bogo 0 Posted September 5, 2002 What do you guys think about this? LINK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted September 5, 2002 I agree that the page could not be displayed, however it is a blatant lie that the page will load correctly if you hit the refresh button in your browser. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted September 5, 2002 it won't open gates of hell, but it will be extremely hard for US to win by itself, if not impossible. i won't be startled if someone claim that US getting into war with Iraq by itself would be second Vietnam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 A questoin I find myself asking is; If Saddam was a European dictator what would we do? We toppled Slobbo for less. Do we(the west) have double standards? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 06 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it won't open gates of hell, but it will be extremely hard for US to win by itself, if not impossible. i won't be startled if someone claim that US getting into war with Iraq by itself would be second Vietnam.<span id='postcolor'> In my opinion i don't think that it will be a second vietnam. The people down there whant a diffrent regime. On sign was when the gulf war endet people in the south and in the north raised up against the regime by been promised help if they will fight. What ever Irak does it's not becuse the people whant it it's because of Saddam.This guy kills his own people evry day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 I have no love for Saddam, but I do know one thing; all he cares about is ruling Iraq, If you want to see his WMD threaten to topple him! If war is neccessary then we better fight it, but I think there are still other options. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A questoin I find myself asking is; If Saddam was a European dictator what would we do? We toppled Slobbo for less. Do we(the west) have double standards?<span id='postcolor'> You have to get your facts straight. 1) Slobodan Milosevic was by any standard worse then Saddam Hussein 2) We didn't 'topple' him. The Serbian people got rid of him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A questoin I find myself asking is; If Saddam was a European dictator what would we do? We toppled Slobbo for less. Do we(the west) have double standards? <span id='postcolor'> Yes, I think some countries do. Also we are by far the most powerful country in the world. You cant't tell me we couldn't win a war with Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 06 2002,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also we are by far the most powerful country in the world. Â You cant't tell me we couldn't win a war with Iraq.<span id='postcolor'> It is not all a question of military power. It is mostly a question of logistics. The Arab countries are not willing to help this time, and you can't lead a real war from carriers. There is also a problem of most carriers being unavailable either because of repairs or because of engagements in other parts of the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A questoin I find myself asking is; If Saddam was a European dictator what would we do? We toppled Slobbo for less. Do we(the west) have double standards?<span id='postcolor'> You have to get your facts straight. 1) Slobodan Milosevic was by any standard worse then Saddam Hussein 2) We didn't 'topple' him. The Serbian people got rid of him.<span id='postcolor'> Saddam has done terrible things to the Kurds, no better than Milosevic at all! The NATO bombing campaign did weaken Slobbo, his 'election' to surehimself up just happened to give the people a chance to finish him. Where is the Iraqui election? Saddam is just as much a tyrant as Milosevic ever was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Arab countries are not willing to help this time<span id='postcolor'> Kill the Saudi Royal family and put in someone who will. The royal family are bunch of assholes who support terrorism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted September 5, 2002 Milosevics did commit a heavy genocide, whereas, lets state it clear, Saddam simply undertook a revenge for the Kurds having helped the US troops. And yes Milosevic did commit ethnical cleansing of his country (thousands of muslims died) and the UN assumed he would not rest untill all people would be dead. However Iraq right now is a country at "peace" (as odd as this might sound"). So in contrast to the war in Jugoslawia we would now HAVE TO break one of UN-laws: we would attack a country simply because we fear it might one day become  a threat! It would actually be us starting a war. Just imagine how terribly easy it would be after this for any state to justify any war. What could we do if Russia would attack Estland, Letland and Litauen? Russia could say those countries were harbouring weapons of massdestruction and didnt let inspectors into the country. And about the logistics issue. Dont forget that most US-machinery is not just waiting in hangars, readily polished for the next war. No they are used everyday. may it be for fire-fighting, rescue actions, and secure the motherland. A war in Iraq (and consequently much of the logistics being moved there) would allow terrorists to get an easier way into the US and to blow up whatever they would like! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam has done terrible things to the Kurds, no better than Milosevic at all! The NATO bombing campaign did weaken Slobbo, his 'election' to surehimself up just happened to give the people a chance to finish him. Where is the Iraqui election? Saddam is just as much a tyrant as Milosevic ever was.<span id='postcolor'> Albert already said a part of what I want to say. The other part is that operation allied force kept Milosevic in power for about 6-12 months longer then he would otherwise. The NATO attacks unified his people around him at a time when they were more then ready and willing to kick him out. There is a big difference in political style between Saddam and Slobo. Milosevic enjoyed from 91-98 a very strong support from his people. The Serbs never disliked him because of the war crimes he was responsible for, but for bringing economic chaos to Yugoslavia. Saddam is a more classic dictator with all the bells and whistles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,00:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam has done terrible things to the Kurds, no better than Milosevic at all! The NATO bombing campaign did weaken Slobbo, his 'election' to surehimself up just happened to give the people a chance to finish him. Where is the Iraqui election? Saddam is just as much a tyrant as Milosevic ever was.<span id='postcolor'> Albert already said a part of what I want to say. The other part is that operation allied force kept Milosevic in power for about 6-12 months longer then he would otherwise. The NATO attacks unified his people around him at a time when they were more then ready and willing to kick him out. There is a big difference in political style between Saddam and Slobo. Milosevic enjoyed from 91-98 a very strong support from his people. The Serbs never disliked him because of the war crimes he was responsible for, but for bringing economic chaos to Yugoslavia. Saddam is a more classic dictator with all the bells and whistles.<span id='postcolor'> We have troops in Kosovo because we deplore the Crimes of the Serbian state apperatus there. Are our troops to remain at home for the people of Iraq? Double standards? -yes. As for war, I think there is still a large role for the UN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,012)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have troops in Kosovo because we deplore the Crimes of the Serbian state apperatus there. Are our troops to remain at home for the people of Iraq? Double standards? -yes. As for war, I think there is still a large role for the UN.<span id='postcolor'> You are not seriously trying to suggest that this is about the people of Iraq? Not even Bush tries to bullshit that much. I give the operation a 50/50 chance of being executed. It all now depends what Bush's pet dog Blair does. Most continetal Europe is opposed, Spain is for, Italy is probably for (you never know with Berlusconi though). Blair is now the big wildcard - if he will obey his master or think for himself.. Well, on the bright side, it is giving Britain a semi-important role to play for once. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted September 5, 2002 Tell me one thing those Blair ever uses his own brain to make some good judgment or obeys evry american leader like a small pupy. I think the best way to describe him is like in the new Gerorge Michael Music Video. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NavyEEL 0 Posted September 5, 2002 as for "opening hell's gates"... nobody said war was easy, nor did they say it was safe. a war is a war. there's no doubt in my mind and probably none in any of yours that the US would be successful in any military action taken against iraq. however if action is indeed taken against saddam, we need to push forward with full force. we can't simply send some troops to initiate little skirmishes, we need to fully press forward in a massive assault to both intimidate them and eliminate their military presence immediately. we must also support this decision, or whatever decision he makes, especially if we go to war with iraq. there's nothing worse than being in a war except being in a war when nobody back home believes in it. that being said, i think it's in our best interest to go in and take down saddam and his entire army, or we may live to regret it in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,01:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,01<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have troops in Kosovo because we deplore the Crimes of the Serbian state apperatus there. Are our troops to remain at home for the people of Iraq? Double standards? -yes. As for war, I think there is still a large role for the UN.<span id='postcolor'> You are not seriously trying to suggest that this is about the people of Iraq? Not even Bush tries to bullshit that much.<span id='postcolor'> It should be, hence the double standards. As for Blair, he is not my man, but I wouldn't consider Britain as insignificant in this situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chill 0 Posted September 5, 2002 Its not really funny but 1 million people die in Bosnia and the USA sits there and watches! To the USA life is cheap and if they want to really be the "World Policeman" they have to get their priorities right! I know alot of pressure is being put on the USA by Israel who are getting a little worried about Saddam. I am sure that if Iraq attacks it will not be directed at the USA. Telviv will be a priority target for Iraq as they showed the world that their scuds have just enough range to hit Israel. So if the scuds cant hit the USA why get invovled? Saddam is at peace yet so many people die in other parts in the world and the USA does nothing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Blair, he is not my man, but I wouldn't consider Britain as insignificant in this situation.<span id='postcolor'> I agree that Britain is in a decising position in this matter. I hope Blair does make the right choice in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,01:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Blair, he is not my man, but I wouldn't consider Britain as insignificant in this situation.<span id='postcolor'> I agree that Britain is in a decising position in this matter. I hope Blair does make the right choice in the end.<span id='postcolor'> I have not come to a decision on this matter yet, there is still time for the UN in my opinion, but what is your position denoir? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Sep. 06 2002,01:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its not really funny but 1 million people die in Bosnia and the USA sits there and watches! To the USA life is cheap and if they want to really be the "World Policeman" they have to get their priorities right! I know alot of pressure is being put on the USA by Israel who are getting a little worried about Saddam. I am sure that if Iraq attacks it will not be directed at the USA. Telviv will be a priority target for Iraq as they showed the world that their scuds have just enough range to hit Israel. So if the scuds cant hit the USA why get invovled? Saddam is at peace yet so many people die in other parts in the world and the USA does nothing!<span id='postcolor'> Well, when we go in right away, you call us unilateralists and cowboys who show no respect for the international community. And if you didnt notice, we were the ones who spearheaded the initial peacekeeping efforts in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Also, Israel has very little to fear from Iraq. Iraq, however, has very much to fear from Israel. Still, if he does attack, we have an obligation to help Israel, because they are our allies. Whether you like it or not, Israel and the US share a lot of common things, and we help each other out. Still, Israel can take care of themselves. If you dont remember, Israel had a large hand in setting back Iraq's nuclear research. BTW, stop being such a hypocrite. You support Palestinian terrorists, and yet you bag on the US for not stopping genocide when we were the ones who got the ball rolling on the peacekeeping effort? That is jacked up man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have not come to a decision on this matter yet, there is still time for the UN in my opinion, but what is your position denoir?<span id='postcolor'> I am against an attack on Iraq. If there has to be some action taken, the UN should have the mandate to do it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Sep. 06 2002,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if you didnt notice, we were the ones who spearheaded the initial peacekeeping efforts in both Bosnia and Kosovo.<span id='postcolor'> Not peacekeeping, Tex. Bombing. In the KFOR peacekeeping effort US troops are a small minority. I however agree in principle with the NATO intervention in Kosovo (I say in principle that the results were disasterous, but the intent was good). A military operation on Iraq has no other purpose as I see it then to boost Bush politically. Or it could be a political-military freak out from the US side, but I don't think so. You have far too competent people working there for them to believe that Iraq is a threat to US national interests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
advocatexxx 0 Posted September 5, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 05 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it won't open gates of hell, but it will be extremely hard for US to win by itself, if not impossible. i won't be startled if someone claim that US getting into war with Iraq by itself would be second Vietnam.<span id='postcolor'> If US did attack alone it (we) would win. The United States has one of the best-trained, best-equipped military branches, all of which in a combined assault would flush the Iraquis out. Vietnam was a different situation. Very dense jungles combined with primitive technology at the time posed great barriers. Iraq however and its geography are composed of desert and lightly vegetated mountains. With advanced satellite technology, improved battle logistics and numerous other factors the Iraquis wouldn't stand a chance. Whatever T-72 tanks they still posess would stand no chance against Hellfire/Abrams. With proper air support even the Iraqui chemical weapons would be hard to deliver. Mobilizing the forces and planning out the proper battle plan might take a little time, but the Iraquis, no matter how well they're tucked in will be flushed out. I'm not a super-patriot, hell I'm not even an American citizen, but I know the capabilities of the military branches quite well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites