Could the next Gulf War really happen the way that this Flash animation suggests? Comic characterizations aside, there’s a certain degree of plausibility to the disturbing scenario presented. I’ve yet to hear any other coherent suggestions as to how an invasion of Iraq/attempt to oust Saddam would play out, who would replace him, and what the repercussions in the region might be.
I’ve read through the What if the war goes badly? thread already, but thought I’d get your views on this particular scenario.
It could. I didn’t go through the whole thing because it was getting long. But let’s get a few things straight…if Iraq dumped antrax on some Israeli cities, it wouldn’t cause mass casualties. I’m sure Israel has more than enough antibiotics to deal with the threat, especially if they knew they’d been hit with bio weapons. Second, I doubt Iraq has any uranium. So, I don’t think a dirty bomb is a major threat. In that case, Israel waits on the sidelines.
I didn’t make it all the way through either. But, it looks to me to be more of the same from the defeatest left. The same nonsense was claimed about Afghanistan when that action was beginning.
I thought the whole argument against the war was that Saddam doesn’t have WMD and isn’t really dangerous. But now, we shouldn’t attack him because he is too dangerous and will use WMD on us and our allies? A certain percentage of the people in the US will always be against war regardless of the circumstances. They will do or say anything to prevent war. This flash is just a new way for this point of view to come across. These people should be ignored.
You get to make one play choice: Saddam’s successor. I’m not sure it has any effect.
I doubt an anthrax attack would make Israel go nuclear, though a radiological attack might. More likely, they’ll strike back with their own air force using conventional weapons and trash any Iraqi installation on or near their border with Jordan.
Funny, I didn’t get that impression. If the animation had ended with WW3, maybe you’d have a point, but to me it just looks like the author believes the war will be very complicated, not that he’s against fighting it.
And the only Flash animation I can remember seeing about Afghanistan was Powell singing “Day-o” (ironic, considering Harry Bellafonte’s later comments about Powell):
Come, Mister Taliban, turn over Bin Laaaden.
Daylight come and we drop da bomb.
Come, Mister Taliban, turn over Bin Laaaden.
Kick your ass then we gonna come home.
It’s easier to work your way through it if you turn the volume way down, or off. All those “bang-bang” exposions are mighty distracting.
Having worked my way through the whole thing, I’d have to say that each step in the proceedings seems to have a slight implausibility factor built-in. For example, I can’t visualize some sort of “rebellion” in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi royals first attempting to “appease” the rebels by expelling all American troops, and ultimately having to flee the country.
The logic in moving from one step to the next seems very slippery, and rather simplistically “comic book-y”, not the way people really respond in real life. And I don’t follow the logic at all of having Iran appear to be on the verge of invading Iraq and conquering the new U.S.-backed Iraqi regime. Why would they do that? The stated reason–“They were supporting the Shias in Iraq, who hate the new regime”–doesn’t wash. Why would the Shias necessarily hate the new regime? Why would Iran interpret that as an excuse to invade Iraq?
And an awful lot of the rest of it seems to be “business as usual”, nothing new there. Al Qaeda blows up embassies, Hezbollah and Hamas are active, Pakistan and India clash over Kashmir. In the scenario, we’re supposed to be extra-worried about the Kashmir situation because Pakistan has had a coup and expelled all foreigners, and it says, “Guess who has nukes?” But India and Pakistan have had nukes before, and clashed over Kashmir, why would what was happening in Iraq change anything?
I thought the animation was funny, it just went on too long.
And I agree with Bryan that the author’s point is how complicated (and destructive?) a war would be - you know I actually just typed “the war will be” but as I’m still praying it won’t, I’ve amended to “would” - rather than a comment on the outcome.
“The defeatist left”? You’re mighty fast with that label gun there, pardner, especially for someone who didn’t even watch the whole thing.
And the subsequent upsurge in extremist violence against Westerners and Christians in general in Pakistan is what, just a coincidence? Or am I just being defeatist? And is the situation in Afghanistan stable yet?
Then either you thought wrong, or you’re ascribing conflicting views to the same strawman. Is there some part of this animation which indicates that Saddam doesn’t have WMD?
God forbid we should be against war. Unfortunately, there is a far greater percentage of people in the US who will support military action as long as they think of it in black-and-white terms, as if it was all some action movie. And a significant percentage of the same seem to backtrack the minute the body bags start coming home.
I’ll concede that war is sometimes necessary and unavoidable. I remain unconvinced that it will achieve what many seem to think it will achieve in this instance.
“These people”. <checks off buzzword bingo card> Now if you’ll just include the words “liberal” and “bleeding heart” in your response, I’ll have Bingo!
I’m not arguing that this animation paints a rather extreme picture, and upon further consideration I agree with DDG in that it assumes a slippery slope. But the point remains that the Middle East is not WWII Europe, and there are a lot more than two sides to the ongoing political tensions. Given the apparent hamhandedness of US foreign policy lately, I am concerned that what happens next should not create ten problems for every one we solve.
I’m still waiting for someone to give me a satisfactory answer to the questions of how probable it is that a military action will oust Hussain without alienating other significant Arab/Muslim factions, who is likely to succeed Hussain, and whether they’ll be any better than the current administration. Anybody have any reasonably unbiased sources which address these points?
the author’s point is how complicated (and destructive?) a war would be
Well duh. War’s are kinda like that.
This is the core of the ‘for vs. against’ argument. Those ‘against’ think that 9/11 was an anomolly and we should just forget about it. And tolerate one every few years (if not more). The extreme ‘against’ even feels we had it coming.
Unfortunately, that’s just being either ignorant, or a coward. Or both.
9/11 was the Islamic fundamentalist east’s declaration of war against the Christian west, mostly America. This is a very dangerous and unpleasant situation, but that’s what it is none the less.
This animation presented several real possibilities. The thing is, in the not so long run, none of them are worse than the US not doing anything.
HA:Those ‘against’ think that 9/11 was an anomolly and we should just forget about it. And tolerate one every few years (if not more).
That’s quite a strawman you’ve got there. I, for one, am against the proposed war in Iraq, and I don’t happen to think “that 9/11 was an anomaly” or that “we should just forget about it” or “tolerate one every few years.” Nor does anybody else I know who’s opposed to the projected war. In fact, one of our reasons to oppose it is that it looks likely to increase the chances of terrorism against the U.S.
Disagree with us all you want, but don’t put words in our mouths. You don’t see me spewing nonsense about how war supporters merely want to nuke all the ragheads and score some cheap oil, so you have the same responsibility to observe the courtesies of debate.
*9/11 was the Islamic fundamentalist east’s declaration of war against the Christian west, mostly America. *
What, pray tell, is “the Islamic fundamentalist east”? All Muslim countries? All conservative Muslims? What does it have to do with the secularist regime in Iraq? From all the evidence, 9/11 was the work of a gang of extremist/fundamentalist terrorists (whose activities our nation supported, by the way, back when they were directing their violence against Soviets in Afghanistan rather than ourselves). Being serious about fighting terrorism doesn’t require indulging in fuzzy thinking that blurs “Islam” and “fundamentalism” and “the east” into one nebulous blob and uses it as a blanket justification for war.
It’s kinda fun to play/watch while listening to Bombs Over Baghdad. Just wanted to note that. I don’t have enough information to make a decision about my stance on war with Iraq yet.