Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Support inside Iraq (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78121)

Scholarcs 01-03-2003 04:37 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-1acover_x.htm

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi officials expect U.S. forces to bring war to the streets of this sprawling capital. The country is slowly getting ready.

Thousands of civilians have undergone combat training in the wilting sun. Officials are issuing extra food rations so residents can begin stockpiling. The already familiar anti-American propaganda has intensified on television broadcasts and in newspapers. And the capital has seen a deluge of new consumer goods, apparently aimed at winning over ordinary citizens to the defense of Saddam Hussein.

He is using a new strategy to overcome what could be his greatest weakness: battling the world's biggest military force with an Iraqi army crippled by the 1991 Gulf War and years of international sanctions. This time, the Iraqi leader is calling on civilians to protect the regime that President Bush has vowed to change. There are signs that the tactic is finding some acceptance here.

"If American soldiers come onto our streets, I really believe there will be civil resistance," says Hamman Shamaa, 49, an economics professor at Baghdad University. The gray-haired chain-smoker hardly seems ready for combat. But he says he'll dust off the Kalashnikov rifle and three boxes of ammunition that he keeps at home and take to the streets at the first sight of Western soldiers in Baghdad. "People won't accept foreigners coming in here," he says.

It is unclear, of course, if ordinary Iraqis are candid in interviews with the foreign media. Under Iraqi censorship laws, reporters are accompanied by government translators. It is against the law to criticize Saddam or the government.

What the citizens of Baghdad do under attack could be critical. Street fighting — if it occurs — could entangle U.S. and allied soldiers in an ugly urban conflict in a city that is Saddam's power base. U.S. forces could easily capture other parts of Iraq, where the government's control is weaker. But achieving "regime change" in Baghdad could be difficult and costly, especially if armed civilians join the fray.

The push to take this bustling city could bog down Washington in a political and military quagmire, dragging out the war longer than the week or two Pentagon officials say would be ideal.

Iraqi officials admit privately that they cannot win a full-fledged war against the U.S. military. Asked whether they can defeat the enemy, an Iraqi diplomat in Europe said recently: "Of course not; we have to be logical about this."

They say they hope that if civilians and soldiers hold out long enough, American casualties might quickly erode support for the war back home. Iraqis point to the Somalia conflict in 1993, when television footage of a U.S. soldier being dragged through the capital led President Clinton to withdraw troops.

"We believe Americans want a war without casualties," says a Foreign Ministry official who asked not to be named. "There is a feeling that they will not come and fight us man to man."

For anyone arriving in Baghdad from the West, it is striking how relaxed the city seems. Residents say they have not been issued gas masks. Most believe a war will not erupt before the end of the year, when the blistering heat subsides. Daytime temperatures this week have reached 110 degrees.

Surprisingly, streets aren't sandbagged or barricaded. Soldiers and Saddam's elite force, the Republican Guard, are not evident.

However, more discreet security measures already are being taken: Government officials blocked USA TODAY from bringing a mobile satellite telephone into the country, apparently concerned that its global-positioning system could be used to identify targets for military airstrikes.

Families with weapons at home

In dozens of interviews across Baghdad during the past week, the talk has been tough. Residents say they'll reach for the nearest kitchen knife or firewood ax if U.S. soldiers appear on their block. In fact, many Iraqi families have weapons at home, often government-issue Kalashnikovs kept by former soldiers.

Iraq's regular forces number around 400,000. About 6 million Iraqis have completed military training and could be drafted. The country's military industries — headquartered in central Baghdad — are believed to already have produced missiles and anti-aircraft weaponry. Military analysts say Iraq still has some weapons stored from before the Gulf War. Other weaponry also has entered the country illegally over the years. A U.N. embargo imposed after the war prohibits sales to Iraq of equipment that could be used to rebuild its military.

In addition to the millions who already have been through military training, thousands more civilians spent their summer break taking intensive military courses.

