Why war with Iraq seems inevitable

[3278]

I don't really think that was the point that people were trying to make, 32. No, individually, you'll beat the shit out of anyone. However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

I'm sorry? When did that become the definition of "equal?" And, even using that as your definition, most of the people on that list still don't qualify.

[3278]

I don't really think that was the point that people were trying to make, 32. No, individually, you'll beat the shit out of anyone. However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

I'm sorry? When did that become the definition of "equal?" And, even using that as your definition, most of the people on that list still don't qualify.

[Serious Paul]

However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

Might.

I might get on a plane tommorrow and swing by your pad, and take you drinking.

You might hop on a plane tommorrow and come cut some wood for my wood burning furnace.

Might.



And the logic that says "I may not beat you but I will maul you in the process of getting my ass whipped" is great for countries that AREN'T our EQUAL.

[Szechuan]

Four planes and some people who really don't like you.

Military equalizer, maybe. Economic? Nope. Political? Nope. Equal, and Superpower mean more than just Military might. Even /I/ know that.

Well, they destroyed one of your biggest economic structures. And they can do it again, and again, and again.

Check for Economics.

They've proven that they can and will enforce their beliefs if they feel they need to, regardless of who wants peace and the loss of life involved.
Sounds familiar, but I digress...

Check for Politics.

Those attacks had a much further-reaching effect than just getting around your military. Even I know that.

[Cain]

In international politics, an equal means Mutually Assured Destruction. There's a reason why those words were chosen; because it is MAD to think it's a good idea.

Are there those who could destroy, or cause significant harm to, the United States? Yes. Anyone with a few WMD could cause such loss of life in our country, that we wouldn't recover for many years. We're still reeling from 9/11 in some ways.

No one may have as many nukes or bullets as we do; but you don't need as many, you only need enough to make it MAD.

As far as the UN goes-- I'm going to have to offer a few lessons in Enlightened Self-Interest. Merely going for short-term gains, at the expense of long-term development, is just silly. The UN offers a forum for airing International issues, a valued and respected forum that all countries respect-- and, to varying degrees, listen to. Thumbing our nose at it may give us some short-term gains, like oil-- but at the long-term cost of pissing off the international community.

And finally-- after watching the news, I'm reminded of the Vietnam war. The rhetoric Bush is spouting is virtually identical to what was spouted back then. Well, we were wrong then, too. We wasted a lot of American lives fighting the big evil of Communism-- something that has died on it's own. We thought it was such a threat to our way of life, but it turned out to be a paper tiger.

Saddam may be a bad man, but I want to know why Bush wants a war, when this may be another paper tiger. I want assurances this will not become another Vietnam.

[The Eclipse]

Fuck yes Cain, you just echoed a thought that I had when I was at work the other day, but forgot to mention here.


Has anyone else [in the US] noted the correlation between the terrorism hysteria and Mcarthyism in the 60s?

[Marius]

I certainly can't. Primarily that's because McCarthyism and the Red Scare were confined to the forties and fifties. (McCarthy's career in the Senate ended in 1957.) And what we're seeing now doesn't really resemble McCarthyism in the 50s either.

[Dennis]

I don't really think that was the point that people were trying to make, 32. No, individually, you'll beat the shit out of anyone. However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

I'm sorry? When did that become the definition of "equal?" And, even using that as your definition, most of the people on that list still don't qualify.

* Dennis cuts through the layers and layers of 32's annoyance to find the guy he wants to talk to...

If you look at individual aspects, you'll most likely find that the US bests every country at every point, but when you look at martial strength, and you come to the conclusion that they have the ability to destroy more than is worth to you, and you come to the conclusion that they aren't worth it, they have the means to equal you.

No, wait...

...they don't equal you, but they can maintain the status quo. You still can't dominate them because the price of domination would be too high.

I know that's not equality, but it's something to consider.

[3278]

I don't think anyone's saying that it's not worth considering. It's a big portion of the reason that, despite our ability to do just about anything we please, we still bother to ask everyone else if it's okay before we do what needs to be done. Sometimes, we have to ignore them, of course, but at least we ask, which is something else worth considering.

[Daki]

If Saddam is ousted as leader of Iraq and a new regime put in place (one more friendly to the west), do you think that regime would be willing to follow the standards of Russia and other oil producing European nations in NOT setting production caps?

Having an oil producer on the scale of Iraq break from OPEC and remove the caps would significantly lessen OPEC price controlling power and probably earn the US a few more enemies in that region.

[Cain]

32: No offense, but what you're saying can be expressed as follows: I'm bigger than you, and stronger than you, but I'm not a bully 'cause I ask nicely before I knock you down and take your lunch money.

A bully is a bully, and that's what the rest of the world will see us as, if we go through with this.

[3278]

32: No offense, but what you're saying can be expressed as follows: I'm bigger than you, and stronger than you, but I'm not a bully 'cause I ask nicely before I knock you down and take your lunch money.

No, what I'm saying can be expressed how I was saying it, and you'll notice I didn't once use the word bully, largely because of the absence of the concept in my statement. If I had been talking about bullying, I might have said a few things I didn't, which I'll do now.

