Author Topic: Middle East - DejaVu? (Read 3048 times)

ispar · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2002, 10:51:35 PM »

easymo, it's been said that the US should not be the world's policeman. I don't think that what we did in Iraq back in 1990-91 was wrong, in the sense that we removed Saddam from Kuwait. Nor am I naive enough to believe that we acted solely out of the goodness of our big American hearts; there was a huge oil source at risk in Kuwait; Kuwait itself is not a particularly pleasant place to live. Small countries invade and fight each other all the time; the US rarely steps in with as much force as it did for Desert Storm.

I believe that if we thought that Saddam and Iraq were a credible threat to our security, we probably would have finished the job. But once he was out of Kuwait, there was no reason to waste more American lives. We established no-fly zones, Operations Northern and Southern Watch, and figured that the problem was contained. There just wasn't any need to bring the regime down, since there wasn't much it could do once we had Iraq in a stranglehold.

I won't be sorry to see Saddam gone, but I'm not at all happy that we are planning to attack Iraq, either. I'm concerned about casualties of course, but more so about the aftermath - what will happen, not only within Iraq, but in the surrounding area? It may not be pretty.

Toad · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2002, 11:13:52 PM »

Ispar,

I've flown with a few F/O's that were in Desert Storm and flew the sorties against "the highway of death" in A-10's. They tell me that after the intial attacks by the first two guys in on the column that it was mostly killing machinery, not men.

The said most of the vehicles were "un*ssed" by the Iraqis as soon as the aircraft rolled in. They saw LOTS of them running away into the desert, off the road. The vehicles were the targets, not the fleeing crews.

Just thought you might like to hear a different version than what the news media put out.

What will happen in Iraq in a "aftermath"?

What happened in Germany and Japan after WW2? What's happening now in Afghanistan? The US.. and one would hope the rest of the world that is SO concerned about the poor everyday "Achmeds" in Iraq right now... will try to establish a new government in Iraq that is actually more concerned about feeding and medically caring for its own people rather than building weapons of mass destruction with the oil money. Well, that's MY guess anyway.

... and before we hear anymore about the US "fighting only for oil"... let's discuss for a while just where the bulk of the oil producing nations would be without the "petrodollars" that have come their way over the last 50 years.

Did I miss the CNN report where the Kuwaitis welcomed the Iraqis with open arms and celbrations? I don't remember the Saudis preparing any "Welcome Home Saddam Our Arab Brother" banners either.

Yeah, we use way too much oil, agreed. In return, they get way too much of our money. Like most trade, it's mutually beneficial or it wouldn't continue/exist. OPEC has their own organization to "mangage" oil prices... why is that, you think?

If some US technogeek invents a way to get cars to run on unfiltered seawater tomorrow, how do you think the OPEC states would react?

ispar · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2002, 11:35:27 PM »

Toad, did I say that our motivation was purely oil? No. Did I say that Kuwait was content to be occupied? No. Was oil a major consideration when ordering Desert Storm? Of course it was! There were other things at work there, but oil is always a huge motivation in the Middle East. No use trying to avoid it.

I frankly don't care about the machine/man ratio of Iraqi casaulties. Woohoo, great, they have less tanks, yay, etc... it doesn't really matter does it? As you said, they were mostly abandoned when the crews realized that thier choices were to run - or get pasted.

As to establishing a new government... well, you know that it's not simple. We had a huge advantage in Germany - similar culture and people that were by and large fed up with the war in general. It doesn't work that way in the Middle East, necessarily. We'll see, won't we? I suspect that it'll be a bit more difficult to set up a caring government in Iraq than Germany. It is very likely to be seen as an attempt by the US to establish a puppet government, and control over the people in the region. And certainly, the goal is to install something friendly to the US. That makes sense, but could also be asking for trouble.

And don't forget that UN sanctions have helped contribute to a lack of medical and other funds to Iraq. It's a trade-off - Hussein gets more money for WMD. The people get better care. It sucks, but then, so will a war. Especially if the Arab League makes good on their words and decides to fight back. Even the superpower US is unlikely to be able to stand alone against the Arab world, and from the noises being made in the UN right now, the US will have to stand along against the Arab world if we move against Iraq. Who knows what happens then. Another draft? Damned if I am drafted to fight this war... it isn't going to happen.

Toad · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2002, 12:09:21 AM »

Oh, I agree that "oil is always a huge motivation in the Middle East."

What never seems to get mentioned is that it is a huge motivation for BOTH the consumers AND the producers. That often gets overlooked, doesn't it.

I wasn't talking about Israeli casualties.. you might want to edit your post.

I was talking about Iraqi casualties with respect to your statement:

Quote

Ispar: Once that goal was achieved, there was no need to keep killing the Iraqi military - they probably would have been safer in cardboard boxes than in tanks, so superior was the US in that action. Powell knew when to stop, and kudos to him for that.

We didn't keep killing them. In fact, in the latter part of the "war" we were giving them the opportunity to un*ss the vehicles before we destroyed them. This happened on the "highway" and also out in the desert with the Abrams and the Apaches quite a bit before the end of the war. Films of same at Ft. Leavenworth Command and Staff training school.

