Freethought & Rationalism Archive

markstake · 04-03-2003, 12:24 AM

Happy Wonderer writes:

Quote:

I find it to be somewhat odd logic that anything that gives comfort to Iraq ends up killing people for no reason because they are going to lose the war anyway. It is similar to the argument that a woman who resists rape in the face of overwheliming force brings her injuries upon herself.

I think you are missing a key piece of my statement, which is probably easy to do in this long thread. I'll quote the original statements I made:

Quote:

The United States will persist until they win. (This is, of course, an assumption, but is widely agreed upon). Much of the general population of Iraq hates Saddam, and fears retribution for assisting in his overthrow. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, even those who wish to help the U.S. advance will not. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, soldiers who may otherwise surrender will not. Since the U.S. will continue until they win, this means more deaths on both sides without changing the end result.

Central to this argument is Iraqi's who would otherwise assist or surrender, but now may not primarily for fear of retribution if Saddam's regime survives.

The rape analogy doesn't hold up in this scenario, since it only applies to the willing, or perhaps convinces the willing they should be raped instead.

Happy Wonderer goes on to write:

Quote:

Resistance by the Iraqis -- although perhaps ultimately futile -- does have a chance of shaping their future capitulation. (...) Iraq will end up with a much different government based upon the resistance we have faced than if we had walked in with no shots fired. It is quite clear that any future government arrangement will have to take account of the fact that many in Iraq do not like the US.

While this doesn't refute that Arnett's words will get more people killed, it does provide what would be considered a real justification for putting up a fight even in the face of ultimate failure. However, it wasn't what Arnett intended.

I don't agree with your assessment, though. In the end the Iraqi people will choose their government. While I sincerely believe this is the intent of the U.S., I have my doubts that we'll manage it in a fashion that the Iraqi's will accept, and we may end up with something of a revolt against U.S. control on our hands before the whole thing is over. Either way, the Iraqi's will end up choosing their government, and I doubt that additional Iraqi resistence at this stage of the game will make much of a difference.

Quote:

I also find it somewhat odd logic that Peter's statements are different than any other pundit's because they were shown in Iraqi T.V. Do we think that Iraq has no other sources of information?

Primarily because Peter is a supposedly objective western observer, who would have no motivation to present negative information about his own country. He presented his opinion as fact, and many Iraqi's will take it that way.

Quote:

I think that where Peter Arnett erred was in assuming that we in the USA would realize that he was reporting from Baghdad, in circumstances that were not entirely voluntary.

Since his interview, Arnett has given us every reason to believe that it was voluntary.

LymanLover · 04-03-2003, 01:19 AM

Remember the Marshall Plan as well. While I don't know the specifics of its development as policy, it certainly helped post-war U.S. corporations and contractors quite significantly, contributing to the economic boom in the fifties in sixties.

So while there are valuable pure resources in all of those countries, the most valuable one turned out to be capital.

slept2long · 04-03-2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(slept2long): The military is surprised. Where is the link were the cololnel or whatever his rank said they didn't war game against this type of enemy?
(Fr Andrew): Even worse news.

I didn't even notice this.

What idiots.

Quote:

At one point in the game, when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. (At that point, the managers stopped the game, "refloated" the Blue fleet, and resumed play.)

Quote:

Finally, Van Riper(blue commander) quit the game in protest, so as not to be associated with what would be misleading results. As he explained in his e-mail, "You don't come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. You see how the thing plays out." He added, somewhat ominously in retrospect, "My main concern was we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in any sort of an experiment."

My words in italics

I hope none of these guys planned our missions in Iraq.

LymanLover · 04-03-2003, 02:14 AM

Van Riper was red commander.. (I'm sure you knew that, just wanted to point it out to people that didn't read the article)

slept2long · 04-06-2003, 08:56 AM

DOH! I didn't mean to mislead anyone. I need to be more careful when posting.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2003, 01:19 AM	#82
LymanLover Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,982	Remember the Marshall Plan as well. While I don't know the specifics of its development as policy, it certainly helped post-war U.S. corporations and contractors quite significantly, contributing to the economic boom in the fifties in sixties. So while there are valuable pure resources in all of those countries, the most valuable one turned out to be capital.

04-03-2003, 02:14 AM	#84
LymanLover Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,982	Van Riper was red commander.. (I'm sure you knew that, just wanted to point it out to people that didn't read the article)

04-06-2003, 08:56 AM	#85
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	DOH! I didn't mean to mislead anyone. I need to be more careful when posting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.