Shamaa's 45-year-old wife, a high school principal, and his 20-year-old son, a literature student, spent all of August at a neighborhood sports center learning how to fire weapons and conduct basic urban warfare.

"Military training is going on in stadiums, schools — just about every open space there is," says a senior Arab diplomat here.

Officials will not discuss how many Baghdad residents have been trained. On Monday, a group of men crowded around the office of Saddam's ruling Baath Party in Baghdad's Bab Sheikh neighborhood. They said they had come to sign up for the military if there's going to be a war.

The other piece of Saddam's strategy is a plan to win Iraqis' allegiance by easing their deprivation and allowing them a little more freedom — perhaps to avoid mass defections during a war. Hungry and demoralized, thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered to U.S. forces in Iraq's southern desert during the 1991 war.

This time, even if Saddam falls, the Iraqi leader seems to hope U.S. troops will not be seen as liberators, as they were in the Afghan capital of Kabul after the Taliban government collapsed last year.

"Saddam knows how to appeal to the masses," says Wamidh Nadhmi, a senior political science professor at Baghdad University. "Remember, he was trained not as a military dictator, but as a politician."

DVD players and the Internet

Six years ago, the U.N. eased the postwar embargoes and allowed Iraq to trade oil for a wider range of goods. In addition, Iraq earns about $2 billion a year from oil traded outside the constraints of the U.N. sanctions system — much of it smuggled through back-door deals with Syria, Jordan and Turkey. Communities only recently began to benefit from the increased flow of money and goods. Iraqis still rely on Saddam's government for food rations, medicine and all social services.

In addition to providing more benefits to citizens, in recent months Iraqi officials have:

Granted about 10,000 prisoners early release.
Expanded a program to give free pieces of land to all civil servants and military personnel.
Relaxed restrictions on private businesses, allowing people to open stores and small enterprises and to import goods directly from abroad.
Liberalized some aspects of life, at least in the capital. Internet cafes have opened. E-mail is still restricted to one government-controlled server. But the cafes draw hundreds of Iraqis desperate for outside news or eager to conduct business deals by e-mail. Just this summer, people were allowed to access e-mail from home.
"The government wants to buy the contentment of Iraqis," says the Arab diplomat, who asked not to be identified. The tactic appears to have worked. "People aren't in the mood to criticize Saddam these days," he says.

"People are much happier now than they were five years ago," says Shamaa, the economics professor. "Things have improved an awful lot for the middle class."

Changes in Baghdad are evident since a visit two years ago. Roads have been repaved. The telephone system — barely functional for years after the U.S. bombing attacks in the Gulf War — works well enough to dial direct across the world.

Little more than a year ago, Baghdad's Saddam International Airport was still dark. It had been mothballed after an international air embargo was imposed after the war. The embargo on commercial flights was never officially lifted. But that began to crumble in 2000. Now the brightly lit terminal is buzzing with travelers flying in from Jordan, Syria and Russia. "Welcome!" a cheery passport official says.

In Baghdad, major roads are jammed with vehicles, among them new Mercedes-Benzes and Peugeots. They have been imported by the Iraqi Trade Ministry during the past few months and sold to residents at cut-rate prices.

In a middle-class Baghdad neighborhood, a jazz trio serenades diners in an Italian restaurant with Beatles and Frank Sinatra tunes on a weekend night. Shoppers buy computers shipped from Dubai and snap up bootleg videodiscs for their new DVD players

"I bought my video-disc player for 120,000 Iraqi dinars (about $60)," says Ayad Mujbil, 22, who sells digital video-discs in Baghdad's outdoor Shorja market. "Many people have players now." He adds that the biggest sellers at his market stall are movies featuring Mel Gibson.

Even so, most Iraqis outside Baghdad, and many in the capital, are still reeling from two decades of war.

U.N. officials here say unemployment is high and children suffer from malnutrition. There are no official figures. Despite some improvement since 2000, Iraq has never recovered from its wars. During the 1980s, the country had sophisticated hospitals and schools. The entire country had electricity and telephone lines. Iraq's currency, the dinar, is worth about one-six-thousandth of its 1990 value.

