<p>Strick- My concern is that this will be another rush to war, Bush/Cheney will not consult Congress, they won’t plan for the war after we attack, they will not work with the rest of the world to apply sanctions or isolate Iran, they won’t even listen to military advisors that disagree with them, but will carry out the plans they have on the table because they want to control the region. When Iran retaliates and bombs our oil rigs and other American targets, and the price of oil is $100 a barrel, the administration will come up with the same “who could have known” shoulder -shrugging that they did with Iraq. Except now we’ll have two wars we can’t pay for and a situation in the middle east that will only bring more hatred and retaliation against the U.S.
I am seriously worried for my children, and our world.
Bombs should be truly the last resort. But then I don’t believe in pre-emptively bombing another country because of what you think they might do five years out. So we won’t agree on the rationale, but I do think we both know it’s coming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it accurately describes Saddam’s actions during the 90s and up to 2003.</p>
<p>I think you mean Clinton’s, who used the diplomatic process to buy time to kill a million Iraqis, half of them children, until the international uproar resulted in the Oil for Food Program. </p>
<p>By the end, things got worse. Lots worse. </p>
<p>We won! Mission accomplished.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P. – Well said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the latest UNICEF report has reduced that estimate to some 300,000 children under the age of 5 who died as a directly result of UN sanctions. I’m not aware of any estimate of the impact on other Iraqis more vulnerable to serious health issues such as the elderly and the poor, but it would probably be substantial.</p>
<p>Sadly that UNICEF study seems to show that sanctions actually killed more Iraqis than bombs. Makes these kinds of decisions a real *****, no?</p>
<p>But I was still speaking of Saddam, who orchestrated this bizzare game that in some ways did further his quest for WMDs while never quite taking him there, all the while running what proved to a stupid bluff. He did manage to acquire significant conventional weapons during sanctions, too.</p>
<p>The thing that sort of disturbs me most about the sanctions is how many of Saddam’s extravagant palaces were built during them and how much weight he seems to have put on while those 300,000 children were dying from the effects of the sanctions. It’s a cruel, ironic world.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P., welcome to the real world, lesson 101 on the history of war. If you can reasonably point to any US war (heck, any war) where those same conditions didn’t exist, I won’t post anything that could conceivable support Bush or the GOP for a week. Note that while I never gamble, I’m often willing to bet (or in other words, this is a sucker bet).</p>
<p>
Not hardly. It’s been around for 20 years at least.</p>
<p>“I believe the latest UNICEF report has reduced that estimate to some 300,000 children under the age of 5 who died as a directly result of UN sanctions.”</p>
<p>The reduction was done based on mortality statistics from 1997-1998, AFTER Oil for Food was implemented and mortality went down. Using the data from the period prior to Oil for Food, it is upwards of half of a million (and that doesn’t count those kids 6-15 who died for lack of simple antibiotics, or from dysentery because of the bombing - not the sanctions, but the bombing - of the water treatment plants.</p>
<p>mini, no offense, but I’ll stick to the official statistics despite agreeing that your line of reasoning is quite reasonable. </p>
<p>BTW, I wasn’t aware that Clinton attacked water treatment plants. I certainly followed the nearly weekly attacks in retailation for violations of the No Fly Zone, but assumed they were going after more clearly military targets. I also admit thinking some of those attacks were of the “wag the dog” variety, but that’s another story.</p>
<p>Still, the UNICEF estimate of 300,000 deaths in children under 5 is reported as directly related to sanctions and sanctions alone. I’m sorry to hear evidence that the lack of decisive action against Iraq made things even worse that I already understood. </p>
<p>I’m particularly saddened to think that the international diplomacy route hit hardest and much worse than real war at the most innocent.</p>
<p>Rumsfield was asked it we went to war with Iran, would we have enough troops</p>
<p>Of Course he said from the rabbit hole in wonderland</p>
<p>So, if we want PEACE in the middle east, starting another war is like out of the 1984 playbook</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the context of any rational war plan, the US had more than enough troops. Our combat capabilities scared the bejebers out of ever other military on earth.</p>
<p>You can reasonably argue that the after war plans where hopelessly inadequate. Of course, if you think this is the exception rather than the norm, you have a lot to learn about that sort of thing. There’s a reason two terms are common in the US military and universal in sentiment throughout history, SNAFU and FUBAR.</p>
<p>Come on people: Say It:</p>
<p>The reason why GWB attacked Iraq is because he can, with little national damage both politically and physically. The conditions for Iran exists similarily. The position GWB has taken is that it is better now than later. </p>
<p>The game is about played out.</p>
<p>SNAFUS and FUBARS are only realized After they occur and not before.</p>
<p>Its the RED phone, George.</p>
<p>Itstoomuch, The conditions for Iran are wholly different than those of Iraq. There is no available military personnel, and the public opinion of Bush and War is at an all time low.</p>
<p>I suspect Bush and co will bomb Iran, but they will declare martial law or some such thing first, in order to bypass Congress.</p>
<p>With a madman at the helm (and Bush is just as mad as the Iranian prez), all bets are off, but it’s always best to imagine the worst case scenario.</p>
<p>He doesn’t need troops. Rummy’s technology is good enough. Horseshoes and Nucs are the two games where close enough is good enough. </p>
<p>Deal or No Deal, George?</p>
<h1>19. I am surprised Strick,</h1>
<p>The diplomatic option, if successful will only put off the envitable. George, can be seen as great hero for doing what Bill, George H, Ronald, and Jimmy were too timid to do. George can either do it now or let someother President do it. He can take the glory now while the casualities are small than later when the casualities will be greater. Besides George already has the War Powers and need no input from anyone other than the Big Guy and the Big Guy may have already spoken.</p>