Are we going to war?

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apparently this war is going to end up being more city based, which is bad for US troops who are used to neither the gulf or their cities. I think experience will be a major factor.

Which was exactly the case of Vietnam. Youre quite right.

And BS, very interesting. I agree. You'd figure they have taken knowledge of the defeat at the Gulf war and used it to prepare again. I agree.

[Mr Sleep]

The Onion have an amusing angle for all

[KidD01]

No more War ! I'm tired of Dubya rubbish on Iraq - not that I'm pro Saddam or what. Yet with probs down here where a lot of protest still going on upon govt policy to raise price of vital things - this war stuff will light another major riot, since it also effect for-ex.

I also hate Mahatir comment on Dubya and US anti terrorist movements. He seems smarter than anyone in SE Asia, but the truth he's already over the hill

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
Hey folks..this is a man who is killing his own citizens who he considers ethnically inferior. Does this not ring a bell for anyone?

Are you saying Hussein is like Hitler, and should be invaded because of this?

Was 19th century Britain like Hitler, when it invaded China and India, and ruled in the "Empire where the sun never sets"? Was Churchill a Hitler for refusing for years to consider returning India to local rule? And as far as "ethnically superior" comments are concerned, Hitler had nothing on the Victorians and Edwardians.

What about US President Andrew Jackson? "And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?" Jackson engineered the infamous Trail of Tears, and attempted to cause the destruction of the American Indian; to this day, he is known among Cherokees as Great White Grandfather Devil. Should the nations of Europe have invaded the US, as they could have, to stop this process?

I think the answer is obvious: there is no similarity between these cases, and there's none between Hussein and Hitler. (By the way, Hussein hasn't been killing Kurds since the exclusion zone was set up in the northern part of the country. He's forbidden by international law, which the US and Britain have enforced.) The fact that a political leader hates a minority and has attempted to drive it away or kill it is common enough throughout history; the US still supports several African and Asian leaders who follow policies like this. (Um, China and Tibet, anyone?) But the analogy to Hitler is--well, I'm just surprised you're buying into it. I can understand it being thrown to people who are politically naive and will accept whatever an administration has to say, @Scayde, but I can't see you accepting something of this sort.

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by fable
Are you saying Hussein is like Hitler, and should be invaded because of this?

Was 19th century Britain like Hitler, when it invaded China and India, and ruled in the "Empire where the sun never sets"? Was Churchill a Hitler for refusing for years to consider returning India to local rule? And as far as "ethnically superior" comments are concerned, Hitler had nothing on the Victorians and Edwardians.

What about US President Andrew Jackson? "And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?" Jackson engineered the infamous Trail of Tears, and attempted to cause the destruction of the American Indian; to this day, he is known among Cherokees as Great White Grandfather Devil. Should the nations of Europe have invaded the US, as they could have, to stop this process?

I think the answer is obvious: there is no similarity between these cases, and there's none between Hussein and Hitler. (By the way, Hussein hasn't been killing Kurds since the exclusion zone was set up in the northern part of the country. He's forbidden by international law, which the US and Britain have enforced.) The fact that a political leader hates a minority and has attempted to drive it away or kill it is common enough throughout history; the US still supports several African and Asian leaders who follow policies like this. (Um, China and Tibet, anyone?) But the analogy to Hitler is--well, I'm just surprised you're buying into it. I can understand it being thrown to people who are politically naive and will accept whatever an administration has to say, @Scayde, but I can't see you accepting something of this sort.

And should we now invade Zimbabwe because of the actions of Robert Mugabe, or was his driving out and persecution of the white farmers exactly the same thing as these examples? It's not black and white, Scayde, no matter how you look at it.

[RandomThug]

Alright I wanted this to be more of like a poll but opinions never go away so here I go.


Hussien is a bad person, who has done horrible things. What has his punishment been for those horrible things ? His soldiers die in a war against us, his people suffer from his crap. I mean how horrible has life been for that bastard? Im pretty sure it hasn't been hell, I mean sure he aint livin la vida loco... but still.

So whatever the cause is, he needs to loose power. Maybe Bush is just looking for anything with his "weapons of mass destruction" and maybe he is just "finishing daddys work" but you know what? Bush SR. SHOULD have finished his work, and saddam needs to get outa power. And he is such a power hungry bastard nothing short of killing him or forcefully taking him out will do.

Or we could just leave it alone and pretend to hunt invisible terrorists across the world.

Then you got Korea who is threatning war, well when HAVENT they been on the edge. They have been bluffing for years. Maybe bush should go there first, maybe he is trying to prove a point and show the world that we can win. We took out a bunch of terrorists camps in afghanastan and for all best knowledge killed osama.

Now were going to get rid of a horrid dictator who needs to be punished for his crimes.

So far I see us doing good things.

Maybe were not going about it hte best way, but you show me one time in history any one government did anything risky without protest or without flaws. We were hated for not joining ww2, then we did and we finished the damn thing. Then the world expects to police its people... So we dont do the best job, we didnt really want to do it.

I mean pre ww2 we wanted to be isolated.

It looks bad sure cause Bush aint no Kennedy. But then again Kennedy wasnt the best guy ever, but you wouldnt think that. What I am getting at is that the world (middle east specificly) is in chaos and something needs to get done.

Who better then us. And I hear all this talk about can we take on more than one war at a time. I doubt we will go in alone, and last time i checked when we were fighting on more than one front we did fine. We had help of course, but we will again.

Once weasel told me...

"If there were web boards during roman times, you'd find a lot of people bashing Rome"

The people on top, the person in charge, the people making the decisions that change the world/office place/ dinner table will always be looked at with a suspicious and sometimes uneedingly eye.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
Are you saying Hussein is like Hitler, and should be invaded because of this?

Was 19th century Britain like Hitler, when it invaded China and India, and ruled in the "Empire where the sun never sets"? Was Churchill a Hitler for refusing for years to consider returning India to local rule? And as far as "ethnically superior" comments are concerned, Hitler had nothing on the Victorians and Edwardians.

What about US President Andrew Jackson? "And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?" Jackson engineered the infamous Trail of Tears, and attempted to cause the destruction of the American Indian; to this day, he is known among Cherokees as Great White Grandfather Devil. Should the nations of Europe have invaded the US, as they could have, to stop this process?

I think the answer is obvious: there is no similarity between these cases, and there's none between Hussein and Hitler. (By the way, Hussein hasn't been killing Kurds since the exclusion zone was set up in the northern part of the country. He's forbidden by international law, which the US and Britain have enforced.) The fact that a political leader hates a minority and has attempted to drive it away or kill it is common enough throughout history; the US still supports several African and Asian leaders who follow policies like this. (Um, China and Tibet, anyone?) But the analogy to Hitler is--well, I'm just surprised you're buying into it. I can understand it being thrown to people who are politically naive and will accept whatever an administration has to say, @Scayde, but I can't see you accepting something of this sort.

fable, I am well aware that Hussein has not racked up the track record that Hitler did. I do see similarities in their basic behaviors. The point I was attempting to make is that the US has been ridiculed in the past as an accessory defacto of the holocost due to their lack of timely intervention. I feel that Hussein, among others, should be watched very closely. He is a dangerous man. His resources may be limited, and alone I do not see him asa serious world threat. I do however sense that his ego and basic nature lead him to be the perfect front man for far more dangerous entities. As I said..I am not sure war is the right course of action..and honestly, I do not think it will come to that. But if it does, I support the President.

Re; Our very checkered human rights record. ..
I am not about to defend the actions of our government against the native peoples of this continent. It was a long and honorless war of occupation that wrested their land form them. While I live and enjoy the spoils of that war, I can never find honor in the way we gained this land

@ Kam: No it is never black and white. I think you missunderstood my point. I will try to make myuself more familiar with the situation you cited. Untill then, I am afraid I know too little about it to make a thoughtful reply

[RandomThug]

I wanna make my point real simple without jargin.

Evil men live every day on this earth, evil men want to do horrible things to people weither they are innocent or not. It is not the best course of action to "wait" until they act to punish them. We have seen the worse before. Perhaps Saddam isnt really a threat, but lets say we didnt bomb Afghanastan and saddam was to supply those terrorists with chemical weapons (or any other evil group) and those planes that hit our buildings were carrying more then innocent people and fuel, but chemical weapons.

