War On The Axis Of Evil

[AlanRJ]

After the events of September 11th, President Bush declared war on terrorism. He first went after Afghanistan and the Al-Quaida network. Next came Iraq and the dictator Saddam Hussein. Once Iraq has been conquered and the coalition force is in the heart of the Axis of Evil territory, will Bush/Blair be satisfied to leave it at that or shall they start attacking other Axis of Evil countries from Iraq?

I know that Bush made an announcement stating that he wouldn't use Iraq to launch attacks elsewhere, but will he be able to resist the temptation to carry the war from the heart of all evil?

Let me know your thoughts and comments.

My own personal thought is that once Iraq has been defeated and Hussein captured or killed then the coalition force will support and help the Iraqi people back on their feet and help out their government and aid, etc. Once that has been done then I think the temptation to strike out at other terrorist countries will be too much and they will continue the fight from Iraq.

[kopernikuz]

I think once Iraq is free and democratic, everyone will wait and see what happens. The reason so many of those countries spawn terrorism is a lack of freedom. Like street gangs in America, people join to feel as though they belong to something, as though they have worth. They have nowhere to go. When Iraq is free, you will find many people fleeing there to taste that freedom rather than be chained to violence. I'm not saying it will be that simple, terrorism will end because everyone wants to be free... I am simply saying that you will begin to see a worldview change begin to occur. It is possible that other countries will follow suit when they see Iraq prospering from freedom.

I don't think it will immediately spawn more war...

[Brian]

AlanRJ...Just letting you know, if this turns into another war bashing thread, it will be deleted, not closed, immediately, without warning. This thread isn't bad, but if it turns that way...

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by AlanRJ@Mar 24 2003, 05:57 AM
I know that Bush made an announcement stating that he wouldn't use Iraq to launch attacks elsewhere, but will he be able to resist the temptation to carry the war from the heart of all evil?


Well we aren't going to try attacking Korea, that's for sure. All that is in the current plan is the war with Iraq, and the ongoing war against terrorism.

And Bush can't just declare war, congress has to come to a vote on it.

[Darth Fabulous]

After Iraq I think the focus will be shifted back to rounding up the rest of Al Qaeda and dealing with North Korea diplomatically. We won't use Iraq to launch an attack against other nations in the region, at least not immediately. If some time in the future we need a base of operations in the middle east for a similar military action, I imagine the new Iraqi government would be willing to allow the US to use their land as a staging area. If not, that's their choice, and I don't see us forcing them to.

[conron_montyn23]

I think this will be the ending for a while, we may invade some future regime, or terrorist harbouring country in the future.

North Korea? ehh... maybehhh....

[Justin]

Conron, please clear your PM box.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Darth Fabulous@Mar 24 2003, 05:32 PM
After Iraq I think the focus will be shifted back to rounding up the rest of Al Qaeda and dealing with North Korea diplomatically. We won't use Iraq to launch an attack against other nations in the region, at least not immediately. If some time in the future we need a base of operations in the middle east for a similar military action, I imagine the new Iraqi government would be willing to allow the US to use their land as a staging area. If not, that's their choice, and I don't see us forcing them to.
I see U.S. remaining in that area for some time to come. Maybe the next 10 years. Terrorists will focus their attacks on the Iraqi people, as a means of harrying the new democracy. This is good news, since it will mean Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have to contend with the new democracy in their midst. In addition, a new democratic Iraq will alloq the U.S. to recruit CIA operatives that could penetrate the ranks of the terrorist cells.

I foresee an occupation of Iraq that would be similar to how we handled Japan after World War II. We'll act as their military, and give them a chance to grow in the infertile soil of the Middle East. In this way, if Syria, Iran, Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia decide to become more openly aggressive, they'll have to know that a U.S.-backed Iraq is ready to oppose them. Also, the people in this region will get a chance to really know who we are as a nation - not just what Hussein and other fascists have told them.

Naturally, the rest of the world will howl in protest as we maintain a military force in the region.
Too goddamned bad. The Iraqi people will be encouraged to make economic agreements with American companies, and other nations that were part of the Coalition. France, Russia, Germany and China should be shut out in the cold. Germany opposed American intervention for demagogic reasons. France did it for economic reasons, and Russia did it because they wanted to see Iraqi oil tamped shut, since they are oil suppliers themselves.

Bush will have to be especially strong after the war is concluded.
The people and nations who opposed the war will want to prevent any diplomatic and/or political gain from the action next. This fight is very far from over. Bush must win a second term, or a limp-wristed democratic president will overturn whatever progress was made.

[Das_Funked]

I'm pretty confident that Coalition forces will win.
I'm not sure the Iraqi people will be happy about having the US take over there country, no matter what they say their reasons are for doing it.
I think they will have to stay in Iraq for awhile to subdue Suddam supporters who will probably wage guerilla warfare on them.
It'll probably take 10 years for Iraq to become a normal country.
After that I'm sure bush will use his 'with us or against us' line to wage another war.

[Rojo]

I predict more war, Bush needs to win the election after all. And if this war was being waged for the reasons the US government state, they should theoretically go after Saudi Arabia next, but whatever.

[Darth Coil]

The next taget would have to be North Korea. They already have a nuclear bomb don't they.
But I think this war could take some more time than expected. Around Baghdad will be heavy resistance.

[Lord Rocha]

This War is going in an excellent way. Maybe the US public wasnt prepared but all this heavy resistance makes sense. Its more, i think this resistance is less brutal than i thought judging for the stubborn character of the Iraqui people.

But this war is the second, after Afghanistan, and will continue in such way the Bush Administration will gain economical and political power by ending hostile regimes to the American bennefit. If you are American that sounds good but if you arent American that sounds Imperialistic and Colonialist.

[nerfer]

Well back in the aftermath of Sept 11th, Bush said they would seek out terrorism and those who harbour them wherever they may be. So if he's going to stick by that, then he has to continue on after Iraq.

Maybe his next target will be France. Although highly unlikely, no-one wants another world war. Since they've been causing hassles out there, trying even to negotiate control of Iraq for themselves, once its liberated.!!!!! Especially if their meddling has made things worse for the troops out there.

I think Moo even read somewhere that France was even thinking of smuggling Saddam out of Iraq and into France!!!

[Das_Funked]

If you are American that sounds good but if you arent American that sounds Imperialistic and Colonialist.

It doesn't sound like imperialism and colonialism, it is.

Bush said they would seek out terrorism and those who harbour them wherever they may be. So if he's going to stick by that, then he has to continue on after Iraq.

Has Iraq commited an act of terrorism against the US? No.
Have the US provided any credible evidence to support their claim that Iraq support or harbour terrorism? No.
There is a terrorist camp in northern Iraq but they don't control that region. The Kurds do, so should they be held responsible?

So going by what Bush said, they shouldn't be in Iraq.

[Das_Funked]

Maybe his next target will be France. Although highly unlikely, no-one wants another world war. Since they've been causing hassles out there, trying even to negotiate control of Iraq for themselves, once its liberated.!!!!! Especially if their meddling has made things worse for the troops out there.

Umm...are you serious?style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Mar 25 2003, 04:15 AM
Maybe his next target will be France. Although highly unlikely, no-one wants another world war. Since they've been causing hassles out there, trying even to negotiate control of Iraq for themselves, once its liberated.!!!!! Especially if their meddling has made things worse for the troops out there.

Umm...are you serious?style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif
Are you serious?

Who would want France, anyway?

[Das_Funked]

Am I serious about asking nerfer if she was serious? Yes, I'm serious.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Mar 24 2003, 09:23 PM
I'm pretty confident that Coalition forces will win.
I'm not sure the Iraqi people will be happy about having the US take over there country, no matter what they say their reasons are for doing it.
I think they will have to stay in Iraq for awhile to subdue Suddam supporters who will probably wage guerilla warfare on them.
It'll probably take 10 years for Iraq to become a normal country.
After that I'm sure bush will use his 'with us or against us' line to wage another war.
Coalition forces will win out eventually. Most of the people in Iraq are welcoming American troops. The vast majority of Iraqis fear and hate Hussein.

Your comments, Funky, are incredibly cynical.
Bush's statement, "You're either with us, or against us." was a brilliant, clear cut view of the new political reality of the post 9/11 world.

People who don't "hate" America, but openly or secretly support people who do hate our country, and seek to do us harm, they cannot claim to be "with us." I'm sure, Das Funkd, that you and Rojo and JediBendu, and the rest would prefer an American President who would mince words, and willfully allow enemies of America to fester and grow.

I, for one, am glad that my president has the strength of will to openly demand that countries choose sides. There's no room for moral relativism. People who can crash planes into skyscrapers, killing innocent people are monsters - plain and simple. There is no moral justification for that act. People who make excuses for the terrorists have placed themselves squarely in America's path.

And trust me, you don't want to be in our path.

America is looking out for its own interests, just like every other country on the face of the earth. France, Germany and Russia made potentially lucrative deals with Hussein, that would only come to fruition after the sanctions were lifted. Now that Hussein is about to be ousted, he'll be defaulting on loans to Russia, and these business arrangements with France.

It's those countries that were willing to enable a tyrant, purely for profit. American intelligence is claiming that Russian companies have been selling advanced weaponry to the Iraqi regime in direct violation of the sanctions for the last few months leading up to the conflict! Whether the Russian government was aware of this fact or not hasn't been proven yet.

[Das_Funked]

I, for one, am glad that my president has the strength of will to openly demand that countries choose sides.

I wouldn't say that. I think was just to stupid to know what was coming out of his mouth when he was talking.

People who can crash planes into skyscrapers, killing innocent people are monsters - plain and simple. There is no moral justification for that act. People who make excuses for the terrorists have placed themselves squarely in America's path.

Agreed. But who has tried to jusify their motives? I haven't and I don't think anyone else has here.
That mentality is the best way to gain enemies and lose friends.

It's those countries that were willing to enable a tyrant, purely for profit.

Oh, we could never accuse the US of doing that, now could we.

[AlanRJ]

Maybe his next target will be France.

nerfer, the board really needs to know. Are you serious ?!?!?!?

I, for one, am glad that my president has the strength of will to openly demand that countries choose sides.

France chose the side by stating that it wasn't happy about the War on Iraq and that it would block it at every stage of the UN. Going by your comment would you then say that France has chosen a side against US? nerfer's comment is quite a mind blower but would you be happy to go after France after this is all over?

I foresee an occupation of Iraq that would be similar to how we handled Japan after World War II. We'll act as their military, and give them a chance to grow in the infertile soil of the Middle East.

An occupation would suggest an invasion of Iraq. The coalition force is there to oust the Government and to liberate Iraq. Are you wanting the US to claim Iraq as its own?

