After the war/resolution?

[Kaitain(UK)]

Hi guys - no point continuing the debate on the war - we're all quite happily entrenched now and just chucking the odd grenade. Pity the fool who sticks his head up - the well-aimed and oiled and arguments are pretty devestating (well, they're ineffective since none of us listens)

SO

What are your thoughts on the aftermath of this?
If/when there is a war and it is finished:

Do you think the US/Uk and allies will continue on to Iran and North Korea? I can see North Korea as receiving much greater worldwide support, as Kim has everyone crapping their pants - the thought of Japan taking independent action is frightening for regional stability. what about Iran?

Do you see the US proposed temp administration as inflammatory to the region? I can't see the governments of Jordan etc being able to appease their populations and the US

Do you think the UN will recover as it seems that the US/UK will have to act without the support of a resolution? Ultimately I see the UN as being proved ineffectual to both sides of the debate - (forgive the labels) pro-war will see that the UN failed to fulfil it's obligations under 1441, anti-war will see that the UN was unable to prevent the war occurring. So what happens? Do the US withdraw?

Germany - given that the US are effectively imposing economic sanctions upon Germany (withdrawal of long-term contracts etc), and the current state of the German economy, do you see a severe German economic recession ahead?

Israel - once the war has finished, popular opinion will inevitably turn to Israel and the hard-line approach that has been taken there. Without the ongoing Iraq noise in the press, I don't see the current actions Sharon has taken would be palatable to world opinion. Not that I think Sharon will give two ****s about that.

Any other consequences you can think of?

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaitain(UK)
What are your thoughts on the aftermath of this?
If/when there is a war and it is finished:

There will be a war, in all probability. The most interesting thing about the aftermath will be that we'll see who was right. We'll know- either Saddam has the WMD's, or he doesn't.

Do you think the US/Uk and allies will continue on to Iran and North Korea? I can see North Korea as receiving much greater worldwide support, as Kim has everyone crapping their pants - the thought of Japan taking independent action is frightening for regional stability. what about Iran?

Hard to say. I don't think too many people are crapping their pants over NK. Jong is executing a poorly concieved plan to blackmail the world into supporting another Communist system that is collapsing on itself. As for Japan, we provide most of their defense. Their military is not capable of taking on N Korea.

Do you see the US proposed temp administration as inflammatory to the region?

No. No more than it is in Afganistan. Saddams neighbors support us, for the most part. And we havn't been heavy handed in setting up the government in Afganistan, so why think we will in Iraq?

Do you think the UN will recover as it seems that the US/UK will have to act without the support of a resolution?

The UN has allways been a joke. Sadly, I think, it will survive.

Germany...and I'm going to add France:

I think their biggest problem may when we find out why they are opposed to the war, what they are afraid we'll uncover if we sieze documents and materials in the war. France, especially. It just came out that Chirac, in the deal he brokered with Saddam to build his nuclear power plant, also supplied over 90% enriched uranium to fuel it. That is weapons grade uranium. Reactors can be run on 3%. What else did they supply Saddam?

Israel The biggest problem with Israel is that we can expect Saddam to attack them early on, and as hard as he can, to try to draw them into the war. That way, he might be able to rally the 'Arab" world to his side. It is one reason we should move quickly. If Saddam gets desperate, and realizes there is no hope of more delaying tactics with the UN, he might strike Israel first in an atttempt to undo our alliance with his neighbors.

Any other consequences you can think of?

I think the biggest consequence of this war will be the stabilizing effect that removing Saddam will have on the region. I suspect that the Iraqui people will view us as liberators, and the horror stories they tell may keep our sensation hungry media in a feeding frenzy. What is left of the Kurdish people in Afganistan will certainly welcome our presence.

You seem to not want an argument here, so I've kept this pretty neutral. And it is just my opinion. Time, and the aftermath of the war, will vindicate or villify us all.

[yenhoi]

Do you think the US/Uk and allies will continue on to Iran and North Korea? I can see North Korea as receiving much greater worldwide support, as Kim has everyone crapping their pants - the thought of Japan taking independent action is frightening for regional stability. what about Iran?

Possibly. Depending on how Iraq goes over. American victory in Iraq will be significant to how nearly everything else works. What do you mean N. Korea is getting support? Its odd to see Japan rattling sabres. Iran's attitude towards the west might drastically change when the US and UK sticks an army right next door.

Do you see the US proposed temp administration as inflammatory to the region? I can't see the governments of Jordan etc being able to appease their populations and the US

Not sure. king Jr in Jordan is doing a good job so far, and I think he can keep it up. Jordan has also basically pledged itself in defense of Israel should Iraq launch missles... this is also significant. I dont think the region is quite as explosive as all the hype, this was not the case 12 years ago.

