How will War change us?

[Guest Silence]

How will the War change us as a culture? How will this war change you personally? Assuming we go to War with Iraq, will you be changed in any way?

 

The Civil War changed quiet a few things in our culture. The two great wars made changes also. Will we look at Arabic people different? Will we start looking over our shoulders for back-lash terrorist attacks afterward?

 

Your thoughts, Que?

[cawthon777 0]

How will the War change us as a culture? How will this war change you personally? Assuming we go to War with Iraq, will you be changed in any way?

 

The Civil War changed quiet a few things in our culture. The two great wars made changes also. Will we look at Arabic people different? Will we start looking over our shoulders for back-lash terrorist attacks afterward?

War against Iraq won't change much, especially not me personally.

 

War against terror? That's a much bigger problem with much more significant consequences. There's a little part of me that goes "awww, crap" when I watch the news and hear about Iraq and North Korea and all these sleeper cells around the world - but I'm confident in the people whose jobs it is to keep this country safe. Maybe that's me being naive, but it's a lot more enjoyable than me being uber paranoid all the time.

[Guest Silence]

War against Iraq won't change much,

Cawthon777, just for the sake of arguement, you don't think the media coverage of War will change? Especially if we start taking heavy casualties?

[cawthon777 0]

War against Iraq won't change much,

Cawthon777, just for the sake of arguement, you don't think the media coverage of War will change? Especially if we start taking heavy casualties?

I don't underestimate the capabilities of Iraq, but I sure as hell don't overestimate them either. Once the war actually begins, it won't last long. The only problem is getting to that point.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I don't things will change much. If we do indeed invade, conquer, eliminate Saddam, occupy the land and instill some radical change (new U.S state? New country? Seperate it into multiple countries?) then I think people will see and appreciate how powerful a force the United States is. For better or for worse.

[Guest Eagan469]

My history teacher is best friends with Congressman Tom Reynolds, and she said he told her the US has a new type of bomb which has never been used (non-nuclear) which they are planning on dropping on Iraq during the course of the war.

 

She said we should be declaring war within the next 2-3 days.

 

I fear North Korea

[Guest Silence]

My history teacher is best friends with Congressman Tom Reynolds, and she said he told her the US has a new type of bomb which has never been used (non-nuclear) which they are planning on dropping on Iraq during the course of the war.

 

She said we should be declaring war within the next 2-3 days.

 

I fear North Korea

Eagan469, that sounds very interesting. I'd like to know more about this new bomb. And speaking about change, if this 'new' bomb has some kind of civillian use, there you go. Just like the V-2 rocket the Germans used which changed air travel forever.

[cawthon777 0]

I fear North Korea

These guys do a lot of barking but ultimately they want our aid and they won't get it if they bite as well.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

War, the success rather, will be my first life-experience of how wrong anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are. And a solid source thereof.

[cawthon777 0]

War, the success rather, will be my first life-experience of how wrong anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are. And a solid source thereof.

Well put. If we lived in fantasy land, it would be easy to have no enemies. But we don't ... so we do.

 

You reading this, Sheryl Crow?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I saw something about a new bomb. It's a new kind of daisy cutter bomb. The military is thinking of using to scare the shit out of the Iraqi army.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

War, the success rather, will be my first life-experience of how wrong anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are. And a solid source thereof.

What? Where were you at the end of 2001? Afghanistan was that war. I remember people burbling on about how the Taleban were committed, hyper-crazy shock troops who would do the same to the US army as they did to the Russians. In the end, the US just bombed them and supported the Northern Alliance to a victory in a few months. Yes, of course the anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are going to be wrong most of the time, as the US has a tendency to win wars rather quickly these days. Hell, even the anti-war-because thousands of civilians will be killed liberals are wrong about half the time, as bombing casualties are always way less than the overblown figures you hear. No, the liberals who are usually correct in these situations are those who are anti-war because the US will "liberate" these people and then install an inept/corrupt/oppressive government that will do little to improve life, while the US promptly forget about all the aid they promised and bugger off somewhere else. Which is a fair viewpoint, really. I do dislike Anti-Americanism dressed up as being anti-war, though. Its unproductive and placing the blame for everything on a single scapegoat is never good.

[Guest JMA]

War, the success rather, will be my first life-experience of how wrong anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are. And a solid source thereof.

Geez man, leave the liberals alone. Does ever discussion have to turn into liberal vs. conservative? My prediction: liberals and conservative will hate each other more than ever. This includes accusing each other of things they may or may not have done. Sadaam will be taken out. That much is a given. He doesn't really stand a chance in hell of winning. That being said, I suspect he will have some sort of "last laugh" type plan. This could include releasing a plague on a large area of people. Or, alternatively, Sadaam will give up at the last second. Either he will stay or go into exile. These are the only two outcomes I see.

 

It really all depends on just how psychotic Sadaam is.

