The Iraq Thread

[Badgerboy 0]

Remember, the NK government could expect to suffer enormous casualties, and still remain militarily, and politically viable.

Most Western countires have a very fragile line when it comes to combat casualties, with the US public having the biggest problem with this.

Also remember, the NK do have nuclear warheads. With China close to the combat zone it could become a very volatile situation.

Strangly enough, with evidence of 2 of the 'Axis of Evil' countries admitting, or with solid proof of nuclear weapons programs, why are the US seemingly commited to blowing apart a country which has so far been proven not to posses any nuclear devices.

I'll leave you to make up your own minds on this...

Christ, the world disgusts me sometimes....

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Dec. 20 2002,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No no. You wont find any parts of weapons sold to Iraq from germany.<span id='postcolor'>

What about that kidney machine that could be used as a detonator for nuclear devices? It may not necessarilly be a weapon on it's own, but it could be changed to one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We couldnt even sell that stuff, as we have

1. no research on nuclear weapons

2. no right to have nuclear weapons

3. even forced the US Pershings completely out of our country.<span id='postcolor'>

I was just using that as an example.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strangly enough, with evidence of 2 of the 'Axis of Evil' countries admitting, or with solid proof of nuclear weapons programs, why are the US seemingly commited to blowing apart a country which has so far been proven not to posses any nuclear devices.<span id='postcolor'>

1) Iraq has been proven to be working on nuclear weapons, just not to you. Just because you don't see it on CNN doesn't mean it isn't true. The president presented his case to the senate, the senate voted and said they thought Saddam was working on WMDs.

2) Just as with Iraq, the U.S. is trying diplomacy first with NK. Yes, the U.S. did try diplomacy with Iraq, it hasn't worked.

[Schoeler 0]

Sorry, but there are a few things you have failed to consider:

1. Vietnam is covered in jungle. Korea is not. The open terrain makes it easier to find the enemy.

2. Korea is on a peninsula so their is no Ho Chi Minh trail going through Laos and Cambodia to worry about.

3. We now have night vision and thermal sensors that we lacked in the 'Nam and Korea's cold winters will only make them all that much more effective.

4. The Vietnamese culture is one conditioned to centuries of war and the Vietnamese were extremely dedicated to their cause. Additionally, the South Viets were not very motivated and fought quite lackadaisically. The Diem regime was a corrupt regime to boot and not really worth fighting for. South Korea breeds some of the fiercist fighters in the world (Ask the Vietnamese about this) and the regime is quite legitimate and well supported by the U.N. and its own populace.

5. General Vo Nguyen Giap deliberately employed a guerilla strategy because he learned quite early that superior American air and artillery power could defeat him easily. Read We Were Soldiers Once, and Young or Pleiku for more info on this. Giap knew the U.S. didn't have the stomach for a protracted war of attrition. He knew he could lose men at a ratio of 10:1 and the U.S. would tire of the war first. He also knew that the average Viet was better suited and equipped for a guerilla war and the terrain and climate were in his favor. Not so in Korea, the North Koreans are a conventional force, conventionally equipped. Their morale is extremely low, they are under supplied and their supply chain has to move across open terrain where they will be seen by U.S. airpower even at night. They haven't been trained in guerilla tactics and lack the morale and political committment and ability to fade into the South korean countryside. The hearts and minds of the South Koreans aren't with them. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and rather quickly nothing to shoot = doomed to defeat.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be costly for America or its U.N. allies, but it sure as hell would be much more justified than an Iraqi war, and it would be a war we could win. The Koreans all want a reunified Korea and would be grateful to anyone who helped bring it about.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Just as with Iraq, the U.S. is trying diplomacy first with NK.  Yes, the U.S. did try diplomacy with Iraq, it hasn't worked.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow.

Blowing the hell out of the country for more than a decade = Diplomacy

*sarcastic smirk*

How easy they forget that Saddam was as much a creation of the US as all the other petty dictators the US props up in the name of national interests.

Kinda sucks when the chickens come home to roost, doesnt it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Iraq has been proven to be working on nuclear weapons, just not to you.  Just because you don't see it on CNN doesn't mean it isn't true.  The president presented his case to the senate, the senate voted and said they thought Saddam was working on WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

And yet your NATO allies don't think he has nuclear weapons, and the IAEA said that the evidence was pure BS.

It is quite amusing how you are willing to go and invade Iraq for the probability of it doing something that North Korea already has done.

Even if Iraq was developing nuclear weapons - that's no excuse for invading it, or by the same standards the US should be invaded for having WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Just as with Iraq, the U.S. is trying diplomacy first with NK. Yes, the U.S. did try diplomacy with Iraq, it hasn't worked.<span id='postcolor'>

Setting a list of demands can hardly be called diplomacy. You have been as diplomatic with Iraq as AQ has been with the US.

