Iraq strike 'would open hell's gates'

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Sep. 06 2002,01:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is as I said not firepower. Iraq has nothing today. The problem is however logistics. You won't have any bases to use this time. Sure, they can be set up on the run, but it is a risky operation especially since 5 or 6 carriers are going in for long term repairs now and several carriers are currently busy in Afganistan.

If you are going to remove Saddam, high-level bombings are not going to do the trick. You need to get low and dirty and for that you need very good logistics. Surrounded by if not hostile then at least unfriendly countries, that might prove to be difficult.

[Warin 0]

Right now, Iraq is about one thing, and it's not WMD.

It's about Bush needing a foreign adventure to keep peoples minds off of the economic slowdown in the US.  

Although Canada doesnt have a huge military to send, I am still glad that the powers that be in Canada are taking the stance that Iraq is not an immediate threat, and that all diplomatic solutions involving weapons inspection need to be taken before military action will become acceptable.  Hopefully Blair manages to have an original thought for himself and grasp the fact that everyone other than Bush arent neccesarily wrong.

[Chill 0]

Tex did i mention anything about the Palestinian terrorists?  Yeah right Israel hold their own what a joke lol! If it wasnt for USA patriot missles which they gave to them for free, Telaviv would have had a few more holes in it! Why didnt USA give the Bosnians some M1A1 for free so they could kick the Serbs out? Look at the British in the Faklands War, they did it alone and they were allies to the USA. Of course the US helped but they never gave the British a Aircraft carrier! Can't you see the tie between Israel and the USA? If the US took action alot quicker in Bosnia they would have averted so many innocent people from dieing!

[Aaron Kane 0]

</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"></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.<span id='postcolor'>

Tex for president!

[Othin 0]

I think the main thing right now is that the Bush Administration is looking at this as a microism and not a macroism. They're basically going, "How does this effect us" when it should be "How will this effect everyone." I think there are voices of reason that are starting to make a difference though.

I also think the Bush administration needs to take a page from Kennedys book of the Cuban missile crisis. If there is intelligence that absolutely shows that he (Saddam) has WMD then they need to come forward and share it with the U.N. The reason they may not be doing that is because it might reveal sources or capabilities...

Regardless, I think eventually Sadaam has to go. But I don't think the United States should be the one to do it. It should led by the U.N.

Maybe this is a chance for the U.N. to show (if Sadaam actually has the WMD and was intending to use them etc) the world that they actually have teeth of their own and won't stand for the 10cent dictators doing whatever they want, regardless of the human cost, any longer.

I also think that the "Arab league" should watch what they say. If they can't police their own "league of nations" of people like Sadaam then they need to be prepared for the consequences.

Again a rather disjointed post, but that's what I feel.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Sep. 05 2002,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at the British in the Faklands War, they did it alone and they were allies to the USA. Of course the US helped but they never gave the British a Aircraft carrier!<span id='postcolor'>

Err, didn't the British have the Invincible and Hermes in the Falklands war?

[NavyEEL 0]

action in iraq is not to boost Bush's rating or take peoples' minds off the imaginary economic slowdown in the US. there is a real threat to the united states as well as other countries from iraq. sure they can't destroy our homeland or anything that severe, but they are in our oil region--how many of you drive cars, or do ANYTHING dealing with machines? sure oil can't last forever, but we need it now and in the years to come. in addition, we do have allies over there, and whether they let us use bases in their country or not isn't an issue (although if we go to war we'll probably setup bases there anyway). we have an obligation to help them. complaining about the US not doing its job as the "worlds police force" is stupid. if we did our job like it needs to be done, then we would be bashed and called "aggressors". people will never be satisfied, so it's up to our government to do what's in the best national interest, regardless of what certain individuals believe. if iraq isn't a direct threat now, it will be in the future, especially if we don't act now. the same has happened in the past and it will continue to happen unless we are allowed to go on the offensive for once and eliminate a threat before it endangers our own people.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Sep. 06 2002,02:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tex did i mention anything about the Palestinian terrorists?  Yeah right Israel hold their own what a joke lol! If it wasnt for USA patriot missles which they gave to them for free, Telaviv would have had a few more holes in it! Why didnt USA give the Bosnians some M1A1 for free so they could kick the Serbs out? Look at the British in the Faklands War, they did it alone and they were allies to the USA. Of course the US helped but they never gave the British a Aircraft carrier! Can't you see the tie between Israel and the USA? If the US took action alot quicker in Bosnia they would have averted so many innocent people from dieing!<span id='postcolor'>

I know you havent mentioned the Palestinians in this thread, but I know where you stand on the issue.

