Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on August 05, 2002, 11:32:32 PM
-
After studying the releases in the news media I believe the USA is merely trying to inflame his anal leakage condition for the moment.
However, we may witness and example known as "hyperwar" in the immediate future. Should be interesting when and if such happens.
Question: What do you think will be the method and plan of attack?
Disclaimer: This is not to say we should attack Iraq or promote agression, but merely my comments on the current situation. The intent is not to start that debate with this thread.
Rogue out
-
The seemingly renewed interest in Saddam Hussein makes me wonder if we've learned he played a role in the attack of 9/11.
Even if it were now suspected that Al Qaeda was not the primary organization behind the 9/11 attack this information probably would not be made known publicly. I suggest the reason being that we're certain that Osama has been at least involved in other attacks on the US and we don't want to be perceived as having made a mistake about 9/11.
Of course this is sheer speculation and Saddam is still a threat to region stability if for no other reason than the obvious.
-
It really doesnt matter if Saddam was involved in 9-11 or not. He is an insane moslem dictator. He funds terrorist organizations, and he is constantly trying to increase his stock of chemical and biological weapons. He is constantly trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons or radioactive materials. He has no hesitation to use chemical weapons, he has no hesitation to do pretty much anything.
We should invade Iraq, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
-
Ah the old "[Insert enemy of the week] is evil because he nearly has half the scary toys we do, funds and trains less terrorists than us and is nearly as vicious" propaganda rears it's ugly head. :D
I reckon the renewed interest in the leader of the world's second greatest oil source may have a lot more to do with this:
"The effect of a permanent $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil would reduce U.S. economic growth, slow productivity increases, increase unemployment, and have other negative impacts on the economy, according to an analysis by the respected macroeconomic modeler, Dr. Allen Sinai, president
of Primark Decision Economics."
culled from a "it's too expensive to save the planet" argument against the Kyoto agreement here:http://www.accf.org/OilPriceACCF.pdf (http://www.accf.org/OilPriceACCF.pdf)
And this (my bet: he'll be in big trouble when it tops $30 a barrel):
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It really doesnt matter if Saddam was involved in 9-11 or not. He is an insane moslem dictator. He funds terrorist organizations, and he is constantly trying to increase his stock of chemical and biological weapons. He is constantly trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons or radioactive materials. He has no hesitation to use chemical weapons, he has no hesitation to do pretty much anything.
We should invade Iraq, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
Hortlund! Such a blatant troll. This is so out of character. :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
We should invade Iraq, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
We tried that, like a thousand years ago.........but hey I'm game;)
-
Heh, fun thing is I mean every word of it :)
Although I cannot take credit for the "We should invade Iraq, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity"-part.
Yup, those are the words of Ann Coulter...now I ask you all again...is it humanly possible NOT to fall in love with that girl? :)
-
I saw Dick Cheney on TV the other day talking in extremely vague terms about the motivation behind an attack on Iraq. And it wasn't like he was trying to conceal information, more he was trying to conceal a blatant lack of information.
He's the most untrustworthy politician I've seen in a long while. And we have plenty to choose from over here.
It seems certain elements of the US administration want to use "the events of 911" (oh how I am sick to death of hearing that phrase) to justify acts otherwise abhorrant to its own population. If it's done in the name of the 'War against Terrorism', it can't be a bad thing. To say otherwise would be to disrespect those who died in the WTC.
BS.
-
Anyone having any problems with Saddam Hussein & Co being removed from power needs to check his priorities. Exactly why anyone would want to see that murderous bastard remain in power is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
After studying the releases in the news media I believe the USA is merely trying to inflame his anal leakage condition for the moment.
However, we may witness and example known as "hyperwar" in the immediate future. Should be interesting when and if such happens.
Question: What do you think will be the method and plan of attack?
Disclaimer: This is not to say we should attack Iraq or promote agression, but merely my comments on the current situation. The intent is not to start that debate with this thread.
Rogue out
This thing is taking off weirdly. My questions was what do you think will be the method and plan of attack?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
"The effect of a permanent $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil would reduce U.S. economic growth, slow productivity increases, increase unemployment, and have other negative impacts on the economy
If we were soley motivated by the price of oil, why wouldn't we just get on board with the Russians and French, and lift the Sanctions on Iraq, and let them sell as much as they wanted?
Of course I think that Oil plays a large role in our policy in the region, as it does every industrial nation. I think that we are trying to promote "stability" in the region, by eliminating Saddam, and most importantly his potential nuclear program. But I don't think we are doing this to keep him from "nuking" the US (after all, that's what we will have our pie in the sky ABM system for ;) ) Anyhow, I think that the US is trying to prevent the Arab nations from developing a nuclear deterrent. If the Arab nations were reasonably sure that Israel would not use their nukes, I think that we would see another Arab israeli war. And the US is against that, since it will probably have a negative effect on the price of oil, and our economic growth.
-Sikboy
PS: Yes, this is all half baked.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
This thing is taking off weirdly. My questions was what do you think will be the method and plan of attack?
Well, it seems there are basically two ways to go about it. One, build up forces in the region and attack like we did in '91. The other is we sneak in and assasinate Hussein and any others we don't want taking over in his place.
The first method would be very expensive in both money and possibly lives. It might also require us to commit troops for an indefinite period.
The second method would be relatively cheap but doesn't present the image many in the US would like to project. There is also the problem of installing a new leader that would be malleable or at least friendly to the US.
If we could have incited a coup from within he probably wouldn't be in power now. Nor has economic ruin turned his people against him, at least not enough.
I think we'll sneak in and take him out and install a puppet.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Anyone having any problems with Saddam Hussein & Co being removed from power needs to check his priorities. Exactly why anyone would want to see that murderous bastard remain in power is beyond me.
His regime is more liberal than those of many of our friends - like the same Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
Can women work in those countries? How about vote? Is oil nationalised there or owned by monarchs? Is there a representative elective body of any kind in those countries? Are their regimes secular? Who actually finances terrorism against US - Iraq or Saudi Arabia?
Going after Hussein instead of them would have been like going after Franco instead of Hitler. Which is what we are about to do.
Even forgetting him being the most progressive of the bunch, why would we care about that particular murderous bastard? He never hurt us - even after what we did to him. He will be replaced by similar bastard if removed. We acted as Saudi mercenaries once. Then we stayed there to protect the monarchy from their people. Look what it got us - our best friend and fighter for saudi democracy OBL got upset...
Let Sweden depose him if he bothers you that much.
miko
-
Well Miko, at the end of the day Sweden won't be commiting forces in any meaningful scale to such an action. It will be the good ol' US, with token support from the UK (despite the fact our armed forces are stretched past breaking point).
Perhaps Sweden could sell some arms to the protagonists? That's usually our job, but for obvious reasons there is a gap in the market. If you can sell to Nazis, I'm sure Saddam is almost a step up the moral ladder.
Frankly, there's been ample opportunity in the last 12 years to overthrow Saddam. Kurdish uprisings encouraged, but not supported when they finally come out into the open. Iraqi military uprisings encouraged and not supported... etc etc etc.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
His regime is more liberal than those of many of our friends - like the same Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
Can women work in those countries? How about vote? Is oil nationalised there or owned by monarchs? Is there a representative elective body of any kind in those countries? Are their regimes secular? Who actually finances terrorism against US - Iraq or Saudi Arabia?
Going after Hussein instead of them would have been like going after Franco instead of Hitler. Which is what we are about to do.
Even forgetting him being the most progressive of the bunch, why would we care about that particular murderous bastard? He never hurt us - even after what we did to him. He will be replaced by similar bastard if removed. We acted as Saudi mercenaries once. Then we stayed there to protect the monarchy from their people. Look what it got us - our best friend and fighter for saudi democracy OBL got upset...
Let Sweden depose him if he bothers you that much.
miko
meanwhile on planet earth...
