War will last for Months: How do you feel now?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the anticipated duration of the war in Iraq, with participants expressing their feelings and opinions on the implications of a prolonged conflict. The scope includes personal sentiments, political implications, military strategies, and the humanitarian impact of the war.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the war is likely to last for months, contrary to earlier expectations of a swift resolution.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their support for the war, indicating a potential shift in public sentiment as the conflict continues.
  • Another participant reflects on the possibility of a siege around Baghdad, raising concerns about civilian casualties and the moral implications of military actions.
  • There is a suggestion that the coalition's concern for civilian safety may be prolonging the conflict.
  • Some participants note that if the war extends beyond three months, it would be the longest conflict since Vietnam, highlighting historical context.
  • One participant emphasizes support for the troops while opposing the war, suggesting that public opinion may decline as the war continues.
  • Another viewpoint stresses that the real fighting has yet to begin, and the outcome remains uncertain, with the potential for both quick resolution or extended conflict.
  • Concerns are raised about the humanitarian impact of the war, with references to the high death toll attributed to Saddam's regime and the moral complexities of military intervention.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the initial expectations of the war, indicating a belief that the situation may not unfold as optimistically as anticipated.
  • There are discussions about the military strategy employed, including the differences from previous conflicts and the implications for soldier morale.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the war's duration and implications, with no clear consensus on the expected outcome or the morality of the military actions. Multiple competing views remain regarding the effectiveness and consequences of the war.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about military strategy, public sentiment, and humanitarian concerns, but these assumptions are not universally accepted and remain unresolved within the discussion.

N_Quire
This is not going to be a swift war as the non-military journalists and pundits had expected. Perhaps some politicians such as Cheney are to blame too for trying to sell the idea of a swift war before it all started.

It now looks as though the war is going to drag on for months. How do you feel about that? Is your support as strong? Will Bush be able to keep the public's support over the long haul? I hope so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It now looks as though the war is going to drag on for months. How do you feel about that?
I haven't made up my mind yet.
Is your support as strong?
Just as weak as ever.
Will Bush be able to keep the public's support over the long haul?
He may not, but I haven't been following the news either(as usual). I picture a siege around Bagdad where eventually the toll on civilians due to bombardment, starvation, etc. may soften hearts considerably. I think that if it plays out to this point that orders to storm the city will be given.
 
Maybe I'm dating myself..
but..
I still...
consider...
months...
to be..
a...
quick...
war...


Isn't it?
 
Boulderhead wrote: "I picture a siege around Bagdad where eventually the toll on civilians due to bombardment, starvation, etc. may soften hearts considerably. I think that if it plays out to this point that orders to storm the city will be given."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see a scenario where we want Saddam to try to use chemical/biological weapons so we have a good reason to destroy his forces without having to worry too much about civilian casualties.

It seems the concern with civilians is preventing the coalition from fighting as it really wants to, and it might be causing the war to drag on.

I guess all will be revealed in the battle for Baghdad.
 
Kat, I think if it goes on for more than three months, it will be the longest war since Vietnam (which lasted more than 10 years).
 
I support the troops,

not the war. they are just caught up in middle of a vendetta. I believe GW's polls will start dropping lower the longer the war goes on. He will probably do something else or commit the U.S. to another iladvised policy (I don't know what) to make them climb again.
 
I don't think anything that's happened in the past week has changed my opinion about the possible length of the war. People put too much stock in the resistance of a few fanatics. The real fighting hasn't started. It is about to.

It might be quick, or it might take months. I would never have supported a war that had to be over quickly. Too much can go wrong. Only an idiot would have supported the war, and then change their mind because it wasn't a death-free war. The press might have expected victory without fighting, but I haven't run into any real people who thought that.

Njorl
 
Originally posted by Njorl
I don't think anything that's happened in the past week has changed my opinion about the possible length of the war. People put too much stock in the resistance of a few fanatics. The real fighting hasn't started. It is about to.

It might be quick, or it might take months. I would never have supported a war that had to be over quickly. Too much can go wrong. Only an idiot would have supported the war, and then change their mind because it wasn't a death-free war. The press might have expected victory without fighting, but I haven't run into any real people who thought that.

Njorl

Agreed. Furthermore, I (reluctantly) agreed with the reasons for this war. They have not changed. It makes me very sad to think that the death-toll will be higher and the suffering greater as the war grows longer, but I still see no alternative that isn't worse than the war. Saddam is a criminal. What do you do with a criminal? You Arrest him. What if he won't come peacefully? Take him by force. But if he really, really resists a whole lot... it still must be done.
 
War will last for Months: How do you feel now?

What i feel is irrelevant, the war will still go on. The best i can do is give support to the soldiers fighting in Iraq.
 
  • #10
I never really bought the they-will-shower-the-occupying-troops-with-flowers stuff, so it doesn't change much. My main hope is that it will make Bush&Co. wise up a little, and maybe pay a little less attention to certain people *cough*-Rumsfeld-*cough*-Defense Policy Board.
 
  • #11
Human Rights Watch says Saddam is responsible for murdering over 250,000 people.

They can take as much time as they need destroying that sorry son-of-a-bi-atch and his band of thugs.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Alias
Human Rights Watch says Saddam is responsible for murdering over 250,000 people.

They can take as much time as they need destroying that sorry son-of-a-bi-atch and his band of thugs.

I believe that number to be on the low end, I think estimates as high 1 million may be closer to the truth in the end. There are estimates of over 200 thousand missing alone.
Unfortunately, Saddam and his "thugs" apparently also view the Iraqi people as nothing more then a tool of war. So..I can't say that I feel okay saying..take your time if taking your time means more death/suffering longterm.
 
  • #13
You're probably right. I was just thinking that maybe by taking their time, they might save more civilian lives. Which ever works best, I guess.
 
  • #14
I agree with Alias though I must admit it now appears to me that it will take longer than I initially expected. I expected about 2 weeks after the start of the ground campaign. I still think though that it will be less than a month.
 
  • #15
They didn't get to do all that bombing like back in Gulf 1, and that has an effect on a soldier’s willingness to fight. Having lived through the embarrassment of all the defections/surrenders which occurred the first time I would not be surprised if less of it happens this time around. House to house fighting isn't going to be either enjoyable or fast, especially if the citizenry takes part in the fighting.
 
  • #16
They didn't get to do all that bombing like back in Gulf 1, and that has an effect on a soldier’s willingness to fight.
The early start to the ground war was calculated to reduce the number of oil wells Saddam could torch. It must be remembered that though the first Gulf ground war took only about 100 hours, it was preceded by nearly a month of air war.
 
  • #17
NEWS FLASH

New Yorker Magazine- 4/7/03- Seymour Hersh, Rumsfeld micro-managing war on Iraq. Undercutting military planners. I think he's going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Is a noninterventionist policy viable for the US?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
News Is Bush's Veto and War Rhetoric Justified?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?
  • · Replies 340 ·
12
Replies
340
Views
32K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News What's Next for the US in the War on Terror?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Supporters of the war: what will it take for you to sign up for the military?
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
News Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
News War may be criminal - GOP Sen Smith
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K