Do you think the UN will recover as it seems that the US/UK will have to act without the support of a resolution? Ultimately I see the UN as being proved ineffectual to both sides of the debate - (forgive the labels) pro-war will see that the UN failed to fulfil it's obligations under 1441, anti-war will see that the UN was unable to prevent the war occurring. So what happens? Do the US withdraw?

The UN does not have a history of being a powerful international organization. Its "authority" comes and goes at random almost. The US has a history of brushing off the UN's buisness as trivial and not binding to national independance in anyway whatsoever. But hold your horses, the world might be surprised. What happens if the UN passes another res that loosely authorizes force? What then?

Germany - given that the US are effectively imposing economic sanctions upon Germany (withdrawal of long-term contracts etc), and the current state of the German economy, do you see a severe German economic recession ahead?

Possibly. The EU and the United States have been heading towards a economic smack-down-and-drag-out for quite some time. Germany/France played their hand too soon, IMO - but I think they were baited. This is one that will be interesting to watch, because in the past the europeans havent had much stomach for really clashing with americans.

Israel - once the war has finished, popular opinion will inevitably turn to Israel and the hard-line approach that has been taken there. Without the ongoing Iraq noise in the press, I don't see the current actions Sharon has taken would be palatable to world opinion. Not that I think Sharon will give two ****s about that.

Israel is in real danger. But so are all the other countries in that region as long as there are radical shifty governments over there. They all shoot at each other for whatever reason. They just found a little common cause against the jews 50-30 years ago.

Personally I dont like Sharon or his policys, but westernizing another nation over there probably isent going to be bad for Israel's sake.

Any other consequences you can think of?

consequences of kicking Iraq's ass?

a few:

OPEC oil supply and market composure.

One less madman with access to horrible weapons, with a history of actually using weapons, who hates us.

I think the Kurds and a couple other minority ethnic and religious groups might be highly thankful. Not to mention the rest of the oppressed population or 'political dissidents.'

Having an army in Iraq. Look at all the countries Iraq borders.

Political momentum, international strategic gain, whatever you want to call it, that 'umpf' behind your words when you really mean it - the United States gets that back. This will probably change how several rouge nations conduct themselves.

"etc."


:eek:

[yenhoi]

dnc101:

Israel The biggest problem with Israel is that we can expect Saddam to attack them early on, and as hard as he can, to try to draw them into the war. That way, he might be able to rally the 'Arab" world to his side. It is one reason we should move quickly. If Saddam gets desperate, and realizes there is no hope of more delaying tactics with the UN, he might strike Israel first in an atttempt to undo our alliance with his neighbors.

So true. :(

:)

[red5angel]

"Israel The biggest problem with Israel is that we can expect Saddam to attack them early on, and as hard as he can, to try to draw them into the war. That way, he might be able to rally the 'Arab" world to his side. It is one reason we should move quickly. If Saddam gets desperate, and realizes there is no hope of more delaying tactics with the UN, he might strike Israel first in an atttempt to undo our alliance with his neighbors."


This happened last time too and it still failed. Truth is most of Saddams Neighbors are smarter then he is and don't like him.

[ZIM]

Do you see the US proposed temp administration as inflammatory to the region? I can't see the governments of Jordan etc being able to appease their populations and the US

This would be a bad move. One of the ideas is to station an occupying force- this would rapidly turn into 50,000 targets for terrorists rather than 50,000 peacekeepers.

OTOH, taking a *very* cold view of it, at least this 'magnet for weirdos' would keep them occupied- know where they are, flush them out, and all that...

[GLW]

I have doubts as to whether or not we would ever TRULY know what Iraq does or does not have.

The current administration, should it go through with a war even if most of its allies are not on board, will have too much at stake. If weapons are found, they will talk about it.

If weapons are NOT found, they could very easily use the same thng from bad cop movies...the throw down gun. Plant the things there, doctor a few photos and reports...and voila! you have confirmation of your suspicions.

So, if they have them, we will be told they do. If they don't have them, we will be told they do. It can't politically be any other way for such a strong stance on the subject.

[dnc101]

GLW,

So, what you are saying is that no matter what is found, no matter what is said, and no matter that we have many allies in Europe and in the Mid-East, you are going to hold your views that we are the bad guys, going it alone to force ourselves on the rest of the world and steal Saddams' oil?

[yenhoi]

If weapons are NOT found, they could very easily use the same thng from bad cop movies...the throw down gun. Plant the things there, doctor a few photos and reports...and voila! you have confirmation of your suspicions.

The United States government might decide to pull its occupational forces out of europe and just nuke them and premptively stop them from fooling around in the Bannana trade ever again. Most likely not. Everything ever said by anyone can be countered with random conspiricy garbage.

:D