NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a strictly hypothetical chain of events. However, I'd like to see what people deem the correct time to engage in a war. Poll coming.

This is a strictly hypothetical chain of events. However, I'd like to see what people deem the correct time to engage in a war. Poll coming.

*Grabs popcorn and sits back*

I'd like to see what people deem the correct time to engage in a war.

After you are attacked, or before you are attacked, if, and only if you are certain an attack is coming.

*Grabs popcorn and sits back*
*Gets a box of MMs and sits back*

Looks like it'll be a good show.

When they could be sure of restoring order under a liberal democratic government with relatively low casualties. I.e. never.

Wow, I'd love to see you try to prove anything you put into that poll.(besides the 9/11 bit, obviously.)

I didn't vote since my answer wasn't up there. I think that we should have finished Saddam back in the Desert Storm when the mission was to push the Iraqi's out of Kuwait. We should have furthered the mission by seeing to it that Saddam was deposed of then and there. Definately Desert Storm.

Wow, I'd love to see you try to prove anything you put into that poll.(besides the 9/11 bit, obviously.)

I already stated that it was strictly hypothetical. It would be hard to prove a future that hasn't happened; in fact, nobody can.

Definately Desert Storm.

I agree; that would be the optimal choice to make. However, my poll was more to gauge how people felt about this war in Iraq, and when they would be willing to declare war on Saddam this time.

You should have made the option OTHER as opposed to even later then that.

We should have indeed toppled Saddam.
However we should have used our TINY military(because it is TINY) to its full capacity in Afghanistan, spent maybe an additional year there at inflated troop strength--actaully capturing or killing Bin Laden and adding the Afghans to rebuild after the fall fo the Taliban(liek we should have done after the Soviets left but didnt--nad so we feck the afghans again).

Then attack Iraq with sufficent forces and undepleted reserves to control the country and rebuild, not half ass it and ruin the nation.....speaking pragmatically of course.

I agree; that would be the optimal choice to make. However, my poll was more to gauge how people felt about this war in Iraq, and when they would be willing to declare war on Saddam this time.

America should had declared war when there was solid proof Iraq was behind present and/or future terrorist attacks of course im just here for the post count

we should have declared war on iraq after it attacked us or one of our allies (or declared war on them)

False question. The real question should read:

"SHOULD the US have declared war on Iraq? If so, when?"

Because, QED, it shouldn't.

I didn't vote since my answer wasn't up there. I think that we should have finished Saddam back in the Desert Storm when the mission was to push the Iraqi's out of Kuwait. We should have furthered the mission by seeing to it that Saddam was deposed of then and there. Definately Desert Storm.

bush1 was very wise in not doing that, too bad he didnt explain it to his son in small, easily understood words.

the mess we have in iraq now was just as unavoidable in '91 as it is in '06. without a plan to deal with a destabilized iraq, it would have been just as much a disaster then as now.

This is a strictly hypothetical chain of events. However, I'd like to see what people deem the correct time to engage in a war. Poll coming.


None of those events actually happened. We just imagined they did.
Iraq is just for the oil. War hasn't produced anything good for 223 years. And what that produced has gone in the crapper by now.
Fuck off and go play with your Bush doll, instead of trying to be intelligent.
I almost forgot. TROLL! (Heh heh)

None of those events actually happened. We just imagined they did.

Obviously none of those events could have happened because we did invade Iraq. That's why it's a hypothetical scenario.

Iraq is just for the oil. War hasn't produced anything good for 223 years. And what that produced has gone in the crapper by now.

Yeah, we're secretly sneaking Iraq's oil off to Enron when no one's watching. Get real. War has achieved many good ends in the last century, at least from your viewpoint. Without it, Africa would still be controlled by the imperial powers.

Fuck off and go play with your Bush doll, instead of trying to be intelligent.
I almost forgot. TROLL! (Heh heh)


Yes, you're right. Your last comment was quite trollish and unwarranted. I expect an apology.

People have conveniently forgot that the UN had more than a decade of resolutions regarding Saddam and WMDs and some of the resolutions did indeed state, the use of force to enforce the resolutions that Saddam chose to thumb his nose at. Also, according to Israeli, Russian, USA, UK, and so on's intelligence all stated that Saddam possessed WMDs. Iraqi's past also proved to have WMDs when he murdered hundred of thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Also, recently Saddam was convicted to Death by Hanging by the Iraqi People for Crimes against Humanity. The list goes on and on.

I don't feel that the USA made a bad judgement in invading Iraq. I do feel that the USA should have gone in by atleast double the numbers we had originally.

