Who's nervous about this war?

[Wicked Pilot]

I know this is wishful thinking to the extreme, but I hope no more than necessary will die in this conflict. I hope we can avoid needless deaths of Iraqi civilians, and the needless slaughtering of Iraqi conscripts.


War is a terrible thing, but it's not the worst of things.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm extremely nervous. Not only this time are entering enemy cities, but last time we did that in Somalia against relatively rag tag militia, we suffered heavily, but now we're going up against Republican guards, a general populace who hates us, and possible WMDs. Plus, all our "allies" are abandoning us, and tensions are heating up all over the world over possible terrorist strikes or other wars, like N. Korea and Iran is even suspicious that they will be targeted next. I'm genuinely worried..

Interesting theory. In Somalia, though, the American forces were badly outgunned and outnumbered by thousands of Somali gunfighters. Contrary to popular belief, the gunfighters were fairly well equipped and had lots of experience in the field. Even against those odds, the Americans killed or injured between 700 and 5,000 Somalis while suffering about 100 casualties themselves. On a small scale (platoon size), the Somalis were quite well organized into street-gangs, and had a small arsenal of weapons tailored to killing American troops. I would point out that the American operations in Panama and Granada went fairly well, on the whole.

During the Gulf War, Americans fought against Republican Guard units and were not terribly impressed by their capabilities. This time, there are less Americans, but the Americans are better equipped and if anything have more training and experience. The Iraqis, in comparison, have had their numbers severely depleted, their army is suffering from spectacularly low morale, their Republican Guard units are not as well trained and most of their experienced units had experience only in running away or being shot at. I don't see that they pose a substantially greater threat than they did during the Gulf War, particularly since this time Americans will have complete control of the skies even from the opening stages of conflict.

I don't think that the general population in Iraq hates us. When I was over there, they seemed nervous and even scared, but they didn't seem to treat me and the other reporters too badly. The ones I talked to (when the Iraqi troops were'nt around) seemed to be hoping that the Americans would move quickly but carefully, and they seemed more scared of the Iraqi troops than of the American bombs. One man told me that he had lost his son to the first Gulf War. He was not afraid of being bombed by the Americans because he said (in Arabic, of course) that the Americans "were good last time. They aimed their bombs well. They did not hurt the civilians, but the military." When I visited a local gunshop, every single one of the customers I talked to said that their weapons were to protect them from the Iraqis, and not the Americans. I don't know how much of that was because of the neighborhood I was in, and how much that represents the general population, but it was kind of interesting. Most of the people I talked to (I'd estimate about 60-70%) said that they just wanted the Americans to get it over with, so they wouldn't have to worry any more.

As for North Korea, they've been quieting down over the last few days. The Iranians haven't given me the impression that they're too worried--they've made substantial changes since their revolution, and I don't see that they're too worried.

[XPViking]

As for North Korea, they've been quieting down over the last few days.

Sure, but now that the US-Iraqi war has begun, who knows what nutjob "Dear Leader" will do now?

XPViking

[Stuart Mackey]

But what good is an organization (UN) that cannot or will not support its own many resolutions?? The Un needs to be restructured as a global Salvation army or Red cross not a enforcement group.. To many nations including theUS puting self-intrest first..

Do you know what the UN is?

[Stuart Mackey]

Wilsonian idealism led to the League of Nations, not the bloodshed itself - That just led to a desire to exact the revenge which, ironically, would have removed Germany's ability to rearm like it did thanks to Wilson's attempts at compromise.

And what was that Idealism born of?
Why did the Kaiser go to war?
Why did France not really like Germany?
etc etc

Furthermore, the international system of the 19th century worked just fine. The peace of the Vienna Congress lasted for an entire century, and had no formal international body to back it up, just informal meetings between diplomats of sovereign nations. In comparison, the League of Nations lasted two decades, and the UN, it appears, will last somewhat less than six.

And the Congress of Veinna stopped WW1, the Crimea? Boer war? etc, like hell it worked.

The amount of bloodshed in the First World War was less than that in the ideological war that followed it, and much was caused by the stalemate, which was partially a cause of British entry, and partially a cause of the technology of the time.

And the congress of Veinna stopped this how, again?

The way politics were handled back then was not to blame. The system itself worked just fine; nothing is going to eliminate all war.

Do you have any vision? Politics were to blame, because so may statesmen did not have the forsight to see anything beyoned their own nations, or their own, nesseitys and forgot the need for something a lot better. War can be stopped when we, as a race stop cutting of our nose to spite our face.

[Stuart Mackey]

nothing is going to eliminate all war.

That's why the rabid peace position is undefendable. But the necessity or inevitability of war doesn't, by itself, justify all wars.

why is it undefendible? why should we not be able to eliminate war? that others think that we can gives the lie your your statement.