*DAMN R6 Forum

America and Britain may be in for a fight much larger than the first Gulf War. It shows that eventhough Iraqis may hate Sadaam, they do not want to be in their eyes, "ruled by America" Reports give 7 million Iraqis are armed. This comes not from Iraqi claims but claims by British Intel. Numerous intelligence sources from Russia, to Germany, to Britain, to France, and to the US indicate that there are not many revolts at all. What is worse news, Iraqis see this not as a regime change, but an invasion by the West. This may not be the truth, America and Britain may only be in there for regime change, but never the less this is what Iraqis see. An Army cannot defeat the masses. Remember Germany came into Russia with the public intent of ridding the world of communism. Look what happened. The bloodiest war the world has ever known with an estimated 35 million casualties between the two countries. This is not a prediction but a concern and a thought I think you people would like to ponder.

We're fighting for the people who want Saddam gone rather it be a minority or a majority. Our main objective is to get saddam out. Those who want him gone will support us and once we've achieved that goal, those who opposed us will just have to live with the consequences. They'll all soon see how better their lives will be after they are awarded the freedoms they so deserve.

I fear that Cossack may be correct. Our intentions are irrelevant, it's what the Iraqi people think that matters. They will decide if this war becomes our next Vietnam.

Though our media and government are very good at propagandizing the American people, they just plain suck at getting foreigners to believe them.

Well, it wont turn out like Vietnam unless the Russians, Chineese, French or Germans decide to start arming them.  I don't consider that very likely.

Since many of the Iraqi are starving, without food and water, I don't think the average citizen is going to put up that much fight if the US/Brit/Aussie forces keep carting in the food and water.  Saddam has starved out so many of them, that even the threat of getting shot will pale over the threat of starving to death.  As long as the soldiers keep feeding them, I don't think Saddam's hold over his people will last.  While many Iraqi may fear the western soldiers today, I think it's pretty safe to say that most Iraqi fear Saddam, not love him.  That fear can be beaten.  Beaten with the use of both force and kindness, when applied in the right directions.

Again I have to state the Germanic-Russo War. The nazis came into Minsk, Vilinus (yes its a real city not just a map in GhR.), and Tallinn as liberators in the public world. Ukranians hated Stalin, many Russians wanted to see him dead, but when they saw a foreign army come onto their soils, we became angry.

BTW Bucc, Russia has offered them weapons and continues to do so.

That doesn't mean it has to happen to everyone. Look at what happened in Bosnia. The Kroatians and ethnic Bosnians were being eridicated by Serbs. They were crying for help but no one really responded except for us. They praised our arrival. Same goes for Somalia. Except there was a slight mix. Most of the somalians supported our efforts but there were small pockets of them that didn't want our involvement. That's exactly what's happening in Iraq. We show up with food and tellt hem their corrupt leader who's been starving them for years is going to be removed. Plain and simple as that. Whoever doesn't see that as a positive move is idiotic.

Py, your food convoys are getting tons of delays, that's a big part of what angers the civilians who come to greet your troops.

damit will these war threads ever stop??? there should be a section just for war threads...

- Snipey (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/wallbash.gif)

 I'm going to make an off topic post to try and deal with something. Please ignore this, unless you're name is Snipey.

1.) Snipey, someone already suggested making a seperate section of the forum for war threads. Assassin came and pointed out that there were many 9/11 threads, and many Afganastan threads. After the war is over, they'll go away. The General Gossip is here so people can talk about important current issues, and it just so happens that the war in Iraq is the biggest current issue.

2.) Take a look at everyone else's posts, then look at yours. Notice a difference in the subject?

3.) To use italic, you must put the words that you want to be in italic  inside of the symbols.

Back to topic - Bucc, why do you think it's unlikely someone will arm the Iraqis?  You just named all the major countries that oppose the war - it seems plausible for them to show that feeling, especially given the sentiments Americans have shown toward them.  Were I a Frenchman now, I would be upset at all the anti-French feelings just because of my non-support of the war.  I don't know if that would drive me to sell weapons to the enemy or not, but it would be possible. . .

