The guess when we're going to war thread!

[Matt Hazuda]

Wheeeeee!!!!!! We're going to war whether those snotty french and the rest of the world like it or not, guns blazing and everything :: insert sarcasm smilie here:: ! Ol' GW will be making an announcement tonight at 8pm EST to say what the heck is going on. It's anyone's guess, but war is as good as coming by the end of the month, so here's your chance to say when you think it will start. The person closet gets 10 points(which mean exactly nothing :p ), so place your bets now! I'll start first.


I think the war will start by Wednesday, March 19th at 8pm EST.


What's your guess when Saddam "Camel Humper" Hussein will be hiding under his sissy bed peeing like a school girl with his cabana boy tring to "comfort" him?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Sometime this week for sure.

I'm going to guess that in the end, Saddam will not be "caught" or overthrown. It'll probably end up with the Bush Administration going, "Well, we found a cache of weapons (we'll take their word for it) when we invaded Iraq and we confiscated them. Still no sign of Saddam, though. But our "MAIN" objective has been completed (huh??), we destroyed the "weapons" (yeah, okay, whatever, remember Bin Laden?)"

U.S. moves out, Saddam slinks back in, life in Iraq after war (look, some junk and dust got blown from here to there, Mohammed!) goes ignored by the media as PR experts in the White House draw attention to something else in the world or in America.

It'll be a quick war, though. Saddam's "army" isn't that big and they're not exactly up to it, morale wise.

[The Landstander]

Cowboy BeBush should be putting on his war cowboy hat anyday now. I think we'll move in soon, perhaps even by Wendsday.

[finbarlafume]

Wheeeeee!!!!!! We're going to war whether those snotty french and the rest of the world like it or not, guns blazing and everything!

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. War is no laughing matter. Sometimes it needs to be done but it shouldn't be celebrated with glee. A very large amount of people might be dead by this time next week.

[James]

Originally posted by MDawg957
Wheeeeee!!!!!! We're going to war whether those snotty french and the rest of the world like it or not, guns blazing and everything! Ol' GW will be making an announcement tonight at 8pm EST to say what the heck is going on. It's anyone's guess, but war is as good as coming by the end of the month, so here's your chance to say when you think it will start. The person closet gets 10 points(which mean exactly nothing :p ), so place your bets now! I'll start first.


No disrespect, but that is a terrible thread opener. War is a nasty thing. If we go to war, people die. It's no game. People, good people are going to die. Iraqis, Americans, maybe some British. This is not a good thing - even if it's neccessary and again, the French have their reasons whether you like them or not. Please remember that.

Things could get very nasty. With rumours of Iraq moving weapons towards Israel, with the potential of both the US, UK and allies being classified as making an illegal act (which if I'm correct - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - is the case, would mean this would be classed as a war crime) things aren't good.

Saddam is a nasty piece of work, but this could get indeed get very nasty - and no one involved has clean hands, we've all made international messes in the middle east in the past so there is no pure righteousness. It is a mess, and he may need to be removed, but we could see some horrendous acts been actioned if we do go to war. Especially if he believes he's not coming out of it alive.

[EinBebop]

Being that this is a Toon Forum, I'll use an apporopriate quote to express my feelings on this:

"The sooner we get there, the sooner we can leave." - Zazu, The Lion King

I find joy not in the fact that we get to wave our guns in the air and give the UN the finger, but in the fact that we're liberating an oppressed people and insuring our own safety at the same time.

[James]

In regards of being held on acting illegally in interpretation of a UN resolution, can the countries be tried for war crimes. If so, does that make all those brace men out there in the military for countries attacking Iraq are as responisble for their actions as was declared of the Nazi soldiers? Or is it only leaders which can be held accountable? It's a horrible comparison, but the war crimes threat has always been lingering - I wondered if anyone knew the specifics on this subject... I'm not hot on the issue..

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by SJJ
In regards of being held on acting illegally in interpretation of a UN resolution, can the countries be tried for war crimes. We're acting in accordance with UN resolutions. There has not been a UN resolution repealing the use of force given in the earlier resolutions. There simply hasn't been a resolution declaring agreement on an all-out war at this time.