In the Bab Sheikh neighborhood, Ismail Rahem Zengena, 29, lives in one room with his parents and four siblings. Their sleeping quarters are off a courtyard with crumbling balconies. Eight families share the decrepit building. Cooking is done in unoccupied corners of the yard. The family's only appliances are a television and refrigerator left over from before the Gulf War.

Until then, the Zengenas lived in their own apartment nearby. Ismail's father, Rahem Mahmoud, supported the family by baking bread. The bakery closed during the war and never reopened. "We moved from our apartment after the war, because there was no money at all for the rent," Ismail says. "Now I earn 3,000 dinars a day (about $1.50) making tea in a cafe."

Ismail says he would help defend the neighborhood if the United States attacks. He went to the local Baath Party office to volunteer. "I gave my address to them in case there is a war," he says.

Many here blame U.S. hostilities rather than Saddam for their problems. It's a message driven home in almost every television broadcast and newspaper report.

"It would be hard to convince some people that things would be better under a different government now," says Rebecca Arias Flores, deputy resident representative of the U.N. Development Program in Baghdad.

"When people think about things being bad, the first thing they think about is the economic sanctions. Now they're asking: 'What kind of regime are we going to get? One that's better than this?' They have their doubts," says Flores, who is from El Salvador.

Siege mentality

Baghdad's residents also are preparing for a possible long siege. That could happen if American-led forces surround the city while U.S. jets bomb palaces, military sites and electricity and water plants.

"I've begun stockpiling all the food we need because we are 18 of us," says Hussein Abdullah, 50, who has seven children and nine grandchildren. "We have enough to keep us at home for months."

Last month, government officials issued ration coupons for three months' worth of flour, rice and other basic foods, rather than the normal one-month supply.

This month, U.N. relief workers began drawing up plans for offering emergency aid to Baghdad if it has no electricity or drinking water.

"We have to plan also for a lot of dead and wounded people," says Flores of the U.N. Development Program. "Health centers have stocks of food and medicines, but we don't know how long they'll last," she says. "A war in Baghdad could be a disaster."

In a small storefront downtown that serves as an unofficial foreign-currency exchange, Kadhim Mutlak, 42, this month began noticing familiar signs of an impending war. After years working as a moneychanger, Mutlak says he knows how Baghdad's residents behave when a battle is about to erupt.

"People are hoarding their money," Mutlak says. "They are not frightened because they have been through this many times. But there is a feeling that this time, it is much more serious."
Even the poor say that they will fight the americans when they come. Remember that the Taleban never had the support of the civilians. Iraq wont be the walkover that Afghanistan was.

Sir Goulum 01-03-2003 06:00 PM

But, with Americas force against civilians, they still probably will be quite blown over.

Iron_Ranger 01-03-2003 06:20 PM

Well this is bad news anyway you look at it. Where is the line drawn between civillians and militants? If civillians shoot at american forces, can they shoot back? Sounds alot like Somallia.

Sir Goulum 01-03-2003 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
Well this is bad news anyway you look at it. Where is the line drawn between civillians and militants? If civillians shoot at american forces, can they shoot back? Sounds alot like Somallia.
But, if people are shooting at you, you have the right to defend yourself.

Iron_Ranger 01-03-2003 06:37 PM

<font color='white'>I think so too, but, are they still civillians? They are technicly not a militant, well, well maybe they are?

But when that happened in Mogidishu (sp?) people didnt like it at all. Its kind of Cache 22 for both sides. </font>

Sir Goulum 01-03-2003 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
<font color='white'>I think so too, but, are they still civillians? They are technicly not a militant, well, well maybe they are?

But when that happened in Mogidishu (sp?) people didnt like it at all. Its kind of Cache 22 for both sides. </font>

Its a nasty little circle there....

