My Last Post On The Iraq Issue
Sirus
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">.</div> This is my last post on this subject, I feel I can sum all i feel about it in one post. So I might as well just say it now.
I don't care about the US. I don't care about Britain. I don't care about France. I don't care about Germany.
We all live very comfortable lives and we all have the privilege of sitting here being able to even use a computer with internet.
I don't care about Saddam. He's just as bad as the guy who just robbed the gas station, If he never suffered any reprecussions for his actions i wouldn't care for one second.
I ONLY care about all the innocent people who are being hurt by all these nations whose only concern is with wealth.
Why must we argue about who is getting the extra buck when we know that if this war follows through all the INNOCENT people in Iraq will be saved from countless pain ? I don't care if keeps his weapons just as long as innocent people are spared.
I would be happy if people would stop arguing over interests of both France and Germany, or the US or Britain, because the fact remains is that there are countless people being hurt by a fool. Money means nothing to me, but i won't sit here with an idle mind when i know that innocent people are being murdered.
I don't care about the US. I don't care about Britain. I don't care about France. I don't care about Germany.
We all live very comfortable lives and we all have the privilege of sitting here being able to even use a computer with internet.
I don't care about Saddam. He's just as bad as the guy who just robbed the gas station, If he never suffered any reprecussions for his actions i wouldn't care for one second.
I ONLY care about all the innocent people who are being hurt by all these nations whose only concern is with wealth.
Why must we argue about who is getting the extra buck when we know that if this war follows through all the INNOCENT people in Iraq will be saved from countless pain ? I don't care if keeps his weapons just as long as innocent people are spared.
I would be happy if people would stop arguing over interests of both France and Germany, or the US or Britain, because the fact remains is that there are countless people being hurt by a fool. Money means nothing to me, but i won't sit here with an idle mind when i know that innocent people are being murdered.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this quote today from Bush summed up so much of the hypocrisy evident in the "leader of the free world". I'd laugh if I didn't feel so crushed by the knowledge that so many innocents are going to die. How can he say he will prosecute Iraqi leaders for war crimes when it is the American military which will be raining down death and desruction upon Iraq.
Nothing we can say or do is going to change the fact that America is going to invade, with or without UN support. No wonder Iraq is reluctant to destroy their few missiles that go a few km over the limit: they know they're going to be invaded no matter what. I want to stop this whole war, I want to stop this senseless violence that is about to be unleased. But nothing I can do will stop this.
I'm a student of history, and so much of what I study is people killing other people, often over matters that seem utterly trivial. There is no excuse for war, particularly in the modern world, where the weaponry of today has such potency. Since World War I civilians have been targeted as legitimate military targets, and since that dreadful conflict the world's population has been subjected to such horrors as to make me just lie down and cry.
Perhaps because we Australians and Americans live on islands, surrounded by peaceful neighbours, free from turmoil and political strife, we have not had the sheer terror and pain of modern warfare brought home to us. We watch CNN and see a few bombs hit a far away country, and most of us just go on with our lives. We havn't seen our homes blown apart, family members killed or friends scythed down. Perhaps this is why our leaders think they can go ahead and inflict more suffering on innocents elsewhere.
The Iraqi people didn't vote for Saddam. They didn't give him any weaponry. They will fight, because that's what people do when their country is attacked. They will lose, because they cannot hope to do anything more than offer token resistance. So many of them will die. And in twenty years time historians like myself will sit down and assess the whole conflict, trying to make sence of it.
This war that Bush has brought upon Iraq will echo through history as a shameful act, a deed of terror and horror. If I do one thing in my carrer as a historian, it will be to teach my students that conflicts like this are never good, never nessassary, and never, ever taken so lightly. Once the dust has settled over Baghdad and the bodies thrown into mass graves, only then will we sit down and identify the real tyrant, the real mass murderer in this whole wretched affair. I think we will all know who he is.
