US, Iraqi conflict.

[WeaSelFlinK]

President George W. Bush's threat to bomb Iraq for supporting terror and for not allowing United Nations weapons inspectors in the country has divided opinion among members of the international coalition against terrorism.

Iraq has softened its position on the return of UN inspectors, but only after agreement on a timetable and on the locations to be monitored. However, Washington believes this is not sufficient and has demanded unconditional and unlimited access to suspected weapons sites. Would an attack on Iraq be justified or should the country be given another chance? Should other countries support the US? And how should the world deal with Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

[Night Hawk]

To sum up a long paragraph i could write.  America should just   them all. mb a little   and   them,  of course, they got their game plan set already    than afterwards we will   and    America >>>>  

[Mr. Lothario]

     As with all situations which bear on the Middle East, there's no right path. Iraq is almost certainly building up a weapons stockpile and hiding it from inspectors, not to mention funding terrorism and basically being a buncha warmongering asses. An attack is almost certainly justified. On the other side of the coin, an attack would piss off much of the world, definitely including virtually the entire Middle East. Any attack may push Hussein to use his weapons, in which case we can pretty much say "goodbye" to Israel and anybody else Hussein doesn't like. Our victory is nearly assured. We're very good at this by now. But even if we attacked and won, Hussein's generals (read: the guys who will war among themselves for leadership of Iraq) are even more insane than he is. If we win and immediately pull out, we'll have problems from Iraq within five to ten years. If we win and stay in occupation, install a "friendly" gov't, and do the normal Colonialist America shit, then we'll have problems from Iraq in fifteen to thirty years. If we attack, we bring shit down on our own heads. If we don't attack, we bring shit down on our own heads. Isn't dealing with the Middle East fun?

     My big fear, however, is that an attack will start WWIII, with us as the aggressors. None of this Nazi-Germany-headed-by-an-evil-dictator shit here, no siree. Just plain ol' Dubya and his cohorts, starting a war for their own fun and profit. WWIII will be America's fault.

[Bondo]

For the first time in our nation's history, we should actually listen to the rest of the world.  They don't support an attack so we shouldn't attack.  We must NEVER enter battle without the UN fully on our side.  Unilateral action is what makes us target #1 for many people.  Also, if we tried to attack Bagdad it would look much like Black Hawk Down...not very good odds with thousands of civilians running around, many of them loyal to Saddam and armed with no fear of death.

[+-KoS-+ Gorf]

Well being canadian and all I get a slightly different perspective on things.  Bondo is correct.

May I just add though, that if the US invades Iraq, it won't be a walk in the park.  Personally I think Iraq has a strong, large, and loyalarmy.  LOYAL being a key word because if I was drafted to fight in Iraq for example, I wouldn't do shit because I totally don't support the cause.  This is how many other men in the army feel about this.  Personally I think the US would get their asses murdered if they tried street-fighting in Bagdad, considering our army isn't trained well for that sort of thing.

My opinion is, let the fucker(sadam) talk shit if he wants.  But when he attacks someone else, go in and fucking wipe out the entire country.  It absolutely disgusts me that the US thinks it can go and invade a country because they "think" they pose a threat.  It doesn't work like that, I'm sorry.  The USA (and many children brought up in this country) unfortunately thinks they're invincible and that everyone else is inferior to them.

Well l have news for everyone.  It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets so pissed at the USA for being such a fucking monopoly that they will all turn against it and tell them to keep their army in it's own country where it belongs.  And when that day comes my brother and I will happily walk back to Canada as citizens, safe and sound.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

For the first time in our nation's history, we should actually listen to the rest of the world.  They don't support an attack so we shouldn't attack.  We must NEVER enter battle without the UN fully on our side.  Unilateral action is what makes us target #1 for many people.  Also, if we tried to attack Bagdad it would look much like Black Hawk Down...not very good odds with thousands of civilians running around, many of them loyal to Saddam and armed with no fear of death.

Bondo, spoken like a true liberal...absolutely disgusting. You cease to look back into history from the Treaty of Versailles that set up the U.N.'s failed predecessor, the League of Nations. The reason why the League of Nations no longer exists today (disbanded during WWII) is because they couldn't enforce their own resolutions - Japan attacking Manchuria, Hitler invading the Sudentenland, both with the same results, nothing being done.

That being said, if the U.N. can't enforce its own resolutions, or doesn't want to, it is a worthless collection of people who debate. Let's move on, shall we? So you want to give Saddam a second chance do you? At first he said through his foreign minister at the U.N. that he accepted the unconditional return of weapons inspectors - but when the U.S. and Britain wanted a resolution with teeth behind it and unrestricted access, he quickly backpedalled and reneged on his statement because he thought he could get away with the same crap as before.

