TheAgitator.com
Once More, With Feeling
Monday, March 17th, 2003In 24 hours, the U.S. will launch a preemptive strike against another country — a country that hasn’t attacked us, and hasn’t attacked anyone else in twelve years. We will level Baghdad with what’s been called “shock and awe,” where we’ll drop in 48 hours more bombs than we dropped in six weeks the last time around.
Even by conservative estimates put out by the U.S. military, somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 innocent Iraqis can expect to die.
Three to four thousand inncoent Iraqis will die because, 18 months ago, three thousand innocent Americans died in an attack that, at the very best, Iraq was only tangentially connected to, and, at worst — and most likely — had nothing to do with whatsoever.
As I’ve written, once the bombs start dropping, I’m all for clear and clean and swift and decisive victory. And I should concede that one good thing came out of all of this: We went to the UN for permission. The UN said no. We’re going anyway. If nothing else, I suppose, we can take solace in the fact that the UN has been rendered toothless.
But before we start bombing Iraqis to liberation (just as we’ve been starving them to freedom with sanctions), I’d like to go on record one more time:
This is a really stupid idea. It’s probably the least proud I’ve been to be an American since I became politically aware. The pending attack does very little to make us safer. It will remove from power an idiot who would likely have never been much of a threat to us anyway, if only because he knows that so much as breaking wind in our general direction would result in our might crashing down upon him.
What the war has already done is provide perverse incentives to North Korea and Iran, both of whom are now reigniting their own nuclear programs while we’re distracted. It risks throwing unstable Pakistan and its own nuclear arsenal into the hands of militant Islamists. And it will inevitably invite blowback, more Osamas, and more Attas, as the first Gulf War did.
Oh yes, and we’ll be tying up billions, perhaps as much as a trillion dollars in resources that could otherwise have been spent on, for example, defending the homeland, what the name “Department of Defense” implies in the first place.
We’ll then effectively make Iraq the 51st state, as we rebuild with a glut of international social programs designed to rehabilitate our maligned international image. Congratulations, America! You’re about to add 23 million Iraqis to your welfare rolls!
The costly victory in Iraq will remove one insignificant tyrant from our world minefield. There’s still al-Qaeda. And thanks to our efforts in Iraq, there’s now North Korea. And Iran. And potentially Pakistan. Osama’s still out there. So is Omar. And al-Zawahiri. The most immediate and obvious job coming out of September 11 isn’t even done. And yet we’re closing our eyes, and bravely going forward with what should be job ten or twelve, if it’s even on the list at all.
And all the egos we’ve bruised on our way to victory will make enlisting the support of the countries we’ve pissed off to fight the war on terror all the more difficult.
Morally, practically, pragmatically, diplomatically — this doesn’t make a lick of sense.
But morality, practicality and pragmatism never stopped government from embracing grand schemes before.
So hang on. Turn on CNN. The “entertainment” is about to begin.
Any more specific sources for the claim 3-4,000 civilians will die?
Remember you have to balance that against all the civilians who will be killed/tortured living under Saddam (and his sons who will succeed him) in power for years to come.
There are decent arguments against war, but the humanitarian argument doesn’t do it for me–particularly when framed so simplistically as to ignore the future under Saddam viz-a-viz the future under a (probably better) American-installed regime.
Well said, Radley…
That was one of the most poorly written anti-war statements I have read.
Insignificant tyrant? You mean the one that has cost tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars over the last 12 or so years? The one that requires us to maintain an active force in that hostile region with no-fly zones and other such garbage (that continued presence was the ultimate source for Al Queda development)? The one that has been the strongest source of instability in that dangerous region for decades?
We didnt topple him 12 years ago because we thought he would be overthrown. But he maintained power. He kicked out inspectors. He did everything that we told him not to do in order to avoid regime change 12 years ago. Now it’s time to remedy the situation. It is also rather nice that we will be liberating millions of Iraqis that live under terrible tyranny…though sadly I agree that is a secondary benefit.
This isnt about 9/11 directly. This is about NOT standing by while tyrannical nations lead by sociopathic madmen plot and scheme our demise. Yes that was a lesson from 9/11, but there never was a direct link made by this administration.
You mentioned that ‘breaking wind’ in our general direction would bring down our might upon Saddam. I think that kicking the inspectors out, recently delivering a misleading and innaccurate declaration of wmd, and the identification of continued 1441 violations and violations of the other SEVENTEEN resolutions is more than ‘breaking wind’ in our direction. And here comes our might just like you said…what part is confusing here?
We will destroy Saddam’s regime. We will help develop an appropriate regime in it’s place. Understand we will stabilize the entire region for our national security or the entire region will cease to exist.
North Korea? If required for national security, they will cease to exist.
And we will all maintain a general seething hatred for France.
Next?
Taking Iraq is part of the War on Terror, just as bombing factories in Germany was part of WWII. In both cases, the aim was to deny the enemy the means to make war.