We're bigger. We're stronger. We /can/ knock you down and take your lunch money. We choose not to, which is what we should do. When one of you is knocking down people and taking their lunch money, and helping out other people who do the same, and planning ways to destroy the entire schoolyard, we knock him down and take his lunch money. Yeah, we ask you first, and we'll do everything we can to accomodate you, but ultimately, we don't want the schoolyard to be destroyed.

A bully is a bully, and that's what the rest of the world will see us as, if we go through with this.

A bully is a bully. Someone saving your life or their own is someone saving your life or their own. The rest of the world will see us as a bully if we go through with this. But all of us will be alive.

War is a terrible thing, never to be entered into lightly. And I think that diplomacy is an option we've not spent enough time exercising. But the fact remains that the use of military force in this instance is justified and necessary, no matter what other countries might think.

I like diplomacy. I like it a lot. I considered being a diplomat for quite a while, and I spend most of my day doing it, just for fun. But while some of Europe, for instance, would rather let thousands more people die, let more progress be made on chemical weaopns, biological weapons, and nuclear devices, I must submit that the time for final action is now. Better that 10,000 die in a war than 100,000 die in peace.

[Cain]

32, I expected better from you than standard rhetoric. The jury is still out on the weapons-- and the jury, in this case, is the UN weapon inspection teams. The judge is the UN. Bush wants us to be the executioner, even though no one else does.

We can debate the topic back and forth; but in the end, none of us are on the UN inspection teams. I thereby submit that we have less information than they do; and if the experts have yet to come to a decisive conclusion, what makes you think you can? You can spout rhetoric about how an evil regime with horrific weapons needs to be taken down-- but the proof of the weapons still does not exist, and the rest of it sounds suspiciously like what they said during Vietnam.

In Vietnam, we went to war for political reasons, and not moral ones. You can try to slap a justification on it, but that's what it boiled down to. I suspect that if Bush attacks, in 30 years people will be saying the same thing. We have no moral high ground to attack Iraq; we are not in service to a higher ideal. We have moralistic rhetoric: "Fight for Democracy!", but no actual moral stance. I, for one, would find it refreshing if people would admit we're in the wrong by attacking, even if we do it anyway-- lying to oneself is never a good idea.

As to the bullying analogy-- it is entirely possible for one to be bigger, and stronger, and yet not be a bully. One becomes a bully when one uses force, or the threat of force, to get what one wants. Saying: "Give me your lunch money, or I'll knock you down" is bullying; and it is still bullying if one adds "Please".

"Just because we ask first" doesn't make us any better than another bully. It shouldn't earn us any extra consideration. And from what I've seen, the bullying analogy is entirely appropriate, as the diplomacy I've seen from Bush is about on par with what I'd expect from a first-grader.

[FlameBlade]

Here's an interesting thought:

If Iraq have nothing to hide, then why they are sorta of resisitng UN inspection team?

[Serious Paul]

32, I expected better from you than standard rhetoric. The jury is still out on the weapons-- and the jury, in this case, is the UN weapon inspection teams.

You lost me right there. A jury is traditionally said to be made up of ones peers. In this case one would hope the international community has skipped that nicety. After all I would be hard pressed to see anyone Iraq calls a peer being unbiased, or particularly diligent in the search for weapons.


Which brings me to my next point. I have my own doubts about Mr. Blix's compentency and more disturbingly his loyalties. If he is indeed a UN pay rolled individual, and the UN doesn't want war with Iraq, then doesn't it seem likely someone they are paying won't find weapons?


Just a thought. I am sure there is absolutely no political pressure on Mr. Blix, and I am sure he has put his own persoanl political connections aside for the duration of this crisis.

The judge is the UN.

Well to you it might be. I don't think the UN is qualified to judge American Idol. Do you think Iraq sees them as the "Judge" (to continue your analogy)?

Bush wants us to be the executioner, even though no one else does.

Not even all those other countries like Britain for instance that have agreed the US is doing the right thing?


And where do you get executioner? Everyone seems so sure that this will be some sort of carnage fest 2003. Why should this war differ from the last? (Time line wise.)

Iraq is no better equipped. They are not entrenched so well that we can't breac their fortifications. They aren't betetr trained. And if they are dumb enough to try and use Chemical Weapons, my bet is they will end up killing more of their own people.


By the way every time war comes up as topic, everyone throws those chemical weapons in the face of the US. Does that mean you all agree they have them? Sounds like it to me.

We can debate the topic back and forth; but in the end, none of us are on the UN inspection teams.

Thank Gawd. Serious Paul envisions a Bulldrek Inspection team and shudders.

I thereby submit that we have less information than they do; and if the experts have yet to come to a decisive conclusion, what makes you think you can?

You're right. We should stop all discussion on events until after they occur and we /know/ what happened.

You can spout rhetoric about how an evil regime with horrific weapons needs to be taken down-- but the proof of the weapons still does not exist, and the rest of it sounds suspiciously like what they said during Vietnam.

And mean while you can spout off that they do not exsist, with no proof that they don't. You can espouse the evils of the Bush "regime" as I am sure you refer to it, and have absolutely no conclusive proof.


Jeesh man, this is called discussion for a reason.

In Vietnam, we went to war for political reasons, and not moral ones.

You show me a war that wasn't politically motivated. One. Just one war. Good luck.