[Schoeler 0]

Which is the only reason I could support a war in Iraq. Fix the problems we created and get rid of the monster we put in power. Only if it truly benefits the Iraqi people and fixes their way of life can I see any U.S. intervention as worthy. We'll just have to see if the U.S. is committed to the cause of justice and liberation and not oil and revenge. I sincerely hope so, I don't want my kids trying to sort things out in that region with a rifle in their hands decades from now.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Dec. 20 2002,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but there are a few things you have failed to consider:

1. Vietnam is covered in jungle.  Korea is not.  The open terrain makes it easier to find the enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

70% of Korean peninsula is mountainous region with plenty of foliages. when one of NK subs got stranded in S Korea in 95, it took approxiamtely 20 casualties from SK troops to catch 10 guys trying to run to NK. duration was about 3 months, troops fo 100,000 or so were deployed to catch 10.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. We now have night vision and thermal sensors that we lacked in the 'Nam and Korea's cold winters will only make them all that much more effective.<span id='postcolor'>

so do NK troops. they have advantage of concentrated target (Seoul) and fast insertion. they are known to have plenty of low altitude aircrafts to send in their SF troops.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. The Vietnamese culture is one conditioned to centuries of war and the Vietnamese were extremely dedicated to their cause.  Additionally, the South Viets were not very motivated and fought quite lackadaisically.  The Diem regime was a corrupt regime to boot and not really worth fighting for.  South Korea breeds some of the fiercist fighters in the world (Ask the Vietnamese about this) and the regime is quite legitimate and well supported by the U.N. and its own populace.<span id='postcolor'>

current generations are somewhat not. many ppl try to dodge draft, and considers it as waste of time. ofcourse it could change in times of war. but yes, SK gets the support from UN more often than NK.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5.  <snip>Not so in Korea, the North Koreans are a conventional force, conventionally equipped.  Their morale is extremely low, they are under supplied and their supply chain has to move across open terrain where they will be seen by U.S. airpower even at night.  They haven't been trained in guerilla tactics and lack the morale and political committment and ability to fade into the South korean countryside.  The hearts and minds of the South Koreans aren't with them.  Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and rather quickly nothing to shoot = doomed to defeat.

<span id='postcolor'>

not really. NK studied Vietnamese guerilla tactics extensively and is known to send some troops for such reasons. they were digging tunnels to cross DMZ during 80s and they continuously see guerilla tactics as a measurable mean.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it wouldn't be costly for America or its U.N. allies, but it sure as hell would be much more justified than an Iraqi war, and it would be a war we could win.  The Koreans all want a reunified Korea and would be grateful to anyone who helped bring it about.<span id='postcolor'>

as long as it's by their own terms. recently anti-US sentiment is growing in Korea and they want US to take no part in unification process unless NK attacks first.

anyways how the heck did we end up in NK talk when we are supposed to talk about Iraq?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Dec. 20 2002,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Giap knew the U.S. didn't have the stomach for a protracted war of attrition.  He knew he could lose men at a ratio of 10:1 and the U.S. would tire of the war first.

 <span id='postcolor'>

The same goes for Korea. They have a military of about 6 milion men. That is also roughly ten times then what US can get there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their morale is extremely low, they are under supplied and their supply chain has to move across open terrain where they will be seen by U.S. airpower even at night. They haven't been trained in guerilla tactics and lack the morale and political committment and ability to fade into the South korean countryside. The hearts and minds of the South Koreans aren't with them. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and rather quickly nothing to shoot = doomed to defeat.<span id='postcolor'>

And how exactly would you know about their morale? I think it would be a hell of a lot higher then the ones of US troops who are fighting on foregin soil. They would be fighting for their country. You are making some dangerous assumptions there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it wouldn't be costly for America or its U.N. allies, but it sure as hell would be much more justified than an Iraqi war, and it would be a war we could win. <span id='postcolor'>

You are forgetting about the fact that NK is now a nuclear power. Not even Bush would be crazy enough to go against that. You could probably count on very little support from your allies there (Japan, South Korea) since they would be likely get nuked if NK got invaded.

I agree that the regime in North Korea is corrupt and bad for its population. It gives however nobody the right to invade it.

[Balschoiw 0]

same with Iraq. Watched an interview today. The second in Iraq´s government said that they are not able to fight US troops in desert cause they have no material and soldiers to do so, but thy will offer them a hard time in the cities. That is in fact true.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Cities are the deathtraps of modern war, for both the defender as well as the attacker. Iraq won't win by retreating into cities, they will just make the conflict that much messier, but the outcome will be the same.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 20 2002,10:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cities are the deathtraps of modern war, for both the defender as well as the attacker. Iraq won't win by retreating into cities, they will just make the conflict that much messier, but the outcome will be the same.<span id='postcolor'>

I think what iraq are trying to do is 'if your going down, take your enemy down with you'. They won't of course be bale to defeat the American military, but they can slow down the American advance, cause heavy casualties, and if really make problems. And when the wars over, the US has to rebuot nearly the all the cities.

[Balschoiw 0]

sure but how to explain a high loss of human beings to public ?

By now US population is supporting the war with 50 percent. What will it look like if thousands come home in plastic bags ?

AND not to forget all the arguments lined from US and Brits side are still speculation. nothing more. In fact the british paper on WMD´s has been proven to be wrong by UN inspectors visiting the facilities mentioned in Brit´s report without any result.

My respect goes to UN inspectors that were able to check 10 percent of the Iraq´s installations within such a short time.

Let´s hope they will be the ones to offer truth and not any speculating government.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

War with North Korea is a logistical nightmare. Even Bush would probably make every excuse he could think of NOT to go there. The cost, both economically and in terms of manpower would be rediculous.

The US military is spread so thin around the world right now, that threatening military action against anyone else would be insanity. We got more than enough on our plate. Even a war with Iraq is pushing it... If it turns into a large campaign, Desert Storm size and length-wise, we may have some problems keeping up with all our other obligations around the world. Even my National Guard unit is gearing up for a possible war with Iraq, there simply aren't enough units to support all these operations with active duty personel alone.

Another big operation like Iraq at this point in time, and you high school seniors better get ready to pack your bags and be ready to ship off to basic training as soon as you graduate... I'm talking about that little draft card you carry around...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Any attack on North Korea is completely out of the question, from political, logistical, and common sense standpoints. For one thing, South Korea would go absolutely nuts if we did; the last thing they want is a war, especially considering the awful memories of the last one. Secondly, we have barely, what, 30 thousand troops there at the moment? And how many would we need to move into the country to mount anything close to a serious attack? Another 60+ thousand? Aside from the cost and time factors, do you think someone might notice something like that?

[ralphwiggum 6]

plz! talk about Iraq, not NK! i don't want to see this thread go offtopic!

[Schoeler 0]

Well, we are actually talking about both. Some people here feel the North Koreans are worse offenders than the Iraqis. South Korea might welcome a U.N. invasion of the North if they keep threatening to become a full-fledged nuclear power. I do agree with you that it would be much more costly than a war in Iraq, but the results might be better for the world. As for NK's military morale, defectors have said its near rock bottom, though I do admit they might get a bur under their saddle if they were invaded. All in all a war there is a long way off if it will ever happen at all. I agree, the U.S. military doesn't have the manpower for that sort of an operation right now, and it would be better to try diplomacy first, but so far the North Koreans don't seem like they take U.S. foreign policy or diplomacy too seriously. It seems they are giving the world the finger right now.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the thread title is about iraq! plz! don't let me get trigger happy!

[Lazarus_Long 0]

Well, Ralph... I don't mean to push it, but NK is an important part of the "whole picture" when you talk about war with Iraq.  The justifications for invading Iraq are the same as the ones that North Korea are guilty of.  Like Schoeler said, In many cases, one could argue that North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq.  I think its very relevant... but youre the mod, so I'll shut up.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blowing the hell out of the country for more than a decade = Diplomacy<span id='postcolor'>

1) defending ourselves for more than a decade

2) hmm, maybe i shouldnt of said that about Iraq, seeing as how he's either surprise-invaded a country forcing us to respond, or fired at our aircraft, forcing us to respond. But my point still stands. We're trying diplomacy first with NK because they aren't likely to do anything rash, like Iraq is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How easy they forget that Saddam was as much a creation of the US as all the other petty dictators the US props up in the name of national interests.<span id='postcolor'>

What difference does it make how he was brought into power? He's a threat and he needs to be dealt with.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yet your NATO allies don't think he has nuclear weapons, and the IAEA said that the evidence was pure BS.<span id='postcolor'>

Where they shown the evidence that the senators were?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is quite amusing how you are willing to go and invade Iraq for the probability of it doing something that North Korea already has done.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has a greater probability of engaging in a military action than NK, that's why wer're trying democracy with them first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if Iraq was developing nuclear weapons - that's no excuse for invading it, or by the same standards the US should be invaded for having WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it is, it violates their terms of surrender from the gulf war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Setting a list of demands can hardly be called diplomacy. You have been as diplomatic with Iraq as AQ has been with the US.<span id='postcolor'>

once again I probably shouldn't of said that, as they're two seperate cases. Iraq is much more likely to use military force, while NK isn't. This is why we're trying diplomacy with NK. at least IMO

[Warin 0]

Someone is a victim of rampant American propoganda.

