Possible Baghdad Solution

Trawler

Regular
Here's an idea. Launch a massive leaflet/radio/tv campaign in and around Baghdad, telling all residents to leave the city in the next five days or suffer the consequences of a nuclear strike.

Whether or not the nuclear strike should go ahead would be up to anyone's guess, though Saddam would probably try to call the US' bluff.

To me, this strategy sounds like it would be right up Rumsfield's alley. Easy and cost effective. What are your thoughts on it's feasability and possible international political fallout? And what are your thoughts on the likelyhood of this situation occuring?

Every day the current military plan shows a lack of results a more dramatic solution becomes more likely. The only other visible way forward at the moment is to suffer an incredibly bloody street battle in Baghdad. Why kills the civilians you are supposedly setting out to save?
 
Trawler said:
Here's an idea. Launch a massive leaflet/radio/tv campaign in and around Baghdad, telling all residents to leave the city in the next five days or suffer the consequences of a nuclear strike.

Whether or not the nuclear strike should go ahead would be up to anyone's guess, though Saddam would probably try to call the US' bluff.

To me, this strategy sounds like it would be right up Rumsfield's alley. Easy and cost effective. What are your thoughts on it's feasability and possible international political fallout? And what are your thoughts on the likelyhood of this situation occuring?

If that were to happen, Saddam (or whoever's running the place) would just kill anyone who attempted to leave. Haven't heard anything official, but that's basically what they're doing now, preventing people from leaving.


Every day the current military plan shows a lack of results a more dramatic solution becomes more likely. The only other visible way forward at the moment is to suffer an incredibly bloody street battle in Baghdad.
Sorry, but that's the only way I see this is gonna end. The # of civilians killed in this kind of fighting will depend on the restraint of the soldiers (and what kind of tactics Iraqi soldiers use). If the Iraqi soldiers tell civilians, fight or die, are they still civilians?

Why kills the civilians you are supposedly setting out to save?
See my first point.
 
Dear God

OK... First of all as soon as that happens the coalition of the bribed and armtwisted *hack* & *cough* err willing becomes the coalition of one. Then half the pro US regimes of the middle east including nuclear power Pakistan either drop their support of the US or are overthrown by likely fundamentalist political parties who then threaten retaliation in kind if their muslim brothers are annihilated by a nuclear strike.

Those new regimes or the new orientation of those regimes then offer support to any movement to expel US and Brits out of the middle east and form a regional alliance to build a stronger deterrence to any further interference in the area by outside powers.

Its bad enough as it is and worse now with the very early threats to Laos and Cambodia err *cough* I mean Syria and Iran and the weak reasons given for those threats so far.

ya cant spell ww3 without dubya...

:?

You can assume the same might happen if taking Baghdad is too violent and bloody but God only knows where the threshold of muslim fraternity kicks in and this little Iraqi adventure become a whole new ballgame.
 
I think most anti war people are suprised at how low the casualties have been from the estimated millions they had predicted. I think bhagdad will fall with the use of assasination squads operating in the city. hope that only a few civilians need to die for the war to be over,

later,
 
Well what this war has been so far is mostly a ride in the desert. Very little fighting has occured in or near towns and only 2 small towns are completely taken over now by the coalition.

I certainly hope this war will be short and have low casualties as do all pacifists I know and read about.
 
basra has not been a piece of cake, and with a population of almost 2 million that could hide numerous soldiers. The amount gained is far from small.

later,
 
basra has not been a piece of cake, and with a population of almost 2 million that could hide numerous soldiers. The amount gained is far from small.

No it's not but for vey good reasons. 1.5 Million good reasons to be precise, however from the looks of things the Brits are starting to make some solid progress.
 
Pax you forget that just because citizens of certain countries hold anti-american feelings and the people are ill informed, does not mean the government is as well. Australia was not arm twisted at all, once the night club blew up in Bali they got pretty pissed, although the people may not agree the government is elected for a time so they can make decisions they think are right without immediate consequences, if every whim of the populace was followed it would be chaos.
 
Other than maybe Britain and Australia its pretty much a coaltiion of the bribed and armtwisted. I dont think the concerns about the consequences of war in Iraq were whims in any sense of the word whether expressed by the public or other countries governments or various specialists in Washington in gov or private think tanks... And now the early hints of its threatened expansion into Syria and Iran show the US admin is on some form of adrenaline crack.

There is severe criticism from whithin the US admin on the war right now especially from State dept. Its low key now but itll probably blow out into the open if the war is expanded for the flimsy reasons given so far.
 
Australia

The current Australian administration is extremely conservative. I doubt any Australian citizen is surprised by how strongly Howard supports Bush (he's more or less using the current world 'terror' situation as a get re-elected free card). If the opposition were in power, the situation may have been somewhat different.

Then again, if the opposition were in power in the States, we probably wouldn't be facing this situation at all. ;)
 
Trawler said:
To me, this strategy sounds like it would be right up Rumsfield's alley. Easy and cost effective.

You're right, it's right up his alley: assinine and stupid.

By the way, it's a great idea to look even worse on the world stage.

The US would have to cut down the entire rain forest to make enough propaganda leaflets to counteract the negative effect of this one. :rolleyes:

epicstruggle said:
I think most anti war people are suprised at how low the casualties have been from the estimated millions they had predicted. I think bhagdad will fall with the use of assasination squads operating in the city. hope that only a few civilians need to die for the war to be over,

later,

In "coalition" casualties or Iraqi? Most people expected the US to just go in slaughtering, that's more or less why they're against it. :rolleyes:

Sxotty said:
Pax you forget that just because citizens of certain countries hold anti-american feelings and the people are ill informed, does not mean the government is as well. Australia was not arm twisted at all, once the night club blew up in Bali they got pretty pissed, although the people may not agree the government is elected for a time so they can make decisions they think are right without immediate consequences, if every whim of the populace was followed it would be chaos.

Just like 70% of the US population thinks Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath party are enemies. Who's ill informed?

By the way, if the government actually followed the whim of the populace it'd actually be a democracy. ;)
 
Trawler said:
Here's an idea. Launch a massive leaflet/radio/tv campaign in and around Baghdad, telling all residents to leave the city in the next five days or suffer the consequences of a nuclear strike.

Whether or not the nuclear strike should go ahead would be up to anyone's guess, though Saddam would probably try to call the US' bluff.

A nuclear preemptive strike.....

:oops:

You've got to be kidding me right? Haven't we already learned the horrors of nuclear weapons from WWII? Dear lord.....

I honestly hope you're being sarcastic.
 
Other than maybe Britain and Australia its pretty much a coaltiion of the bribed and armtwisted.

Do you actually have any evidence for this? I know for a fact that Portugal, Spain, Poland and a whole host of European countries are actively supporting the war (troops + logistics).
 
Heathen said:
Other than maybe Britain and Australia its pretty much a coaltiion of the bribed and armtwisted.

Do you actually have any evidence for this? I know for a fact that Portugal, Spain, Poland and a whole host of European countries are actively supporting the war (troops + logistics).

You can find a list of countries dependant on world bank loans at various sites... World bank is a branch of the US treasury who owns 51% of it. The minor contingents of those countries is more than made up by the huge loans they depend on as well as trade with the US.
 
Heathen said:
Other than maybe Britain and Australia its pretty much a coaltiion of the bribed and armtwisted.

Do you actually have any evidence for this? I know for a fact that Portugal, Spain, Poland and a whole host of European countries are actively supporting the war (troops + logistics).
As I live in such country i can confirm "bribe" ($$$) and "heavy arm" (you'll enter NATO if...)
 
In "coalition" casualties or Iraqi? Most people expected the US to just go in slaughtering, that's more or less why they're against it.

Do you think the US has just gone in and "slaughtered"?

Just like 70% of the US population thinks Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath party are enemies. Who's ill informed?

What is this based upon? where did you get 70%? And what information do you base your statement that Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath party are enemies. (I'd like any links if you have them.)

By the way, if the government actually followed the whim of the populace it'd actually be a democracy.

Your right. But the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. :D
 
Silent_One said:
And what information do you base your statement that Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath party are enemies.

I know, the question wasn't directed at me, and I don't even have any links, but I do have a few spare minutes. :)

My recalling is that Saddam has always come down hard on pretty much any islamistic activity. His goal has been a secular state, and during the war against Iran he posed as the defense against an islamic threat. Normally, Ba'ath and Al Qaeda would be at one anothers' throats. Until just recently, Al Qaeda was quite public in hating Iraq.

Lately, Saddam has taken to using religious propaganda. It is just that - propaganda. There are, to my knowledge, no signs that he means to turn Iraq into an islamistic direction beyond this.

Also lately, Al Qaeda has spoken favourably of Iraq vs USA. I'd say the "vs USA" is the important bit. In fact, about the only thing uniting Iraq and Al Qaeda is that they fight USA, who for the moment and their point of view is the greater enemy. Otherwise, they hate each other.
 
You can find a list of countries dependant on world bank loans at various sites... World bank is a branch of the US treasury who owns 51% of it. The minor contingents of those countries is more than made up by the huge loans they depend on as well as trade with the US.

So no real evidence at all then, just some warped conspiracy theory. Fair enough. :rolleyes:
 
Heathen said:
You can find a list of countries dependant on world bank loans at various sites... World bank is a branch of the US treasury who owns 51% of it. The minor contingents of those countries is more than made up by the huge loans they depend on as well as trade with the US.

So no real evidence at all then, just some warped conspiracy theory. Fair enough. :rolleyes:

Hhe 26 billion to Turkey is a conspiracy? No its a newspaper headline. A story with enough legs that lasted for weeks... Scrutiny into the other coaltion of the 'willing' showed similar proposals and\or situations... And not every country can afford to say no to billions in aid... Did Turkey get the 26 billion after it refused its cooperation? No.

Do your own research or do I need to quote you such obvious stories like that of Turkey's...
 
Silent_One said:
Do you think the US has just gone in and "slaughtered"?

The Iraqi troops? Yes. We have a ridiculous technological advantage. Those Iraqis are just fighting for their country, the same as our troops, and they're getting slaughtered.

Silent_One said:
What is this based upon? where did you get 70%? And what information do you base your statement that Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath party are enemies. (I'd like any links if you have them.)

I couldn't find a link to the 70%, but I could have swore I read that. Anyway here's a link to show how uninformed the American public is.

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030328175457.asp

41% think that Iraq already has nuclear weapons :rolleyes: (as if we'd dare to attack then). Hilariously, 44% of the people also think some or most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, when none were.

"The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%."

So, how many people are supporting this war for real reasons, or just imagined ones? I'm still interested to see what happens when no WMD are found. Maybe the Iraqi people will end up being "liberated" (we'll see...), but I'm not sure the ends justifies the means.

Your right. But the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. :D

I think it's more of a hidden oligarchy, but the truth is most people are too dumb to be allowed to make decisions anyway (The same 40ish% who think Iraq has nuclear weapons), so what difference does it make.
 
Back
Top