To have an "is it worth it" argument is hard because noone can agree on what the human costs of the war will be. Some anti-war ranters have talked glibly about hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed in the war. That's pretty preposterous. Civilian casualties, I would say, would be unlikely to climb above the low thousands.
However, UN reports have said that around 1.5 million deaths from hunger and disease could well result, as the Food for Oil scheme has been terminated, and many parts of the country are reliant on this aid, and other Iraqi government-controlled schemes, now disrupted.
To add to the problem, the US is adamantly opposed the UN being in control of the post-war reconstruction, despite frantic lobbying from the British government. This could prove rather embarrassing for Mr Blair, with his repeated arguments that by backing the US the UK can have a say in the reconstruction. And major aid organisations like Oxfam have said that they will not provide aid if the US is in charge.
And has the UN received the paltry $120 million it has asked from member states for its own aid agencies for Iraq yet? Of course not. There's no end to the billions available for bombing, but scraping together a few lousy million for aid? The best hope seems to be that Iraq will be paying for its own reconstruction (and possibly destruction) from future oil revenues <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(it's not about oil)</span> - but of course the USA has already unilaterally started handing out the contracts for this to its own companies.
Whatever, we have to think medium-to-long term. The actual casualties during the war are likely to be minimal. It's what happens next we have to worry about. Particularly as the world's powers and media have a notoriously short attention span. The USA rapidly forgot about Afghanistan once it had started on Iraq. The Iraqis had better hope that the USA doesn't start on North Korea too soon.
I find myself as a strange bedfellow of KMO - not often that this happens! His points are quite excellent and true as of right now. I am inclined to think that US post-war efforts in Iraq are going to be much more intense than in afghanistan (although people seem to think that fixing a country that is basically in the 8th century is something that will occur overnight - everyone should read about 25,000 female teachers being allowed to go to school for the first time as an example of the wave of reforms there instead of quoting vague 'nothing has been done' points on Afghans). It's pretty obvious that Iraq will fund much of its recovery itself, but considering its far underutilized oil capacity (due to embargoes and oil-for-food programs) this will likely work out ok in the long run.
When all is said and done, people are going to have to decide if Iraq was better off before or after the war. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the former, and this is what is going to tick off the often-pathetic modern inheritors of the true Left that fought fascism in the past... But I'm a patient guy.
Seeing you are using big bucks on this war, couldn't you kill Saddam without risking the civilians? With assasins maybe? I bet some greedy Iraq general would be more than happy to get rid of Saddam and his heir to get a reward of 200million dollars or so. Then you could naturally go as ambassadors of peace and help Iraq to get new lead, which probably wouldn't be as bad as Saddam nor USAs puppet government.
Or am I being naive here and must everything be solved with bombs and lead?
I think the hard part is convincing the assassin that he has any chance of living more than 5 seconds after accomplishing his mission. Saddam doesn't like to stand out on balconies and wave to the crowds anymore, so earth penetrating bombs seems to be the only way. if some greedy general pops a few caps in his ****, the bodyguards will have the assassin breathing through his neck moments later...
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the hard part is convincing the assassin that he has any chance of living more than 5 seconds after accomplishing his mission. Saddam doesn't like to stand out on balconies and wave to the crowds anymore, so earth penetrating bombs seems to be the only way. if some greedy general pops a few caps in his ****, the bodyguards will have the assassin breathing through his neck moments later... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is, that the greedy general has army behind his back, and probably after Saddam and his closest guards are dead, the whole loyal army of Saddam is helpless and basicly willing to accept anyone as a new leader. Even the "traitor". Peoples minds tend to change very quickly. Today you hail to Saddam, tomorrow you curse on his grave. The problem is, would you be changing a dictator in to another?
Saddest thing however is, that if Saddam had an Inter-Continental nuclear missile, Iraq wouldn't be attacked right now. Dictators can buy respect with <b>real</b> WoMDs, and western countries are suddenly behaving very patiently and politely towards you. See N-Korea for this matter. Also I find it hard to believe, that people would pay so much atention on Iraq, if its main source of income would be selling Banana instead of Oil.
Here is a hypothetical question: What If China would be EXTREMELY anti-Vietnamese, and would even support terrorist acts against Vietnam. Also China would violate several human rights(well it does) and even kill thousands of people. Would you attack China to liberate its people and protect the helpless Vietnamese?
Well, China has done those things. Heck, they fought a war with the Vietnamese in the late 70's, trying to pull another Tibet on Vietnam (and were defeated for the same reasons the US was - not enough desire to finish the job and truly attack the source of the enemy's strength). I rather think at that point we were not terribly interested in Vietnam living or dying , after the past 15 years of warfare. It would have political suicide for whatever president tried it anyways, after that disasterous conflict.
I do know that both Bush Sr. and Clinton both had absolutely no problem giving the Chinese most-favored nation trading status and lots of perks even though the red commie **** were running over chinese pro-democracy protesters in Tianemin(sp) Square. Of course, in doing so, they undermined the communist hard-line control of China and greatly accelerated its natural progression towards a free-market economy and eventually (one hopes) democracy, thusly accomplishing what the demonstrators wanted originally.
So it goes to show you that there are many sides to the coin and dealing out absolutes just puts you in the dufus camp. Not you personally Dread, people in general.
