Are we going to war?

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:00 pm

Or rather when? My question is what is your opinion on the timing of war. When or if, not why or how.

I personally believe we will engage in a full blown war before summer. And it will last a weekend. Anyone else got idea's...

Here is a nice link to follow..

Reasons for waR?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:15 pm

Won't last a weekend, if we do. We'll be handing out leaflets to every young, frustrated, dirt poor MidEastern youth with messages reading "Go fight the Great Satan who wants our oil!" if we go to Iraq. And we'll be paying the costs of that equipment-driven war for more than ten years, afterwards.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:16 pm

Hmmm...shouldnt we be fighting a war vs terrorism, instead? I mean, we're already in the middle of something. I think the timing is just really bad. I dont know what Bush is thinking, or rather what he is not thinking, because he seems to be doing a nice job sending this country down the crapper.

He's just sending our troops in every which way, we no longer know where we're going or who we're fighting. At this rate, we wont have an army in the US...theyll be too busy in all the foriegn countries trying to "keep the peace" by holding up a bunch of weapons.

I mean, am I the only one who finds that slightly un-nerving?

This war will happen, only because Bush has a one track mind of sorts and he's going to take us where ever his brain wants us to. And whether we win the war or not and how quickly is beside the point. There are no winners in war...rather there is just a side that didnt suffer defeat as much as the other side did.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:18 pm

I knew I'd bait you out with this, you've been hiding from the boards (posting with me) cause its all been trivial spam. Now seriusly though I know the effects of such war would last for many years, let alone if we end up going after one of many others who are arming up to challenge us before we find safety with the effects of the Iraq war.

My question is, rather than an opinionated well.. opinion, give me a time sheet. Just out of curiosity. You think Bush will go in soon, who will help and how long before we get what we want.

This includes if we go in and take territory.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:25 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
My question is, rather than an opinionated well.. opinion, give me a time sheet. Just out of curiosity. You think Bush will go in soon, who will help and how long before we get what we want.

Well over confidence kills you in the end. And the Americans are too over confident. We are not invincible, and the war may take much longer then we all think. People thought WWI would last a couple weeks. Right. Its impossible to predict what will happen in war, and I stick by that.

But...Ill tell you, this war will take longer then we think. Who will help? Probably England, and whoever is enemy with Saddham. But thats it, because everyone hates the USA right now. I mean come on. We sticking our noses where it doesnt belong. If I were another country, Id hate us too.

How long till we get what we want? I have no idea what "we" want.

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:27 pm

Oh yeah. You're going to war, and we're following right along behind. Tony Blair is pretty much the only person in the country (including his party) that takes Bush seriously, and his place in office is jeopardised by it. However he still makes the decisions, so we'll be backing you up, for good or bad. But as for the war taking a weekend? That's what Nixon said about Vietnam...

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:32 pm

Originally posted by Kameleon
But as for the war taking a weekend? That's what Nixon said about Vietnam...

Indeed... and in WW2 it was..."home before Christmas"

though, unlike WW1 and this present situation.. I do think there were some very real reasons for WW2......

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:34 pm

Originally posted by dragon wench
Indeed... and in WW2 it was..."home before Christmas"

So thats 3 examples.

WWI, Vietnam, and WW2. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

And again...over confidence...VERY VERY BAD. To say the least.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:35 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
I knew I'd bait you out with this, you've been hiding from the boards (posting with me) cause its all been trivial spam.

Eat dirt and molder, child of the soil!

My question is, rather than an opinionated well.. opinion, give me a time sheet. Just out of curiosity. You think Bush will go in soon, who will help and how long before we get what we want.

This includes if we go in and take territory.

It's a no-brainer that Bush's buttmon...er, international colleague, Blair, will join him in this. Israel, of course. Hungary has promised to provide training grounds for the power hungry Iraqi troops who are going to take Iraq back from the power hungry Iraqi troops that are already there. Among the big potential allies, I really think a lot hinges on what Hussein does, and whatever else the inspectors find.