Saddam Hussein has started two wars, one against Iran, one against Kuweit. He has used chemical weapons against Iran and he has used chemical weapons against insurgents in his own country. He rules his country the same way a mideaval baron would do it. He orders people excecuted whenever he suspects anything, no matter how trivial. He has placed relatives in all positions of power in Iraq. He funds numerous terrorist organizations, he is implementing an agressive Chemical and Biological weapons program. It is a known fact that he has large stockpiles of Nerve gas and Anthrax, it is also widely known that he is agressively seeking to get his hands on nuclear weapons or radiaoctive material. He is also trying to obtain the smallpox virus from Russia.
Like it or not, he has named the USA and Israel as his main enemies. He will do whatever he can to destroy the USA and Israel. If you want to sit around arguing over womens rights in Iraq, then by all means go ahead.
When he gets his hands on any more potent weapon of mass destruction he will use it. And he will use it against the USA. No matter what you say, no matter what you hope, no matter how unpleasant that thought is to you, he will use it. Not through Iraqi intelligence agencies, not through his own armed forces...not in any way that can be traced back to him. But when that first smallpox virus bomb detonates in New York, or when that dirty bomb goes off in Seattle, he will be the one who ordered it.
Stick your head in the sand and compare womens rights or who gets to vote in what country. In the real world, real people have to deal with real dangers. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the western world, he will continue to be such a threat until he is removed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well Miko, at the end of the day Sweden won't be commiting forces in any meaningful scale to such an action. It will be the good ol' US, with token support from the UK (despite the fact our armed forces are stretched past breaking point).
Perhaps Sweden could sell some arms to the protagonists? That's usually our job, but for obvious reasons there is a gap in the market. If you can sell to Nazis, I'm sure Saddam is almost a step up the moral ladder.
Frankly, there's been ample opportunity in the last 12 years to overthrow Saddam. Kurdish uprisings encouraged, but not supported when they finally come out into the open. Iraqi military uprisings encouraged and not supported... etc etc etc.
Nah, we would never sell arms to arabs...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think we'll sneak in and take him out and install a puppet.
I hope it's Count Blah from Greg the Bunny!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe (FMPW)
I hope it's Count Blah from Greg the Bunny!
-SW
Had to look that up. :D
-
Uh... not to put a dampner on all of you armchair generals planning our next war, but shouldn't someone ask the Iraqi people if they want Sadaam out? I question rather we have the right to oust a foreign head of state and I wonder what the Arab response would be if we start replacing Arab governments with puppet regimes?
-
Its ok Elf, I asked them yesterday.
They said go ahead.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Uh... not to put a dampner on all of you armchair generals planning our next war, but shouldn't someone ask the Iraqi people if they want Sadaam out? I question rather we have the right to oust a foreign head of state and I wonder what the Arab response would be if we start replacing Arab governments with puppet regimes?
We are a democracy dammit! Who gives a rat's canasta what they think. For heaven's sake gentlemen, stop fighting in the warroom.
-
Steve, my concerns are the potential results of invading Iraq more than any concern for Sadaam Hussein. What do you think the reaction of the Arab world will be?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Steve, my concerns are the potential results of invading Iraq more than any concern for Sadaam Hussein. What do you think the reaction of the Arab world will be?
Outrage.
Most governments will remain calm though, no one really wants to get on the bad side of the US after 9-11. So the governments will express concern, but at the same time people will take to the streets burning US flags etc. If someone like OBL would step into the media light, the US had better wax that person really quick (perhaps the Mossad can do it) because that in itself is a potentially disasterous situation, that could very well indeed bring civil wars to many of the arabic countries. Saudi is especially vunerable, together with Egypt.
It is however worth it. Saddam will sooner or later attack the US with weapons of mass destruction. He must be removed. If the region destabilizes for a couple of years, it is not too bad. Might lead to war in the region, but I doubt it. More likely there will be increased pressure on Israel, so the US would have to put in extra support there.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
We are a democracy dammit! Who gives a rat's canasta what they think. For heaven's sake gentlemen, stop fighting in the warroom.
You're kidding, right?
-
Hortlund: meanwhile on planet earth...
Saddam Hussein has started two wars, one against Iran, one against Kuweit. He has used chemical weapons against Iran and he has used chemical weapons against insurgents in his own country.
Who cares - unless he attacks US, Canada or Mexico or one of NATO countries he can do whatever he wants. He is in Russia's backyard. China is right there, India, Israel. Let them take care of their crap. You can buy a ticket and join Kurdish resistance any day.
He rules his country the same way a mideaval baron would do it. He orders people excecuted whenever he suspects anything, no matter how trivial. He has placed relatives in all positions of power in Iraq.
Even if it was any of our concern, it is still better than his neighbours that we protect from him. How about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Much democracy there since we liberated them?
He funds numerous terrorist organizations
Not as much as Iran and Saudis & Co. And at the time we invaded him in 91 russa was a big terrorism supporter too.
he is implementing an agressive Chemical and Biological weapons program. It is a known fact that he has large stockpiles of Nerve gas and Anthrax, it is also widely known that he is agressively seeking to get his hands on nuclear weapons or radiaoctive material. He is also trying to obtain the smallpox virus from Russia.
He is surrounded by medieval religious militant states who all hate him - who said those weapons were against us? I do not see you calling to attack Pakistan or India or Israel for the same reason.
Like it or not, he has named the USA and Israel as his main enemies.
Everybody named Israel as his main enamy - including Europe and more than half americans. As for US, we invaded them, whad did you expect?
I bet if we appologised and offered restitutions - or even assurance that he can take back Kuwait and Saudi, he would revert to being our best friend.
He will do whatever he can to destroy the USA and Israel.
BS. Russians could not do that, germans could not do that. He does not need to do that - plenty of our "friends" are more eager than him.
When he gets his hands on any more potent weapon of mass destruction he will use it. And he will use it against the USA.
BS. If he uses it against Saudis or Quwait, I do not care. Unless they apply to join NATO we do not have to protect them.
He will not attack Israel first since that would mean complete obliteration of Iraq (among other things). And he is not a religious fanatic willing to die.
But when that first smallpox virus bomb detonates in New York, or when that dirty bomb goes off in Seattle, he will be the one who ordered it.
I suspect that Saudis will beat him to that.
We cannot stop everyone who wants to blow us up - our security is nonexistant, our borders are open, our society is vulnerable. The safest way for us would be to mind our own business and stop pissing people off. They have anough problem of their own to worry about us.
In the real world, real people have to deal with real dangers. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the western world, he will continue to be such a threat until he is removed.
Did we defeat Soviet Union? No. And where are they? Right - our friends now.
How about China? Should we knock off their head of state?
How about Duch? Those legalised pot. Should we save them and stop bad influence on US?
Here is the main and real question:
Tell me, would you be calling for the same invasion if Iraq had never invaded Kuwait? Because I cannot see how his claim to Kuwait is linked to all those bad things.
If he was our friend and client before invasion of Kuwait and if most americans do not give a damn about Kuwait, what did change? Could it be that we declared ourselves his enemy, not the other way around?
miko
-
Funny how all of a sudden Iraq is such an immediate threat to US and world security. It wouldn't have anything to do with the Enron scandal now would it? Worldcom? Those that took part in the 9-11 hijackings were from where? Most were from Saudi Arabi and Egypt, supposedly our allies. They weren't from Iraq. Please post your sources that show Iraqi involvement in that attack.
If we do attack/invade Iraq, it will be without Arab coalition forces. In fact they might come to the aid of Iraq. City fighting is a far cry from open desert warfare. Casualties will be high.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[ Did we defeat Soviet Union? No. And where are they? Right - our friends now.
Not a good comparison Miko. They are a far cry from what they were when they were our enemies. And it wasn't until they changed their government (and leader) that we became "friends", which we still really aren't.
Good acquatances, sure.. friends... give that 3 more years or another world war for that to happen.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Heh, fun thing is I mean every word of it :)
Although I cannot take credit for the "We should invade Iraq, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity"-part.