<span style='color:white'>** Tell you what - how about you repost the response without the name calling. I know you're irritated that I knew all about that obscure bit of history and your little attempt to trip me up failed, but grow up or lose your posting rights in this forum**</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Mar 26 2003, 04:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Mar 26 2003, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is, that the greedy general has army behind his back, and probably after Saddam and his closest guards are dead, the whole loyal army of Saddam is helpless and basicly willing to accept anyone as a new leader. Even the "traitor". Peoples minds tend to change very quickly. Today you hail to Saddam, tomorrow you curse on his grave. The problem is, would you be changing a dictator in to another? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Saddam hussien has the most ruthless security. He acctually stages fake coups. Anybody that goes along with it dosent last to long. His most elite body guards are people he has taken from orphanges and raised like sons so they have no other loyalty but to Saddam. His sons are his most powerful generals also and go the to the 1st page to see how sadistic they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saddest thing however is, that if Saddam had an Inter-Continental nuclear missile, Iraq wouldn't be attacked right now. Dictators can buy respect with <b>real</b> WoMDs, and western countries are suddenly behaving very patiently and politely towards you. See N-Korea for this matter. Also I find it hard to believe, that people would pay so much atention on Iraq, if its main source of income would be selling Banana instead of Oil.
Here is a hypothetical question: What If China would be EXTREMELY anti-Vietnamese, and would even support terrorist acts against Vietnam. Also China would violate several human rights(well it does) and even kill thousands of people. Would you attack China to liberate its people and protect the helpless Vietnamese?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a diffrence. We can't attack China. we might win but were not strong enough to minimize civilian cassualties like Iraq. Also China is 100x better then Iraq and has hope.
Comments
However, UN reports have said that around 1.5 million deaths from hunger and disease could well result, as the Food for Oil scheme has been terminated, and many parts of the country are reliant on this aid, and other Iraqi government-controlled schemes, now disrupted.
To add to the problem, the US is adamantly opposed the UN being in control of the post-war reconstruction, despite frantic lobbying from the British government. This could prove rather embarrassing for Mr Blair, with his repeated arguments that by backing the US the UK can have a say in the reconstruction. And major aid organisations like Oxfam have said that they will not provide aid if the US is in charge.
And has the UN received the paltry $120 million it has asked from member states for its own aid agencies for Iraq yet? Of course not. There's no end to the billions available for bombing, but scraping together a few lousy million for aid? The best hope seems to be that Iraq will be paying for its own reconstruction (and possibly destruction) from future oil revenues <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(it's not about oil)</span> - but of course the USA has already unilaterally started handing out the contracts for this to its own companies.
Whatever, we have to think medium-to-long term. The actual casualties during the war are likely to be minimal. It's what happens next we have to worry about. Particularly as the world's powers and media have a notoriously short attention span. The USA rapidly forgot about Afghanistan once it had started on Iraq. The Iraqis had better hope that the USA doesn't start on North Korea too soon.
When all is said and done, people are going to have to decide if Iraq was better off before or after the war. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the former, and this is what is going to tick off the often-pathetic modern inheritors of the true Left that fought fascism in the past... But I'm a patient guy.
Or am I being naive here and must everything be solved with bombs and lead?
The point is, that the greedy general has army behind his back, and probably after Saddam and his closest guards are dead, the whole loyal army of Saddam is helpless and basicly willing to accept anyone as a new leader. Even the "traitor". Peoples minds tend to change very quickly. Today you hail to Saddam, tomorrow you curse on his grave. The problem is, would you be changing a dictator in to another?
Saddest thing however is, that if Saddam had an Inter-Continental nuclear missile, Iraq wouldn't be attacked right now. Dictators can buy respect with <b>real</b> WoMDs, and western countries are suddenly behaving very patiently and politely towards you. See N-Korea for this matter. Also I find it hard to believe, that people would pay so much atention on Iraq, if its main source of income would be selling Banana instead of Oil.
Here is a hypothetical question:
What If China would be EXTREMELY anti-Vietnamese, and would even support terrorist acts against Vietnam. Also China would violate several human rights(well it does) and even kill thousands of people. Would you attack China to liberate its people and protect the helpless Vietnamese?
I do know that both Bush Sr. and Clinton both had absolutely no problem giving the Chinese most-favored nation trading status and lots of perks even though the red commie **** were running over chinese pro-democracy protesters in Tianemin(sp) Square. Of course, in doing so, they undermined the communist hard-line control of China and greatly accelerated its natural progression towards a free-market economy and eventually (one hopes) democracy, thusly accomplishing what the demonstrators wanted originally.
So it goes to show you that there are many sides to the coin and dealing out absolutes just puts you in the dufus camp. Not you personally Dread, people in general.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam hussien has the most ruthless security. He acctually stages fake coups. Anybody that goes along with it dosent last to long. His most elite body guards are people he has taken from orphanges and raised like sons so they have no other loyalty but to Saddam. His sons are his most powerful generals also and go the to the 1st page to see how sadistic they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Saddest thing however is, that if Saddam had an Inter-Continental nuclear missile, Iraq wouldn't be attacked right now. Dictators can buy respect with <b>real</b> WoMDs, and western countries are suddenly behaving very patiently and politely towards you. See N-Korea for this matter. Also I find it hard to believe, that people would pay so much atention on Iraq, if its main source of income would be selling Banana instead of Oil.
Here is a hypothetical question:
What If China would be EXTREMELY anti-Vietnamese, and would even support terrorist acts against Vietnam. Also China would violate several human rights(well it does) and even kill thousands of people. Would you attack China to liberate its people and protect the helpless Vietnamese?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a diffrence. We can't attack China. we might win but were not strong enough to minimize civilian cassualties like Iraq. Also China is 100x better then Iraq and has hope.