As for the world declaring the "USA do it alone approach" is completely ludricous. We had the backing of a lot of nations and a lot of support. The only ones publicly were the French and Germans. The French because they had a lot of deals with Saddam. The Germans, I'm not sure why.

I feel that the only reasons thing are changing is because of the unpopularity of the war. People are changing their minds but to say that we invaded by ourselves is rediculous. We do have allies and support. Yes, some are pulling out but I think it's because it is putting to much strain on their governments.

People have conveniently forgot that the UN had more than a decade of resolutions regarding Saddam and WMDs and some of the resolutions did indeed state, the use of force to enforce the resolutions that Saddam chose to thumb his nose at. Also, according to Israeli, Russian, USA, UK, and so on's intelligence all stated that Saddam possessed WMDs. Iraqi's past also proved to have WMDs when he murdered hundred of thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Also, recently Saddam was convicted to Death by Hanging by the Iraqi People for Crimes against Humanity. The list goes on and on.

I don't feel that the USA made a bad judgement in invading Iraq. I do feel that the USA should have gone in by atleast double the numbers we had originally.

As for the world declaring the "USA do it alone approach" is completely ludricous. We had the backing of a lot of nations and a lot of support. The only ones publicly were the French and Germans. The French because they had a lot of deals with Saddam. The Germans, I'm not sure why.

I feel that the only reasons thing are changing is because of the unpopularity of the war. People are changing their minds but to say that we invaded by ourselves is rediculous. We do have allies and support. Yes, some are pulling out but I think it's because it is putting to much strain on their governments.

First point - where are they then? I have gone over this hundreds of times with people on this forum. The people of Britain and the USA were told by their governments that Irag was being invaded to stop Saddam from ammassing and using WMDs. So where are they?

Second point - you did not have the overwhelming support of the international community. Of the governments that supported the war, the people of those countries were generally deeply divided over their nations involvement. Of the whole of western Europe not even a majority of nations supported the war.

Overall, I think deposing Saddam was a good thing. He was an evil man who had commited many atrocities. I just don't like being lied to as to why my countrymen are dying.

I said earlier I didn't vote. I did vote now for pre-9/11. I think it should have been done during Desert Storm. Support was a lot stronger back then as for the opinion of war throughout the International Community. We went in Mass #s. Awesome General. I feel that though there would probably have been insurgencies crossing the borders into Iraq, I don't feel they would have been as many that are currently crossing.

If we would have finished it back during the Desert Storm our reputation throughout the world, I think, would have been much better than it appears to be today.

]I almost forgot. TROLL! (Heh heh)
Yes, you're right. Your last comment was quite trollish and unwarranted. I expect an apology.
Putting up a poll where there is no option for NOT going to war is in fact trollish. I expect an apology.

*Gets a box of MMs and sits back*

Looks like it'll be a good show.

*Grabs some Cheetos*

Shh. It's starting!

*Grabs some Cheetos*

Shh. It's starting!
MM's?

*Pours some out to share*

Putting up a poll where there is no option for NOT going to war is in fact trollish. I expect an apology.

The last option was supposed to be some type of "never" choice. However, opting to remain peaceful even after Iraq gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is a minority viewpoint which doesn't need to be expressed -- I should hope that no one has such a diabolical fringe view as to vote for that option.

The last option was supposed to be some type of "never" choice. However, opting to remain peaceful even after Iraq gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is a minority viewpoint which doesn't need to be expressed -- I should hope that no one has such a diabolical fringe view as to vote for that option.

You manage to troll in response to a moderator post indicating your poll was trolling. Amazing.

And, for the record, the correct answer is "in 1991".

Yes, you're right. Your last comment was quite trollish and unwarranted. I expect an apology.

I meant you're the troll, moron. I told you acting intelligent would stress your little brain. Heh heh. As for that apology, you're gonna have to make do with this:

[bad french accent]
I fart in you general direction.
[/bad french accent]

This is a strictly hypothetical chain of events. However, I'd like to see what people deem the correct time to engage in a war. Poll coming.

When there is either an attack made towards a country or an allied country or if an attack is likely. None of those instances ocured in 2003 when the Iraq invasion began, thus making the war illegal.

never

I didn't vote since my answer wasn't up there. I think that we should have finished Saddam back in the Desert Storm when the mission was to push the Iraqi's out of Kuwait. We should have furthered the mission by seeing to it that Saddam was deposed of then and there. Definately Desert Storm.



That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.

