13-12-2002 21:14									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

The USSR was a Russian Empire David...

And the Russians, while not the imperical force it once was, had an empire hundreds of years before the constitution was written.

	13-12-2002 21:15									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The USSR was a Russian Empire David...

Either I misunderstood him or you did. Probably I did, but oh well.

	13-12-2002 21:21									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sava,

Apples and oranges. As a government the USSR was far shorter lived the Democratic experiment called the US. regardless of territory claimed the thing David was talking about I beleive is the government in power. In that, the US is one of the older nations of the world.

Now if you want to talk on an ethnical basis thats a different story as the US is a bunch of mutts.

	13-12-2002 21:23									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ah, I see... I was thinking more in terms of the cultural identity of the nation rather than the actual form of government.

	13-12-2002 21:28									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Serb, erm, the Soviet Union was a far younger state than the US. If you mean RUSSIA is older than the US, that's fine, but Russia and the USSR aren't the same, as I'm sure you know

Just a diferent name, but the same meaning- old, good Russian Empire, no matter how it calls- Rus, Russian Empire, Soviet Union or Russian Federation
I though you were sleeping. Seen any nighmares? about me perhaps?

	13-12-2002 21:44									#36
	Re: would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea Remove this text

I especially like these lines:

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Saddam is very evil and has made it clear he hates Americans and wants top take over the middle east. We'd have to fight him eventually

Ok, Saddam is most likely evil and certainly hates the US, but can you explain to me when and how he's made it clear he wants to take over the ME and why we (meaning the US/west in general) would have to fight him eventually?

Everything seems to point to Saddam willing to do anything necessary to stay in power. Beyond that, there's nothing to point to him plotting to take over the ME.

	13-12-2002 21:47									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

Personally, I think the United States is more a threat to world peace than Saddam is.

	13-12-2002 21:55									#38
	Re: Re: would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki but can you explain to me when and how he's made it clear he wants to take over the ME

Well irredentism does have a long history in Iraq dating back to before the rise of Saddam and he has tried to carry on with that tradition.

	13-12-2002 22:06									#39
	Re: Re: Re: would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Well irredentism does have a long history in Iraq dating back to before the rise of Saddam and he has tried to carry on with that tradition.

That's iffy at best. I suppose you could claim that Saddam invaded Kuwait because historically it had been part of Iraq, or that some small parts of modern Iran were likewise, but I think there's far more compelling explainations. For Kuwait, his primary interest was his massive debt owed to that state, coupled with claims of cross-drilling under the border and a small measure of displeasure over the price of oil. That Kuwait was once a part of Iraq was a bonus. If that were the main reason, why would he have waited until he did?

Regardless, Kuwait and a few miles of Iranian territory, which is basically a non-issue now, is hardly the whole ME.

	13-12-2002 22:10									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Invading Iraq is, IMO, a bad idea.

However, considering that the US government has painted itself into a corner on the issue where it either eventually nails Saddam or loses face in a big way, the changes of it happening remain pretty good (say 50%).

If it does happen, I don't worry so much about the actual fighting as the aftermath. The only post-invasion plan I see as having a silver lining is an Iraqi Marshall Plan, and that: a) is extremely expensive, b) is time consuming, and c) requires a large number of occupation troops. Given the current administration's dislike of nation-building and the current US economic situation, I don't see the Bush administration going for that type of plan. The war itself would cost a pretty penny too. So I worry that if there is a war, we'll just pick some general, hand him Iraq, and bail.

-Arrian

	13-12-2002 22:31									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere...,859477,00.html

quote: They had a dramatic and immediate effect on a country used to £8.8bn in annual oil revenue. Over the next five years Iraq plummeted back down the development scale. The health and education system crumbled. Water provision and sanitation dried up and child mortality soared. In 1996 the Oil for Food agreement allowed Iraq to sell limited quantities of oil to buy strictly monitored humanitarian and medical provisions. The decline in health, water and sanitation conditions has been slowly halted. But Iraq's large, well-educated and affluent middle class has been so deeply eroded it has never recovered. "The sanctions damaged the culture of Iraq. It took away our contact with the outside world," said Mr Hadad. "The whole of our society has been affected." In the early 1990s across Iraq bright young students dropped out of universities to find work as taxi drivers or waiters. Teachers and doctors are now paid barely dollars 10 a month. Most have given up work. Aid workers are now concerned the vast majority of the Iraqi population is much more vulnerable to a potential conflict than it was before the Gulf War in 1991. Many Iraqis rely on cheap government rations every month but their diets are limited. If there is an attack Iraq's limited electricity supply will almost certainly grind to a halt, affecting water and sanitation plants. "Immunity levels are very low. The rations may stop if the government is unable to function. A war will have a devastating effect. There is no cushion for the Iraqi population," said Margaret Hassan, a Briton who has lived in Iraq for nearly 30 years and who now runs the office of Care International, one of the few aid agencies operating in the country.

Well this is the reason why the invasion is wrong. And from your own perspective it will multiply the number of people who will be willing to die to harm US/west in any possible way.

	13-12-2002 23:05									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The US and NATO are the only militaries to issue NV gear force wide

ahem.

	13-12-2002 23:24									#43
	Support Apolyton

The great danger of invading Iraq is not military: the US mlitary would beat the Iraqi army, without question: though at a higher cost than Gulf War 1, which was very low anyway. The great problem is political. We have no vision for Iraq the day after, and every optimistic assumption for the invasion envisions us fighting only the Iraqi army, without the possibiliy of popular resistance. The problem is that without a clear political vision for Iraq, the danges of armed resistance grow, and Israel's experience in the Occupied territories should be a great example of how even a first class military has great problems with low level violence, since all those fancy gadget begin to mean less and less. The US can't afford politically any significant popular resistance to our occupation of Iraq. The political cost to the US in the Arab world, and even at home, would be tremendous.

Everyone says Iraqi's will not fight for Saddam. Fine, but what will we offer them after Saddam? Read the newspapers: we have no one waiting in line, and the Iraqi opposition has already stated that an occupation government of Iraq is not an option they will accet, and I highly doubt it is one the Iraqi people will accept. And for those people who think: who cares, we will make them: look at the occupied territories. Do you really think the US public would accept pictures of Iraqis throwing stones at US soldiers and shooting at them, with US soldiers shoting back and then ask: "what the hell is going on, and why the hell shall we stay, if they don' want us there?". After all, Israel has a far greater interest in staying in the West Bank than we will ever have to stay in Iraq.

	13-12-2002 23:40									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

They would fight against you, but not for Saddam. They would fight, because you are invaders for them, a strangers, a representatives of different religion and absolutely different culture, the world's Satan at last
I don't see how you guys gonna hold Iraq for years without causalities from your side. There is no proxy army who will do all dirty work for you this time. I highly doubt it could be Kurds. Who will oppress resistance? I bet there will be very strong resistance even if you'll destroy regular military and completely occupy Iraq.
So, how you gonna hold it?

	13-12-2002 23:42									#45
	Got spare money?

Iraq isn't Afghanistan, Serb. Stop trying to fight the last war.

	13-12-2002 23:48									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I’m talking about the same. There is no strong opposition to Saddam in Iraq, like Northern Alliance in Afghanistan opposed the Taliban. With whom you gonna replace Saddam? Which proxy army will hold this territory for you/ I don’t see such force in Iraq. Perhaps you know?

	13-12-2002 23:56									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Why don't we kick North Korea's ass instead? Wouldn't it be more fun, and we could just extend Seoul's authority northward thereby eliminating the whole "future lackey" problem?

	13-12-2002 23:58									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel ahem.

Well, the US and it's top allies. How's that?

I'm sure the Aussies and Kiwis probably give their guys NV also.

	14-12-2002 00:04									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Why don't we kick North Korea's ass instead? Wouldn't it be more fun, and we could just extend Seoul's authority northward thereby eliminating the whole "future lackey" problem?

Because without full Japanese and S.Korea agreement (and Chinese aquiecense) such a war is impossible, and since Tokyo is within nuclear tipped missile range, and Seoul within 11,000 pieces of artillery range, neither of those states will go into such a war withou massive DPRK provocation.

	14-12-2002 00:05									#50
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Why don't we kick North Korea's ass instead? Wouldn't it be more fun, and we could just extend Seoul's authority northward thereby eliminating the whole "future lackey" problem?

Without nuking NK, there's no way the US could fight NK without an all out military draft. North Korea has a 3 million man standing army, plus a more modern military force than Iraq, and they have nuclear weapons (according to BBC reports on NPR). If the US started a war with NK, you can bet Seoul and Tokyo would glow in the dark.

	14-12-2002 00:15									#51
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

People keep looking at all these issues simply from a military point of view but Clausewitz was correct: war is politics by other means. Winning a war does not only mean beating an army: it means remaking the political map in your favor. The type of war the US is envisioning in Iraq by itself does ntohing to make the map of the ME more US friendly. The occupation aftre the war is the key period to any Iraq operation, and that is the bit no one is thinking of. The Allies were trying to put together post war plans in ww2 by 1943, almost 2 years before full military victory. Our war in Iraq will take about 4 weeks, and yet we have no worthwhile plans for a future Iraq as is. That is our Achilles heel, and where this whole little enterprise might flounder and come back to bite us in the ass bigtime later on. Until the Bushies come up with a worthwhile political map for AS +1 (After Saddam) I think this comming war (and it is coming) is a terrible mistake.

	14-12-2002 00:20									#52
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Why don't we kick North Korea's ass instead? Wouldn't it be more fun, and we could just extend Seoul's authority northward thereby eliminating the whole "future lackey" problem?

Why not Cuba- they have cigars? Why not South Africa- they have diamonds? Why not Saudi Arbia- they have oil? Oh wait a minute you'll take oil from Iraq. On the other hand there is no such thing as unnecessary oil, right?
What North Korea could give you, except troubles?

	14-12-2002 01:09									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap People keep looking at all these issues simply from a military point of view but Clausewitz was correct: war is politics by other means. Winning a war does not only mean beating an army: it means remaking the political map in your favor. The type of war the US is envisioning in Iraq by itself does ntohing to make the map of the ME more US friendly. The occupation aftre the war is the key period to any Iraq operation, and that is the bit no one is thinking of. The Allies were trying to put together post war plans in ww2 by 1943, almost 2 years before full military victory. Our war in Iraq will take about 4 weeks, and yet we have no worthwhile plans for a future Iraq as is. That is our Achilles heel, and where this whole little enterprise might flounder and come back to bite us in the ass bigtime later on. Until the Bushies come up with a worthwhile political map for AS +1 (After Saddam) I think this comming war (and it is coming) is a terrible mistake.

You know, you're really going to have to stop saying things I agree with. You can say the same about Afghanistan, as well, or just a general lack of foreign policy vision in the Bush administration.

	14-12-2002 01:16									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sava Without nuking NK, there's no way the US could fight NK without an all out military draft. North Korea has a 3 million man standing army, plus a more modern military force than Iraq, and they have nuclear weapons (according to BBC reports on NPR). If the US started a war with NK, you can bet Seoul and Tokyo would glow in the dark.

No draft would be necessary - that 3 million man army is more a paper force, and can't sustain ops in the field.

Seoul would not be a target for a nuke, since there's plenty of tube and rocket artillery dug into the NK side of the DMZ that could obliterate Seoul anyway.

The real problem with invasion is the terrain, and the lack of any worthwhile objective other than regime change. It's simply not worth the cost, since Kim ain't going anywhere.

	14-12-2002 06:28									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I disagree with Sava-I believe that Iraq is more of a threat to world peace. I think the US has done a lot more peacekeeping than Iraq. Who's trying to build WOMD? Who hailed a day where thousands of innocent people died as a great day? Who supports terrorism? Who completely hates a country with all of its hundreds of millions of habitants?

	14-12-2002 09:07									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Iraq isn't Afghanistan, Serb. Stop trying to fight the last war.

The US puppet over there isn't doing exactly well.

	14-12-2002 09:10									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Who's trying to build WOMD?

Yeah, who? Who has the biggest stockpile of CBN weapons? Should the US go after that country?

Wait a minute, that'd civil war.

	14-12-2002 09:18									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Who hailed a day where thousands of innocent people died as a great day?

*cough*Nagasaki*cough*

	14-12-2002 09:24									#59
	Support Apolyton

hey johnmcleod, allow me to knock you off your pedastal...

What's the only country to use the atomic bomb?
What country percipitated the nuclear arms race?
What country possesses the most nuclear weapons?
What country sells the most arms?
What country pushed for sanctions in Iraq that has led to the deaths of nearly 600,000 Iraqis since 1998?
What country is pressing for war in Iraq, Iran, and now North Korea?

hmmm.... and Iraq is a bigger threat to world peace?

	14-12-2002 10:04									#60
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Two quibbles, Sava. Your first, second, third and fourth points are fine. But your last two are unfair:

1) accurate figures on Iraqi suffering brought about by sanctions (indirectly in my opinion, in that Saddam bears primary responsibility for it) are pretty much impossible to come by. Where did you get the figure of 600K?
2) Pressing for war with Iraq? Absolutely. Pressing for war with Iran and NK? No. Labeling them evil? Yes. Is that stupid? Yes. But you exaggerate, as usual.

-Arrian