No War

[Alvin Brickrock]

I've changed my position. As we draw so close. I hope that there will be an act by any party that everts this idiotic and destructive choice to go to war. My thought from day one was that the threat of war was needed. But never thought war was needed.

I hope my horse come's in.

 

[Lasher]

You should hope your horse comes.

That might work better.

 

[Alvin Brickrock]

You should hope your horse comes.

That might work better.

that too

 

[Guest]

 

[nimbus9]

It actually started yesterday. B1's took out radar sites in the oncoming path and Special OP's are taking over the Southern oil fields now that Saddam has drawn up his troops from the south and ringed them around Bagdad.

www.debka.com

 

[Alvin Brickrock]

Let there be plenty of arab blood

Your mother just leaned over and told me to tell you it's your bed time. (Don't shoot the messenger)

 

[Sailbad the Sinner]

You're running into a wall. War will happen with or without your approval. Justified is another question. Do I want someone banging at my door offering me a gas mask, I think not. Let's do it and be done with it. Will it be over, no. Just one of the tentacles gone. I can live with that.

 

[Viper Vic]

This could be a "twofer" week. Sadamn and Osama's heads on US/UK platters.

A free Iraqi people and dead terrorist. Could be a great week!

 

[The Heretic]

I've changed my position. As we draw so close. I hope that there will be an act by any party that everts this idiotic and destructive choice to go to war. My thought from day one was that the threat of war was needed. But never thought war was needed.

War is inevitable; Saddam never made any serious attempt to comply, always thinking he could get away with just enough to confuse and appease, and Bush probably wanted this excuse to take him out. Between the two was a deep chasm that could not be crossed - mostly because Saddam didn't know how; he is like a little spoiled kid that thinks he can get away with his bad behavior because he has yet to be truly disciplined.

 

[Guest]

The truly sad thhing is the Iraqi people want Saddam gone as much as - no, more - than Georgie. So, he's going to carpet bomb them to help them. Nice one Dubya!

 

[The Heretic]

The truly sad thhing is the Iraqi people want Saddam gone as much as - no, more - than Georgie. So, he's going to carpet bomb them to help them. Nice one Dubya!

I don't think carpet bombing of the Iraqi people is a valid characterization, and I am fairly sure nothing short of war would rid Iraq of Saddam - what I am worried about more than the war is what comes afterwards; our track record in such situations is very poor and we generally do not act in the best interests of the people there, rather putting people in power who act in our bests interests instead.

 

[Guest]

I don't think carpet bombing of the Iraqi people is a valid characterization, and I am fairly sure nothing short of war would rid Iraq of Saddam - what I am worried about more than the war is what comes afterwards; our track record in such situations is very poor and we generally do not act in the best interests of the people there, rather putting people in power who act in our bests interests instead.

Oh God! What is coming afterwards doesn't bear thinking about!

That's why war with Iraq would be such a blunder.

Countries compliant wih that ruling will be targeted by terrorists in a way they never dreamed of.

I really wonder if the Bush regime think they're invincible. If that's the case - they're in for a helluva shock.....IF they go to war.

 

[jodarby]

I'm not sure there has been much thought into the aftermath of Iraq at all. That the United States can beat Iraq is not questioned. But do they intend on killing the "filthy forty" around Saddam even if they surrender? And if they are captured, what charges would they be held under? Do they get charged in the States? On what authority? The Geneva Convention doesn't cover this.

As for the state of Iraq itself, who do have in charge afterwards? There isn't a leader or government in waiting. That would mean that the U.S. ambassador and the military leaders on the ground run the country. And not just for a short time. Elections would be at least a year away.

And what of those elections? Does the states really want to have them when Kurds in the north want to separate. That Shias in the south might want to join Iran? These people might want to fight for their liberty the minute the U.S. troops arrive.

And what of the Iraqi troops surrendering? The assumption that all 400,000 will be dead is probably an overestimate. And if the U.S. does masscare that many with only a few hundred U.S. dead, it is going to look pretty bad. The expression shooting fish in a barrell comes to mind.

However, lets get back to that 400,000. That is a lot of prisoners for 250,000 U.S. troops to cover. Under Geneva Convention articles, they have to fed, sheltered and given medical treatment. Will they be? I heard that the U.S. will commission some of these people to help re-build the country. But surely, not right away. At the very least they have to be processed. Some could be Republican Guards who could cause trouble if released.

Now, what about the Iraqi people? Their economy will be crushed, many of them will be dead or injured and they will have no idea what the future will hold. Does the U.S. invite the U.N back in right away to help the country through UNICEF, UNESCO, the WHO and peacekeepers? How long will that take to martial up?

There are so many unanswered questions about what will happen and not a lot of answers.

Meanwhile, over 40 per cent of the people who are serving in the U.S. military are reserves. Some have been on active duty two years now. How many more will they be asked to serve. Lots of these people are engineers, doctors, carpenters, plumbers, police officers and other skilled workers back in the States. Their long term absence continues to have a negative influence on the U.S. economy.

How much will this cost? The U.S. is running a $300 billion deficiti and the stats out of Friday suggest a recession is already happening, the second dip since Bush came to office. Will the American people be patient if the job losses continue to mount and their stocks still remain stalled?

It didn't help Bush's dad when he won in 1991. It might not help the son either.

Lastly, once the war is won, does the situation in North Korea or Iran warrant action? Does that mean a second and third war in the next months?

So many questions, so few answers.

 

[April]

Carpet bombing is a thing of the past.
Civilian collateral damage is not acceptable, therefore precision bombing will be used. This has already been asserted several times in the news.

On a separate issue, where the hell were all the protestors the last dozen years while Hussein has been terrorizing and starving his people?

 

[Spinaroonie]

Carpet bombing is a thing of the past.
Civilian collateral damage is not acceptable, therefore precision bombing will be used. This has already been asserted several times in the news.

Um... no.

Operation Shock and Awe... Send up to 800 Missles into Bagdad in two days to destroy all infrastructure in Iraq. Pentagon Officials say "There won't be a safe place in Bagdad".

Sounds like we're going to have a big pile up of civilian casualties.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

 

[Viper Vic]

It is on and peole will find out just how fucked up Sadamn really is(was). The Iraqi people are going to tell tales that will be shocking.

People not supporting Sadamn's overthrow are supporting torture, rape and mass murder. I hope you all will be ashamed when you learn the truth. I doubt it though. Your hatered for President Bush is overwhelming your ability to discern right from wrong.

 

[nimbus9]

Viper Vic, everyone knows Saddam has been a bad man since the first day he took power. It did not stop us from doing business with him even through the embargo. Ask Dick Cheney and Halliburton. What makes this stink is that now, all of the sudden, with oil men in the White House they have decide now is the time he has to go. What you have is a business war with American Big Oil having the worlds best army at their disposal.

I have one question.

In the last Gulf War there was no problem getting the UN to go in and pound Iraq. Why all of the sudden even after 9/11 are there so many nations not willing to back America. I believe they think like I do.

 

[Viper Vic]

In '91 the mission was to evict Sadamn from Kuwait.

Now, the opposition comes countries that need the oil and money from oil. France, Germany and Russia have tons of oil money about to go up in smoke. They have also helped Sadamn out in many other ways. They are about to be exposed.

If the US had wanted the oil from the Middle East. We could have stayed in '91. Couldn't they? We were already in Kuwait, Saudi, and Iraqi. What would have stopped us?

Halliburton is the company that stopped the oil fires that Sadamn set while leaving Kuwait. They are a big company and this is one of the jobs they do. You act like you have access to CIA and FBI reports and know more the GW does what Sadamn might or might not do.

Why do you support a government like Sadamn's?

 

[JazzManJim]

Um... no.

Operation Shock and Awe... Send up to 800 Missles into Bagdad in two days to destroy all infrastructure in Iraq. Pentagon Officials say "There won't be a safe place in Bagdad".

Sounds like we're going to have a big pile up of civilian casualties.

Yeah, because really good military strategy involves advertising your war plans in the international press months before you attack.

It's misdirection, and it's working.

nimbus - For the answer to your questions, take a look at just how much money is involved in oil refining contracts between Iraq and France, Germany, and Russia right now. France has over 60 billion dollars in contracts. Iraq owes Russia 8 billion. Germany has been making the same oil contracts, as well as equipment contracts for over a decade in contravention of the sanctions and via the "oil for food" program. Already, the Kurdish group which will likely be involved in the new government has said that they will review every contract in place to see if they are in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Of course, several of them are not. That means that at least two of the countries most in opposition stand to lose big-time money. Oil's a factor, just not in the way that's been wrongly reported.

 

[JazzManJim]

Carpet bombing is a thing of the past.
Civilian collateral damage is not acceptable, therefore precision bombing will be used. This has already been asserted several times in the news.

That's just crazy talk, April. Of course it's a fact that the US is going to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians then loot their oil fields and leave the survivors with nothing right out in plain view of everyone of the world. And the US is going to do that just because our track record of over 200 years is that we're evil, greedy, and above all, stupid.

 

[SeXyGuRLiE6969]

Re: Re: No War

War is inevitable; Saddam never made any serious attempt to comply, always thinking he could get away with just enough to confuse and appease, and Bush probably wanted this excuse to take him out. Between the two was a deep chasm that could not be crossed - mostly because Saddam didn't know how; he is like a little spoiled kid that thinks he can get away with his bad behavior because he has yet to be truly disciplined.

i agree, but the U.S. did let him get away with a few things though, so i guess he feels he can do anything

 

[nimbus9]

We have done just as much business as France and Germany with Iraq. We are fixing to help Russia build a pipeline. We have sold Iraq chem. materials just like other nations have helped Saddam in numerous ways. The only reason we won't hear about our own dirty laundry is because we live here. So that is three Nations that you bring up out of some two hundred plus countries in the UN. Why do we have only Spain and England wanting to help us. Do all the others have something to hide also.
And where in any of my several hundred posts have I said I support Iraq. That is what I like best about right wing Mo fo's. They put the words right in your mouth if they don't hear what they like.
You all spout 9/11 but every fucker on those planes were Saudi. How come you ain't bitchin' about them. Why, because that is not what the party line is.

happy war.

 

[skol12]

Oh God! What is coming afterwards doesn't bear thinking about!

That's why war with Iraq would be such a blunder.

Countries compliant wih that ruling will be targeted by terrorists in a way they never dreamed of.

I really wonder if the Bush regime think they're invincible. If that's the case - they're in for a helluva shock.....IF they go to war.

There is a risk of terrorist attacks anyway. Better to go in and start getting rid of those leaders who support the terrorists.

 

[miles]

On a separate issue, where the hell were all the protestors the last dozen years while Hussein has been terrorizing and starving his people?

That's easy. Sadaam isn't a Republican.

 

[jodarby]

In '91 the mission was to evict Sadamn from Kuwait.

Now, the opposition comes countries that need the oil and money from oil. France, Germany and Russia have tons of oil money about to go up in smoke. They have also helped Sadamn out in many other ways. They are about to be exposed.

If the US had wanted the oil from the Middle East. We could have stayed in '91. Couldn't they? We were already in Kuwait, Saudi, and Iraqi. What would have stopped us?

Halliburton is the company that stopped the oil fires that Sadamn set while leaving Kuwait. They are a big company and this is one of the jobs they do. You act like you have access to CIA and FBI reports and know more the GW does what Sadamn might or might not do.

Why do you support a government like Sadamn's?

Halliburon didn't even do the best job in 91 of fighting the fires. That job went to Safety Boss of Canada, a company that might not be there this time because Halliburton is trying to tie up any contracts for oil firefighting.

Questions about fighting a war now are not support of Saddam's regime.

Why do you support Bush when he can't run an economy?