Iraq has never attacked the US.  Not once.

Iraq DID invade Kuwait.  And if you believe some pundits, they did so under the assumption the US wouldnt react.  Well, they made a mistake.

The US has arbitrarily decided where Iraq can and cannot fly aircraft over its OWN territory.  And when they have the audacity to fly there, the US shoots them down.  Or, if the US invades their airspace, the Iraqis shoot (ineffectually might I add) at US aircraft, then the US pounds their air defences in retaliation.

Saddam is as much a threat to the US as I am.  He's a petty dictator with an iron fist.  Much like the ones in China are today.  Or the Samoza family in Nicarauga. Or the Batista family in Cuba.  It all comes down to the US wanting to dictate their own brand of what is right and what is wrong to the world.  When Saddam was killing the 'right' people, he was your friend..so it smacks of more than a little hypocrisy to call hm a tyrant for doing something he was encouraged and financed to do when he was at war with Iran.

The simple fact is that the US government knows that Iraq will be a less costly example to the world than Korea would be.  And so Saddam is the sacrificial lamb, in spite of the fact that NK has basically challenged the US to stop them.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

There is one fundamental, core, salient reason why we should not invade Iraq.

Why? I'll tell you:

If we invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, who the hell are we going to blame for all the ills in the world?

Fidel? Nope, looks too much like Santa Claus with that beard of his- who wants to stick Santa with a bayonet? How about North Korea? Shit, I bet most Americans can't even find NK on a map, much less target a couple JDAMs on the place without killing one thousand billion civilians. Osama? We'd use him, but we can't friggin find him- I hear the CIA is launching a full-scale search of the White House closets and pantries.

See what the problem is? Without Saddam, what are American presidents with sagging poll numbers and agendas that have fallen into a malaise going to do? Who will they bomb and shake the big stick that is the US military at? France? Actually, that's not a bad idea  

[Warin 0]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 20 2002,068)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one fundamental, core, salient reason why we should not invade Iraq.

Why? I'll tell you:

If we invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, who the hell are we going to blame for all the ills in the world?

Fidel? Nope, looks too much like Santa Claus with that beard of his- who wants to stick Santa with a bayonet? How about North Korea? Shit, I bet most Americans can't even find NK on a map, much less target a couple JDAMs on the place without killing one thousand billion civilians. Osama? We'd use him, but we can't friggin find him- I hear the CIA is launching a full-scale search of the White House closets and pantries.

See what the problem is? Without Saddam, what are American presidents with sagging poll numbers and agendas that have fallen into a malaise going to do? Who will they bomb and shake the big stick that is the US military at? France? Actually, that's not a bad idea  <span id='postcolor'>

See... now THAT was a funny post.  And sadly enough not all that far from the truth

Thanks for lightening things up there, tex.

And as George Carlin says:

There is one good thing about all those executions in Texas.  Less Texans.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has never attacked the US. Not once.<span id='postcolor'>

They're firing on our planes all the time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from "]http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/joct/9_sites.html

Iraq considers the patrols a violation of its sovereignty and frequently shoots at the planes. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air defenses.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US has arbitrarily decided where Iraq can and cannot fly aircraft over its OWN territory.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and? It was part of their terms of surrender wasn't it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is as much a threat to the US as I am.<span id='postcolor'>

You're working on WMDs?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It all comes down to the US wanting to dictate their own brand of what is right and what is wrong to the world. <span id='postcolor'>

This boils down to the U.S. wanting to defend itself. There isn't some twisted covert reason behind this. If there were we would of done it before 09/11.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> When Saddam was killing the 'right' people, he was your friend.<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't about the war with Iran, or Saddam being a tyrant. It's about Saddam working on WMDs and being a threat to the U.S.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The simple fact is that the US government knows that Iraq will be a less costly example to the world than Korea would be. And so Saddam is the sacrificial lamb, in spite of the fact that NK has basically challenged the US to stop them.<span id='postcolor'>

I've already been over this. We're going after Iraq more tenaciously because diplomacy simply doesn't work with him. We're trying diplomacy with NK because they have actually cooperated with it before.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Merry F'in X-Mas ya damn democommies

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,07:04)</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">The simple fact is that the US government knows that Iraq will be a less costly example to the world than Korea would be.  And so Saddam is the sacrificial lamb, in spite of the fact that NK has basically challenged the US to stop them.<span id='postcolor'>

I've already been over this.  We're going after Iraq more tenaciously because diplomacy simply doesn't work with him.  We're trying diplomacy with NK because they have actually cooperated with it before.<span id='postcolor'>

Like when they lied to us about their nuclear weapons program.