Saddam’s ties to established Islamofascist terror groups are well documented, even if the specific tie to Al Quada is sketchy at this time. The enemy consists of more than just Al Quada — the instant that our resolve is seen to slip (like, say, after a change in Administrations) ANY of the Islamofascist terror groups have shown that they have the desire and capability to attack us to advance their cause. Taking Iraq away from Saddam denies them resources that would be devistatingly beneficial to their cause.
The blockade of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis was also a preemptive act of war. Think what would have happened if we had just stood by and let those missle emplacements become operational.
Radley, while your assertions about the negative aftermath of action in Iraq are certainly plausible, consider this:
1> What is the cost of taking over Iraq vs. a WMD attack on a major city — or the economic cost of withdrawing from every part of the world where a few fanatics hate us?
2> The negative aftermath, IMO, is based on the assumption that this Administration will act just like previous ones — with a half-hearted, hesitant foreign policy that is more worried about public relations than it is with decisively resolving problems through a precision-guided combination of goodwill and ruthlessness. While I may have to eat these words later, it appears to me that this President and his Administration has more backbone than that, and have learned from history.
I’ve read the Agitator quite often in these last couple months, and haven’t posted but maybe once before now. I’ve enjoyed the humor and wit. But after reading this latest entry, I think I’m done checking this website for insightful commentary.
I’ve been in awe of Cato and all of its notable employees for years; reading the above rant puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Mr. B., I see Sadam writing $25K checks to Palestinian terrorist’s families; I see a former Iraqi intelligence officer and nephew of K.S.M. attempting to take down the towers in ‘93; I see pictures of a 737 fuselage in Iraq being used to train hijackers; I see no free Iraqis (meaning not acting under the auspices or terror of Sadam) objecting to the U.S. taking out their “leader”; I see Uday enjoying the life of a Prince, when he should in fact be buring in whatever concept of hell he believes; and I see no reason to believe Sadam will never use his WMD by proxy.
With your latest entry I see only a couple modest-at-best arguments stretched to absurdity. Sadam is not a sovreign leader; alive, he is a menace to everyone but French and Russian oil companies.
Radley, I think you are wrong. The world is far from being a live and let live place. I see no margin in giving Saddam any chance to “break wind” at us and thus provide us with a “real” reason to eliminate him, especially since that wind could potentially contain very destructive bugs.
Contrary to your beliefs, I think this puts all the other dictators and terrorists on notice that we’re ready for them as well and won’t wait for permission from terror-complicit Europeans to act. We’re hardly distracted from those threats. If anything this action will hone our senses to all the threats.
Morally, practically, pragmatically, diplomatically — sitting here just waiting for the next attack or for our only democratic ally in the middle east to get vaporized makes no sense either.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I recently found this page from a link on Fox’s web page. I haven’t read enough of your work to say I usually agree or disagree. On this, I respect the reasoning of your position, but I disagree.
You say Iraq has not attacked us. Really? Do we know that they have NOT aided Al Queda? Do we know that their advanced chemical and biological weapons programs were not involved as suppliers in the anthrax attacks on the US?
Three Thousand innocent Iraqi’s will Die? As noted in the earlier comment, I wonder what your source is for that number?
Are you aware of the numbers of Iraqi’s Sadam has killed in his program of genocide against the Kurdish minority? I heard one Kurdish spokesman put the number at over 180,000. Suppose it is only half that - is it morally acceptable to take no action against a despot who would kill 90,000 humans?
Should we not be outraged at a dictator who uses systematic rape of female relatives as a means of retribution against dissenters. Remember that rape carries even greater implications and stigma in an arabic/muslim culture - (as if it was not tragic enough even in our culture).
Regarding the UN, I agree wholeheartedly. It is a very expensive debating society which the US would do well to (once again) ignore completely.
The pending attack, in my opinion does much to make us safer. I think there are many, many bases for that position, but I offer only one: despite what you may think about Iraq’s connections to Al-Queda, I think it is beyond dispute that Saudi-Arabia has tremendous connections to Al-Queda. This war will likely do much to remind our erstwhile friends in Saudi that its important who they associate with.
To say that the Iraq situation has us “distracted” to the point that N. Korea or Iran are being ignored is also silly. Are you not aware that we have already sent bombers to the Pacific specifically for N. Korea? Our military is capable of monitoring the entire globe. Its not just one guy watching a radar screen!
Besides, all N. Korea is doing is trolling for a handout. We have taught them that our response to aggression is to give them money. Shame on us!
As for Iran, they can do the math. The same Carrier war groups that will be bombing Iraq can just as easily fly to Iran.