War is always inevitable, man is a beast and will always thirst for power be him a man of god or a man of satan (evil good etc).

If the us doesnt step in who will. More acts like the gassing of the japanese train place, more acts like in the (bahama's or i forget where recently terrorists attacks to non americans)

Who will step in, sure maybe were doing it in a different order than we should.

Then again I ALWAYS KNOW what plays the Redskins should have ran, because of course I am a better coach.

[Audace]

Originally posted by RandomThug
So we dont do the best job, we didnt really want to do it.

You seem to be under the impression that the US had a choice in the matter...A great American once said "with great power comes great responsibility"....especially if you want to hang on to that power.

"The point I was attempting to make is that the US has been ridiculed in the past as an accessory defacto of the holocost due to their lack of timely intervention"...Scayde, by whom? Cause it's a ridiculous accusation, which shouldn't be a basis to go to war right now.

Anyways, if there's going to be a war, it'll be before it's summer in Iraq(whenever that is), and either it'll be a short air war, or a long guerilla war, depending on the internal opposition in Iraq.

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by Audace
"The point I was attempting to make is that the US has been ridiculed in the past as an accessory defacto of the holocost due to their lack of timely intervention"...Scayde, by whom? Cause it's a ridiculous accusation, which shouldn't be a basis to go to war right now.

Tell me about it - I heard that a lot in History lessons...

[RandomThug]

@Kam and Audice

Just because its ridicules doesnt mean it exists. Everyone wants to point a finger, and its the easiest to point at the man in charge so to say.

There will always be nay sayers and those who hate America but I TOO believe in the idea of a regime change in Iraq. And to get it done any way possible.

TTo say that Scayde was trying to use that fact (people think we should have acted before) is just pointing out one thing she said, look at her whole argument before commenting.

[fable]

Originally posted by RandomThug
Perhaps Saddam isnt really a threat, but lets say we didnt bomb Afghanastan and saddam was to supply those terrorists with chemical weapons (or any other evil group) and those planes that hit our buildings were carrying more then innocent people and fuel, but chemical weapons...

There hasn't been the slightest bit of evidence offered to show that Hussein had anything to do with Afghanistan. in fact, several months after 9/11, Bush made a speech in which he categorically dismissed Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

But at this point, the administration seems to be searching for anything to throw at Hussein, and cover up their very real failure to catch the ringleaders of Al-Quai'dah. Instead of focusing on this network of terrorism, they're focusing on a man who barely has room enough to cough, let alone meet with terrorists. Not that I like Hussein; but there are far worse dictators available than ole' Saddam, who was our good buddy and was supplied by the US with biological weapons of mass destruction--when we needed him.

So why pick on Hussein now? NK is far more likely to use its weapons of mass destruction, and its leadership is a lot less pragmatic and lot more paranoid than Iraq's. China's decades long invasion and ethnic cleansing of Tibet is ignored by the Bush administration. We supported Indonesia through its reign of terror, even after the invasion and destruction of East Timur; we're still supporting African dictators who bleed their nations dry and live in private mansions.

Note, the US hasn't been alone in such policies, so I'm not blaming the US exclusively. But I'd still like to know why Hussein is being singled out for punishment now, when nothing has changed in years. Or could it be the smell of cheap oil, sensed by a president and vice president who have both been the heads of oil corporations for many years...?

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by Audace

"The point I was attempting to make is that the US has been ridiculed in the past as an accessory defacto of the holocost due to their lack of timely intervention"...Scayde, by whom? Cause it's a ridiculous accusation, which shouldn't be a basis to go to war right now.

Typically, by ourselves. We like to critique or second guess ourselves, and many people say, "What would have happened if we stopped the holocaust earlier?" Thats a question that has been asked in our education system constantly. But the fact is, that the US was not the only one who didnt act immediately, and the Holocaust was hardly even known about in the beginning of WWII, so it cannot be an arguement for war now, because it wasnt then.

But this is a side conversation, entirely, and as Fable said, its not applicable in this situation.

And it cannot be an arguement for war now.