MagiK 01-03-2003 10:49 PM

<font color="#ffccff">You know Scholarcs, you really shouldn't be so blindly believing of everything you read in the mainstream press. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll bet you XXXXXXXXXX right now, that if/when US forces enter Iraq, that the civilian population will be almost no concern at all..and that the Iraqi Military itself last at most 3 months.

Edit: no this is only for Scholarcs no outside action accepted on this ;)

Edit: I was informed that trying to place a bet with a Minor could be construed as leading to the corruption of a Minor charge so I X'd out my offer...But I would have bet money.</font>

John D Harris 01-04-2003 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
<font color='white'>I think so too, but, are they still civillians? They are technicly not a militant, well, well maybe they are?

But when that happened in Mogidishu (sp?) people didnt like it at all. Its kind of Cache 22 for both sides. </font>

Iron Ranger,
There are no innocents (sp?) in a combat zone, any one with a weapon is fair game. It won't be another Somalia, the reason that was a Charlie Foxtrot, the operation was run from Washington D.C. and not from the field comanders. The field comanders wanted armour form the very begining, but the "Rhodes Scholar" (Bill Clinton) and the "brain trusts" he had in his cabinet thought they knew more about military action then the people in Somalia. Those that forget history are condemed to repeat it! LBJ did the very same thing in S.E. Asia. President Bush isn't going to play that game.
If the Iraqi people were really armed they would overthrow Sodanm Insane. It's all B.S. designed to scare the US population into backing down. MAKE NO MISTAKE people will die if it comes to war, it will not be bloodless. But the reality is it's a NFL team against a jr college team or high school team.

Iron_Ranger 01-04-2003 12:59 AM

<font color='white'> I am not arguing with you John D. And I am not saying that it will be another Somilia, far from it most likley. What I was saying is that the artical above, true or false, sounds similar to Somilia, well in a way it does. And yeah, its two completey diffrent things this time. Two diffrent commanders, two diffrent ways of being carried out.

But dont get me wrong I am not 'scared' of the war in Iraq, well not for the reasons presented here anyway. </font>

Edit: Because I can never remember to put < /font >.

[ 01-04-2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Scholarcs 01-04-2003 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
<font color="#ffccff">You know Scholarcs, you really shouldn't be so blindly believing of everything you read in the mainstream press. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll bet you XXXXXXXXXX right now, that if/when US forces enter Iraq, that the civilian population will be almost no concern at all..and that the Iraqi Military itself last at most 3 months.

Edit: no this is only for Scholarcs no outside action accepted on this ;)

Edit: I was informed that trying to place a bet with a Minor could be construed as leading to the corruption of a Minor charge so I X'd out my offer...But I would have bet money.</font>

o_O

ffs stop trying to corrupt me - although I am not a minor [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If I don`t believe the mainstream media, what am I to believe? The speeches of George, of which portions are televised live? Not likely.

Charean 01-05-2003 03:16 PM

I am not sure that believing anything the press has to say is a good idea. That having been said, I don't believe that the civilians are that gung ho to support a leader who gasses them.

I don't support this way in any way, but I remember what Desert Storm was like (I was in Sicily fueling the aircraft with the troops and the Generals) and I don't think there will be a civilian uprising. They don't really want a war any more than civilians here do. They do it because they are told to.

And hence the difficulty of taking this terribly seriously.

No one wants it, but we have to do it to save face for our leaders.

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sir Taliesin 01-06-2003 12:29 PM

<font color=orange>I think it's all propaganda. My guess is that after some initail fighting, the civilain population will welcome the US troops with open arms. If they decide to fight, well it won't be very pretty for them.

I remember all the hul-a-blu about the "Vaunted" Republican Guard. I was there and they weren't "vaunted" anything. I expect nothing more this time either.

Sure there will be casualties, but we'll take it and go on. If a war(and imho there is a fifty/fifty chance there won't be one) with Iraq lasts more than a month, I'll be shocked.</font>

MagiK 01-06-2003 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scholarcs:
o_O

ffs stop trying to corrupt me - although I am not a minor [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If I don`t believe the mainstream media, what am I to believe? The speeches of George, of which portions are televised live? Not likely.