As for inviting “blowbacks” - this is the weakest argument of all. A terrorist is not impressed with weakness - that only encourages the use of MORE terror to advance political goals. The ONLY solution to terror is to make it too expensive an option for the terrorists. Do you really think Al-Queda will start to “like” America if we leave Iraq alone? They didn’t care for us much before 9/11, they probably like us even less since we toppled the Taliban dictatorship.
As for rebuilding Iraq; Yes, I suspect the US will fund most of it. Guess what? If the UN approved a war, we would be stuck paying for most of the rebuilding anyway. At least under the present scenario, odds are a lot better for American companies doing the work, rather than French and Russian companies who would likely do most of the work in a UN plan.
As for stability, again, I respectfully disagree. Power does not cause instability - the ABSENCE OF POWER causes instability. The USSR was VERY stable until it lost its power due to its economic collapse. Communist Yugoslavia was VERY stable - the ONLY period in recorded history that the region has had political stability. Of course, that stability was based upon the USSR’s power. (and I am NOT suggesting that Communism and brutal repression are laudable).
Likewise, our power and use of power will do far more for regional and world stability than UN timidity will.
So in summary:
Morally? This war is as moral as WWII - Sadam has proven his willingness to use military aggression and genocide to advance his political goals. We can either be “Chamberlain” or “Churchill.”
Practically? The war will be expensive, the rebuilding will be expensive. But further terror attacks on the US, and further instabilty in the Mideast due to the absence of our power will be MORE expensive.
Pragmatically? (Isn’t this a synonym for practically?)
Diplomatically? I agree with your earlier comment. Our willingness to call the UN out will do far more for us and the world than continuing to take orders from France - (a country which has historically welcomed terrorists and done business with dictators like Sadam).
Personally, I despise war, and I wish the US would Never fight another war. But the reality is that as the only superpower left, we have little choice - either fight for our interests, or surrender to those would would deny us our freedoms.
Thanks for the bandwidth!
Tom.
yesterday on msnbc i think , anchor said that besides the French , 80 US companies have selling Saddam “stuff” with no mention if that included military hardware our troops are about to face. You hear anything?
Let the fireworks begin
Radley Balko said it best here. Again, if you don’t have The Agitator on your daily reads then you are
Once More, With Feeling
The Agitator has a new article up and running, “Once More, With Feeling” Just wanted to say that I agree with what he wrote… no need to say anymore than that… go read the article for yourself.
Thomas Landry said:
“You say Iraq has not attacked us. Really? Do we know that they have NOT aided Al Queda? Do we know that their advanced chemical and biological weapons programs were not involved as suppliers in the anthrax attacks on the US?”
We don’t have any intelligence that points to Iraq being involved in any of this. We can’t attack countries that we THINK possibly had a hand in it.
I’ve been reading your blog for about a year, now, Radley. We share the same alma mater, and I agree with just about everything you’ve written on your site. Except this.
I disagree that Saddam is not a big enough threat to the U.S. to warrant his forceable removal. Yes, Saddam is certainly not loved by any of his neigbors and their terrorist enclaves, but they do share something that is critical — a white-hot hatred of the USA. To ignore these linkages is asking for trouble. Saddam’s treatment of his own and other countries’ populations is stark evidence of his proclivity for acting on his twisted impulses. I hate to say this, and I hope you don’t get upset with this language, but it is downright foolish to bet that he wouldn’t act directly or by proxy to wreak havoc on our country, and that he doesn’t (or wont have soon) the ability to do so.
Your listing of other scary characters that also deserve the US’s attention, rather than being examples of why we should not act against Iraq, are instead reminders that defending the USA’s way of life is going to be a long, perhaps very bloody battle. Saddam’s removal is but one of many necessary steps that need to be taken.
As for the potential for “blow back” against the US by various terrorist groups, ostensibly in respone to the impending war…I maintain that it is not decisive US action that foments terrorism, but rather American irresoluteness. This predicament we’re in is only evidence of what can happen when we don’t “finish the job” the first time. Further, the recent months upon months of dilly-dallying around with the UN sends a message to terrorists around the world that Americans are wimps, and are ripe for the pickin’. It’s time to change their minds.
Will there be terrorist attacks against US interests where the stated motivation is retaliation for the impending Iraq war? Almost certainly. But this excuse will merely be a pretext for what the terrorists were planning to do in the first place.
Terrorism works against the US precisely because for the last 25-30 years we have shown real hesitency to defend ourselves and our way of life.
Keep up the good blogging.
Does anyone think about the ulterior motives of Bush? Like what installing a capitalist democratic republic in the heart of the Arab world would do to that region…Who has time to be a terrorist when they have to run to Blockbuster so they don’t pay for the extra day?
Amen, Radley.
And as for the 3,000 casualty estimate that commenters here have challenged, the “shock and awe” plan floated by the Pentagon includes some 3,000 missiles launched at Bagdhad in the first 48 hours. I’d say 3,000 casualties is a pretty conservative estimate, and those who suggest it’s likely to be lower don’t have the slightest idea of what they’re getting behind.
