Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-01-2005, 07:57 PM   #11
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
There are no small thoughts. Merely small brains. Words to live by.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 12:18 PM   #12
uss
20th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: November 16, 2001
Location: Estonia
Age: 35
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
There are no small thoughts. Merely small brains. Words to live by.
Hmm, yes. Or as Mr. Garrison would say:"There aren't any stupid questions - just stupid people." [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]
uss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 03:12 PM   #13
Djinn Raffo
Ra
 

Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
My point was that this has nothing to do with high-flown values and principles about bringing democracy to people, and liberating them from dictatorships. If that were the case then there's a hundred and one places we'd be invading. The intervention in Iraq is anything but altrustic.
Simple logistics prevents invading those hundred and one places all at once as i'm sure you're aware. So invading them one at a time is the way to go, if you are for toppling dictatorships that is. Would you be in favour of invasion with the intention of removing dictatorships in each and every one of those one hundred and one places one at a time?
Djinn Raffo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 04:22 PM   #14
shamrock_uk
Dracolich
 

Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 3,092
I'm all with the logistics point, but if you have limited resources and toppling dictatorships if on the agenda then why not start with the worst? Or get one that is in the transition from non-nuclear to nuclear status. After they will become unassailable, so striking now would be the only chance.

Iraq is a very peculiar choice to start with, however you look at it.
shamrock_uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 04:37 PM   #15
Djinn Raffo
Ra
 

Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
I'm all with the logistics point, but if you have limited resources and toppling dictatorships if on the agenda then why not start with the worst? Or get one that is in the transition from non-nuclear to nuclear status. After they will become unassailable, so striking now would be the only chance.

Iraq is a very peculiar choice to start with, however you look at it.
But if you think about it with a nod to tactics you might find Iraq is a perfect choice. Iraq, itself at the time a dictatorship, is bordered by Iran and Syria, two more dictatorships with abyssmal human rights records. Iraq, before the war, had been greatly reduced in their capabilities to fight because of sanctions so they would be the easiest place to invade and win. Now you are in control of Iraq and have the land for bases to invade Iran or Syria or both. If you were start with Iran you would only have had bases in Kabul.
Djinn Raffo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 04:58 PM   #16
shamrock_uk
Dracolich
 

Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 3,092
Good points. What will be interesting is if the Iraqi government ask them to leave

Bang goes the most expensive 'lets build a few bases' expedition in the history of the world [img]tongue.gif[/img]
shamrock_uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2005, 12:00 PM   #17
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Question Mark

Well, I certainly agree that when nations act "morality" must not be an issue. What is moral for nation A is not moral for nation B, etc.

I do think that most reasonable people agree that human life is valuable and that human rights violations are bad. What I advocate is that sitting on the sidelines while a regime commits atrocities is akin to giving permission for such atrocities to be committed.
This isn't an argument about the US being right or wrong, because I would be one of the first to admit that American involvement in Vietnam was wrong, as was our secret raids on Cambodia and Laos. Communism was never a real enough threat. This is about putting an end to things like the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia and near-genocides in places like Rwanda; I doubt anyone would disagree that stopping such things is wrong.

Yes, such intervention would cost human lives; only an idiot would think otherwise. However, many more lives could be saved by intervening than by letting things take their own course. How many died in Rwanda? More than a million? Losing 100,000 by invading is a much more acceptable loss, even though such loss is itself sad. Truman had to make a similar choice: drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or risk many more thousands of lives--both Japanses and American--with a normal invasion.

I am neither a warmonger nor a blind follower of Washington, D.C. I am, however, a realist and someone who would like to see the world become a better place. In order to accomplish that goal I am prepared to accept the negative consequences that would happen by intervening to stop abominable atrocities.
Until someone devises a solution which could end atrocities without ending lives I do not see any other reasonable alternative.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2005, 02:18 PM   #18
mad=dog
Avatar
 

Join Date: April 18, 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 48
Posts: 549
"The goal justifies the means" in simpler terms. I happen to disagree. In certain cases it can be true and do not get me wrong - I am thrilled at the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq. I want to see it first, but it may actually happen. That is a good thing. I just wish someone would have told me that it was THAT the war was about, because I got the impression that it was to stop education of terrorists and to destroy facilities to produce ABC weaponry. Because if they had told me we could have had a sensible discussion on those terms and I could probably have given at least half a dozen solutions that would remove Saddam from power without war. After all WE live in democratic countries where the government answers to us don't we? It only works if we have open debates on common terms. Otherwise we are no better ourselves.

A string of thoughts:
It is February 1991. The (then closely united) coalition have routed the Republican Guard, which is performing a fighting retreat out of Kuwait leaving the bulk of it's outfit behind. Two US and one Canadian division is poised to form an encirclement-destruction manoevre into southern Iraq opening an unoposed road to Bagdad. Saddam is seriously threatened. The Iraqi war council decides to take drastic measures and orders SCUD missiles armed with the last supplies of CIA manifactured serine gas Iraq obtained in the mid-late 80'es. It is hoped that this would leave the impression that Iraq is capable of producing said weapons and that direct invasion would be too costy. It works. Invasion is abandoned leaving the Kurd/Shia rebelion isolated to be crushed.
Now the international comunity demands weapon inspections as part of the peace terms. We want to locate those factories and destroy them. But they don't exist, so there is nothing to be found. Ultimately Dick & Bush II decides that enough is enough and in a strike of irony the WoMD gambit winds up bringing down Saddam anyhow.

Based on speculation of course, but consider
1) Given the allocated resources it is very unlikely that the inspectors would fail to locate massive production facilities.
2) Given the allocated resources it is extremely unlikely that the American military would fail to locate massive production facilities.
3) Given the circumstances it is unlikely that Saddam would destroy the facilities in secrecy. After all their destruction would mean the end of the restrictive embargo.
4) Without a suitable threat - real or fictive - the first Gulf War would have ended in total defeat.

[ 05-03-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]
__________________
[url]\"http://www.dsr.kvl.dk/~maddog/isur.jpg\" target=\"_blank\">Ooooookay. I surrender.</a><br />Sometimes I get the eerie feeling that my computer is operating me and not the other way around.
mad=dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Small countries' contribution to the Iraqi war. uss General Discussion 5 12-17-2004 11:27 PM
The new Iraqi flag Donut General Discussion 17 06-09-2004 03:50 AM
Iraqi...say what??? Sparhawk General Discussion 1 04-05-2004 07:36 PM
Are Iraqi children going to school? ( Iraqi Indoctrination) Chewbacca General Discussion 0 03-21-2003 12:41 AM
Melusine - it's a small, small world Donut General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 12 03-11-2002 06:54 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.


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