This thread is about IRAQ

[Voss]

Kissinger says: "Iraq has developed weapons of (listen up Toad) mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has stated that he will pay immediate relatives of any participants in terrorist attacks against AMERICANS $25,000 per event. In that he intends to put his Weapons of Mass Destruction. in the hands of terrorists we should not wait until he acts. He must be eliminated. This has been delayed by President Bush due to recent developments in the Middle East, but you must know that this President (G.W.Bush) will do something when he says he will. You can expect a buildup to begin no later than June, and I do not believe this assault on Iraq will end, until Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen. No longer will a line in the sand be satisfactory. Saddam Hussein must be eliminated as a threat to world peace."

I have no doubt this war will widen into World War. We might as well start preparing for it now.

[Toad]

What I've heard is that we've seriously depleted the store of "smart" weapons and have run a lot of the flying hardware to the limits.

As my wheat cutting buddies say, "we ran that combine till the metal got too thin". I think a lot of the fighters are "thin" right now. Stuff wears out.

Wonder what the Pentagon morons who kept saying we could still fight a "two front war" after the downsizing are saying now. LOL. We have our hands full with Afghanistan and we're considered a superpower! If Korea popped now, you'd see people leaping through their bungholes! The everyday "stores" are just not there and haven't been for sometime.

IMO though, we're going to Iraq eventually, no matter what the rest of the world says UNLESS:

They let the UN inspectors back in with just enough "access" to keep us from acting.

Barring that, we'll be going eventually. I'm personally convinced they now have chemical and biological weapons that would be effective against the CONUS and will be used against the CONUS eventually. I'm sort of convinced that they are reasonably far along in the nuke department as well and that will be a creditable threat against us shortly.

There's no problem getting ANY of that stuff in. If you've been watching the news about the containerized shipping you realize that. Beyond that, freighter loads and plane loads of dope come in all the time. Shouldn't be too hard to bring a load of something else.
 
No problem finding somebody to sit on top of whatever it is and set it off in the heart of the Great Satan's downtown, either. You only have to watch the evening news from Palestine to realize that too.

The rest of the world will scream about it, but it's not Paris or London or Stockholm or Berlin or Helsinki that's going to get whacked. We know that and THEY know that. We're the ones at risk and we're going to act.

I personally favor the 13 cent solution but I admit it would be tough, would probably take a while and may or may not actually get him.

Just my .02 from high up in the cheap seats.

[Ping]

Well eh next stop in the war should be Germany. Those Bastards sent over all those engineers and pretty much built all the factorys and bunkers for them.
 Hmm...The Canadians have groups raising funds for family freinds and terrorists back home....NUKE Em dammit.
 Arms for Hostages..Take those guilty parties and Castrate them...make sure they can never do it again.

 America continues embargoes against Iraq and violates their national boundaries and you think they wouldn't get pissed?
 Think back to the previous thread for a moment.
 When the palestinians are subjected to dehumanizing conditions the end result is total whakko behaviour and guided dumb bombs.

 Iraq was an American "Friend" at one time. What changed that?

 Hell even Kuwait...Historically they were a part of Iraq untill western powers decided to interfere and play GOD with men and borders.

 Some here have previously said lets just bring everyone home and let them at it. Good Idea..just leave them with the thought if they go after your mainland that ICBM's will deliver thier next mail shipment from the states.

[Wotan]

what changed was the Baathist came to power in Iraq.

Its quite a different circumstance. You cant compare our relationship with Iraq with Zionist Israels relationship with the Palestinians.

First of all as despicable as Zionist Israel treatment of the palestinians is it is basically an internal matter.

Iraq threatens not only minorities in its own borders (shiites kurds), its own Suni, buts its neighbors and if the reports are true the world at large.

Couple that with its support of terrorists and the threat Iraq places over the world is by far greater then the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

I would never advocate the occupation or overthrow of the Israeli government but would want my nation not to aid Israel in its treatment of the palestinians. Israel bares the brunt of the consequences of its treatment of the palestinians. By us backing Israel that provides just another in the long list of why the Islamic world distrusts us.

Iraq on the otherhand is where we need to crack the whip. The problem I have with that is what do we do when Sadam is gone? occuppy Iraq? Ofcourse this will lead to terror strikes against us. But it may remove the immediate threat of a terror strike using much worse weapons then car bombs and nail bombers.

