The big event in our lives next year is going to be the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I’m thinking we’re all going down the tubes:
Once the U.S. enters Iraq, it will create a power vacuum that will bind it there, unable to withdraw because of the strategic danger to nearby oilfields and the virulence of any alternatives to its being in control in Baghdad.
The occupation by a Western power of an oil-rich Muslim country will radicalize the Islamic world and doom its moderate governments.
Muslim extremists pushed to fatalist extremes will realize that Middle East oilfields are the true jugular vein of the U.S. and not its distant cities and will target them with dirty bombs reminiscent of the way Saddam targeted Kuwaiti oilfields a decade earlier.
Economic and military decline of the U.S. will follow and new, unfriendly forces will rise to prominence.
Could be wrong though. What say the Oriented high command?
I agree with all of your points, but I would like to hear some valid alternatives as well. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Saddam is obtaining/creating weapons of mass destruction, and that he isn’t as hesitant about using them as one would hope.
Sanctions and no-fly zones aren’t helping, they’re not letting in inspection teams… What should be done? Let him acquire nuclear and more biological weapons?
quote:Originally posted by Ernie Toots:
[img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] Once the U.S. enters Iraq, it will create a power vacuum that will bind it there, unable to withdraw because of the strategic danger to nearby oilfields and the virulence of any alternatives to its being in control in Baghdad.
Last September/October all the “experts” were claiming the US would be driven out of Afghanistan like the Russians and British.
The whole idea of attacking a country that has not provoked the US leaves me dumbstruck. Pakistan has more blood on its hands than Iraq and the US treats it like royalty. What other country should the US subjugate? Syria? Libya? Liberia? North Korea?
It’s shameful behaviour.
Pure and simple: Bush Jr. is hoping to finish what dad couldn’t.
Surely I am no friend of Saddam but find the approach to the whole situation rather worrying.
An offensive against the Iraq could be disasterous for Europe as I don’t believe the initial attack can paralize the entire Iraq military - and Saddam is crazy enough to push the button if provoked.
So while the rockets hit Berlin, London and Paris the US is singing “You are either with us or against us …”. Thank you very much.
Pure and simple: Bush Jr. is hoping to finish what dad couldn’t.
Bush Jr. is hoping to finish what dad didn’t dare (or rather was ‘clever’ enough not to do).
That said the US only intervenes where they see personal interest and also support who, at the time, seems to be a good ally to achieve their goal. No matter who or what they actually are or have done before.
But hey, it’s all for the best of “us” (us = US?)
Stop, we are bashing the US again, aren’t we!?
How dare we say something negative about them …
imagine if bush sr. had sent troops into baghdad in 91. all the euros were already whining loudly about us troops in saudi arabia in the first place. of course bush sr. gets cold feet because he doesn’t want to piss off the rest of the “coalition” and doesn’t carry the war to baghdad.
i guess the us is the only country you can bash when it comes to the middle east because it’s the only country doing anything. what has france, england, or germany done lately besides whine about the us? and if the us pulled out and said, “screw it, you guys sort it out yourselves,” all the whiners would be condemning the us for shrugging off their global responsibility. no-win situation.
so if you don’t like what the us is doing, why not suggest alternative methods of dealing with the problem? just back off and let iraq do whatever it wants? frankly, a few small nukes going off in the middle east isn’t going to affect me that much except for higher gas prices and a shock to the economy, but i KNOW you guys would just blame the us for that, too(it’s your fault because you didn’t do anything!).
As an enthusiastic anti-American, it pains me to have to agree with Flipper here. I feel that while its perfectly OK to bash the Seps for things like visiting their awful fashion sense upon the rest of the world, when it comes to issues such as this Iraq thing, its not very constructive to just slag Bush and his bully boys without putting forward any viable alternatives.
So come on people, lets hear some options. For example: The US should not attack Iraq because the problem could be better solved by letting ***** (insert country name here) follow its policy of ***** (insert policy here).
I don’t know about you lot, but to me, that suddenly seems to make things a good deal more difficult.
Do something for your country, man, besides just talking about it. Call that TIPS terrorist hotline in the U.S. and turn some terrorists in. Can’t you see 'em? They’re all around you! Taipei alone is a beehive of terrorists building weapons of mass destruction. I can look out my window and spot 'em in just about any direction I look. I’ve already gone on the TIPS website and turned in two of my neighbors on probable WMD violations. It’s really simple. All the website asks you is to do is check a box swearing you have proof if it’s needed at a later date and another box for bombing coordinates. Done. Patriotism for Idiots. Couldn’t be any simpler.
By the way. What are your bombing coordinates? Nothing, really. I was just curious.
You’re wearing me out thinking about this. Now we gotta add “doing something wrong” as a reason for being on our Christmas bombing list.
Okay. You win. I’m tired of arguing about this. I just hope your name and mine doesn’t end up on that list. I know I’m going to have a hard time keeping my name off that list if my wife has anything to say about it.
quote:Originally posted by Ernie Toots:
Okay. You win.
I win! I win! Woot! Woot!
Wait a minute … I didn’t even realise this was a competition – I’d just like to hear some realistic alternatives for reining in somebody who is developing an arsenal of mass destruction weapons and who appears to be willing to use them.
Bring me up to speed, will you? Are you talking about Rummy and George Bush now, the mainland PLA, or . . .
Sorry boys. This is Ernie’s wife. I just yanked him off his keyboard, gave him his medication and put him to bed. I hope he wasn’t bothering you. He’s always bothering the neighbors too. I’ll make sure he doesn’t bother you any more.
Not so fast!
Let’s see what Iraq has to say about this. http://www.iraqdaily.com/
Invade and Invest http://www.itv.com/news/World1012119.html
As far as Papa Bush and Baby Bush, the economy tanked after Daddy went to the Gulf. I figure Baby Bush wants to go there now to help the economy in the U.S.
The Congress isn’t as enthusiastic, but that hasn’t stopped residents at the White House before.
The view from America: Nixon looks good in retrospective compared to the corruption and greed these days.
Double-dip recession? No wonder the President is leery of invading now or later. I’d guess perhaps after the November elections and before February due to heat and Islamic extended holidays. And it is well after the 3rd quarter corporate reporting period. Recession? Oh, it officially had started last summer, not “after” the War.
Power vacuum? Beijing wishes. There are 37,000 soldiers in Korea alone, not to mention those many extras just north of Taiwan in Okinawa. There is an entire US Army Apache helicopter battalion based right at Inchon, South Korea, which is “amphibiously” trained for any island warfare theatres like the Taiwan Straits. And US nuclear submarines are prowling up and down the entire Chinese coast with SLBMs, while the US is using Central Asian as a staging area for any backdoors into China. I think China is truly surrounded more so than at anytime during the Cold War.
bush has several plans on the table to …ahem, invade Iraq and remove Saddam…aHem…and something about the need for 250,000 US troops, unless the euros wanna help…A-HEM! (beg pardon)…something about taking bahgdad first and moving outwards, how he’s gonna slip in 250,000 troops is a mystery though unless they’re gonna use the “beam me up-transporter” technique…but that’s only been tested on lasers…anyway…
doesn’t anyone remeber the “Mother of all wars” comment in the Gulf war…yeah RIGHT, like that happened…and the US lost a whole 100 troops in that massive “war”…A-HEM-HURM!..
the power vacuum in asia or anywhere else idea doesn’t stand up as the methods of war (at least as the US side is concerned) have changed…lots of bombs, and a few specialized surgical troops get the job done with minmal losses, well on our side that is…bring back legal assasinations and these surgical units would make the Saddam or whomever problem disappear in a puff of smoke (nah, they have puff of smoke catchers on them sniper rifles)
hello, special forces units took afghanistan in weeks…just a few dozen highly trained men (not unlike the taiwanese marines who crawl naked over rocks, oh, big AHEM)…the influx of 1000s of troops didnt show up until later…power vacuum my butt (wait, that didnt sound right)
read alvin toefler’s book WAR AND ANTI-WAR…nice read…his opinion is that the US should and probably will never again be in a WWII type battle…what do you think the US develops billion dollar bombers for? ask the old Iraqi red guards…wait they all got blowed up…
there will be no mother of all wars anymore…someone should tell GW about this…he seems intent on riding the tanks into bahgdad
how can you have a “power vacuum” when a few dozen troops fight most of the “war”
Iraq, China and quick, give me another badguy! ok North Korea should think about that…
Some valid comments but I don’t see any obligation to offer some alternatives - just because I disagree doesn’t mean I have a better solution in my pocket.
Perhaps they should assasinate him, perhaps not. Perhaps they should have tried the same with Osama and his leaders, then at least you can be sure you got him/them and the problem would have been sorted - but no, instead they bomb that country into pieces, killing innocent civilans.
Yesterday I read the US military was to cover up what really happened when the wedding party was “attacked” and that crimes against humanity were committed by US soldiers.
That said I still question if an attack on the Iraq is not an offensive rather than a defensive or preventive measure.
Sure, Saddam is a mad man but you don’t know for sure if he is planning or will carry out an offensive against others, yet the risk is extremly high that he will use his weapons if attacked.
But this can apply to many other countries and will de-stabilize those regions.
In case of an attack on the Iraq you may turn the entire muslim world against the west - what would we earn from that?
You get rid of one problem but create another, perhaps bigger one.
If you want to prevent possible future crimes (seen “Minority Report”? ) why do American not give up all their guns, too? IMHO having a liberal gun law increases the riks of missuse, because access to those is too easy.
As well you cannot go around and arrest or shoot gun owners because they may kill someone or try to rob a bank and say it’s a preventive measure.
The comparision may be a bit flawed and please do not try to pick on every word, but instead try to understand that I just want to say that the US applies double standards and some other measures than an attack should be worked out.
But it’s really not up to me to do this.
well, i wont bash your comparison…much but i dont quite see the connection…US gun owners are NOT gonna go overseas and shoot people…
i’d rather not see a POLICY of assaination in the US…thats scary…
really, the only way to PROVE anything is to send people into iraq to determine if they have WMD…but then again, the UN inspectors said as much 5 years ago…
the options arent pretty…but i for one wouild be willing to take the hit internationally if iraq were invaded and saddam booted and the people of iraq could live a better lives…with food, medicine and education…the level of nationalism in that place is sickening…they have been brainwahsed into choosing suffering over their own wellbeing…
god forbid the US do something based on human morality…ever hear the term “necessary force”
options are limited to two in iraq…do nothing new or invade