You can try to slap a justification on it, but that's what it boiled down to.

So go ahead slap me up a few justifications on some wars, show me this Moral War of yours.

I suspect that if Bush attacks, in 30 years people will be saying the same thing. We have no moral high ground to attack Iraq; we are not in service to a higher ideal.

Or for christs sake. What a bunch of horse shit. Are you reading this shat as you type it? There is no morailty in any war, if we were moral we wouldn't make war. War by its very nature is in violation of all morality.


Moral High Ground. Gah, what crap.

We have moralistic rhetoric: "Fight for Democracy!", but no actual moral stance.

And Iraq does?


"Allah says C...I...L....L whitey." (Spot the Saturday Night Live reference.)

I, for one, would find it refreshing if people would admit we're in the wrong by attacking, even if we do it anyway-- lying to oneself is never a good idea.

I for one think someone must be suffering from nosebleeds with all that thin air up there.

As to the bullying analogy-- it is entirely possible for one to be bigger, and stronger, and yet not be a bully. One becomes a bully when one uses force, or the threat of force, to get what one wants. Saying: "Give me your lunch money, or I'll knock you down" is bullying; and it is still bullying if one adds "Please".

So any use of force is automatic Bully Status?


Wow.

I think a few million jews who survived World War Two would like to smack you senseless rigt now.


I ams ure the thousands who escaped Vietnam before its fall to the North would be next in line.

"Just because we ask first" doesn't make us any better than another bully. It shouldn't earn us any extra consideration. And from what I've seen, the bullying analogy is entirely appropriate, as the diplomacy I've seen from Bush is about on par with what I'd expect from a first-grader.

So this about being better morally right? You sure you want to stand by that?

[Daki]

Oh, good, I was hoping someone would compare this to Vietnam...


Back in the 1950's, Ho Chi Minh made queries to the United States about becoming a protectorate of the US (getting them out of the control of the French). We did not take them up on that offer because we did not want to step on the toes of the French. Because of that, Ho Chi Minh went to the country on the list, the USSR.

So what caused the Vietnam war? Us sticking up for the french... our ally. We paid the price.

[Matt McS]

And where do you get executioner? Everyone seems so sure that this will be some sort of carnage fest 2003. Why should this war differ from the last? (Time line wise.)

Because this war isn't a "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait" war. To succeed at Regime Change, the U.S. and it allies in the conflict will need to take and hold Baghdad until the puppet government can be established. And if the Iraqis resist the incursion (Either out of coercsion by the government or a genuine hatred for the invaders) the U.S. may have to kill civilians in self-defense. Major PR nightmare, especially with people comparing to Vietnam.

Don't take these comments as my condemnation of the coming conflict. To echo 3-2, this is not something that has been taken lightly, as war should never be. Regime Change in Iraq is necessary to provide security to the region, and by extension, the world. If Iraq didn't have anything to hide, why resist at all?

[Toryu]

And where do you get executioner? Everyone seems so sure that this will be some sort of carnage fest 2003. Why should this war differ from the last? (Time line wise.)

This makes it sound like the previous Gulf War was virtually without any bloodshed. It was not. 25.000+ casualties, actually. Just one more element that needs to be put into the big war/no war equation.

[Daki]

This makes it sound like the previous Gulf War was virtually without any bloodshed. It was not. 25.000+ casualties, actually. Just one more element that needs to be put into the big war/no war equation.

But considering the sizes of the respective armies in that conflict, that number is not very high.

[Cazmonster]

Can somebody find the specific piece of policy that keeps us from targeting political leaders? It seems to me a highly trained group of operatives could get us a regime change with a body count no higher than double digits.

[Toryu]

Granted.

[Matt McS]

IIRC, it was an Executive Order written by President Ford back in the day. And that can be overruled by another Executive Order, easily.

Wasn't there a news story saying that Bush was already considering recinding that order, if he hasn't already?

[Daki]

I don't think he would want it public domain if he did.

[Toryu]

I figure that's why Saddam has all those look-alikes around.

[Cazmonster]

Damn it, this guy was so happy to flip the swtich as Governor of Texas and he can't get up the stones to kill a foreign leader? I guess becoming President turns you into a sissy.

[Gunny]

it's a lot easier to flip the switch in a single state when you only have the people of that state to contend with. now he has to deal with a whole country's opinion. not to mention the whole state of Texas is FOR execution. from what I see, the people of this country are NOT for bloodshed.

let's try to keep it in prospective shall we?

[EDIT: okay, not the whole state. the majority of the state. that's better.]

[3278]

32, I expected better from you than standard rhetoric. The jury is still out on the weapons-- and the jury, in this case, is the UN weapon inspection teams.

No, the jury, as Paul mentions, is the group of Iran's peers, including the US, who are interesting in maintaining the peace, even if it means war. And for as much as you accuse me of the "standard rhetoric," I can't say as I'm seeing anything inventive from you, Cain.

The judge is the UN.

Whoa. Where's that written? And don't say "The UN Charter," because that's like proving the existence of god with the bible. The UN is /a/ judge. So are we. Why? Because we have a vested interest in global peace, and a much more vested interest in peace in the middle east.

Bush wants us to be the executioner, even though no one else does.

