Who's going to win Gulf War II (really)?

maxsdadeo wrote:

As to your question, we will win the battle.

If we help them after the conflict is over, we also have a chance to win the war.

I have to agree on this one, but with a twist.

This war is the first battle of a more larger war the US is embarked upon. A war which will extend to other countries.

If the US really helps the Iraqis, after the conflict is over, it has a chance of winning the larger war.

I am 99.5% sure the US will be the military victor in the Battle of Iraq.
I don't know if it will win the war.

0 Replies

Depends on what the meaning of the word "win" is!

(Damn, what does that remind me of?)

0 Replies

War

Asherman wrote:

Only if those who prefer Saddam's story to our own are able to weaken the resolve of the President of the United States, the British Prime Minister, and other Coalition leaders, can Saddam win.

Quite insightful and interesting angles, thank you! ... I'll be mulling it over for a day or two.
Meanwhile, I'd like to extend the question to everyone:

----------------
Two brothers discover ten apples. They could share them, five each, or
they could look around and help each other find or grow more.
But instead they fight over the apples they have.

In the tussle, 7 apples get destroyed and the smaller brother
is maimed. So the larger brother gets the 3 surviving apples,
and his family punishes him for being so mean.

There is definitely a winner and a loser here.
One got all 3 apples, and the other didn't.

So I think the U.S. will definitely "win" the war.
But consider what $100B (just for our country!) could do elsewhere
-- for our economy, education, technology, energy, industry, etc.
And the cost to our people, society, diplomacy, and reputation.

I'm curious. Apart from winning, do you think the U.S.
will come out ahead, net, after the total price is paid?
Is this war a worthwhile bargain? In your opinion...

0 Replies

There's no question who's going to win the "war" if we mean the military campaign. The greater question is who's going to win the political war? Will the majority of Iraqi's really be happier? Will the Middle East states and it's people favor the ousting of Saddam? At what cost? What effect with this war have on world security? c.i.

0 Replies

I started this thread from a nagging feeling I had that I now recognize. It is that thru out history smaller armies have defeated larger ones and many times one side of an armed conflict will say with certainty that they will win - no chance that they could possibly be wrong! Then, of course they lose. I remember that message by the Oracle of Delphi that told a General that he will destroy a great army. He didn't understand that that message meant he would destroy his own. I believe that we will win, but as one of you said, what does "win" mean? Dov

0 Replies

Quote:

What [the Iraqis have] got going for them is that our maladroitness politically and diplomatically has put us in a real bind. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is an unpopular guy in Iraq, but he's running against George Bush. If you're an Iraqi, you've gotta decide who you're going to vote for here.
...

I hate it when military plans are made with optimistic assumptions of that kind. I never made a plan that relied on the courage of my own troops. You hope that -- and they generally will -- fight bravely. Your plan ought to be predicated on more realistic assumptions.

And if we sent the 3rd Infantry up there naked, by themselves, because somebody assessed that they'd be throwing bouquets at us, that's the worst thing you could say about political leadership, is that they made optimistic assumptions about warfare.

Michael Moore? Dan Rather? Phil Donohue?

Nope. General Merrill A. McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force 1990-94, from an interview which appeared in the Portland Oregonian.

0 Replies

the truth and only the truth
I must again splash some wisdom in your face.
1) I love it when people say, "it's a war, no one wins". Okay, so what I mean is, "Who will lose the least (or the most)?
2) My mother, very rarely wise about external things, said that people say they spent a billion dollars "on space" when they could have spent it on humanitarian causes in the United States! How could they be so evil! Then my mother gave her answer to that argument: There is not a dollar "in space", all the money is here on Earth. What she would have meant about Iraq is that there is not a dollar lost. It was all spent on munitions, salaries, contractors, groceries, housing, appliances, school lunches........so the point would be a sympathetic one to a Republican (which I'm not) if he were to say if you wanted to stimulate the American economy by investment and spending, this is the way to do it. I myself, God forbid, would agree with the Republicans on another point. Of that 75-80 billion dollars, a third will be back in the Federal Treasury in the form of taxes paid within a year. Another third will be returned to us in dribs and drabs over the next one or two decades in the form of fringe benefits "due us" as "winners". That reminds me of the wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales. The government spent 50 million pounds on it, rather than on humanitarian causes, but it was hardly recognized that the wedding, as a business venture, brought in 150 million pounds. Sometimes spending can be a confusing word.

0 Replies

just asking
As for those destroyed apples; do you mean metaphysically, by physics, or do you mean apple sauce?

0 Replies

Well, if the recent reports about the possible bombing of Saddam and his two sons are true...... c.i.

0 Replies

Dov,

These 10 billion dollars represents real value is being wasted by the war. You are right that we are not talking about paper dollars here. If you look at economic value, your point is, at is core, incorrect.

These $10 billion dollars represents:

1) 10's of thousands of soldiers, many of whom should be home producing goods, and earning and spending money.

2) Thousands of hours of engineering brainpower developing bombs that could be used to develop more efficient cars, better machinery or consumer products. Instead of killing, these products would enrich our lives, make us more efficient and happy and build our economy.

