 |
| |
|
|
Zylka
|
|
...and admittance that their governments have done the world a humanitarian favour? These are the factors about as universally valued in importance that I could think up of.
First, relevant statistics to site:
I need you to help me fill them in, ASAP!
-Iraqi Army contained * troops mobilized (at the start of the war)
-Allied Army contained * troops situated to attack Iraq
-Population of Iraq is near 25 million
-Population of Bagdhad is near 5 million (where most civilian deaths are expected to occur)
Your oppinion:
1 -Number of Iraqi soldiers killed (includes armed civilians hostile to US troops):
2 -Number of allied soldiers killed:
3 -Number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed:
4 -Number of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered:
5 -Percentage of the above who immediately sought surrender (not those captured after participating in willing battle):
6 -Percentage of the newly "liberated" national population who admit that they hated the oppressive regime:
7 -Percentage of the Iraqi population that are thankful the US invaded, and how things have (so far) ended up after the conflict:
*Please recommended anything important I may have missed. Whatever values you believe need to be added may come up with a few universal ones, as well as those to be debated
I'm dead serious here, as I'm not yet of convinced opinion that this war is going to end up pretty. Yet I hope and pray daily that co-operation speeds the conclusion up, so that Bush might laughignly prove to the world that he knows what he's doing. Now that last biased comment will of course turn some of you off (this isn't about Bush!), but if you'll go to the trouble to show you can admit to being wrong in calling for peace with Iraq - you have my respect.
I did a thread on this regarding world populations and governments, but that is a little confusing a set of answers to arrive at... our own minds aren't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Or, the number of Sunni Ba'athists who'd peacefully step away from their positions of authority to be replaced by Shia democracy. |
If it's not peaceful - that is their ridiculous choice, and may be included in Iraqi soldier casualites. Although I'm not read up on this currently planned switch in government, isn't the process democratic?
quote:
Or, the number of Iraqis who'd elect an Iran-friendly government. |
Another population having free will to choose what they want in government? What's Democracy again?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
If it's not peaceful - that is their ridiculous choice, and may be included in Iraqi soldier casualites. Although I'm not read up on this currently planned switch in government, isn't the process democratic? |
There is no currently planned switch in government. The point is that if there's democracy in Iraq, there'll be a huge civil war with many times more casualties than this war will bring. Of course, I doubt there'll actually be democracy in Iraq, and we'll probably just hand over power to a Sunni Ba'athist general.
quote:
Another population having free will to choose what they want in government? What's Democracy again? |
Again, the point of that was to demonstrate that there won't be democracy in Iraq.
quote:
Percentage of the Iraqi population that are thankful the US invaded, and how things have (so far) ended up after the conflict: |
Not just after, but a few years after. Things don't happen instantaneously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
If the US is actually in this for democracy and human rights, then it absolutely ought to support an independent Kurdistan. They've been victims of ethnic cleansing from everyone in the region - Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. They clearly want to be independent.
And yes, Northern Iraq, where the Kurds live, is autonomous due to the no fly zones. Not "officially" though. Of course Turkey bombs 'em everyone once in a while ("to hunt down terrorists"). |
I agree that free Kurdistan is needed, but I wonder how autonomous they actually are right now? The no fly zones takes care of care of the iraqi bombings - wouldn't they have any ground troops there to be oppressing them up until the end of the war? If so, post war iraq wouldn't dare touch them physically - and things couldn't possibly be made worse. Or is this a demilitarized zone as well?
I guess the question all comes down to whether or not life becomes worse for the kurds after the war - and you're implying it will?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
So this does rest on whether or not they will set up a moderate regime eventually leading towards democracy, at least one that is far worse than Saddam. I don't really see a massive civil war possible even after a well structured occupation force slowly moves out, but it could be possible.
