cassius
RPG Townie
"Theres a exit...learn it well..."
Posts: 64
|
Post by cassius on Apr 13, 2003 19:26:08 GMT -5
Who will win the war (Op: Iraqy freedom)?
Iraq or U.S.A?
|
|
|
Post by Busterman Zero on Apr 13, 2003 21:05:25 GMT -5
Uhh...the US? THey'll most likely win anyways...
|
|
|
Post by Lunar on Apr 13, 2003 21:07:56 GMT -5
It's pretty much already over...
Anyways, the challege is rebuilding Iraq now, there isn't much resistance left.
|
|
|
Post by Chickensoupcheese on Apr 14, 2003 5:52:44 GMT -5
If Iraqi's Information Minister is your primary source, then Iraq will win without a doubt. However, if you live in the real world, like Lunar said, it's pretty much over now, drawing to the closing stages.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Apr 14, 2003 6:58:12 GMT -5
America will walk all over Iraq, but they won't get Saddam. He's long left the country. So nobody will actually WIN from it.
|
|
Ricky-K
RPG Townie
You were afraid to live but now you are afraid to die...
Posts: 210
|
Post by Ricky-K on Apr 14, 2003 15:59:39 GMT -5
Inq: The Iraqi people have won freedom from this war, so it can't have been in vain even if Saddam isnt caught can it?
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Apr 14, 2003 20:25:46 GMT -5
I think Saddam was gone when he first realized that human shields weren't going to stop us. Those who were seen going into the bombed buildings were most likely fakes.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Apr 14, 2003 21:00:20 GMT -5
In war there are no winners... except for the guys who blow up the most other guys in the least amount of time ;D
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Apr 15, 2003 3:38:05 GMT -5
You think the Americans will stop there? They already are saying that Syria/Siria now have "Weapons of mass destruction" (i.e. Oil Supplies) However, Syria/Siria haven't broke any war rules or done anything wrong, so this next assault will be unjust if they continue with it. The new question comes up: Is Bush as bad as Saddam?
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Apr 15, 2003 14:22:00 GMT -5
You think the Americans will stop there? They already are saying that Syria/Siria now have "Weapons of mass destruction" (i.e. Oil Supplies) However, Syria/Siria haven't broke any war rules or done anything wrong, so this next assault will be unjust if they continue with it. The new question comes up: Is Bush as bad as Saddam? ..................... nah
|
|
|
Post by Laralon the Mad Looter on Apr 15, 2003 15:07:47 GMT -5
USA>IRAQ
|
|
|
Post by Sanovarak on Apr 20, 2003 4:28:28 GMT -5
US, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Kuja Has left on Apr 20, 2003 4:39:47 GMT -5
The official reason for having their sights set on Syria has nothing to do with WMD's. Itss because they are housing fleeing members of Saddam's Regime.
|
|
Nikki
RPG Townie
I am . . . THE EYE.
Posts: 43
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 20, 2003 6:53:14 GMT -5
If the best you can do either way is mutter something about blood for oil or brave crusaders bringing freedom, well, sue your local government. They owe you an education.
The economy is in a slump. A war will stimulate the arms industry and the building industry. A happy coincidence is that there is oil in Iraq. This should, in due course, stabilise the economy.
A war in Iraq will also - hopefully - make life slightly better for those Iraqis that aren't blown to bits. Combined with the fact that a war will also, typically, demonstrate the patriotism of the leader in question to the degree required by large chunks of the populace, this will increase the general popularity of said leaders, giving them and their parties a better chance of re-election. Making life better for the Iraqi people is another happy coincidence, although I beleive the coallition governments do genuinely want to acheive this goal (although this is not a controlling factor; if human rights was the key issue, heavily-armed China would seem to be the 'better' target for invasion).
The fact that the Iraqi people will, most likely, benefit from the removal of Hussein and the institution of a democratic state, means that most anti-war protesters will be unable to say anything truly d**ning about the coallition following the war. The only exception would seem to be those members of coallition governments who resigned in protest: if we have a 'good' war, and end up richer then we were before, they can nod wisely and talk about blood money and those Iraqis already killed in the conflict; if we have a 'bad' war, with heavy casualties both sides (not likely now, but still a point), they can smugly say, "I told you the war was a bad idea!". Either way, they can benignly smile at the cameras and tell the populace how they stood by their beliefs by quitting.
As for the reasons behind war on Iraq in particular, I would assume this is because it ensures a fairly 'safe' war; Iraq is not an immensely powerful nation, and its armies are largely conscripted. In the last gulf war, I think the casualties suffered by the US was something like 79 killed? In any case, it is not likely to be an immensely destructive war in terms of allied troops killed.
Given that the population was, basically, suffering under Hussein, removing him from power in the name of human rights is certainly the safe thing to do; anti-war protesters are theoretically on safe ground when they attack the amount of people lost to collateral damage and friendly fire, but they simply shoot themselves in the foot the moment they say that the Iraqi people were free and safe under Hussein.
And, as for who will win, the US seems to have won already.
|
|
Grim
RPG Townie
Sometimes i feel like the worlds on my shoulders
Posts: 121
|
Post by Grim on Apr 20, 2003 15:55:17 GMT -5
its like this Us Iraq
|
|