It would also send a much more serious message to the terror supporting regimes world wide. Much more so then the actions in Afghanistan.

Simple

Iraq global threat using weapons of mass destruction

Israel and Palestinians acting as animals taking turns killing each other.

The present threat out ways the risk of future less leathal attacks.

Ofcourse one could argue that the threat of US military action against Iraq may cause them to try a premptive strike to shock us out of action. Which it wont. Or that they made plans and have distributed these weapons amongst the terrorists groups in anticipation of US action putting them out of reach. And to be used at a later time.

I am not much for the big talk up to action. As if we need to talk ourselves into it.

When I was a about 13 or so this big bellybutton dude down the street was tellin everyone he was gonna beat my arse on such and such a day and that everyone should  come watch.

Well of course I heard and when the time came I was standing out in front of my house with a glass a bleach with some ice in it pretending like it was my drink.

Dude walked up talking crap so I throw the bleach in his facr and broke a long green willow branch off the tree in my yard and whipped his arse with it. You should have seen the whelps. Dude was all cryin and moanin from the bleach and all the folks that came to watch were laughing their arse off.

He would been better off just doing it instead of giving me a chance to prepare. I had thought he still may whoop me but that beetch was gonna feel it as much as I did.

We need to hit Iraq do it now before Sadam has a chance to come up with any doomsday plan. Hes gotta know if we come he cant win and that will be the end of him. I cant imagin he would just sit back and wait.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Ping
America continues embargoes against Iraq and violates their national boundaries and you think they wouldn't get pissed?

Point of Order, Mr Chairman!

The United Nations Security Council has implemented the sanctions (embargoes) against Iraq. Members of the UN Security Council at present are:

Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Russian Federation, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland,  France
 
Security Council Round Up 2001                                          

"...On 29 November, the Council extended the programme for a further 180 days beginning 1 December.  By unanimously adopting resolution 1382 (2001), it also approved a proposed Goods Review List for implementation on 30 May 2002.  ...


You may now go ahead and point out that since the very beginning of the Iraq sanctions, ALL members of the Security Council have merely been running-dog capitalist lackeys of the US and thus the unanimous votes. (I think almost every vote has been unanimous over the years).

For example, in the present Security Council, everyone knows Syria, France and China ALWAYS do what the US tells them to do. No possible way that just about EVERYONE views Iraq as a serious threat, right?

Secondly, Security Council Resolution 688 is used by the US/UK to justify the imposition of the no-fly zones. While the legality of this action under this resolution is disputed, you will note that neither the Security Council or the UN General Assembly has brought the matter up in session. In short, the UN membership, while aware of the dispute over 688 and the no-fly zones, is quite willing to "look the other way". Why is that?

Maybe it's because of things like Halabja? Just maybe?

Chemical massacre of the people of Halabja

The US is the Great Satan, right? When the sh*t hits the fan, where do the eyes of the world turn?

[Ping]

Toad: Iraq was an ally..yet the government KNEW the guy was a homicidal maniac, they turned the other cheek and allowed him to cement himself into power.   Now they say oops....we have to get rid of him...

 Fast forward to today, Pakistan is an ally, yet the government knows that they have terrorist training camps and are a poor choice for a friend.
 Should we perhaps pause and TRY to learn from the past?
 He is doing nothing any different now then when he was a FRIEND of the US Government. I think its time that The US Government stop being so Hypocritical and Establish that 0 tolerance that is being touted.

 Saddam is a mass murderer and should face the music...but why should we be forced to play the political games. Enough of the BS.
 Iraq is no different now than 15 years ago. Fine they have weapons of Mass destruction, I can name a whole toejamload of countries that do and some that have used them, some of them being more unstable.
 
 What I say still stands....Violate national boundaries and yur gonna piss off the country....homicidal dictator or not.

 Do I think America is the Great Sastan? NO! But I do live in a country where there is a lot of political roadkill so I can recognize that when I see it.


No offense intended Toad

[Voss]

No, we were never friends with Iraq. We may have traded with them, and we may have sent them aid, but friends?

I don't recall seeing Saddam invited to the White House for dinner. Now, THAT would have made him a friend.

We tolerated the lesser of available evils. Had there been another solution then we would have done differently. There have been times when the we (the U.S.) tried to allow local regions to police their peers, and in the case of the middle east they all hug each other, while clutching knives. When trouble arises they seem incapable of handling the issue themselves. It would be wrong for an Arab to kill an Arab, after all. So, they cry to the U.S., or turn a deaf ear to pleas for help.

