CM:SF and REAL force capabilities

[Drusus]

Well, I think there is one country which did fight for a long time for it's indepence. And I am sure that people in the mother country were saying that they are dumb as rock when they can't see that they would be much better of if they would just accept things for what they were. I don't want to compare different wars, but to stop fighting just for the reason that your standard of living would be better in the sort term* if you didn't fight isn't enough IMHO. Fighting for your countrys indepence, for freedom, for your religion and so on might be more important than prosperity and wellbeing. Maybe the Arabs want to live in the traditional way?

It is ofcourse a bit of a philosophical question to ask if the Russians, Germans, French or any of the countries in WWI would have been better of if they would just have surrendered. Wellbeing and all that. But that is not what the war was about. Should the Vietnamese just have accepted things as they were. Or should the Communists have accepted things as they were in 1918? Everybody would have been better of, but again, that is not what the fighting was about. So now in Iraq it shouldn't be amazing that Sunnis are fighting even if it means a lower standard of living. They are not fighting for to achieve prosperity.

* You can't really say how things will turn out in the long term.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

One thing that amazes me is that the Iraqi's could really benefit really quickly if they could get past their religious and tribal histories. They have seen more improvement and more good enter their country in the last two years than for the last 30, despite all of the continued fighting and death and destruction. But as a people, they seem to so relunctant to take the final steps to achieve prosperity. Instead, the traditional Arab way of life keeps holding them back.

Would you care to justify the statement that Iraq has seen more good and more improvement since the war?

Before both the gulf wars, Iraq had an excellent education system, modern health-care, and opportunities for women.

Sure the potential is now there for a thriving democracy, but standards of living are clearly almost universally worse over the last two years than they ever have been.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West:

One thing that amazes me is that the Iraqi's could really benefit really quickly if they could get past their religious and tribal histories. They have seen more improvement and more good enter their country in the last two years than for the last 30, despite all of the continued fighting and death and destruction. But as a people, they seem to so relunctant to take the final steps to achieve prosperity. Instead, the traditional Arab way of life keeps holding them back.

Would you care to justify the statement that Iraq has seen more good and more improvement since the war?

Before both the gulf wars, Iraq had an excellent education system, modern health-care, and opportunities for women.

Sure the potential is now there for a thriving democracy, but standards of living are clearly almost universally worse over the last two years than they ever have been. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

The medical system in Iraq had, along with most everything else critical for life (clean water, sanitation, electricity, etc), gone to crap long before OIF started off. The higher ups in the government lived fine, the clans that surrounded them less so, and the bulk of the citizens practically nothing. Saddam had the resources to keep the infrastructure, especially the medical infrastructure, up and running. Instead, it was squandered on palaces, lavish lifestyles for the rulling elite, the military, the terror apparatus, and other things that corrupt dictatorships like to use money for.

So while I agree with the critics of Iraqi reconstruction (corrupt US corporations, slow release of funding, poor prioritization of spending, etc.) and those that are critical of the loss of civilian lives (mostly due to insurgents, mind you), I don't think it is fair to say that the average Iraqi is worse off now than he was before OIF. It is fair to say, I think, that the average Iraqi could be even better off if reconstruction was reformed and the insurgency changed itself into a political fighting machine rather than one that uses RPGs and IEDs as its voice.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Exactly. And if there was 6 months of peace, the Iraqi's would not need any US-led reconstruction. International companies would be tripping over themselves to start to do business in Iraq. The nation would experience a huge economic boom that would dwarf any that has ever happened in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel.

Oh, that it. The Israelis are behind the Iraqi insurgency! They want to protect their economy.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

What I meant by more improvement and good is the amount of reconstruction that has taken place and the amount of commerce that now enters the country. And the fact that a brutal dictatorship that killed hundreds of thousands of people is gone. Things are not great obviously, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel that is much brighter than anything that could have happened in the previous status quo.

I can't argue with the fact that the Iraqi horizon looks far better now that she is under the protection of the US "empire" (for want of a better word).

I agree things went downhill in late 80's, but I think it should be kept in mind what the current reconstruction is reconstructing. That is, the things US and allies destroyed in gulf war 1 and 2, and the period between.

I can't disagree with Steve's sentiments either really, except to say that the living conditions in Iraq during the last 10-15 years have been directly related to economic sanctions imposed and maintained by US political will, for better or for worse.

[ON TOPIC]I also think that if BF.C can do what they did for the previous Combat Mission titles there will be no problems with "unforseen" circumstances. If all the physics and real world stats are modelled correctly things should just "work".

Maybe no-one on earth realised how a capture H39 Hotchkiss would fare against a M4 Sherman either.[/ON TOPIC]

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

I can't disagree with Steve's sentiments either really, except to say that the living conditions in Iraq during the last 10-15 years have been directly related to economic sanctions imposed and maintained by US political will, for better or for worse.

I would say not. The reason is the Iraqi leadership refused to live up to its agreements that ended the first Gulf War. That is why the sanctions remained in place. They were a penalty for going back on their agreement to end a war that they started. So it is the direct fault of the Iraqi leadership. They had the choice to continue the war or negotiate an end. They had the choice to abide by the negotiated end or to snub it. They also had many chances to feed and care for their people using money from the sale of their oil, but instead decided to funnel it to the rulling elite at the expense of the population.

The only blame that I think can be laid on the UN, and the US by extension, is not throwing in the towel sooner and invading to get rid of Saddam since he wasn't playing by the rules. But that is a Realpolitik solution that would not sit well with just about any nation, and therefore it had no chance of happening. And for that, the "peace at any price" mindset in the West is to blame for allowing Saddam to run his country and his people into the ground. Of course, one can also argue that the rest of the world has no responsibility to make things better for others, and then we just keep going around and around about it all The one constant, though, is Saddam's regime. So I'd say the blame should go right there.

[ON TOPIC]I also think that if BF.C can do what they did for the previous Combat Mission titles there will be no problems with "unforseen" circumstances. If all the physics and real world stats are modelled correctly things should just "work".

Yup. I would expect that if we did an Iraq game back in 2002 the US players would be very displeased with the loss of so many Abrams, just like German players pissed and moaned about the loss of their beloved King Tigers back in CMBO

Steve