I don't think they will. I think the Iraqi people are going to be doing their damndest to get out of the way. And I think most of their military is going to be doing the same.
BTW I dont suppose we could concatenate this onto the end of the other thread.
Iraq and Somalia are in cardinally different situations. I think the Iraqi people are pretty devoid of nationalism.
at any rate, we'll see soon enough.
at any rate, we'll see soon enough. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you base that on? Why do you think they'll just "get out of the way". The Germans thought the Russians would do the same in WWII. That mistake cost them a war and millions of lives.
Anyway, I'd like to come back to what was Sirus main point:
<!--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-->Why must we argue about who is getting the extra buck when we know that if this war follows through all the INNOCENT people in Iraq will be saved from countless pain ? I don't care if keeps his weapons just as long as innocent people are spared.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is, in my opinion, the main disagreement between the two discussing parties.
The one argue that Saddams oppression has brought countless suffering to the Iraqi people (best example being the Kurds), and that it thus has to be ended, come what come.
The others agree that Husseins regime has brought suffering to the Iraqi people, but argue that an all out <i>war</i>, which could, according to Rumsfeld, even involve nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry used by both sides, would only potentiate that suffering.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a little off topic but still about Iraq
Its a quote from TIME the march 3rd issue (newist one)
This is a very good read, I advise you to read the rest here
<a href='http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030303/wtroops.html' target='_blank'>http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030303...03/wtroops.html</a>
Ppl typing the same arguements over and over and over and over and over and over, and for what? The feeling that "Ooooo I just owned that guy in debate?" Or is it the satisfaction of hearing one's voice? What is the purpose of these discussions other than that? We all know no one is gonna change thier mind. It's pointless. Why argue/debate/discuss if you know you arent gonna change the other guys mind? Why?
I for one enjoy hearing the other side then testing my knowlege agianst what I read depending on what it says Im sure others well agree they have learned at least one thing from these disscussions. No?
I am just as guilty as the next guy in this....although I am going to make a point of avoiding pointless discussions from now on. They are not worth the mental energy, the emotional energy, or even the physical energy expended....at least to me. Nothing ever comes of them. So why should <i>I</i> waste my time doing it? <i>I</i> shouldnt. Now as for you or other ppl? Do what you want. I wouldnt want you to do otherwise....its just that the whole shabang seems pointless to me.
I don't think they will. I think the Iraqi people are going to be doing their damndest to get out of the way. And I think most of their military is going to be doing the same.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow....I just read a few posts on this thread..then I read this one and I have to say you are wayyy off. The Iraqi people will fight. The Iraqi army will fight. Will they get the holy hell kicked out of them? Maybe. Let me give you a scenario. You are sitting at home watching TV. Your neighbor is calling the police, accusing you of drug and weapon possesion, and all sorts of other things, but the cops won't belive him. He decides to get a few of his buddies and he breaks into your house, and holds you and your family at gunpoint, threatinging to shoot. Would you fight back or just wait to die? In my completely honest opinion this is not an exagerration scenario. This may just as well be real life. Invading another man's home for no reason is bad enough. But when you go off and declare war on a country that hasn't done anything remotely wrong recently, is just plain criminal. I don't care too much for Sadam, but I have seen enoug people on this planet get killed by injustice people who think they are greater than God and are able to make the world conform to their will. People may argue these things, but this is my opinion, and I will respect all of yours as well.
So, just to sum up, I wish America would just get a reality check and realize it isn't greater than the rest of humanity. That any and all conflicts should be fixed with a barrel of a gun. God willing, no innocent people will be caught in between two madmen who just don't know when to stop.
That is a pathetic excuse for an analogy. Here's a better one. You have been whipped and kept in the basement of the house every day of your life. Then the same situation occurs except your neighbors are coming to attack your molestors.
I tend to think analogies are irrelevant to arguments in general but yours was exceptionally bad.