Yup, those are the words of Ann Coulter...now I ask you all again...is it humanly possible NOT to fall in love with that girl? :)
Quit letting your small head do the thinking for your large head, she's not to bright. Please tell me how you convert people against their will to another religion?
-
Question to all you Saddam is pure evil and will destroy the US:
How will he destroy the US?
Surely, if one nuke, chemical, or biological attack on US soil, killing innocent civillians, would result in that attacking country being turned into glass. The US is the only country to have used nukes in the past and won't hesitate to do so in the future in retaliation. Quit being so paranoid. Saddam can't hurt us that bad. He'd just sign his and all of Iraq's death warrant if he tried.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You're kidding, right?
A paraphrased quote from the movie Dr. Strangelove tends is a strong clue that I'm kidding.
It's also funny how only AKIron has answered my real question so far. And to think of my disclaimer: "The intent is not to start that debate with this thread." I started another thread though to get opinions on my question.
Carry on...
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
Question to all you Saddam is pure evil and will destroy the US:
How will he destroy the US?
Surely, if one nuke, chemical, or biological attack on US soil, killing innocent civillians, would result in that attacking country being turned into glass. The US is the only country to have used nukes in the past and won't hesitate to do so in the future in retaliation. Quit being so paranoid. Saddam can't hurt us that bad. He'd just sign his and all of Iraq's death warrant if he tried.
Smallpox, botulism or anthrax. Try to defend yourself against that. Suppose there is an outbreak of anthrax again, but this time there are 10 000 letters instead of just 3-4. If that happens tomorrow, who do you nuke?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Could it be that we declared ourselves his enemy, not the other way around?
Does it matter?
(Ill answer the rest later)
-
No matter how bad Saddam is, he is still a pretty decent buffer against the spread of Moslem fundamentalism in the area. He might even be the lesser of 2 evils.
-
Saddam Hussein the lesser of two evils?
What are you guys smoking anyway?
-
AKSWulfe: Not a good comparison Miko. They are a far cry from what they were when they were our enemies. And it wasn't until they changed their government (and leader) that we became "friends", which we still really aren't.
So what? It's a matter of time. Who could have believed even that much in the 80s? If we stayed friends with Iraq, exchanged people, culture, etc. - wouldn't we have affected them in a beneficial way?
And if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were part of Iraq - all the better.
Please tell me how you convert people against their will to another religion?
Electrodes? Genitalia?...
Could it be that we declared ourselves his enemy, not the other way around?
Hortlund: Does it matter?
If we back off he will probably let us save our face somehow.
What will happen if we invade/almost invade and it so happens that there are no trace of WMD in Iraq? Appologise and restore him? Plant the evidence?
Saddam Hussein the lesser of two evils?
What are you guys smoking anyway?
He was not our concern before he decided to reattach a province grabbed by medieval princesses and renamed Kuwait. Not particularly evil. Now posessing any notable WMDs. What changed?
miko
-
If Spain invades Portugal today, would the US go in tomorrow to save Portugal? Personally I think the military would be too preoccupied with the Spanish woman but there is a chance they would fulfill there mission. Still the point here is would the US interfere militarily to save poor little Portugal. Whats needed here is the reason why Kuwait seems more important.
:D
-
There are many reasons we would save poor Portugal! Here are just a few:
Portugal is the 16th leading tourist destination worldwide?
According to travel figures released by the World Tourism Organization (WTO), Portugal now ranks 16th worldwide. In the year 2000, arrivals of over 12 million tourists gave Portugal a 1.7% share of the global travel market. Last year, 300,000 Americans visited Portugal.
Portugal is an Atlantic country?
No, Portugal is not a Mediterranean country! Its entire coastline is on the Atlantic, and, like Florida, its southern coast, the Algarve, contains some of Europe's finest beaches and resorts.
Portuguese is one of the worlds' most widely spoken languages?
More than 200 million people speak Portuguese worldwide - only 10 million in Portugal but over 160 million in Brazil and the rest in Angola, Mozambique and other former Portuguese territories in Africa and Asia.
Portugal is a founding member of the European monetary Area?
Europe has a new currency, the Euro, which was adopted on January 1, 1999 by 11 European Union countries, including Portugal.
Portugal's exports go into outer space?
Cork, of which Portugal is the world's premier producer, is used as a sealant on U.S. spacecraft parts.
George Washington drank Port wine?
The nation's first president may well have toasted his inaugural with the very libation that made Portugal famous. We know he often entertained his guests with a glass of Port.
Portugal exports minivans to Germany and Japan?
Yes, Portugal sells cars abroad. Ford and Volkswagen joined forces in Portugal's largest foreign direct investment, AutoEuropa. Established in 1995 and located just south of Lisbon, in Palmela, the plant has been producing and exporting 98% of output to the rest of Europe and Japan.
Portuguese aviators were the first to fly across the South Atlantic?
They were Gago Coutinho and Sacadura Cabral who accomplished their feat in 1922.
Portugal has an Eiffel . . . bridge?
The same architect/engineer of the famous Paris landmark constructed the beautiful, arched D.Luis Bridge over the Douro River in Porto, Portugal's second largest city.
Portugal, like Spain and France, has bullfights?
There is one major difference, however. In Portugal, "toureiros" battle the bull but the animal is not killed at the end of the corrida.
Now there are some really good reasons!!!
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
Please tell me how you convert people against their will to another religion?
the same way Muhamed did it
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Who cares - unless he attacks US, Canada or Mexico or one of NATO countries he can do whatever he wants. He is in Russia's backyard. China is right there, India, Israel. Let them take care of their crap. You can buy a ticket and join Kurdish resistance any day.
[/b]
So what exactly was 9-11 to you? What exactly does terrorism mean to you? Is it an attack? How about this. Al Queida attacked the US on 9-11. Al Queida is funded by (amongst others) Iraq. Does this mean that Iraq shares part of the guilt?
Even if it was any of our concern, it is still better than his neighbours that we protect from him. How about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Much democracy there since we liberated them?
[/b]
Who cares about democracy in these countries? Do you really think that Iraq or Libya are democracies just because they hold "elections"? Look at it this way, what countries have sworn to fight against Israel and the US?
Not as much as Iran and Saudis & Co. And at the time we invaded him in 91 russa was a big terrorism supporter too.
[/b]
Uh, would that matter? Id say Iran and Iraq are funding roughly an equal amount of terrorist organizations, they are just funding different ones. As for the Saudis, name a couple that the Saudi GOVERNMENT is funding will ya.
He is surrounded by medieval religious militant states who all hate him - who said those weapons were against us? I do not see you calling to attack Pakistan or India or Israel for the same reason.
[/b]
Nukes doesnt scare me as much as B&C does. Pakistan and India should be stripped of their nukes though, because they are all insane. Israel has proven that they can handle nukes. Pop quiz, what would happen if you gave one nuke to Saddam?
Everybody named Israel as his main enamy - including Europe and more than half americans. As for US, we invaded them, whad did you expect?
I bet if we appologised and offered restitutions - or even assurance that he can take back Kuwait and Saudi, he would revert to being our best friend.
[/b]
No one in Europe (except arab immigrants) has named Israel their enemy. Wishful thinking perhaps? So anyway...why did the US invade Iraq now again? And the US were far from alone you know...France was there too, so was the UK, Canada, etc etc.
BS. Russians could not do that, germans could not do that. He does not need to do that - plenty of our "friends" are more eager than him.
[/b]
Back in the Soviet Union era, there was a system known as MAD in place. Might have heard about it, "Mutual Assured Destruction" proved to work pretty well. Hint, MAD does not work against Moslem countries. As for Germany, that was long ago, very long ago.
BS. If he uses it against Saudis or Quwait, I do not care. Unless they apply to join NATO we do not have to protect them.