"Bush" does not necessarily want to be the executioner; don't mistake US government policy for individual desire. The more people see this as "Bush's War," the less they're willing to be open to the truth that what we're doing, we must do.

We can debate the topic back and forth; but in the end, none of us are on the UN inspection teams. I thereby submit that we have less information than they do; and if the experts have yet to come to a decisive conclusion, what makes you think you can?

The experts have, actually. And so have you. Please don't tell me you /don't/ think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I mean, please. And I can't blame them; it's what they have done with them that I object to, not the simple fact of them having these things. I mean, if working on the bomb is reasons for war, then everybody better start kicking the US's ass, ASAP.

As for Vietnam, I don't know enough about that war to draw conclusions; while I've read the books and the articles, and seen the movies, I don't think I'm capable of drawing truly "expert" conlusions about it. So lets stick to this war, shall we?

As to the bullying analogy-- it is entirely possible for one to be bigger, and stronger, and yet not be a bully. One becomes a bully when one uses force, or the threat of force, to get what one wants. Saying: "Give me your lunch money, or I'll knock you down" is bullying; and it is still bullying if one adds "Please".

Then World War II was an act of bullying. I think you might want to consider using a different definition.

And from what I've seen, the bullying analogy is entirely appropriate, as the diplomacy I've seen from Bush is about on par with what I'd expect from a first-grader.

Oh, wow, slander of the President, who isn't a diplomat. The inventiveness of your rhetoric is somewhere below even that of his.

[Marius]

The jury is still out

It most certainly is not. The jury came back long ago with a guilty verdict. And it has repeated that verdict over and over again in continued resolutions demanding that Iraq accept its punishment. It repeated itself, one last time, with Resolution 1441, which began by declaring Iraq's guilt, and insisted that if Iraq did not fully and immediately comply this final time, it would face a new, more serious punishment.

To correct the analogy, Hans Blix does not head the jury. The weapons inspectors are part of the punishment. They are Iraq's caseworker. They are its jailhouse shrink. Their job is, and has always been, to guide Iraq's recovery and rehabilitation once it takes the first step of admitting it has a problem.

But instead of accepting its sentence, and rehabilitating in the GP, Iraq continues to force the warden to send it to the Hole. And that's an untenable situation. Because every time Iraq goes to Solitary, hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the country suffer from deprivation. And all the while, the criminal regime continues to lash out at guards, to plan for riots, to find a weapon, to maim and to kill. We have absolute proof that Iraq continues to this very day to build prohibited weapons. To import prohibited weapons materials. To attack coalition aircraft. In recent years they rebuilt prohibited facilities destroyed by U.N. teams.

And thus we are confronted with the U.N.'s most recent threat to Iraq, whcih called for immediate and complete compliance. Several months later compliance is not complete. And there is no question at all that it has not been immediate. Thus, by the U.N. Security Council's own decree, it is time to fundamentally change the nature of Iraq's punishment.

[Cain]

Paul: My post was mostly aimed at 32, who's offering that we're invading Iraq to save the world from "more progress" on WMD. Which is a joke. Everyone here should know better than that.

But you're right. There is no such thing as a moral war. Only moral justifications. And this one is no exception. So, as a personal favor, will people please stop throwing the moral arguments around? "Saving the world" and "protecting the peace" are some of the things I hear from the otherwise very intelligent posters here. That's an attempt to impose morality on this war. Well, guess what? We don't have it, we'll never have it, and this war has no justification beyond greed and politics.

32: From what I remember of Vietnam-- the TV's were full, originally, of how we went to fight the Communist menance. We stayed there as "advisors", sending troops to die, all in the name of democracy and freedom. We occupied the country for around a decade, killing and slaughtering civillians,saving the villages by destroying them.

We've bombed Iraq, fought Saddam, and defended others against him. But now, we're talking about occupying the country. Staying in place as "peacepeepers", "advisors" and providing "police action" against Saddam's hidden forces. Excuse me if that doesn't sound suspiciously like the last immoral war we fought; the last time we were clearly in the wrong. We may beat Saddam easily; but it's what comes after that truly disturbs me.

We're not wanted in Iraq. We may end up having to fight the civillian populace-- the majority of Iraq is Shi'ite muslim, and in invading, we're not endaring us to them at all. In short, we're setting up ourselves for another Vietnam.

[Daki]

32: From what I remember of Vietnam-- the TV's were full, originally, of how we went to fight the Communist menance. We stayed there as "advisors", sending troops to die, all in the name of democracy and freedom.

Actually, we sent advisors to Vietnam because the french were pulling their support from the country. See my prior post about the communism tie-in.
And it was in the name of democracy because the standing government did not want a communist regime in place.

We occupied the country for around a decade, killing and slaughtering civillians,saving the villages by destroying them.

1.) We occupied HALF the country
2.) Are you forgetting the slaughtering of villages by the NVA if they did not aide the NVA?
3.) In the Vietnam war, the NVA was backed up by thousands of civilian soldiers. Distinguishing between the two (especially near the DMZ) was very difficult.

We're not wanted in Iraq. We may end up having to fight the civillian populace-- the majority of Iraq is Shi'ite muslim, and in invading, we're not endaring us to them at all. In short, we're setting up ourselves for another Vietnam.