And what about other nations that support Iraq itself. . .Syria, Iran, etc.  What if the rest of the Axis of Evil got involved?

The Russians and Syrains have already armed them with some sophisticated things that have been destroyed, and the Syrians continue to attempt to smuggle arms across the border.

Kami, blame the delays on the Iraqi guerilla's.

Loudnotes, Iran hates Iraq with a passion.

People -
Giving food to starving humans is a great idea! Look at the Missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church, they go to Africa offering food and then after a while they introduce the Catholic Religion, in this case, Democracy.

- j47

My mistake Sin. . .anyway, surely Iraq has some way to get arms. . .there are lots of countries that either support Iraq or hate the US.

what if countrys dont want to be liberated by americans? shouldnt mb the people who live there make this decision? how the fuck can u think its the americans who can decide that?

imagine usa wouldnt have the largest arsenal in the world, would u like to be liberated by russians? in their eyes u would have a much better life afterwards... just that u will probably see it from another angle...

In my Environmental Economics course I've learned that when a central power tries to deal with environmental issues, it almost as a rule is vastly inefficient.  One of the books I read for it states the importance of having decisions made locally to account for the time and space specific issues.  The concept works wonders, even when not taking control out of a public hand.

Why if this is true for Environmental economics, shouldn't it be true for international politics.  I think the issues of countries in the middle east primarily need to be decided by those in the middle east.  Otherwise it is likely to go awry.  Command and control systems just don't work well.

america is trying hard to make people hate them...

not givin a shit bout anyone isnt exactly a "friendly" attitude...

People would rather be ruled by their own corrupt leaders, than fair, foreign powers.

How could they make any type of decision like that, much less try to take any sort of action to enforce that decision?!  I find it just a wee bit unlikely that Saddam would react pleasantly to an Iraqi telling him they would like a change to, for example, democracy.  Do you think they have any choice whatsoever?  How can you even think that the people of Iraq have it OK?  They live under a ruler who wouldn't lose a night's sleep by torturing you for speaking a word against him.  Even if they sincerely wanted to challenge him, they would not win.  To not support him is to die.  You don't think this shit isn't cause for intervention?  And if they honestly don't think there is anything wrong with the situation they're in, well...they probably don't know how good the rest of us have it, do they?

Since when are oppressed people unable to revolt?

Anyone can name for you dozens of examples of peoples who lived under regimes just as harsh as Hussein's who decided they wanted to change it, and they did so.  However, when has their been a time where those people did nothing as another group came in and changed the government for them?

The US is supposedly not conquering Iraq.  If so, we're just handing them a government.  Since they haven't demonstrated that they want one, how can this be justified?

What an arrogant, superior, condescending thing to think.  How can you think they don't?  How do you think the USA was formed?  What about the USSR, Russia, each of its republics, every modern state in Europe, and almost every industrialized nation??

They all had revolutions, which are possible if the people desire them enough.  Obviously the Iraqis as a whole don't, and who the hell are you to say that they do?  If they aren't uprising, have you considered that maybe there's something about the quality of their lives that leaves them contented?  Just because it doesn't meet your standards doesn't mean it's not good enough for someone else, or even that they'd prefer things to be different.

Note - if they Iraqis rose up in revolt themselves, it would be a very different matter if we were simply aiding them, but it's quite another thing to instigate the conflict ourselves.

Loudnotes, the last time the people of Iraq tried to revolt, they were raped, murdered, and gassed.

Few questions for you then Loudnotes.

1) how many revolts has Saddam has Saddam put down so far?  (you better know of at least one).

2) how many revolts have been unsuccessful because the everyday citizen had no weapons at all (not even hand guns) with which to fight?  How many tyrants like Saddam have put these revolutions down?  All because nobody came to their aid.