He will not attack Israel first since that would mean complete obliteration of Iraq (among other things). And he is not a religious fanatic willing to die.
[/b]
Wishful thinking. As I said before, he would not be stupid enough to send a scud painted in Iraqi colors. But what happens when the first outbreak of smallpox occurs in Chicago? He is just as guilty as if he had sent it with a scud, but suddenly it gets complicated huh?
I suspect that Saudis will beat him to that.
We cannot stop everyone who wants to blow us up - our security is nonexistant, our borders are open, our society is vulnerable. The safest way for us would be to mind our own business and stop pissing people off. They have anough problem of their own to worry about us.
[/b]
Why would the Saudis want to do that, when the US is pretty much acting like the Saudi defence forces? And you are totally wrong when you say that the safest thing for you to do would be to stop pissing people off. If you cave in to one terrorist organization and their demands, the next one will come along. Back down now, and it will get worse, not better. Too bad you wont realize that. And (for some reason) you wont realize that the US will never abandon Israel either. Your pacifist dream aint gonna happen. Live with it.
Did we defeat Soviet Union? No. And where are they? Right - our friends now.
How about China? Should we knock off their head of state?
How about Duch? Those legalised pot. Should we save them and stop bad influence on US?
[/b]
Uh..Id say the SU was defeated. China is a sick diddlying country with no respect whatsoever for human rights. So yeah, you probably should knock off the commies there. As for the Dutch, well, different story, better leave them alone.
Here is the main and real question:
Tell me, would you be calling for the same invasion if Iraq had never invaded Kuwait? Because I cannot see how his claim to Kuwait is linked to all those bad things.
If he was our friend and client before invasion of Kuwait and if most americans do not give a damn about Kuwait, what did change? Could it be that we declared ourselves his enemy, not the other way around?
If Iraq behaved the same way it is now, you bet. Actually it is very fortunate that they did invade Kuweit. If not, Saddam would have had nukes by now.
-
Sad-um (G. H. W. B pronunciation) will be the former leader of New Texas. :D Baghdad... oopps, I mean East Waco will be home of the reactivated 3d Cavalry Division and Camp Schwarzkopf, the world's largest military base. ;)
-
Saddam is an insane dictator that likes to gas innocent men women and children.
and "what would happen if Saddam was given 1 nuke?" he would probably be so happy he'd piss his pants. And in a very short time , we would have a huge smoking , radioactive hole somewhere in Washington D.C. ...
I agree with Hortland
btw : we would have gotten him if the dam politicians would have let the Armed Forces finish Saddam during Desert Storm.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Smallpox, botulism or anthrax. Try to defend yourself against that. Suppose there is an outbreak of anthrax again, but this time there are 10 000 letters instead of just 3-4. If that happens tomorrow, who do you nuke?
And just how would they get enough anthrax into this country? How would they handle it? Would they be able to cover their tracks? How many agents would be stuffing envelopes? High probability that a few agents self-contaminate themselves. Who would they mail them to? The main suspect seems to be an employee (US citizen, caucasian, non-arab) of a biological facility. If any foreign 'enemy' of the United States was caught in a NBC attack against US citizens, on US soil, you can bet that country would probably be wiped out. All active military personnel have been given the anthrax vacine series, so they'll be unaffected by an anthrax attack.
Look at the 9-11 attacks. We attacked a country (Afghanistan) because it was weak and not our ally. We had to strike at someone. Why not Saudi Arabia? Most of the terrorists were from there. OOPS not them, they're our ally. Egypt? Nope, our ally too. Pakistan? Nope, our ally plus they've got nukes.
How many Afghanistan people were responsible for 9-11?
-
Originally posted by DJ111
Saddam is an insane dictator that likes to gas innocent men women and children.
I take it you're referring to his attacks on the Kurdsh rebels along the border with Turkey. How come we didn't say anything before when Turkey (our ally) was attacking those same Kurdish rebels? How come we didn't say anything when Iraq was our ally? The US has had a hypocritical foreign policy dating back to the turn of the 20th century. We look away when it happens to be an ally but scream bloody murder if it's an enemy.
and "what would happen if Saddam was given 1 nuke?" he would probably be so happy he'd piss his pants. And in a very short time , we would have a huge smoking , radioactive hole somewhere in Washington D.C. ...
Riiiight, and how would he deliver said nuke? How would he cover his tracks? He is more into preserving his life as well as Iraq, over his trying for the destruction over the US. Trust me on this: He or any enemy of the US will be wiped out if caught attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
After studying the releases in the news media I believe the USA is merely trying to inflame his anal leakage condition for the moment.
However, we may witness and example known as "hyperwar" in the immediate future. Should be interesting when and if such happens.
Question: What do you think will be the method and plan of attack?
Disclaimer: This is not to say we should attack Iraq or promote agression, but merely my comments on the current situation. The intent is not to start that debate with this thread.
Rogue out
Sorry about my previous posts on your thread rogwar. To answer your question, The US will attack only if the political domestic mess gets worse (If Bush is shown to be tied into that mess further than he is). We'll start with a smear campaign (the CIA's good at that) against Sadaam and probably invent a few things to inflame the American public. After the polls show that most Americans favor a military action, we'll work behind the scenes to keep most of the Arab world from intervening on behalf of Iraq. We'll start with tomahawks. Then we'll start the night bombings of tactical targets. Only after the Iraqi military is demolished will we then send in troops to capture Sadaam for trial (might just assasinate him). We'll install our favorite Iraqi dictator who'll do our bidding behind the scenes. There still won't be a democracy in Iraq but we won't care because he is our 'friend.'
For some good reads:
In Search Of Enemies by John Stockwell
Inside The Company - CIA Diary by Philip Agee
By Way Of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky/Claire Hoy
-
Nah, we would never sell arms to arabs...
As far as I know Arabs are not part of the ruling class in Iraq...
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
And just how would they get enough anthrax into this country? How would they handle it? Would they be able to cover their tracks? How many agents would be stuffing envelopes? High probability that a few agents self-contaminate themselves. Who would they mail them to? The main suspect seems to be an employee (US citizen, caucasian, non-arab) of a biological facility. If any foreign 'enemy' of the United States was caught in a NBC attack against US citizens, on US soil, you can bet that country would probably be wiped out. All active military personnel have been given the anthrax vacine series, so they'll be unaffected by an anthrax attack.
Look at the 9-11 attacks. We attacked a country (Afghanistan) because it was weak and not our ally. We had to strike at someone. Why not Saudi Arabia? Most of the terrorists were from there. OOPS not them, they're our ally. Egypt? Nope, our ally too. Pakistan? Nope, our ally plus they've got nukes.
How many Afghanistan people were responsible for 9-11?
I think you are approaching the problem from the wrong end.
First you need to acknowledge the fact that there is a clear and present threat aimed at the US. If you feel a need to argue over various methods of terrorist attacks we can do that to, but that is generally very futile and pointless, since the terrorists have proven to be pretty imaginative.
But ok, how would Saddam get enough anthrax into the US, how would he deploy it, and would it be possible to cover his tracks afterwards (I hope you are aware of the fact that there are literary thousands of ways to perform such an attack). How's this then.
D-70
An Iraqi agent buys 10 000 envelopes in various stores in a couple of different cities in the US. These envelopes are then sent to Italy, from there they are sent to Beirut, from Beirut to Damascus, from Damascus to Iraq.
D-50
The letters arrive to Iraq where they are taken to Bio-lab #4. At Bio-lab #4 each envelope is filled with weapons grade anthrax, and sealed. Each letter is put in a plastic bag, all these plastic bags with letters are put in empty Siemens marked cardboard boxes, these are put in a container and put on a truck.
D-45
The truck arrives in Beirut after having driven through Syria. The container is loaded on a Portuguese freighter.