<font color="#ffccff">Once you have had a bit more experience ferriting out the truth of matters I think you will figure it out. :D There are ways to learn the truth of things.....some of it involves going out that looking for your self.

Edit: In the last war with Iraq, the 4th largest army in the world, CNN reporters armed with camcorders captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers...all of whom were claimed to be ready to die for their motherland. Scarey bunch them Iraqi's.</font>

[ 01-06-2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Animal 01-06-2003 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
Well this is bad news anyway you look at it. Where is the line drawn between civillians and militants? If civillians shoot at american forces, can they shoot back? Sounds alot like Somallia.
Sounds a lot like Vietnam as well. That's why the US got trounced in Vietnam. You can't fight an enemy you can't see.

MagiK 01-07-2003 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Animal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
Well this is bad news anyway you look at it. Where is the line drawn between civillians and militants? If civillians shoot at american forces, can they shoot back? Sounds alot like Somallia.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam as well. That's why the US got trounced in Vietnam. You can't fight an enemy you can't see.

<font color="#ffccff">Dude, you are ignoring the lessons learned in the first Gulf War... read my edit to my last post. All these "devoted" people who will fight to the last to repell American invaders, surrendered in DROVES to unarmed civilians, hellicopters and anyone they could find. You are buying Saddams Bullshit and showing a rather large propensity to ignore reality. </font>
</font>[/QUOTE]

Horatio 01-07-2003 12:16 PM

If you are an occupying soldier in uniform, you can easily be picked out. If you are a civilian with a gun, you cannot, especially in crowds.

Djinn Raffo 01-07-2003 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Animal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
Well this is bad news anyway you look at it. Where is the line drawn between civillians and militants? If civillians shoot at american forces, can they shoot back? Sounds alot like Somallia.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam as well. That's why the US got trounced in Vietnam. You can't fight an enemy you can't see.

<font color="#ffccff">Dude, you are ignoring the lessons learned in the first Gulf War... read my edit to my last post. All these "devoted" people who will fight to the last to repell American invaders, surrendered in DROVES to unarmed civilians, hellicopters and anyone they could find. You are buying Saddams Bullshit and showing a rather large propensity to ignore reality. </font>
</font>[/QUOTE]
</font>[/QUOTE]Dude, you are making a judgement call and you do not know if this will be the case this time around or not.

Cloudbringer 01-07-2003 03:32 PM

Just a quick request of everyone: Can you keep the number of quoted sections down in your replies? Those massive quote pyramids get ungainly and throw off the spacing as well. Thanks!

Iron_Ranger 01-07-2003 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
Dude, you are making a judgement call and you do not know if this will be the case this time around or not.[/QB]
<font color='white'> But how do you know it wont happen like that again? It could very easily be the same thing as in the first gulf war. Same leader, same people. Whats to keep it from not reoccuring? </font>

Sir Taliesin 01-07-2003 04:32 PM

<font color=orange>They don't know IR. Simple as that. Just as Majik or I don't know. But at least I've been there and seen the results from the first time around. Like you I don't expect anything to change this time either.</font>

Djinn Raffo 01-07-2003 04:36 PM

Anything and everything. Going into Baghdad. Occupying the country. Fighting in cities. Who knows.. it's war, to go into it with the foregone conclusion that the enemy is not going to put up any kind of fight.. well when they do put up a fight then you can say that you were taking the enemy lightly right.

Like Dallas playing Atlanta.. by all rights the Stars should rock em.. but Kovalchuk or Heatly might be primed for a good night, know what i mean..

[ 01-07-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Iron_Ranger 01-07-2003 05:32 PM

<font color='white'> I see what you mean, but its unlikely.

What if Atlantas managment has been treating the players like crap, they have been having a bad season already, and their equipment isnt as good as Dallas is. They have no reason to want to win.

Same thing here. There is no desire to fight for Saddam. At least, that what it seems like. With the exeption of a few nutty fundalmentalist.