Yeah, but IRAQi’s won’t be walking on the face of our previous President Bush anymore…
The fact we even CARE about the civilian casualties is amazing. Remember WWII where everyone specifically targeted civilians to bring the opposing government to it’s knees? The US is the truly inspirational combination of prosperity, compassion and power unparalleled in the history of the world.
We are even nice to young, ungrateful, spoiled kids who sit in their ivory tower passing judgement on those who’s job it is to keep the tower standing.
Isnt your biggest concern as of late how to give your doggy enough exercise and the woes of moving? In Iraq they are worried about getting their tongues ripped out.
You sir, are a moron.
Frank N,
They’ll have plenty of energy if they just stop at Starbucks for a Grande-double-espresso-macchiato. In fact, if they just use NetFlix, there will be plenty of time for terrorist plotting.
On the other hand, the Supersize-BigMac-and-fries-meal food coma is sure to put a damper on things, especially if they get too fat to wear a dynamite vest, or fit in the captain’s seat of a 747.
3,000-4,000 civilians doesn’t jibe with “level Baghdad”; the last time we leveled a city was in WWII, and the numbers for Dresden and Tokyo were in the hundreds of thousands.
3,000-4,000 is also, by conservative estimates 1.5 to 2 months worth of dead Iraqi babies from containment.
The war may be a stupid idea. But I think it’s awfully hard to argue that from any of the traditional arguments: Iraqi civilians will certainly be better off under American occupation than Saddaam’s regime, especially with sanctions in place; serious containment would probably cost more (especially if you factor in the restricted oil supplies); and geopolitically, the consequences of backing down now would be completely disastrous for US foreign policy, just as regardless of what you thought about Vietnam, pulling out threw our containment efforts with communism into a tailspin.
$1 trillion is a wack-job, activist-inflating-the-inflated-statistics-from-other-activists number. That’s 10% of the US economy. Our total military expenditures on everything are between 3-4% of GDP right now. You’re positing more than a doubling of US forces & equipment. 25-30% of that number is closer to the mark, over a period of 10 years, which discounts back to a modest blip on the US economy, partially offset by lowered geopolitical risk on oil contracts, expanded oil supplies, and a surge in consumer confidence.
I disagree with Radley, but I’m not going to attack him personally for the decision he has made. He has reasoned out his position rather well on this blog, and while I think he is coming to the wrong conclusion, I have nothing but respect for him. If all the anti war protesters were this well reasoned, then perhaps things would be turning out differently.
Having said that, I think that referring to the coming conflict as “entertainment” was not necessary. It is a rather cynical viewpoint that I would guess not many share. I am not taking this lightly; on the contrary its terrifying, and I’m sure the troops and the Iraqis would agree with that. I will be watching in CNN not for entertainment purposes, but hoping for a quick end to hostilities.
I can’t believe anybody even thinks that this is a new war. It isn’t.
This the same war that began when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
First, he invades Kuwait. Next, a coalition, led by the US, forcibly removes him from Kuwait. In order to stop the beating, Saddam was forced to disarm and allow UN weapons inspectors to insure that he complies.
He has ignored every UN Resolution since then! We asked for UN approval in order to give them a chance to enforce their own resolutions. If they are unwilling to back their words with action, then I no longer care what they think of our choice to get rid of Saddam.
How many “last” chances can you give someone?
I would side with the anti-war folks on this one if it wasn’t for the fact that Saddam started this war. We HAVE to end it, since most of the UN doesn’t have the balls to do enforce their own damn resolutions.
For me, this isn’t even really about Saddam being a direct threat to us. This action is needed because an agreement without enforcement means NOTHING.
We are not picking a fight; we are finishing it.
If I walk into a bar, find someone smaller than me, and kick his ass, I am clearly wrong.
If I stop an unprovoked attack on someone else, then I have done nothing wrong.
Radley:
I agree with your comments. But be consistent.
I realize you are throwing a bone to your readers when you claim that the only good thing to come out of this is that “we can take solace in the fact that the UN has been rendered toothless.” This claim presumably derives from the assumption that the UN would not have voted for a second (UK initiated) resolution. That we will never know with 100% certainty, as Bush is not calling for a second vote, despite all his cowboy blustering about “showin’ your cards.”
In any case, you claim that in regards to this war: “Morally, practically, pragmatically, diplomatically — this doesn’t make a lick of sense.” Yet at the same time, you also claim that the U.N. has now been rendered meaningless, because member nations voted “no” to this war—for PRECISELY the same reasons you cited. It would seem to me that voting against such a war would validate what the U.N. was created to do.
As Andrew Sullivan has repeatedly predicted, widespread outrage at the supposed arrogance of America in countries like France will look somewhat foolish when the Iraqi citizens welcome our troops with open arms and celebrate us as liberators.