My point, and where I disagree with Powell and you too I guess, is that we could have almost totally removed Iraq's war making machinery in another few days or so. Even to the point of taking Baghdad. They were in full rout, abandoning their vehicles as soon as an Apache or an A-10 showed up. We should have maximized that opportunity. We didn't. Would have made a big difference in the post-war era, IMO. Especially to the Kurds we allowed to get slaughtered.

Establishing a new government won't be simple? Really? Few things worth doing are easy, don't you agree? Japan's culture was totally unlike ours when the occupation began... was MacArthur's task easy? Do you think that one turned out fairly well?

Of course, if it won't be EASY... perhaps we shouldn't even try right?

The goal would be to install something that actually took into account the will of the people of Iraq, IMO.

It would be to give them an infrastructure that made daily life a pleasurable thing, a thing not to be wagered lightly again at the whim of a dictator.

Were we to achieve this and, as is our usual wont, to rebuild their country to the point that it COULD provide them with a decent lifestyle, I'd hope they'd remember us fondly.. but perhaps not. You just never know, do you? Seems to have worked out OK with Germany and Japan though, especially when contrasted against the punitive style practiced post WWI.

The UN sanctions are the cause of Iraq's lack of medical funds and food shortages? Really?

UN worried by Iraq's failure to spend oil income

"...The director of the oil-for-food programme, Benon Sevan, said that in the last six-month phase of the programme, Iraq had applied for imports worth 4.265 billion dollars, barely half its allocation.

...Iraq had applied for only 83.61 million dollars of health supplies, against 624.75 million dollars allocated to that sector in phase eight, he said.

Applications for education totalled 21.58 million dollars, against 351.50 million dollars budgeted under the distribution plan.

The figures for the water and sanitation sector were 184.76 million dollars out of 551.16 million, and 22.75 million out of 600 million allocated for the oil industry."

Gee... it sure seems like there's money there for health and stuff.. but Saddam's not asking for it. Wonder where else they might be spending the money.... maybe you can figure it out for me. Or at least tell me again why it is the fault of the US.

Lastly, the Arab League goes to war against the US to save Iraq? Puh-leeze. The last time the "Arab League" went to war against anyone, they went to war against little ole Israel. We all know how THAT turned out too.

Another thing.. Bekaa Valley ring any bells? It would be WORSE against us... and airpower is key to the air/land battle.

They won't go to war to "save" Iraq. Probably try to cut off our oil though.

At least until their own economies tanked right along with ours. That two way trade again... so co-dependent, isn't it?

Bloodshed though? I'll bet you a dollar to a dogturd and hold the stakes in my teeth... no war with the Arab League.

Besides, all that truly needs to be done to avoid ALL of this... ALL that needs to be done is for Iraq to truly allow UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to what they want to see.

Then US intervention becomes unnecessary and unsupportable.

THERE is where you should focus your concern. The ball is in THEIR court. This juggernaut is very easy to stop.

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2002, 12:17:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ispar
Another draft? Damned if I am drafted to fight this war... it isn't going to happen.

Almost forgot this...

I would never expect you to submit to a national draft. Not from what you've written previously.

You also know, or should know by now, what I think about that.

Here's those two quotes to go to sleep by:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stewart Mill

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell--

Sleep well.

ispar · « **Reply #20 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:28:55 PM »

I'm sorry, I meant to say "Iraqi", not "Israeli."

I agree that the use of oil is motivational for both parties. The very reason that they get away with the massive prices they set for oil is that America is a very willing customer. There's something about oil that tends to break down scruples. Come to think of it, it's probably the most profitable raw materials industry in the world, no?

I won't touch on the empty vehicles theory. I do agree that any possible reduction of Iraq's ability to make war is a good thing.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't bother trying because it will be difficult, I'm just making a note. We should remember that in order to end the war with Japan we needed to give them a massive shock, which frightened the government enough to surrender. In World War II this was the atomic bomb and Russia's invasion of Manchuria. What do we do this time around? Many of these people are not unlike the Japanese were in that they are willing to sacrifice their lives, and fight to the death. I will grant that I have no idea of what the reaction of the typical Iraqi citizen or soldier will be to US invasion. Certainly, they tended to choose flight over martyrdom during Desert Storm. Has that changed? I don't know.

Israel has the huge logistical advantage of being nearby to its battlegrounds. I don't think the US would lose a war against the Middle East, but it would be a very expensive victory.

A good point was made earlier. We aren't going to eliminate the problem by attacking it head on with military power, because we create more terrorists everytime we kill them, particularly in their native lands. I don't know what we can do, but this is not necessarily a real solution.

Finally, I'll just say I do know how you feel about my position on the draft and warfare. I will also say that while I am afraid of being shot at, and I do not wish to die, I would be proud to die for my country, or any cause I strongly support. But I will not do so with a rifle in my hands, or supporting military action in any way. That's how I feel about it, and I'm sure you are very aware of that. It's fortunate that I live in a country where I can make that choice.

I'm praying that Saddam Hussein will agree to let the inspectors back in... but I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen.

ispar · « **Reply #21 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:35:47 PM »

WHOAH! I just saw that bolded quote, Toad!

