Iraq strike 'would open hell's gates'

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't believe you would give a rats ass about someone arrested in California for exposing himself to a police officer in a public bathroom.  

Why would you give any weight to any musician, movie star, athlete, or any other celebrity opinion, simply based on their celebrity status?

Their political statements, whether on an MTV interview, or in the lyrics of their music are simply trying to cash in on what they think is popular thought on a particular subject.  You don't think it's all about the money?   HA!<span id='postcolor'>

Hum.

*cough*Jim Baker*cough*

There are a lot of people out there that do bad things, but that doesnt stop them from having valid political opinions.

If we are to listen to you, anyone famous automatically loses their right to express an opinion and be taken seriously. Doesnt sound very fair to me. How do you know that Mr Michael doesnt hold his opinions very dearly? The answer is that you dont. You are just dismissing them because of his fame and his notoriety.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't believe you would give a rats ass about someone arrested in California for exposing himself to a police officer in a public bathroom.  

Why would you give any weight to any musician, movie star, athlete, or any other celebrity opinion, simply based on their celebrity status?

Their political statements, whether on an MTV interview, or in the lyrics of their music are simply trying to cash in on what they think is popular thought on a particular subject.  You don't think it's all about the money?   HA!<span id='postcolor'>

Hum.

*cough*Jim Baker*cough*

There are a lot of people out there that do bad things, but that doesnt stop them from having valid political opinions.

If we are to listen to you, anyone famous automatically loses their right to express an opinion and be taken seriously.  Doesnt sound very fair to me.  How do you know that Mr Michael doesnt hold his opinions very dearly?  The answer is that you dont.  You are just dismissing them because of his fame and his notoriety.<span id='postcolor'>

George Michael is just trying to be clever by making a video of newspaper cartoons. Hardly fine satire.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the funniest part in that video was when he had himself in different eras(Wham!, Faith-era and now)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tony, Tony, Tony, I know that you're horny, but there's something about that Bush boy.. <span id='postcolor'>

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">George Michael is just trying to be clever by making a video of newspaper cartoons. Hardly fine satire.<span id='postcolor'>

[sarcasm] Wow guys, there's someone here that knows George personally! Maybe he can get us an autograph![/sarcasm]

How do you know this? Or are you just assuming?

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,019)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">George Michael is just trying to be clever by making a video of newspaper cartoons. Hardly fine satire.<span id='postcolor'>

[sarcasm] Wow guys, there's someone here that knows George personally! Maybe he can get us an autograph![/sarcasm]

How do you know this?  Or are you just assuming?<span id='postcolor'>

It is rather obvious, clearly hoping to sell some records.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,00:53)</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">Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,017)

I give the operation a 50/50 chance of being executed. It all now depends what Bush's pet dog Blair does.

Reminds me of the new video of George Michael. You should watch it once! It is made like a comic and there you also see how Bush throws a piece of wood and Blair catches it like a dog...but that is not all, the video is really really awesome!<span id='postcolor'>

I can't believe you would give a rats ass about someone arrested in California for exposing himself to a police officer in a public bathroom.  

Why would you give any weight to any musician, movie star, athlete, or any other celebrity opinion, simply based on their celebrity status?

Their political statements, whether on an MTV interview, or in the lyrics of their music are simply trying to cash in on what they think is popular thought on a particular subject.  You don't think it's all about the money?   HA!<span id='postcolor'>

Well you can lean back and relax. I only watched the Video and didnt copy the images into the last empty pages of my bible.  

Lets look at a different aspect of the upcoming war. If Bush realy wants to get rid of Saddam then he has to take Bagdad. Bagdad is the terminal from where the authoritative military system is organised. But to take Bagdad the US would need to send paratroops (around 40'000 at least) plus a huge amount of groundtroups that would be ready if those 40'000 would get trapped. Once Bagdad+Saddam+military command would be taken then the head of the hydra would be cut. This authoritative organisation of the iraqi military would fall apart once head of the command would be liquidated. Forget about air-war, forget about tanks in the desert, this war must be fought in a city with ground troops. Now that is a damn hell risky thing, especially since the iraqi civillians will support and help the iraqi troops. Ask the israeli how tough it is to seperate terrorist from civillian inside a city without causing unnecessary deaths (well the Israeli often fail). This war will be old fashioned style and that means heavy losses! (and dont forget about Biological and chemical warfare)

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted: Sep. 07 2002,015

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,00:53)

I can't believe you would give a rats ass about someone arrested in California for exposing himself to a police officer in a public bathroom.

Why would you give any weight to any musician, movie star, athlete, or any other celebrity opinion, simply based on their celebrity status?

Their political statements, whether on an MTV interview, or in the lyrics of their music are simply trying to cash in on what they think is popular thought on a particular subject. You don't think it's all about the money? HA!

Hum.

*cough*Jim Baker*cough*

There are a lot of people out there that do bad things, but that doesnt stop them from having valid political opinions.

If we are to listen to you, anyone famous automatically loses their right to express an opinion and be taken seriously. Doesnt sound very fair to me. How do you know that Mr Michael doesnt hold his opinions very dearly? The answer is that you dont. You are just dismissing them because of his fame and his notoriety.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not my point at all Warin. Of course he is entitled to and very well may be sincere about his political opinions. What gets me is that a lot of people seem to jump on their political bandwagon simply because of their celebrity status.

Plus, his music always has and always will suck, and I hold that opinion very dearly.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 07 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,00:53)</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">Quote (denoir @ Sep. 06 2002,017)

I give the operation a 50/50 chance of being executed. It all now depends what Bush's pet dog Blair does.

Reminds me of the new video of George Michael. You should watch it once! It is made like a comic and there you also see how Bush throws a piece of wood and Blair catches it like a dog...but that is not all, the video is really really awesome!<span id='postcolor'>

I can't believe you would give a rats ass about someone arrested in California for exposing himself to a police officer in a public bathroom.  

Why would you give any weight to any musician, movie star, athlete, or any other celebrity opinion, simply based on their celebrity status?

Their political statements, whether on an MTV interview, or in the lyrics of their music are simply trying to cash in on what they think is popular thought on a particular subject.  You don't think it's all about the money?   HA!<span id='postcolor'>

Well you can lean back and relax. I only watched the Video and didnt copy the images into the last empty pages of my bible.  

Lets look at a different aspect of the upcoming war. If Bush realy wants to get rid of Saddam then he has to take Bagdad. Bagdad is the terminal from where the authoritative military system is organised. But to take Bagdad the US would need to send paratroops (around 40'000 at least) plus a huge amount of groundtroups that would be ready if those 40'000 would get trapped. Once Bagdad+Saddam+military command would be taken then the head of the hydra would be cut. This authoritative organisation of the iraqi military would fall apart once head of the command would be liquidated. Forget about air-war, forget about tanks in the desert, this war must be fought in a city with ground troops. Now that is a damn hell risky thing, especially since the iraqi civillians will support and help the iraqi troops. Ask the israeli how tough it is to seperate terrorist from civillian inside a city without causing unnecessary deaths (well the Israeli often fail). This war will be old fashioned style and that means heavy losses! (and dont forget about Biological and chemical warfare)<span id='postcolor'>

To be honest I don't think the Iraquis will fight to the death for Saddam, once the end is in sight they will pack him in, even the Republican Guard I think, they serve him as long as they are looked after.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 07 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets look at a different aspect of the upcoming war. If Bush realy wants to get rid of Saddam then he has to take Bagdad. Bagdad is the terminal from where the authoritative military system is organised. But to take Bagdad the US would need to send paratroops (around 40'000 at least) plus a huge amount of groundtroups that would be ready if those 40'000 would get trapped. Once Bagdad+Saddam+military command would be taken then the head of the hydra would be cut. This authoritative organisation of the iraqi military would fall apart once head of the command would be liquidated. Forget about air-war, forget about tanks in the desert, this war must be fought in a city with ground troops. Now that is a damn hell risky thing, especially since the iraqi civillians will support and help the iraqi troops. Ask the israeli how tough it is to seperate terrorist from civillian inside a city without causing unnecessary deaths (well the Israeli often fail). This war will be old fashioned style and that means heavy losses! (and dont forget about Biological and chemical warfare)<span id='postcolor'>

You know I like you Albert, but you know shit about military operations

This is not WW2 - you do not send 40000 paratroopers. What you do for instance is:

1) You bomb the hell out of Bagdad and anything else that might or might not be of any military sigificance.

