The Iraq Thread

[brgnorway 0]

Well, I guess we all knew this might happen - but anyway here's the news on the "coalition of the willing" :

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

British troops are nearly ready for action

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq without Britain.

Telephones between Number 10 and Washington were ringing "red hot" after Mr Rumsfeld told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq.

The remarks caused shock and surprise in Downing Street, which insisted that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2838593.stm

I wonder what Tony-bony said in the phonecalls - perhaps something like this:

Tony: Listen George, I'm telling you - I will play the game next week!

George: I'm having doubts about you Bony - will you get permission from your mom?

[OxPecker 0]

So, pardon my ignorance, but what countries so far have actually committed to supporting America?

So far I know of England, Australia, and Spain (I think). Does anyone have the definitive list? (Not trying to be funny here, just wanna know).

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 12 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, pardon my ignorance, but what countries so far have actually committed to supporting America?

So far I know of England, Australia, and Spain (I think). Does anyone have the definitive list? (Not trying to be funny here, just wanna know).<span id='postcolor'>

+ Bulgaria and (me thinks) Italy.............and in the future who knows due to US' armtwisting?

[Guest]

Italy backed down after the large peace demonstrations, so they are no longer in support of it.

Right now it's: US, UK, Australia, Spain and Bulgaria. There are several other Eastern Europan countries that have offered moral support, but won't be sending any troops.

I'd rather that the UK goes with USA on this one. It will prevent them from using any vetos in the UN on the subject (at least I think so. I don't think vetos are allowed when the resolution is directed against you)

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 12 2003,00:31)</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">Italy backed down after the large peace demonstrations, so they are no longer in support of it.<span id='postcolor'>

I guess that pissed off Berlusconi big time!

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Got this from another forums

U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats

[Jinef 2]

Uhm this might have been mentioned but the whole thing with that big bomb, are there any Iraqi installations large enough to need that or is he going to try and drop it on Bahgdad!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ Mar. 12 2003,01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Got this from another forums

U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, C-130s are so god for flying in tanks

Ferry boats are one of the most common methods of large scale military transportation. You can't air lift an armoured brigade!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 12 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm this might have been mentioned but the whole thing with that big bomb, are there any Iraqi installations large enough to need that or is he going to try and drop it on Bahgdad!<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah there gonna drop it on Baghdad *insert rolling eyes*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has also been expanded to include deeply buried targets. <span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has plenty of bunkers.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 12 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm this might have been mentioned but the whole thing with that big bomb, are there any Iraqi installations large enough to need that or is he going to try and drop it on Bahgdad!<span id='postcolor'>

I'm glad you're still around to remind me that no matter how much of an idiot I am or become, I'll always be able to afford a computer and an internet connection.

Anyhow, a large portion of its role will be psychological. You drop this puppy anywhere near an Iraqi troop formation, I guarantee you that word will spread.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 12 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 12 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm this might have been mentioned but the whole thing with that big bomb, are there any Iraqi installations large enough to need that or is he going to try and drop it on Bahgdad!<span id='postcolor'>

I'm glad you're still around to remind me that no matter how much of an idiot I am or become, I'll always be able to afford a computer and an internet connection.<span id='postcolor'>

Tex, you have been enough on Jinef's back for a long time now. Enough is enough. 48h PR for you.

And Jinef, less flame baiting, please.

[Akira 0]

Shouldn't there be a rule against blatant flame-baiting as well? Sure flaming should be banned...but what about inciting other forum goers?

[Guest]

If you had posted your question in the right thread, I might have answered it

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 12 2003,04:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you had posted your question in the right thread, I might have answered it <span id='postcolor'>

hehe

My bad! Going there now!

[FallenPaladin 0]

I don`t think the US would drop this bomb somewhere near to the Iraqi troops. I think they would try to scare the remaining Iraqi troops by whiping out a lot of them with one "klick" in a bomber. If I sum all of the links and posts together relating to US behaviour in combat, I wouldn`t believe in US mercy after all. Maybe it`s because they don`t want to loose ground forces, but I`m sure they`ll bomb Iraq into Stoneage. Even if they would only hit military targets and "targets with military usage for the Iraq", like radio stations, water supply and so on. Iraq would collapse loosing it`s infrastructure. Funny thing is, I was told that Rumsfeld is related to a company that would make 900 millions (or more) profit, when rebuilding the infrastructure after a US victory.

[Oligo 1]

This is just in from TheOnion.com:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War

WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

[FallenPaladin 0]

Is this a joke?

[WhoCares 0]

It is from The Onion. Go there and read some other news and tell us

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don`t think the US would drop this bomb somewhere near to the Iraqi troops.<span id='postcolor'>

The US had no problems using the little sister of the new bomb on Iraq troops during GW1, so why should they now not use it.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 12 2003,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is from The Onion. Go there and read some other news and tell us <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, now I got it!

But I wouldn`t have wondered if Pres. Bush really gave such a statement either.

[Blaegis 0]

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action

Maybe dad is going to get some sense into Jr. ...

[Jinef 2]

You know one of their excuses of attacking Iraq is how hussein used WMD on the kurds etc. Now the US is describing a lot of the Kurds to be 'radical' and is going to direct his forces up there to shoot supporters of the taliban!

This guy is the epitamy of a paradoxia.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/884008.asp?0dm=N18PN

[andy_aws 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 12 2003,14:15)</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">I don`t think the US would drop this bomb somewhere near to the Iraqi troops.<span id='postcolor'>

The US had no problems using the little sister of the new bomb on Iraq troops during GW1, so why should they now not use it.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats kind of what bombs are for....

Listen children, there is no such thing as a "nice" or merciful War...enemy troops will be killed, by bombs and gunfire, there will be civilian casualties, it's unfortunate, but it always happens, you can't conduct an all out attack on a nation without a lot of secondary damage.

Next fact of life: A government will do what ever it decides is best, regardless of anyones opinion. That's what we elected them to do, to make decisions for the rest of the country. If the US decides it's best to take down Iraq, then they will, with or without UN approval, with or without public approval, and with or without help. If France decides to play the passivist then they will, that's the choice made by their government (BTW...does anyone know if France has been involved in any real conflict since Napoleon?, WWII doesn't count, they rolled over and waited for the US and UK to rescue them).

Last lesson: If the rest of the world is afraid the US will take over Iraq, then why aren't they willing to help...because I can garantee that if the US has to go in alone, they will not give control of Iraq to the people who just wanted to sit on their thumbs.

[bn880 5]

Where do you get off talking down to everyone here like that. And your analysis is full of bullshit anyway.

[andy_aws 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 12 2003,18:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where do you get off talking down to everyone here like that.  And your analysis is full of bullshit anyway.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not trying to talk down to you, and to anyone over the age of 25, I apologize if it sounds that way.

But if you think my analisys is crap just read a few history books.