3) how many revolutions that were successful, wouldn't have been without the aid of forign countries?

Ok, I don't take the threat of casualties as a reasonable excuse against the Iraqis having a revolution, it isn't like the Revolutionary War was blood free except those running the colonies.

As for foreign aid...I can think of quite a few coups that didn't require outside aid (think of the French running ole Louix XVI off to the guillotines).  Let them eat cake...but the cake wasn't being provided by another country.

Louis XIV was an inept, debt ridden royal. He had no real authority- hell, the people caught him trying to flee the country. He wasn't exactly armed and ready to put down any sort of revolt sort of a playground uprisal... unlike mr hussein  :o

Russian Revolution had no foreign assistance, in fact the whole international community was against it. With good reason if you ask me.

Ethiopian Revolution- Halle Sallasie

Iranian Revolution- again much of the world community was against this one.

Hey cookie what about the Texan Revolution? I guess that is a bit sketchy the US may have supplied us a bit, but not to my knowledge.

There was also the Young Turks Revolution.

Yup I can name a few that didnt require foreign help, or atleast very miniscule amounts ie funding.

im not saying saddam is a cool and friendly guy. im just saying its not americas decision either. if it was they had to attack like 50 other countrys as well, bc saddam is not the only dictator on this planet. saddam was/is the best controlled dictator though. and he has lots of oil...

and all these arguments that saddam killed so and so many people, do any of u have a clue how much people were killed by the us in past conflicts? hundreds of thousands, all over the world. i dont consider usa a peaceful country in any way...

and, cobra, do u think a democracy based on bombs will work just fine? i dont think so...

and america is creating another 1000 bin ladens right now, but im sure u will find out soon enough...

peace!

The reasons for the war are odd in that they apply to so many other countries as well, but the US selectively chooses to invoke them in this case.

Having WMD...loads of countries, including the US, Israel, etc. (don't bother with the probation nonsense, that isn't the point of this statement)

Selling WMD to terrorists...North Korea and Iran are apparently on this list, but N. Korea is to strong to attack, so we just pick on the relatively weaker Iraq.  Not to mention that Russia in its break down from he USSR has been the source of the most WMD most likely just because they couldn't control them well.

Violation of UN resolution (this is where the probation would come in)...loads of counries, especially Israel violate UN resolutions, but you don't see us invading Israel (or perhaps stop giving them weapons?)

Links to terrorism...Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have more citizens participatin and funding terrorism that Iraq from those that we've seen, it isn't limited to Iraq by any means.

Threat to US...the threat to the US was, in my opinion, very transparent to begin with, Saddam hadn't really challanged the US's security at any point that he has been in power, we have just gotten involved.

Liberation from dictator...Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, so are countless other countries

Dictator killing citizens...just as there are countless countries with dictatorships, many use their power to harm civilians.

Oil...Saudia Arabia has more oil than Iraq

"He tried to kill my daddy"...hmm, this one applies only to Saddam...perhaps we have a winner in the reason parade.


So why, other than revenge is Iraq singled out as a target...I certainly can't see the reason.

Uhh...
Didn't mean to offend you there, LoudNotes.  My intent was not to sound "arrogant", "superior", and "condescending"...I just think saying "let the Iraqis handle Saddam" is something easier said than done.  It's my opinion.  Please take it as just that, not a personal attack.

As was mentioned, it seems to me that Saddam is more than capable of nullifying resistance from Iraqi civilians.  I still don't think overthrowing the regime is a possibility for them...unarmed civilians would have one hell of a time staging a revolt against the Republican Guard.

And no, there probably wouldn't be enough people who would want to even attempt such a revolt.  They may honestly not want to, or they may not be willing for fear of what might be done to them if they did try...I don't know.

I don't know if how the US decided to handle the problem was right, either.  I never claimed it was.  I think some type of intervention was necessary.  The things Saddam does are not OK.  Do you agree?