We DID betray the Kurds. There's no doubt about that. Which of the middle eastern countries didn't? Name one that rushed to aid the Kurds. Not a damn one! Yet, it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Time-after-time the Kurds have been Guinea Pigs for his new weapons. It's absolutely sickening what has happened to them as a people. Had a 'civilized' nation (go ahead - argue that Iraq is civilized) done such a thing, we would have ANNILIHILATED their ability to do so. We tried that with Saddam, and then installed a President that didn't give a flip whether Hussein was the devil himself!

Yeah, we suck. That's why everyone turns to us when the chips are down. I will submit to you that we suck the least.

[Toad]

Oh, so we were once "friendly" or "semi-allied" with Iraq and that changes something forever?

See the quote above. We were also allied with Stalin, generally acknowledged as a "not so nice guy".

I think you can go back through recorded history and find many, many examples of numerous nations that "make poor choices for friends". They do so for many reasons, necessity being one and "seemed like the thing to do at the time" being another.

However, don't forget one other thing. Times and situations change. The reasons that cause a nation to "make a poor choice for a friend" can and do alter over time.

Want to go back through history and see how many instances of "friends" becoming "enemies" that we can find? I'd guess you'll concede that one, eh?

Like Stalin, we once found or thought it advantageous to cooperate to some degree with Saddam. The right or wrong of those decisions is now immaterial. They were made by folks who thought they were doing the right thing, given the information they had at the time.

They certainly didn't make those choices by looking into the future and trying to deliberately design a way to bring us to the present sad situation.

Anyway, times and situations have since changed. Unless Pakistan alters some of its behaviors I doubt our new found friendship there will long endure. BUT... it was the thing to do at the time based on the information we had and the situation we had to face in Afghanistan.

There is also the possibility that Pakistan's "new" relationship with us will give impetus to the changes that would make them a "better" member of the world community.

Politics isn't static, it's fluid.

I totally disagree with the statement that Saddam is "doing nothing any different now then when he was a FRIEND of the US Government." Exhibit A would be the $25K he is offering to folks that are "martryed" attacking the US. THAT seems a bit different to me anyway.

Please name the countries with bio/chem/nuke weapons of mass destruction that you consider more unstable than Iraq. Then refine that list to name those that have clearly made the US a public target of their political/military system...as Saddam has.

As I said, I think all that needs to be done to avoid US intervention is for Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back in and give them access to the places they feel they need to go.

He can do that or he can be attacked by the US eventually. Won't be my choice but I'll have no problem with either solution. I see Iraq's chem/bio/nuke weapons eventually being detonated on US soil unless we act first... and the clock is running.

In Saddam's case, I think we should "get there firstest with the mostest" .

I don't want to wait until an Iraqi chem/bio/nuke weapon comes in on a container ship and is detonated by an "extreme" Islamic group in the middle of DC or NYC.

Sorry if you find that to be political BS.

[fd ski]

actaully voss, reason we betrayed Kurds has more to do with Turkey then Iraq ...
I believe that most of them would rather live in Saddam's place then in our friendly Nato ally...

[Elfenwolf]

On Thursday the 22 States of the Arab League issued a  statement asserting that ANY attack on ANY Arab League state, SPECIFICALLY Iraq, would be regarded as an attack against the entire Arab League.  Iraq has agreed to recognize the existance of Kuwait and has agreed to the Arab League resolution to allow Israel to exist in peace should Israel give up its captured lands of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and as a further consession Iraq has agreed to allow UN Inspectors access to their weapons development sites again (wink wink).


Bottom line? Same old "Peace for Land" offer by the Arabs, same old "Yeah, we'll get back to you" line by the Israelis, but we have a brand new twist now- The Arab League, with all 22 of its nations, issued a resolution stating they will not condone a strike against Iraq. Basically this means we will be an armed agressor to the Arab League rather than the armed savior we were 12 years ago should we attack Iraq. This will be far different than Desert Storm, and as Toad mentioned we're already getting spread pretty thin military-wise.