In the end, would you say that life will indeed progressively become better in Iraq after the war? The current questions lean towards those who made the main argument that the war itself would be the big humanitarian crime, so a fallback on whether or not the new set up will make for a better life seems a big problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
The no fly zones takes care of care of the iraqi bombings - wouldn't they have any ground troops there to be oppressing them up until the end of the war? |
No. The no-fly zones were implemented to insure no Iraqi air superiority, so they couldn't take back the North. And they never have.
quote:
If so, post war iraq wouldn't dare touch them physically - and things couldn't possibly be made worse. |
Why wouldn't post-war Iraq touch them? And my main worry if the Kurds don't accept Iraqi domination, is Turkish, not Iraqi, invasion, and Turkey of course is one of the US' most important allies.
quote:
I guess the question all comes down to whether or not life becomes worse for the kurds after the war - and you're implying it will? |
No doubt about it. For most of the other people, it'll probably be about the same, but could be considerably worse - if the civil war scenario takes place, and Islamists hijack the Shia side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
With your mentioned planned set up of the Kurds answering to Baghdad, I HIGHLY doubt they would do something so idiotic as to start killing them again... or the USA just comes back and says, "hey guys! Remember us? Yeah, well... we kind of liberated your people! Care to stop the genocide against your minorities before we do it again?"
What are the chances Turkey claims occupation over the Kurds once the dust settles? Isn't this absolutely against the current US post war plan? Because if it is, and Turkey defies it... We'll have a humorous and quick desert war to watch when this is over. The US will not take backsided bullsh*t, from even the richest of the poor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
So this does rest on whether or not they will set up a moderate regime eventually leading towards democracy, at least one that is far worse than Saddam. |
What I personally think we should do would compromise the US' strategic position and lose our allies in the region - defend an independent Kurdistan, get rid of the Ba'athists totally and completely, and implement a real democracy. That's the only way I think we'll see that would lead to a substantial improvement in human rights. Of course, it won't happen.
quote:
I don't really see a massive civil war possible even after a well structured occupation force slowly moves out, but it could be possible. |
I again ask you how many of the Sunni Ba'athists in power will peacefully give it up?
quote:
In the end, would you say that life will indeed progressively become better in Iraq after the war? |
Depends entirely upon what happens. It could eventually be better, and it could also be considerably worse and turn into another Lebanon.
quote:
The current questions lean towards those who made the main argument that the war itself would be the big humanitarian crime, so a fallback on whether or not the new set up will make for a better life seems a big problem. |
Since a war against Iraq first became an issue for Shrub, I have been against it because I didn't trust him with handling the post-war situation properly. There hasn't been a fallback.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
I didn't accuse you of using the fallback, but I'm of mind that most were happy with a regime change but didn't think the casualties of war would be worth it. That's the survey form in a nutshell
So the US is setting up a Sunni led government which by percentages sounds ridiculous, why does this exclude the majority Shias population, exactly?
edit: just found out that Sunnis are indeed a minority, just the largest one. You say they won't eventually embrace democracy as they lose a lotta clout at the polls (percentage wise), and so a clusterf*ck of the the smaller Shias and like sized minorities breaks out in civil war? Tricky indeed, but a stable environment ready for democracy will come after a few years, I believe. It's just how long, and whether or not occupation/rebuilding forces can do it right
Last edited by Zylka on 23-03-2003 at 16:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, this thread is ruined. Kinda sad, really; I'm always interested to see how Z's serious threads turn out...  |
Nah, it'll be revised for those we love sometime tommorrow. Problem here is the immediate success of the war and the following structure of a new Iraq are two totally different considerations.
Most around here admitted they'd like to see Saddam replaced, but SCREAMED that war would bring too much death to justify it. If the legendary 500, 000 lives figure is a monolith of a lie in the end, these cowards can unfortunately fall back and say it was really the forced regime change they opposed.