Slightly off topic, but when did it become a prerequisite to have been directly involved in 9/11 in order to be a target in our war on terror? President Bush NEVER said that we were only going to stomp out those directly responsible, he DID say that we will hunt down ANY terrorist and ANY regime that supports terrorists. Whether or not a group had direct involvement in 9/11 is completely irrelevant. Yes we are going to eliminate those involved, but we must and will also eliminate other terrorist groups and supporters.
The argument that there are other nations that also deserve our attention is also irrelevant. Of course it is true that there are other nations we need to deal with (korea, Iran) but that is not a reason to not deal with Iraq…The only logical conclusion that argument leads to is that after we’re through with Iraq, its time to move onto them.
just my 2 cents
I have just been introduced to Mr. Radley by way of an article I found refreshingly bright. I responed with applause and received an invitation to join the group here. I did. Then I pulled up this page and read this pathetic, regurgitated anti-American junk. I had expected more. Perhaps I have made a mistake.
I am, however, encouraged by the number of like-minded individuals that actually believe in this country, trust our president, and are confident in the principles and ideals that this country is founded on. May God bless America.
Tom, Rich, chris, etc.-you all got your wish. I am no longer going to debate this topic because it’s now pointless, you guys have won the big “battle”. Now, I believe it important to watch/learn the effects of this war and we’ll see in the next ten years or so how this actually helps/hurts the global community. I’ve had a good time debating with you all about this, but if the war does have negative effects, I hope you all admit your wrongness and I’ll do the same. Anyway, thanks Radley for always standing on this side even when the many were against the few. We’ll see what happens now.
Radley,
Like many others, I’ve enjoyed most everything you’ve put here, and I also respect your opinion, as negative as it is toward our country. This time, I have to disagree. There is no reason to think that we even KNOW everything going on in Iraq. That’s why our Intelligence exists. Who is to say that North Korea is more dangerous to the US than Iraq? What source can you trust enough to make that call? I think Saddam is a worthy canidate for being overthrown. The world will be a safer place once his regime has been removed.
And please, the next time France is invaded, could we please not liberate them. Our dead troops from two world wars have yet to make them appreciate us, so why bother for a third. I have an absolute hatred for the French, and it’s because of all the Americans that gave their lives for them. And as far as the Germans go, I don’t think they should be allowed to even have an opinion. They caused two world wars and tried to exterminate an entire race. Who CARES what they think about the morals of war?
SH
While I am an anti-war libertarian and supportive of Radley’s view, I must also admit that these are some of the staunchest pro-war arguments I have encountered yet. To try counter a few, never mind all, would be difficult.
There are aspects that I still don’t believe are settled, like proper linkage of Saddam to terrorism or 9/11 for example. At the same though the anti-war positions (since other unlibertarian anti-war stances have at times verged on pure lunacy) have admittedly now lost this bout.
But in respect of the still floating issue of costs, that Radley said could reach $1 trillion, I don’t believe he is too far off the mark and I will focus this post on that aspect.
That huge cost figure takes into account the costs not only of war but of subsequent occupation and reconstruction, which will probably exceed the war bill. It also includes the value of monies spent not in a single year but over several or more years and it also pays attention to the fact that the US government is currently facing a budget deficit.
That means the money being spent and to be spent on Iraq will need to be borrowed. That translates into billions of dollars of future interest expenses paid by the US taxpayer on the bond markets, solely for Iraq .
Those increased obligations will eventually also mean less tax cuts in future and with the US government acting to cause a huge public outflow of money from the US economy to Iraq, they will act to reduce future economic growth. Investors that might undertake fruitful investments that grow the economy will also rather buy government stock, which will again act as another retardant on the economy in future. These are effectively the unmentioned opportunity costs in this scenario.
In truth then, with all those above costs (actual and opportunity) in real terms the total bill to the US taxpayer will probably come to between $400 and $600 billion over the space of several years. In gross terms it may then truly approach the $1 trillion mark.
“But before we start bombing Iraqis to liberation (just as we’ve been starving them to freedom with sanctions), I’d like to go on record one more time: ”
Not the sharpest sentence to appear here. Far from it.
1) we’ll take more care to protect civilians than any other military force in history - and risk our own soldiers lives to do it.
2) so it’s US who happen to be starving the Iraqi people all these years? (slaps forehead) And here I thought it was Saddam who takes the money from the oil-for-food program and buys weapons he promised not to, as a condition for us NOT leveling him in ‘91.
Good job Radley,
And to all the so called Americans that believe attacking another nation and killing innocent people without a shred of evidence that they have attacked us or will imminently, wake up from your brain-washed delusion. The founding fathers of this great nation are rolling over in their graves in disgust about now.
I can’t believe with all the money we spend on our defense and intelligence agencies our government offers the very weak justifications it has for this action. Where is the proof? You’re telling me in past 12 years this is all they have.
