US-we are a conquering nation

[sufisaint]

why be ashamed...Iraq should not suffer needless under a ruthless dictator, the world economy is unfornately controlled by oil prices..look at all the countries we have fought in the past...they have eventually become our allies and trade partners. Its time to end this once and for all...

 

[Problem Child]

why be ashamed...Iraq should not suffer needless under a ruthless dictator, the world economy is unfornately controlled by oil prices..look at all the countries we have fought in the past...they have eventually become our allies and trade partners. Its time to end this once and for all...

Viet Nam, North Korea, and Iraq are our allies and trading partners?

Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers...

 

[HeavyStick]

What are you saying?

 

[Problem Child]

Question 2: When was the last time we "conquered" a soveriegn nation that didn't attack us or our allies first?

We're about to set a dangerous precedent here.

 

[sufisaint]

Re: Re: US-we are a conquering nation

Viet Nam, North Korea, and Iraq are our allies and trading partners?

Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers...

They are the exceptions and their people are starving because of it....Do you want a world ruled by any of these countries?

 

[Lasher]

Re: Re: US-we are a conquering nation

Viet Nam, North Korea, and Iraq are our allies and trading partners?

Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers...

I think he means Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, The South, and Britain.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: US-we are a conquering nation

They are the exceptions and their people are starving because of it....Do you want a world ruled by any of these countries?

North Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq are on the verge of ruling the world? I wasn't aware of this.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: US-we are a conquering nation

I think he means Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, The South, and Britain.

Yeah, they all attacked us first. Then you get attacked by another country, you get to attack them back.

 

[sufisaint]

Question 2: When was the last time we "conquered" a soveriegn nation that didn't attack us or our allies first?

We're about to set a dangerous precedent here.

Its modern warfare...strike hard strike fast...victory...Why wait till ICBMs are pointed at your head..a second cold war is not neccesary and avoidable.

 

[Problem Child]

Its modern warfare...strike hard strike fast...victory...Why wait till ICBMs are pointed at your head..a second cold war is not neccesary and avoidable.

That would be workable theory if Iraq had any ICBM's.

 

[sufisaint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: US-we are a conquering nation

North Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq are on the verge of ruling the world? I wasn't aware of this.

It was a hypothetical question...

 

[sufisaint]

That would be workable theory if Iraq had any ICBM's.

There is no reason to wait...

 

[Lost Cause]

No duh...

We are liberators of the nations we vanquish. If not, Japan, Germany, and Italy would look like the former Soviet bloc countries absorbed by the ex-soviet empire. We will liberate Iraq, the preemptive strategy is the best plan for the new threat. Any "concern" voiced by others is a mask to hide their contempt for America for leading the way exposing their lack of responsibility to stop world threats. War is not an encounter group therapy like Europe wants, it is the last option to a dictator that ignores UN directives. The choice is Sodamn Insane's alone, not the US. Any second guessing of the tactics is erroneous.

 

[Problem Child]

There is no reason to wait...

Sure, there are lots of reasons.

1. We have no proof of violations and we haven't given the inspectors time enough to do a thorough job of finding whatever might be there.

2. If we get into a street fight in Baghdad we will take a lot of casualties. I don't think we'll lose, but more will die than in gulf I.

3. We don't invade sovereign nations without provocation. If we do this we will be tossing away a huge amount of international respect and undermining any moral authority we now have to tell other nations not to do the same thing.

4. A war in the middle-east, especially if it isn't very fast and bloodless will alienate our allies both in and out of the region.

5. If this war doesn't go well, Bush will lose tremendous support at home and become basically a lame duck president. Less will get done at home, and our economy needs help.

6. North Korea is rattling sabers again. I don't think the U.S. military is capable of waging two full scale wars, especially if they begin to go bad.

 

[sufisaint]

The UN does not have proof...we do...we have offered our intelligence reports to the inept UN and they refuse due to political reasons

Casulaties are the price of war...but there will be little resistance once the government falls...Sadam's thugs will be killed by those thy oppressed quick enough..it happened in th Gulf war and we sat iddle by and let Sadam retake power..mistake

he has violated Un resolutions...he kills his own "people".