2) You secure a forward deployment base inside Iraq.

3) You push through Iraq to Bagdad on a slim front with tanks, supplies, etc.

4) Set up a base in Bagdad and then clean out the rest of the country.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 07 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not my point at all Warin.  Of course he is entitled to and very well may be sincere about his political opinions.  What gets me is that a lot of people seem to jump on their political bandwagon simply because of their celebrity status.

Plus,  his music always has and always will suck, and I hold that opinion very dearly. <span id='postcolor'>

Excellent!

I totally agree with you about his music BTW.

Sorry I misunderstood you!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Yeah, somehow I dont fancy Parachuting straight into Baghdad..... Landing in a city with lots of buildings is bad enough, but how many of the 40,000 paratroopers would be alive after the fall with Iraqi soldiers shooting them as they fall? Unless you are suggesting a night drop onto a city........

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is not WW2 - you do not send 40000 paratroopers. What you do for instance is:

1) You bomb the hell out of Bagdad and anything else that might or might not be of any military sigificance.

2) You secure a forward deployment base inside Iraq.

3) You push through Iraq to Bagdad on a slim front with tanks, supplies, etc.

4) Set up a base in Bagdad and then clean out the rest of the country.<span id='postcolor'>

At least, thats what I'd do. That plan has the 82nd Airborne's name written all over it. Too bad theres no real practical staging area to fly stuff in from unless Saudi Arabia is willing to play ball- and if Saudi Arabia plays ball, theres no reason for a risky op like that in the first place.

[Rhubarbman 0]

There is no chance the international community would allow the US to Bomb Bagdad to pits as its a civi population, but when the troops arrive to take it, every single iraqi civie is gonna be a potential enemy.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 07 2002,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no chance the international community would allow the US to Bomb Bagdad to pits as its a civi population, but when the troops arrive to take it, every single iraqi civie is gonna be a potential enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it, they aren't going to fight to the death for Saddam.

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 07 2002,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no chance the international community would allow the US to Bomb Bagdad to pits as its a civi population, but when the troops arrive to take it, every single iraqi civie is gonna be a potential enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it, they aren't going to fight to the death for Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

I also seem to think this as i have read it in time magazine. (then again i could be blinded by subliminal propoganda... i hope not ).

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I think that you may both be wrong, not everybody, but there would be quite a few who would fight. Why did any Iraqi soldiers bother to fight in the Gulf War? Why, instead of retreating, did they not throw down their arms and leap into the arms of the Americans they love?If no one in the military cares for him, why not kill him and take the country for themselves>?

[HellToupee 0]

i dont see y they need to invade iraq, but i see y they want to oil yes oil, thats the reason Y the US was soo bloody fast to help kuwait because thats where most of the worlds oil comes from, alaska is only got afew years of oil left and once its gone the ppl in the middle east would have quite a bit of power over the US and rest of the world. This was shown when all those oil guys ganged up with each other and raised the price and made a few extra billion dollars, ive even got a friend who was in bagdad at the time. There going to use propganda and stuff like sadam is al quada etc jus like how they convinced their population that they needed to bomb japans civilian cities and twice at that.

[Gollum1 0]

Saddam is a bad, bad man, but you can´t use the WMD issue as an excuse to invade Iraq.

"Saddam would use his WMDs against the U.S at the earliest opportune moment"

Yeah RIGHT. Saddam´s not the antichrist out to destroy the world! If he attacked a COW with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons his life (or at least rule) would be cut VERY short, VERY QUICKLY by a massive invasion force consisting of U.S, European and Gulf forces. (maybe Israel would want a crack at it, too?)