It is also a noble idea to create a democracy over there. But what happened with Kuwait when our country liberated them from Sadam. Did they turn to democracy? Hell, no.
You might think that our democracy is so great that we should force it on other nations but I for one think there is much room for improvement. As one of our great pharmceutical companies loves to state in their comercials, 1 in 5 Americans suffer from depression. We also have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The amount of our citizens incarcerated is huge. Over 60 percent of our population is obese. Not to mention the corruption in or government through campaign contributions. I am sure there is more to be proud of.
In 1991 we had global support to attack Iraq and it didn’t cost us anything. Today with even trying to bribe nations, our support is damn near non-existent and we aren’t going to get a dime from anyone to pay the great costs of this misadventure.
I think it is pathetic that this administration has preyed on people’s fears by using 9/11 to rally our citizens for this immoral act. 9/11 didn’t involve any biological or nuclear weapons just a handful of suicide bombers with support from two of our supposed allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is a fantasy to think this war is going to stop other suicide bombers from acting aggresively towards our citizens. It is pretty obvious that this will only become worse.
Couple points for Radley and Gene:
1. From a quick Google it sounds more like the “shock and awe” plan involves cruise missiles in the high hundreds, not 3,000 as Gene claimed.
2. More important, there’s a difference between an actual casualty estimate from the US military, and your own personal inference of casualties from the number of cruise missiles you think will be fired. You shouldn’t mistake the latter for the former, as Gene might be doing.
In short, you need to back up your claims and be careful about separating your own inferences from what your sources say. The figure of 3,000 to 4,000, without any attribution, sounds almost Chomskyesque.
OK, I misspoke: 800.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html
Doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to suppose that each one that falls on a heavily populated area will kill 3 or 4 civilians, now does it? As I said 3000 or 4000 is a conservative estimate.
Here’s some support for the 3000 bombs figure:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6138463%255E401,00.html
Though the figure is from an “expert” not a Pentagon spokesperson…
I’d say the only way you’re not going to get 3000 casualties is with a quick capitulation. But we’re about to have a test run of this ghoulish experiment…
Guys,
What’s with the “anti-American” name calling? I disagree with Radley on this issue but I’ve found nothing that he’s written as being anti-American. He’s previously stated that once the bombs start falling he’d get behind the troops. I won’t ask for any more than that.
Radley, you are spinning fact now and should stop.
This is NOT a preemptive strike, stop saying it. Saying it more will not make it true. Just because the media does not challenge that statement does not make it true.
We did not finish Iraq in ‘91 because he signed a cease fire that said he would destroy his WMDs if we stopped our advance. He has not destroyed his WMDs, he has tried to build more, he has broken all his agreement in the cease fire. Thus there is no cease fire and we are still at war as per the original decleration in ‘91.
This is the same spin as the loser French are using. Let the inspectors do their job. The reason this is spin is that the inspectors’ job is to VERIFY the destruction of WMDs. The French and thier allies have changed the definition of inspectors to mean the SEARCH FOR WMDs.
Iraq could comply with inspections in a week. Just bring all your WMDs to the town center and let the Inspectors do their job. Complying with UN resolutions is very easy and quick, it is repulsive that we waited 12 years to do this.
Gene,
I don’t see any solid basis for making assumptions about how many people each missile will kill. And at least in the inital “shock and awe” phase I think we’re talking mostly about cruise missiles and precision bombs, which, while not perfect, are a lot better than carpet bombing with dumb bombs.
Some ordinance will strike exclusively military targets and kill no civilians. Some will strike military targets with human shields and some innocent bystanders nearby. Some will go astray and kill civilians at random. Without knowing the Pentagon’s target map compared to where people are concentrated on the ground, I don’t see how you could possibly guess what the average is going to be. Maybe 2, maybe 3, or maybe 0.5.
Dave:
I will be watching this war, and will change my thinking whenever needed to align with the facts.
One thing though — I believe that what failures we do perpetrate in this effort will probably not come from being too agressive, but rather from stopping short of decisive action in areas where it is called for.
Here’s a hearty thanks to the number crunchers!
Shock and Awe involves 3000 cruise missiles landing on a city of 4 million people. What do you think is going to happen?
Tha main problem with the pro-war side is they think a life under a dictator is a life not worth living. So it doesn’t matter if we take it.
But it’s not really our call, is it? See Waco…
Eric M:
The main problem with the antiwar side is that y’all are so afraid of being blamed for taking lives today, you are willing to put far more lives at risk by the very inaction you advocate.
Do y’all really think Saddam will just sit there, and maybe even stop killing his own people when they disagree with him? Not only will he continue that practice, but the instant he perceives us to lack the will to forcefully oppose him, he will move to expand his “empire”.