That is a pathetic excuse for an analogy. Here's a better one. You have been whipped and kept in the basement of the house every day of your life. Then the same situation occurs except your neighbors are coming to attack your molestors.
I tend to think analogies are irrelevant to arguments in general but yours was exceptionally bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to agree with Moultano, it was senseless in alot of ways. First, say the guy with the drugs is Iraq, the neighbor is the USA, and the police are the UN. First, the neighbor wouldnt care if some dude next door was smoking crack, whats it have to do with him? Plus, the police wouldnt ignore a drug tip.
To correct this analogy as much as possible:
A guy hates his neighbor, so he makes some anthrax in his basement and threatens to release it in his neighbor's living room. All of a sudden the guy gets a friend to drive an 18-wheeler through the neighbor's wall, running over one of his sons. The neighbor, fearing for his life, tries to get the police involved, but they refuse because the guy has children, and was throwing his bachelor party (WTH) on the same day, and they didnt want any innocent people to get hurt in a gun fight of some sort. So the neighbor decides to take matters into his own hands, tries to convince some of his friends (most of which refuse because they dont want to get hurt) to help him, takes a gun over to the guys place and tries to stop the problem in one way or another without hurting his children or any of his friends at the bachelor party. Chaos insues
I like this fictional analogy of current events alot more, though I'm sure the analogy could go alot farther back to the point where the neighbors first meet and also how the neighbor now fearing for his life is the son of the son of the father who first met the angered neighbor in question, making it more like the neighbor hates the entire family of his neighbor. Stuff on the friend of hateful friend who drove the semi truck into the front living room doesn't technically have a home but rather lives in several other neighbors houses to their consent in some cases and dislike in others.
Gee, come to think of it, this would make a mighty beefy bit of short story telling if you took this analogy as far as it could go while still telling the main plot line of how the two neighbors came to be on such bad terms. The problems with analogies based on current events has to be how each character is extremely deep and has a number of different accounts of the exact same events. Mmm, story telling goodness...
I'm just curious, why was this new thread made and the old thread abandoned. The posts from this thread could easily go there just as well, or am I mistaken?
The Soviet Union: it's hard to imagine a more cruel leader than Joseph Stalin. The entire USSR was under his absolute control, he killed in excess of 30 million of his own citizens and operated a ruthless police state that crushed any opposition. His people were often starving, totally oppressed and poor. Yet when they were invaded, they fought. They fought with a ferocity the Germans had never expected. "Russia" the country, the Motherland, was more to these people than Stalin was. Leaders come and go, countries stay. For the Russian people, protecting Russia from an invader was a cause worth fighting and dying for.
Nazi Germany: From 1942 onwards the war was almost a lost cause for the Germans, and after Stalingrad it certainly was. The citizens though didn't stop resisting; they fought until the bitter end. Right up until the gates of Berlin the German's fought, defending their capital with incredible strength before finally being crushed. The Soviets took 2 million casualties taking Berlin in a 3 week campaign: this number was greater than total American casualties for the entire war. The Germans knew they couldn't win; they knew they were facing a foe that couldn't be beaten. But they fought. Ask any Russian who fought the Germans in Germany and he will tell you the Germans fought.
That's just some examples from the 20th century. Both Stalin and Hitler were terrible men, who oppressed their countries citizens far far worse than Saddam has ever done. Yet their people fought against an invader, they fought with incredible strength. Saddam does oppress his people, but no-where near as bad as either Hitler or Stalin. Why then, do you believe the Iraqi people won't fight? They are Iraqis, they will fight for Iraq. Saddam doesn't matter, what matters is defending one's country from attack. People will fight, even if their cause is hopeless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many differences here, but the main one is the ENORMOUS power disparity between the U.S. and Iraq. Calling this a war is generous, it will be a horrible one-sided slaughter.