How many of you think we should take Sadaam out? Better yet, how many of you think the Saudi people actually WANT Sadaam out?? How many of you think Saudi Arabia is our ally? How many of you think the Arab world  will allow us to use their bases from DS 1990 to launch attacks against Sadaam? How many of you think there's not already a steady supply of new extremist zealots entering Afghanistan every day willing to die for the opportunity to kill Western agressors? How many Taliban and Al Queda fighters are there? Do you think they will ever run out of recruits willing to die for their cause? How many of you are willing to get mired in a long war where history might eventually show we were the agressors using the pretext of "destroying evil" to establish our influence over foreign states? Do you think the current Afghan government will continue to represent the will of its people, or do you think it might become (if it not already is) a military dictatorship run by a strongman propped up by the United States?

Before everybody slams me, please- I have no solutions. All I have is the lesson of history, which seems to repeat itself. Voss has a great point- are we willing to have a nuclear war, or are we simply going to play politics and bleed off our youth in a long, drawn-out war like we did in Viet Nam? Just my 2 cents worth.

[Toad]

Well, I'm sure we can depend on the mighty, unified Arab League to deal with Iraq after some Islamic extremist sets off a bio weapon traceable directly to Iraq in downtown NYC.



It's not IF, it's WHEN.

So, sit on your hands and watch it happen. Then moan about it.

[10Bears]

Voss and Toad are you guys considering the ramifications of an assault on Iraq?

Lets start with the UN Security council resolution 1382. Your right that is in regards to embargos. Resolution 688 is in regards to the no-fly zone. So for a new attack on Iraq you would need a new UN resolution to be within international law. So far, we have zero support from the EU or the Arab league an luke warm support from Briton.

You want to disregard internationa law swell but beware it might bit you on the bellybutton down the road.

Another problem. Where are going to launch this mass attack from?.. aircraft carriers? At most you would be able to sortie 300 flights a day. That’s fine for some air raids but not for the large scale attack your talking about here.  Saudi Arabia has said no.. Turkey has said no. Kuwait maybe..

Another thing to consider: Ground forces. Lately we like to use indigenous tribesmen. I suppose in this case we’d be using the Kurds. This causes all kinds of geopolitical problems with Turkey.. Who would be running the show over there if we won, the Kurds as masters of the Iraqi people?.. I think not. Your other alternative is to start up the draft again to get the required 200,000 plus army... This means explaining to the parents of these soldiers that it’s really not a war to seize Iraqi oil fields.

Finally, there are 15 countries in the world that possess WMD.. We have an understanding with the world that if ANY country uses WMD on American soil, their entire country turns into glass within 24 hours.

I’d say the solution is for Israel to pull back from the occupied territories. They seem to be the root cause for ALLLL this nonsense.

As for Saddam... diddly him... he’s getting old and gonna die soon. I understand his son Udie (hehe) is going to take over anyway. Lift sanctions and start making deals.. because it’s the oil you guys are really after now isn’t it?.... Isn’t it?

[Cabby44]

A "union" of Arab states isn't worth the paper it's printed on .......

BTW, you hand-wringers ready and willing to pay $5 a gallon and up for gasoline(if you can find any) if and when Iraq invades Saudi Arabia??   Don't think it can't happen, the Saudi's and Iraqi's despise each other.  Some stupid "union" or not.......

Arabs are six-faced and triple-hearted.  Pay no attention at all to what Arab "leaders"(re: repressive despots)say.  Pay attention to what they do..............

Cabby

[Toad]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Voss and Toad are you guys considering the ramifications of an assault on Iraq?

No.

I'm considering the ramifications of NOT making an assault on Iraq if UN weapons inspection programs fail to remove Iraq's bio/chem/nuke warfare programs.

[Voss]

Originally posted by fd ski
actaully voss, reason we betrayed Kurds has more to do with Turkey then Iraq ...
I believe that most of them would rather live in Saddam's place then in our friendly Nato ally...

Actually, I didn't say *why* we betrayed them (I don't care why, I'm not a liberal), I just said we did.

I'm with Toad on this issue. Our President said we're going in, so it doesn't really matter what the U.N. said. They'll change their position next week, anyway.

I'm all for a fight. I have never liked anyone from the region. Those that have come to America, and have actually become Americans, I accept. The others are getting what they deserve at home.

Come to think of it, it kind of rubs me the wrong way for someone to have duel citizenship. In the interest of Homeland Security, perhaps we need to review a few million passports. You never know what a son-of-a-squeak will infect himself with in order to sabotage America.

Hmm,...