This is true even if we practice a policy of containment — if he thinks that (like the previous Administration, despite its assertions) we are unwilling to cross the line of departure into Iraq, he might not invade his neighbors, but he will start exporting WMDs instead. He could indirectly take out far more lives than the casualty figures here before we muster the will to take him out for good — and in the process, create a lot of chaos that will distract us to his benefit.
The potential cost in lives — not only Kuwaiti, Israeli, American, but Iraqi lives — goes up each day Saddam remains in power.
Pay now, or pay a lot more later.
Peace in our time. Peace now. Stupid? No, just extremist wishing. I wish for it too, but I know that - like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” - it is something we cannot have now: it must be striven for, not mouthed. Those who say otherwise are either idealist Luddite non-thinkers, or actually want someone (preferably themselves) riding a white horse to control everything. And, presumably, to kiss their boo-boos and make them better. They want peace, which is commendable. But they want it now, which is dangerous.
We have, after less than a year, had the proposition/question “We accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, it still is not a viable democracy.” Uh-huh. And there are still people who spit on the sidewalk despite the experience of tuberculosis in the last two centuries. Building a democratic nation out of an unknown number of tribal groups who fight each other unless there are foreigners around is not going to happen overnight, sorry. And don’t claim the Taliban did, outside the cities it was all they could do to send around armed tax collectors.
And of course, “Did we learn nothing from Viet Nam?” I certainly hope so. I hope that we have learned that the “peace in our time” crowd only cares about their own families, and not much about them. Asians are dying? Well, we shouldn’t stop it, that’s their [the gooks] problem. There is ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Well, it is not our problem, it is up to them [the peasants] to handle that. An Arab country is preparing to conquer others? Hey, that is a regional [wog] problem. A bunch of countries want to finish the “Final Solution?” Not in our bailiwick, let them [towelheads and kikes] handle it.
In the Iraq situation, “If they want to get rid of Saddam, let them [toerags] do it themselves”. Well, they came close back in 1991 after the cease-fire. They controlled most of the South and North. In the North, the UN continued a defense of sorts: in the South, the coalition insisted on standing by while the rebels and their rifles stood up to helicopter gunships and tanks - and were killed.
Well, killing everybody does achieve a sort of peace. Yes, violence does indeed solve things. Ask the people of a village in France which was wiped out as reprisal for the death of a single German officer. The village in Jordan that was bulldozed with the people still in it. Or just visit any military graveyard and congratulate yourself that these people are no longer violent, no longer getting into bar fights or auto accidents or even train wrecks. And tell yourself that people who blow up women and children at shopping centers are more moral than the people who destroy the bomb-making sites. That a “political” group thrown out of three Moslem countries is the spokesgroup for the Moslem world. That Saddam must not have biological and chemical weapons because all the inspectors can find is places that could make them, even as German Intelligence admits Germans sold plans and possibly equipment for truck-mounted manufacturies, which Iraq says it never got. Or why Iraq is investigating nuclear weapons at least as strenuously as nuclear electricity, and had all documentation relating to such taken out of facilities and kept in private areas - even private homes.
But we can have peace now. Next week is too far ahead to think, let alone act.
Regarding the statement that Iraq is “a country that hasn’t attacked us,” so was Germany in WWII.
We were attacked by Japan, then we subsequently attacked…Germany. Why? One reason was that we correctly saw that Germany was a part of the larger problem. The same logic applies today with regard to the war on terrorism.
Admittedly oversimplified, but undeniably true.
I disagree with you 100% Radley. Appeasement never works.
However trolls ruin the debate. The anti-war ones are getting nastier by the minute.
We attacked Germany because they declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.
You really must learn your history Kenneth if you are not to be thought a fool.
Radley,
We don’t want to end up like Europe with the simulacrum of security from heavily armed antiterrorist police, and a steady stream of incidents since the 1970s. Why don’t we worry about German and Japaense saboteurs for example; b/c the regimes that sponsered them, trained them, and supported them no longer exist.
As for “breaking wind,” I’ll just say this: Why would they not think a nuke or two in DC is necessary to stop us from helping Israel. Or more embassy bombings. And Cole bombings. And attempts to assinate our leaders. And Scuds lauched at our allies. Etc. etc. These crazies rightly confused us for pussies b/c we were for the last 20 years. A gun only smokes when it’s been fired. We shouldn’t wait any longer now that we’ve got all kinds pointed at us. If nothing us, it will serve as a useful example to Syria, Iran and other loonies around the world that wish us ill.
Peace is what we all wish for! Killing is not the answer but tell that to Saddam and all the other terrorist groups that exist. Do you honestly think they (terrorists) will stop attacking U.S cititzen or anyone else who does not believe in their beliefs with or without the war.
For those of you, who are so critcal of our president and this war, be honest and ask yourself how you would feel if Saddam or any other terrorist group struck again on our homefront with WMD and your family was obliterated?
I am not a great fan of President Bush but applaud him for having the balls to take a stand. Our president and our country are damned no matter what we do!