As I said, its unlikley. </font>

Djinn Raffo 01-07-2003 05:57 PM

Yep.

Is it better to overestimate your opponent, win, and laugh about it afterwards.. ..or underestimate your opponent, lose, and cry about it afterwards?

Is it better to always overestimate?

Pride goeth before a fall...

[ 01-07-2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Iron_Ranger 01-07-2003 11:49 PM

Well, I guess we will just have two diffrent opinons on it then. [img]smile.gif[/img]

MagiK 01-08-2003 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
Dude, you are making a judgement call and you do not know if this will be the case this time around or not.
<font color="#ffccff">Do you really think so? I do not. I suppose I cannot prove it so maybe I am making an educated guess....lets look at the facts as they stand.

The first time around Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world supporting him.

He had thousands of modern tanks and hundreds of modern aircraft, modern anti-aircraft weapons, dozens of scuds and anti-tank rockets and millions of mines.

He has less than a quarter of those resources this time around.

The people fighting for him will be the same people that fought for him last time, where exactly has he managed to improve the love and loyalty of his people since the early 1990's?

What has Iraq done to engender the bravery and espirit de corps of his fighting forces? What has suddenly turned this shell of a country into this juggernaut some are trying to tell us that Iraq is? </font>

[ 01-08-2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Djinn Raffo 01-08-2003 12:34 PM

Hatred of the USA. The common people in Iraq will be involved this time around not just the military.

To be honest i think it will be a cakewalk for the Americans in Iraq. I just don't think that it is a foregone conclusion and i believe that anything can happen. After all if Charlie could kick the *&%$ out of the mighty military machine.. maybe anyone can..

[ 01-08-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

skywalker 01-08-2003 01:04 PM

I don't think Iraq is a "juggernaut" but I am concerned that if Saddam's people do fight back and draw the US and Allies into city combat, they will look less than heroic. I don't think the people there are a threat nor are their conventional weaponry. But as I stated elsewhere, I am slightly concerned if Saddam has a few "hidden" surprises.

It doesn't matter if we (meaning US and to a lesser extent the Allies) can kick anyone's butt. What matters is what effect this "buttkicking" has on the World at large. Worldwide perception is extremely important if any country wants to secure respect and cooperation from others, they need to be doing the right thing for everyone. That is if the one that kicks butt cares...then it doesn't matter, I guess.

Mark

MagiK 01-08-2003 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
Hatred of the USA. The common people in Iraq will be involved this time around not just the military.

To be honest i think it will be a cakewalk for the Americans in Iraq. I just don't think that it is a foregone conclusion and i believe that anything can happen. After all if Charlie could kick the *&%$ out of the mighty military machine.. maybe anyone can..

<font color="#ffccff">Only problem there is that "Charlie" didn't ever really face the Military might of the US..."Charlie" met the ridiculous whims and panderings of US politicians. Had the Military been allowed to prosecute a "WAR" Laos would not have been a safe haven and China would have had to bow out of the conflict or risk a nuclear exchange.......no one ever seems to analyze exactly why Vietnam was a total SNAFU...they just go around talking baout how badly the "US Military" got trounced.....tsk tsk tsk.

Edit: yeah you are right about one thing though....nothing is ever for sure...you just have to have contingency plans. But recent history suggests that when the US gets involved the "common" person is not fighting him. </font>

[ 01-08-2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

MagiK 01-08-2003 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker:
I don't think Iraq is a "juggernaut" but I am concerned that if Saddam's people do fight back and draw the US and Allies into city combat, they will look less than heroic. I don't think the people there are a threat nor are their conventional weaponry. But as I stated elsewhere, I am slightly concerned if Saddam has a few "hidden" surprises.