And you are basing this on what you see in the news? If I were to watch the news here in the States, I would come to believe that the entire population of the US does not want to go to war. That, of course, would be an incorrect statement. Media can skew images and reports to their own end. Do you think we would see video of protesters in Iraq who want Saddam kicked out of office? No, you won't. Why? (key point here) B ECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTEST. They are not allowed to voice dissenting opinions. It very may well be the general population of Iraq would welcome the change in regimes.

[3278]

We've bombed Iraq, fought Saddam, and defended others against him. But now, we're talking about occupying the country. Staying in place as "peacepeepers", "advisors" and providing "police action" against Saddam's hidden forces. Excuse me if that doesn't sound suspiciously like the last immoral war we fought; the last time we were clearly in the wrong.

It also sound suspiciously like the last 20 military engagements the US has been involved in. Every one of the words you use is used /every time/ soldiers are deployed in foreign actions in the modern military. If this is your basis for comparison, I suggest you discard the comparison.

We may beat Saddam easily; but it's what comes after that truly disturbs me.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the large majority of the problem with the war in Vietnam that it wasn't won "easily?" If it had taken six months to defeat the Vietnamese, don't you think perhaps Vietnam would be remembered perhaps a bit more fondly?

In short, we're setting up ourselves for another Vietnam.

Whatever you may think of the current civilian and military administration, please don't think they're so stupid that they've not noticed the similarities these engagements may appear to have. Please don't think they're so stupid that they didn't learn their lessons from Vietnam.

[Serious Paul]

Okay lets look at few things here.


First the word casualty. A casualty is any one who is injured, period. So if Bob the Builder gets deployed to Iraq tommorrow and he smashes his hand with a hammer while building Quanson Huts, then guess what? Bobs a casualty of War! Hell paper cuts, heat injuries and rashes were a lot of the Persian Gulf Wars casualties.


Now from the US perspective we lost less than 600 combat personel to death, the ultimate casualty. Of which maybe a hundred were actually killed by enemy combatants. We killed more of our people with technology glitchs and negligence than the Iraqis did.


By way of Comparison Vietnam had 50,000 dead American Combatants. World War Two had depending on which estimate you believe 26 million world wide deaths. Hell Panama and Grenada were just as dangerous.


Everyone clambering to mention that the Iraqi people might resist, Stop now. Think about what you just said.


Some poor half dead, starving camel herder who has had zero in the way of consideration from his government isn't allowed to be armed, and faces certain death from Superior Might of Arms is going to take on the Worlds best equipped Military, who has done nothing but train for this?


Right.....

the U.S. and it allies in the conflict will need to take and hold Baghdad until the puppet government can be established. And if the Iraqis resist the incursion (Either out of coercsion by the government or a genuine hatred for the invaders) the U.S. may have to kill civilians in self-defense. Major PR nightmare, especially with people comparing to Vietnam.

Well firstly the people comparing it to Vietnam are against the War, and may not be reliable and unbiased.

Second nice slip there with that whole "puppet" regime stuff. You are certainly convincing me that you may intrested in actually seeing another side to this.


And again, this isn't Vietnam. The government really did learn from Vietnam, no really. They did. There will never be another Vietnam. There may be an Iraq, which presents a whole new set of unique problems. But it isn't Vietnam man.

[Cash]

Some poor half dead, starving camel herder who has had zero in the way of consideration from his government isn't allowed to be armed, and faces certain death from Superior Might of Arms is going to take on the Worlds best equipped Military, who has done nothing but train for this?


Right.....

The NVA did. (couldn't resist...)

[3278]

Some poor half dead, starving camel herder who has had zero in the way of consideration from his government isn't allowed to be armed, and faces certain death from Superior Might of Arms is going to take on the Worlds best equipped Military, who has done nothing but train for this?

And all this, after said military has been quietly feeding money into the military structure to bribe soliders to defect, with all their troops. What, you thought they surrendered last time just because they were scared? We learned from Vietnam. And this tactic also insures that, after the war is over, the people with money are the people who surrendered to us, and thus are people less likely to be loyal to the current regime.

[Ryan Murphy]

First the word casualty. A casualty is any one who is injured, period. So if Bob the Builder gets deployed to Iraq tommorrow and he smashes his hand with a hammer while building Quanson Huts, then guess what? Bobs a casualty of War! Hell paper cuts, heat injuries and rashes were a lot of the Persian Gulf Wars casualties.

casualty

n 1: someone injured or killed or captured or missing in a military engagement 2: someone injured or killed in an accident [syn: injured party] 3: an accident that causes someone to die [syn: fatal accident] 4: a decrease of military personnel or equipment

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

The first and last ones seem to be (by connotation) the ones most frequently applied in a context of war. On a personal note, any other definition is a pretty big insult to the people who get shot/hit in [body part] and lose function(s) of [body part(s)/life] in wartime battles. But that's really just my opinion, for what little it's worth.

Some poor half dead, starving camel herder who has had zero in the way of consideration from his government isn't allowed to be armed, and faces certain death from Superior Might of Arms is going to take on the Worlds best equipped Military, who has done nothing but train for this?

The NVA did. (couldn't resist...)

