Thread: The "War": Humour me.
March 4th 2003, 07:01 AM #1
The "War": Humour me.
Ok, let's ask a very simple question. Treat it as International Politics 101.
Why do we need a war, in the way it is being prepared for?
What is its rationale - the last gulf war was because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Simple naked aggression against another sovereign state. That's easy enough to follow. But a full scale invasion now?
We have heard the Regime Change argument; the Moral "He's evil incarnate" argument; the "Enforce the UN resolutions" argument. But what is the argument for a full scale invasion of Iraq: basically, what will an invasion solve, what is it seeking to do. Therefore...
What are its intentions - what do we do when we get there? Hopefully depose Saddam I suppose. And then? Divide up Iraq as the Allies did with Germany after WWII? Install an acceptable leader? Rebuild the country? Invasion is not an end in itself, neither is deposing Saddam; do the interested parties have a game plan? Which brings us to....
What is its end game - How long is this going to take. How many bases need covering ie Protecting the Kurds from the Turks, watching the Iran-Iraq border, possible guerilla warfare, keeping the Arab states on side. Bush and Blair will be out of power before the decade is out. What about Iraq then? what are the dangers of destabilising the region, and how are they less worrying than containment of Saddam?
March 4th 2003, 09:26 AM #2
Well, Solly, I will try to humour you as I see the situation.
Why are we invading Iraq. They way I look at it, two reasons. Iraq, as it is constantly pointed out by our administration, is, has been, and will be developing WMD, eventually probably nukes(even the Germans agree on that). It is possible we could let Saddam be, and try to contain him. However, if or when Saddam develops really powerful weapons, it is highly likely Saddam, at the very least, would engage in the kind of nuclear blackmail going on the Korean pennisula. But, given Saddams inclination towards aggressiveness, the suprior stability of his regime, and the strength of his military relative to his neighbors (except Turkey), he might get the idea in his head that the Americans need to get out of the no fly zone and Kuwait, or bye bye Tel Aviv, or New York, etc. He might also give them to a terrorist group (probably not Al Queda, he has his own), who would use it on us or in Europe. So, to counteract these threats, we are just going to invade now, because it has these benefits for the US and our current administration:
1. It will send a message of resolve to other nations searching for these weapons. Hopefully, it would intimidate North Korea into be very very open and honest about disarmament when we cut a deal with them, and discourage places like Iran, Syria, Indonesia, etc. from searching for weapons.Meh.
March 4th 2003, 09:32 AM #3
2. Assuming you want to accomplish 1., Iraq is the ideal country because they support terrorist (not mostly against us, but the public still gets worked up about it.), they have lots of oil to pay for the war and help out the administrations campaign funding, and it would give us a non-Saudi base of operations in the Mid-East, which would do alot more than anything that happens in Iraq to stabilize that country.
3. There are good things that may happen: the region is stabilized, hPalestinian terrorsit groups, lacking Iraq suicide bomber funding, fight a less civilian oriented war, allowing and forcing Israel to make peace, and "democratize" the region, like Germany and Japan were.Meh.
March 4th 2003, 09:41 AM #4
And what is our hope after the war? The people in the country will overcome there ethnic differences and build a real country, a real democracy, and a country that will let us turn over a rock, building, and tent looking for WMD.
And plans? It appears the war its self will be a very proven, old fashioned Blitzkreig, where American Armour, with airsupport, rushes through enemy lines, seizes key terroritory, and the infantry mop up the enemy. Key postions, like bridges, dams, and oil fields will probably be seized by US and British special forces immediately before the fighting to prevent a slow down.
Our plan, which is much less sure and, in my mind, the part that is much more dangerous, for the peace is to occupy the whole country with a 100,000 or so troops, shoot anyone who looks like they want to commit genocide, rustle the country for weapons, and rebuild their infrastructure. Then, hopefully a coalition gov. will be formed to rule, and we keep an eye on them for the next 10 to twenty years. Ideally, Iraqi oil fields and the UN help us foot the bill, otherwise the US, and depending on whether or not Tony Blair survives, Britain foot the bill.
That is the situation as a war supporter sees it.Meh.
March 4th 2003, 09:55 AM #5
Thaks Ryo, certainly something to think over, although I am not as optimistic in my view of it as you appear to be. Given the human propensity for failure, I think it will end up quite bad in the long run.
March 4th 2003, 11:21 AM #6
I hope not, for all our sake :(Meh.
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 19Last Post: December 5th 2011, 02:45 AM
By The Laughing Man in forum Apologetics 301Replies: 59Last Post: July 5th 2011, 03:42 AM
By Minnesota in forum Civics 101Replies: 39Last Post: May 21st 2007, 10:36 AM
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 47Last Post: March 6th 2007, 11:30 AM