inciting a civil conflict. However, it's also the best chance for preventing it. We can develop the infrastructure needed to bring about peace before all out civil war erupts. Deploying troops to a trouble spot before fighting begins increases the chances peace will be maintained. If we miss this opportunity, the US and it's allies will be forced to commit to containing the conflict in Iraq. We'll be at a horrible disadvantaged. We'll be reacting instead of acting.

War now does create the risk of inciting instability throughout the region. However, it does offer the US an opportunity to have greater influence in how some of these scenarios play out.

Many European nations don't want to risk Middle East instability. Yet the ideal of simply doing nothing and accepting the hand we're dealt could lead to trouble equal to or worse than Bush's plan. The proactive policy can't apply to every corner on earth. And it doesn't guarantee long term stability. However, the US will be in the limited, but still unique driver's seat for the first time in the Middle East.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by Deltapooh
[Marko, I believe that Saddam will never give up his desire for greater power. Either he, or his successor will use weapons of mass destruction to influence foreign policy in the region. We can not take for granted that the US, and the world will be able to neutralize such a move.
Sadly I concur.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
Marko, by taking action now, we remove the threat before it's effects materializes. The political climate for war in the US will not last forever. When Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990, most of the Bush, Sr administration first response was to find ways to accept the change. As Wolfe Tone pointed out, this is how we regularly deal with events in the Middle East.

By removing the Iraqi regime, the US can deter long terms threats posed by the current political system in that country. I also believe it's the best chance at preventing chaos in that country.

To me, sitting back and hoping would be foolish. This is one time the US should take decisive, pre-emptive action to deter threats to our long term vital interest. Tragically, innocent people will die. However, I do believe the long term benefits might redeem the debt we will owe.
 

kid kool

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Also. I find it hard to believe that the rest of the world could maintain containment of Iraq without the constant threat of U.S. military action.

Let's not forget that the people who claim containment can and has worked, are the same nations which have fought for the last eleven years to remove the very restraints which were put in place to contain Saddam!
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
I thought the war was supposed to be about WMD's not international interests. It was supposed to be about WMD's and the possibility of them getting into the wrong hands. You know like what happened.....oh dear I must be mistaken it never has happened......hhmmm. Like I have said before an insecure superpower makes for scary times. September the 11th turned the US into a insecure nation that will be willing to kill those who dislike it, simply because they are not immune to action. This war is all about the USA and nothing else.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
And that long term interest is ? Arabs ? Sand ? Islam ? All three ?

I thought I went over US long term strategic interest and Iraq several times over, but I will again.

First there is Iraqi influence. The United States is concerned that Saddam or an successor will attempt to expand Iraqi influence in the region. Weapons of Mass Destruction would be the perfect instrument not because Iraq is the only side to possess them, but it is the only side with a clear willingness to us it.

Containment is an option, but as Kid Cool correctly pointed out, the international community lacks the political will to maintain an indefinite presence. More importantly, containment depends on deterrence. Again, this is an area I believe the UN or the international community would prove lacking in.

Civil War in Iraq is almost inevitable. Saddam won't live forever. With the dictator and no buffer in place, chaos will surely prevail. The civil conflict could rapidly destablize the region and draw neighboring countries into the fight.

Peacekeepers are more effective if they are deployed before fighting erupts. The invasion of Iraq will provide a controlled change of power minimizing the risk for chaos. It will also place troops on the ground that would be able to secure peace for a short, but critical time. It will be up to American and Iraqi officials to seize this window to develop the political framework required to bring about long term peace.

The current position of the Iraqi government does degrade US power projection in its broadest form. We have been unable to clearly force full compliance of Saddam through diplomatic means alone. Military force is often required. Even then it is basically a short term solution to a long term problem. Allowing them to ride indefinitely will only encourage challenges to US power in the elsewhere.

While North Korea already damges this argument for war, one should not conclude the final chapter has been written in that crisis. The US has not taken any clear action to appease North Korea, or confront it's behavior militarily. So the US still retains the option of projecting its influence through careful diplomacy and if necessary, military action.

As I stated in an earlier post, there is the Chinese-Iraqi threat. France, Russia, and China have agreements with Iraq concerning oil production. China is also providing that country with military arms. The US, and world, recognizes the threat China will pose in the not too distant future. They are purchasing fleet oilers and vessels that would allow long range sailing. A country's level of influence is often expressed by the abilities of it's naval force. Countries with small navies can't project it's influence globally as well as those nations with larger fleets.

While I still have question over just how close all three nations would become with Saddam, greater alliance is likely. All three nations make containment impossible since their contracts can't be completely fulfilled without lifting the sanctions on Iraq. With clear interest in the region, China will almost certainly move to influence it's position in the Middle East. By removing Saddam and creating a less biased oil market, we minize Bejing's influence, and grip on the 2nd largest oil reservior on earth.

For once, the US is trying to dictate, or at least foriegn policy concerning the Middle East. Success depends on a number of factors. There are also great risk that might actually compromise and degrade our global projection abilities. Yet, I do believe the benefits out weigh's the risk.

thought the war was supposed to be about WMD's not international interests. It was supposed to be about WMD's and the possibility of them getting into the wrong hands. You know like what happened.....oh dear I must be mistaken it never has happened......hhmmm. Like I have said before an insecure superpower makes for scary times. September the 11th turned the US into a insecure nation that will be willing to kill those who dislike it, simply because they are not immune to action. This war is all about the USA and nothing else.

Marko, the US is not stupid enough to walk into Iraq over WMDs alone. I don't believe Bush's position, any more than Saddam's declaration or Chirac's morality position. All sides are going for the ideal that sells. For the US, which is concerned about it's security, WMDs is a good argument. For Saddam, claiming the US is crusading against arabs is good enough. For Chirac, Putin, and the rest, they are playing the morality card because it will sell with their people. That's politics.

Is this war about the US, and nothing more? This is not a popularity contest. Bush is thinking about Americans. The same goes for every government leader in question. If Bush told Chirac French oil companies' contracts with Iraq are ensured, I'm certain he would back down. However, we told him, the Russians, and Chinese those contracts would need to be re-negotiated, and they're pissed. They jump on stage and cry "the US just wants cheap oil." In reality, any market analysts would tell you if the US really wanted cheap oil, it could simply lift the sanctions on Iraq. If anything, war will probably drive up the price of oil. One analysts predicted the price could rise to $80 bucks a barrel.

Bush, Blair, Saddam and the rest are all a bunch of ignorant politicians who apparently have some of the worst speechwriters I've ever seen. Yet, most people like things simple, so that's what they give them, no matter how outrageous.

This war is about preserving and expanding the American status, and protecting our interest in the reason. Those that oppose simply want to secure their economic positions. Instead, they'll now have to compete with an open market involving US, and UK contractors. So all are wrong. This is a selfish war. It's not the first.
 
Top