But it wouldn't just be the US and Great Britian, you'd also have to throw in Poland, Australia, and I believe Spain as well. May be more to come.

[Damien]

Reading this thread is like watching an episode of Gundam Wing.

Anyway, I'll go with Wednesday, although I'm sure what exact time. Bush just said Saddam has 48 hours to disarm and exit Iraq. If he has not complied, we're going in.

[KingKoopa]

My guess is that war will be declared Wednesday at 10:00. Although I hope not , because a new South Parkwill be on.

Sorry if you don't go to the Toonami board, you wouldn't get it.

[Brainatra]

Wednesday, 8 PM Eastern Standard Time.

-B.
Anti-war and lovin' it...

[jrh31584]

The bombing will begin in five minutes. :p
No, seriously, it will begin late Wednesday evening...and the whole war may be over by the end of April. Reports are that more sites will be attacked within the first 24 hours of a war than in all of Gulf War I. Within a week, all that will be left of Iraq's military will be the Special Republican Guard and the Special Security Organization, which total 20,000 or so. By then, the only battlegrounds will be on the outskirts of Baghdad. Iraqi civilians may do the job of overthrowing Saddam's regime for us. As far as casualties, I would guess up to 500 Allied soldiers, and perhaps 5000-7000 Iraqi civilians, compared to the 3500 killed in Gulf War I.

[Chris Wood]

Hide the women and children. Bush is on the loose and no amount of reason can stop him.

[EinBebop]

We may not make it 48 hours. Seem to be a lot of fears of a pre-emptive strike on the part of Iraq. It would probably make a lot of sense on Iraq's part, too, if there are any relatively easy targets. There's no doubt we're coming, and could use even the smallest advantage if they're holding onto any thoughts of winning.

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by EinBebop
We may not make it 48 hours. Seem to be a lot of fears of a pre-emptive strike on the part of Iraq. It would probably make a lot of sense on Iraq's part, too, if there are any relatively easy targets. There's no doubt we're coming, and could use even the smallest advantage if they're holding onto any thoughts of winning.

Iraq will not strike first. That would lend an air of legitimacy to the US's invasion plans. They will wait for the US to be the aggressor and let us take the heat.

[zmanjz]

The Z-MAN loves the concept of being a nation of liberators... if we can pull it off.


Fight the Good fight.

(Whatever Bush says his reason is, Removing Sadam is NOT a bad thing... as long as this road paved of good intentions doesn't lead to....well, you know.)

[cross blues]

Originally posted by EinBebop
I find joy not in the fact that we get to wave our guns in the air and give the UN the finger, but in the fact that we're liberating an oppressed people and insuring our own safety at the same time.

I find joy in all of that because the UN deserves the finger because the way most countries are acting toward this is so cowardly it's pathetic. I realize they may not be threatened by terrorism or attack from Iraq like the USA is, but I can't remember the US ever refusing to help an ally. Also, the guns won't be waving, but blowing the faces off of terrorists who would try to kill Americans or any other freedom-loving people. (I consider every Hussein or Bin Laden supporter a terrorist) Freeing the oppressed people in Iraq and Kuwait is long long long overdue, but I'm glad it's finally going to happen.

USA will declare war on Iraq Thursday, March 20 at 9AM (EST)
GBR will declare war on Iraq Friday, March 21 at 12PM

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by zmanjz
The Z-MAN loves the concept of being a nation of liberators... if we can pull it off.

Well, that's what we did in 1991, and did a fine job of restoring the legitmate government to power.

This time is different though - we are simply trying to remove the current leadership. This is much less an issue of liberation and much more one of we don't happen to care for your government so we're going to change it for you.

The notion that the US has the right to forcibly change the governments of other nations is rather disturbing to say the least. What if China started doing that? Look out Taiwan!!

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by prozzak
[B]I find joy in all of that because the UN deserves the finger because the way most countries are acting toward this is so cowardly it's pathetic.

Who has acted in a cowardly manner? With the US military involved, no nation has any reason to be scared of Iraq. It is merely a question of the rule of law versus the rule of force. Are lynch mobs more courageous than judges?


I realize they may not be threatened by terrorism or attack from Iraq like the USA is, but I can't remember the US ever refusing to help an ally.