Word, Cash. Underestimating the power of the partisans is something that should never be repeated. And to the claim of "how could we have known about the partisans?" All part of their power.

[Serious Paul]

The first and last ones seem to be (by connotation) the ones most frequently applied in a context of war .

Are they used by the Pentagon? Or the people who would measure Civilian losses?

I would readily agree that these are acceptable at face value, but as I tend to believe Government and Statistics go hand in iron glove with lying, I would really like to know.

On a personal note, any other definition is a pretty big insult to the people who get shot/hit in [body part] and lose function(s) of [body part(s)/life] in wartime battles. But that's really just my opinion, for what little it's worth.

Is that you John Wayne?

I can see where you are coming from. In the Marine Corps one of the values that is defacto instilled in you is this idea that certain types of wounds or injuries are more glorious than others. Which is utter shat, of course.


The guy who dies from malaria or an infected paper cut is just as dead as Dick Dingdong who "jumped" on a grenade. (Remind me in channel one day to tell you how many people I think really vountarily jumped on a grenade...)

Cash posted:

The NVA did. (couldn't resist...)

If this were 1976 and we were fighting in SE Asia again this would be a prett good comparison. Except....


Well the NVA had lots of support. They were vastly better organized and equipped than we gave credit for at the time. Partly because they were backed by the Chinese and Russians. They didn't just one day decide to revolt and Viola! They build weapons and shit.

The regions instability, which is similar to the current situation in some respects also contibuted to their success, but a lot was our own ignorance.

I don't think thats a mistake that will be repeated any time soon. (I refer you to 3278s earlier post...)


So is it possible? Yes, anything is possible. Likely? I don't think so.


Of course only history will tell....

[Matt McS]

Second nice slip there with that whole "puppet" regime stuff. You are certainly convincing me that you may intrested in actually seeing another side to this.

Looks like someone actually read the post. Thanks, Paul. At least it shows someone cares.

But I don't think I'm following in the "other side" comment. I don't think that sitting on our butts and waiting for UNSCOM, IAEA, and the like to finish their bumbling around and then saying "All's OK here," is going to eliminate the threat that Iraq poses. The more time that the U.S. waits is more time for the Iraq's subtrefuge to fool other nations.

Wasn't 12 years enough time?

[Cain]

Daki: I'm basing my opinion on the fact that the majority of Iraq is, indeed, Shi'ite Muslim. Saddam represents the Ba'ath party, which is a Sunni majority. The Shi'a groups tend to view the US as the Great Satan, which is why we were supporting Saddam for all those years. It's going to be a bit much to assume any Shi'ite-majority country actually wants the US in charge of them. Heck, any and all of our bases or outposts in Shi'ite-majority areas have been on constant guerilla-terrorism alert for decades now.

32: No, it appears the government hasn't learned from Vietnam. The problem wasn't that the Vietnamese weren't easy to beat-- every time we faced them in an actual battle, we won. The problem was we settled in for a long and nasty guerilla campaign. There were no battles, no times where ignorant armies clashed by night. There was only us, and a long string of guerilla attacks. Armies are not equipped to deal with this; and to paraphrase Machiavelli, no fortress is safe from the will of the populace.

The populace of Iraq is largely Shi'ite. The Shi'ites do not want the US running Iraq. I trust people here can perform deductive logic?

Now, for the fun part of this argument: An unusual fact of modern warfare is that, for over a century now, whatever country has started a war has *always* lost. Always. The agressor has never won a single war in the history of modern warfare. Never. Not once.

(For those who try and bring up Afghanistan: we haven't won yet, and Al Qaeda effectivey started hostilities on 9/11).

By that little fact, invading another country is not a rational act. Yet, here we go, attempting to do something totally irrational. Irrational may not be the same as stupid, but it's close enough in my book.

It's been a long times since Vietnam, long enough for memories to fade. The last troops were pulled out about 30 years ago, before most Bulldrekkers were even born. The lessons learned since then no longer stand out in people's minds. I don't think many people on this forum have any effective memories of Vietnam. But for the few of us who do, the parallels are scary. Oh, and Daki? Back then, the government did try to convince everyone that the majority of America was behind them.

But, hey, let's go to the classic argument. Let's see how many of you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. I'm for peace, and I'm far too old to join the military-- but many of the others here, are young enough to consider it, if only as a future career option. How many of you believe in this war strongly enough to enlist? As proof, please post a copy of your enlistment papers.

[MooCow]

How many of you believe in this war strongly enough to enlist? As proof, please post a copy of your enlistment papers.

On the one hand, you make a point. On the other hand, why would I enlist? First, I have a college degree, enlistment would cut my salary in half (Not to mention that I'm not elligble for military service). Second, that's like saying "well if you really believed in law and order you'd become a cop." or "If you really thought the postal service was a good idea, you'd become a mailman." Third, if you were really for peace you'd go to Iraq and form a human barrior to keep the US out. Or something like that.

There are alot of things that I support. But it doesn't mean that I intend to make a carreer out of making sure they get done.

No, it appears the government hasn't learned from Vietnam.

Of course.... because being the arm chair general that you are you know all about the modern military's training regiment.

I trust people here can perform deductive logic?

Yeah, we'll just have to kill them all. I have no problems with this. We'll build an amusement park there when we're done.