[RandomThug]

So Fable your beef is you dont like who we chose first. Because like you said he is still a bad man. So its who we went after first thats the problem, not the fact were doing it at all.

All the talk about mass destruction weapons might be tall crap from some texan, but maybe he is just finishing daddies job. So what its still something that should be done.

its not like he is likely to just stop after iraq. I mean were back into policing.

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by RandomThug
@Kam and Audice

Just because its ridicules doesnt mean it exists. Everyone wants to point a finger, and its the easiest to point at the man in charge so to say.

There will always be nay sayers and those who hate America but I TOO believe in the idea of a regime change in Iraq. And to get it done any way possible.

TTo say that Scayde was trying to use that fact (people think we should have acted before) is just pointing out one thing she said, look at her whole argument before commenting.

I was saying that I'd heard that viewpoint a lot, I know it's pretty stupid but it exists. And it's widespread.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by RandomThug
So Fable your beef is you dont like who we chose first. Because like you said he is still a bad man. So its who we went after first thats the problem, not the fact were doing it at all.

All the talk about mass destruction weapons might be tall crap from some texan, but maybe he is just finishing daddies job. So what its still something that should be done.

its not like he is likely to just stop after iraq. I mean were back into policing.

Y&ou know Thug.I have wondered myself if GWB did not feel a lot of the same dissatisfaction with the way the Gulf War ended....There were more than a few Americans who felt the job was left undone, Stormin Norman being at the top of the list..Unfortunately Bush Senior put more credence in the council opf Powell than Schwarztkof.
There well may be a point to what you are saying in Bush looking for justifcation to finnish the job his Father started.

I feel that if this had been finnished then, we would not be having many of the problems we are having now.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
I am not sure of when, but I am of the belief that a war is likely, and also will take longer than a lot of people in the U.S. seem to think it will.

This war, if fought, will be very much different than the previous war with Iraq. Previously, Iraq was in the position of being the aggressor. They had invaded kuwait, and regardless of whether or not the U.S. had indicated it's stance one way or the other to Iraq prior to the invasion, that move cast Iraq in a definate role that made it possible for the majority of the powers to line on the opposite side as them. It also made it a more citezen frindly war in the U.S. due to the feeling among the population that we were aprt of an operation to liberate a country that was being invaded and having atrocities committed against it's citizens.

Going in, Iraq's military might was not deployed in a manner that made it a diffucult conflict. The Iraq military had taken a large amount of their mobile units, and dug them in, in essence taking away any strength those units possessed and reducing them to not much more than sitting ducks for air strikes. Troops surrendered in bunches, so much so that the speed of the conflict was to me more a result of mass amounts of Iraqi troops laying down their arms rather than being beaten and forced to surrender.

In this instance, Iraq will be fighting in it's own backyard. I don't forsee troops reacting to an invasion in the same way they reacted to the previous war. This time, any troops moving into Iraq's borders will be viewed as the agressors. That simple fact could make this conflict much more difficult than a lot of people think. While the war did reach well into Iraq's borders last time, it was more of a reaction to iraq's action. There is a big difference in driving an army from someones borders and persuing it back into it's own. I think the reasoning may have been among the troops that there was no clear indication that anyone wanted to occupy and subjuicate Iraq. In this instance, the people of Iraq will more likely view this as a threat to their national identity, with the consequences of losing being that their nation either is assimulatted or occupied, in either case, the thinking would be more along the lines of fighting simply for survival.

Another thing I think will be different is I do not believe the Iraq forces will be mobilized in the same manner as in the last war. the way the military was used was disastrous for Iraq. It is difficult for me to believe that Iraq has not learned from it's previous experience. Saddam may be a lot of things, but it is unsafe to assume he is stupid. It just seem to me like the population and administration in the U.S. is expecting a simple re-play of the last war, and that would be a very dangerous assumption to make.

Just my opinion

You raise some interesting points here, BS. I'd like to concern myself with your last paragraph, concerning the deployment of Iraqi military forces...

As most of us know, (primarily) the United States conducted a withering air war against Iraqi targets during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The effects of these sorties, the most ever conducted by the US Air Force in that period of time, was devastating upon the Iraqi military.

