Author Topic: Iraqis take the UN to task (Read 2548 times)

Rude · « **Reply #75 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:26:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sure he would. U.S. dominance of the air had long been established. The MiG-25 aircraft were worthless, and Hussein knew it.

If they were worthless, then why hide them in the first place?

AKIron · « **Reply #76 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:26:09 PM »

Learn a little history GScholz. Here's a few maps to get you started.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/maps/

Rude · « **Reply #77 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:32:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Keep believing that Rude if it makes you happy. However I'm afraid you will be disappointed in the end. Why don't you and Rip join the Army ... you know, do your bit?

Do my bit....like you did in Bosnia? Sorry man...I can't cook.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #78 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:33:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I can't believe your this stupid. There is no dominance in WMD, that's what makes them so powerful. As long as you have them in any significant quantity you can cause so much destruction on an invading force and/or enemy population that any invasion would be suicidal. The US would not have invaded Iraq if they actually had battlefield ready WMD, at the very least it would be political suicide for a first-term president.

The quantity of chemical or biological weapons that need to be used for a specific area to be affective is pretty large. Someone on the board has already posted the measures.

Shoot, move, and communicate. That’s the philosophy of the military. Always be moving. An initial attack on our forces with those types of weapons would have produced casualties and possibly a good number of them. It would not have affected the outcome of the war though.

The Iraqi military using these weapons wouldn’t have been political suicide. It would have proven their existence as well as the course of action and would have probably helped in getting reelected.

AKIron · « **Reply #79 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:40:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ground attack on Baghdad in 1991? LOL! The coalition forces sortied out from Saudi Arabia to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait, but then returned to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The coalition did never have a mandate to invade Iraq?

What are you Smoking AKIron, your old socks?

Who said anything about a ground attack on Baghdad in '91? I said we invaded Iraq in '91. I didn't specify how. I mentioned the air assault on Baghdad and you start sputtering about a ground invasion of Baghdad. As I since pointed out to you though, we did invade Iraq with ground forces giving them every opportunity to use their WMD against our ground forces. They didn't. Most likely because they were afraid we would completely annihilate them if they did. a justifiable fear imo.

Your refusal to face facts has diminished your credibilty, at least with me.

Sandman · « **Reply #80 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:40:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
If they were worthless, then why hide them in the first place?

Might be useful for fighting someone else other than the U.S.

Elfie · « **Reply #81 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:42:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You. Iraq was not invaded in 1991, Kuwait was liberated. To think that Hussein would risk a WMD exchange over Kuwait IS stupid.

All those coalition troops that entered Iraq itself during the '91 Gulf War...if they weren't invading....what were they doing? Sight seeing perhaps?

AKIron · « **Reply #82 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:43:08 PM »

See my above post GScholz. If I posted inaccuractly please feel free to point it out.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #83 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:43:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the French Monarch was a benevolent ruler who didn't publicly chop off peoples heads with guillotines or send people to prisons like the Bastille to be tortured and maimed.

Being sadistic or cruel as a leader does not mean you have a hold on the people. That’s not exactly right… you may have a grip on the people but not a strangle hold. They had room to move so they did.

The way I see it, the Iraqi people had very little room to move being constantly under watch by someone. Maybe under different technology the French monarch may have been able to do something about his demise and rule with even greater influence.

I find it highly unlikely, even improbable, that the Iraqi people could have done much about the Saddam regime without outside intervention. They tried to revolt after 1991, most of them were publicly executed.

They tried but didn’t have the ability to follow through.

maslo · « **Reply #84 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:46:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
*shrug* impossible to say really. He had no qualms about using those WMD's against his enemies (Iran) or his own people (Kurds) though.

just technical note

if Kurds were *his* people, he would never ever have need to fight with them

Kurdish problem in Iraq is as same as in Turkey...
but killing turkey Kurds is quite ok, coz Turkey wanna be big friend of NATO..

Kurdish part of Turkey is shame of turkey... nobody likes them, nobody caers about them .... but they werent alowed to have their owen nation after WW1

The only one country, where Kurds live in piece w/o any problem is in Iran. They integrated into Persian population well and they consider themself to be Persian. They are happy that they can speak their owen language in Iran.
However iran is the only one country, whitch do not annihilate them. They may live in pakistan as well. ( dont know about pakistan)

Zippatuh · « **Reply #85 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:46:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ground attack on Baghdad in 1991? LOL! The coalition forces sortied out from Saudi Arabia to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait, but then returned to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The coalition did never have a mandate to invade Iraq?

What are you Smoking AKIron, your old socks?

I had friends in my old unit, 101, that were 90 miles outside of Baghdad during that “conflict”.

Honestly, if not for the public showing of the “highway of death” there may have been a strong possibility we would have went further.

maslo · « **Reply #86 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:53:37 PM »

and according to original 1st post...

try to imagine what could happen if he will say something agains american occupation.

there are a lot of voices from iraq, that occupation isnt wellcome
but there is no sutch voice from goverment.
goverment werent elected by people it were form under supervise of US (probably absolut proamerican goverment)

many iraqi from abroad already refused to work in iraq...
if i remember corectly, director of national television canceled his contract because US forced him to pass them program for *validation*
(he came to work in iraq from abroad, he already left)

iraq is not 3rd world country

AKIron · « **Reply #87 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:53:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Oh, so bombing Baghdad constitutes as an invasion. So you invaded Libya as well? I see we have very different definitions of what an invasion is.

You're right, Hussein didn't use his WMD in 1991 because he didn't want to risk a WMD exchange. That's what I've been saying all along. However in 2003 his own bellybutton was on the line, he had nothing to lose, he would have used them if he had them. It's not like he's shown any restraint in past full out wars.

I think you're just being stubborn now. It's like you're saying so long as we don't invade Oslo we haven't invaded Norway. Even if the troops you sent to stop us at Hamar were decimated.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #88 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:54:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
...You're right, Hussein didn't use his WMD in 1991 because he didn't want to risk a WMD exchange. That's what I've been saying all along. However in 2003 his own bellybutton was on the line, he had nothing to lose, he would have used them if he had them. It's not like he's shown any restraint in past full out wars.

That may be correct. I distinctly remember Bush senior saying during a press conference that should Saddam use chemical or biological weapons then that would escalate the conflict to another latter that he doesn’t posses.

I took this instantly to mean, “you drop some germs, we’ll proceed in the instant construction of a glass parking lot “.

Scared the absolute crap out of me, glad it didn’t happen.

Why he didn’t use them this time is all supposition. I think he was hoping somehow he could make it out of the conflict with his rule and country still intact. Using chemical or biological weapons would have snuffed that from the moment they were used.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #89 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:04:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok this is pure BS. The French Monarchy and Nobles had an iron grip on the people of France.

How did Hussein have complete control over a population armed with AKs and RPGs (readily available in bazaars even) with most families having a son in the army? YES, Iraq had a conscript army. The Shiites would never have rebelled if not for the US promising support and than abandoning them. How come more people are willing to risk their lives fighting your forces than the inferior forces of Hussein?

Obviously they didn’t or the revolt wouldn’t have happened. I can theorize that “the information” age wasn’t in existence then and it was much easier for the people to organize and plan. If they had the hold you believe they did the revolt wouldn’t have worked, someone would have ratted them out. I’m not a French history buff so I can’t say, but it’s not BS, its discussion.

Access to firearms does not mean you have the ability to revolt. I go back to my East Germany reference. They could trust no one. Who could say that your buddy wasn’t an informant?

Why are more willing to risk their lives against the coalition than against Saddam? Easy answer, fear. When you fire against a British, American, Polish, etc. soldiers you can safely assume that they will only be firing back or trying to kill you. The possibilities of your entire family vanishing because of something you do now is much less likely.

We’re fighting the “fair” fight. That’s easy to go up against when you don’t have the fear of family and social reprisals for your actions.