D-30
The Portuguese freighter arrives in Amsterdam. The container is moved to another ship, this time it is a Canadian freighter. The container is painted in the standard P&O colors, documentation is manufactured that shows that the container is filled with computer equipment from Siemens in Germany, and that it is on its way to Chicago. The Canadian ship leaves port and sets course for Boston.
D-7
The freighter arrives in Boston. The container is moved from the ship to a truck.
Al Queida sleeper cell #14 is activated in Kutztown, NY.
D-6
The truck arrives in Kutztown, NY where sleeper cell #14 takes care of the cargo. The driver of the truck continues towards Chicago.
D-5
The truck driver arranges a spectacular car crash, driving his truck off a bridge. Sleeper cell #14 is busy writing addresses on 10 000 envelopes. They are wearing bio-suits while doing this.
D-2
Sleeper cell #14 has finished writing addresses. The envelopes are put in plastic bags and loaded into 4 cars. The 4 members of sleeper cell #14 gets in 4 different cars, and heads off in different directions. They leave a incendiary bomb behind in the old wooden house they have been renting the last 7 year.
D-1
The incendiary device goes off, causing the house to go up in a blaze, removing all anthrax remains from the building.
D
Sleeper #1 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes as he is driving from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Sleeper #2 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from New York to Boston.
Sleeper #3 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from Miami to Orlando.
Sleeper #4 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from Dallas to Austin.
After they have finished, they are all contaminated, so each one straps on an explosive belt, walks into the nearest gas station and blows himself up together with some unfortunate customers.
All the letters are addressed to the homes of normal people all across the US.
No, a couple of questions.
When the first anthrax cases are discovered a couple of days later...who do you nuke and why? Where is the paper trail leading back to Iraq? If you did an analysis of the anthrax, it would show that it was manufactured in Chernoblinsk Bio weapons facility in the Soviet Union in 1954.
What would the consequences be if the Iraqis used smallpox instead of anthrax?
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
Riiiight, and how would he deliver said nuke? How would he cover his tracks? He is more into preserving his life as well as Iraq, over his trying for the destruction over the US. Trust me on this: He or any enemy of the US will be wiped out if caught attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction.
Uh, a nuke pretty much covers its own tracks. You can get it into the US using the same method I described in the anthrax scenario above. Just make sure the nuke is travelling inside a lead safe. Sleeper #1 loads the nuke into a truck and drives into whatever city is to be targeted.
Examinations of the residue afterwards would probably show that the nuke was manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1972 or something like that. Soviet Records will show that all nukes in that batch were used in SS-18 rockets. These rockets were disbanded in the 90s, and all those nuclear warheads were destroyed. The person responsible for the destruction of the nukes went missing in 95 and no one knows where he is (he is dead in the Syrain desert).
Nuke who and why?
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
The US will attack only if the political domestic mess gets worse (If Bush is shown to be tied into that mess further than he is).
No, there is a new president in the White House now, a good one, you are thinking of Clinton and the battle of the blue dress...that ended with war against Sudan, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
As far as I know Arabs are not part of the ruling class in Iraq...
who cares?
-
who cares?
Aaah, a verbose response from the almighty Steve Hortlund (for it is he).
Erm... I believe you were the one making the point that you would not sell arms to Arabs. I was merely pointing out your ignorance in the matter. Selling arms to Iraq would not involve involving yourself with any Arabs whatsoever; in fact, the weapons would probably be used against the Marsh Arabs in the south of the country. Fancy that!
Carry on.
-
Bah
Anyone who is living in the sand, wearing rags and praying on a mat = arab regardless of what they might choose to call themselves. (nope, no predjudices here :D)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I think you are approaching the problem from the wrong end.
First you need to acknowledge the fact that there is a clear and present threat aimed at the US. If you feel a need to argue over various methods of terrorist attacks we can do that to, but that is generally very futile and pointless, since the terrorists have proven to be pretty imaginative.
But ok, how would Saddam get enough anthrax into the US, how would he deploy it, and would it be possible to cover his tracks afterwards (I hope you are aware of the fact that there are literary thousands of ways to perform such an attack). How's this then.
D-70
An Iraqi agent buys 10 000 envelopes in various stores in a couple of different cities in the US. These envelopes are then sent to Italy, from there they are sent to Beirut, from Beirut to Damascus, from Damascus to Iraq.
D-50
The letters arrive to Iraq where they are taken to Bio-lab #4. At Bio-lab #4 each envelope is filled with weapons grade anthrax, and sealed. Each letter is put in a plastic bag, all these plastic bags with letters are put in empty Siemens marked cardboard boxes, these are put in a container and put on a truck.
D-45
The truck arrives in Beirut after having driven through Syria. The container is loaded on a Portuguese freighter.
D-30
The Portuguese freighter arrives in Amsterdam. The container is moved to another ship, this time it is a Canadian freighter. The container is painted in the standard P&O colors, documentation is manufactured that shows that the container is filled with computer equipment from Siemens in Germany, and that it is on its way to Chicago. The Canadian ship leaves port and sets course for Boston.
D-7
The freighter arrives in Boston. The container is moved from the ship to a truck.
Al Queida sleeper cell #14 is activated in Kutztown, NY.
D-6
The truck arrives in Kutztown, NY where sleeper cell #14 takes care of the cargo. The driver of the truck continues towards Chicago.
D-5
The truck driver arranges a spectacular car crash, driving his truck off a bridge. Sleeper cell #14 is busy writing addresses on 10 000 envelopes. They are wearing bio-suits while doing this.
D-2
Sleeper cell #14 has finished writing addresses. The envelopes are put in plastic bags and loaded into 4 cars. The 4 members of sleeper cell #14 gets in 4 different cars, and heads off in different directions. They leave a incendiary bomb behind in the old wooden house they have been renting the last 7 year.
D-1
The incendiary device goes off, causing the house to go up in a blaze, removing all anthrax remains from the building.
D
Sleeper #1 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes as he is driving from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Sleeper #2 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from New York to Boston.
Sleeper #3 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from Miami to Orlando.
Sleeper #4 mails 2500 envelopes in batches of 5 in 500 post boxes from Dallas to Austin.
After they have finished, they are all contaminated, so each one straps on an explosive belt, walks into the nearest gas station and blows himself up together with some unfortunate customers.
All the letters are addressed to the homes of normal people all across the US.
No, a couple of questions.
When the first anthrax cases are discovered a couple of days later...who do you nuke and why? Where is the paper trail leading back to Iraq? If you did an analysis of the anthrax, it would show that it was manufactured in Chernoblinsk Bio weapons facility in the Soviet Union in 1954.
What would the consequences be if the Iraqis used smallpox instead of anthrax?
Wow great imagination. Would make a good Hollywood movie :)
Now, just who would they mail those envelopes to and what addresses would they use? What about postage?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Bah
Anyone who is living in the sand, wearing rags and praying on a mat = arab regardless of what they might choose to call themselves. (nope, no predjudices here :D)
Um ok, whatever you say. I do see ignorance.
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
Wow great imagination. Would make a good Hollywood movie :)
Now, just who would they mail those envelopes to and what addresses would they use? What about postage?
Dont they have phonebooks in the US? If yes, then all you have to do is grab 10 000 names from those phonebooks. And I think they would be smart enough to put stamps on all envelopes too.
But you didnt answer my questions.
-
Hortlund those were some very well constructed scenarios.
I believe Sadam would like to have a nuke brought into the USA and cook it off in a major city, while maintaining plausable deniability. I'd rather that not happen.
wsnpr a basic mailing machine can be purchased in advance along with an included postage meter that is prepaid. You buy postage electronically from the postal service. We have one sufficient enough to do the job in our mailroom where I work and it's a basic model. They get a lot more sophisticated.
-
Dont they have phonebooks in the US? If yes, then all you have to do is grab 10 000 names from those phonebooks. And I think they would be smart enough to put stamps on all envelopes too.
It would be just a coincidence all the addresses were for Democratic voters
Hortland, your insane...