I'm sure many allies would be happy to provide support if the US was under attack. But providing support to overthrow foreign governments is quite another matter. The US has strongly criticized Russia's efforts to deal with Czechen terrorists through military strikes, and sometimes even worked up the courage to express reservations about Israel's more extreme anti-terrorist tactics.

Also, the guns won't be waving, but blowing the faces off of terrorists who would try to kill Americans or any other freedom-loving people.

Iraqi cilvilians are not terrorists, and they love freedom too. Specifically freedom from falling bombs.

Freeing the oppressed people in Iraq and Kuwait is long long long overdue, but I'm glad it's finally going to happen.

Kuwait? We restored their distinctly non-democratic government to power after the Gulf War, and we're so popular there now that US troops are shot in the streets. Maybe we've played God enough already.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I love the "Freeing the oppressed people" rhetoric. Wonder how many people actually believe life will actually get better when or if Saddam is ousted. The truth is, it won't be much different at all, if the U.S.' past historical shenanigans with poor, sorry-state nations is any indication.

[zmanjz]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
I love the "Freeing the oppressed people" rhetoric. Wonder how many people actually believe life will actually get better when or if Saddam is ousted. The truth is, it won't be much different at all, if the U.S.' past historical shenanigans with poor, sorry-state nations is any indication.

...


Guess makes me an optimist.

I believe that anything IS possible, and that if we are Good AND Lucky, the world can come out of this a better place.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

You're talking about taking a non-existent, non-capitalist economy and applying capitalist, Western ideals like democracy, so-called "freedom" and "free market" to it when they simply aren't prepared to handle it. That's why whenever the U.S. kicks up some smoke in some X nation, they usually leave the place not much different than what it was before after that. Iraq's problems run a lot deeper than Saddam. He's a part of the problem, but take him out and you pretty much get a chaotic nation like those other middle eastern tinies around Iraq. The people in Iraq for the most part wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Saddam-ruled Iraq and a Saddam-less Iraq. Oh, I'm sure they may get a few days' worth of strawberries from the U.S. for a nice little news piece the media can pick up on to trumpet America's generosity, but does anyone here honestly think we'll hear another word about Iraq after the war is over?

We didn't hear about Kosovo after the U.S. pulled outta there. We don't hear about Afghanistan anymore. Gee, I wonder how they're doing lately. Not much better than they were before the U.S. came in an kicked some dust around, I tell you what.

There's a lot of violent, shocking crap going on in the world that doesn't make ANY headlines. Nations only make headlines when the U.S. government turns their collective eyes toward doing something with that nation for whatever reason. They kick some dust around, get some media coverage, move on to the next "violent, poverty-stricken 'IT' nation." It's the same cycle.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
You're talking about taking a non-existent, non-capitalist economy and applying capitalist, Western ideals like democracy, so-called "freedom" and "free market" to it when they simply aren't prepared to handle it. That's why whenever the U.S. kicks up some smoke in some X nation, they usually leave the place not much different than what it was before after that. Iraq's problems run a lot deeper than Saddam. He's a part of the problem, but take him out and you pretty much get a chaotic nation like those other middle eastern tinies around Iraq. The people in Iraq for the most part wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Saddam-ruled Iraq and a Saddam-less Iraq. Oh, I'm sure they may get a few days' worth of strawberries from the U.S. for a nice little news piece the media can pick up on to trumpet America's generosity, but does anyone here honestly think we'll hear another word about Iraq after the war is over?

We didn't hear about Kosovo after the U.S. pulled outta there. We don't hear about Afghanistan anymore. Gee, I wonder how they're doing lately. Not much better than they were before the U.S. came in an kicked some dust around, I tell you what.

There's a lot of violent, shocking crap going on in the world that doesn't make ANY headlines. Nations only make headlines when the U.S. government turns their collective eyes toward doing something with that nation for whatever reason. They kick some dust around, get some media coverage, move on to the next "violent, poverty-stricken 'IT' nation." It's the same cycle.


So you're saying that the people of Iraq don't have what it takes to be a democracy? Only us Western Countries have what it takes to be a democracy, is that it? Sounds kinda racist to me. I just wanna take a bet. 5 years from now, if we ask the Iraqi people if they're better off after Saddam leaves, they're going to say "Hell yeah!" That's what I'd bet.