As for Muslim extremists...we will always be hated...

Bush will do fine...the economy is cycling...its inevitable.

North Korea will not hold up to saturation bombing if they attack.

 

[Pagliacci]

<SNIP> The UN does not have proof...we do...we have offered our intelligence reports to the inept UN and they refuse due to political reasons

Please give me links to where the US administration has said this because last I heard Hans Blix got a bit peeved and asked the US and UK to either give his inspectors the proof so they could go and verify or shut up.

 

[sufisaint]

Please give me links to where the US administration has said this because last I heard Hans Blix got a bit peeved and asked the US and UK to either give his inspectors the proof so they could go and verify or shut up.

When the bombs begin falling...the proof will be revealed...we are not tipping our hand to the UN...we did offer in the begining and it was refused...now its too late.

 

[Problem Child]

The UN does not have proof...we do...we have offered our intelligence reports to the inept UN and they refuse due to political reasons

As pagliacci said, perhaps a link to this would be nice.

Casulaties are the price of war...but there will be little resistance once the government falls...Sadam's thugs will be killed by those thy oppressed quick enough..it happened in th Gulf war and we sat iddle by and let Sadam retake power..mistake

So you think no one is going to fight in Baghdad? I wish I had your confidence.

he has violated Un resolutions...he kills his own "people".

Sorry, but I don't think this outweighs all the possible repercussions.

As for Muslim extremists...we will always be hated...

I'm not talking about the extremists. I'm talking about the "street".

Bush will do fine...the economy is cycling...its inevitable.

I hate to tell you this but if this war goes bad a democrat will be in the white house in '04.

North Korea will not hold up to saturation bombing if they attack.

Well ok, but I didn't say anything about saturation bombing. I said that I didn't think we are wholly prepared to fight two full-scale wars simultaneously. It has mostly to do with logistics and transport, as well as the size of our military. North Korea is beatable, but they aren't a pushover.

 

[QuickDuck]

The problem with North Korea is that they have a big brother.

China might be a little annoyed.

A question... if the weapons inspectors can't find the WMD's... how will the bombers?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I don't think that we'll go in without further provocation.

If we do go in (I think Saddam will give us further provocation)..I'm particularly worried about what it will be like after the quick "victory". Will there be lots of suicide bombers? Will anyone really be safe? Will the situation stablize and allow economic recover to initiate and through that relieve some of the suffering?

 

[Problem Child]

The problem with North Korea is that they have a big brother.

China might be a little annoyed.

That's always a possibility

A question... if the weapons inspectors can't find the WMD's... how will the bombers?

Exactly. You have to send people into Baghdad. There are things like snipers and booby traps in Baghdad. In Baghdad it isn't going to be an armor duel in the desert where we have an overwhelming superiority in technology.

 

[sufisaint]

Let's hope that stealth bombers and spy drones can do better than idiots riding around in a white truck marked UN with enough gas to go about 60 miles in country the size of Califonia...


But China is the real scary thing...

 

[Lost Cause]

Oh, and about the oil angle...

Wed January 22, 2003 12:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that a U.S. military occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.
In an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States invades.

"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.

"How will we operate it? How best to do that? We are studying different models. But the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have," he added.

Powell said the U.S. military would not want to run Iraq for long after a possible invasion but he declined to speculate how long U.S. troops would stay in the country.

"There is no desire for the United States armed forces to remain in charge or to run a country for any length of time beyond that which is necessary to make sure that there is an appropriate form of government to take over from the initial military occupation," he said.

 

[QuickDuck]

Exactly. You have to send people into Baghdad. There are things like snipers and booby traps in Baghdad. In Baghdad it isn't going to be an armor duel in the desert where we have an overwhelming superiority in technology.

Street fighting is not pretty and pretty much negates (sp?) the technology advantage.

Yes I have no doubt the US would still win it, but it will be alot more bloody.

I have stated before that i support the soldiers who have been sent ... i don;t support the "war"

 

[sufisaint]

Just like Afganistan...we will let locals do the real fighting.