You see, some love the idea of national sovereignty to no end; readily admitting leaders are committing horrible crimes, yet defending their rights of power over the people they committ them on. Comically enough, these people also believe an outside nation seeking to stop these horrific oppressions with its own use of force is committing a humanitarian crime. (Here's a tip - never go to coffee with your friend if his Serbian buddies are going to be there [and no, he isn't at all a complete nutcase like his friends  ]
Others see doubt in post war restructuring of a better life, which is a fair and responsible consideration. Problem is, very few of them frequent here.
IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
Most around here admitted they'd like to see Saddam replaced, but SCREAMED that war would bring too much death to justify it. If the legendary 500, 000 lives figure is a monolith of a lie in the end, these cowards can unfortunately fall back and say it was really the forced regime change they opposed.
You see, some love the idea of national sovereignty to no end; readily admitting leaders are committing horrible crimes, yet defending their rights of power over the people they committ them on. Comically enough, these people also believe an outside nation seeking to stop these horrific oppressions with its own use of force is committing a humanitarian crime. (Here's a tip - never go to coffee with your friend if his Serbian buddies are going to be there [and no, he isn't at all a complete nutcase like his friends ] |
Ah yes, the demonisation of your opponents, the ridiculous painting of a rhetorical caricature, the intentional omission of details, the obfuscation of the lack of any real meaning by use of tortured English, and the wanton committing of logical fallicies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
I intend to admit I was wrong if the following ensures :
- minimal casualties. Civilian casualties bother me more, but I also hope there will be minimal casualties within US/UK and Iraqi troops. Should the surrender tactics not work, and should the war be a slaughter between the militaries, I wouldn't be eager to apologize.
Casualties due to illnesses or famine will be accounted for in my appreciaition of the war.
I'm opposing the war mostly because I fear it'll turn out in tens of thousands dead. If the US/UK manage to prove my pessimistic views false, I'll thank them.
In short, minimal casualties is the biggest element in the balance.
- not letting Civilians believe they can now revolt against Saddam, and letting them being destroyed by the army, for the sake of a rebellious city not being "a military target". In short, no Warsaw. It is a new element, but I fear many Civilians will be killed in Basra, now that it isn't a "military target" anymore 
- AngloAmerican troops treating the Iraqis with respect, and not behave "like in conquered land" (French saying, which expresses how people behave when they see the lack of opposition the 'welcoming' population can show against them - it often applies to tourists or invading troops)
In short, no bigotry, no proselytism, no disrespect, not too much flag waving because "the Iraqis should be thankful". I have been very pleased at the order not to replace the Iraqi flag by an American flag in Um Qasr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was it for the short term thanks.
I willingly do not implement the joy of the Iraqi people at the sight of American troops nearby, because we'll only get pictures of it (most will thank the US to have ousted Saddam, and the few pictures of angered Iraqis will simply not fit).
Now, even if I could have thanks to the US/UK if the military campaign goes well, I will be able to retract them if the reconstruction is botched. I value most :
- Most importantly, I will judge about the hate in the Arab countries against the US. My strongest long-term fear in this issue is the raised terrorist threat, because of a raise in the population's antiamericaism (which will fuel terrorism with more money and more manpower).
I do not want another Sept. 11 happening, and I fear the general direction of the Bush admin is only making it more likely. I hope the Arabs will think "look how much good they have done to the Iraqis" but I strongly doubt it. But if they are successful, kudos !
- A good economic reconstruction is very important. Iraq has a big economic potential, with its water, its agricultural possibilities, its oil fields. A quick reconstrcution of the agriculture, to avoid Iraq being dependent of foreign countries (the US  ) for its food, should be the priority.
- establishing a supported regime in Iraq. The puppet regime must convince the Iraqis it is way better than the former, and that it is useless to fight for the interests of their faction (in short, no civil war, no looming civil war). The US/UK should give their puppet government some leeway not to support their interests always to avoid open struggle. In the past, American puppet regimes were terrible because of their paranoia against the commies. I hope the new puppet will not be paranoid against the islamists, otherwise it could become ugly.
- Hvaing a long term goal of Democracy and Independance in Iraq, and taking action for these goals. If the US want to install a puppet regime that'll serve its interests as long as possible, making Iraq dependant on the US (for food, for contractors, for military protection etc.) can only lead to a disaster IMHO.
Those were the long term thanks. If the US/UK manage to do this, no matter how imperialistic this war was, you can expect me to shout "YAY Hawks !" in the forum if I'm still around here at that time.
I am currently hoping the US/UK armies, albeit doing the wrong thing (an imperialistic war) are doing it right, with minimal casualties and maximal respect for the Iraqis. They seem to really want to do it right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Ah yes, the demonisation of your opponents, the ridiculous painting of a rhetorical caricature, the intentional omission of details, the obfuscation of the lack of any real meaning by use of tortured English, and the wanton committing of logical fallicies. |
You know... that candle you used to burn - really cried a thousand poets anguish for the people of the Western tortured world. Care putting it back up?
I don't know what specific category of opposition to the war you were in, but I believe it included the 500, 000 casualty claim. I'm expecting an apology at least for that, and we'll figure out more by analyzing a few of your always insightful and well respected "THE US WANTS FREE REIGN OVER THE WORLDS SAND" type past fears.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I intend to admit I was wrong if the following ensures :
- minimal casualties. Civilian casualties bother me more, but I also hope there will be minimal casualties within US/UK and Iraqi troops. Should the surrender tactics not work, and should the war be a slaughter between the militaries, I wouldn't be eager to apologize.
Casualties due to illnesses or famine will be accounted for in my appreciaition of the war.
I'm opposing the war mostly because I fear it'll turn out in tens of thousands dead. If the US/UK manage to prove my pessimistic views false, I'll thank them.
In short, minimal casualties is the biggest element in the balance.
- not letting Civilians believe they can now revolt against Saddam, and letting them being destroyed by the army, for the sake of a rebellious city not being "a military target". In short, no Warsaw. It is a new element, but I fear many Civilians will be killed in Basra, now that it isn't a "military target" anymore
- AngloAmerican troops treating the Iraqis with respect, and not behave "like in conquered land" (French saying, which expresses how people behave when they see the lack of opposition the 'welcoming' population can show against them - it often applies to tourists or invading troops)
In short, no bigotry, no proselytism, no disrespect, not too much flag waving because "the Iraqis should be thankful". I have been very pleased at the order not to replace the Iraqi flag by an American flag in Um Qasr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was it for the short term thanks.
I willingly do not implement the joy of the Iraqi people at the sight of American troops nearby, because we'll only get pictures of it (most will thank the US to have ousted Saddam, and the few pictures of angered Iraqis will simply not fit).
Now, even if I could have thanks to the US/UK if the military campaign goes well, I will be able to retract them if the reconstruction is botched. I value most :
- Most importantly, I will judge about the hate in the Arab countries against the US. My strongest long-term fear in this issue is the raised terrorist threat, because of a raise in the population's antiamericaism (which will fuel terrorism with more money and more manpower).
I do not want another Sept. 11 happening, and I fear the general direction of the Bush admin is only making it more likely. I hope the Arabs will think "look how much good they have done to the Iraqis" but I strongly doubt it. But if they are successful, kudos !
- A good economic reconstruction is very important. Iraq has a big economic potential, with its water, its agricultural possibilities, its oil fields. A quick reconstrcution of the agriculture, to avoid Iraq being dependent of foreign countries (the US ) for its food, should be the priority.
- establishing a supported regime in Iraq. The puppet regime must convince the Iraqis it is way better than the former, and that it is useless to fight for the interests of their faction (in short, no civil war, no looming civil war). The US/UK should give their puppet government some leeway not to support their interests always to avoid open struggle. In the past, American puppet regimes were terrible because of their paranoia against the commies. I hope the new puppet will not be paranoid against the islamists, otherwise it could become ugly.
