Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Anti-War voice being heard?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magisterium" data-source="post: 659126" data-attributes="member: 6530"><p>Juicy topic.</p><p></p><p>Well, from my observation, most people oppose war out of indifference or because they believe that the US will "bomb the women and children" indiscriminately. Both of these are erroneous in my humble opinion for so many reasons. However, I also oppose an offensive against Saddam, but perhaps for a slightly more substantial reason. </p><p></p><p>In Iraq, you have the Baath and Shiite (shi'a) Muslim groups (among others). Much like democrats and republicans, the Baath party is more liberal and secularized, while the Shiite party is conservative and fundamental. However, these parties differ from American political parties because of religious, righteous, indignation. This indignation drives members of opposing parties to take up arms and seek to destroy each other. </p><p></p><p>Saddam's iron fisted dictatorship serves to suppress and contain this opposition. Of course dissention remains, but any open opposition is quickly and brutally dealt with. Removal of Saddam's regime serves to remove the container from this powder keg. This is why I believe many say that removing Saddam would serve to "hurt the stability of the region". Of course any stability gained from a murderous dictator is bound to be short lived. However, many seem willing to just let it run its course like a bad virus and hope for the best. The ostrich approach as I see it. </p><p></p><p>In the event that an offensive is launched, I have no doubt that it would successfully remove Saddam and his regime. It would not come cheap however. As I understand it, Many of Saddam's Military positions are located in densely populated civilian centers. Urban warfare in Iraq will likely be like Vietnam x10. Add to that the opposition from the world's civilians and you have a nasty mess. Any allied support we would manage to retain would undoubtedly desert us once we begin to take casualties. Whats worse, unlike with Vietnam, if we withdraw from someplace like Iraq, they'll see it as a sign from God and pursue us. Engagement of this enemy will HAVE to end with complete neutralization. Assuming we overcome the logistics of a military offensive, we have bigger problems.</p><p></p><p>The violent tendencies of the socio-religious parties would render true democracy not only useless, but a catalyst for ongoing bloodshed. Obviously theocracy removes rights from the individual (especially in the case of Islam). So what's a country to do? Well, long term occupation and "peace keeping" gets sour pretty quick to a nation and world that didn't want the war in the first place. </p><p></p><p>However, I propose another solution. I suggest that a UN/US forces should deliver Food, medicine, clothing and other humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people directly. At the same time, imposing even more sanctions on Iraqs government for any continued breach of resolutions. This serves two very important functions. First, it demonstrates to the world, the US and the UN's desire to help the Iraqi people. However, on the other hand, if (more likely when) Saddam attempts to intercept or otherwise obstruct the delivery of aid, it demonstrates his contempt. Of course, the US and UN would be completely justified to engage and neutralize all opposition to the humanitarian aid delivery. In the event he decided not to commit political suicide and try to obstruct the aid the lies that he tells his people about America being the reason they suffer would melt away. Either way, the objective of swaying public opinion and removing Saddam's dictatorship is accomplished.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magisterium, post: 659126, member: 6530"] Juicy topic. Well, from my observation, most people oppose war out of indifference or because they believe that the US will "bomb the women and children" indiscriminately. Both of these are erroneous in my humble opinion for so many reasons. However, I also oppose an offensive against Saddam, but perhaps for a slightly more substantial reason. In Iraq, you have the Baath and Shiite (shi'a) Muslim groups (among others). Much like democrats and republicans, the Baath party is more liberal and secularized, while the Shiite party is conservative and fundamental. However, these parties differ from American political parties because of religious, righteous, indignation. This indignation drives members of opposing parties to take up arms and seek to destroy each other. Saddam's iron fisted dictatorship serves to suppress and contain this opposition. Of course dissention remains, but any open opposition is quickly and brutally dealt with. Removal of Saddam's regime serves to remove the container from this powder keg. This is why I believe many say that removing Saddam would serve to "hurt the stability of the region". Of course any stability gained from a murderous dictator is bound to be short lived. However, many seem willing to just let it run its course like a bad virus and hope for the best. The ostrich approach as I see it. In the event that an offensive is launched, I have no doubt that it would successfully remove Saddam and his regime. It would not come cheap however. As I understand it, Many of Saddam's Military positions are located in densely populated civilian centers. Urban warfare in Iraq will likely be like Vietnam x10. Add to that the opposition from the world's civilians and you have a nasty mess. Any allied support we would manage to retain would undoubtedly desert us once we begin to take casualties. Whats worse, unlike with Vietnam, if we withdraw from someplace like Iraq, they'll see it as a sign from God and pursue us. Engagement of this enemy will HAVE to end with complete neutralization. Assuming we overcome the logistics of a military offensive, we have bigger problems. The violent tendencies of the socio-religious parties would render true democracy not only useless, but a catalyst for ongoing bloodshed. Obviously theocracy removes rights from the individual (especially in the case of Islam). So what's a country to do? Well, long term occupation and "peace keeping" gets sour pretty quick to a nation and world that didn't want the war in the first place. However, I propose another solution. I suggest that a UN/US forces should deliver Food, medicine, clothing and other humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people directly. At the same time, imposing even more sanctions on Iraqs government for any continued breach of resolutions. This serves two very important functions. First, it demonstrates to the world, the US and the UN's desire to help the Iraqi people. However, on the other hand, if (more likely when) Saddam attempts to intercept or otherwise obstruct the delivery of aid, it demonstrates his contempt. Of course, the US and UN would be completely justified to engage and neutralize all opposition to the humanitarian aid delivery. In the event he decided not to commit political suicide and try to obstruct the aid the lies that he tells his people about America being the reason they suffer would melt away. Either way, the objective of swaying public opinion and removing Saddam's dictatorship is accomplished. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Anti-War voice being heard?
Top
Bottom