What is the likely outcome of Gulf 2?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the anticipated outcomes of the Gulf War II, particularly focusing on the situation in Iraq post-invasion. Participants explore various perspectives on the political, social, and military implications of the conflict, including the potential for civil unrest, the impact on Iraqi society, and the role of the United States in the region.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that weapons of mass destruction were found, but there is no evidence of their intended use, raising questions about the justification for the war.
  • Concerns are expressed about the ongoing violence and the potential for a civil war in Iraq, with some predicting a power vacuum following a U.S. withdrawal.
  • There are differing opinions on the timeline for U.S. military presence in Iraq, with some suggesting it may extend for several years.
  • Participants discuss the implications of U.S. tactics in Iraq, including allegations of war crimes and the moral implications of military actions.
  • Some express skepticism about the establishment of democracy in Iraq, questioning whether the U.S. intervention is genuinely aimed at helping the Iraqi people or if it serves other interests.
  • There are references to the political motivations behind the war, with some suggesting that it is tied to domestic political agendas rather than genuine security concerns.
  • The role of the media and public perception of the war is also debated, with some participants highlighting the disconnect between reported events and public understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the outcomes of the war, the motivations behind U.S. actions, and the implications for Iraq and the broader Middle East. Disagreement persists on the nature of U.S. military tactics and their ethical implications.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the situation in Iraq are based on incomplete information or differing interpretations of events, such as the status of looted artifacts and the legality of military tactics employed. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions and uncertainties about the political landscape and military strategy.

What is the likely outcome of Gulf 2 in 12 months?

  • exactly the same as post-revolutnry war America, as Rummy says

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • same as post-ww2 Japan-dictatorship dissolves into capitalism

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • same as post soviet Poland - labor unites to defy a decaying tyrant resulting in freedom

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • continuous US casualties, no infra improvements, oil pumps, price stays the same

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • Total voters
    10
schwarzchildradius
Weapons of mass destruction - the mobil labs shown to the UN by Powell has been found. However, there is no evidence that they produced or were intended to produce anthrax.
VX and other chemical agents were reportedly found in the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, no doubt dumped by guilty Baath party aparatchiks.
Sold as a solution to a direct threat to the US, yet NOW US soldiers are dying there daily. Well, so what people die in war... yet the war is "over" according to the top brass.
Apparently completely ignorant stories from museum curator of Iraqi museum that treasures were looted -- yet said treasures turn up in a vault? The curator had no idea where the treasures were?!
What the hell is happening in Iraq? What will happen there in the next 12 months?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I voted for the second one but it may take more than a year (I'm not sure how long Japan took, but I know it was surprisingly fast). Five years ought to cover it.

Btw, your objections to the war itself are not relevant to the question posed. I must point out though the museum thing - we already established that the curator was misquoted/misunderstood in his initial interview.
 
We will continue to rule Iraq with guns until we finally pull out because of political pressure at home and abroad. This will leave a power vacuum and it will cause an Iraqi civil war. This will act to further destabalize the Middle East. Just a guess. :wink:
 
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
We will continue to rule Iraq with guns until we finally pull out because of political pressure at home and abroad. This will leave a power vacuum and it will cause an Iraqi civil war. This will act to further destabalize the Middle East. Just a guess. :wink:
Any guess on timeframe?

I do see that as a real possibility, but Bush wouldn't pull out while he's in office (that way he can't be blamed). In 5.5 years when Bush leaves office, if its still a quagmire, his successor will probably just pull chocks and take off.
 
Originally posted by russ_watters
In 5.5 years when Bush leaves office

Excuse me while I shove this pencil into my head.
 
3.5 or 5.51 years.
 
I must point out though the museum thing - we already established that the curator was misquoted/misunderstood in his initial interview.
Let me know then, which was it: misquote, or misunderstanding (i.e. mistranslation of Iraqi to english) because they are different. Could it be that the curator had his own museum looted, expecting the Americans to try to take to loot, but finding that a relatively stable American empire would secure him?
We will continue to rule Iraq with guns until we finally pull out because of political pressure at home and abroad. This will leave a power vacuum and it will cause an Iraqi civil war. This will act to further destabalize the Middle East. Just a guess
I heard a new term today - "tax-cut empire," on "washington week," on PBS. That's a great term for it - an empire running on the cheap, the old fashioned way, like in the day of Alexander the Great. They didn't worry about "social programs" like schools and roads; taxes were to finance conquest, expand the empire. But the big difference between Alexander and George -- the former could distinguish fantasy from reality.
 
Iraq will be forgotten as soon as Bush finds a new oil field to conquer. The best part of economic imperialism is that you don't need as many troops, if you control the money and food.
 
Originally posted by Windy
No doubt the Iraqi people will flourish under a democracy.

I have grave doubts about this.
 
  • #10
American soldiers will continue to die every day. The rate will probably increase as iraqis grow accustomed to US tactics. American people begin to believe that the iraqi people don't want us there as evidenced by crowds of iraqi civilians cheering US deaths. Millions protest US occupation in Iraq and abroad. US war crimes in iraq increase. As evidenced by the recent taking of iraqi hostages by US forces. Promises of troops coming home are broken as powers that be realize US forces are undermanned. Talk of draft ensues.

At home support for Bush* and war plummet. Protests increase as well as jitteryness among republican hold outs. Bush and other hawks continue to lie as for reasons for war and fail to admit mistakes. Because the whole point of the war wasn't about the security of the United States, but about a reelection campaign. So no matter how many iraqis we kill, we still lose the war. Just like Vietnam. You'd think people would have learned by now.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
US war crimes in iraq increase. As evidenced by the recent taking of iraqi hostages by US forces.
Uh huh...
 
  • #13
I don't know, guys, it looks pretty grim. Arent you tired of hearing about all the bloodshed every day? I hope that this is truly a naiive, heroic act, saving those people from Saddam's iron fist. But the alternative seems to be more plausible - that it's just a demonstration of power for self-glorification (not even to divide the spoils among the victorious, let alone to "democratize" anything). It's abuse of the military, and definitely a cold commoditization of the soldiers' class.
I support the military - I don't want them killed to glorify some Texan.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
I don't want them killed to glorify some Texan.

Who would that be? G. Dubya's from Connecticut. That's the only thing the Dixie Chicks got wrong.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by russ_watters
Could you be more specific? I see several Iraqi war crimes in there including threatening to kill people's families if they don't fight and using human shields. I don't see anything about American war crimes.


Read a little more carefully. Those ain't iraqis.

snip
"_Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later. "
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Read a little more carefully. Those ain't iraqis.
Actually, the two I listed WERE Iraqis. Your quote I missed. I'm not sure of the legality (you can of course detain ANYONE for questioning and there is some latitude in what you can say to get a suspect to surrender), but its not a tactic I agree with. Essentially they are threatening war crimes and it is working because the Iraqis are used to having their families murdered for coersion. They don't realize we won't actually do it.

In Gulf I, it was found that the best interrogation technique was simply being nice to the prisoners. Expecting torture, the were disoriented by the good treatment and terrified waiting for the hammer to drop.
 
  • #19
Our guys are terrified, getting fragged every day for so little pay. Sure reminds me of the Israeli forces. They didn't plan to fail, they failed to plan! as long as it boosts the president's popularity that's all that matters. Whatever. Guys get whacked, just not junkies of a certain economic class.
Let's hear it - what's the prediction?

Victory for democracy? Or Iraqis cheering US casualties for a good long time? Cheap oil and an economic recovery for our domestic industries? Or destruction of the poor classes and races for the gain of a few immoral gangsters?
 

Similar threads

Dinosaur Tomb Raider: Robert A. DePalma & Impact Evidence
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
News Cried about the carpet bombing of civilians
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
24K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
News What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics in the Gaza War?
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
13K
News War on Terror: Examining the Politics & Morality
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K