[Guest JMA]

What? Where were you at the end of 2001? Afghanistan was that war. I remember people burbling on about how the Taleban were committed, hyper-crazy shock troops who would do the same to the US army as they did to the Russians. In the end, the US just bombed them and supported the Northern Alliance to a victory in a few months. Yes, of course the anti-war-no-matter-what liberals are going to be wrong most of the time, as the US has a tendency to win wars rather quickly these days. Hell, even the anti-war-because thousands of civilians will be killed liberals are wrong about half the time, as bombing casualties are always way less than the overblown figures you hear. No, the liberals who are usually correct in these situations are those who are anti-war because the US will "liberate" these people and then install an inept/corrupt/oppressive government that will do little to improve life, while the US promptly forget about all the aid they promised and bugger off somewhere else. Which is a fair viewpoint, really. I do dislike Anti-Americanism dressed up as being anti-war, though. Its unproductive and placing the blame for everything on a single scapegoat is never good.

Agreed. Almost every liberal I saw supported taking down the Taliban. And let's not forget that a lot of our soldiers in the army ARE liberals. Seeing as war is almost certain now it would be pointless and trivial to fight amonst ourselves.

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't things will change much. If we do indeed invade, conquer, eliminate Saddam, occupy the land and instill some radical change (new U.S state? New country? Seperate it into multiple countries?) then I think people will see and appreciate how powerful a force the United States is. For better or for worse.

I think things will change, but not here and not right away. I think it's pretty safe to say that this war will happen and that we will win and that Saddam will be killed or forced into exile. That being said after the war and liberation I see a similar America doing a simialr thign as they have in Afghanistan. We'll install a leader (who will eventually be in elections, you can't have constantly changing leaders when you are trying to build a country), install the groundwork for a secular democracy, give them plenty of money and help, and then get the fuck out with a good oil deal and a military base. We're aiming for a Turkey like secualr democracy, where despite their beign 99.8% Muslim the otehr religions still have freedoms.

Splitting Iraq into separate countries would be a huge mistake. For starter there are only about 23 million Iraqis now and to split up a relativly small country into 3 separate ones (Kurds in teh North, Sunni in the middle, and Shiite in the south) would be problematic. They would be too small to develop much of an economy and they would then start fighting over the boundries and copious ammoutns of oil. And If the Kurds got a country then the Southern Turkish Kurds would want to join and their separtist movement would strenghten. They would be a landlocked country of impoverished people who don't even get along with themselves (they are many different religions). The best route would be to give each group representation in the democratic process. They could do Proportional Representation like many Euro countries do to ensure that everybosy has at least one represntative and everybody's voice can be heard.

This won't be a piece of cake by any stretch of the imagination and it will take years to get Iraq up and running on it's own as a democracy and there is a chane that it will fail.

But if it doesn't I think you'll see many other countries start rebellions to install democracy and ask for our help. This could be a domino effect of freedom, it could be a one country success, or it could be a failure. Btu I think it's worth a shot, I like our chances.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Splitting Iraq into separate countries would be a huge mistake. For starter there are only about 23 million Iraqis now and to split up a relativly small country into 3 separate ones (Kurds in teh North, Sunni in the middle, and Shiite in the south) would be problematic. They would be too small to develop much of an economy and they would then start fighting over the boundries and copious ammoutns of oil.

I agree 100% with that. If you ask me, there are WAY too many countries in the world today. I delved briefly into this topic a few days ago when I asked Canadians on this board what makes their land and ideas worthy of a seperate country from the U.S or Britain (and France too). Too many nations are splitting up their resources for petty reasons. Iraq and the middle east (they have to import almost all food) have such little reasources to begin with, the last thing we need to do is implement, heh, brand-extension.

[Guest Silence]

Just a thought. If during the War one of Saddams' boys takes out part of an American city with anthrax or takes down a bridge. Will the Home Security folks have an excuse to take away some liberties? Or widen search and siezure policies?...

[Guest DrTom]

And let's not forget that a lot of our soldiers in the army ARE liberals.

Actually, let's, because it's not true. The military tends to vote Republican to a tune of about 70%, and the Republican party is the modern home of conservatism in America. Grabbing guns and killing people isn't really a big liberal ideal, as I understand their philosophies.

 

As for the war, I think it will be swifter than before. Our technology has advanced a lot since then, while Iraq lost a lot of equipment and men in the first Gulf War. The Republican Guard will end up folding like a cheap accordion. The tough part is what to do after the victory has been won. Like I said in a different thread: don't worry about winning the war, worry about winning the peace.

[Guest MrRant]

I worry about chemical/bio warfare personally.

 

And why don't you have VA in you sig?

[Guest DrTom]

I don't worry about things like that, that are far outside my control. A chemical or biological attack would be devastating, at least in the short term, but a country like Iraq would also need to be able to deliver a weapon like that effectively.

 

As for my sig, I'm lucky I remember to update it when I post an article.

[Guest MrRant]

I don't worry about things like that, that are far outside my control. A chemical or biological attack would be devastating, at least in the short term, but a country like Iraq would also need to be able to deliver a weapon like that effectively.

 

As for my sig, I'm lucky I remember to update it when I post an article.

While true that they probably couldn't wipe out say a state because a quarantine would be invoked quickly I worry about being in the spot where it happens.