The agressor has never won a single war in the history of modern warfare. Never. Not once.

No problem. We didn't start this. We're just finishing it. Granted, it's been over 10 years since it started, and there have been some lulls in the fighting... but we didn't start it. So since Iraq is the agressor, I'm glad to know that history is on our side.

[Daki]

Define "modern" warfare?

And please stop trying to draw parallels to the Vietnam wars because there really are no connections between the two. And, if you like, I can provide a long list why they are not.

[MooCow]

And please stop trying to draw parallels to the Vietnam wars because there really are no connections between the two. And, if you like, I can provide a long list why they are not.

Please do.

[Daki]

I'll highlight some of the major differences...


The NVA were already hardened soldiers of a prolonged war with the French and were masters at guerilla warfare (something the US had not had to deal with in major engagements to that point). Also, the terrain prohibited any large military mass from moving forward into an area... armored weapons such as tanks were largely ineffective due to the terrain and dense foilage. This negated almost every advantage the United States had in terms of technology.

Also, the war itself favored a bare-basics approach where Tiger-pits could claim just as many lives as a claymore mine. Vietname also had the backing of two major countries. They did not have to worry about losing due to attrition.

Add to all that the fact the US could not operate in any country other than Vietnam. The NVA had no such restriction and could perform hit and run attacks on southern targets and fade back into Thailand to avoid being followed. ((Now it's true we ran black ops in those areas but not on the scale of the NVA)).

Compare that to Iraq today. This is a country that does NOT have the support of any other countries or backing to keep them alive during the attrition of warfare. They also have the disadvantage of commanders who can easily be bought off by the American government (not exactly devotion on the level of the NVA there).

The terrain in Iraq is also not very limiting. We can utilize all of our mobilized equipment. We are also far more advaced than the Vietnam war... using laser-guided bombs for strategic strikes and satellite imaging to pinpoint enemy movements.

The governing power behind Vietnam was very different from that of Iraq. In the case of Vietnam, they actually sought a diplomatic solution that the US turned down because of our alliance with France (they wanted to be a protectorate) and Iraq has no such plans or desires before the conflict started.

The conflict in Vietnam began in earnest as a civil war with the North VS the South. The conflict in Iraq began in earnest when they invaded another country.

Vietnam was us supporting one faction of a civil war that opposed communism (as we did). Iraq (right now) would be us establishing ourselves with allies against a defined enemy target.



More later. Sleep now.

[Cain]

On the one hand, you make a point. On the other hand, why would I enlist? First, I have a college degree, enlistment would cut my salary in half (Not to mention that I'm not elligble for military service). Second, that's like saying "well if you really believed in law and order you'd become a cop." or "If you really thought the postal service was a good idea, you'd become a mailman." Third, if you were really for peace you'd go to Iraq and form a human barrior to keep the US out. Or something like that.

There are alot of things that I support. But it doesn't mean that I intend to make a carreer out of making sure they get done.

You may not be eligible, and that's fine. Others here may may not be, either. Myself, I can't afford to fly to Iraq as a human barrier, so all I can do is protest. I do, howeve,r work in a Social Services field-- I get paid much less than anyone else with my education and training, and that's after 10 years of experience. However, I do it because I believe in what I do, and not for a paycheck.

If you truly support something, then prove it by acting on it. It may not be much of an action, but it can be done. OK, so maybe people like you and 32 aren't in a good place to go in-- but Bulldrek has a lot of college students. College students are given a great deal of benefits by joining. Others of the hawks here, like Salvation, are too young to join up-- but if they believe strongly enough, why aren't they planning on enlisting after they graduate? There are a great deal of benefits for doing so, and the only reason to not enlist is because you don't believe in the Service. That was why I didn't enlist, so I accept that as a good reason. But it also shows that you don't believe the US government is infalliable, or that you trust your life will be used to properly serve your country.

No problem. We didn't start this. We're just finishing it. Granted, it's been over 10 years since it started, and there have been some lulls in the fighting... but we didn't start it. So since Iraq is the agressor, I'm glad to know that history is on our side.

That war was over ten years ago. Some people want to keep fighting it, but that doesn't change the facts.

As for the rest-- look at all major military engagements over the last century. WW 1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm, to cover the major highlights. In every case, the agressor lost-- largely due to the international community's support for the defender. While Iraq lacks major support, Bush is clearly pushing for us to be the agressor, and wants to do so in defiance of the international community. And finally, we're planning on invading and occupying the country indefinitely.

This is not smart. This is irrational. This may not be truly stupid, but it's close.

And Daki: If I've read the newspapers correctly, the Bush plan for the war is to support one of several factions (I seem to recall the Kurds, but I could be mistaken) to replace Saddam. Right there, we have one parallel. We also appear to only have one ally-- Britain-- so we don't exactly have allies-plural, inasmuch as no one else is willing to commit troops.

Saddam has got to have learned as well. He has the advantage of being able to trade space for time, which worked for the Russians (and he's had Russian advisors in the past.) Somne of the tactics used in the first Desert Storm would have worked, if he had better communication and supply chains.

[Salvation122]

Others of the hawks here, like Salvation, are too young to join up-- but if they believe strongly enough, why aren't they planning on enlisting after they graduate?