Peace is what we all wish for! Killing is not the answer but tell that to Saddam and all the other terrorist groups that exist. Do you honestly think they (terrorists) will stop attacking U.S cititzen or anyone else who does not believe in their beliefs with or without the war.
For those of you, who are so critcal of our president and this war, be honest and ask yourself how you would feel if Saddam or any other terrorist group struck again on our homefront with WMD and your family was obliterated?
I am not a great fan of President Bush but applaud him for having the balls to take a stand. Our president and our country are damned no matter what we do!
Peace is what we all wish for! Killing is not the answer but tell that to Saddam and all the other terrorist groups that exist. Do you honestly think they (terrorists) will stop attacking U.S cititzen or anyone else who does not believe in their beliefs with or without the war.
For those of you, who are so critcal of our president and this war, be honest and ask yourself how you would feel if Saddam or any other terrorist group struck again on our homefront with WMD and your family was obliterated?
I am not a great fan of President Bush but applaud him for having the balls to take a stand. Our president and our country are damned no matter what we do!
Peace is what we all wish for! Killing is not the answer but tell that to Saddam and all the other terrorist groups that exist. Do you honestly think they (terrorists) will stop attacking U.S cititzen or anyone else who does not believe in their beliefs with or without the war.
For those of you, who are so critcal of our president and this war, be honest and ask yourself how you would feel if Saddam or any other terrorist group struck again on our homefront with WMD and your family was obliterated?
I am not a great fan of President Bush but applaud him for having the balls to take a stand. Our president and our country are damned no matter what we do!
I don’t think Saddam was an insignificant dictator to the 23 million
people who now don’t have to live under his rule.
You have a very thorough site. You are to be commended for all of the information you have made available to us the searchers. I didn’t find any info on my ancestors, but I still enjoyed looking around
カジノ
Ok, I will sign your blog. I really love your site.
Online Casinos information
Niccceee pagee
Nice site.
cheap Viagra
cheap Cialis
cheap Levitra
Great site. Order Phentermine COD online.
Phentermine COD
Welcome to the greatest house-plans resource. Our online catalog will help you to chose one of the best and cheapest house and garage plans. Most plans are an unique work of art made by the best designers from all over the world. Using our site you will receive the cheapest plan of the magnificent house or garage - unique in whole country. This distinctive list of only outstanding plans will give you a perfect opportunity to be the best among your neighbors. Our service is licensed by leading house planning companies, which gives you guarantee of excellent quality combined with cheap prices for each and every house and garage plan you choose. Your house must be perfect, because it is more like that you will spend years there. It is rather hard to choose a house or a garage plan among thousands of excellent samples.
Today our site is able to book flights and fares from more than 450 airlines worldwide. Savings are not limited to airfares - discounted hotel and car rental rates are available too. Being the only professional resource, our site is successfully competing on air ticket market. Our cheap prices cash-desks are existing due to non-commercial aim. As you can see we don’t overload our site with nonsense graphic features as some of similar sites do.
Quick cash-desk will help you to start traveling right now. Students and other privileged citizens will be able to by tickets on reduced prices. There is a handy system of discounts for your air travels. Ultimate air-travel resource is at your service.
Asked Questions (and Answers) about Contact Lenses.
You will be pleasantly surprised with quantity of bonuses and prices for any class of airline tickets price. Besides of the cash-desk, you will receive an excellent service upon traveling insurance. The majority of our clients are business-class customers, so we guarantee excellent quality of service. See the cheapest tickets in links below. The structure is easy - the higher is the link - the lower price tickets you receive with the same quality.
On the contrary - we do not use anything to make our plans expensive. The cheapest and the most exciting plans in internet are put in listings on our sites. Use links below, which will guide you through house plans catalogues.
Modified by the leading designers, this house and garage plans combine rich Victorian style design and all modern conveniences needed for cozy home.
The CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) is a modern technology used for visual surveillance designed to monitor all the variety of rooms, spaces and activities. CCTV is called a “closed circuit” because cameras and monitors are linked with a constant connection.
- Texas hold’em FAQ.
Internet users, who speak computer slang, use the ADWARE term to express the Advertising Supported Software. It’s a convenient way of making money from a shareware product authors in other way, then selling it to users. A row of large media companies, who offer to put their banner on your site for exchange of free production usage as a revenue for banner sales.
Thanks for the great site. cheap
ambien
Thanks for a great site. Visit our site too and shop Ambien.
cheap Sonata
Ambien overnight
Perfect pages… tnx
looking for information and found it at this great site.
Great job guys… Thank for you work…
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site. ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE. From website .
cpaljnoy tvdzjs ideqkw uqioszvmb cgmea qaue gbyh
naolz puwqg dpwshc uxsnve ilsx nlaoytfz uxhtzk http://www.fyznqgjrv.ywjectfn.com