Not to mention, there's always NK in the background, far more dangerous, paranoid, and perfectly willing to go to war if they feel threatened. It would appear they take threats a lot less well than just about everyone else in the world.

If a war starts, I don't see it taking more than a week to two weeks to finish in a classic sense. But then you have the Kurds who will want a nation in the north, and the Shias in the south who will also want a separate nation; Turkey ready to invade if the Kurds go for it, Iran ready to invade if Turkey does (and they've said so, too). Plus there's all the fallout from it, which I alluded to, above...

No, I'm genuinely of the opinion that we'll have mired ourselves so deep in terrorist attempts from this that we'll simply move the war to another level, where it will continue for many years. Not to mention the curbs on American freedoms--a war nobody seems to have begun to realize has already been lost.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:36 pm

While Its all fine and dandy to dislike bush's policy of going in, and to figure that its going to be longer than a weekend.

I doubt were sticking our noses in other peoples business, nor has most of the world ever really "liked" America. Tyb's points have been around for longer then this new American trend. And not only were we assigned big brother duty after ww2, we were and are hated because of it. Yet they all want us too.

I believe it will last, as long or a little bit longer then the last war. And thats the actuall Boom Boom bang bang, not the politics.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:37 pm

Originally posted by Kameleon

Oh yeah. You're going to war, and we're following right along behind. Tony Blair is pretty much the only person in the country (including his party) that takes Bush seriously, and his place in office is jeopardised by it. However he still makes the decisions, so we'll be backing you up, for good or bad. But as for the war taking a weekend? That's what Nixon said about Vietnam...

Yet the cabinet remains split over the decision that will override UN advice/directives.

What with Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq....will we bite off more than we can chew?

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:38 pm

Hehehe buttmon..er

@Ysh - it really looks like we're being dragged down the toilet right behind the US. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but there it is

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:56 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
I doubt were sticking our noses in other peoples business, nor has most of the world ever really "liked" America.

Actually, we were well-liked in the Islamic world before the 1950s. And we were well-liked again after we jumped to the aid of Kuwait, in the early 1990s. Going to war against somebody for no reason and inviting the wrath of their friends does seem to me to be sticking one's nose in the business of others, with attendant consequences. As all history shows.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:58 pm

If we go to war (assuming that Bush isn't just trying to bluff a little regime change into the region), then it will be 'declared' over with a few weeks of starting. If it drags on for one reason or another, it will certainly be ended (whether regime change has occured or not) before the election in 2004.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:18 pm

While I myself would love nothing more than to be totally isolationist ie: every man/woman/child/country for them selves, I do feel the world looks to the stronger nations (US and the NATO allies) to police the smaller rogue states. I think the US and her ally do a difficult and thankless job every time we rise to the task set before us.

I notice W.W.II has been mentioned more than a few times. It is interesting that in those days the US was highly ridiculed of not stepping in to "other peoples business" We did not enter the war officially until it had become personal. At the time we still held to separatist policies and remained very aloof through out the early stages of the war. I have heard more than one academic rail that had the US gotten involved sooner that the holocaust could have been avoided.

Hey folks..this is a man who is killing his own citizens who he considers ethnically inferior. Does this not ring a bell for anyone?

I am proud of Bush for stepping up to the plate....
and BRAVO Mr. Blair for standing with him.

As far how long it takes? I agree with fable. It will be a fast trip down a very long road which may never see the destination fully realized. I am not sure war is the right answer. I am never sure that it is...but as no one else seems to be able to put forth a better idea..this one (if it comes to pass) has my backing...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:33 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I am proud of Bush for stepping up to the plate....and BRAVO Mr. Blair for standing with him.

My only problem is reasons, why is Bush so intent on stopping the evil despot government of Iraq when they have provided no proof as to his weapons of mass destruction, apparently some UN inspectors have found some discarded casings but that still isn't proof of intent.

