The Iraq Thread

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: Anyway...back to the looming cluster-f*ck that is Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Funny, It just dawned on me that the fact that it is a "looming cluster-f*ck" is probably the one thing all of us here agree on.

[DracoPaladore 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really there is nothing you can do I suppose, short of finding the errors and making sure to eliminate them. The loved ones are gone.

I dunno if compensation can also be interpreted, legally, as acknowledging fault. As in "We know we messed up, so here is a couple million," which I would think is a lot better than saying "You ain't gettin' jack!"

How should a country honor the fallen ones? A ceremony would be nice I imagine. Perhaps even the "offending" countries leader personally talking with the families. But other than that I don't know. Naming a school or building or something after them seems shallow (to me).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just think that most of these mistakes shoulden't have happend in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats why they are mistakes.

EDIT: Anyway...back to the looming cluster-f*ck that is Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Point taken. I stand corrected

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Jan. 23 2003,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Point taken. I stand corrected<span id='postcolor'>

Don't, you were right before. Incidents like that FF in Afghanistan should not have happened, in the first place.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 24 2003,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: Anyway...back to the looming cluster-f*ck that is Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Funny, It just dawned on me that the fact that it is a "looming cluster-f*ck" is probably the one thing all of us here agree on.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what can you say? When it does go down, you can only hope that innocent deaths are minimized, and that we are willing to invest enough in post-Saddam Iraq to prevent a regional meltdown.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 23 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 24 2003,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: Anyway...back to the looming cluster-f*ck that is Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Funny, It just dawned on me that the fact that it is a "looming cluster-f*ck" is probably the one thing all of us here agree on.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what can you say? When it does go down, you can only hope that innocent deaths are minimized, and that we are willing to invest enough in post-Saddam Iraq to prevent a regional meltdown.<span id='postcolor'>

What we can all say is "STOP IT", before it starts. You have to give it a try, or you are a coward accepting civilian deaths like that.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

It is not going to stop, because currently Bush has a strong mandate to attack Iraq from the only people who matter to his maintenance of power. Until the President of the US starts getting elected by the UN, the same principle will apply. Now, I can choose to yell and scream until I'm blue in the face about it, or I can buckle down and hope that as few people die as possible, and if necessary do my part to bring the conflict to a resolution. The part that can't be denied is that Saddam is one bad motherfucker, and that even if it happens for the wrong reasons, the world will be a better place when he is six feet under.

[Akira 0]

'War Within Weeks'

Oh boy...here we go...I'll have to watch the SotU address.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,04:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">'War Within Weeks'

Oh boy...here we go...I'll have to watch the SotU address.<span id='postcolor'>

sh*t.

[bn880 5]

I don't know, how can it just happen. If the majority of the American public were to yell and scream until they were blue in the face, would the US-Iraq war still take place? If so, there might be something seriously wrong with the U.S. govt.

Who is sane? A person like me, who won't DO anything if innocent civilians die in Iraq, or, someone who takes justice into his own hands... maybe both, maybe neither.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 24 2003,04:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know, how can it just happen.  If the majority of the American public were to yell and scream until they were blue in the face, would the US-Iraq war still take place?  If so, there might be something seriously wrong with the U.S. govt.

Who is sane?  A person like me, who won't DO anything if innocent civilians die in Iraq, or, someone who takes justice into his own hands...  maybe both, maybe neither. <span id='postcolor'>

That's the thing though- most Americans actually agree with the course of action the president is taking. However, there is historical precedent that suggests that if a majority (or even a large and effective minority) are opposed to a war, the government will bend over backwards to get it done. You have to understand that Americans that share your opinion are in the vast minority, and therefore they have no real effect on policy. The only reason that you see such a runaway train mentality in the US's march towards war is that we are experiencing an unholy alignment of the three most effective forces of change in America: you have powerful special-interest groups, a generally united voting public, and a politically effective presidential administration that is willing and able to use this consensus to get its own agenda done.

[FSPilot 0]

I'm torn. On one hand, waiting gives the devil time. The more time we wait the more time Saddam has to do what he can with his weapons. On the other hand, the quicker we act the less time the UN team has to find weapons and the less support there is for the war.