In the Gulf War, we lost 157 soldiers to an estimated 25,000 - 100,000 Iraqi dead. Of their ~600,000 soldiers, 25-50% deserted after the air campaign alone, i.e. before we had even launched a ground invasion. In the ground campaign, we decimated the Iraqi tank divisions without suffering a single loss; battle after battle was overwhelmingly won by the coalition, each time with more and more Iraqi soldiers surrendering. It pretty much came to be the theme of most battles, intimidate them and watch as they surrender in droves. The only real resistance was offered by the Republican Guard, who were promptly routed.
The supreme demoralization of fighting against such a superior enemy cannot be underestimated. Once all hope is lost - and there is precious little hope to begin with - the desire to save oneself rather than sacrifice in vain, will become overwhelming. And this was the <i>soldiers</i> who were surrendering, to think that the citizens will fight is completely erroneous.
As an aside, I think this speaks volumes of Saddam's tyranny. He is willing to sacrifice huge numbers of his people to a hopeless war they have no interest in fighting, and even more to sanctions, and to use his own citizens as human shields for his palaces and military, all for his desire to acquire powerful weapons.
Before you bring it up, yes, it is an absolute bestiality to base ones defense strategy around tousands of innocent lives, but that's what we have to expect.
Teufel:
<!--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-->Why do we even discuss this stuff on a forum? I mean really now. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. All this debating/arguing/discussing/flaming is nothing more than ppl intelluctually masturbating. Yes I too Im guilty of this pointless masturbating. I admit I have done it myself many, many, many times but in the end what is accomplished? Nothing really. All that was accomplished was the flamers got told to shut up or be banned, the rest continued believeing what they want to believe no matter what any other side has said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reading and participating in this forum isn't mandatory. If you don't want to allow others to challenge your views (and that's what any discussion - as opposed to an argument - is based on), fine, don't read the Discussion forum.
Leave those who wish to discuss their space, we'll leave you yours.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->The supreme demoralization of fighting against such a superior enemy cannot be underestimated. Once all hope is lost - and there is precious little hope to begin with - the desire to save oneself rather than sacrifice in vain, will become overwhelming. And this was the soldiers who were surrendering, to think that the citizens will fight is completely erroneous.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you're right here, the disparity between US forces and Iraqi forces are certainly high. But consider this: At the Battle of Berlin which I referred to the remnants of the German army, and I mean a few final shattered divisions buoyed up by civilian forces were facing the entire concentrated might of the Soviet Army. We are talking about a pathetically small and underequipped force versus an amy numbering in the tens of millions. The Soviet army had DIVISIONS of artillery, thousands of aircraft and tanks plus millions of infantry. Rarely if ever before in history had such a force as the Germans in Berlin been so outnumbered. Even their rear was gone, destroyed by the advancing American army. These people at Berlin were facing a vastly superior foe, on order with the Iraq/American military imbalance. Did they give up? By god they did not. They inflicted over 2 million casualties on the Russians, fighting them for 3 solid weeks around and in the shattered ruins of Berlin. A squadren of Lufftwaffe aircraft filled their planes with bombs and rammed the bridges over the Oder river to delay the Soviet advance. Civilians armed with a grenade or satchel pack hid in ruins and flung themselves underneith tanks to destroy them. Remember that picture of the Soviet soldier raising the Red Flag above the Reichstag? The Germans were still fighting in the basements when that picture was taken. The Germans knew they could never win that fight, yet they fought like demons.
Also, the Gulf War is not a good comparison, because of the following:
1. The Iraqi soldiers weren't fighting on Iraqi soil: they were in a foreign country
2. They had the oppurtunity and capacity to retreat; if they'd actually bunkered themselves down in Kuwait City, which was a big fear of the US, the fight would have cost a lot more US lives. If the US attacks Iraq, the armies and civilians will have no-where to run, as US forces will come from the north through Turkey as well as from the south.
The situation at Bahgdad will be very similar to the Berlin situation: no chance for retreat, fighting against impossible odds against a vastly superior foe. This didn't stop the Germans from fighting; what makes you think the Iraqis won't do the same? Never underestimate nationalism: it can and does drive citizens to incredible acts.