The only bio attack suspect we’ve had is from some right wing wacko working at Fort Derrick.
It doesn’t matter that this would be a Japanese style sneak attack on a country that hasn't even threatened us.
It doesn‘t matter that we don‘t even try to get a UN Security council resolution to make this attack legal. This would be in direct violation of international law. The Rule of Law is the pillars of a civilized world. Without it you have anarchy. It makes it easier for any country to go to war for any reason. Is that really what you want? You know by blowing off international law, you are really flipping off the entire world.
It doesn’t matter if America can’t get funding from allies for part of the cost, American tax payers will carry the burden, understandably , president Cheney will loot Iraq as much as possible that of course is his real goal.
It doesn’t matter that specially build C130s can only carry one M1A1 at a time.. that it would take months to build up the forces needed for inter-city fighting.. Inter city fighting?... You can bet a dollar Iraqis learned a thing or two from Desert Storm fighting on the open desert. Mogadishu with a bullet.
It doesn’t matter that most of the Generals at the Pentagon (who have experience fighting real wars) are against this wild eyed nonsense.
It doesn’t matter that the U.S. would be stirring up a billion Muslims all over the world who would be coming to the aid of Iraq. You can kiss goodbye any hope of peace settlements anywhere in that part of the world.
Nope, the only thing that matters to Dick Cheney is to get that oil. And to get those stories off the wire about him as CEO of Halliburton DIRECTED his company to use the new fancy accounting method. Other corporations saw that and said well hell, if he can do it so can we.
The only hope I see is if all the Demos and quite a few moderate Republicans hold their nose and vote for Democrats this November. They could cancel funding for this madness.
As for you Hortland, besides putting you in a straightjacket, is if we attack Sweden kill all their leaders and convert all their women to Wicken.
-
Can the US afford to have a war against Iraq, right now?
Didn't the other middle eastern countries say they would help defend Iraq, a little while ago?
Can the US afford to fight them as well?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hortland, your insane...
Well, gee thanks...
-
"U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says a war with Iraq is likely...
*
"I hope that the president and I hope the leadership of Congress will, before the end of this year, schedule a debate in which we will grant President Bush authority to take action to remove Saddam Hussein," Lieberman said.....
*
On Sunday, Lieberman urged quick action.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States of America," he said. "
Senators urge Bush to make case for Iraq war (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/us.iraq/index.html)
Yeah.. those dang saber rattling Republicans! :D
-
Lawmakers back proposal to oust Hussein (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/iraq.congress/index.html)
"Sen. Evan Bayh, D.-Indiana, a member of the Senate Select Intelligence committee along with Shelby, said he would endorse whatever action Bush takes against Hussein "wholeheartedly," but added that the United States would need "to develop as much diplomatic support as we can."....
.."I think there is broad support for a regime change in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota,....
....Gephardt said he didn't see any conflict between sending U.S. Special Forces to capture and, if necessary, kill Hussein, and a U.S. policy against assassinating heads of state...."
ooooooooooooooooooooo! Those Dang REPUBLICANS! They should just leave Saddam alone!
:D
-
Fellers I believe our intelligence services have information supporting that this would be a really good idea to topple Sadam and Iraq. Noteworthy facts have likely been presented to the executive and legislative branches of government.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is however worth it. Saddam will sooner or later attack the US with weapons of mass destruction. He must be removed. If the region destabilizes for a couple of years, it is not too bad. Might lead to war in the region, but I doubt it. More likely there will be increased pressure on Israel, so the US would have to put in extra support there.
I rather doubt it. Attacking the U.S. directly would be incredibly foolish. Hussein is smart enough to have remained in power this long and he's smart enough to know that. As long as he plays the "victim" card, he'll have support from other Arab nations and Europe.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
Fellers I believe our intelligence services have information supporting that this would be a really good idea to topple Sadam and Iraq. Noteworthy facts have likely been presented to the executive and legislative branches of government.
Fellers I do not believe your intelligence services have information supporting that this would be a really good idea to topple Sadam and Iraq. It is unlikely that noteworthy facts have been presented to the executive and legislative branches of government.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I rather doubt it. Attacking the U.S. directly would be incredibly foolish. Hussein is smart enough to have remained in power this long and he's smart enough to know that. As long as he plays the "victim" card, he'll have support from other Arab nations and Europe.
Well, as I have been trying to point out in the last 10 posts or so, the attack would not be connected to Iraq. You wont see an Iraqi embassy truck driving around in NYC spraying anthrax in the air. Neither will you see an Iraqi Mig-29 try to penetrate the US air defences and drop a nuke on Washington DC.
What you will see is more terrorist attacks. Terrorists that are armed and funded by Iraq, but not in the Taliban way. Take a look at my two examples I posted earlier in this thread. Where is the trail leading back to iraq in those two scenarios?
You can doubt it, but you better not stick your head in the sand like so many others.
-
wsnpr : what Hortland said.
its easier than you think...
-
I doubt Iraq will have a role in it. Hussein knows to what extent we're willing to go against Iraq. All we need is one excuse and Hussein will be no more. He won't risk it. I doubt he was behind the 9-11 attacks (financially). The US will choose it's enemy and make sure some 'evidence' from supposedly 'reliable' sources turns up. Careful of what you read and believe.
In that 'easier' scenario given previously, where are they getting the addresses from the phone book? Incomplete at best. No zip codes which means personal handeling by post office employees. What would be the return addresses? Most junk mail gets tossed in the garbage by most people that I know of. LOL, quit being so paranoid. It won't be by Iraq, and it won't be by that method.
I fear fellow US citizens of my safety (drunk drivers, random insane people carrying firearms, etc) over any foreign 'enemy' of the US.
Regards,
wSNPR (the one who starts vacation from work today- WoooHooo!)
-
No crime of that magnitude would be untracable.
1. 10,000+ people contract some form of anthrax in widespread locations across the country. Obvious attack.
2. Must be a well funded operation with the ability to create a great deal of weapons grade anthrax.
3. Must be a nation-state. Who else would have the ability?
4. Process of elimination leaves Iraq, maybe N. Korea, Libya?, ...who else?
5. 10,000 envelopes without leaving one trace clue... I doubt it.
6. Iraq is turned into a glass landing strip.
-
7. As a result of No. 6, the U.S. coastline grows a bit.
Don't EVER think for a minute that it is IMPOSSIBLE. He is just like Hitler, stupid and in power.
Masher
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No crime of that magnitude would be untracable.
1. 10,000+ people contract some form of anthrax in widespread locations across the country. Obvious attack.
2. Must be a well funded operation with the ability to create a great deal of weapons grade anthrax.
3. Must be a nation-state. Who else would have the ability?
4. Process of elimination leaves Iraq, maybe N. Korea, Libya?, ...who else?
5. 10,000 envelopes without leaving one trace clue... I doubt it.
6. Iraq is turned into a glass landing strip.
2. Not neccesarily. Alternative would be "with the ability to aquire (steal or buy) less than one kilo of weapons grade anthrax"
3. Al Queida?
4. Russia (Chechens, radical nationalists), US lunatics (Michigan Militia, or that black million men march guy whatever his name is), someone with an agenda (Serbs wanting revenge, Palestinians wanting to take the fight to the US, you name it.
5. Well, where would the trace come from? The anthrax was put inside the envelopes in a weapons lab in Iraq, that wont give any trace or clue. The envelopes were shipped inside plastic bags...no trace there. The sleeper cell wrote the adresses, but the bio suits are gone in that fire together with the pens, the plastic bags etc etc. Then the sleeper cell blew themselves up. Even if you could get a positive ID, what would turn up? A couple of guys from saudi and one from egypt...where do you get the leads?
6. Why Iraq?
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
I doubt Iraq will have a role in it. Hussein knows to what extent we're willing to go against Iraq. All we need is one excuse and Hussein will be no more. He won't risk it. I doubt he was behind the 9-11 attacks (financially). The US will choose it's enemy and make sure some 'evidence' from supposedly 'reliable' sources turns up. Careful of what you read and believe.
In that 'easier' scenario given previously, where are they getting the addresses from the phone book? Incomplete at best. No zip codes which means personal handeling by post office employees. What would be the return addresses? Most junk mail gets tossed in the garbage by most people that I know of. LOL, quit being so paranoid. It won't be by Iraq, and it won't be by that method.
I fear fellow US citizens of my safety (drunk drivers, random insane people carrying firearms, etc) over any foreign 'enemy' of the US.
Regards,
wSNPR (the one who starts vacation from work today- WoooHooo!)
This is rich. Now suddenly we are assuming that people competent enough to hijack 4 airliners roughly at the same time, pilot these airlines, and crash them into assigned targets, an operation that took years to plan and execute are incapable of obtaining zip codes to adresses found in a phone book, or they are incapable of writing return adresses?
Stop underestimating the enemy.
The only reason Al Queida was able to pull 9-11 off was because no one expected that a terrorist organization would be able to do an attack like that = underestimation.
There will never be another 9-11 simply because no one in a hijacked airplane will just sit down and wait to be released. From that day, every airplane passenger knows that if the plane is hijacked, there is a risk that the hijackers might want to crash the plane into some target = people are not underestimating the enemy.
What you are doing is dangerous. Sticking your head in the sand like that makes you part of the problem.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
This is rich. Now suddenly we are assuming that people competent enough to hijack 4 airliners roughly at the same time, pilot these airlines, and crash them into assigned targets, an operation that took years to plan and execute are incapable of obtaining zip codes to adresses found in a phone book, or they are incapable of writing return adresses?
Stop underestimating the enemy.
The only reason Al Queida was able to pull 9-11 off was because no one expected that a terrorist organization would be able to do an attack like that = underestimation.
There will never be another 9-11 simply because no one in a hijacked airplane will just sit down and wait to be released. From that day, every airplane passenger knows that if the plane is hijacked, there is a risk that the hijackers might want to crash the plane into some target = people are not underestimating the enemy.
What you are doing is dangerous. Sticking your head in the sand like that makes you part of the problem.
LOL, you really are a comedian. Stop making me laugh. Are you really this paranoid? The post office and our intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) are well aware of the problem of anthrax being delivered via the mail. They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax.
The danger is people like you that fall hook, line, and sinker for the latest 'terrorist' state spoon fed via the media. Iraq is not high on my worry' list. It is you that is sticking your head in the sand of fear. Quit creating enemies. That's the dangerous part.
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
LOL, you really are a comedian. Stop making me laugh. Are you really this paranoid? The post office and our intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) are well aware of the problem of anthrax being delivered via the mail. They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax.
The danger is people like you that fall hook, line, and sinker for the latest 'terrorist' state spoon fed via the media. Iraq is not high on my worry' list. It is you that is sticking your head in the sand of fear. Quit creating enemies. That's the dangerous part.
You find this funny? First you ask me how Iraq could possibly get enough anthrax into the US and spread it. When I tell you one possible scenario, Im paranoid? Exactly what kind of answer were you looking for? "They would send large packages of anthrax mailed from Baghdad with the words "DIE Americans" scribbled all over them"?
They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax? Is that what you are telling yourself every morning when you open your mail? Do you have any idea how much those machines cost? Or how long it takes to make a test? (4 hours) Do you have any idea how many such machines there are in operation right now? ZERO . As of right now, the US post office radiates all mail going to Congress and White House..something that has caused serious health issues for the mailmen. see link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/conditions/07/02/irradiated.mail/index.html)
Can those machines detect smallpox? Nope. Have you any idea exactly how dangerous smallpox is? Or botulism?
And you need to learn who does what and where in the US intelligence community.
-
We'll put Columbo on the case.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We'll put Columbo on the case.
Maybe we can send Jim Rockford with him. Those two would look pretty fly in the Trans-Am
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Fellers I do not believe your intelligence services have information supporting that this would be a really good idea to topple Sadam and Iraq. It is unlikely that noteworthy facts have been presented to the executive and legislative branches of government.
Plus, I forgot to mention it would be really cool to watch on TV again. This Taliban/Al Queda thing is pretty much a mop up operation now, hunting down the rogues that still exist. Most Americans would like to see some real action again, because there was not enough satisfaction garnered from bombing goat herders in Afghanistan.
In Iraq there are a lot more juicy targets. We might also be able to directly gain control of some of the world's oil supply. Let's go!
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax.
Really? That is an interesting development in science. Do you have anything on this device?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I rather doubt it. Attacking the U.S. directly would be incredibly foolish. Hussein is smart enough to have remained in power this long and he's smart enough to know that. As long as he plays the "victim" card, he'll have support from other Arab nations and Europe.
That's a very clear and concise anaysis my friend and fellow flying zoo member.
Oh, I saw this picture and thought of some people. Here it is for you ;)
-
Well the best argument that anyone can seem to come up with is that Iraq has ABC (atmomic, biological, chemical) weapons, well do you know who else has ABC weapons? Isreal and South Africa both do, they had a join test of a VERY small device that they launched into space. It was detected by an aging cold war era satillite system that was put in place after the treaty banning testing of nukes in space.
South Africa claims to have destoryed there entire nuclear stockpile, Isreal still has theirs, though they havent declared it they have several undergroud factories and refineries. An isreali scientist was arrested by an isreali secret agent in Italy, the scientist fled after he found out what he was working on.
So really, the "We cant let stupid pople have nukes" argument it pretty much invalid. The current leader of isreal isnt much more stable that Saddam. And yet, they are our closest allies in the Mid-East.
Oh and guess why Iraq may have "The Bomb" France and the US BOTH sold "Fast-Breeder" reactors to Itaq in the 80's. These are the reactors used to make plutonium :rolleyes:
Talk abotu lack of foresight....
-
Originally posted by plumbob
Oh and guess why Iraq may have "The Bomb" France and the US BOTH sold "Fast-Breeder" reactors to Itaq in the 80's. These are the reactors used to make plutonium :rolleyes:
Talk abotu lack of foresight....
Canada has not helped either with their CANDU reactor technology.
-
:D
-
Originally posted by plumbob
Well the best argument that anyone can seem to come up with is that Iraq has ABC (atmomic, biological, chemical) weapons, well do you know who else has ABC weapons? Isreal and South Africa both do, they had a join test of a VERY small device that they launched into space. It was detected by an aging cold war era satillite system that was put in place after the treaty banning testing of nukes in space.
South Africa claims to have destoryed there entire nuclear stockpile, Isreal still has theirs, though they havent declared it they have several undergroud factories and refineries. An isreali scientist was arrested by an isreali secret agent in Italy, the scientist fled after he found out what he was working on.
So really, the "We cant let stupid pople have nukes" argument it pretty much invalid. The current leader of isreal isnt much more stable that Saddam. And yet, they are our closest allies in the Mid-East.
Oh and guess why Iraq may have "The Bomb" France and the US BOTH sold "Fast-Breeder" reactors to Itaq in the 80's. These are the reactors used to make plutonium :rolleyes:
Talk abotu lack of foresight....
Have you actually read what the rest of us have posted in this thread? Or do you just look at the headline and make stuff up as you go?
The problem with Iraq is not only that they have B&C weapons, and they are actively trying to aquire nuclear capability. It is also that they are one of the largest terrorist supporters in the world. It is also the fact that their dictator, Saddam Hussein is a raving lunatic who has no hesitations whatsoever to use chemical or bioligical weapons on his enemies.
Now the combination of
insane dictator,
who is funding, organizing and supporting of some of the worlds worst terrorist organizations,
who is stockpiling biological and chemical weapons, and trying to aquire nukes,
who has no scruples against using any weapon against his enemies,
who has no second thoughts against attacking women and children using whatever weapons he has in his inventory,
who tortures, imprisons and enslaves his own people,
who is the self declared enemy of the western civilization in general, and USA and Israel in particular
who is actively working to achieve his goal of the complete annihilation of Israel and any supporters they have
can only be found in Iraq.
And there it must be destroyed, else it will (try to) destroy us.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
He (Cheney) is the most untrustworthy politician I've seen in a long while. And we have plenty to choose from over here.
BS.
Trustworthyness seems to be secondary.... you see there once was this man from Arkansas who ran for president...
Back to Saddam. It doesn't matter whether he was involved with WTC/Pentagon plots or not, he broke the terms of the Gulf war armistice with the coalition / UN, and the sanctions are only hurting Iraqi masses, not causing his capitulation.
If we want to hold him to the agreements he made at the end of the war, then round two seems to unfortunately be required.
-
Relax, Hortlund.
You don't need to convince these guys. They have nothing to do with it.
I'm near certain the decision has already been made to "remove" Saddam. I think it has enough support in both parties.
It'll get done. And when it is done anyone with any common sense will know it's better done than undone.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And there it must be destroyed, else it will (try to) destroy us.
That's all part of the plan. Knock over the U.S. and then go after Sweden. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Toad
It'll get done. And when it is done anyone with any common sense will know it's better done than undone.
It just might, but Dubya is going to have to gain support from a lot more countries. Otherwise, it'll just end up hurting the U.S.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Back to Saddam. It doesn't matter whether he was involved with WTC/Pentagon plots or not, he broke the terms of the Gulf war armistice with the coalition / UN, and the sanctions are only hurting Iraqi masses, not causing his capitulation.
Why is it that the U.S. has a major hard on over this issue, but the U.N. does not?
-
Well, suppose Saddam hits the US with a bio attack using smallpox. Do you think that might spread outside the US borders or not?
Man exactly how naive are you?
-
Probably as naive as you are paranoid.
-
Well, I'll tell ya Sandman.......
I'm one of the ones that thinks this thing is better done than undone.
I do think Saddam needs to go. Just like I think it would have been wonderful if someone had X'ed out Adolph Hitler long before the invasion of Poland. Saddam with N/B/C weaponry is a pretty disquieting thought, for me anyway.
OTOH
I also think that it's going to be pretty hard to fulfill the requirements of "Just War" in this case without a whole lot more evidence and/or provocation than we presently have. That bothers me more than just a little.
So, while I think it's better done than undone...... wholeheartedly...... I also think the US doesn't have causus belli.
How about an old fashioned assassination instead? ;) j/k
The whole situation sux. Can't kill him 'cause there's no causus belli. Sure as hell don't want him with N/B/C weaponry at his disposal.
Probably should wait until the US population takes another one on the chin that can be traced directly to Iraq. Could be a long time, several incidents; a lot of US citizenry would have to pay the price for that patience.
While I don't like Saddam, I've never thought he was stupid in the sense that he doesn't know how to play the International Terrorism board game.
-
Can you imagine the conspiracy nutballs that would come out of the closet if we were to take one on the chin from Saddam?
Look at all this "evidence" that we had before the new incident. OK well not much real evidence, but enough to make us concerned. Then we can all get on GWB's case for "not doing anything" just like BillC "didnt do anything" when we had so much on Bin Laden.
I sense a parallel here somewhere.
-
Well... if GWB had as much evidence as BC did, we would already be in Iraq.
-
Well MT, do you feel there's enough evidence to justify war under the "Just War" requirements?
Just War Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2)
I don't really think there is and the problem is mainly in the nature of the enemy. Terrorism by shadow groups makes it pretty hard to fulfill the requirements under the theory in order to "legitimately" attack a Nation State that has gone to great pains to hide its links to the terrorists.
So, do we act with plenty of suspicion and fear for the future but without "just cause"?
Or do we wait and get hit over and over again by a shadow enemy until we finally find a "provable link" to Saddam and thus have "just cause"? (If there ever is one.)
***
Sandman, clarify what you just said there. You think we now have sufficient evidence or that BC did and didn't act on it? Or what.. ya got me :confused: here.
-
I believe that BC had sufficient evidence to warrant an attack against the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Specifically... the attack of the U.S.S. Cole.
Guess I should have been more clear... If GWB had as much evidence of Iraqi terrorist involvement as BC had of Al-Qaeda terrorist involvement, we would already be in Iraq.
-
Ah, ok.
Yep, I agree. IMO, he should've acted, the "Gore campaign" smokescreen is just that. Probably would've helped Gore more than hurt him, but again, that's my opinon only.
-
Guys..."casus belli" is a concept that was abandoned like 100 years ago.
The only thing you have now is the right to self defence. In some cases this right to self defence means that you have the right to a preemptive attack. One example of that is Israels attack on Egypt and Jordan 1967.
And besides, what should Iraq do? Sue the US? Any response against an "illegal" US invasion of Iraq would have to be authorized by the UN security counsel...
...so what country is a permanent member of the security counsel with veto right?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The only thing you have now is the right to self defence. In some cases this right to self defence means that you have the right to a preemptive attack. One example of that is Israels attack on Egypt and Jordan 1967.
IMO, "Causus Belli" is worth considering when you're the most powerful country in the history of the planet.
-
Hort (if I may be so familiar ;) ) it's isn't "causus belli" so much as Just War Theory.
There has to be a reason that the US can present to the UN.. .otherwise we're no different than those we oppose.
"Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war."
It's not out of date; it's more important now than ever, especially given the status of the US on the world stage.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You find this funny? First you ask me how Iraq could possibly get enough anthrax into the US and spread it. When I tell you one possible scenario, Im paranoid? Exactly what kind of answer were you looking for? "They would send large packages of anthrax mailed from Baghdad with the words "DIE Americans" scribbled all over them"?
They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax? Is that what you are telling yourself every morning when you open your mail? Do you have any idea how much those machines cost? Or how long it takes to make a test? (4 hours) Do you have any idea how many such machines there are in operation right now? ZERO . As of right now, the US post office radiates all mail going to Congress and White House..something that has caused serious health issues for the mailmen. see link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/conditions/07/02/irradiated.mail/index.html)
Can those machines detect smallpox? Nope. Have you any idea exactly how dangerous smallpox is? Or botulism?
And you need to learn who does what and where in the US intelligence community.
Hortland and rogwar,
My stating of a 'sniffing' device being in place was a mistake on my part. My apologies for stating something that wasn't actually true. (that post was in haste as I was in a rush to start my vacation and pulling 'facts' from my memory in haste.)
Hortland,
What I find funny is your paranoia. Why hasn't the US suffered an attack from anyone of your scenario in the past? Why is Iraq more of a threat to the US now than anyone else previous? (USSR-cold war; Germany, Japan, Italy-WWII; ______ -fill in the blank of any perceived enemy of the US now or in the past)
Iraq is very low on my 'worry' list. So is North Korea, So is Iran.
The only anthrax attack via mail appears to be from a US citizen (non-arab, non-muslim my guess).
The Tylenol tainting case was again done by a US citizen (non-arab, non-muslim).
The many shooting cases (101 california st.; San Ysidro; Dallas cafe; Postal shooting cases; etc, etc, etc) have been commited by US citizens (again non-muslim, non-arab)
Despite these many attacks, I will not live in fear. Life is a death sentence (we all will die someday). I choose to live life to the fullest and will continue to do so. The chances of my getting an anthrax, smallpox, botulism, etc attack on me that will originate (planned) from Iraq is nil. Hussein has way too much to worry about than to carry out an attack as I possibly see it. LOL, he cares more about his survival than to attack the US. Think about it. The attack, if it were to happen, as you envision will not destroy the US. (won't happen anyway). The chances of my dying by a fellow American is much higher than from a terrorist from a foreign nation.
Quit being so paranoid, step back from your computer and go LIVE life. Go have some fun and quit worrying about us 'naive' Americans.