*If all this were to occur, would you acknowledge that you were wrong about what to do with Iraq?
The war is quickly over resulting in the removal of Saddam from power
It is learned and proved that Saddam had stockpiles of bio and chemical agents ready for use (he might even have used them in the war) and had an active WMD program including use of moving laboratories
There are relatively few civilian casualties (except for those maybe inflicted by Saddam himself)
Sanctions terminate quickly
Malnutrition among the Iraqi children drops precipitously
The Iraqi people welcome the American and UK troops as liberators with flowers in the streets
Iraq’s natural resources are developed and used for the benefit of the Iraqi people
Within a couple of years, a new representative government emerges in Iraq*
Since the following have happened:
Bush and cronies admit that war is going to take longer than thought
While in charge territorially of most of Iraq NO chemical/biological weapons have been found or used by Iraqi soldiers
Casualties are mounting
(Too soon to tell)
(Too soon to tell)
Not happening
(Too soon to tell)
(Too soon to tell)
Thus far 4 of the 8 requirements are proven wrong. Will the USA supporters start admitting they might be wrong…NOOOO! Because they don’t accept that the USA CAN be/do wrong (sometimes).
Tom Friedman of the NYT just came out with his “scorecard” for Iraq. Each point listed below is described in the article (How to know if the U.S. is winning).
(1) Have U.S. forces occupied Baghdad - without leveling the whole city?
(2) Have U.S. forces killed, captured or expelled Saddam?
(3) Has America been able to explain why some Iraqi forces are putting up such a fierce fight?
(4) Has America won this war and preserved the territorial integrity of Iraq?
(5) Has an authentic Iraqi liberal nationalist emerged from the U.S. occupation to lead the country?
(6) Is the Iraqi state that emerges from this war accepted as legitimate by Iraq’s Arab and Muslim neighbors?
That almost looks as if we’re gonna haveta do some work??
I thought this was gonna be easy?!
A documentary of Iraqi exile leaders was shown last night on BBC. One of them unconcsiously leaked that Americans want an 8 year American administration in Iraq.
Great thread Old Man. It seems that every day we have the American's changing their view of the war, and dampening down all the pre-war expectations. Ironically before the first Gulf war in 1991 the western propaganda was playing up the fact of a long and bloody war, and the fact the Iraqi's would not be a push over. Well that proved wrong, as we know. But in the weeks leading upto this war the propaganda had been touting how this would be all over in a week or so, and that the Iraqi’s would be “shocked and awed” into submission – well boy was that a huge miscalculation. Now they are sending more troops to Iraq to fight this illegal war, which just shows how dramatically wrong their plans have gone, and how this is fast becoming mission creep…
just watch the administration turn everything other way around. missile attacks on market are now said to "possibly by Iraqi regime", hah.
they and their govt. will NEVER accept they were wrong.
they will ALWAYS beleive that this war is/was legal/justified.
#7 and 8 might even be disputed, no? (Regarding 7 - i am thinking of all the American companies that have been given exclusive contracts; regarding #8 - the US acknowledged that it will NOT give ‘control’ of Iraq to the UN once Hussein is overthrown. That pretty much signifies that the US will attempt to ensure that it alone determines who rules a post-Hussein Iraq - these were Powell’s words: "We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future").
Even with everything that you have so accurately argued, i doubt anyone will admit that they were wrong.
Well if those are Powells words, those are Powells words.
I heard the reason that the U.S. doesn't want the U.N. to take over immediately is because they want to prove to the Arab World their intentions on improving life for Iraqi's and helping to create a democratic society. Many will say this is popycock but if it is, then the U.S. is really gona be in for it.
I have read that there are like 3000 Iraq exiles who have been training in Belgium (I think) to help to stabilize the political situation once the war is over.
I believe the bickering has allready started in countries desiring contracts to help rebuild Iraq, I think opinion about the U.S. position is that if U.N. member countries weren't willing to sacrafice their own blood to help create a democratic Iraq, why should reconstruction be handed immediately over to the U.N.?
I don't believe there has been a final decision yet. I just think we all have to wait and see what happens.
Having made the above statements does not mean that I agree that War was the answer. Or that the U.S. is correct in its views. Or that the U.S. has any right to meddle in other countries affairs.
Certainly the U.S. would want a government friendly to it's interests, but I don't think that necessarily means that it would be bad for the Iraqi people, the middleast, or the rest of the world just because it would be good for the U.S.
And if this war turns out to be solely for U.S. interests and not for the interest of the Iraqi's or Mideast Peace as a whole then I would have to agree that you were right all along.
I do think right now its too early to make that judgement. Who knows? Perhaps Iraq will becoming a thriving productive society and the MidEast will become the balance of power.
>>And if this war turns out to be solely for U.S. interests and not for the interest of the Iraqi's or Mideast Peace as a whole then I would have to agree that you were right all along. I do think right now its too early to make that judgement.<<
i think i preferred your unedited reply, AAG:~) The UN should play a leading role (if not the only role) in a post-Hussein Iraq. In the eyes of many Muslims, what sort of legitimacy will a US-propped Iraqi government have? About the same legitimacy as any of the other Arab dictatorships sitting in Saudi or Kuwait have. The Iraqi people deserve better than this - surely, if the US's genuine intent is to 'liberate' the people of Iraq, then the US should pressure the UN to set up elections within six months, if not sooner and let the Iraqi people determine their own fate.
Regarding your statement that >>I think opinion about the U.S. position is that if U.N. member countries weren't willing to sacrafice their own blood to help create a democratic Iraq, why should reconstruction be handed immediately over to the U.N.?<<
It was not that UN member countries "weren't willing to sacrifice their own blood". They were unwilling to participate in an illegal war that was lacking in justification and contrary to international laws.
i think i preferred your unedited reply, AAG:~) The UN should play a leading role (if not the only role) in a post-Hussein Iraq. In the eyes of many Muslims, what sort of legitimacy will a US-propped Iraqi government have? About the same legitimacy as any of the other Arab dictatorships sitting in Saudi or Kuwait have. The Iraqi people deserve better than this - surely, if the US's genuine intent is to 'liberate' the people of Iraq, then the US should pressure the UN to set up elections within six months, if not sooner and let the Iraqi people determine their own fate.
[/QUOTE]
I think this U.S. administration really have no clue on Muslim/Arab opinion. Bunch a cowboys want to go down in history as hero's saving the Iraqi people... Seriously, I think your right about the U.N. playing the largest part in rebuilding Iraq. I don't think the administration would back down to having no part. I do think realistically its gona take more than 6 months to have free elections.
[QUOTE]
It was not that UN member countries "weren't willing to sacrifice their own blood". They were unwilling to participate in an illegal war that was lacking in justification and contrary to international laws.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia_H,
This is just opinion I heard, not my own. Not fact. Nor do I believe that war was the right thing to do. But yeah I'd bet on bickering by the greedy ones. Unfortunately this horrid war happend, we have to accept that. It doesn't have to mean that things will not be better in Iraq or the Mideast in the long run.
You know we are all just talking if's. Only thing we can do is pray.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *
Interesting for me is that with the exception of AvgAmericanGirl, none of the war-mongering American want's to post.......
[/QUOTE]
Of the numbers 1 through 8, the correct answer right now is “too soon to tell” respecting all 8.
I think we are only in the second week of the war. Bush and cronies have NOT said the war is going to take longer than they thought. In posing the scorecard as I did, I don’t think I suggested that “quickly” meant 1 week. For goodness sake, the war in Afghanistan took more than that and Iraq certainly presents a greater challenge than the Taliban don’t you think.
The actual stashes of chemical weapons are not likely to be found until the regime change is complete or until Saddam uses them. So far, all indications are that Iraq has chemical weapons. The chemical suits, atropine, gas masks, etc are all indicative of the fact that Iraq made preparations for the use of chemical weapons and provided some protective measures for its troops. Only a true anti-American could possibly believe an argument that the soldiers were outfitted with chem. Suits and atropine to protect themselves against American use of such weapons.
Can you please provide some reputable site that indicates that large numbers of Iraqi civilians are being killed by coalition forces? So far, it sounds like the Iraqis are killing their own.
With Iraqi goons killing surrendering Iraqi soldiers, using civilian shields, forcing males to fight under threat of killing their families, I think it makes perfect sense that the Iraqi people are a little hesitant at this point to rejoice at the defeat of Saddam’s regime. Give it a little time.
I did not post the scorecard/list as a prediction of the outcome. I did it to see how many would admit they were wrong about Iraq IF these 8 things happened. I don’t recall you answering that question. Since all 8 can still occur, can you answer that question. Perhaps Nadia as well since she has chosen to participate in this thread.
^
^
I think for a objective analysis you should indicate a general time span, the initial one you had in mind or the revised one or quantify it somehow maybe with some facts and figures as reported in reputable and balanced sources. Otherwise it could be easy to dodge the question as above.
Myvoice, do you REALLY believe in the pile of *B*ovine *S*catology, for want of a better word, written below. I simply can't believe you do.
The actual stashes of chemical weapons are not likely to be found until the regime change is complete or until Saddam uses them. So far, all indications are that Iraq has chemical weapons. The chemical suits, atropine, gas masks, etc are all indicative of the fact that Iraq made preparations for the use of chemical weapons and provided some protective measures for its troops. Only a true anti-American could possibly believe an argument that the soldiers were outfitted with chem. Suits and atropine to protect themselves against American use of such weapons.
Can you please provide some reputable site that indicates that large numbers of Iraqi civilians are being killed by coalition forces? So far, it sounds like the Iraqis are killing their own. <<
See this link and notice the words “a longer conflict than planners first
forecast”. The mere fact that the USA has to double it’s ground force indicate that the whole war was underestimated. As a more objective observer than yourself, this point has been proven negative.
The mere fact that the USA soldiers have gas masks, chemical suits, drink prevention pills according to your way of reasoning point to their going to use chemical gas sometime soon! Having the equipment does not prove every male is a rapist. The USA have in the past used ALL types of ways to win wars, why can’t the Iraqis believe they won’t use chemical/biological weapons? The USA insisted before the war that they have information about Iraq’s WMD whereabouts but refused to give it to the inspectors. Surely you are not now saying that all the factories and stashes are only in the few major cities (not yet in USA hands) as per the original USA knowledge? Your argument is very weak although there is a possibility that you might be correct. I will therefor make this point to “unlikely to be correct”.
“So far, it sounds like the Iraqis are killing their own.” You want to indicate that the Iraqis are killing more of their “own people” than the number of “own people” killed by the USA invaders? - and that’s documented. Whether you like it or not, more civilians are being killed each passing day whether by Iraqis or USA invaders. This proves that this point are not going as planned. You did not state how many civilians should be killed for this point to be possitive. The RISING death toll makes this point a negative though. Remember, the USA invaders has not gone into any major city yet.
You can obviously quote a reputable source for your theories? Right now it is evidenced that the there is no massive eruption of jubilation by Iraqis to the invasion as expected by the USA invaders. This point remains negative.
You did not use time/numbers in your original scorecard, you can’t now insist on such. Right now, 3 ½ of the original 8 point is negative. Time may change some points (both ways).
Go read your post again, myvoice, I did answer. I’m against the war no matter what positive/negative impact. I also would be against South Africa invading Zimbabwe to “liberate” the people from Mugabe’s atrocities.
"Published on Friday, March 28, 2003 by the Cornell Daily Sun
Ritter Speaks on War in Iraq
by Jennifer Chen
…
Furthermore, he described how in order for biological warfare agents such as anthrax to be effective, they must be in powdered form. Iraq, however, only produced a liquid form of the chemical and did not perfect a method to transform and stabilize it in another state, he said. In addition, the V-X nerve agents and the artillery shells required for the proper assemblage of militarily viable chemical weapons need production facilities, which were not found by U.N. inspectors. **He thus concluded that “Iraq does not have chemical weapons” ** due to the nation’s inability to perfect stabilization techniques for their potential biological warfare agents.
…"
Old Man: With all due respect, your reply is balderdash. I don't know what you believe to be a relatively short war, but I take history as a guide. I know of no historical framework from which someone could say that a war lasting weeks or a few months was "long."
Your statement that the Iraqis may have chemical and protective gear to defend against possible US use of bio or chem weapons is about the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard you make. Finding the chem suits and atropine stockpiled among the Iraqi troops is very sobering. It indicates not only the likelihood that Iraq has such weapons but also a predisposition to the use thereof. From all that I have heard, the probability of use increases the nearer we get to Baghdad. If the weapons exist, that's the most likely place they are.
There is and always was a possibility that Saddam would kill his own as part of his last desperate acts. We see and hear of Iraqi troops killing citizens trying to flee in Basra. We see and hear of Iraqi irregulars killing Iraqi soldiers wishing to surrender or defect. We see and hear of Iraqi troops using women and children as shields. There are no numbers yet that are likely to be remotely accurate regarding the numbers of Iraqi dead, troops or civilians, in this conflict. The more that Saddam kills, the more justified is this action.
As to Iraqi citizen reaction, until the populace is liberated, we just don't know for sure what their reaction will be. We do see the Iraqi people milling among UK and US forces and they clearly are not frightened of them. The groups they are fleeing from and frightened of are the Iraqi troops.
Your final comment sums up the objectivity of your scorecard quite well. No matter what happens, you will never view the action taken as justifiable. Your clear bias is reflected in how you view events on the ground.
[quote]
Finding the chem suits and atropine stockpiled among the Iraqi troops is very sobering. It indicates not only the likelihood that Iraq has such weapons but also a predisposition to the use thereof
[/quote]
Are the coalition forces carrying any chemical/biological protection suits and/or vaccines?
Thus far 4 of the 8 requirements are proven wrong. Will the USA supporters start admitting they might be wrong…NOOOO! Because they don’t accept that the USA CAN be/do wrong (sometimes).