To some extent, I think nationalism is something that Americans don't understand.
Earlier in the year I went to a lecture by **** Morris, Bill Clinton's campaign strategist. He has now become an international political adviser. One of the things he has been trying to do is to get other countries to advertise their causes in the US since US politics has such a dramatic effect on them. So far no one has taken him up on it. I was talking to a Japanese guy afterwards who also went to the lecture. He thought the whole idea was preposterous. I wasn't getting it. He said, "What if he was reccomending that the US advertise a cause in Japan?" I said that I wouldn't have a problem with that.
He saw it as a horrible affront to their national dignity. I just saw it as a smart way to get things done. This may not be indicative of any larger trend, but I think it might be.
There might even be something genetic about it. Every person in Amerca (Native Americans aside) is someone whose ancestors were willing to leave their homes. We may just be genetically predisposed not to become very attached to our location. [/ idle thoughts]
Back to the Iraq issue. Do you think the situation would be any different (semantics aside) if, rather than declaring war on Iraq, we declared war on Saddam Hussein?
To me there is something cardinally different about declaring war on a country with an unpopular unelected leader. This I think is the major flaw in the comparison between Germany, Russia, and Iraq.
Edit: Well, apparently the swear filter doesn't like Mr. Morris's first name. It's the shortened form of Richard that isn't Rich.
1. The Iraqi soldiers weren't fighting on Iraqi soil: they were in a foreign country
2. They had the oppurtunity and capacity to retreat; if they'd actually bunkered themselves down in Kuwait City, which was a big fear of the US, the fight would have cost a lot more US lives. If the US attacks Iraq, the armies and civilians will have no-where to run, as US forces will come from the north through Turkey as well as from the south.
The situation at Bahgdad will be very similar to the Berlin situation: no chance for retreat, fighting against impossible odds against a vastly superior foe. This didn't stop the Germans from fighting; what makes you think the Iraqis won't do the same? Never underestimate nationalism: it can and does drive citizens to incredible acts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Most of the fighting <b>did</b> take place on Iraqi soil. <a href='http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/CPGW_Images/cpgw_294.gif' target='_blank'>Here</a> is a graphic of the U.S. ground offensive.
2) The question isn't whether they will retreat, its whether they will surrender. They surrendered before, even when faced with the opportunity to retreat.
For months now the U.S. has been waging a propaganda campaign, one of it's primary messages for soldiers is "do not attempt to fight back or you will be destroyed, we will leave you alone if you do not fight back." As for citizens, they have no need to run, they would be welcomed as refugees by our forces. In short, no one would be our enemy here save Saddam and his Republican Guard. So the question is not if will they lay down their lives for their country, but will they die a meaningless death for Saddam.
I find it amusing that you say the previous Gulf War is a bad comparison, yet a war that occured over 50 years earlier, in a different country, with different combatants, under vastly different circumstances is a better comparison.
Also, keep in mind, that Ryo is correct in so far that the next war will definetely be an American attack. They'll be the invaders, which will only 'verify' everything Husseins propagandists claimed.
2) The question isn't whether they will retreat, its whether they will surrender. They surrendered before, even when faced with the opportunity to retreat.
For months now the U.S. has been waging a propaganda campaign, one of it's primary messages for soldiers is "do not attempt to fight back or you will be destroyed, we will leave you alone if you do not fight back." As for citizens, they have no need to run, they would be welcomed as refugees by our forces. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. My apologies, I'm not too good with the Gulf War. However, I'll reiterate: US forces were fighting to liberate Kuwait, not to invade Iraq. The soldiers knew this, and knew they had an option to retreat. Now that takes us to 2. and let's look at that a bit more. Yes, they had the option to retreat, but how would you like to go back in defeat and face Saddam's wrath? They'd also been bombed for something like 6 months, I'm amazed they weren't half crazy. Yes, they surrendered. Now compare that to the Baghdad scenario. This time, the soldiers and civilians have no-where to go, and no option for retreat. Suddenly these soldiers arn't defending a foreign country; they're fighting for their families, their homes and their religion. They've heard stories about the US soldiers, they've heard how they rape women and pillage homes, their government has told them. They don't like the US soldiers at all: they hate them. These are foreign godless invaders who have attacked their country, and they don't like that one bit. They fight, with no other option seeming feasable. That's why I said the Gulf War was a poor example while Berlin wasn't: the situations are almost identical with Baghdad and Berlin.