I'm considering going to college on an ROTC scholarship, and even if I don't, I'll join the Reserves after I graduate.

Saddam has got to have learned as well. He has the advantage of being able to trade space for time, which worked for the Russians (and he's had Russian advisors in the past.) Some of the tactics used in the first Desert Storm would have worked, if he had better communication and supply chains.

He still lacks air superiority and the logistical capabilities of the US. His weapons are less advanced and his survaillence is pathetic. If we go to war with Iraq, it won't take long to get to Baghdad.

[Daki]

If you truly support something, then prove it by acting on it. It may not be much of an action, but it can be done. OK, so maybe people like you and 32 aren't in a good place to go in-- but Bulldrek has a lot of college students. College students are given a great deal of benefits by joining. Others of the hawks here, like Salvation, are too young to join up-- but if they believe strongly enough, why aren't they planning on enlisting after they graduate?

Perhaps because they want to pursue a field or career that cannot be achieved in the military? Speaking just for myself, I did not choose to enter the military because my course of study was accounting and I had a career path picked out that would not have been possible in the military. Because I chose that path, things happened that put my in my current career tract that I am enjoying immensely.

There are a great deal of benefits for doing so, and the only reason to not enlist is because you don't believe in the Service.

You are taking an extremist stance on this that does not make any sense. Yes, not believing in the service is ONE reason but it is certainly not the ONLY reason not to enlist.

That was why I didn't enlist, so I accept that as a good reason. But it also shows that you don't believe the US government is infalliable, or that you trust your life will be used to properly serve your country.

I don't think any single person here believes that government (ANY government) is infalliable. Governments are still run by people after all.

[Marius]

Now, for the fun part of this argument: An unusual fact of modern warfare is that, for over a century now, whatever country has started a war has *always* lost. Always. The agressor has never won a single war in the history of modern warfare. Never. Not once.

1967?

[Cain]

Perhaps because they want to pursue a field or career that cannot be achieved in the military? Speaking just for myself, I did not choose to enter the military because my course of study was accounting and I had a career path picked out that would not have been possible in the military. Because I chose that path, things happened that put my in my current career tract that I am enjoying immensely.

Which shows what exactly? You prefer money over serving your country? Or that you simply didn't believe in the ideals of the US armed forces enough to put your plans on hold?

Either one illustrates my point. You didn't believe in the service strongly enough.

You are taking an extremist stance on this that does not make any sense. Yes, not believing in the service is ONE reason but it is certainly not the ONLY reason not to enlist.

More of an oversimplification than an extreme view, really. However, it can be shown that most reasons for not joining the service simply amount to one not believing in the service strongly enough to put other plans on hold. What I find amusing is how people will believe in a war strongly enough to send someone else out to do the fighting, but not strongly enough to fight for it themselves.

After 9/11, I was mad, almost mad enough to enlist; and if I were a great deal younger, I might have done so. I fully supported military action, and I backed my support by a willingness to fight, to put my own life on the line for an important cause. However, I'm not eligible for military service, so the point is moot.

Now, I see all these young turks on these forums, talking about how they want to kick Saddam out of Iraq. Well, kids, what you really mean is you want to watch someone else do it. I don't see a major spate of enlistments from the Bulldrekkers, although Salv has now earned some respect from me for showing willingness.

I believe if I'm not willing to fight and die for a cause, I shouldn't ask anyone else to. So, the point remains-- if you really believe in this war so strongly, why aren't you enlisting?

[Marius]

What I find amusing is how people will believe in a war strongly enough to send someone else out to do the fighting, but not strongly enough to fight for it themselves.

[s]Right, because so few people have loved ones in the military. It would hardly affect my life or virtually anyone else's if this war were fought.[/s]

So, the point remains-- if you really believe in this war so strongly, why aren't you enlisting?

Because the military, as it currently stands, does not need any more of my help to do this. If no one enlisted between now and the end of the conflict in Iraq, it would not adversely affect the military's ability to carry out the campaign. My enlistment, or yours, or Salvations, would do nothing in support of this goal, and thus would be an empty gesture. I choose not to show my support with empty gestures.

[MooCow]

and the only reason to not enlist is because you don't believe in the Service.

Right. And the only reason not to become a mailman is because you think the postal service is a stupid idea. God you're an idiot.....

[MooCow]

Which shows what exactly? You prefer money over serving your country? Or that you simply didn't believe in the ideals of the US armed forces enough to put your plans on hold?

Or it shows that you believe you can support your country in other ways. As a Civil Engineer I keep this country moving. With out people like me, you wouldn't be able to get to work. I keep this country moving, I keep it generating money. That money goes to support the Military.

I did not join the Military in college because I realized during my 1st year in ROTC that I had a personality conflict with my fellow students. There was no way I was going to be able to spend 4 years with those yahoos, much less serve the next 20 years with them. The military was not for me. Times changed, and I realized that there were other ways I could join the military. I could go Reserve, then OCS. Then I was medically disqualified.

I support the Military whole heartedly. If the call came, I would answer it in whatever fashion I was able. But for now, I'm not needed. Since they don't *need* me, I will not bother wasting tax payer dollars training me to do something I don't really want to do.