And we hear about Kosovo and Afganistan all the time. Serbia's Prime Minister got assassinated a few days ago, a terrible act to try and take out Democracy in that region. But most people there rallying around their dead leaders democratic ideals. Basically, all the thousands that went to the funeral were there to say "We supported your democratic ideals, and we will carrying on!" Terrorists may kill people, but the fight for democracy carries on!

[Damien]

Well, that's what we did in 1991, and did a fine job of restoring the legitmate government to power.
Desslar, we didn't succeed in doing that. Saddam has been in power there long before you were even thought of.
The notion that the US has the right to forcibly change the governments of other nations is rather disturbing to say the least. What if China started doing that? Look out Taiwan!!
Look out, indeed, as China has been bullying them ever since Taiwan was established.
Who has acted in a cowardly manner? With the US military involved, no nation has any reason to be scared of Iraq. It is merely a question of the rule of law versus the rule of force. Are lynch mobs more courageous than judges?
If ANYONE has acted cowardly, it'd have to be France, although seeing as most of their oil comes from the Middle East, I can understand where they're coming from. Unfortunately, all the French gov. had to do was respectfully say they rather not get involved, but no, they have to gripe and moan. The best way to describe their behavior was displayed in a skit on last week's MAD T.V. I hope I'm not the only one who watched it.
Also, Saddam has been quoted on saying he has not ruled out attacking our allies. And BTW, the LAW of the UN says that we must disarm any country who poses a threat and/or is creating or obtaining weapons of mass destruction, by force if necessary. We have given Saddam resolution after resolution, two of which he signed a decade ago. The law that you defend says there is no other way. We've given him more chances than those laws allow, anyway. And yes, lynch mobs are much more courageous.
Iraqi cilvilians are not terrorists, and they love freedom too. Specifically freedom from falling bombs.
He wasn't talking about ordinary citizens; he was talking about terrorists.

Also, JoJo, maybe our national headlines don't include crap going on in other countries unless we're paying attention to them because they're national headlines, having to do with national issues.
Another thing: we didn't restore the Afghan gov. Our attacks just paved the way for the rebels to take the city. We just said "Okay."

Frankly, I don't care what happened with Afghanistan, and I don't care what happens to Iraq after the war. I don't care if we establish a new gov. there. Saddam is in breech of alot of contracts, has been making way too many threats, acting way more shifty and funny than he ever has, and (and this would be our most legitimate reason for kicking the crap out of him) he has terrorists ties and is even a terrorist to his own people, and seeing as we "declared" a war on terroism (which I'm sure all of you agreed with in the weeks after 9.11.01.), it's time we live up to our words.
All this anti-war sediment makes me wonder how much of you were just like everyone else after the NYC/D.C attack: hanging up the flag, screaming bloody murder, singing songs of never faltering and all that jazz. Just remember that (my fav. quote of mine..) "Temporary patriotism is not patriotism."

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
You're talking about taking a non-existent, non-capitalist economy and applying capitalist, Western ideals like democracy, so-called "freedom" and "free market" to it when they simply aren't prepared to handle it. That's why whenever the U.S. kicks up some smoke in some X nation, they usually leave the place not much different than what it was before after that. Iraq's problems run a lot deeper than Saddam. He's a part of the problem, but take him out and you pretty much get a chaotic nation like those other middle eastern tinies around Iraq. The people in Iraq for the most part wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Saddam-ruled Iraq and a Saddam-less Iraq. Oh, I'm sure they may get a few days' worth of strawberries from the U.S. for a nice little news piece the media can pick up on to trumpet America's generosity, but does anyone here honestly think we'll hear another word about Iraq after the war is over?

Here's what Pres. Bush said about that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.)

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. (Applause.)



We didn't hear about Kosovo after the U.S. pulled outta there. We don't hear about Afghanistan anymore. Gee, I wonder how they're doing lately. Not much better than they were before the U.S. came in an kicked some dust around, I tell you what.

I heard a CNN report that said that Kabul is now a booming business center. New businesses are starting on pretty much a daily basis over there, and the economy is doing much, much better.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by wonderfly
So you're saying that the people of Iraq don't have what it takes to be a democracy? Only us Western Countries have what it takes to be a democracy, is that it? Sounds kinda racist to me. I just wanna take a bet. 5 years from now, if we ask the Iraqi people if they're better off after Saddam leaves, they're going to say "Hell yeah!" That's what I'd bet.



It depends on what kind of shape they are in from a living standpoint. A lot of them simply don't care. They've grown up lousy, so it's all just kind of numbing to them. Ousting a dictator out of a sad-state nation isn't going to be better unless the whole environment changes with it. Otherwise, you'd have the same poor nation, minus the occasional political executions. Maybe it might get more chaotic. I don't know about the local politics of these kind of places, which is BEYOND most Western understanding. They're so complex.

In the current position they are in, Iraq is not ready for a democracy. That's not a bad thing, nor an insult, it's just that introducing a different economy into a country that doesn't quite have the varied industry, trade or resources to sustain a free market or capitalist tendencies just isn't going to work. Countries like China is ready for it, Iraq isn't. Many African countries aren't ready for it.

The problem with taking a poverty-stricken nation and trying to almost speed up the process towards a new goverment and economy is ten-fold, the main thing being that they require loans. Developed nations don't simply throw money away for free towards rebuilding other, poorer nations. If that were true, we wouldn't have such an international rich/poor disparity to begin with. They give them loans, to which while they receive money to build what they want, they also regularly lose a certain amount of money to try to pay off loans. For a nation that doesn't have the resources to sustain free market, a debt can be disastrous.

Japan and Germany are pointed as successful rebuilding efforts, but people forget that before they were defeated, these were not exactly rubble and villagers-type nations. They may have been in lousy shape after the war, but they had the industry, education and resources to crawl back with just a little boost from, say, America. Japan and Germany were not exactly Afghanistan.

--"Frankly, I don't care what happened with Afghanistan, and I don't care what happens to Iraq after the war. I don't care if we establish a new gov. there"

Well, then, I would at least prefer it if those who really don't care about them to stop using the "Freeing the oppressed people" excuse, since in this case it is not really a genuine argument if you don't believe in it.

--"I heard a CNN report that said that Kabul is now a booming business center. New businesses are starting on pretty much a daily basis over there, and the economy is doing much, much better."

"Booming", eh? That would be nice to hear, but come on, "booming?" Let's not go overboard.

Eh, CNN. The great centre for news. The fact of the matter is that most Western nations aren't really that interested in giving up too much money for peacebuilding efforts. On the other end of the spectrum, I heard the US government dragged its heels on paying the 37.9 million they were supposedly going to invest for the start-up costs of the UN civilian operation in Kosovo, and never ever did pay that projected amount, stopping the payments when the interest in the project waned. And I heard that the economy isn't that much different from before. Which is true? CNN? Or a political analyst I'm citing? Maybe both are lying or stretching. Nobody knows. You can't say for sure. I can't say for sure. We can definitly say that it's not exactly a super- blossoming economy making waves around the world, or else we'd hear about it more often even in typical reports about internation trade or economic dealings between nations, not just gift-wrapped CNN news pieces that make you go, "Awwwwwww. That's sweet."

It's easy to say you want to throw money towards rebuilding efforts, but there comes a point when too much money is just too much for the U.S. government to accept losing for basically nothing in return. This is not greed, this is looking out for your own interests, which is perfecty understandable in this economic climate.

I can accept some arguments for intervention, and even some for war. I don't like it, but there are good points made about the benefits to be had to do it.

But PLEASE don't say a nation ever does something for another simply out of the goodness of their own hearts. They may be pressured into doing it, or they may be interested in resources or product within a certain nation, but once they realize that they probably won't get much in return, don't expect concentrated rebuilding efforts to last very long. It's a very "What can you do for me" affair.

[TimTwoFace]

Due to reorganization at Cafe Toonzone, all threads dealing with the Iraq situation have now been closed. A new thread has been opened, and all topics involving the potential war with Iraq will be permitted there and only there.

Follow this link (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70991) to take you there.

Thank you for your cooperation!

-Tim "TWO-FACE" Leighton
Toonzone Moderator