Frankly, I don't know what I'd do in Bush's shoes.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 24 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not going to stop, because currently Bush has a strong mandate to attack Iraq from the only people who matter to his maintenance of power. Until the President of the US starts getting elected by the UN, the same principle will apply. Now, I can choose to yell and scream until I'm blue in the face about it, or I can buckle down and hope that as few people die as possible, and if necessary do my part to bring the conflict to a resolution. The part that can't be denied is that Saddam is one bad motherfucker, and that even if it happens for the wrong reasons, the world will be a better place when he is six feet under.<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't matter if 100% of the americans do support Bush's plans, if the UN do not approve it.

USA will commit a crime if they attack Iraq and will for sure be punished for it.

It's not only the american law that applies on you. As a member of UN you must follow the rules of UN.

This might come as a shock for you but America is not the centre of the universe which all spinns around.

[Balschoiw 0]

I miss one important thing the last weeks. Why does Mr Bush not try to have Saddam sign political contracts ? Saddam is at the wall with his back and has not much space left for political movements. Why not use the situation and let him sign some contracts on "non attacking" and "disarming". The possiblity is high he would sign them. It is astounding NO measures like this were taken although Bush claims that he wanted to end this thing peacefully first hand. So in my eyes he is a liar.

If you check the Iraq infrastructure and status of the Iraq citizens today you see that a war right now is nothing than walking into a hospital with some machineguns and kill them all. Iraq is already down. The people in Iraq are already down. It will be a very honourable war for the US. I hope Bush will be punished for it when he goes to war without UN approval. The situation will slap back to him and his country multiple times and to talk about reputation: US will have none after a war.

All that precice weapons that were used in GW1 will not be able to kill Saddams 500,000 man army. Conventional methods like carpet bomb runs will have to be used. This will kill a lot of civilians. Think of the city´s. Thousands will be "collateral damage". But again Bush does not care to kill the ones he claimes to protect. Not to talk of the situation after a war.

Again: Drop Bush, not bombs !

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All that precice weapons that were used in GW1 will not be able to kill Saddams 500,000 man army. Conventional methods like carpet bomb runs will have to be used. This will kill a lot of civilians. Think of the city´s. Thousands will be "collateral damage". <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, General Horner (ret) said on TV the other day that on 10% of the bombs used in Desert Storm were "smart bombs". He speculated that 90% would be of this nature in a current conflict. "Accurate enough to drop through a smoke stack", was the line he used. I also agree that collateral damage is regrettable. However, it is a sad fact of all/any war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I miss one important thing the last weeks. Why does Mr Bush not try to have Saddam sign political contracts ? Saddam is at the wall with his back and has not much space left for political movements. Why not use the situation and let him sign some contracts on "non attacking" and "disarming". The possiblity is high he would sign them.<span id='postcolor'>

What makes you think he would honor a contract when he has not honored U.N. resolutions for 11+ years? UN resolution 1441 says in it that he is currently in material breach. He has even broken oil contracts with other countries. Nothing would please me more than to see Saddam disarm or be removed peacefully. I have close family in the US military. I don't take this situation lightly. However, I don't believe he will comply.

[WhoCares 0]

Interesting thing about those smart bombs is, that everybody thinks that they are 100% accurate. Yesterday I saw a report about the Gulf war, where of 176 dropped smart bombs only 90 hit their target. Assuming that those smart bombs are also used, to attack targets near critical installations (e.g. hospsitals)...

Another point is the proper intel - anybody remember this bunker with 400 civilist blown up by a smart bomb in the last gulf war?!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Jan. 24 2003,08:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting thing about those smart bombs is, that everybody thinks that they are 100% accurate. Yesterday I saw a report about the Gulf war, where of 176 dropped smart bombs only 90 hit their target.  Assuming that those smart bombs are also used, to attack targets near critical installations (e.g. hospsitals)...

Another point is the proper intel - anybody remember this bunker with 400 civilist blown up by a smart bomb in the last gulf war?!<span id='postcolor'>

That may be true. However keep in mind the technology advances in the last 11-12 years.

[KingBeast 0]

Technology may well have advanced, but why use all of your new expensive advanced equipment? Seems like a perfect opportunity to off load all of the old rusting ordnance that costs so much money in storage and maintenance.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 24 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Technology may well have advanced, but why use all of your new expensive advanced equipment? Seems like a perfect opportunity to off load all of the old rusting ordnance that costs so much money in storage and maintenance.<span id='postcolor'>

It's a opportunity to test new weapons and systems.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 24 2003,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 24 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Technology may well have advanced, but why use all of your new expensive advanced equipment? Seems like a perfect opportunity to off load all of the old rusting ordnance that costs so much money in storage and maintenance.<span id='postcolor'>

It's a opportunity to test new weapons and systems.<span id='postcolor'>

Think that was done in Afghanistan.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

Iraq 'preparing to use chemical weapons'

New BBC report

[KingBeast 0]

And just as Gulf War 1, a small amount of the new technologies will be used and praised while the rest will be old tried and tested. Because i severely doubt that even in testing purposes, the US and its allies (or ally?) would use a majority of new ordnance when they have so much old stuff waiting to be used.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 24 2003,08:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Technology may well have advanced, but why use all of your new expensive advanced equipment? Seems like a perfect opportunity to off load all of the old rusting ordnance that costs so much money in storage and maintenance.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, they have to justify the cost of the extremely expensive military, and use up before everything is upgraded, that's another part of it.

Investment through war.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you think he would honor a contract when he has not honored U.N. resolutions for 11+ years? <span id='postcolor'>

partly true but not completely. Saddam seems to be very cooperative at the moment and still the weapon inspectors have found none of the dangerouse WMD´s at the US and Brit´s named locations. This is no speculation this is the fact.

I fail to see any political movement towards a nation that is down on it´s knees as a fact. The population of Iraq is still suffering PTSD from GW1 and the population is decimized by Diarrhoe, children die of starvation and unsufficient mediacal supplies. That is the truth. If you check the "ban" list you will understand why this country is already down. Never before in UN history an embargo list was that harsh to civil population as it is in Iraq.

If we talk about nations officially not allowed to have nuclear weapons I list: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

They are not allowed to have nukes by international community and IMO show a much greater potential threat to the world as Iraq currently does.

It is a great piece of crap that Iraq is vewry dangerouse. The only moment it will get dangerouse is if you attack them as a souvereign country. You know the things people do when they are cornered and have nothing to lose. They will use anything available against you. It is their country and you have no right to fight them for nothing. Except a UN mandate is formed, but recent statements from other members of security council show that the support for this will likely not been given. A US, Brits solituude war is illegal and you will have to pay for it in large extend. The harm that will be done to UN, international community, Iraq, human rights, inernational law and of course US citizens will be hard to measure. Furthermore I mentioned this quite a few times now, but it still seems to be ignored. If you attack Iraq without UN supporting, you will open up a new era of attack wars that are justified cause of speculations. From 1952 till today that wars are illegal, but if you set up an example many other wars, smaller or bigger ones, will follow. No mattter if the agressor than will be named Iran, Israel or whatever. Can´t you see that. Once you do start a war not legitimized by UN for weird reasons you give green light to any conflict that could have been prevented by UN. India and Pakistan just dismissed the embassadors of the opposite countries. This is the most dangerouse region today. Pakistan sees itself as a close friend to US. So tell me that you can guarantee that they dont follow your example and attack India. You even would have a hard time to stop them cause they only do what you show them. Is this so hard to get ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That may be true. However keep in mind the technology advances in the last 11-12 years.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes weapons got more precise all over, but the US air force will have a major problem when it comes to an area covering ground war. The US air force has specialized on single targets like buildings, tanks, radar statoins, but has no accurate countermeasures against spread infantry. Bomblets ok, but they have no ability to carpet bomb anymore which is indeed a point of the upcoming war. Helos will be mostly used to cover ground troops and pave the way, but Helos are vulnerable and almost uselees in urban scenarios. Friendly fire is a point here. At least it will come down to man on man. You can train UW for ages but the death rate will always be up to 60 percent for the attackers and 40 for defending forces. That is a military fact and there is no way around this.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 24 2003,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bomblets ok, but they have no ability to carpet bomb anymore which is indeed a point of the upcoming war.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you forgotten the B-52s

-=Die Alive=-

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you forgotten the B-52s<span id='postcolor'>

The link got me to the pop band

B 52 bombers mostly got out of business after the end of cold war.