If Bush said, "lets get rid of Saddam because he is an evil dictator" then I would be 100% behind him, it is the double talk and lies that get on my nerves.

Blair should stand up and do something about Zimbabwe, that is of a higher concern imo.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:38 pm

I am not sure of when, but I am of the belief that a war is likely, and also will take longer than a lot of people in the U.S. seem to think it will.

This war, if fought, will be very much different than the previous war with Iraq. Previously, Iraq was in the position of being the aggressor. They had invaded kuwait, and regardless of whether or not the U.S. had indicated it's stance one way or the other to Iraq prior to the invasion, that move cast Iraq in a definate role that made it possible for the majority of the powers to line on the opposite side as them. It also made it a more citezen frindly war in the U.S. due to the feeling among the population that we were aprt of an operation to liberate a country that was being invaded and having atrocities committed against it's citizens.

Going in, Iraq's military might was not deployed in a manner that made it a diffucult conflict. The Iraq military had taken a large amount of their mobile units, and dug them in, in essence taking away any strength those units possessed and reducing them to not much more than sitting ducks for air strikes. Troops surrendered in bunches, so much so that the speed of the conflict was to me more a result of mass amounts of Iraqi troops laying down their arms rather than being beaten and forced to surrender.

In this instance, Iraq will be fighting in it's own backyard. I don't forsee troops reacting to an invasion in the same way they reacted to the previous war. This time, any troops moving into Iraq's borders will be viewed as the agressors. That simple fact could make this conflict much more difficult than a lot of people think. While the war did reach well into Iraq's borders last time, it was more of a reaction to iraq's action. There is a big difference in driving an army from someones borders and persuing it back into it's own. I think the reasoning may have been among the troops that there was no clear indication that anyone wanted to occupy and subjuicate Iraq. In this instance, the people of Iraq will more likely view this as a threat to their national identity, with the consequences of losing being that their nation either is assimulatted or occupied, in either case, the thinking would be more along the lines of fighting simply for survival.

Another thing I think will be different is I do not believe the Iraq forces will be mobilized in the same manner as in the last war. the way the military was used was disastrous for Iraq. It is difficult for me to believe that Iraq has not learned from it's previous experience. Saddam may be a lot of things, but it is unsafe to assume he is stupid. It just seem to me like the population and administration in the U.S. is expecting a simple re-play of the last war, and that would be a very dangerous assumption to make.

Just my opinion

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:47 pm

Apparently this war is going to end up being more city based, which is bad for US troops who are used to neither the gulf or their cities. I think experience will be a major factor.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:48 pm

I was originally going to post this in the lyrics thread... but to do so here seemed more pertinent somehow....

This song is, of course, about Vietnam, but to invoke the French maxim..."Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...."

X-mas in February

Sam was lyin' in the jungle
agent orange spread against the sky like marmalade
Hendrix played on some foreign jukebox
they were praying to be saved
Those gooks were fierce and fearless
that's the price you pay when you invade
Xmas in February

Sam lost his arm in some border town
his fingers are mixed with someone's crop
If he didn't have that opium to smoke
the pain would never ever stop
Half his friends are stuffed into black body bags
with their names printed at the top
Xmas in February

Sammy was a short order cook
in a short order black and blue collar town
Everybody worked the steel mill
but the steel mill got closed down
He thought if he joined the Army
he'd have a future that was sound
Like no Xmas in February

Sam's staring at the Vietnam wall
it's been a while now that he's home
His wife and kid have left, he's unemployed
he's a reminder of the war that wasn't won
He's that guy on the street with the sign that reads
"Please help send this Vet home"
But he is home
and there's no Xmas in February
no matter how much he saves

Lou Reed

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:49 pm

I think the war will be short if started, not a weekend, but very quick. It will however create a few thousand more people willing to pilot planes into buildings.

Also I dont think its correct the call this the thankless big brother duty of US, Its imo very hypocratic to pretend that the US meddling is done in anyones else's interest. Including the Iraq population.

Sending an army to solve social&economical problems does rarely work well.