- Hvaing a long term goal of Democracy and Independance in Iraq, and taking action for these goals. If the US want to install a puppet regime that'll serve its interests as long as possible, making Iraq dependant on the US (for food, for contractors, for military protection etc.) can only lead to a disaster IMHO.
Those were the long term thanks. If the US/UK manage to do this, no matter how imperialistic this war was, you can expect me to shout "YAY Hawks !" in the forum if I'm still around here at that time.
I am currently hoping the US/UK armies, albeit doing the wrong thing (an imperialistic war) are doing it right, with minimal casualties and maximal respect for the Iraqis. They seem to really want to do it right. |
Putting your balls out to such degree is class 
The humanitarian outcome of the war itself is what I've gauged, which would make for severe ass kissing from a good portion of this forums critics if answered truthfully.
Obviously enough, a functionally restructured Iraq will be of issue years down the road. I personally have faith that the occupational forces will secure a better life for the Iraqi people almost immediately, but am uneasy at the prospects of introducing democracy; how long before it is stable to work.
Anti war people: Is "the devil you know" your case, or do you trust the western world to rebuild a BETTER Iraq?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When UN tried something like that last time, i.e., making new countries, it ended up in a really bloody mess.
There's no gaurantee that Turkey and/or Iraq will just move armies into the place even if the UN agrees to such an endeavour. |
What odds are you willing to place on either of those scenarios? You honestly think they would do something that incredibly suicidal - ESPECIALLY a twice crushed Iraq? I agree that there is no guarantee as well... somewhere along the same lines that there is no guarantee space maggots will do it instead.
Ok, enough heckling. Seriously though, what likelihood would you give to your situation? I tend not to cite possible scenarios as argument without a good 1:5 at the very most. Anything else seems like fear mongering to push ones own argument
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaakko
Zylka's been hitting the needle again... |
You won't be able to salvage too much dignity saying those things when the people of Iraq are cheering US soldier arrivals, you wacky guy!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaakko
Zylka's been hitting the needle again... |
On second look... you know, that personal insult hurt. Calling me an IV junkie isn't a fair thing to do, especially considering I've never touched a needle in my life. My wonderful uncle died of an IV od, so I must also thank you for stirring those memories.
Anyway, I've been saving this personal insult out of respect - but someone in chat told me you were caught having sexual intercourse with a dog when you were young?
Looks like Jaako's been ****ing his dog again...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Ahhhh c'mon... the low economic class, filthy Ruso man who thinks Iraqs population actually supports the regime doesn't want to play the game he started?
As a Serb who was probably thrilled with Milos genocides, I imagine you think Saddam is just as great a guy when gassing Kurds?
tehehehe!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
Now a crackhead insult! |
Insult? Here on Poly, I heard thousand times how people ask each other "what are you smoking?". If you consideer this is an insult, perhaps it's because you are really smoke something illegal.
quote:
Must I say I really hate your pasty, bent nosed ugly piece of shlt? Serbians are the poor filth of Europe and should be kicked out of participation on world politics as soon as possible. |
 I wounder where moderators are, when you need them?
Zylka, thanks for sharing your point of view with me. Great aproach. You know, Hitler had the same view on issue.
quote:
Jesus, you really think the Iraqi people loved Saddam? |
Jesus, do you really think Iraqi people cheers American soldiers?
quote:
Ah well... Serbs are USUALLY the lowly immigrants of the world, you can't expect much. You are really poor too, right? Figures  |
Living few years in Canada didn't make you a Canadian yet. You're still a Polish drug addicted biatch.
And one more thing. I realize that such talented people as you are just unable to understand some things from first try. I've said it many times personaly for you, but I'll make one more and this time final try:
I'M NOT SERBIAN AND DO NOT HAVE ANY SERBIAN HERITAGE. I'M RUSSIAN. R U S S I A N, FROM S I B E R I A, not SERBIA
.
I'm wasting my time.
Last edited by Serb on 23-03-2003 at 19:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2003 14:56
] - so just why are their claims just under a fresh new government?
|