US military technology is actually quite frightening. What people saw on CNN is only but a tip of the iceberg in the gadget department. The only way I forsee Iraq being able to withstand prolonged US air superiority (which then leads to ground superiority) is for their military to utilize an elaborate subterranean tunnel network...even then, they must face the very real possibility of these hideouts being detected by spy satellites...which, btw, is a mainstay of US military intelligence (I know, contradiction of terms there ). Those satellites are themselves frightening...Once detected, the US military can destroy such a complex using a surgical strike down a ventilation shaft...

Truth be told, the US is capable of precision strikes from the land, air, and the sea. Iraq does not possess the defenses necessary to counter these measures...which is why they were annihilated during the desert operations in the early 90's. I'm not so sure things would be different now, BS.

[fable]

Originally posted by RandomThug
So Fable your beef is you dont like who we chose first. Because like you said he is still a bad man. So its who we went after first thats the problem, not the fact were doing it at all.

No; I actually have several concerns.

The first is we're proposing to invade a sovreign nation. No adequate reason has been provided. Not even to other nations whose assistance the US wants. Nothing has been offered.

The second is that there has been no change in the internal conditions of that nation over the last few years to warrant an invasion at this time. Even the Bush administration has stonewalled on this reasonable concern.

The third is that there are far more pressing international diplomatic concerns to draw our attention which are being completely overlooked--such as North Korea, or the field day Sharon is having in destroying Palestinian towns and villages. These matters, and more, are being completely ignored by the Bush administration in its fixation on Hussein and Iraqi oil.

The fourth is that there has been no regard given to the consequences of this invasion by the Bush administration--what it will do to promote both terrorism and instability in a region which can easily explode into international war.

The fifth is that Bush has yet to do what he claimed he would, originally: find and destroy Al-Qua'idah. Hussein is not an Al-Quai'dah surrogate.

The sixth is Bush has carefully avoided discussing the economic cost of the war at home. He has already promoted an elephantine budget along with tax cuts--a recipe for disaster--and is now proposing a high-tech war where missiles cost more than a million dollars a piece. Estimates on the war even by some conservative think tanks have spoken of this as sliding us into an economic depression.

Those are my concerns. I don't think Bush is out to play the world's policeman, so that doesn't bother me in the least.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Blair should stand up and do something about Zimbabwe, that is of a higher concern imo.

Thats what I think our Prime Minister should do too, here we have a guy openly preaching hate, after having rigged his election and taking what was a rich country down the path to an eventual famine. Its a Commonwealth problem, so why on earth would Howard and Blair appear more determined to get rid of Hussain doesn't really work with me. Yes I know its to be in Bush's good books, I was just on a tangent.

Your sig is grossly disturbing too

Originally posted by fable
The fifth is that Bush has yet to do what he claimed he would, originally: find and destroy Al-Qua'idah. Hussein is not an Al-Quai'dah surrogate.

Bombing Iraq, and possibly occupying it will be seen by many fundamentals as a crime against Muslims, and will stoke the fires if you will. I surely hope, Afghanistan is not forgotten in all of this, troops, not reservists covering those sent to Kuwait should still be kept in Afghanistan especially as the warlords are regaining a foothold and Pakistans tribal regions in the east begin to teem with activity once again.

In response to the previous war, I do believe that Iraq was caught out in the desert and most of us should know that Iraqi tanks are no match for the Americans. Hussain will have contingency plans and much improved facilities to cater for the air strikes. He won't be caught out once again, but will stay fortified in the cities. Regardless of how much you bombard a country, its as big as France, you still have to get troops deep into the heartland.

Having said that I would be very interested to see what happens during the redevelopment of Iraq, should Hussain be thrown out. Russia had just signed a huge deal focused primarily on oil with Iraq. Those who will take his place will be fiercely loyal to the US, and we know that Bush once ran an oil company, Cheney has strong connections within the oil industry and hell even Rice has a tanker named after her, due to her close business relationships. I sense another trip back to the World Trade Courts

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Your sig is grossly disturbing too

I think we should send the NRA and Charlton Heston to go attack Iraq, after all their just protecting their right to bear arms