3) Metal, rubber, oil, plastic and depleted uranium. Four of these could be used in products that directly help our economy. The fact they are being used in Iraq mean that there is less supply and higher prices for peaceful uses.

4) Thousands of hours of work rebuilding the infrastructure that our bombs are now tearing down. Do you know there is a housing crises at home? Wouldn't this labor better be spent here?

5) Thousands of human lives. OK technically these don't have much economic value. But, it still is worth mentioning here.

All of these things are being wasted in this war. They represent an economic value that are being spent with no economic gain. They can not be recovered.

Go over this list and think of what we could do if this much effort energy and expense were spent to better our own country.

0 Replies

ebrown
Very well said.

0 Replies

Re: just asking

dov1953 wrote:

As for those destroyed apples; do you mean metaphysically, by physics, or do you mean apple sauce?

Destroyed apples that can never be appreciated by any human being, anywhere again. Ever.

War is a far greater tragedy than just Iraq, or just the U.S., or the paltry prizes that politicians jockey for this month. For one very real apple lost to the world, please refer to my post on another thread about Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities. Please read the details, and just think about it.

Nobody's children will grow up to see these treasures again. Make any excuse you want. No scientist will further our ancient knowledge by studying these artifacts anymore. Make any excuse you want. Will Mr. Bush be paying the bill, or restoring even 10% of the damage? Make any excuse you want. No amount of oil or "correct thinking" will ever replace this amazing cultural treasure. Make any excuse you want.

Is this war a worthwhile bargain? In your opinion...

0 Replies

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/fiore/

0 Replies

90% plus of the artifacts will probably be returned, and as to your "blaming Bush for it", I believe most of the stuff was taken by the curators and workers at the museums themselves.

Isn't blaming the administration for this kind of like blaming wet streets for rain?

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

90% plus of the artifacts will probably be returned, and as to your "blaming Bush for it", I believe most of the stuff was taken by the curators and workers at the museums themselves.

In a world where people are more interdependent than ever before, War is kind of like DUI. You know that really bad stuff is inevitable, so just don't go there! It's reckless and irresponsible, and like never before in history it invites ever-increasing levels of disaster, that ripple far beyond the two parties involved.

There are SO many constructive alternatives! We are capable of SO much better!

maxsdadeo wrote:

Isn't blaming the administration for this kind of like blaming wet streets for rain?

Wet streets are caused by rain. The administration is not caused by looting. So, no I don't think it's the same.

Also, so much of the initiative and motivation for this war comes directly from Mr Bush, that I certainly would not equate his administration with natural weather. Rain is usually unavoidable. War is a choice made by people. And the conduct of a war is yet another choice.

Passively letting people do desperate things, does not make one virtuous or innocent.

Even if we owned Iraq like we might own a house, if I made the choice to burn down part of a house to rebuild it better, then it would be fully MY responsibility to make sure the flames do only what I want. If I passively let someone freak out in the kitchen, then I'm guilty of murder. The whole thing was my deal, my responsibility to make sure it goes well.

I hope that a President would make decisions, but also be professionally accountable and responsible for the consequences of those decisions. He knew exactly what he was getting into, so part of my point was "Is he the kind of person to stand up and pay his own bills"?

I dearly hope the artifacts will be returned. Have you any news about this happening, or how much/little was damaged?

0 Replies

codeborg said:

Quote:

so much of the initiative and motivation for this war comes directly from Mr Bush

Really?

You have made it abundantly clear that this is your opinion, and an opinion that is shared by others, but it does not detract from the fact that it is, just that, an opinion.

Others see it differently.

Others see the opportunities extended to Saddam to comply, with 12 years of UN resolutions, with directives from Colin Powell, with numerous "last chances" from GWB.

He chose to not cooperate.

So it is Bush's fault?

0 Replies

Again max placing the onus on one person does not detract from the possibility that the action taken might have been in error.

I could tell a someone that if he doesn't leave his home with his children there would be violence and that even if he did do so I would still invade his home and say that the person was given the chance to comply and are therefore responsible for my actions but it would not be true.

But I share your opinion of the lootinng etc not bein Bush's fault. I do offer a caveat in which I think that this war was initiated by Bush and that Bush would do well to avoid as many of the negative repercussions as possible.

Of course it's not possible to avoid them all so that's why I do not blame Bush for everything that goes wrong.

0 Replies

Craven: You have made your opinion well known on this conflict, to paraphrase I think it was, "Perhaps the worst decision that the US has made" or something to that effect, and I respect that opinion.

It is an opinion, unlike most, that will either be confirmed or refuted with time.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that GWB would do well to not "go looking for trouble", or he will surely and inevitably find it.

0 Replies

Thing is, i'm not commenting directly about the merits of that decision. Just that that decision, regardless of its merit, can't be painted as one sided. Be it right or wrong the facts indicate that it took two to tango. This does not even broach the opinions that Saddam had no choice and that regardless of what he could have done after Bush took office this war would have occured.

0 Replies

Quote:

This does not even broach the opinions that Saddam had no choice and that regardless of what he could have done after Bush took office this war would have occured

Alas, we are resigned to speculation on this matter now, aren't we?

As to whether or not we were tangoing or Saddam was doing a Tony Manero, that too is a contestable matter.

0 Replies

Who's going to win Gulf War II (really)?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know