I'll leave YOU with THIS thought: There are more ways to fight than with violence, and there are more ways to support or defend a cause than by fighting. There are plenty of causes I passionately support. There are many causes I will fight for. There are a few causes I would be willing to die for. There are NO causes that I will fight for in a way that would involve violent action, and there is no violent action by others that I will support, directly or indirectly if I can help it.

Think what you will about that; but misjudge me as a coward and I assure you, you are incorrect.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #22 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:42:21 PM »

Draft? I thought we had more than enough volunteers that the draft wouldn't be needed again?

I'm just curious why some people keep mentioning the draft and that it might be re-instated(?) for the Iraq attack if it happens.

And Ispar, you do know you can serve this country in the military without carrying a weapon? I believe it's religious something er other.. has to do with religion, I forget exactly what it's called. But basically it states you do not have to carry a weapon if your religion is against it. I know someone who did this, served as medic in Vietnam but refused to carry a weapon.
-SW

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:49:02 PM »

Don't worry Ispar.

Since the very beginnings of humankind, there have been those who volunteered stand between danger and the rest of the tribe; between danger and the other ones that were either unwilling or unable to do so.

They're standing there still.

Sleep well.

ispar · « **Reply #24 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:54:18 PM »

I know... for now, no draft is needed. In all likelihood, it won't be needed. But if it is, well... that's what I'm talking about.

SW, I know that it is possible. However, it is still in direct support of military action. I would be proud to serve in the capacity of a medic, treating soldiers, but only if I am completely unconnected with the military. The military is still the military. I believe that we have too narrow a definition of service to one's country. There are many more ways to serve than in a military capacity - and no, I am not talking about politics or government work. Do you see where this is coming from? I'm sure that you'll think I'm crazy, but this is how I feel, as I've said many times. To each their own, right?

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2002, 04:59:49 PM »

cc Ispar, I was just saying.. I didn't know if you knew about that.

EDITED BELOW PARAGRAPH
I don't quite understand why you wouldn't serve for the military, maybe because it's just "the military".. I dunno. I would, but that doesn't mean I'm the better person... just that I would serve if asked or needed.

Different strokes for different folks, not gonna hold anything against ya for your beliefs.
-SW

ispar · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2002, 05:14:16 PM »

Toad, Toad, Toad. It's amazing how effectively you can convey contempt over the internet. It's disappointing, really, to be in my place. But I've tried and tried to explain my position, and it won't make you revise your opinion of me. Nothing I can do about that. I hold no grudges, and have little but respect for those that serve in our military. It's too bad that that respect seldom runs both ways. I'm glad that my worth as a person will not be determined by my willingness to fight in or with an army, or by those such as you that believe such unwillingness constitutes a weakness in my character.

If there were no armies, there would be no need for armies to guard against them. But there are, and thus we have them. And THAT is one of the great tragedies that stretches back to the beginning of humanity. You sleep well yourself, Toad. And tell me what difference there is between you, the cheerleader, and me the dissenter, in anything but our ideology. Don't tell me about what you did back in the day; that was before now, and you served your piece. I am younger than you are, I have not had my time yet. Tell me, what difference are you making beyond your oh-so-easy "yes" vote? I'd be interested to hear if you actually believe that it is so much harder and more virtuous to be in support than in opposition in the world of today. Resolve is easy to come by for those not on the line, like us. The real trial is by fire, and I will choose my own way of walking into it, thank you very much.

Hangtime · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2002, 05:14:52 PM »

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

...Ben Franklin. 1759

Ispar, I consider you beneath contempt. Sorry.. thats just the way it is. Too many have gone before us, have stood up to be counted as men (or women) and have walked down that stony path to defend essential liberties; here and abroad.... yet you would have us all lay down to be trodden upon, to throw away all the sacrafices, past and present as unworthy and unneeded.

... yer just a useless parasite in my eyes. You have no honor, no soul, no reason for consuming air or resources.

But, hey; thats just my opinion; I could be wrong.

ispar · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2002, 05:23:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
...yet you would have us all lay down to be trodden upon, to throw away all the sacrafices, past and present as unworthy and unneeded.

You have an amazing talent for roadkill Hang. Take that as you may - it's just the way it is, after all. You can do whatever you want; I'll walk my own path. Tell me, would you have called Ghandi weak too, because he did not lead a violent rebel movement against the British. Yes, a different situation and a different time. And yet, it seemed impossible. It worked. There are more ways to fight than by violence, and Ghandi was a master. He was also a man of incredible strength. The path of peace is not weak, and it is not easy, and if you believe that is the path of cowardice, than I can only pity your blindness.

"I object to violence, because while it may appear at first to do good, the evil that it does is permanent" (paraphrased)

-Mahatma Ghandi

Hangtime · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2002, 05:30:47 PM »

Argue your pacifist roadkill to the invader who stands upon your doorstep who is himself armed; deadly serious, and intent on your immenent death, and your wife and daughters demise after rape.

You entire life is built upon freedoms bought with the blood of others.. you insult their sacrafice.

Thats the world.. and you preach from the losers pulpit.