> -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 05:32 AM > To: BRIN-L > Subject: Iraq war discussion > > > > > Many Americans assume this will be a short and painless > war, something > > like the last Gulf war from the American perspective. But > this time > > will likely be different, as many commentators have pointed out. > > I don't think anyone knows how long the war will be.
I ride the buses here in Seattle a LOT, and the #1 topic that people are talking about, no matter where in this city I go, is Iraq. I doubt its any surprise that Seattle seems ferverently against the war (and this administration), but with that in mind, few seem to think the scenario of "house to house" urban warfare is more than a glimmering possibility. People are aware that we're going to be there for a while (how long is unclear) but most think that active combat will be over in a matter of days. People seem convinced that the Iraqi army is just going to fold again. Hmph - reminds me of a certain war in Europe a while back.. and a certain enemy in southeast Asia. > largely depends on how loyal Saddam's closest troops are this > time. The elite troops fought pretty hard in '91, so one > might expect them to do so again. On the other hand, they > have seen the defeat of Saddam before, so this time they > could be less determined. *nod* Plus, they were north of where we stopped, in the end, escaping quite a bit of damage (to both material and manpower - training & good leadership is invaluable) An interesting exercise I've yet to see played out is if we'd continued north into the fresh reserve units who hadn't been thoroughly bombed, with our supply lines stretched, if we could've entered the cities successfully. > People said the same (it would be drawn out with great loss > of life) about the Afghanistan/Taliban war, and they were wrong. What do you mean?!? we WON! Its a democratic member of the world community now! Forget about it! > > Among other things, we're talking about an attack on > Baghdad, a huge > > city. Undoubtedly thousands of people would die, mostly > young people, > > including our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians. > > Thousands could die, yes. And that would be a horrible loss. > But consider that MILLIONS could die if Saddam gets a nuclear > weapon and sets it off in Tel Aviv or New York. I think that's a straw-demon of an argument. > He had already killed tens > of thousands of HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN. Has anyone else read the reports on the gassing episode at the hydroelectric dam that Bush and company keep refering to? Seems there's quite a bit of doubt as to who gassed who. > > (It's ironic to think that this began with an attack on U.S. cities > > resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths, and now we're > > thinking about doing the same thing -- even though there is no > > evidence than Iraq had any connection with the 9/11 attack. > > Straw man? I haven't heard any rational people arguing that > this is vengeance for the World Trade attack. You did when the administration started this incident. Iraq isn't any more dangerous on 9/12 than on 9/10. > much as possible while pursuing that goal. Moreover, it has > been demonstrated 3 times in recent history that such a > humanitarian war is possible: Gulf War, Serbia, and > Afghanistan. Neither the Gulf War nor Afghanistan were humanitarian - GW was about protecting the oil fields of the Arabian pen (a good reason for war, to be certain) and the later was about getting AQ. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