Too goddamned bad. The Iraqi people will be encouraged to make economic agreements with American companies, and other nations that were part of the Coalition.

And just what kind of encouragement had you in mind??

I'm not sure the Iraqi people will be happy about having the US take over there country, no matter what they say their reasons are for doing it.

You're right, the Iraqi people would not be happy about that as the Coalition force is out to liberate Iraq and give them back their freedom, not to replace Saddam with a US government who will look out for its own interests first.

One of the things that I found most disturbing reading through all the comments so far was US this and US that. It is a Coalition force which the US is a part of, the US is not the key player no matter how it wants to be seen.

[Krogenar]

Maybe his next target will be France.

nerfer, the board really needs to know. Are you serious ?!?!?!?

:roll: I don't think anyone is really considering attacking France. I would support trade restrictions with France, perhaps a ban on French-made goods. The French need a good spanking - but not militarily (God knows that's happened often enough!)

I, for one, am glad that my president has the strength of will to openly demand that countries choose sides.

France chose the side by stating that it wasn't happy about the War on Iraq and that it would block it at every stage of the UN. Going by your comment would you then say that France has chosen a side against US? nerfer's comment is quite a mind blower but would you be happy to go after France after this is all over?

That's a very telling comment: "[France] would block it at every stage of the U.N." France was adamantly against any resolution against Iraq that could result in the use of force. That is, they would support any resolution calling for Iraq's disarmament so long as it was unenforceable. Their representative to the United Nations stated that any resolution that allowed for war against Iraq would be vetoed. It was that stance that effectively torpedoed any possibility of a diplomatic solution. The U.N. has been reduced to being Hussein's lapdog.

People keep saying, gravely, "Let the inspectors do their work..." yet they have no clue how impossible it is to "find" any weapons of mass destruction if Hussein is not making a good faith effort to comply. Inspectors, for nearly a decade, have been stymied and blocked by Hussein's regime in their search for weapons. Inspectors have been intimidated, harassed, followed and not given full and unrestricted access to sites of interest.

Instead, we have windbags like Senator Daschle who claim that we're in a state of war because Bush's diplomatic efforts "failed miserably" - but it was France who killed any chance of diplomacy. And in so doing, they forced America to take military action - which means they put American soldiers in harm's way, for the sake of their own petulance.

I foresee an occupation of Iraq that would be similar to how we handled Japan after World War II. We'll act as their military, and give them a chance to grow in the infertile soil of the Middle East.

An occupation would suggest an invasion of Iraq. The coalition force is there to oust the Government and to liberate Iraq. Are you wanting the US to claim Iraq as its own?

Does Japan belong to America? We've occupied it for more than half a century now, and it's not the 51st state yet. A prolonged occupation of Iraq would suggest not an 'invasion' but a committment to the region, and to protect the new democracy we'll put in place.

Opponents of the war usually come in two main flavors. The first (and most populous group) are those people who oppose war "on principle". In their minds, the maxim "war is bad - give peace a chance" floats around like so much driftwood. To them, war is always to be opposed, nevermind the circumstances or the reason. They'd prefer to dance through sunlit meadows tossing flowers, and wearin beads. I ignore them, since they ignore the facts.

The second group are the people who understand the facts, but still oppose war because they genuinely hate America. They might be socialists, communists, or some other devotee of a failed economic model. Regardless, they see the new "War on Terror" to be a chance to silently cheer for the terrorists. Does it bother them that their newfound "heroes" or "freedom fighters" are socially backward chauvinists, in whose culture women are forced into illiteracy and subhuman servitude? Nope. That doesn't bother them because they've spent years in bed with socialist and communist regimes that are ruled by fascist tyrants. Their hatred of America, its freedom and its success dominates their thinking.

Too goddamned bad. The Iraqi people will be encouraged to make economic agreements with American companies, and other nations that were part of the Coalition.

And just what kind of encouragement had you in mind??

When I said 'encouragement' I meant .... encouragement. What dark, cynical portents do you see in the word, that I don't?

One of the things that I found most disturbing reading through all the comments so far was US this and US that. It is a Coalition force which the US is a part of, the US is not the key player no matter how it wants to be seen.

You're mistaken. The U.S. is the key player. American forces make up at least 85% of the total forces - at least. We will be a key player. And our coalition allies will have a role as well. It's their success, as well as ours, since they had the backbone to do what was right. Russia, China, France and Germany should be shut out - since they were worthless as allies.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Mar 25 2003, 10:08 AM
I, for one, am glad that my president has the strength of will to openly demand that countries choose sides.

I wouldn't say that. I think was just to stupid to know what was coming out of his mouth when he was talking.
Are you calling my President stupid? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif

[Rob]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Mar 25 2003, 03:14 AM
Has Iraq commited an act of terrorism against the US? No.
Have the US provided any credible evidence to support their claim that Iraq support or harbour terrorism? No.
There is a terrorist camp in northern Iraq but they don't control that region. The Kurds do, so should they be held responsible?

So going by what Bush said, they shouldn't be in Iraq.
Bah.

Iraq has little to do with terrorism, maybe in theory yes, but in actuality no. The main problem with Iraq is that Clinton didn't have the balls to follow up on UN Demilitarization and Disarming precedences, so as a result Iraq got to play around a little longer. Clinton was in office for eight years, and during that eight years he did little babysitting of Iraq. As a result they did not disarm, and it wasn't until lately that the US finally did something about it. Sure, people think that Bush is going in to finish his daddy's job, he is from a certain point of view, but what he is really pursuing is the disarmament of Iraq.

If France's government wasn't full of a bunch of pussies that sold Iraq chemicals and other materials that gave them the ability to make weapons of mass destruction (WOMD), they would be behind us, but since they have such a great deal worked out with the Iraqi government to exchange oil for materials they were bound to veto it. Nice guys eh? And to think that most people thought that France was against it because they wanted peace. They could care less, they just wanted to continue their economic relationship and continue to receive discounted oil products from the Iraqis.

Russia is the same way. They were destined to veto the ruling too, but no one really paid attention to the fact that Russian arms dealers were providing Iraqi military organizations with anti-GPS technology and night vision technology. Some friends we have there.

Back to the terrorism topic. Has Iraq committed an act of terrorism? Yes they have. In early 1991 they invaded and occupied a country that was not theirs simply because they felt that they had a right to the oil fields. They continuously fly in the no-fly zone that was established during the 'Gulf War', and they continuously attempt to place weapons in prohibited areas. Iraq commits acts of terrorism against its own people, and they have done so recently when they use areas such as schools, hospitals, and churches as shelters for their military bunkers. They dug trenches around schools and filled them with oil, just to darken the sky. They set fire to their own oil fields, and lie to their own people about happenings and occurances in their own nation.

Iraq is a nation that is ruled by fear. Their government does not care about its citizens, it does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and it does not care to agree with any international law or convention that is accepted by the rest of the world.

Twisting someone's words to make them fit the predicament that you do not agree with hardly justifies the assumption made about the reasoning behind the current state of events.

Let me leave you guys that are drooling about peace and love and happiness with a few things:

When Germany was attempting to take Czechoslovakia, Hitler negotiated with the British (Neville Chamberlain) and the French to add Sudetenland to the Reich. In order to avoid war and continue PEACE, Chamberlain and France decided to let Germany take Sudetenland into the Reich. As soon as Germany had control of Sudentenland, they then continued onward and dominated the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hitler's continued pressure led to the invasion of Poland and Hungary, and German control of those areas, all because of the wish of Britain and France to maintain peace and prosperity and to avoid war. As a result of Britain and France being cowards and not facing the evil while they had the opportunity, countless masses of people died because of facism, evil, and utterly disgusting and sickening powers.

Now, you guys want to avoid war? No problem, go ahead avoid it. However, if Saddam is allowed to continue creating and developing weapons of mass destruction, and if those weapons lead him to starting a conflict in the Middle East, who is to say that the Fourth Riech isn't on it's way?

[Krogenar]

In other news...

Sargeant Flipper Reporting for Duty... SIR!! (http://www.msnbc.com/news/890520_asp.htm)

[Darth Fabulous]

That is so cool. I wonder if the human soldiers are jealous of the "restaurant quality food" that the dolphins are getting?

[Krogenar]

I'm sure someone will become upset at the prospect of a dolphin being used for warfare - but I think it's a very clever idea.


Just as long as the dolphins don't get too playful, and 'retrieve' the mines. That might not work out so well.

[nerfer]

No I don't seriously think anyone will attack France. No one wants another world war and thats probably what would result.

I was just talking about something Moo had mentioned at home, that France since the war had started, had been meddling in affairs out there. Trying to angle for control of Iraq once it had been liberated. Moo just said that if their meddling had made the situtation worse for troops out there, then neither Britain nor America would look upon that kindly.

Then he mentioned that France might have been working on a way to smuggle out Sadaam Hussain. And that reminded me of Bush's words after 9/11 that they would root out terrorism wherever it was and those who harboured them.

But I doubt seriously that anyone would go to war against France.

I'll have to ask Moo where he heard about it.

Who would want France, anyway?



LOL How true, how true!

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by nerfer@Mar 25 2003, 03:28 PM


No I don't seriously think anyone will attack France. No one wants another world war and thats probably what would result.

I was just talking about something Moo had mentioned at home, that France since the war had started, had been meddling in affairs out there. Trying to angle for control of Iraq once it had been liberated. Moo just said that if their meddling had made the situtation worse for troops out there, then neither Britain nor America would look upon that kindly.

Then he mentioned that France might have been working on a way to smuggle out Sadaam Hussain. And that reminded me of Bush's words after 9/11 that they would root out terrorism wherever it was and those who harboured them.

But I doubt seriously that anyone would go to war against France.

I'll have to ask Moo where he heard about it.

Who would want France, anyway?



LOL How true, how true!
France (as well as Russia as we are finding may be the case) has been aiding Iraq for quite some time. I do not necessarily believe there is any sinister reason for their helping Iraq, other than their own dependency on that country for oil. In the process, they have provided Iraq (an oil rich country) with a nuclear reactor (for what? Why does an oil rich country need to look into nuclear power?)

It is possible that they have provided other things (weapons) to Iraq to aid them in defeating their enemies so that they can continue on good terms with Iraq and lucrative oil deals, just as it appears Russia may have done. France is very much against this being discovered as well as the possibility of losing their deals. They knew that it was inevitable that Saddam would not heed diplomacy and that war would be necessary... but they have gone to great lengths to ensure that they themselves would not have to risk life or resource in that act. They will suddenly come on board however when everything is said and done, because they will want in on the oil dealings without risking their own necks. It's political dodging... that's all. They knew this war would happen with or without them... they chose to stay out of it, and not risk their own lives to cash in. And cash in they will try.

Here are alleged allegations that are out there, that may or may not be true, but will be proven or disproven by the outcome of this war, either way:

Russia: Businesses allegedly provided Iraq with banned missles.
Germany: Allegedly provided Iraq with possible poisons that could be used in weapons.
France: Provided Iraq with a nuclear reactor and very possibly more in it's dealings for oil and longstanding relationship with Saddam.

Does anyone else find it odd that these are the major European countries trying to keep this war from happening? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but is someone trying to keep the truth from being uncovered?

I believe that the polititians and military experts who have been studying these relations for years, along with the military intelligence agencies and informants around the globe, probably have a better handle on what is happening that Joe Public and Frank Hollywood. I am willing to believe they are on the right track.

If these allegations prove to be true, no war will be necessary against these countries because they will quickly and humbly make amends... I do not believe they were doing it to be sinister... it was business. But you can't hide from the truth for long. And they will pay for the mistakes they have made if in fact they have made them... but not through war.

[FerrisWiel]

I come in the third flavor of war opponents:

I oppose the war becuase I believe we lack the committment to stay the course in the face of staunch diplomatic/international relations difficulties from so-called "allies." We'll get tied up in UN red tape once we've liberated Baghdad and pave the way for another small-time thug/tin-horn dictator looking to put a stranglehold on the world's economy by supporting terrorist activities or anti-US regimes. I figure, why make things change just so they can remain the same?

--FW

[Justin]

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."

[FerrisWiel]

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the worst of tyrants is he who works for 'the greater good.'"

[kopernikuz]

"A pile of crap with whip cream on it is still a pile of crap."

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by FerrisWiel@Mar 25 2003, 05:03 PM
I come in the third flavor of war opponents:

I oppose the war becuase I believe we lack the committment to stay the course in the face of staunch diplomatic/international relations difficulties from so-called "allies." We'll get tied up in UN red tape once we've liberated Baghdad and pave the way for another small-time thug/tin-horn dictator looking to put a stranglehold on the world's economy by supporting terrorist activities or anti-US regimes. I figure, why make things change just so they can remain the same?

--FW
Ferris, you know I respect you and your opinions.

But this one sort of stinks. I'm going to call it cynical, but somewhat justified.
It's true that America has put down one dictator, only to allow another dictator to rise up in the same area years later. But this doesn't have to be the case with Iraq. You stated that you felt America did not have the "committment to stay the course in the face of staunch diplomatic difficulties" - and I agree with you, in part.

Already, France, Russia and the U.N.'s gang of idiots are jockeying for positions in a post-war Iraq. Now, I don't know if Bush has the sack to tell them, "Get the f*ck out, you worthless gang of cowards." - which is what I would say - and is also why I'll never become president myself. But Bush did have the guts to handle this war without kissing the United Nations' pinkie ring - so I'm guardedly optimistic.

And even if the 'do-nothing's' of the world manage to win out after America has done the heavy lifting, at least the next potential tyrant will be starting from zero, if nothing else. Would it be satisfying? No. But I don't think you really believe that this action isn't necessary. You may think it's doomed in the long run, but do you believe that we should leave Saddam alone?

"Evil triumphs when Ferris Wiel sits on his tuckus eating Funions."

[Rob]

Not to go country/nationality bashing, but there are some dumb ****ers in those three countries.

First of all, go back to my original post in this thread and read the last few paragraphs. Let's go back in time and see how smart/stupid our compadres are:

1. Britain and France. Enough said above, stupid ****ers are responsible for the domination of Europe and the rise of Hitler. (Indirectly, see above post before responding).
2. Germany - Bah. No comment on this poor SOBS.
3. Russia - They were so bloody stupid in World War II that they were still sending truckloads of supplies across their borders into Germany even when Germany was invading Russia. If you didn't know that Russia assisted in the Germans taking over Eastern Europe then you need to go back and take a history lesson or two. Russia came in from the East, Germany from the North and West, and all hell broke loose. Russia eventually fought back and reclaimed roughly half of Poland by January 1945, but that was after Germany had them by their balls. If not for Allied force movements and massive victories in Europe, Russia would have never been able to advance as far. Stupid ****ers.

I'm out - this thread aggravates me.

[Lord Rocha]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Mar 25 2003, 12:14 AM
If you are American that sounds good but if you arent American that sounds Imperialistic and Colonialist.

It doesn't sound like imperialism and colonialism, it is.


I know its colonialism and pure Imperialism covered by a ficticious menace but we also are defending our interests in the Middle East. If this crucial zone is "neutralized" by our forces the threat of terrorism will fade. This is an all or nothing War.

But with cowards and inept goverments such as France, Germany and Russia the task will be harder but the bennefits of the war wont be shared with such weak nations that already showed the world how to ruin the Global Panorama. Why not giving the US a chance of ruining our current world order and establish another one ??

The British did that in the Victorian Age
France did that with Napoleon
The USSR did that after WW2
Spain did that when it conquered almost all the American continent
Even the Arabs !

[Rob]

How did that imperialist/colonialist **** come into the picture anyway? We're in to liberate the country, not to fill it up with strip malls and 7-11s.


Aside from that, the Iraqi military is now firing on its own citizens in Bazra.

[Rojo]

Yes, and the British are being shot down by every side (including the other Brits).

OK Rob, I've got to disagree with some of your opinions about WW2.

1. Britain and France. Enough said above, stupid ****ers are responsible for the domination of Europe and the rise of Hitler. (Indirectly, see above post before responding).

Fair enough. I don't enjoy hearing my country called cowardly though. Remember the Falklands?

3. Russia - They were so bloody stupid in World War II that they were still sending truckloads of supplies across their borders into Germany even when Germany was invading Russia. If you didn't know that Russia assisted in the Germans taking over Eastern Europe then you need to go back and take a history lesson or two. Russia came in from the East, Germany from the North and West, and all hell broke loose. Russia eventually fought back and reclaimed roughly half of Poland by January 1945, but that was after Germany had them by their balls. If not for Allied force movements and massive victories in Europe, Russia would have never been able to advance as far. Stupid ****ers.

And Britain, America, Canada and all those others would not have been able to advance as far without Russian action. Stalingrad was the major turning point in WW2 along with El Alamein and D-day.

Russia: Businesses allegedly provided Iraq with banned missles.
Germany: Allegedly provided Iraq with possible poisons that could be used in weapons.
France: Provided Iraq with a nuclear reactor and very possibly more in it's dealings for oil and longstanding relationship with Saddam.

America: Provided Saddam with weapons in his war against Iran, while simultaneously arming the Iranians. Put Saddam in power in the first place. That's not bashing, it's fact.

[Das_Funked]

I think the Battle for Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. If Germany took that, then they would have taken Russia. When they took Russia there was nothing stopping them from taking Asia.

[Darth Coil]

True.

But the real problem was that the Fuhrer decided to fight a war at two fronts. He didn't always make the right deciscions. He should not have attacked Russia untill he had total victory in the west.

But every leader has it's flaws. ???

[T-bone]

Originally posted by Rojo@Mar 26 2003, 01:30 AM
America: Put Saddam in power in the first place. That's not bashing, it's fact.
IF you happen to believe this: Then that's all the more justification for us to be in there taking him OUT. If you want to call this a "mistake" on our part - putting him in power - then at least we have the balls to go in there and fix it.

ALSO - even if we "put" him in the place of power, that's no excuse for his actions and torturing of his people and all the other things he's done. Because you're a leader of a nation - that's no excuse to rape people and stuff like that with their families watching. Someone speaks out against you, you just have them shot. If that was the case here, Michael Moore would have been prompltly executed after the Oscars.

So, let's hope for a speedy victory here everyone and wish our troops the best of luck, and mourn for those lost and who will be lost as this progresses.

[Das_Funked]

Originally posted by Rob@Mar 26 2003, 12:59 PM
How did that imperialist/colonialist **** come into the picture anyway? We're in to liberate the country, not to fill it up with strip malls and 7-11s.



I thought the US was there to turn it into a car park?

[Krogenar]

America: Provided Saddam with weapons in his war against Iran, while simultaneously arming the Iranians. Put Saddam in power in the first place. That's not bashing, it's fact.

Actually, Rojo, America did not put Hussein into power. He put himself in power. Here's a link:

PBS: Saddam's Rise to Power (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/player1.html)

A quote:

In 1966, he escaped from prison and continued his work with the party, culminating in a critical role in the July 1968 coup that brought the Ba'ath party to power for good. Following the coup, Saddam became vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council in 1969. Over the next few years, he rose through the party ranks, becoming vice president and deputy secretary-general of the Ba'ath Party's Regional Command.

As vice chairman, he oversaw the nationalization of the oil industry and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, schools and hospitals. The once illiterate Saddam, ordered a mandatory literacy program. Those who did not participate risked three years in jail, but hundreds of thousands learned to read. Iraq, at this time, created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East -- a feat that earned Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

But it was also during this time that Saddam reportedly helped form secret police units that cracked down on dissidents and those opposed to Ba'ath rule. He also served in the Iraqi armed forces as a lieutenant general from 1973 until 1976, when he was promoted to general.

On July 16, 1979, President al-Bakr resigned and Saddam rose to the presidency. Five of his fellow members of the Revolutionary Command Council were quickly accused of involvement in a coup attempt and executed, along with 17 other rivals.

The PBS is as left an organization as you can hope to find, and even they can't deny that Hussein put himself in power - not the U.S. Did we support his war against Iran. Yes. We saw two nations fighting that we disliked, and decided that Iraq was the lesser of two evils, so we supported Iraq. That's good policy.

But your comment that America "put Saddam in power." isn't correct. He put himself in power. I've boldfaced a few of the highlights from Hussein's illustrious career of thuggery.

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Rojo@Mar 26 2003, 12:30 AM
America: Provided Saddam with weapons in his war against Iran, while simultaneously arming the Iranians. Put Saddam in power in the first place. That's not bashing, it's fact.
OMG is this arguement tired.

Iran was the clearer threat... and regardless, that doesn't excuse Saddam for what he did with that power. There also weren't international sanctions AGAINST arming Saddam. Now there are and certain countries are going to great lengths to hide their tracks for skirting those sanctions for some oil deals. America doesn't deny that former relationship... the governments of France, Russia, and Germany go to great lengths to allegedly lie about theirs.

[Rob]

Eh - right back on the WW2 stuff, I didn't go that far with my history lesson though style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Justin]

I posted this earlier:

did you see how Saddam is using children as human shields now? Why aren't these stupid protesters saying anything about that??

[nerfer]

Because the protestors ignore anything which isn't gonna back up their reasons. Like I'm sure they ignored all the pictures of the dead Kurds Sadamm gassed.

Like how everyone keeps saying how brave France is for taking a stance against war, when what they were really doing is trying to keep the world from discovering the extent of their dealings with Iraq.

[Javen]

Hey Rob say whats really on your mind. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Rob]

Originally posted by Javen@Mar 27 2003, 12:14 AM
Hey Rob say whats really on your mind. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Yup.

I'd kill all the hippies if I could do it legally. Get one of them fancy GPS bombs and drop it on the hippies. My father was spit on multiple times when coming back from Vietnam and called a 'Baby Killer' by people that didn't know him. The soldiers are following orders, everyone should support them regardless of what orders they have to follow. If you don't agree with your country then get the hell out of it, we don't need their scum style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Oh, and if I offend anyone, tough **** style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Tovor]

*whew* It's a good thing we don't let regular posters go off like that too often, or Rob's messages wouldn't stand out so profoundly! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif I happen to agree with this war and our President, although if Bush sr. had not pu$$ied out and finished the job the right way 12 years ago, Bush jr. wouldn't have had to do it now and take the flak for it, and millions of innocent Iraqi's over the last decade wouldn't have died of starvation, disease, and government executions and murders.

Good thing I'm not the boss. I'd organize a big ****ing anti-war rally, tell everyone we'll pick them up on a charter bus, and then ship the ****ers off.
(In Padme's AOTC voice)"Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me." style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

I don't agree with the anti-war protestors. However, this democratic free country that we love ensures that citizens have the right to protest the government and it's actions and speak out for or against what they believe in. If we shipped out those who did not agree with fighting a war to--among other reasons--free the Iraqi people from the brutal regime that does not allow or forgive free speech and the right to petition the government, we would be contradicting our claim to be bringing freedom and rights to the Iraqi people by denying it to our own.

The soldiers are following orders, everyone should support them regardless of what orders they have to follow. If you don't agree with your country then get the hell out of it, we don't need their scum
Regarding the first part, absolutely. We should always support our troops because they lay their lives on the line so that we don't have to. They fight for our lives and our freedom, and they serve our country. They are following orders and we must support them, but we don't have to agree with the orders they are given or with those who give those orders. I happen to agree with the orders and with the President, but I also agree with the 1st Ammendment and democratic elections, so that if you don't agree with your country you can have a voice in shaping it.

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Tovor@Mar 27 2003, 01:03 AM
*whew* It's a good thing we don't let regular posters go off like that too often, or Rob's messages wouldn't stand out so profoundly! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif I happen to agree with this war and our President, although if Bush sr. had not pu$$ied out and finished the job the right way 12 years ago, Bush jr. wouldn't have had to do it now and take the flak for it, and millions of innocent Iraqi's over the last decade wouldn't have died of starvation, disease, and government executions and murders.
You know, Tov... I sort of agree with you... but not entirely... The first war ended (not really... more of a cease fire to be technical) with an agreement that Iraq would comply with some resolutions.

It was then the job of the UN... and Bill Clinton as our representative, to follow up and ensure it happened. After the first few years, this should have been taken care of. Someone should have noticed at least 8 years ago... or 9 years ago... that inspections weren't working. We should have started the argument then... not now.

But a certain president was too busy getting his jollies on in the oval office to pay attention to what was going on in the world. I saw a sign that said "If Osama were a peice of ***, Clinton would have nailed him already." It's a little crude... but we know where his priorities were... and they weren't with the future of this country.

Who knows... maybe 9-11 wouldn't have happened, but that's niether here nor there. That was not Bill Clinton's fault.

I'm not a Republican... I'm not a Democrat either. I try to follow my heart and what is true and what is in evidence. So I have no partyline that says hate Bill Clinton, love George W. I simply make my decision on the facts at hand.

This isn't really Gulf War II... this is just the end of Gulf War I, ended on a conditional cease fire where the conditions were not met for 12 years, and no one noticed while the problem got worse.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by kopernikuz@Mar 27 2003, 07:55 AM
This isn't really Gulf War II... this is just the end of Gulf War I, ended on a conditional cease fire where the conditions were not met for 12 years, and no one noticed while the problem got worse.
Technically, Kop is correct.

The Gulf War never truly 'ended' it was stopped on condition of Hussein's compliance with United Nations resolutions. And as more and more followed, he never complied with them. That's evidenced by the capture of Iraqi-issued gas masks and bio/chemical protection suits. American forces are prepared for the used of WMD - but we didn't bring any to this fight. Hussein, apparently, is ready for that kind of fight too.

So who's left to bring those weapons to the battle? Only Hussein. He has those weapons, and he's keeping them close. So this war is just a continuation of the first war - brought to what should have been the proper conclusion 12 years ago - regime change.

[Jedi Kum-ahK]

The problem with all this is: how do we know the person/persons going to take over from the Coalition Forces is not going to be another Saddam, or Ayatollah or worse, or going to breed his own version of such people, who in 50 or 100 years time will threaten more thatn just the Gulf region?

Anyway, let me say that I support coalition Forces. Once they have been sent out into the dragon's lair, I hope they do well. It is going fairly well, but fighting a war and setting up a political administration are two different pairs of shoes.
Just take alook at SW, if you don't believe it.

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Jedi Kum-ahK@Mar 27 2003, 12:24 PM
The problem with all this is: how do we know the person/persons going to take over from the Coalition Forces is not going to be another Saddam, or Ayatollah or worse, or going to breed his own version of such people, who in 50 or 100 years time will threaten more thatn just the Gulf region?

The fact that a democracy will be set up where the people have a say in what maniacal tyrant they want running their country. They can choose between a murderous wacko who squanders their country's exhaustive wealth on palaces and himself and the genocide of his own people, while tens of thousands of their children die of malnutrition each year... or a decent fellow who has the best interests of their country in mind. The point is... they are free to choose this person. And if this person gets out of line and threatens their future... they will have a system in place to root him out. Freedom does not come without some risks... but it is far better than bondage.

Besides, there is no guarantee that 50-100 years from now some maniac takes over any country... but without a democracy... it's guaranteed that one will remain in power.

[Darth Insightful]

The problem with the Gulf War was that we, meaning the U.S. and our allies, were handcuffed by the U.N. as far as what we could do. Our mission at the time was merely to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, not to march into Iraq and remove Hussein. Stormin' Norman was more than ready to march to Bagdad, but because we chose to heed the U.N. recomendation, he couldn't. In my opinion we should have done it right then and there, but in the process we would have severely damaged our diplomatic relations with Europe and many other countries, probably more than we are now because we would have been in violation of a specific U.N policy. Now, we're not in violation of any U.N. resolution, we're simply enforcing a resolution that the United Nations refuses to.

[FerrisWiel]

Originally posted by kopernikuz@Mar 27 2003, 12:28 PM
The fact that a democracy will be set up where the people have a say in what maniacal tyrant they want running their country.
For the record, I'm opposed to democracy. I don't believe in mob rule, or the idea that a group of potentially maniacal tyrants has say in the lionshare of my life's affairs.

I believe in constitutionally limited republics with capitalism as the power of the engine.

I mean, many Euro nations are democracies but are socialist democracies. I'll pass, thanks.

--FW

[Teta]

*Phew*


Tovor, how about a little friendly sparring?

Some statements..

My best friend's brother is in Kuwait. My friend hasn't heard from him in 2 weeks. We are both praying that if he has to go to Baghada, he won't have to witness the worst of what is to come. My best friend is what you would politiely call an evangelical Christian conservative. I am what you would politely call a liberal:). Normally, we have some good-natured debates, and stay friends. But this time around, to my astonishment, he is totally against the war--or rather, we are both in the "right idea, wrong method, becuase the costs in the end on a number of fronts for America will be too high" camp.

Let me say some things to the pro-war people.

When Israel captured Eichmann in 1961(?) they did not put a bullet through his head. If ever there was a man who deserved to be shot in cold blood, it was him--the mastermind behind the death camps. But Israel made a special point of showing to the world that it would not stoop to the Nazi's level--it would bring him back to Israel for a trial, even if the outcome was never in doubt and he stood behind a wall of bulletproof glass. They would behave like civilized people.
On the first night of the war, we tried to murder Hussein outright. I don't care what kind of a tyratn he is--and believe me, I've read all there is to know about him. Even the wrost criminal does not deserve to be mudered in cold blood. Where in hell does it say in int'l law that you can murder a head of state--I don't care HOW he got into power? That is against international law--and this whole war is being carried out against intl law. And Bush didn;t even try to hide that we tried to kill him. And even if he tried to assassinate Bush Sr. The US is supposed to be a civilized country--we have moved beyond Texas vigilante law. Even Texas is not what it used to be. These days, the murderer of a black man gets the death penalty in Texas.

Second: If we are just there for liberation and freedom and democarcy, then we should know that no nation is democratic unless it is in control of its own destiny. Therefore, it controls its own economy. Which means the Iraqi people would control their own oil. So: let the troops come home by Halloween, and let the Iraqi people (who of course will love a US-backed govt that is friendly to ISRAEL in power; whoever we put n power will have to prove to us that he will have good relations with Israel, w/o that this whole excercise is pointless--and as we see in Pakistan, the most friendly US-sympathetic gov't may be on shaky ground if the ppl don'tlike him--which they hate him) supoort their own gov't. No country is free in spirit and among the family of nations, unless it exists as a sovereign nation, and NOT by handouts.

I don't bleeive we are here to turn Iraq into the new South Africa. The proper metapor here is Nigeria--a country where a Mobotu0like figure is needed to be in power to keep the country's various factions from massacring heach other, while the West steals their oil blind. How much do you guys know about Nigeria? Go to the library and read up n it sometime. Less than 10percent of the country has electricity. For starters. Why do women and kids rally at the gates of the oil companir=es there? Becuase the West keeps them poor. Whoever takes over will have to control Iraq with an iron fist.

The director of "Three Kings" was VERY niaeve. (A good film to rent and watch right now.)

[Justin]

and this whole war is being carried out against intl law

Well you're definitely wrong about that part, and probably other parts as well, but I stopped reading after I read that.

The U.S. is not in violation of international law. The war is proceeding along the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.

[Darth Coil]

I think she may have meant the "laws" that was made by the UN, and those are being broken. Who needs the UN anyway. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif

[Justin]

I don't think we're breaking any U.N. laws either, we just decided to go to war without the U.N.'s support. If I'm wrong and we're breaking any laws, please post them here.

[Darth Insightful]

An interesting tidbit I saw:

"House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) assembled more than two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to consider articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein.

Conyers was the only Member of Congress to attend the meeting, however Ramsey Clark--former attorney general was also there.

"We had a pretty frank discussion about putting in a bill of impeachment against President Bush," said Francis Boyle, an Illinois law professor who is working with Clark on the impeachment language."

Something else I saw. Interesting how the worm has turned:

"Statement by Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich.), at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, Oct. 5, 1998, on whether to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton

"Thank you, Chairman Hyde. And to my colleagues all, we meet today for only the third time in the history of our nation to consider whether or not to open an inquiry of impeachment against the president of the United States.

For more than 200 years, we have been guided by that brilliant legacy of our founding fathers and of our Constitution which generation after generation has helped us endure the difficult political and social questions that face us.

I am quite certain that the drafters of that document might shake their heads in puzzlement at the action that is proposed by the majority that we take here today.

By now, we're all familiar with the constitutional standard for impeachable offenses -- treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

One of our great founding fathers, George Mason, said that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors refers to presidential actions that are great and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the Constitution."

[Teta]

"We aren't breaking any int'l lw, we just decided to go to war without the UN's support."

I'm not even going to reply to that statement..excpet to say that we don't need the UN to support the war, but we sure as hell will be needing them to PAY FOR IT AND THE CLEANUP afterwards!!!!!

Even though I am a "liberal," I have to admit, I choked with laughter when I read that "If Osama was a piece of ***, Clinton would have nailed him," quote. I shouldn't laugh. And don't get me started on the impeachment thing. But darn, that WAS funny. I'll have to share that with some people. I wonder how many will be dusgusted and how many will be both disgusted AND laugh, like me.

Justin, et al: I will make one confession, re impeachment against Bush. My Mom is right. The Democrats eat their own. Once upon a time they supported each other, but now they turn on each other like attack dogs. The Republicans are crooks, but they stick together like glue and take care of each other. If I wasn't so disgusted with what Bush is doing to this country domestically, (both directly and in the future indirectly, as a byproduct of the aftermath of the war)I would almost take a perverse satisfaction in the Dem party's current disarray, and say, "Ye reap what ye sow, and ye deserve it."

I guess what it comes down to is this: (IMHO, of course!): THe Republicans are honest crooks, and the laws they pass are for the most part crookish. (These days. The decent old men like Bob Dole, who I admire very much, are gone, and the mean-spirited, small minds and fanatic elemtents of the Party have taken over.)The Democrats are even more crookish and tricksy, (a fine tradition going back to Tammany Hall) but ONLY AS PEOPLE. As ppl they may be crooks, but historically, the laws they pass have been good for this country." Therefore, because I care in the end only about the laws on paper, I still vote for the Dems anyway."

Obviously, many of you on here would take issue with that statement, but like I said, that was a liberal's IMHO!

Any move to impeach Bush is incredibly stupid. I can't decide if it is stupid only to do now, or just stupid no matter when you do it. He has too much Big Money behind him, for one thing. It would never get off the ground, and the American people are sheep.

Anyway, I had to go to work before I could finish the other post. Here are my concerns, continued. (Why I oppose the war.)

1) I mentioned the Adminsitration's casual "dangit" on TV at not having murdered Saddam a week ago. Never minding that historically it hasn't been the style of the USA to just go in and murder people in high places. (Unless we have, and this whole thing is just a very public and costly CIA excercise using the Army. But I'll leave the entire Western Hemisphere and everything we've done under pretext of the Monroe Doctrine out of this.)

2) We thought we'd be in the suburbs of Baghdad within a week, and the city would fall by April Fool's Day. Obviously, that's not going to happen. Saddam has been "going to school", as one article put it, the tricksy *******. (sorry for Gollum talk. I'm a big LOTR fan. Hm. Maybe we need a bunch of Nazgul to spy out the land, or at least scare the **** out of the Rep Guard!) The Iraqis don't appear to shocked or awed. *GASP* OMG, we actually have to do some serious FIGHTING in this conflict! Putting those billions of dollars of fat juicy military contracts to use. We don't hear "shock and awe" much anymore.

3) I'm no armchair general, but I've done my homework, and read up on the who, what, where. Anybody who's done thier homework should have forseen this. I think we didn't send in enough troops, becuase we thought it would be a cakewalk. I have said from the very beginning that the VERY FIRST THING we should have done (if I was in CENTCOM--I'm a big Tom Clancy fan--betcha didn't think liberals liked TC didja? In my more depressed moments contemplating this war, I have actually thought strategy) was ****ing blitzkrieged the place (which is probably what SAA meant anyway, it sounded very Leni Riefenstahl), takingover EVERY SINGLE city village and town in Iraq, in a straight line, we should have made that a goal, and NOT bypassed anyplace. Now look, we are having to go back and take towns we never planned to in the first place, and we're getting bogged down.

We should have made it a plan to go in the there with an overwhelming force of 250,000-300,000 troops and captured every single inhabited spot on the map, and left a large garrison of troops behind in each town. If the population fled in terror towards Baghdad, so what? Our propaganda miesters can cover up massive Iraqi civilain deaths any time, and they're at it right now. Our media calls them "fedayeen", "irregulars", and at their most polite, "militia types." How do we know that these are really Saddam's militia (funny how we didn't see any last time around), and how don't we know that they just may be ordinary civilain men, who may hate Saddam but may also hate the thought of being ruled by America even more? Fighting for Iraq, maybe, but not for Saddam? We must remember that Hitler was flabbergasted when the Russian people didn't rise up against Stalin when the Nazis invaded Russia. He thought that the people would look upon the Germans as liberators, and overthrow Stalin, That didn't happen. If anything, an invasion hardened their resolve. I have read many books on the seige of Leningrad, and no people except the Armenians and the Cambodians and the Jews in the 2oth century ever suffered more. Lord God. A million people died of starvation in that city in 4 months--half the city's population. Most of those people had lost a relative in Stalin's Purges in the 30's. But in their minds, at least Stalin was a Russian. Now, I am NOT comparing anyone to the Nazi's, for God's sake, I am just trying to expalin that for many Iraqis, "the devil that they know may be better then the one they don't." Or at least, Hussein is an IRAQI devil. Or, how can I put this? They just resent being invaded. If we had a real horrible leader (God forbid), would we (for example) want the FRENCH to invade us, and put in a French caretaker gov't? If there is one thing that al-Jezeera is currently driving into these people's minds, its the fact that whover the US puts into power, they'll be friendly to Israel. That'll br a big propaganda point. And that's just for starters.

3) We must assume that once we have conquered Iraq, excpt for Baghadad, that we can hold a 300 mile long supply line for at least a week, (certainly for 4 days or so, because Baghdad will not fall super quickly). This assumes that we have the entire country under a strangling grip, and that the local civilian population won't try to disrupt the supply line, to raid it for food water etc. But we will have started dropping the food in by then. But still, do you think the entire country will sit back and watch? Right now, Basra, Iraq's 2nd largest city, is starting to starve. We can protect the supply line with air power, that is, assuming that we have enough confidence to bomb any potential threats to the road at such hairsbreadth range without hitting our own troops. Not to mention scaring the ** out of them, with potential "friendly fire" incidents. Which would really boost morale and make the US public roar with joy. Of course, we can just spend a week or two peparing for the battle, airlifting in enough supplies and ammunition to keep the attackers of Baghdad suppiled without having this sort of problem.

4) The BIG question, militarily speaking, and the one no-one has brought up yet: what if CENTCOM's worst nightmare comes true and the battle of Baghdad turns out to be a much larger version of all the battles for towns we've seen so far. Baghdad is a wide-open, spread-out city of 5 million people. NYC is a wide-open, spread out city of 8 million people. Which should give you some idea. Even if half of the city's population have fled to refugee camps in the North, or out of the country beforehand, that still chops it down to 2.5 million people. How many troops do we have, and just how much air power are we prepared to use? Is Bush worried about the financial cost of completely rebuilding Bagdad, if it becomes necessary to reduce large parts of it to rubble? And those broad avenues are just perfect for crowds of thousands of civiliams to pour through, disrupting US air power for fear of widespread and obvious civilains casualties, which could turn the Iraqi people against us. We have to be "liberating" them, you see. And judging by their reaction so far, to the couple of "mistaken" bombs we've dropped on them, they don't exactly like us.

Say everything goes swimmingly. We wipe out the Rep Guard before we get to the city, and it lays in wait helpless before us like a ripe fruit waiting to be picked. The Iraqi people are used to getting bombed. To them its nothing. They were bombed for most of the 80's in the War of the Cities. They were bombed in 91. But what is the civilain population going to do when they realize they are helpless? What if Saddam has pockets of his thugs in Baghdad, inside the city and he forces thousands of civilans to fight at gunpoint when the Iraqi army has dissolved? We've already seen he's done that in the towns. And this in spite of our offers of mercy, food, freedom, etc. Fear may be a more powerful motivator than hunger.


Or what if the people hate Saddam, but hate America more? The thought of being occupied at least. What if they heed the propaganda. We've been doing a lot of our own propaganda, but you never know. What of when that moment actually comes, and the people realize that the Americans are HERE. Will they sit in their homes like frightened sheep? Will they throng out to meet us waving palm branches, and turn on their oppressors like we want them to? They may, if things go right..IF they want to. The Iraqi people will have to make a choice, and it will be interesting to see if they will, after all the suffering the readt of the country will have gone through. We can interview the pro-American faction in Baghadad on TV all we want, but you never know.

Whatever comes, the Battle of Baghada will be one of the more dramtic spectacles of the 21st century. Maybe even the first half of the century. There will be hiostory written, for better or worse. And it will be unique..the world's youngest major civilization, America, conquering its oldest. The first civilization, Sumeria...born here.

5) Now, the War is over: and that was the EASY part. Now comes the winning of hearts and minds. Both in Iraq and elsewhere. Since opposition to the war is getting even stronger outside the US (if that is possible), count the UN OUT when it comes to paying for the cost of the war and the rebuilding. Bush must do many things.

6)He must first of all convince the American people that we will NOT be getting right out of Iraq..that we will have to be there for many more months and possibly years. And not just a handful of troops, but hundreds of thousands, to "kkep the country stable while the transition to democracy is out in place." Which the people may mind, and may not, considering the grisly pictures of treatment of POW's this week. And Saddam or no Saddam, they won't like them to be in a place that's still dangerous.

7)Which it will be. We have to assume that the Kurds will not take advantage of the power vacuum, or the departure of American troops, to try to set up an enclave of their own, and that evenif they don't the Turks will be as quiet as church..er, mosque mice, and not try to muscle in on the action and take some oil of their own. Remember, we didn't pay them back the $26 billion we owed them from the last Gulf War. Which was why they made such a big stink over the air bases.
We also have to assume that we will of course be leaving those huge garrisons of US troops in Iraq to keep rioting from breaking out, as old factions don't try to settle old scores. That place is like India. and remember waht happened when the Brits left.

The American public is really going to love this story. Bush can't let them leave, because even if we let the UN in, we know from Bosnia just how great they were at keeping the peace, without real weapons.

8)Just a bit of trivia: No British companies have been contracted for the rebuilding of Iraq. Only US ones. The Brits corporations are seething mad at this, and are rniging Blair off the hook to see daily where they stand in postwar planning. So far, the Brits don't figure in the physical rebuilding of Iraq. And Bush isn't planning on the British helping to rebuild Iraq. Historically, the Iraqis loathe the British; and Bush may reason that in additon to the US gettng ALL the loot, (ie all the oil and other spoils of war)he won't want to open up old wounds by inviting back in Iraq's old colonial oppressor. We'll need all the support we can get.

9) Oh, we aren't in there for the oil, we are only in there to bring the Iraqis freedom and democracy. Even if that weren;'t the plan all along, to get the oil before the French or Russians get it, God FORBID if the Iraqis ever got freedom and democracy. Becuase then they'd start to question jst what the hell a US-backed regime is doing there in the first place, instead of one the Iraqi people have freely elected themselves. If there is one thing we DON'T want: it is freedom of the press and of thought. Becuase then one day they'd throw us out. I think Bush wants to turn Iraq into another Nigeria. If luckly, it may even become like China...materially decent but DEMOCRACY? Never.

10) And for those of you who have read about Iraq...the reason why this experiemtn willnot work is becuase Iraq isn't like SOuth Africa. There is no large, stable, middle class educated at Yale or Oxford that has been risking their lives to protest Saddam for years, and is not bitter and ready to put in place the infrastruture that will lead to true stability. Wil there eer be an Iraqi Forgiveness Comisission, like in SA, that frogives Saddam's old soldiers and thugs? Or will people try to tsake out old hatreds? There is an Iraqi exile community, in London and elsewhere, who would be good philisophically maybe, but they lack real experience with Iraqi's poverty-stricken factions. Anyone with noble intentions would beocme quickly disillusioned, like Jiddah did with Pakistan. And anyway, Bush doesn't plan to put one of those wishy-washies from London in power. I'm sure he's going f or a miliraty figure, so we'd have a Turkey-like situation. Turkey is a democracy in name only. They've been ruled by the Army behind the scenes. And anyone who knows the Turkish history knows that in order for Turkey to be the "first democratic, stable Moslem state" it had to 'ethnically cleanse" all its non-Moslem minorites, who (the Turks say) would have rebelled had Enver Paha not taken over. As the granddaughter of an Armenian refugee from Turkey then, I know stories of what it was like, to "stabilize" a country in such a situation.

11) The Gulf War cost $75 billion, and we only paid 5 billion of that. The UN paid the rest. This time, we don't have the UN. So who is paying for this shindig? Yours Truly. See how we are suffering, and the war isn't yet a week old. And now, I have been reading about what Bush wants to do to rebuild Iraq. A Marshall Plan, indeed. $100 million for Iraq's 25,00o public schools--Bush wants to spend 4.1$million on textbooks alone. A whole new banking syatem, new stock exchange, new hospitals and schools. Wow, we wants another Japan! All very noble. But this all goes back to Point 10. The groundwork isn't there. Iraq is like a Third World country in sub-Saharan Africa. And the people have never known what democracy is.

12) Bush's big potental misfortune is that he didn't begin the war a year later. Becuase the American people have a short attention span, and assuming all goes well (and we have seen so far how well things have stuck exactly according to plan) he will STILL have to convince the American people that spending hundereds of billions of dollars to pay for the War and rebuild Iraq is a god idea, in addition to keeping tens of thousands of troops there, even if Turkey or the Kurds make no moves and the Iraqis shower us with palm branches and shish kebab. (Ooops. What shish kebab? They'll be living for at least a couple of months on US and UN handouts. Which will make them feel REALLY liberated.) Remember, we only paid 5% of the cost of the First Gulf War, and we came into the war with a strong economy, and look what happened afterwards. I'm not talking about the election either. This time, don't you think the American people willove love tohear that their hard-earned cash is going to pay for Iraqi schools and banks and health care, when our own economy is a shambles. Under the best of circumstances, we don't like giving handouts to immigrants anyway. Now we are givng handouts to Iraq? Howerver noble we may feel, it will be hard to feel noble when your child's school year has been cut sahort by a month due to budget cutbacks (as is happening even ow in Oregon)and there is ne state where they've had to take out every third lightbulb in the Capitol building of the state's capital b/c they can't affored the elctricity. The states are their worst financial shape since WWII, and you'll be able to convince the American people that it is worthwhile to have a Marshall Plan to rebuild Iraq, whose people won't love us anyway.

Democracy is nice, but the people's hearts will quickly sour towards the idea, when they find out how much it will hit their pocketbook. Democracy is nice, but not if we're paying for it. Which we will have to, w/o the UN. And so far, the promise of Iraqi oil hasn't bolstered the economy. Right now, the public's heads are distracted from other issues by the spectacle on TV. But that will quickly fade, once the Year After sets in. And then, even if post-Saddam Iraq is as quiet as Canada (oops..even Canada has a seperatist movement now!) REality Check.

Except that there are quite a few people out there whose heads aren't buried in sand. They see what's going on....what this war has already cost us, financially, morally, and other terms...and it's part of their reason for opposing this war.

Excuse long post. Tovor will tell you that I am hsitorically famous on JN for LOOONG posts!:)

~T~

[Smeghead]

And that, ladies and gents, is why extra long posts are reffered to as "Teta-sized" by us old-timers. :o)

[Darth Fabulous]

*Yawn* Oh sorry, tired arguments make me, well, tired.

Anyway, no to tear your grossly...you know I can't tell if it's misinformed or underinformed, hmm let's go with misinformed opinions to shreads.

*cracks knuckles*

I'm not even going to reply to that statement..excpet to say that we don't need the UN to support the war, but we sure as hell will be needing them to PAY FOR IT AND THE CLEANUP afterwards!!!!!

Well at least you conceded and saved us all the trouble of telling you how freaking wrong you were.

Any move to impeach Bush is incredibly stupid. I can't decide if it is stupid only to do now, or just stupid no matter when you do it. He has too much Big Money behind him, for one thing. It would never get off the ground, and the American people are sheep.

No, the reason it would be stupid to attempt to impeach Bush and the reason it would never get off the ground is because there is no basis to impeach him. You see, he would have actually had to have done something illegal to be impeached. It has nothing to do with how much money Bush has. Did you think Clinton was poor or something? No, he actually perjured himself when he lied about getting a blowjob in front of a grand jury.

1) I mentioned the Adminsitration's casual "dangit" on TV at not having murdered Saddam a week ago. Never minding that historically it hasn't been the style of the USA to just go in and murder people in high places. (Unless we have, and this whole thing is just a very public and costly CIA excercise using the Army. But I'll leave the entire Western Hemisphere and everything we've done under pretext of the Monroe Doctrine out of this.)

It's no different from a shooting at a general on a battlefield. The commander in chief of a military is as much a part of that military as a grunt on the front line. It's not assassination, nor is it murder. Saddam is a combatant in time of war, so is Bush.

2) We thought we'd be in the suburbs of Baghdad within a week, and the city would fall by April Fool's Day. Obviously, that's not going to happen. Saddam has been "going to school", as one article put it, the tricksy *******. (sorry for Gollum talk. I'm a big LOTR fan. Hm. Maybe we need a bunch of Nazgul to spy out the land, or at least scare the **** out of the Rep Guard!) The Iraqis don't appear to shocked or awed. *GASP* OMG, we actually have to do some serious FIGHTING in this conflict! Putting those billions of dollars of fat juicy military contracts to use. We don't hear "shock and awe" much anymore.

Have you even seen a Pentagon briefing on this war or watched the President or PM Blair address the media? No one, I mean no one, from the President to Private Jow Blow in Iraq will even come close to touching a time table. No one in the administration has said this will be a cake walk. No shock and awe huh? So the Republican Guard in Baghdad isn't a little freaked out when they open fire on empty skies several times a day? The thousands of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered didn't think fighting us was futile?

3) I'm no armchair general, but I've done my homework, and read up on the who, what, where. Anybody who's done thier homework should have forseen this. I think we didn't send in enough troops, becuase we thought it would be a cakewalk. I have said from the very beginning that the VERY FIRST THING we should have done (if I was in CENTCOM--I'm a big Tom Clancy fan--betcha didn't think liberals liked TC didja? In my more depressed moments contemplating this war, I have actually thought strategy) was ****ing blitzkrieged the place (which is probably what SAA meant anyway, it sounded very Leni Riefenstahl), takingover EVERY SINGLE city village and town in Iraq, in a straight line, we should have made that a goal, and NOT bypassed anyplace. Now look, we are having to go back and take towns we never planned to in the first place, and we're getting bogged down.

We have 150000 troops in the theatre right now. We have yet to utilize most of our ground forces in the area. A few divisions are doing most of the fighting. Now don't you think if losses were becoming unacceptable or resistance was stiff enough we would have moved a few thousand more troops across the Kuwaiti border? I give highly experienced, highly trained military leaders the benefit of the doubt. There is a lot we don't know about how this war is being fought and how this military campaign has been planned. I don't think it's reasonable to assume things are going bad before we are told otherwise by the Pentagon. A battle plan is a fluid thing. It must be changed constantly because the enemy's response cannot be predicted to a high enough degree of accuracy. This is nothing new to this campaign, it's a part of war.

5) Now, the War is over: and that was the EASY part. Now comes the winning of hearts and minds. Both in Iraq and elsewhere. Since opposition to the war is getting even stronger outside the US (if that is possible), count the UN OUT when it comes to paying for the cost of the war and the rebuilding. Bush must do many things.

The Coalition of the Willing is now 45 strong. Between the 45, you don't think we have the money to rebuild one country? That's just naive.

6)He must first of all convince the American people that we will NOT be getting right out of Iraq..that we will have to be there for many more months and possibly years. And not just a handful of troops, but hundreds of thousands, to "kkep the country stable while the transition to democracy is out in place." Which the people may mind, and may not, considering the grisly pictures of treatment of POW's this week. And Saddam or no Saddam, they won't like them to be in a place that's still dangerous.

When has Bush said we wouldn't stay around to help rebuild and stabalize Iraq? He has said, several times now, that we will stay there as long as it takes. Hundreds of thousands to maintain peace in a country the size of California huh? You were right, you're not much of an armchair general.

I'll get to the rest of that drivel you posted in the morning, unless someone beats me to the scraps.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Teta@Mar 27 2003, 02:48 PM
On the first night of the war, we tried to murder Hussein outright. I don't care what kind of a tyratn he is--and believe me, I've read all there is to know about him. Even the wrost criminal does not deserve to be mudered in cold blood.
Eichmann was finally captured years later. There were no innocent people in his grasp, so the Israelis had the choice of being civilized. Hussein, on the other hand, rules his people through fear and threat of violence. Today it was reported that Hussein has forced all male children into military service and told them that if they do not fight Coalition forces, their parents will be executed.

I really wish we had killed him on the very first night - it would have saved the lives of so many others.

Also, the opening volley, the "decapitation strike", was the dawn of a new moral level of warfare. For centuries, the people who initiated bloody wars were excluded from the horror of war itself. Warring kings would send thousands to their deaths, like it was some game of chess. And when one king lost, they would nod at each other - game over.

Now, with our new weapons we can strike right at the heart of the problem - the head of the regime. In this way we can spare the innocent "limbs" of Hussein's regime from destruction. Nothing like this has ever been seen in warfare, and it was a supremely moral decision in that it would (if successful) save both American and Iraqi lives.

[Das_Funked]

For centuries, the people who initiated bloody wars were excluded from the horror of war itself. Warring kings would send thousands to their deaths, like it was some game of chess. And when one king lost, they would nod at each other - game over.[QUOTE]

Huh...that's exactly what Bush is doing.

[T-bone]

Originally posted by Darth Fabulous@Mar 28 2003, 02:38 AM
*Yawn* Oh sorry, tired arguments make me, well, tired.

I don't mean to be...mean...but that made me laugh out loud.

[Darth Coil]

For centuries, the people who initiated bloody wars were excluded from the horror of war itself. Warring kings would send thousands to their deaths, like it was some game of chess. And when one king lost, they would nod at each other - game over.[QUOTE]

Huh...that's exactly what Bush is doing.


This theorie doesn't exactly apply to every leader that has started a war in history.

For example: Adolf Hitler has had a very hard life. In WWI he fought at the frontline and saw all the horrors of war happening right in front of him. The Fuhrer himself almost died several times.

So he did know war was awful, but wars are sometimes necessary to have peace and justice in the world!

I agree with you on Bush though, he has no idea what war is like in battle.

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Darth Coil@Mar 28 2003, 08:56 AM
For example: Adolf Hitler has had a very hard life. In WWI he fought at the frontline and saw all the horrors of war happening right in front of him. The Fuhrer himself almost died several times.

So he did know war was awful, but wars are sometimes necessary to have peace and justice in the world!

Whoa... I hope this doesn't mean what it says. Hitler's war was necessary? Wiping out Jews and taking over Europe was to bring peace and justice to the world? He saw the horrors of war right in front of him and almost died several times... am I to feel sorry for him? Yeah he saw the horrors of war and then mutiplied them to the nth degree.

What point are you trying to make? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

[Darth Coil]

Whoa... I hope this doesn't mean what it says. Hitler's war was necessary? Wiping out Jews and taking over Europe was to bring peace and justice to the world? He saw the horrors of war right in front of him and almost died several times... am I to feel sorry for him? Yeah he saw the horrors of war and then mutiplied them to the nth degree.

What point are you trying to make? I hope I'm misunderstanding. [/quote]
You are. The point I was trying to make is that not all historic figures were like what Funked said. Some of them do know what war is really like.

What Hitler did to the jews is inexcusable however he did try to bring proprosperity to the Germany of then which was in turmoil. Riots and poverty ran the streets. It was a country with no future. He built up the country from scratch, autobahnen, more work. Every German was happy again. But then he went really bad. Started to kill defenseles people. The emigration policy was tolerable but killing them was really wrong. He shouldn't have done that!

He went nuts because of all the pressure he had to endure.

[Krogenar]

"We aren't breaking any int'l lw, we just decided to go to war without the UN's support."

I'm not even going to reply to that statement..excpet to say that we don't need the UN to support the war, but we sure as hell will be needing them to PAY FOR IT AND THE CLEANUP afterwards!!!!!

No, actually we're enforcing the United Nations resolutions that the United Nations doesn't have the sack to enforce. And we won't be needing their help in reconstructing Iraq. America rebuilt Europe - twice! We'll fix their oil wells, and use the profits from them to rebuild Iraq into a democratic paradise. And the French, and the cowards in the United Nations won't have any say in it's future. That's really the source of all the anti-Americanism: they know in their hearts that America can do this all on its own, if necessary. Like spiteful children, they are sitting this one out.


I guess what it comes down to is this: (IMHO, of course!): THe Republicans are honest crooks, and the laws they pass are for the most part crookish.

Prove it. Give me an example.

The Democrats are even more crookish and tricksy, (a fine tradition going back to Tammany Hall) but ONLY AS PEOPLE.

I should just post my rebuttals to these crappy statements in one thread, and just reference them with links. It would save time. Do you realize, Teta, how stupid that statement sounds? The Democrats are "crooks" but "ONLY AS PEOPLE." style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif So in their private lives, their corrupt, but when they serve the public they clean up their acts? No sane mind would consider that sound reasoning. It's called 'compartmentalization' and it was used as an excuse for Clinton's scandal-ridden term. It essentially says, "Sure, he's a sleazeball - you're right - but he enacts the legislation we demand, so he's our man - right or wrong."

No other argument so succinctly distills the moral bankruptcy of The Left more than the 'compartmentalization' idea. It's the polar opposite of the concept of leadership, which would read: "I don't always agree with his every decision - but I think he's a good man/woman, and follows his/her conscience - and I can respect that."

Any move to impeach Bush is incredibly stupid. I can't decide if it is stupid only to do now, or just stupid no matter when you do it. He has too much Big Money behind him, for one thing. It would never get off the ground, and the American people are sheep.

The American People are sometimes sheep, but even sheep can tell manure from grass. This claim that Bush is in the pockets of "Big Money" (whatever that means) is just more baseless conspiracy lunacy.

2) We thought we'd be in the suburbs of Baghdad within a week, and the city would fall by April Fool's Day. Obviously,

... you haven't been reading a newspaper. Reporters have been asking the Administration constantly to give them a timetable. No war in America's history has ever been given a "timetable" - yet the media would like to pin Bush to some ridiculous schedule. The response has been, and should remain, "The war will end when we've achieved a regime change." And that's it. There was never any timetable, as you erroneously claim.

If you continue to misrepresent facts, there won't be much reason to read your posts.

3) I'm no armchair general, but I've done my homework,

Your previous statement is at odds with both statements above.

Anybody who's done thier homework should have forseen this.

Glad you're not an armchair general. Yep.
So basically, you think the U.S. military didn't plan this very well, huh? That's just plain stupid.

I have said from the very beginning that the VERY FIRST THING we should have done .... was ****ing blitzkrieged the place (which is probably what SAA meant anyway, it sounded very Leni Riefenstahl), takingover EVERY SINGLE city village and town in Iraq, in a straight line, we should have made that a goal, and NOT bypassed anyplace.

Shock and Awe's idea is to simultaneously hit the enemy's command structure so devastatingly that they are 'frozen' by shock. It's a good plan, but not easily implemented. Also, your idea of "****ing blitzkrieging" Baghdad is woefully ignorant. America could just level the whole goddamned place with a nuke. Or we could use conventional weapons to blow up every single building.

But then thousands of innocent Iraqis, pressed into military service by fear of Hussein, would die. Instead, we're taking the more moral, dangerous course. And you're second guessing us - and our motives. Thanks for nothing.

Now look, we are having to go back and take towns we never planned to in the first place, and we're getting bogged down.

More unfounded criticism. We're driving hard for Baghdad, to take our the command of this regime. Then we quash any fighting behind us.

We should have made it a plan to go in the there with an overwhelming force of 250,000-300,000 troops and captured every single inhabited spot on the map, and left a large garrison of troops behind in each town. If the population fled in terror towards Baghdad, so what? Our propaganda miesters can cover up massive Iraqi civilain deaths any time, and they're at it right now.

Our propaganda masters? Ok, since you're so cynical of American efforts and motives, why even care? This is just a game to you. You really believe that this administration will cavalierly kill innocent Iraqis, and then just blithely 'cover it up'? That's the opinion of a cynical fantasist.


[I won't quote the remainder of Teta's Doomsday Predictions.]

The Iraqi people are used to getting bombed. To them its nothing.

Really? You'd think they'd be sick of it by now.

5) Now, the War is over: and that was the EASY part. Now comes the winning of hearts and minds. Both in Iraq and elsewhere. Since opposition to the war is getting even stronger outside the US (if that is possible), count the UN OUT when it comes to paying for the cost of the war and the rebuilding. Bush must do many things.

You need to brush up on the facts. The United Nations, France and the other pro-tyrant forces arrayed against America are clamoring for access to the rebuilding of Iraq. They're afraid that their pro-tyrant stance will hurt them economically and politically afterwards. And it will hurt them - as it should. So your statement that we should "count the UN OUT" is misinformed. The U.N. is demanding control of Iraq afterwards - but Powell has publicly announced the U.S. will be in charge afterwards - not the U.N.

Your understanding of the situation is exactly backwards.


We also have to assume that we will of course be leaving those huge garrisons of US troops in Iraq to keep rioting from breaking out, as old factions don't try to settle old scores. That place is like India. and remember waht happened when the Brits left.

I expect American forces to remain in Iraq for the next half a century. That's my prediction, and I'm fine with that proposal. It'll be a good way to keep a watchful eye on the islamofascist regimes in the region, like Iran and Syria. And in regards to India, they are officially the largest democracy in the world. They nuclear weapons, and no one is concerned, since they are not ruled by a tyrant.

If there is one thing we DON'T want: it is freedom of the press and of thought. Becuase then one day they'd throw us out. I think Bush wants to turn Iraq into another Nigeria. If luckly, it may even become like China...materially decent but DEMOCRACY? Never.

If you think so little of America and democracies, I suggest you book a flight to North Korea, China or Cuba. All you've done in your litany of fear is try to undermine our efforts. You haven't provided a single positive aspect of this military action. Not one. That makes me suspect your own motives. If your opinion were more balanced, I'd be more inclined to believe it.

11) The Gulf War cost $75 billion, and we only paid 5 billion of that. The UN paid the rest.

That's not how I remember it. Can you back up that statement with a web reference, please?

[Krogenar]

For centuries, the people who initiated bloody wars were excluded from the horror of war itself. Warring kings would send thousands to their deaths, like it was some game of chess. And when one king lost, they would nod at each other - game over.[QUOTE]

Huh...that's exactly what Bush is doing.
And what is Hussein doing? He's ordering children to attack American soldiers, and threatening to kill their parents if they refuse. Also, if Bush were assassinated today, the soldiers in Iraq wouldn't quiver and shake because Bush doesn't have to enforce their loyalty through fear.

[Darth Coil]

And what is Hussein doing? He's ordering children to attack American soldiers, and threatening to kill their parents if they refuse. Also, if Bush were assassinated today, the soldiers in Iraq wouldn't quiver and shake because Bush doesn't have to enforce their loyalty through fear. [/QUOTE]


You're right, Hussein has his soldiers fighting for him because of fear. The soldiers will be killed in a blink by his "special troops" if they do anything that is "against" Hussein.

[Krogenar]

So if Hussein were killed the first night of the war, then maybe there'd be so much chaos that Hussein's regime (without him) wouldn't be able to maintain their stranglehold on the populace, and Iraqi lives would be spared.

That's a moral war, when your tactics adapt to help save people on the other side of the war.

[T-bone]

Hey Krog:

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo...id=ST-205288162 (http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=TB10001&id=ST-205288162)

[Krogenar]

Rockin'.

Captain America rules.

Well, he's great, but Green Lantern... now there's a superhero.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 29 2003, 12:48 AM
Green Lantern... now there's a superhero.
Right on, Krogenar.

[Darth Coil]

The fight is on!
Looks like Bush (Obi-Wan Kenobi) will win, I think he will.

http://www.kicken.fm/irak/bush_saddamduel.jpg

[AlanRJ]

Now look, we are having to go back and take towns we never planned to in the first place, and we're getting bogged down.


More unfounded criticism. We're driving hard for Baghdad, to take our the command of this regime. Then we quash any fighting behind us.


Thats not entirely true. Yes, we drove straight for Baghdad and have troops and armanent getting closer, but what of Basra. Every day now the news says we've taken it, then there's more fighting to take it. Troops are still fighting for control of this town and it's not exactly next door to Baghdad.

I have to agree that Saddams tactics are not nice or pleasant. Yes, he is forcing citizens to fight the Coalition forces, yes he is using and will use suicide bombers and if he does have chemical weapons then he may and probably will use them during the battle for Baghdad but one thing you have to understand and appreciate (I do use the word appreciate and not support because I don't support his tactics) is that he is fighting a losing battle. He is faced with overwhelming odds, he has no air support at all so all of his troops and armaments can be taken out relatively easily through air superiority. But when your back is up against the wall then you have to use any and all tactics you can think of, whether honourable or not otherwise you may as well just surrender and I don't think any leader of a country would lay down his country to an invading force willingly and without a fight.

[JediKeri.]

Coil of all the pics you had to choose from you chose that one? Couldn't you have used something else? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by AlanRJ@Mar 31 2003, 09:15 AM
But when your back is up against the wall then you have to use any and all tactics you can think of, whether honourable or not otherwise you may as well just surrender and I don't think any leader of a country would lay down his country to an invading force willingly and without a fight.

I agreed with everything you said, up until the point quoted above. There are leaders who would lay down their power for the sake of their country.

But these are leaders that actually care about their country, and the people within it. Hussein doesn't give a rat's @ss about his 'people'. If he did, he'd have either disarmed over the last 12 years (in which case there'd be no trouble) or, he could have taken any one of the 'exile packages' that were drawn up for him.

He even could have heeded Bush's final ultimatum for him and his sons to leave Iraq in 48 hours. Instead, Hussein has decided to blow up oil wells, place military targets in densely populated civilian areas, and force children into combat. He'd prefer that the country go down in flames with him, rather than give up power.

Also, I think that these tactics are evidence of Hussein's desperation. He never had the support of the Iraqi people as a whole, he controlled them through fear. In that sense, Coalition forces are not invaders, we're liberators.

[Darth Coil]

Originally posted by JediKeri@Mar 31 2003, 04:13 PM
Coil of all the pics you had to choose from you chose that one? Couldn't you have used something else? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif
What's wrong with it? I mean, it may be a little lame but I like it.

[Das_Funked]

Liberators in your own minds.

I wonder how the Iraqi people will feel when they find out their 'liberators' are murdering civillians?

7 die in checkpoint drama (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.war.main.int/index.html)

I wouldn't be confident about being greeted with open arms either... Iraqis view UK and US as villians (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6220133%255E1702,00.html)

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Apr 1 2003, 04:03 AM
Liberators in your own minds.

I wonder how the Iraqi people will feel when they find out their 'liberators' are murdering civillians?

7 die in checkpoint drama (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.war.main.int/index.html)
It is always tragic when civilians are killed... it is also tragic when soldiers are killed. War is not pretty. Thanks for the reminder in case anyone had actually been thick enough to think it was a cakewalk. There is more to that check point story than meets the eye too. Not to mention the fact that just days earlier men were killed by suicide bomber in a taxi they were trying to help. Those deaths of civilians yesterday would have been avoided had the rules not been changed by the Iraqi leadership. They continue to boast that more suicide bombings will continue, with the actual intent that this exact thing would happen at some point. The rules of engagement were followed appropriately... warning shots were fired. Shots were fired into the radiator. But it kept coming,... why do you think? This type of event was manipulated by a twisted and perverted regime trying to win a propaganda war by forcing us into even more situations where civilians may get hurt.

1. Military installations in civilian areas
2. Soldiers wearing civilian clothes
3. Fake surrenders
4. Suicide bombers in civilian vehicles

All of these are ploys to have Iraqi people murdered to try and get bad press against the Coalition forces. These ploys were devised by whom, I ask you? Who truly is to blame for changing the rules and making it dangerous for civilians? Who has no regard for civilian life?

You continue to ignore the facts to try and shift focus. From day one, every care had been taken to avoid civilian casualties. It would have been a hell of a lot quicker and cheaper to disregard civilian lives and bomb Bagdhad to rubble from beginning to end. Coalition forces have gone to great lengths to avoid casualties, even save the lives of civilians, yet you focus on an incident clearly instigated by a sick and twisted regime.

I actually cried a little for those people yesterday. I have kids of my own, and that was incredibly tragic to see and hear about. I hate that it happened. But it is not just, nor weighted in facts to hold the soldiers responsible. They did what had to be done in light of the situation. The atmosphere that spawned this tragedy was created by Hussein's people... for the express purpose of getting his own people killed in an effort to get bad press for the Coalition.

And you're right... the Iraqi people would feel pretty miffed to say the least, DF. That's Hussein's plan entirely. Get his own people killed so others of his people will hate the Coalition. It's a propaganda war by a desperate and dying regime. I'm so glad you agree with me.

[Das_Funked]

The rules of engagement were followed appropriately... warning shots were fired. Shots were fired into the radiator. But it kept coming,... why do you think?

Let's see...They were being fired upon by an invading army. They were scared. They were being fired upon. People were being killed around them. They were being fired upon. They had children in the car. They were being fired upon.

Wouldn't you drive?

This type of event was manipulated by a twisted and perverted regime trying to win a propaganda war by forcing us into even more situations where civilians may get hurt.

Then the soldiers just have to try harder not to kill civilians. God forbid they try to think before they shoot. As an invading army who are trying to convince the Iraqi people that they are there for them, that should be their second priority (after fighting the war). I've stated my opinion on this before and I don't feel like doing it agian.

[JamesMadison]

Then the soldiers just have to try harder not to kill civilians. God forbid they try to think before they shoot. As an invading army who are trying to convince the Iraqi people that they are there for them, that should be their second priority (after fighting the war). I've stated my opinion on this before and I don't feel like doing it agian.

The soldiers did try not to kill civilians and they did think before firing fatal shots. They first attempted to stop the vehicle by waving their hands in the air signaling them to slow down. When this did not work they raised their rifles and fired shots in the air again in an attempt to get them to stop. When this failed they shot at the radiator. When this failed they shot at the passenger compartment to keep the vehicle from approaching them at the speed it was and bring it to a stop before reaching the base camp.

These facts reveal to me the soldiers did try not to kill civilians and they did some thinking before they shot to kill.

[kopernikuz]

Let's see...They were being fired upon by an invading army. They were scared. They were being fired upon. People were being killed around them. They were being fired upon. They had children in the car. They were being fired upon.

Wouldn't you drive?


No... they were not being fired upon... they were ordered to stop... there were shots fired in the air when they repeatedly ignored these orders... and even if those shots in the air were somehow considered by those drivers to have been shots at me... I'd drive... sure... in the other damn direction. Very good point, DF... why the hell didn't they drive away??? You're right... how odd that they continued to drive TOWARDS the perceived threat as you put it. Perhaps the fear of what they were leaving behind drove them to seek help from us... that's even more tragic that they died in the process. That their fear of their oppressors was so great that they would ignore orders, and continue into a dangerous situation to escape it.

Then the soldiers just have to try harder not to kill civilians. God forbid they try to think before they shoot.

You are absolutely correct. I'm finding so many things we actually agree on today. They should try harder. Like, warn them, wave hands, fire in the air to get them to stop. Try to disable the vehicle to get it to stop. Why the hell didn't they do these things?

Oh wait. They did.

And if they alter those rules of engagement to keep this type of thing from happening again, they'll end up with a suicide bomber in their camp before they can react.

As an invading army who are trying to convince the Iraqi people that they are there for them, that should be their second priority (after fighting the war).

Actually, it's their first priority... if it weren't there wouldn't be four dead marines from a suicide bombings, or more dead marines because of a false surrender. If fighting the war was their first priority, they'd shoot first and ask questions later. They've put themselves continually at risk to avoid killing civilians and been killed in the process. Furthermore, the ground attack would be less necessary because we could obliterate Bagdhad from the air... but lots of innocent people would die along with the guilty. But our soldiers would be safe. There are many who'd argue, they should care less about the civilians and more about their soldiers. I don't sleep in this camp though. I am glad we are doing what we can to save people, and when civilians or soldiers are killed because of the atmosphere of terror, Hussein has created... it's a tragic and horrible thing. But with the rules he's playing by... it's gonna happen occassionally. At least we have made the attempt... he's driven his people into harms way. But that's okay right?

I've stated my opinion on this before and I don't feel like doing it agian.

Much appreciated.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Apr 1 2003, 10:09 AM
This type of event was manipulated by a twisted and perverted regime trying to win a propaganda war by forcing us into even more situations where civilians may get hurt.

Then the soldiers just have to try harder not to kill civilians. God forbid they try to think before they shoot.

I find that last statement insulting. It implies that American soldiers willfully killed innocent peopl