That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.

is it so hard to understand why he didnt?

1) he didnt have the international mandate to do so

2) he didnt want to destabilize the middle east

3) he didnt want to push iraq into a civil war

4) he didnt want to hand iran postmortem win of the iraq-iran war

5) he didnt want to strengthen our enemy in the region--iran

6) he didnt want to mire us in iraq for an indefinite time, we would probably still be there today

im sure i can go on but really what do you think was so different in '91 that would have made the disaster we are living with today unlikely to have happened then?

That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.

It was deemed not worth it.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

- Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 1992

That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.


I'm not exactly of all the reasons why we didn't do this back then. I do know that the primary point of the mission was to force Saddam and the Iraqi's out of Kuwait. Mission accomplished but I do wish that we went further into Iraq and deposed of Saddam then. I think thinks would have been a whole lot smoother and efficient and we would have had a majority of support throughout the International Community with the exceptions of a couple governments, of course, namely France but other than that we would have had a vast majority of support for it.

We wouldn't have had to use the WMDs as justification. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait would have been justification itself. I'm sure the first George Bush is kicking himself over this now How he screwed things up for his son. I think the further we get into this war with Iraq, the more our governmental heads are saying, damn we should have taking care of this during Desert Storm.

*Grabs some Cheetos*

Shh. It's starting!

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/partytime2.gif

im sure i can go on but really what do you think was so different in '91 that would have made the disaster we are living with today unlikely to have happened then?

We had a much bigger coalition that could help stabalize Iraq after an invasion took down Saddam.

The right time to declare war on Iraq was, erm...let's see...uh...never.

That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.

to continue....

he didnt want iraq to go into a civil war since that would have caused the kurds to delare independance..bringing in a war with turkey, and have the shiites dominate the sunnis leading to an alliance with iran who was our bigger enemy at the time

this is what he was hoping for...

hussein had just been completely humiliated in being kicked out of kuwait by his former ally. someone in the baathist party would depose him, probably by assassination. the baathist party would retain control of iraq under a new sunni leader, keeping them as a stern ally against iran and keeping iraq from dissolving into civil war and chaos.

this is why he did nothing when the kurds revolted. bush had made speeches encouraging the iraqis to get rid of hussein but when the kurds took him at his word, it turned out that that wasnt exactly what he was hoping for.

That would have been the best time to do it. Does anyone know why Bush I didn't do that? I've heard it was the Saudis that didn't want that done but don't know for sure.

On a sheerly political note, the US Congress in 1991 (remember 1992 was a presidential election year) was predominately Democratic in the House and Senate. Please consider when most political campaigns begin as well as when war-weariness sets in, especially for a war that had no tangible effect on American soil. Bush would begin to run for re-election within a year. Democrats in Congress claimed that Desert Storm would be another Vietnam, a recurring theme that made it to the second Bush presidency. What president would really want to mire himself in that situation?

Not to mention there was this little thing brewing in Somalia... and Bosnia...

We had a much bigger coalition that could help stabalize Iraq after an invasion took down Saddam.

the mandate stopped at the kuwait/iraq border. its hard to know who would have signed on to a long term police action in iraq. (consider how hard it was to get europe interested in keeping the people of the former yugoslavia from slaughtering each other)

The war timeline was to get "Mission Accomplished" before the mid-term elections. Which worked.

A logical timeline would have been to allow the inspectors to find as much information as possible before they were thrown out. If you go to war you want as much information on the enemy as possible. IF they were thrown out that would have been perceived as an admission of guilt and the world would have backed the war. OR, they may have stayed there forever and not found anything. In that case, nearly a million people would be alive today.

Logically, every thing has gone as could have been predicted. Sadam knew he could not win toe to toe. He tried that once. He looked at history and observed how a weak force could beat a strong force. Pull back and fight guerilla. It has worked as it did with the US vs. England. This is what happens when you don't think about your own history.

Logically also, Saddam had no reason to support another power in his borders. Such a power could have grown to challenge him. Better not to have such a power. Logically, there was no reason to believe the Taliban or any other power was in Iraq.

The last option was supposed to be some type of "never" choice. However, opting to remain peaceful even after Iraq gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is a minority viewpoint which doesn't need to be expressed -- I should hope that no one has such a diabolical fringe view as to vote for that option.

So, as long as people agree with you, they're entitled to their opinions?

That's pretty solidly in the trolling camp. You've been warned about this enough in the past that I ought to simply delete you outright. Instead, I'm giving you a FINAL WARNING and a two week ban. We've had enough of your posturing.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop