Iraq dares u.s. to wage ground war!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

LOL! They said on CNN that that Iraq dared the U.S. to fight on the ground, and not the air, so it will be fair! LOL!

[-TU--33ker 0]

i think they just want to kill more americans than last time

[DarkLight 0]

I do not think this is funny at all...

Pro'ly will end up as WW3, sad... very sad...

[bn880 5]

They will BOMB the place to hell. So, from Iraqs statement you can derive they are mainly defenseless agains air attacks.

Unless there is something very special going on, Iraq doesn't have a military chance. It's not even an issue, the only question is why the U.S. thinks Iraq is going to destroy the world.

The states have no clear objectives EVER when entering combat, just all these ambiguous wishes they want fulfilled by attacking. So if the U.S. is not there to completely take over, they will always claim they are successful because they will not have to put up with civilian resistance of any kind.

[B@ZOOkA 0]

iraq will use b and c weapons .... you shouldnt make jokes about those ones i think... iraq does not have not have high-tech tanks or planes... but they have those poisons and im absolutly sure saddam will use it

[DarkLight 0]

The question is, do we know what weapons Iraq has, perhaps they've produced horrible weapons during these years...

[B@ZOOkA 0]

why do you think have they kicked out the un-comissioners? because they fu**ed their wifes? dont think so

[DarkLight 0]

That's pretty much what i was thinking too, i don't like the idea of all this chemical crap.

Fuck, it sucks so damn hard...

[Harnu 0]

We could mass troops along whatever borders we can and pull a Blitzkrieg, but even still.  A lot of lives can be lost that way.  Especially if saddam uses B&C weapons.  But incase he does, that "technically" justifies the use of Nuclear Arms used by our side.  

But then those cause political debates so this would suck no matter how you look at it.

But if he uses B&C it puts him on the hotspot.  Possibily allowing the US to draw more allies because saddam would be commiting a "war crime".  Well, atleast to some people, and we'd use that excuse to get more help.

I dunno, I'm all confused now.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

The funny thing is that Iraq said that, but yes it will be a very sad thing.

[bn880 5]

OKay I dont see what there is to discuss. US is going to bomb the f**k out of his arsenal. B&C weapons or not, there won't be anyone left to use them.

B&C weapons are not going to take over the US or the world, so there is little reason why US want's to attack.

EDIT: that's not the reason I mean!

[Renagade 0]

What happens if they have a few men here with some b/c weapons.

Really after the twin towers it would have been a good idea to upgrade defences for that sort of thing.There will probably be an incident with it sooner or later so now would be a good time to start.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What we should do, is cut a deal with Mexico, and transport their army over, and let them try to invade us for a change. Or we could just challenge them to a big ass OFP LAN party. In fact, I volunteer USMC-Warriors to kick the Republican Guards asses in OFP lol. What's "Bullshit! That was a lag kill!" in Arabic?

[Harnu 0]

Yet another time I just wanna say... nuke 'em all

[billytran 0]

We'll probably bomb the hell out of his b/c stockpiles and then send in our guys wearing NBC suits. Iraq's biggest threat is it's nuclear program, if they get nukes it will be scary.

[Othin 0]

There are so many levels to this that it is hard to even figure out what is motivating what at this point. Hopefully this isn't a case of wag the dog.

Anyways, I'm sort of in the middle on this. On the open source side of things a clear picture isn't be presented to the public. I think Scott Ritter, a former Marine and UN arms inspector, presents a pretty strong case against attacking Iraq for reasons of CBW. If you haven't heard or read any of what he is putting out I would suggest checking him out.

I could honestly care less about Saddam. I don't know what the people of Iraq really think about their leader, and I guess that is the sticking point. Do all of these opposition groups represent the consensus of opinion in Iraq itself? If so then I think that a regime change in Iraq does need to take place, but it should be at the behast of both the Iraqi people and the UN (should it actually agree on anything). I don't think that my country needs to spearhead it though.

[B@ZOOkA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet another time I just wanna say... nuke 'em all <span id='postcolor'>

Yet another time i just wanna say....typical american way of thinking.... you cant just go there with your aircraft carriers and bomb them all the day and all the night.... saddam will hide in his bunkers ... and after the army has gone... saddam will come out and go on like before.... anyway... what do you think will be after saddam? when you kill saddam? there is no political (democratic) oppsition in iraq which could govern the iraq...the usa doesnt think about what to do then... the only think of getting sadam away

btw:the el-quaida(or how you spell it) just made some experiments with b or c weapons (dont know exactly) ... i think you all watched that dieing dog in tv.... maybe theyre gonna plan terror-attacks with it in the usa

[dayglow 2]

I doubt the USA knows where these weapons are. They weren't able to destroy them during the Gulf War. It would be very hard to get rid of them without occupying Iraq. I hope the USA doesn't go ahead with it's invasion b/c it will totally destablize the region. I can't see how any outcome would be good.

COLINMAN

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope the USA doesn't go ahead with it's invasion b/c it will totally destablize the region.<span id='postcolor'>

I would not say that it is exactly stable right now. The U.S. should bomb Iraq EXTREMLY heavy, and then send in the ground troops. I hope Britian France, and others help us out, becuase they should after we saved their butts twice.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (B@ZOOkA @ Aug. 22 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet another time I just wanna say... nuke 'em all  <span id='postcolor'>

Yet another time i just wanna say....typical american way of thinking.... you cant just go there with your aircraft carriers and bomb them all the day and all the night.... saddam will hide in his bunkers ... and after the army has gone... saddam will come out and go on like before.... anyway... what do you think will be after saddam? when you kill saddam? there is no political (democratic) oppsition in iraq which could govern the iraq...the usa doesnt think about what to do then... the only think of getting sadam away

btw:the el-quaida(or how you spell it) just made some experiments with b or c weapons (dont know exactly) ... i think you all watched that dieing dog in tv.... maybe theyre gonna plan terror-attacks with it in the usa  <span id='postcolor'>

ugh, "nuke 'em all" is just expression I and other people use.  It's meant as a joke.  Don't take it seriously.

-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We'll probably bomb the hell out of his b/c stockpiles and then send in our guys wearing NBC suits. Iraq's biggest threat is it's nuclear program, if they get nukes it will be scary. <span id='postcolor'>

If they use nuclear weapons, it's just more of an excuse for us to use more deadly means to take them out. If they nuke our troops, Bush would do some big speach telling how "evil" Iraq is and how we need to take care of them. To try and justify us to do the same to them.

But this is getting way too complicated, I think I might sit the rest of this one out

[Tex -USMC- 0]

At this point, I think we shouldnt even bother Iraq. Aside from the fact that Saddam is a dictator (we've dealt and are dealing with those before and right now) who has WMD (If we attacked every dictator with an anthrax lab, we'd be fighting half a dozen wars all over, and some of them would be with allies we currently have). The closest Iraq has ever come to attacking US interests in a non-self defense situation was its invasion of Kuwait, and, lets face it, Kuwait aint exactly Washington DC. We tried to pin 9/11 on him, but we couldnt. We tried to pin the subsequent anthrax letters on him, but we couldnt. The fact is, Saddam knows that if he does actually attack us, especially with WMD, he is toast. Period. And when you are a rapidly dispersing cloud of atoms, you dont get to be dictator anymore, and if you havent noticed, Saddam likes being dictator. Hes not going to waste everything he has as El Jefe in Iraq on an attack that he knows could do nothing but piss us off. Right now you are just seeing the byproducts of a noshow Osama & Co. after the media hyped our WAR ON TERROR, and of course, the Bush's private vendetta against Iraq, and the open secret that Iraq gets bombed every time an American president starts taking hits on the domestic front. Its just BS.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 22 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would not say that it is exactly stable right now.  The U.S. should bomb Iraq EXTREMLY heavy, and then send in the ground troops. I hope Britian France, and others help us out, becuase they should after we saved their butts twice.<span id='postcolor'>

Should America, Britain and France go and help Russia with its war in Chechnya since Russia saved their arses in WW2?

And not just a biased statement, If Russia hadnt had most of the German Armed forces attacking it, the war for the other Allies could have gone very diffrent.

Back to the matter at hand.

It would make sense that Iraq wants America to fight a landwar for

1.The Iraqi Air Force cant do much against the American one

2.B&C weapons wont do Iraq much good against planes in the air. They need Marines running around on the ground before they can start luanching their scuds.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 22 2002,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1.The Iraqi Air Force cant do much against the American one<span id='postcolor'>

hehehehe, what air force? I hear theyve been training homing pigeons LOL

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Just proves my point

Maybe they might have some MiG-15's in storage that they can bring out

[ralphwiggum 6]

Iraq is just saying it...

they are trying to "prove that" they are at least competent in infantry combat.

but when was war only restricted to infantry? Saddma is a big bluff. He maintains his power mostly through his ego and a bit of assassination.