<font color="#ffccff">I agree with you. if the US gets sucked into a block by block city fight, things would look ugly. Which is why I am HOPING, our military strategists are working on ways to keep the fight on our terms...which we are pretty good at doing I might add. But we shall see. </font>

It doesn't matter if we (meaning US and to a lesser extent the Allies) can kick anyone's butt. What matters is what effect this "buttkicking" has on the World at large. Worldwide perception is extremely important if any country wants to secure respect and cooperation from others, they need to be doing the right thing for everyone. That is if the one that kicks butt cares...then it doesn't matter, I guess.

<font color="#ffccff">Actually Im starting to wonder just how important "world opinion" really is. Our friends are our friends and may have their differences but will still be our friends. Those who hate us will still hate us.... All will fear us and bow before us In place of a Dark Lord, you shall have a ...urrrr sorry LoTR moment there.......The really important thing is to try to prevent the spread of WoMD as much as possible. Who really cares about Saddam? </font>

Mark


Djinn Raffo 01-08-2003 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
<font color="#ffccff">Only problem there is that "Charlie" didn't ever really face the Military might of the US..."Charlie" met the ridiculous whims and panderings of US politicians. Had the Military been allowed to prosecute a "WAR" Laos would not have been a safe haven and China would have had to bow out of the conflict or risk a nuclear exchange.......no one ever seems to analyze exactly why Vietnam was a total SNAFU...they just go around talking baout how badly the "US Military" got trounced.....tsk tsk tsk.
</font>

Excuses excuses... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

MagiK 01-08-2003 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
Excuses excuses... [img]tongue.gif[/img]
<font color="#ffccff">LLAO, well excuse or no, it is the truth [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Timber Loftis 01-08-2003 03:12 PM

I've been reading up a bit on the founding fathers lately, and it has made me reconsider some of my views regarding world opinion. George Washington wrote often of a country that should be totally for itself and its people, never permanently tied to any other country or permanently opposed to any other country.

I agree. Now, being for ourselves doesn't mean we don't care when people starve or die in a war in some far flung place - it just means that the US's interests are always first and foremost. This notion follows naturally from the notion that the government's power derives from and exists only on behalf of its people - it doesn't (read: shouldn't) give a damn about anything except what its people do.

Now, this is tempered by the notion that the Constitution exists to protect, in part, the minority opinion in a land (ideally, pure democracy) where the majority view could hurt some citizens if left unchecked. This is exactly what freedom of speech is about - you don't need to be "free" to speak about the things the majority agrees with, only those things that are unpopular. So, with that minor tempering, I expect the government to act in the best interests of the American people - both the majority and minority views.

That said, I return to the notion of world opinion. I'm really beginning to think world opinion only matters to us when: (1) a bad opinion of the US could cause harm (via backlash, alienation of other countries, etc.) to the people of the US, or (2) the American people care about some larger issue that stems from their compassion rather than pure socioeconomic needs (such as, I hope, the environment - but I guess even that is selfish).

Anyway, I'm feeling less and less flummoxed when the US isn't seen as a goody-goody by everyone.

And finally, I'll point out that the US has 2 problems when dealing with world views: (1) plain jealousy: the have-nots will always feel some bile in their stomach for the haves; (2) damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont: everyone wants the big superpower to be the world policeman and fix all horrible wrongs, but still somehow not interfere in other folks' business - what a warped notion of the prime directive.

MagiK 01-09-2003 09:53 AM

<font color="#ffccff">Hey Timber, [img]smile.gif[/img] I am glad you ahve been reading about the FF's (no not the fantastic four) I really wish a lot of other people would too. Im not saying that reading about them and their writings would mean we would all agree, but at least there would not be quite so many misinformed disagreements...(I think informed disagreements are much better). I like what you said about tempering things, altho Im never going to be as "green" as you are when it comes to the environment I suspect, but no one can say they love the outdoors more than I do...while I don't hunt as much as I used to I do hike a lot.

I guess this reply is really off topic, but I liked Timbers post and wanted to say so!.

I still maintain, the "average joe" in Iraq will not be a factor. They will duck and cover untill all the shooting stops and then will continue their lives as always. IMHO any way. </font>

Rikard_OHF 01-10-2003 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I've been reading up a bit on the founding fathers lately, and it has made me reconsider some of my views regarding world opinion. George Washington wrote often of a country that should be totally for itself and its people, never permanently tied to any other country or permanently opposed to any other country.