Let me tell you a little secret about the Scuds launched at Israel during the Persian Gulf- a lot more hit than people know about. The Patriots didnt work as well as advertised- it was all a front organized between Israel and the US so that Israel would not enter the coalition against Iraq, thereby causing all the Arab nations involved to withdraw. Its all politics, and besides, whats a few Scuds? Israel has nukes too.

BTW, why should we give the British an aircraft carrier? they have their own. The help we gave them during the Falklands conflict was adequate, judging by the outcome. It was their battle to fight, not ours

Edit-- We would have loved to helped earlier in Bosnia, but there is that little problem of us being on the other side of the planet. We came in just as soon as all our logistical and political concerns and problems were straightened out. In America, we have this little thing called "Vietnam-phobia", which accompanies even the smallest suggestion of long term commitment of US combat troops, no matter the situation- whether it be a police action, a hot spot, or a peacekeeping mission. Besides, it was a NATO op, and America aint the only country in NATO, and it is definitely alot further removed than some other countries that could have jumped in sooner.

[SirLoins 0]

Warren Posted: Sep. 06 2002,02:10

It's about Bush needing a foreign adventure to keep peoples minds off of the economic slowdown in the US.

With all due respect Warren, 1st of all the slow down of the US economy has nothing to do with Bush. (We can argue that on another thread)

2nd I seriously doubt that any president (other than BjBilly) would stoop to that level to "distract" the american people. This is way bigger than that.

Saddam must go, with or without the help from the UN or any other country. If we let this guy loose it will be too late.

Does anyone out there really believe that this guy would hesitate in using nuclear weapons, given the chance?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Sep. 06 2002,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">action in iraq is not to boost Bush's rating or take peoples' minds off the imaginary economic slowdown in the US.  there is a real threat to the united states as well as other countries from iraq.  sure they can't destroy our homeland or anything that severe, but they are in our oil region--how many of you drive cars, or do ANYTHING dealing with machines?  sure oil can't last forever, but we need it now and in the years to come.  <span id='postcolor'>

Why do you think the majority of the western countries oppose an invasion of Iraq?

It sure as hell is not because we feel all warm and fuzzy about Iraq. There are two reasons for this:

1) Iraq does not have the capabilities or the will to do the world any serious harm. Saddam is a two bit punk dictator. The image of him being satan himself was created as a propaganda effort during the previous Gulf War.

2) Food for Oil. We get free oil for dumping our wheat surplus to Iraq. Removing Saddam from the power and putting a western-friendly government would mean that we would have to buy oil from them at market prices.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 06 2002,02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Warren Posted: Sep. 06 2002,02:10

It's about Bush needing a foreign adventure to keep peoples minds off of the economic slowdown in the US.  

With all due respect Warren, 1st of all the slow down of the US economy has nothing to do with Bush.  (We can argue that on another thread)

2nd I seriously doubt that any president (other than BjBilly) would stoop to that level to "distract" the american people.  This is way bigger than that.

Saddam must go, with or without the help from  the UN or any other country.  If we let this guy loose it will be too late.  

Does anyone out there really believe that this guy would hesitate in using nuclear weapons, given the chance?<span id='postcolor'>

SirLoins,

Take some moment to look for some thread under my name, especially "US versus rest of the world" or something like that.

Bush practically let go all the chances to recover economy so far.

I doubt Warin's satetment that one of reasons why they are pushing for war is turning ppl's head around from economic issues. Although US economy is not as good as they were before, it is still sustainable.

I see war on iraq more as dogmatic idiocy of Bush and his aids. They don't have much to complain about Iraq, but is trying to build reason on every chance they get. When anthrax was making its tour of death, most ppl were skectical, but administration considered Iraq as prime suspect. And now they are coming up with UN inspection excuses. It's UN inspectors, not US.

If 9-11 showed anything, it showed that world will not stop fall of a regime who commits such attack. And SH knows that and he is just bitching to make him stand out.

[Warin 0]

From another thread...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Warin,if America was neo-imperialistic, you would have your very own representatives in Congress right now  

<span id='postcolor'>

Not exactly. American neo-imperialism is limited to the third world for the most part  

On this topic again..

I seriously doubt Saddam would us WMD, even if he had them.  Why? Because it is the surest way to galvanize the whole world against him.  And for all the bluster in the media, he's not a 'mad-man'. Ruthlessness and power hunger do not equate to insanity.

[Cloney 0]

I bet you didn't know that the Russians offered to sink the Aircraft Carrier for the Argentinians but they said no. The US was listening in on all this radio traffic. The Russians could have done it and this whole Falklands thing the Brits called a 'WAR' would have been sunk (pun not intended)

Kicking the shit out of a few thousand starving conscripts with some paratroopers isn't a 'war'. Its like the US claiming that Grenada was a 'WAR'.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 06 2002,03:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its like the US claiming that Grenada was a 'WAR'.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey now! Those people had knives

[Cloney 0]

Ho Ho HO!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

All I say is that we should get them before they get us.

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 05 2002,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... 2) Food for Oil. We get free oil for dumping our wheat surplus to Iraq. Removing Saddam from the power and putting a western-friendly government would mean that we would have to buy oil from them at market prices.<span id='postcolor'>

You are aware that Iraq doesn't have that much oil right ?  Major world power in oil exporte is Saudi Arabia (26% of the proved reserves).

One cannot show a substantial or real reason as to why Bush wants to attack Iraq.  Maybe there are all these conspiracies behind it or maybe it's an Ockham's razor, that the reasons he explains on tv are infact the real ones.

[NavyEEL 0]

hahahaha...... trust the UN to take care of it...... hahahahaha.... good one!!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

The American army does have massive firepower and pretty well trained soldiers but here lies one problem. Even if they could somehow supply a large force, if they want to overun Iraq,they are going to take casaulites. Now the problem here is that after Vietnam,the Americna public are not too open to taking heavy casaulties.One Americna gets shot and they do a big huge show with lots of trumpets and high ranking officials expressing their sorrow.What happens if 1,000 Americans die? Will the Americna public still support a war that has high casaulites? I dont really know the answer,so I willleave that to someone else.

[Warin 0]

I have to go with Kurtz on this one.

What will be the reaction in America when the flag draped coffins start coming home?

I get the feeling the average US citizen imagines a conflict with Iraq going down a lot like the first Gulf War. If it does, then Saddam really is a mad man. I can imagine long protracted urban battles, and that will mean a lot of casualties. The US cant start leveling population centers full of the very Iraqi's that they are going over to 'liberate' from Saddam. And that means house to house fighting against a dug in foe.

So to the Americans here...

How many coffins will you tolerate coming home before public sentiment turns against military action in Iraq?

[LauryThorn 0]

People in US should really think about that..

And they should think, are they ready to give their own life or their family member's life, when Bush says that a war is needed?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I personaly believe that Suddam has not done enough agaisnt America for the Americna public to be willing to accept high casualties. To most people he is just this 'evil' guy that does bad stuff that comes on the TV all the time. It would take an act of destruction against the American public or mainloand before they would be willing to pay in blood for his downfall. Maybe Im wrong,anyone care to speculate?

[Balschoiw 0]

Operation Desert Storm is not to compare with the miltitary efforts needed to bring Saddam out of business. This will cost many US and allied lives. That´s for sure. I am not the one to judge if this is needed or not but at my current state of knowledge it wouldnt be a wise decision to start a war.

Why ? Maybe you missed something but the middle east ist a barrel of TNT at the moment and a military intervention could cause more bad things than we all expect or can handle.Neither US nor NATO is able to handle a conflict in this huge region on a large extend. Additionally there is always a time beyond war and noone knows by now how an unsupported war will influence the relations with the whole region for a long time.

[LauryThorn 0]

I would like to ask all of you this little simple question:

What are you ready to die for?

Is it your country, your family, etc..

If you are ready to die for your country, what kind of circumstances is that?

Would you like to die across the ocean in desert, fighting for The Right Thing?

Or would be you rather let someone take over your country than die for it?

[bogo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Sep. 06 2002,09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Operation Desert Storm is not to compare with the miltitary efforts needed to bring Saddam out of business. This will cost many US and allied lives. That´s for sure. I am not the one to judge if this is needed or not but at my current state of knowledge it wouldnt be a wise decision to start a war.

Why ? Maybe you missed something but the middle east ist a barrel of TNT at the moment and a military intervention could cause more bad things than we all expect or can handle.Neither US nor NATO is able to handle a conflict in this huge region on a large extend. Additionally there is always a time beyond war and noone knows by now how an unsupported war will influence the relations with the whole region for a long time.<span id='postcolor'>

I quite agree with you there. But let's not forget why bush is doing this. His doing this to correct his fathers mistake. It's not because Saddam has nuclear weapon. I am pretty shure if he had one he woulden't be sow quite and sitting in his corner. This guy is warmonger and a Dictator. But i think here the issue is not if US can handle Iraq alone because i think they can. It's how the rest of the middle east will act. Right now the people are angry At Us for not doing anything on the Palestinian Issue , Attaking Afghanistan and having Us bases in various countryes in the middle east.