About Saddam's army being loyal? The only ones loyal to him are his "elite" Republican Guard - the rest will surrender once the first tank rolls in or the first Marines hit the ground like they did in the Persian Gulf War. As for his army being strong? They still use antiquated Soviet era tanks and will lack air defenses after the opening salvo of the war has begun - leaving our aircraft complete air superiority and thorough domination of the sky's.

Quickly before I have to go:

It won't be like Mogadeeshu (sp?) from BHD for many reasons including the core of the Iraqi population would have left Baghdad by the time U.S. troops hit the ground and the fact that we would have a greater number of troops and firepower on the ground. You are more likely to see an armor column running through Baghdad than a couple dozen Rangers and Delta force members against thousands of armed enemies.

More to come after I get back from classes today.

[Colin]

It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets so pissed at the USA for being such a fucking monopoly that they will all turn against it and tell them to keep their army in it's own country where it belongs.  And when that day comes my brother and I will happily walk back to Canada as citizens, safe and sound.

lol, i tell this to kid's at school every week!  A couple of mornings ago i was watching a news show were the public called in on what they thought the US should do about the iraqi situation...Most of the people who called in suggested that the US drop a low-yield nuclear bomb on iraq, one person added that the reason they should do it was because it worked so well on Japan in WWII.  How horrible and cruel could someone possibly be???  I now see why some countries want nothing to do with the US because I want nothing to do with the US.  Some of the other people who called into the show said that the US should invade iraq.  I still wonder if those people have a SHRED of concern for their army!  I believe that the US has a great army with great training, but if these people are a fair representation of the American opinion then i really don't think they are worthy of their soldiers' protection


  :(Colin---Cuo

[Oso]

so far none of you had made actually decent arguements, except for assassin and loth. The rest of you are just saying FUCK THE U.S., give Iraq and 2nd chance. Like assassin said.. this is his 2nd chance...

the 1st chance was before the Gulf War, where saddam did the same thing he is doing now. He said sure let them in... but just kept lying and hiding his arsenal. As you see today, saddam is saying the same shit, saying, sure come in and check out my arsenal, but you can only check here and here...

i believe George W. Bush said something on the 17th.. but he totally screwed up cuz he is a monkey, saying "fool me once...shame on .... uh..uh..uh.. shame on you. .. uh.. but  you see the fool cant be fooled again you see."-  foolish president...

Colin - you say FUCK THE U.S because you guys fucken Nuked Japan in WW2... it seems you forgot why we did that... 1st off we had just created the 1st atomic bomb, and 2nd we did it to avoid an amphibious and air assault, which would have cost the lives of millions of american lives

to get back on this forum.. the only way i feel an attack will be justified, if we get 100% of the UN security council to back us up on an attack on Iraq... and if the U.N weapon inspectors find weapons of mass destruction.. and saddam refuses to disarm them.

the one problem i have with this whole situation, is that, i feel  that the US is just looking for an easier target... its like saying during WW2  when Pearl Harbor was bombed, we went, "OH SHIT, LETS INVADE AUSTALIA!" -John Stewert =D and i also i think we want to do it so we dont have to rely on sadia arabia for oil

[*DAMN Snake]

  Yes oso, assassin and loth are the only ones that make sence... first off, a nuke? why would we nuke them? we would be killing are oil supply. also, the U.N. is behind us, we do not want to let that out to the public yet becaues saddam will know he is going to be attacked. and yes he watches US news. when i was in the gulf war the US said over the news we were going to attack iraq by sea raid... so they lined up on the shore and we came from behind...

    Great britan is right behind us if we go to war. and if anyone is wondering how i am writing this, it's because my friend shiped me his ibook   but if we go to war i can not write back, or be on GR anymore... and yes USA will cream Iraq!  

Iraq------>            <----USA

[Colin]

Colin - you say FUCK THE U.S because you guys fucken Nuked Japan in WW2... it seems you forgot why we did that... 1st off we had just created the 1st atomic bomb, and 2nd we did it to avoid an amphibious and air assault, which would have cost the lives of millions of american lives

Oso, in the future, reading my post more than once might help you understand what i am saying.  I never said i was against dropping an atom bomb into Japan (i wasn't alive back then), the point is, this guy know that the US already did that, now he's suggesting (along with other people) that the US DO IT AGAIN and kill possibly millions more, i go further by defending the US soldiers by saying an invasion shouldn't happen when others say that "we should just go in and wipe them out", the point is that there are tons of better alternatives than to do what these people are suggesting.  I AM saying "FUCK THE US" as you put it, if the american population only consists of these morons!  Maybe u didn't read my whole post or maybe u got confused but don't twist the shit out of my words!


  :DColin---Cuo

[Jeb]

Since i hate political arguements (and reading pages posts before this) i'lll jus say what i think.
Iraq has shafted the World for to long. The UN needs to let their balls drop and take action against husien. If they fail to do their job the US and england will clean up the problem. It seems that the advantage to having other countrys helping the war against terror is to limit the cost.

Also you haters who say bush will ruin the country...
We have a war powers act that limits the presidential power in a full scale war, he can move troops and do things faster than congress. then the congress must aprove his actions within 40 days of the start.
The congress is the only body of government that can declare war, the president 's main job is to enforce the laws. If Congress doesn't declare war and defies bush the only harm would be a political embaressment.
Its called checks and balences bitches, we wouldn't be such a great country if it wasn't for that
I'm glad gore isn't here cause he would just be fingering his puss while other countrys walked all over us.
jeb
ps. Can't we just have clinton again?

[Bondo]

WTF Oso, because I disagree with you I don't make a good point.  I acknowledge points counter to my own as good points...not better but good.  All I said is we need to act with the support of our allies, not against their wishes.  The U.S. is one of 250 or so nations in the world, just because we make the most money and have a strong military doesn't give us the right to always act on our own judgement outside of our country.  Only a fool would say that having other countries support us is a bad thing.  Are you a fool Oso?

[Brain]

first off, the eagerness of people to use nuclear weapons against iraq appals me. they may be good for a piunch line in a joke or in starcraft, but in the real world, they are the single most distructive force on this planet that man can command

they are NOT to be taken lightly

nuclear weapons are not an instant effect like a conventional explosive. after detonation, radiation will add mant thousands to the death toll from the initial blast. the area will be uninhabitable for many decades to come, and the fallout will effect many more innocent victims.

if you want to piss off the world and get WWIII going, a nuke will be an excelent way to start it.

now, on to my feelings about the isssue at hand.

the us should not move in with out un support. unfortunatly, what the world seems to have forgotton is that the arms inspections were a condition of a CEASE FIRE. technicaly, ee're still at war with iraq, and the moment he refused the first inspectors, the un had  the full right to go in and pound hussein's ass into the sand.

unfortunatly, due to current circumstances, the us is operating from a weakened position. by atacking iraq under the pretexts of the war on terrorism, we will give  the impression that after we go after sadam, then we're dcoing to go after cuba, or perhaps another country on our nations 'hit list'. as loth said, damned if you do, damned if you dont. the only advantage to going in with un backing is that it means that a smaller part of ther world hates us for our actions.

[Bondo]

First I never said we needed the UN's HELP, I said we need their APPROVAL.  Big difference.  I don't see why you guys are having so much trouble understanding that cooperation is the only way to peaceful situations.  War begats war, it doesn't vanquish it.  That is why the War to end all wars was as silly a name to give to WWI as anything.

Secondly, I didn't mean that Bagdad would be identical to Somalia, but I do feel that it will be a battle that can't be easily fought like many Americans feel.  We can't just go in and bomb Bagdad like we did the terrorist camps in Afgahnistan.  There are too many civilians to just eliminate the threat using air support.  We will have to go in with troops and vehicles, and despite our strengths...when you don't know who is just a civilian and who isn't it is a bad situation...just like in Somalia, just like in Vietnam.  No it won't be a complete disaster, but it will still be bad.

And if you think this point lacks validity, I ask you to go back to a thread maybe a week ago about this topic where Mauti posts about attacking Bagdad and how that would be.  If you are going to claim Mauti doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to military stuff, then I really have to wonder about you.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Well Bondo, seeing that I took some MS courses at Westpoint, I think I can argue about military tactics with anyone here on these forums. Out of curiosity Bondo, did you read the Dossier that Britain released a couple days ago?
I see that you ignored my point earlier, but it is most likely that Iraqi civilians would have fled Baghdad by the time the U.S. Marines or armor comes around. Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard is digging trenches about 20 miles from the city, so that will nullify some of the threat of bombing civilians.
Taking over Baghdad won't be that hard for many reasons...in the opening salvo of the war, what target's do you think are most likely to get hit? Answer: AAA/AAM batteries, Barracks, RADAR facilities, communication equipment, suspected WMD sites, and Saddam's Palace's. Last time we did this in the Persian Gulf War, we annihilated 2/3 of Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard from the getgo and the rest of the army surrendered once we cut the head off of their leadership (commonly known as divide and conquer).
To also make things easier on us, we are currently training the Shiite's inthe south and the Kurd's in the north to participate in a "liberation" of Baghdad - something very similar to what the northern alliance did in Afghanistan.
Personally my feeling is that this will be like what happened in Grozny (I bet only Cossack knows of this place) with all of the civilians clearing out and only the two sides brawling...except this will be a massacre by the U.S. troops. Because unlike in Grozny, Saddam's forces are less equiped and not as determined as the rebels were in Chechnya. Believe, once Saddam is dead (and he will be shorty after war breaks out) all of his "loyal" soldiers will throw down their arms and surrender - I doubt they are stupid enough to fight for someone who would already be dead.

Brain: I think whoever brought up tactical nuclear weapons was joking, even if we were hit with a chemical or biological warhead, I still doubt we would nuke them.

oops, sorry, hit the modify button instead of quote. i think that's all of your message back, but i'm not shure

[Oso]

okie.. i dont know if this is true or just a rumor, but i heard that the civilians that are "used" for "protection" around Iraqi bases, will be considered "working for the enemy" and will not be considered civilian, but rather enemy... and killed during bombing with no sympathy toward civilian casualties.

is it true?

and for bondo... if you read what i said, i never said bondo i dont agree with you, so your points are invalid, i just said you didnt make a good arguement on the situation, but i too said we should have 100% UN security council to back us up, like Ace said it was mostly on your comment about it turing into another BHD situation.

colin, maybe i said this wrong, or didnt add this into my earlier post, but about the nuke thing, i probably meant "this is now and that was then." ...then no one else had an atom bomb, so there was no worries for us about another country nuking us back for retaliation for the Japanese. Now, other countries have nukes also and we know the penalty for using one on a country... and any way, the US already stated that they wouldn't even consider using a single Nuke on either The War on Terror, nor The War with Iraq.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Hi I am a Democrat:


I believe that Iraq isnt any bigger a threat now then since September 11. The only reason Bush is stessing Iraq is to take everyones mind of domestic issues he can't or won't resolve and the fact that our glorified war on terrorism is falling apart. This man stong arms the UN places which defeats the purpose of the UN and he shouldnt be in office anyway (remember way back that big election thingy?)

[Bondo]

Well Oso, you said no one but a few specific people made good points, you didn't say I made some good and some bad points you basically said I made no good points...and I'm sorry I wasn't clear on what I meant with the BHD reference.

Zait, just goes to show that Republicans can "Wag The Dog" just as well as the Democrats.  I'm certainly not a democrat, I consider myself liberal...and if I need to associate with a political party it is the Green Party.

[Brain]

Brain: I think whoever brought up tactical nuclear weapons was joking, even if we were hit with a chemical or biological warhead, I still doubt we would nuke them.

i used  the mension of NBC weapons as a way  express my general dismay at the american populus with out going off topic too much. i was mainly speaking about the average amaricans relative ignorance if the full effects of what they want the country to do. all the public wants to do is simply drop the bomb

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Hi I am a Democrat:


I believe that Iraq isnt any bigger a threat now then since September 11. The only reason Bush is stessing Iraq is to take everyones mind of domestic issues he can't or won't resolve and the fact that our glorified war on terrorism is falling apart. This man stong arms the UN places which defeats the purpose of the UN and he shouldnt be in office anyway (remember way back that big election thingy?)

Zaitsev, that is a purely European point of view, care to back it up with facts or are you just going to leave a baseless comment out there? I am rather sure that I can shoot down your arguments, so give me a shot at it.

The one thing you did mention - Bush strongarming the UN, wtf are you smoking? The UN has shown that it is too pussy to act on its own, so we have to do it for them. If the U.N. can't enforce it's own resolutions, then they are worthless, plain and simple. Iraq has violated its terms of cease-fire and countless other U.N. resolutions, and it is time they paid for their ways. You may say to me "well how come the inspectors didn't find any WMD when they were there originally?" My response to that is that there were numerous "restricted zones" where the inspectors wouldn't go - one of them outside of Baghdad was the size of London and all of the weapons were hidden in these areas.

We can't bank on the Russians helping us out in a Security Concil vote because they have too many economic ties to Iraq: Read up on the $40 Billion contract they signed with each other a couple months ago. In turn, if you want to get something done right, you have to do it yourself.