Now Big Game Hunter, let's say your country was invaded by foreigners. They claimed to be liberating you, they claimed that life would be so much better after they came in. But what are they doing in your country? Doesn't your country have a right to defend itself? Would you fight them? Answer truthfully please. Would you fight an army which invaded your country?
I think a lot of people out there would answer yes to that question, because defending your country is something citizens do.
<!--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-->
They've heard stories about the US soldiers, they've heard how they rape women and pillage homes, their government has told them. They don't like the US soldiers at all: they hate them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That said, its interesting that you are siding with wanting to continue diplomacy, as you've mentioned before you are lil'tired of repeating, over military action. That they have WoMD is also irefutable, as they at the very least have a few hidden chemical artillery shells, a over range missile delivery system, and some unaccounted for infectious bacteria. Then there is a proven enemy of not only the government of the USA but its very people, the Al Queda. Taken at seperate pieces, it would seem at first that diplomacy is still possible, but unfortunately we all know that world influences can not be taken as isolated incidents. Are you still set against war knowing these things?
That stuff aside, did you hear that a Liberal MP (a member of the governing/leading national party in our parliament) named Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans … I hate those ****." when she thought the reporters were no longer listening. I was shocked and appalled that this slip up of how a Member of Parliament (PM) pretty much showed how some folks in our government are huge <insert explicitive here> when they are deciding policy behind closed doors. This has **** me off to no end, and I sure as hell am going to write the <insert nasty inflective here> to tell her so. Do you know what happened when her dirty little secret was out? She cleared out her offices so those outraged at her in our country would not be able to contact and tell her exactly in very explicit feelings how they felt. That's it, this has driven me over the edge, let it be known I don't just dislike our government, I hate it, I detest it, I loathe its existence. Grr... I gotta go cool down by making a snide comment somewhere before I rip someone a new one.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> <i>*Wolverine throws on a leather jacket with the Canadian flag on it while heading for the door, growling and snarling about needing a drink and a cigar. Of particular notice happens to be he is massaging the knuckles of his fists for some unexplained reason as he exits...*</i> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/26/bastards030226' target='_blank'>News Source Article 1</a>
<a href='http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/27/parrish_readers020327' target='_blank'>News Source Article 2</a>
I think a lot of people out there would answer yes to that question, because defending your country is something citizens do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In all honesty, if someone launched an massive attack on America and said, "We will not hurt you, you are not our enemy, we just want to kill George W. Bush." I would be like "D.C. is that-a-way man! He lives in the big white house."
But if they invaded to conquer our country, of course I would defend it. You and Nem bring up an excellent point with Saddam's own propaganda machine, but I believe that it is much less effective than you think. Saddam made many false claims in the Gulf War to try and bolster his troops morale, such as:
-American soldiers behave wildly, defiling the holy places of Islam, and clashing with Saudi Civilians.
-America created Operation DESERT SHIELD and Operation DESERT STORM as an excuse to come to the Arab region to prop up corrupt Arab rulers.
-America wanted war as an excuse to steal Arab oil.
-American soldiers were all addicted to wine, women and song and openly violate Arab morals.
-The morale of American soldiers was very low and they would not be able to stand the rigors of the desert.
-American soldiers are afraid of the well trained Iraqi Army who is well trained thanks to their 10 year war with Iran.
-American soldiers will break and run once they face the might of the Iraqi Army.
I think it's safe to say that pretty much all of these were shown to be lies to the soldiers and people, severely discrediting Saddam. Not only that but he suffered the ultimate humilation of complete and abject failure, that's pretty tough to spin. I think that the memories of the Gulf War will offer a significant foil to whatever he tries to claim again.
I would really like to see any examples you can find of <i>current</i> Iraqi propaganda as I had some difficulty. What I did find was pretty discouraging though. Saddam has complete and total control over all information in his country. There is no mass media that reaches his citizens that he does not control. Of the three major newspapers, one is published by his political party, and the other two are published by the "Ministry of Culture and Information" (1984 anyone?). He even requires all typewriters to be registered (Joseph Stalin anyone?).
The choice facing the Iraqi people is do they want to be alive and on the winning side, or dead and on the losing side. Unless they believe that the U.S. will conquer them and visit horrible atrocities on them, I think they would rather be alive.
<a href='http://www.psywarrior.com/CommandoSoloIraqScripts.html' target='_blank'>Here</a> are some examples of the propaganda we broadcast for 5 hours every day.
Here are some examples of the success of our propaganda campaign in the Gulf War (source psywarrior.com):
-Over 44% of Iraqi soldiers deserted in the Kuwaiti theatre of operations
-98% of all captured soldiers had read our leaflets and had taken the action that they described e.g. deserting, defecting, abandoning equipment, or surrendering.
-58% of all enemy prisoners of war reported listening to coalition broadcasts and said they trusted them as truthful.
One thing I'll say is this: I hope you are right. I hope to every deity ever that you are right. Because the last thing I want to see is more death. I really sincerely hope that when the war does happen (there's no question about it) the Iraqi soldiers throw down their weapons and the civilians don't try to resist. Because that way any death will be minimised. So, whilst I might not agree with you, I so strongly hope that you are correct.
<!--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-->it's hard to imagine a more cruel leader than Joseph Stalin?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The good ol' Mao, the foirmer communist ruler of China. This man made stalin look like a school teacher. If I remember correctly, he had over 100 million people killed during his regime. Much like Stalin, however, this guy killed only his own people for political reasons, and did so very discretly, not bringing it to the world's attention.
One thing I'll say is this: I hope you are right. I hope to every deity ever that you are right. Because the last thing I want to see is more death. I really sincerely hope that when the war does happen (there's no question about it) the Iraqi soldiers throw down their weapons and the civilians don't try to resist. Because that way any death will be minimised. So, whilst I might not agree with you, I so strongly hope that you are correct. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'd say that neither of us is really being <i>entirely</i> objective, I'd say I am taking the optimistic view and you are taking a pessimistic one. The brute force control Saddam has over his media is huge and quite discouraging, but I'd like to believe that we would be able to counteract that and the people themselves will see through his somewhat transparent lies. Saddam's propaganda is mostly blunt and outrageous lies while ours is much more truthful and refined.
I too hope I am right; if I am not, it will be a horrible bloody war. I am confident though, in the capabilities of our own psy ops forces and in the reasonableness of the Iraqi people.
Of course all these people really dont know anything about the gulf war, they dont really get educated about history there. They dont know if anything will be different, they dont know if anything will be the same. Everyone knows that Suddam Heussein must be removed somehow, but no-one really wants a war. People will die, and tons and tons of mindless Iraqi people will die, people ask for alternatives to a war, there really arn't many. Actually, as far as we know, America or any other country helping (Turkey, maybe) may not even assault Baghdad, they may figure the risk is too high, but eventually they will find a way, and they will take the way that will have the least casualties for both sides hopefully
EDIT: Stalin was envisioned as a great leader for all of the Russian people, as was Hitler, as is Suddam. Many Iraqis will actually fight in the name of Suddam, as the Russians fought in the name of Stalin, and the Germans fought in the name of Hitler. They all envisioned their leaders as great people fighting for a noble cause