War News

[alaric]

Use this thread to discuss the latest developments in the war.

I'll start off by saying it's just begun. The US just tried to take out Saddam with an air strike, don't know if it was sucessful or not.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I just had a question that stems from this.  Is going after political heads an accepted part of war?  Does the Geneva thing accept it.  Because I don't think the US should be breaking the rule just because it is Saddam.  I assume if we can legally kill political members that so can Iraq or any other country at war with us without being war criminals.

[Ace]

Saddam is the leader of their military, so he is fair game.

[Cossack]

If we could gotten Ho Chi Mihn I dont think that would be against the Geneva Convention.

Anyhow I just learned on a local newsradio that there is a very large operation taking place near Qandahar Shananiganistan (thats a play on Afghanistan for you faggots that have no sense of humour).

[jn.loudnotes]

Cossack - it's late at night for me, so maybe I'm just missing it.  But I don't get the joke.  Seriously.  Can you explain it?  I know what Kandahar, Afganistan is, but what is your point?

Ace, would it be fair game if Saddam managed to assassinate Bush?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The first part says "Shananigan" ... hopefully that clears it up for you.

Technically Saddam attempting to assassinate Bush is fair game, but he and his country would recieve multiple Nuclear Weapons up the ass for doing so. I might also add that it is really unlikely that an American President will ever be assassinated again unless it is an inside job.

[tasty]

Sin, that's the sickest thing I've ever heard. Let's seriously hope you're wrong about our willingness to use nukes, and let's also hope that Saddam doesn't assasinate Bush, because the thought of having Cheney as our president sends deep chills down my spine.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

What, you don't want to see the giant glass Iraqi desert?  

We are willing and able to use our Nuclear weapons whenever we please...if Saddam were somehow able to launch a successful Chemical or Bio attack, it is very likely that we will see a glass desert in certain portions of Iraq.

As an update, it is a damn shame Saddam didn't die tonight...guess our Delta teams have to give it a go.

[kami]

What, you don't want to see the giant glass Iraqi desert?  

That will happen in any event in exactly 27 galactical years when our sun has bloomed into a giant red star, the earth's crusty dry deserts will melt and our whole planet will become a giant ball of glass, unless of course the sun swallows the earth.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Thanks for the explaination Sin...I'm still unsure if I find the joke funny or not Cossack...it is sitting with me.

[[V] Silverblade]

lets just hope no nukes are going to be used...

ass, i hope u get a chance to get a taste of war yourself, bc its nothing to joke about... using nukes is nothing to joke about... it doesnt fuckin get more serious.

problem with americans is they never had a chance to witness a war on their own soil. must be fun sitting 20000 miles away from the warzone, poppin' a bud and watchin cruise missiles strike their targets on cnn. but war aint like that... at least for the poor souls who live there its not...

shame on u

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Saddam is the leader of their military, so he is fair game.

So is Bush...ever heard the term Commander In Chief?

Anyway, the point I was trying to convey is that the US can't be breaking rules, even if the enemy would.  So if we are justified to kill the leader of another country then they must have the same justification to do the same to us.  We don't get to have a double standard.

[Ace]

Did I ever say that the Iraqis couldn't try to kill Bush as a military figurehead? No, so quit sticking words in my mouth. Theoretically, they could, but I would be willing to bet that every MOAB in our arsenal would go straight to Baghdad if such an attack was ever attempted.

And no Sin, we wouldn't nuke for an attack on Bush. Are you guys that stupid over at FUCLA?

[alaric]

Okay, time to get back on topic:

The 1st Marine division is now operating inside the Iraqi border.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Troops have captured a small port city, a handful of oil wells have been set on fire in the southern part of Iraq.

As for killing Saddam, Fox News just mentioned that it would only be legal after a declaration of war or if we didn't have a law banning assassinations.  So at the moment it wouldn't be legal to take Saddam out although there is no court to prosecute if we did (once again, according to Fox News).

[kami]

Turkey moved into northern Iraq?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

A disturbing trend seems to be happening in the way of helicopter malfunctions.  Yesterday two had hard landings after problems, but thankfully everyone was safe.  Then a third one has crashed killing all 16 on board (the first casualties of the war for us, 12 British and 4 American).  This is troublesome that the problems so far are our fault as it were.  That the deaths are not on account of the Iraqis isn't so much the surprising thing, just how frequent these problems have happened so far.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

As for killing Saddam, Fox News just mentioned that it would only be legal after a declaration of war or if we didn't have a law banning assassinations.  So at the moment it wouldn't be legal to take Saddam out although there is no court to prosecute if we did (once again, according to Fox News).

I think I've mentioned this a few times, especially when Bander asked why we don't just kill him.

Assassination isn't quite the right word.  Murder is (since murder is actually the crime).  But to assassinate him not at a time of war would be murder, and illegal in the US.

However, it's an open question as to if it would be illegal today.  War hasn't been declared, but the President is given the right to use military force for 90 days (I finally remembered how long it was).  And the Congress has passed a resolution of support.  So, the law is open to interpretation on it's application in this case.  Which is why we have courts =D

Yes, in a time of war, all military leaders are fair targets, however, it's also tradition not to target heads of state (broken often).  It's thought that targeting heads of state hurts the overall solution and the peace process that follows war.  In this case, the tradition doesn't mean as much, since the only solution will involve Saddam leaving Iraq.  

As for helicopter malfunctions, they plagued the previous Gulf war as well.  The desert is hard on them in the best conditions (the sand there wears away the rotors at a pace of up to 20 times quicker then any other environment).  Also, these helicopters go down in bad weather in peace time, when they aren't flying so close to the ground (nap of the earth I think is the term).  That is dangerous in good weather, in the day, without the worry of people shooting at you.  So it isn't surprising that they are having the problems, especially in the high winds they had yesterday.

Also, if you look at the stats from the last Gulf War (I hate to think of it like football scores, so I apologize for that), but more allied forces were killed in accidents and friendly fire then to the weapons of the Iraqi.  The only consolation in that is that loss of life was so small compared to other military actions of that size and magnitude.  

Kami, I've heard that and heard it refuted.  Who knows?  It would be a very interesting thing, considering their stances.

[kami]

About the helicopter malfunctions, I don't think you can blame anyone but the nature of the desert, I've seen a good deal of footage of soldiers with protective casing around their guns to prevent sand from hurting their weapons, must be a similar thing with the helicopter problems.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Kami, you are on target, but it's even worse with helicopters.  More moving parts exposed to the fine, powdery sand.  Add to that difficult flying conditions even without the sand, and you can expect accidents.