I agree. Now, being for ourselves doesn't mean we don't care when people starve or die in a war in some far flung place - it just means that the US's interests are always first and foremost. This notion follows naturally from the notion that the government's power derives from and exists only on behalf of its people - it doesn't (read: shouldn't) give a damn about anything except what its people do.

Now, this is tempered by the notion that the Constitution exists to protect, in part, the minority opinion in a land (ideally, pure democracy) where the majority view could hurt some citizens if left unchecked. This is exactly what freedom of speech is about - you don't need to be "free" to speak about the things the majority agrees with, only those things that are unpopular. So, with that minor tempering, I expect the government to act in the best interests of the American people - both the majority and minority views.

That said, I return to the notion of world opinion. I'm really beginning to think world opinion only matters to us when: (1) a bad opinion of the US could cause harm (via backlash, alienation of other countries, etc.) to the people of the US, or (2) the American people care about some larger issue that stems from their compassion rather than pure socioeconomic needs (such as, I hope, the environment - but I guess even that is selfish).

Anyway, I'm feeling less and less flummoxed when the US isn't seen as a goody-goody by everyone.

And finally, I'll point out that the US has 2 problems when dealing with world views: (1) plain jealousy: the have-nots will always feel some bile in their stomach for the haves; (2) damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont: everyone wants the big superpower to be the world policeman and fix all horrible wrongs, but still somehow not interfere in other folks' business - what a warped notion of the prime directive.

We dont want the USA play the worlds policemen
Ands thats where the problems lays
coz USA thinks the world does, but they dont

Timber Loftis 01-10-2003 10:42 AM

Well, Rikard, I just take my cues from the newspapers. And, I get the impression that when things go awry the US is often sought for help. Now, maybe most countries would rather just have heaping gobs of our money, but they're still looking for some action by the US in most instance - IMHO and perception.

BTW, did you realize you quoted 30+ lines just to type 3? Couldn't you have simply posted a reply without quoting my whole post?

MagiK 01-11-2003 12:53 AM

<font color="#ffccff">
Rikard if what you said is true and the European states don't want US palying cop, why don't they close our military bases in their countries? I think Spain, Greece, Italy and the UK may have a different opinion from yours about what they want the US to do for them. (the nations not forum individuals)</font>

Djinn Raffo 01-11-2003 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
<font color="#ffccff">
Rikard if what you said is true and the European states don't want US palying cop, why don't they close our military bases in their countries? I think Spain, Greece, Italy and the UK may have a different opinion from yours about what they want the US to do for them. (the nations not forum individuals)</font>

Why do they have to close them (the nations)? Why can't your soldiers just go home? They aren't occupying are they? And why can't the individuals close them?

[ 01-11-2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

MagiK 01-11-2003 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MagiK:
<font color="#ffccff">
Rikard if what you said is true and the European states don't want US palying cop, why don't they close our military bases in their countries? I think Spain, Greece, Italy and the UK may have a different opinion from yours about what they want the US to do for them. (the nations not forum individuals)</font>

Why do they have to close them (the nations)? Why can't your soldiers just go home? They aren't occupying are they? And why can't the individuals close them?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">
Why don't our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines go home you mean. They don't go home, because those nations have asked us to be there. They have not asked us to go home...nor do they appear to want to be left on their own to defend their own interests abroad. They actually COUNT on the might of the US military to defned them and secure their interests around the world.....it isn't like they can do it their self. The US military preasence has allowed all of those countries to spend far far less on their own defense than they would have had to do otherwise.....Not to mention, they don't want to loose the BILLIONS of $$$$$ that the US pays for rent and that the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and MArines SPEND in their economies. The US military affects foreign economies in a rather large and positive dollar way. [img]smile.gif[/img] They want us, they need us to some extent so we stay. </font>


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved