Quo Vadis, USA supporters?

Touched a nerve I see? :slight_smile: Here is a :flower1: , so cool down.

I have more experience with war than you. As I maintained, you did not state any timetable in the original post but you did set some time expectancy in another post, remember this: Additional US troops flood into Basra, and by the end of the week, most parts of the country are stabilized. This was your prediction for the war to last less than 3 weeks. You were wrong even according to your own timetable. I believe this war can be another week (if someone assassinate Hussein) or several months (if it needs to become another guerilla war). Unfortunately you and your leaders tried to give the impression that it would be another “six-day” war.

I agreed with you and therefor made this point as “being unlikely” because the closer to Baghdad they are used, the larger the possibility of own destruction of Iraqi civilians. Thus far your government has gone to war on an “if” and you are not man enough to admit it. Thus far only the USA has repeatedly used WMD in various cases. My comment that the USA might use chemical weapons (which they do have) again remain. Chemical/biological weapons is not the type of weapons that one use for defensive use, it is offensive weapons. The USA have these weapons and that’s the reason they do not wish to sign treaties banning the use.

I see you prefer NOT to state a proper source…but let your argument rest on rumours.

Would be interesting for me to see the casualties of the Iraqi army though. Would give a much better picture as to how far the war has gone. I will even accept the USA propaganda, just to have some sort of figure. :slight_smile:

Agreed, BUT much more was expected by the USA invaders. You yourself foresaw that civil unrest would start during the second week. Thus far the tent towns set up for fleeing Iraqis remain basically empty. Don’t undermine your intellect by stating NO Iraqis could not have made use of these facilities because they are prevented. Only some cities are still in the hands of the Iraqi army and they can’t keep all in check. I have seen video material by South African journalists in Baghdad where (unbelievable almost) the population carry on with a fairly normal live - and it was not staged.

I am much more objective than you w.r.t. the USA’s actions. I supported in principle the USA’s attack on Afganistan because of the then reasons. In this case I agree with Desmond Tutu that “For the war to be just, it had to be declared by a legitimate authority and all peaceful means towards a solution should have been exhausted. This war is therefor an unjustifiable war and because it is unjustifiable, it is immoral. And if it is immoral, in my view, it is evil.”

Unfortunately, diplomats like you must follow their leader even if he is Satan himself (not saying Bush is Satan). Being older and wiser, I am much closer to objectivity than you. In South Africa we know what it is to be lied to by a government, believing them, and committing acts we normally never would on the flimsiest reasons. You still need to go through that phase.

Practically Believable. Almost.

Old Man:

Inasmuch as I don't know how old you are and/or the experience that you or close family members have had in combat, I can't claim whether I have more or less experience with war than you. As to my own prediction in another thread, I never claimed that it was representative of any military planners in the US. Nor did I indicate that I would think of any war lasting beyond three weeks as a long one. Because of the so-called 4 to 6 day respite we have heard about, a three week war may be overly optimistic on my part. But, 2 full weeks have not even passed so my optimistic scenario could still come reasonably close. For the sake of an awful lot of lives, I hope so.

While I suspect you would deny the label, I think that only the most virulent anti-Americans around the world would even let the thought that the US would use chemical or biological weapons cross their minds. I rate the finding of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq as highly likely almost to a certainty. I guess time will tell which of us is right. Sure hope you are stand-uppish enough to admit you were woefully wrong when this occurs. If it doesn't, I'll sure admit that I was wrong.

The sources of the atrocities being committed by Iraqi troops appear daily in most reputable media sources. I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe that the Iraqis would do these things given the verifiable and despotic acts of the Saddam regime for over 20 years.

I fully concur with you that it is most remarkable that Iraqis in Bagdad can go about their daily business. This is a real testament to the US/UK battle plan which concentrates heavily on sparing the Iraqi citizens from harm. The lights are still on, they're not cowering in electricity deprived hovels, they're not dodging carpet bombing and they appear to be drinking fresh water. This is a far cry from the dire predictions made by some before the battle was joined.

As to your objectivity, please spare me the older and wiser stuff. You already staked out your position that you will consider this war wrong no matter what the results. It doesn't matter to you whether Saddam has gallons upon gallons of chemical weapons in delivery systems poised or capable of striking his own people, his neighbors, or the US. That hardly can be considered objective can it? You base your opinion of my objectivity on two facts alone: 1. I am American and 2. I disagree with you. Having spent my youth watching Presidents, politicians and civil rights leaders assassinated, friends returning in body bags from a war I did not agree with, a President commiting criminal acts, students being gunned down on college campuses by the National Guard, protesters being beaten in Chicago during the democratic convention, etc. , it is a pretty safe bet that I have a healthy degree of scepticism regarding much of what my government does. Objectivity presumes that you could form several potentially alternative conclusions based upon an unbiased look at the facts. You have started with a final conclusion and view the facts in a way that is most supportive of your conclusion.

wOOt!

good arguement.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
......I rate the finding of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq as highly likely almost to a certainty.....
[/QUOTE]

Do you mind telling how much of Iraq is in "control" of coalition? Also, what areas did UN inspector covered and what was left?

Myvoice one statement alone. I suggest for your own benefit you speak with Old man with more respect. He is too much of a gentleman to whip your butt. I have no such problem.

Since when did AAG start speaking L337?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Myvoice one statement alone. I suggest for your own benefit you speak with Old man with more respect. He is too much of a gentleman to whip your butt. I have no such problem.

Since when did AAG start speaking L337?
[/QUOTE]

longitude or ladditude?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Inasmuch as I don't know how old you are and/or the experience that you or close family members have had in combat, I can't claim whether I have more or less experience with war than you.
[/QUOTE]

I doubt you have served in any army at all. I myself was a commissioned officer of the South African Defence Force during our squabbles in Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe.

[quote]
Nor did I indicate that I would think of any war lasting beyond three weeks as a long one.
[/quote]

Weaseling out of the corner.... Fact remains that you thought in your post it would be over in three weeks. A number of statements of your government spokespeople also now tend to use words to the effect that it will be longer than originally thought of.

[quote]
While I suspect you would deny the label, I think that only the most virulent anti-Americans around the world would even let the thought that the US would use chemical or biological weapons cross their minds.
[/quote]

Funny enough, Uranium depleted shells is a form of WMD, as is cluster bombs, as is an atom bomb, as is napalm, as is ..... AND the USA has used them all!

There is no reason for having something if you don't intend using the weapons - something akin to a robber holding up a grocery store with a gun and stating in court he wouldn't have used it.

[quote]
The sources of the atrocities being committed by Iraqi troops appear daily in most reputable media sources. I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe that the Iraqis would do these things given the verifiable and despotic acts of the Saddam regime for over 20 years.
[/quote]

I expect ANYTHING from Saddam. He is evil and committed some terrible acts. If you guys succeed, I will be the first to say "good riddance", the same I will say when you guys get a more humane president. BUT nothing has been fully verified of present so-called atrocities. One needs to be sceptical of MOST reports about the war.

[quote]
You have started with a final conclusion and view the facts in a way that is most supportive of your conclusion.
[/quote]

Nonsense. My view of the war being immoral and wrong does not cloud my view of how the war progress. It might suprise some Guppies but I believe as one of South Africa's Defence Chiefs stated: "You can't have a war and politics the same time. You either fight a war to reach a point from where you negotiate, or you go the political route." I have seen too many soldiers dead because of political interference in a war. I believe politicians have had too much a say in this war. When Bush decided to go ahead, he should have given full control to Franks to go in and get Saddam WHATEVER the cost to civilians/material. Unfortunately, Bush is trying to play as if he is still on the moral high ground - which he is not. I believe this war can be a long costly (in lives and material) war.

Welcome back young man!

Old Man:
Depleted uranium shells, napalm and cluster bombs are not generally considered WMD. As to the possible US use of any of those items, the chem suits and atropine found warehoused by the Iraqis provide no defense to any of them.

Our respective positions and arguments have been well laid out. Let's revisit this thread in another 10-14 days and see what has changed. Although I question the relevance of doing so since you have already formed your ultimate opinion of things (i.e. the US war is wrong) regardless of the way facts develop on the ground.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Old Man:
Depleted uranium shells, napalm and cluster bombs are not generally considered WMD. .....
[/QUOTE]

not considered WMD by who? US? UN? Iraqi people who are suffering from those? or you and me who have never seen/faced them and only read "reports" from US agencies?

myvoice

US wouldn't use WMD's? I suggest you read your history before swearing blindly.

Secondly, chemical suits are a norm in the war for both sides, not just Iraq. Check with your General to confirm this.

Third Paragraph from the bottom:

When daylight came, the squadron leader, a padre and a number of the troops returned to the scene to bring the body out. Chemical warfare suits had to be worn because of the threat from the depleted uranium used in the American weapons

Time to revisit the scorecard Old Man. To refresh the recollection, I earlier asked if people would admit they were wrong if certain things happened in Iraq over the coming years. They were as follows:

  1. The war is quickly over resulting in the removal of Saddam from power
  2. 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
  3. There are relatively few civilian casualties (except for those maybe inflicted by Saddam himself)
  4. Sanctions terminate quickly
  5. Malnutrition among the Iraqi children drops precipitously
  6. The Iraqi people welcome the American and UK troops as liberators with flowers in the streets
  7. Iraq’s natural resources are developed and used for the benefit of the Iraqi people
  8. Within a couple of years, a new representative government emerges in Iraq

  9. With the total collapse of the Iraqi regime in under a month, this will go down as one of the shortest wars in history. A definite yes.

  10. More and more smoke being discovered but no fire seen as yet. To early to tell. There are something like 1,000 suspected sites to search.

  11. While all civilian casualties are to be mourned, this proved to be one of the most precise military operations in history resulting in a very low number of civilian casualties. Another definite yes.

  12. It is time for the UN to act. With all the relief aid coming in right now, people are operating as if there were no sanctions. The formal lifting should occur soon.

  13. Too soon to tell. You don't end malnutrition among an entire population in a few days.

  14. The Iraqi people definitely have welcomed their liberation. A few Saddam loyalist suicide bombers notwithstanding. The US and UK MUST act quickly to get a handle on looting and establish a law enforcement presence so that they do not lose the goodwill of the Iraqi people. We'll give this a yes for now but indicate that the Iraqi reaction is still in flux and could change to more negative or more positive based upon action in the coming days and weeks.

7 & 8. These are long term measures that can't be judged for awhile. Incomplete.

**Originally posted by myvoice: *
....
2. More and more smoke being discovered but no fire seen as yet. To early to tell. There are something like 1,000 suspected sites to search.
*

Keep fingers crossed to find something, otherwise blame Saddam and Syria.

3. While all civilian casualties are to be mourned, this proved to be one of the most precise military operations in history resulting in a very low number of civilian casualties. Another definite yes.

You are talking "short term" numbers here. I hope the numbers stay where they are and don't grow because of "silver bullets" aka DU ammunition.

*4. It is time for the UN to act. With all the relief aid coming in right now, people are operating as if there were no sanctions. The formal lifting should occur soon. *

Does UN really matter? When US is already unloading its food laden trucks what do "sanctions" matter?

5. Too soon to tell. You don't end malnutrition among an entire population in a few days.

So why did you include such items here? :)

6. The Iraqi people definitely have welcomed their liberation...

Just like some people welcomed liberation, many also want to see US/coalition leave almost immediately. Time will tell how welcome is the US.
......

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**4. It is time for the UN to act. With all the relief aid coming in right now, people are operating as if there were no sanctions. The formal lifting should occur soon. *

Does UN really matter? When US is already unloading its food laden trucks what do "sanctions" matter?
[/QUOTE]

It's of symbolic importance to some. I'm sure it won't take long for someone on this board to criticize the US for violating UN sanctions against Iraq by bringing them food, water and medicine while sanctions are still technically in effect. Maybe it will be you.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
**5. Too soon to tell. You don't end malnutrition among an entire population in a few days.
*

So why did you include such items here? :)

[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you failed to notice that I included both short and long term milestones in my list. :) Many of us in America happen to believe that the long term welfare of the Iraqi people is just as important as the short term benefits associated with ridding them of Saddam. Maybe you don't think that drastically reducing malnutrition amongst the Iraqi children is a goal worth pursuing. This would certainly conform to my long held belief that many who opposed US policy toward Iraq (regardless of the form of that policy) couldn't care less about the welfare of the Iraqi people.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
**6. The Iraqi people definitely have welcomed their liberation...
*

Just like some people welcomed liberation, many also want to see US/coalition leave almost immediately. Time will tell how welcome is the US.
......
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct. That's why I indicated that Iraqi reaction is still in flux.

My my, I failed… yet again. BTW, you really believed that Iraqi children were malnutritioned all along these 12 years? :eek:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
[/QUOTE]

  1. The original expectations were for a much shorter war. I will give you ½

  2. "More and more smoke being discovered but no fire seen as yet. To early to tell." Nonsense. The USA claimed to have all sites at hand. You get zero. Smoke proves nothing.

  3. "While all civilian casualties are to be mourned, this proved to be one of the most precise military operations." I have to agree. Full marks!

  4. "It is time for the UN to act." The UN and governments are slow acting machineries. Laws need to be changed. I don't foresee much improvement quickly. The same happened to South Africa. We have certain laws from countries being repealed even to date. Zero thus far - I will give you 3 months for it to be "quickly".

  5. "Too soon to tell." We might not live to be able to tell, it might take as long. The country and industry might be so damaged and with the uncertain political future, this might take years. Up front I will give you a zero since the whole population presently have a much worse situation with poor quality water/food. This might change to your favour (let's hope).

  6. "The Iraqi people definitely have welcomed their liberation." You must be either blind/dumb/stupid (sorry if I seem harsh). It seems very clear to me that just a few people welcomed the troops with open arms. There is presently much unrest and demonstrations and most of the people want to see the backside of the troops and return to Iraqi control. Zero points.

  7. You are too modest. The Iraqi oil resources will be developed to pay the USA companies building up what the USA troops destroyed. I actually expect this to be a priority for the interim USA government and will give you full marks beforehand.

  8. Here we will just have to wait and see. Right now it doesn't look good for a stable regime what with everyone positioning himself for power. I think the USA will have to play a much longer role than what they anticipated.

Thus far 2½/6 i.e. 42% success.

Just being more objective than any USA supporter...... :)

Old Man:
You've either been watching too much Al Jazeera or listening too much to the former Iraqi Information Minister in your assessment of the Iraqi reception to US liberation. :) While my glasses are a little thick, I can see. My profession requires speaking so I am not dumb. As to stupid, over the course of my life I've been accused of that and worse so no offense taken. But when the little tykes like nothing better than to hang out with the marines when they are not playing amongst the RPGs and ammo piles abandoned by Saddam's Republican Guard, I think that's a pretty good welcome. As to there being unrest after the fall of Saddam, well .... duh.

Further, giving a 1/2 point for the shortest war in history is a little harsh.

So, as to things that could have occured by now, we get 3 out of 5 or 60%. When sanctions get lifted soon, it's 4 out of 5. If WMD are found, it's 100% with the possibility of losing a point if the Iraqi people somehow change their attitude about liberation.

Long term, we'll just have to see. Reconstruction and insuring that liberation does not become occupation present difficult challenges.

As before, I'll revisit the scorecard in another 10 days or so.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
You've either been watching too much Al Jazeera or listening too much to the former Iraqi Information Minister in your assessment of the Iraqi reception to US liberation.....

Further, giving a 1/2 point for the shortest war in history is a little harsh....

Long term, we'll just have to see. Reconstruction and insuring that liberation does not become occupation present difficult challenges.

[/QUOTE]

No Al-Jazeera available. Only South African news with newsmen at the scene in Baghdad from start. They might also be a little more objective that Pro-USA and pro-Iraqi newspeople as the South African newscorps nowadays (post-Apartheid) are painfully aware of being neutral.

The shortest war I think was the 6-day one Israel had in routing the Egypt and Arab nations. There might be others. The half-a-point is because of the expectations not made. I agree that it was a very short war otherwise. Sorry, no three-quarter points available. :)

Might only be worth your while to visit in about a month. I don't foresee much changes being done quickly from now on (might be wrong).

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *

  1. The original expectations were for a much shorter war. I will give you ½

[/QUOTE]

"Original expectations" were shorter than THREE WEEKS?

Please pass me some of what you're smokin'.

:)

I can't bring myself to read the rest of this...