Saddam may be power-hungry and ruthless, but he´s not THAT suicidal and stupid.

He just wants to stay in power, he would never have invaded Kuwait if he´d known what kind of reaction it would cause (okay, on second tought, he is pretty stupid).

It would be better for everyone if Saddam was toppled, but he´s not a serious threat to any other countries right now.

China would be better of without communism, too, but you don´t invade China just because you feel like it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Invading Bagdad with Paratroopers

This is not WW2 - you do not send 40000 paratroopers. What you do for instance is:

1) You bomb the hell out of Bagdad and anything else that might or might not be of any military sigificance.

2) You secure a forward deployment base inside Iraq.

3) You push through Iraq to Bagdad on a slim front with tanks, supplies, etc.

4) Set up a base in Bagdad and then clean out the rest of the country.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I guess you are right, the 24hour of Wolfenstein and Soldier of Fortune hasnt really prepared me yet for war. But I keep trying

But that with the paratroops isnt my idea. I dont risk stating bullshit like this without a reference. I found it in Der Spiegel. Unfortunately I didnt find it anymore today (as always when you need something) so I couldnt scan it. But there are other references:

please read, it is interesting

This post is refering to the inside-out strategy proposed by the US, I hope you got a password for the New York Times to read the corresponding article. In case you dont I can post it here.

That is all the reference I found so far. It leaves some space for discussion though!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 07 2002,15:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">please read, it is interesting

That is all the reference I found so far. It leaves some space for discussion though!<span id='postcolor'>

It is an interesting article, and I agree with its conclusions.

The question is more if the article in NY Times has any truth in it or not. If it does, then the US is heading towards trouble for itself.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush came up with a plan like that, but he has competent military advisors that would stop him. Or at least I hope.

[Rhubarbman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 07 2002,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no chance the international community would allow the US to Bomb Bagdad to pits as its a civi population, but when the troops arrive to take it, every single iraqi civie is gonna be a potential enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it, they aren't going to fight to the death for Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

They wont be fighting for "Sad-Ham" they will be fighting for there homes, "Sad-Ham" will arm them. the fact the troops surrendered in Gulf War 1 was that they did not know what they were fighting for, if the US goes into the cities and towns of Iraq there gonna be in for a fight, since 9/11 the arab world has an incresing idea that its Christianity(Judiasm also) Vs Muslim in the final showdown, this is spreading throughtout the muslim world as the Palastine/Israil Conflict continues.

I repeat this aint for oil in the short term, the Iraqi oil fields are in an EXTREMELLY dorry state it would cost alot of money to get them up to the standard of pumping out a significant supply of oil.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 07 2002,16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I repeat this aint for oil in the short term, the Iraqi oil fields are in an EXTREMELLY dorry state it would cost alot of money to get them up to the standard of pumping out a significant supply of oil.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that you are both right and wrong. Right in the sense that it isnt for oil in short term. You are however wrong on the state of their oil production.

This information is taken from the US department of energy

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional security issues.

Note: The information contained in this report is the best available as of March 2002 and can change

<span id='postcolor'>

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 07 2002,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that you may both be wrong, not everybody, but there would be quite a few who would fight. Why did any Iraqi soldiers bother to fight in the Gulf War? Why, instead of retreating, did they not throw down their arms and leap into the arms of the Americans they love?If no one in the military cares for him, why not kill him and take the country for themselves>?<span id='postcolor'>

Well there were alot of surrenders in the Gulf. The Rupublican Guard keep him in power, but like all kept thugs I expect they would abandon him when he is on the way down.

[Rhubarbman 0]

I im not saying that they dont have alot of oil Under them but could u post the production from 2 other Oil rich nations.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 07 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I im not saying that they dont have alot of oil Under them but could u post the production from 2 other Oil rich nations.<span id='postcolor'>

You can compare these:

with the one I posted earlier of Iraq:

Iraq is the third largest producer of oil in the world. Apparently according to the article the crude oil production (extraction) was not damaged during the war. The oil infrastructure that took some serious hits were the refineries.