My 2 cents on war, read if you care, ignore if you care

[TAC]

Bottom line is this. If your a student of world history, then you will understand that this war was inevitable once the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11. Fact is, wars have been fought over less. I knew someone was gonna get an all out invasion, i.e., a can of whoop ass open up on em, for GP.

Lets go back to WWI for a second. I don't remember names, but it was the assasination of a certain Royal person that set that one into motion. A single individual. I think 2000 plus died in the twin towers.

My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect. Its actually street mentality; in that, when threatened you look for the biggest guy and bust his a**. This way, all the little people standing on the corner don't mess with you because you just dropped the biggest dude on the block. (Lots of room here, e.g., Korea is a bigger fish than Iraq. But you get my point).

As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.

Vietnam, anyone?

But again, a war was inevitable...we were going to war once those towers fell...

Peace
TAC

[ March 23, 2003, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[mdpm99]

Greetings Tac

I read your thread with great interest......

Hopefully I will not sound to naive Tac, but wasn't Afghanistan about 9/11? Al Queda and co?

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

Have a great day!

d

P.s. "To the victors, go the spoils of war"

[DJ Timmy Richardson]

Originally posted by TAC:
Bottom line is this. If your a student of world history, then you will understand that this war was inevitable once the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11. Fact is, wars have been fought over less. I knew someone was gonna get an all out invasion, i.e., a can of whoop ass open up on em, for GP.

Lets go back to WWI for a second. I don't remember names, but it was the assasination of a certain Royal person that set that one into motion. A single individual. I think 2000 plus died in the twin towers.

My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect. Its actually street mentality; in that, when threatened you look for the biggest guy and bust his a**. This way, all the little people standing on the corner don't mess with you because you just dropped the biggest dude on the block. (Lots of room here, e.g., Korea is a bigger fish than Iraq. But you get my point).

As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.

Vietnam, anyone?

But again, a war was inevitable...we were going to war once those towers fell...

Peace
TAC An excellent reason to make 9/11 look like someone else did it

[DJ76]

Originally posted by TAC:
Bottom line is this. If your a student of world history, then you will understand that this war was inevitable once the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11. Fact is, wars have been fought over less. I knew someone was gonna get an all out invasion, i.e., a can of whoop ass open up on em, for GP.- The history of mankind has been a history of wars, you're right, there is nothing suprising about this one. Besides, there are many wars going around the world, they're just not televised.


Originally posted by TAC:

Lets go back to WWI for a second. I don't remember names, but it was the assasination of a certain Royal person that set that one into motion. A single individual. I think 2000 plus died in the twin towers.Yup, believe it was the son of the king of Serbia... what ever it was, it had to do with the Balkans. The Royal person in case was killed by a "terrorist" group called (translation) "the Black Hand". I don't remember what was their motivation.


Originally posted by TAC:

My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect. Its actually street mentality; in that, when threatened you look for the biggest guy and bust his a**. This way, all the little people standing on the corner don't mess with you because you just dropped the biggest dude on the block. (Lots of room here, e.g., Korea is a bigger fish than Iraq. But you get my point).An article appeared in the Guardian over the week-end stating that this war meant the collapse of the international system. My comment would be to say... has the international system ever worked? Has the UN reached a stage where it really controlled peace and security around the world sufficiently to see a "collapse" of the system? I think not.



Originally posted by TAC:

As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.When you claim that George Bush is a war criminal, you can say it in the street or in the internet or in obscure publications, but the chance is that the main media won't let you say it and particularly not present the evidence you have. Serious challenge to the ruling system is practically excluded from main media in the West. The difference between the repression of free expression in countries such as Iraq and the US is that in Iraq you might be shot to death for criticizing the President while in the US you are simply relegated to a fringe. The effect is not dissimilar. Although I prefer, of course, the Western form because it allows some hope, from the point of the view of the ruling class its own version of repressing dissidence is more effective thant the brutish one.

[O'love]

Originally posted by TAC:
As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.

question: the US isn't the only country where protesting is legal.... according to your reasoning almost all european countries should also be hated, because they were even protesting more.... and still i don't have the feeling that all these european countries are hated for that..... imho it has much to do with the US foreign-policies and even more foreign activities over the last decades.....

Olaf

[Mah'chew]

Arch Duke Ferdinand - WWI.

The thing is Bush and the US admin has sold out on 9/11 - where's the mastermind of that operation? He can't deliver, so Bush has gone after the one that messed with his Daddy.

[Mah'chew]

Originally posted by TAC:


As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.

Nobody made the US the police of the world (nobody likes an over zealous five o!) -That's why so many people hate the US!

As a democracy and a country you are an infant compared to most countries and you act like a spoilt brat every five minutes. You're country's built on the wholesale destruction of races in the persuit of $$$ and this is bleached and resold to your people as the 'Amerikkkan Dream' seems fair enough to me.

Bigger, better, righteous and all the bull$$$it!

[ March 24, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: Mathius ]

[jurren]

Originally posted by TAC:
My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect. Its actually street mentality; in that, when threatened you look for the biggest guy and bust his a**. This way, all the little people standing on the corner don't mess with you because you just dropped the biggest dude on the block. (Lots of room here, e.g., Korea is a bigger fish than Iraq. But you get my point).do you think this would help?

if 9/11 was an act committed by another state, i'd agree with what you're saying, but it wasn't.

foreign states do not pose any real threat to the usa, for the simple fact that once they do they seize to exist. just look at afganistan and iraq right now.

the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism! but these people don't give a fcku about the usa bombing iraq, they'll only use it to get more support for their cause. you can't stop these terrorists by bombing a country, it has no deterrent effect on these terrorists, as they'll just move to another country.

jurren

[lyot]

Originally posted by TAC:
Bottom line is this. If your a student of world history, then you will understand that this war was inevitable once the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11. Fact is, wars have been fought over less. I knew someone was gonna get an all out invasion, i.e., a can of whoop ass open up on em, for GP.

Lets go back to WWI for a second. I don't remember names, but it was the assasination of a certain Royal person that set that one into motion. A single individual. I think 2000 plus died in the twin towers.[\QUOTE]

I agree TAC. Once this terrible attack had taken place, it was clear the US was gonna take advantage of this in order to push forward her geostrategical goals ..(cf. post of O'Love yesterday.New American Century Plan )
Like you said, war's have been staged for incidents that were far less important.

[QUOTE]
My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect. Its actually street mentality; in that, when threatened you look for the biggest guy and bust his a**. This way, all the little people standing on the corner don't mess with you because you just dropped the biggest dude on the block. (Lots of room here, e.g., Korea is a bigger fish than Iraq. But you get my point).
And that's exactly the strategy the US governement is following..You bully the world with overwhelming force ..Iraq indeed is an easy victim (at first sight at least) ..The US would not attack the country if it considered the risk of a chemical, biological or nuclear attach wtoo big. But Iraq is not the prize of this game. It's only the tactical pivot..One could say that Saudi Arabia is the strategical pivot, and that the prize is the whole of the Islam world..I can not help it, but I fear the consequences of such a US strategy in dealing with the 'Muslim/Terrorism' problem..After all, this is what this is all about..breaking the resistance of a whole (Arabic) culture/religion, so they will back off from attacking in the future. I remain very sceptical about this and I fear it will rather lead to more antagonism in the world, in more terrorism and more frustration in the Arabic world.


As for the people who are protesting the war, its their God given right as Americans to do so. This is why the rest of the world hates this country in the first place. Which one of these extremist country permit their people to openly disagree with their governments? Let our protest, I say. Protesting is part of being American. Who knows, in the long run history may bear them out to be right.

Vietnam, anyone?

But again, a war was inevitable...we were going to war once those towers fell...
I do not believe that people in the Arabic world 'en masse' hate the US or its people because it's a democratic society .. On the contrary, I would say..The masses have nothing against freedom or even lots of the cultural symbols of the US (movies for instance)..They do not hate the US for being a democratic state. I do not swallow such an image of the Middle East. It's only a bunch of extremists, which in itself are rather marginal in those countries, who have such an idea of the West. But of course the US government is hated because of the policies she has been sustaining in the Middle East and in Israel in the first place.

Besides, protesting is not a right given by God. :D
peace

[Chris Conrad]

so tell me exxactly, and please provide evidence, how iraq was involved in 9/11...check the nationalities of the suspected hijackers and where have we been finding al quaeda operatives recently...

[lyot]

There are no clear and direct links between Iraq & Al Qaeda, but that is not the point TAC is making, I presume..This is not about Iraq itself, there's a much wider goal..And 9/11 provided the opportunity to start off the plans for a New American Century ..

there's some circumstantial evidence though on links between Iraq & Al Quaeda. For instance, you've got that Islam terrorist group (Al Answar or something) near Al Suleimaniyah, on the border with Iran..That group is deemed to have ties with Al-Qaeda..I haven't seen any hard proof of it though..

[O'love]

Originally posted by jurren:


if 9/11 was an act committed by another state, i'd agree with what you're saying, but it wasn't.

foreign states do not pose any real threat to the usa, for the simple fact that once they do they seize to exist. just look at afganistan and iraq right now.

the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism! but these people don't give a fcku about the usa bombing iraq, they'll only use it to get more support for their cause. you can't stop these terrorists by bombing a country, it has no deterrent effect on these terrorists, as they'll just move to another country.

jurren for me the biggest proof that terrorist groups don't need *any* support from gouvernments and/or countries is the terrorist attack commited by Timothy McVeigh and his group....

Olaf

[DJ76]

The thing is that governments don't like to waste time and want to send a message quickly, thus taking the "easy" route. Why not go after the real perpetrators rather than some allegdly linked State... linked by far. I see the same thing with the indictment and arrest of some alleged war criminals. Some of them are army commanders that are totally clueless regarding some atrocities committed by soldiers that committed isolated cases. Why not get the real perpetrator, the soldier that committed torture and murder, rather than an army general who is really far up in the chain of command and against whom there exists no evidence of commanding the soldiers on committing such and such acts. Again, taking the easy route does not solve the problem at the root.

[mk7]

Originally posted by TAC:
My personal position is that we should bomb the f*ck out off Iraq if for non other than the deterrent effect.

Oh God! this is one of the most vile things I have seen posted about the current situation yet. This is further proof that when we're detached from the reality of war by the comfortable CNN coverage, we forget what it is to have shrapnel (sp?) rip through an innocent body.

I can only begin to understand the grief felt by those who lost family and friends in 9/11 but to use that public sentiment for political and economic gain, in a conflict that has no proven connection is sickening.

Please, please, please TAC, ask yourself if you really place an equal value on an Arab (or any) life compared to an American. These people have suffered at the hands of a lunatic of their own; at the sanctions forced by the US; and now face untold misery just so we all respect the US NWO.

peace (with respect to your opinion)
Mark

[jurren]

Originally posted by O'love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jurren:


if 9/11 was an act committed by another state, i'd agree with what you're saying, but it wasn't.

foreign states do not pose any real threat to the usa, for the simple fact that once they do they seize to exist. just look at afganistan and iraq right now.

the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism! but these people don't give a fcku about the usa bombing iraq, they'll only use it to get more support for their cause. you can't stop these terrorists by bombing a country, it has no deterrent effect on these terrorists, as they'll just move to another country.

jurren for me the biggest proof that terrorist groups don't need *any* support from gouvernments and/or countries is the terrorist attack commited by Timothy McVeigh and his group....

Olaf </font>[/QUOTE]true, that's why i wrote that the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism. pointing out the fact that terrorism exists both outside of the usa, as it does within it's own borders.

haven't been following the whole incident of the grenate attack on the tent in kuwait, that killed and wounded several american officers, but that was committed by an american soldier if i'm not mistaken.

jurren

[O'love]

Originally posted by jurren:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by O'love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jurren:


if 9/11 was an act committed by another state, i'd agree with what you're saying, but it wasn't.

foreign states do not pose any real threat to the usa, for the simple fact that once they do they seize to exist. just look at afganistan and iraq right now.

the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism! but these people don't give a fcku about the usa bombing iraq, they'll only use it to get more support for their cause. you can't stop these terrorists by bombing a country, it has no deterrent effect on these terrorists, as they'll just move to another country.

jurren for me the biggest proof that terrorist groups don't need *any* support from gouvernments and/or countries is the terrorist attack commited by Timothy McVeigh and his group....

Olaf </font>[/QUOTE]true, that's why i wrote that the biggest threat to the usa is [inter]national terrorism. pointing out the fact that terrorism exists both outside of the usa, as it does within it's own borders.

haven't been following the whole incident of the grenate attack on the tent in kuwait, that killed and wounded several american officers, but that was committed by an american soldier if i'm not mistaken.

jurren </font>[/QUOTE]that's what the current info is..but they also made sure to mention he is a muslim....

Olaf

[Wild i]

TAC, I must admit I'm a little surprised at your naivete.

[Cheddar]

I wont comment on the other issues which have budded here, but the supply and demand topic is kind of sound. The available men pool does diminish.

Oops...wrong thread :eek:

[ March 24, 2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: 1343 ]

[Leslie]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:
so tell me exxactly, and please provide evidence, how iraq was involved in 9/11...check the nationalities of the suspected hijackers and where have we been finding al quaeda operatives recently... Dig it, last I heard they were Saudi and Egyptian I believe, correct me if I am wrong...none of the folks on the planes where fron Afghanistan or Iraq...again, correct me if I am wrong....and please provide the money trail from Saddam....true enough Saddam may have needed to go, but in my opinion the Iraqi people at some point could have/would have taken care of that on their own....we need to stop having such little faith in what people are capable of accomplishing w/out the help of Big Daddy USA.

[TAC]

Again, all of you are missing the point. Its not about evidence to support one's position. Rather, its about setting an example for the world to see. If you can't come to grips with that simple fact, then you will never understand what is going on. Right now, the US is that wounded child who is irrationally striking out at the closest person without.

The war will not stop at Iraq. And I knew this all along. Afghanistan was only the beginning. Remember, there are terrorists in the Philipines too. Right now, its either your with the US or your against the US. I don't think that I am the naive one, actually. I play to win. This is why I said we should bomb the f*ck out of Iraq. We're in it now so we better win it. At this point it has nothing to do with right or wrong. The war is on so fight to win. This is how the US got f*cked in Vietnam with that half a** approach.

I'm done with this one ... Damn Liberals!

[O'love]

TAC, you'd better start to bomb the US too...remember Timothy McVeigh?

Olaf

[TAC]

Originally posted by O'love:
TAC, you'd better start to bomb the US too...remember Timothy McVeigh?

Olaf closed issue. next.

[O'love]

Tac, don't you think that the fact that *inside* your own country McVeigh and his friends could think up and perform this terrorist action, isn't enough proof that terrorist groups don't need any country or gouvernment for their actions? that is has no use at all, except to create even more hate and feelings of justification against the US, to start attacking all countries you *assume* have ties with terrorists? btw, if this last thing would be the real argument for Bush he would have to attack Saudi Arabia and remove the monarchy there and install a democracy (who would probably vote for a rather fundamentalistic gouvernment)....

Olaf

[jurren]

Originally posted by TAC:
Again, all of you are missing the point. Its not about evidence to support one's position. Rather, its about setting an example for the world to see. If you can't come to grips with that simple fact, then you will never understand what is going on. Right now, the US is that wounded child who is irrationally striking out at the closest person without.maybe i am missing the point. but the example the USA is setting now is that they don't care about anyones interest but their own. if that's what they're trying to do, fine by me, but then you should stop complaining about terrorist attacks in the USA, as that's what you've got comming to you.


The war will not stop at Iraq. And I knew this all along. Afghanistan was only the beginning. Remember, there are terrorists in the Philipines too. Right now, its either your with the US or your against the US. I don't think that I am the naive one, actually. I play to win. This is why I said we should bomb the f*ck out of Iraq. We're in it now so we better win it. At this point it has nothing to do with right or wrong. The war is on so fight to win. This is how the US got f*cked in Vietnam with that half a** approach.win what? all the USA is doing now is creating hatred. these terrorists don't give a fcku about iraq, the phillipines or what other country in the world. about a year ago two dutch muslim were killed near the border of india/pakistan. both came from Eindhoven in the Netherlands, recruited to fight for bin laden or associated groups. there are al-quada recruits living in Brittain and the USA. fighting countries won't solve anything, it'll probably only make things worse.

the point i'm trying to make is that the way the USA is handling bussiness is the wrong way. while they're trying to win in iraq, hatred against the USA grows throughout the world. this is the wet dream of every terrorist recruiter in the world.

jurren

[ March 24, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: jurren ]

[lola desire]

http://russmo.com/09_09_02Georgeography.gif

[The Donger]

I feel you TAC.

[lyot]

i clearly understood what you were trying to say TAC. In my reply, i clearly pointed out that I think what this game is about..Only, this ain't the right strategy..you are not goin' to obtain your goal of a safe Amerika (world) by bullying..I don't think so.

peace

[GROOVE VICTIM]

The only way we will succeed in this war is to bomb the hell out of this country. If not, we will experience the same heart ache we faced when we went into Mogadishu.

Precision bombing can minimize collatoral damage but this can be used to the Iraqi's advantage by hiding out in civilian homes and places of business once we get to Bagdad.

[lyot]

even if that would mean using tactical nuclear bombs on Iraqi army positions, Groove Victim .(suppose the Iraqi Special Forces use chemical weapons when totally driven in the corner ?)

peace

[O'love]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
The only way we will succeed in this war is to bomb the hell out of this country. If not, we will experience the same heart ache we faced when we went into Mogadishu.

Precision bombing can minimize collatoral damage but this can be used to the Iraqi's advantage by hiding out in civilian homes and places of business once we get to Bagdad. what exactly will you "succeed in"? if this really is about fighting terrorism what are you doing in Iraq instead of in Saudi Arabia? you're in the wrong country!

Olaf

[ March 24, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: O'love ]

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace

[O'love]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace i am afraid we agree on this....... sadam is no fool......he's sitting in the middle of Bagdad, knowing there is really no other country he can go to as he's a much hated person in the Arabic world, and he's using his elite troops to both protect his bunker, and keep the civilians inside bagdad...... there are 2 scenarios: lots of military casualties because of the city-guerilla necessary to get saddam out of his hole, or bombing the city, making lots of civilian casualties.....

Olaf

[ March 24, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: O'love ]

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace I'll say it again.
Iraq is the tactical pivot,
S-Arabia is the strategic pivot,
The Muslim World is the prize

Don't forget you are fighting a conflict of ideas.

I doubt massive bombing would be productive in that respect. Let alone using nuclear weapons.


peace

[ March 24, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: lyot ]

[DJ76]

By the way, there are no proofs the real Saddam Hussein is in Iraq. There are no other countries ready to receive him? really? I doubt that.

There was a show on BBC and another one on TV5 (french channel) about the various doubles Hussein uses. Each tv station used a scientist in the domain, they both analyzed the speech given by President Hussein on thursday morning, after the first bombs hit Baghdad. One was saying he was the real Hussein, the other one said it wasn't. I have to say that the man that appeared on TV that morning looked a little older and very tired, wearing thick glasses (which he rarely does) and reading a text off a notepad. It looked like it was him but it didn't feel like it was the same person who was giving a speech to his army men the day before, much younger looking, more vigorous.

Coming back to the subject of this thread, I won't repeat what Olaf and others have been saying. You guys are talking about winning a war you can't lose. The only loss will occur if once again the man you are after disappears in the smoke. After guessing where is Ossama, you will have to guess where is President Hussein.

RE: bombing the country to death. Hooooaaaaa there cowboy, I guess civilians don't count for much eh?

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace I'll say it again.
Iraq is the tactical pivot,
S-Arabia is the strategic pivot,
The Muslim World is the prize

Don't forget you are fighting a conflict of ideas.

I doubt massive bombing would be productive in that respect. Let alone using nuclear weapons.


peace </font>[/QUOTE]This isn't Japan. A consistant bombing campaign througout the country would be sufficient enough to snuff out the Iraqi resistance. Now I don't know if they are actually carpet bombing the southern region of Bagdag where the republican guard is located but the simple fact that Saddam has used our own troops and images of our destroyed weaponry as a way to rally up his people and his troops is enough for the Iraqis to fight to the death for whatever cause.

[lyot]

Originally posted by O'love:
Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace i am afraid we agree on this....... sadam is no fool......he's sitting in the middle of Bagdad, knowing there is really no other country he can go to as he's a much hated person in the Arabic world,[\QUOTE]

[QUOTE] and he's using his elite troops to both protect his bunker, and keep the civilians inside bagdad...... there are 2 scenarios: lots of military casualties because of the city-guerilla necessary to get saddam out of his hole, or bombing the city, making lots of civilian casualties.....

Olaf i'm sorry Olaf, but I believe the exile issue is a misconception. If Saddams wants to end the war by going into exile, the list of countries that want to host him will be long..There appear several countries to be in the run for such a solution, but untill now Saddam has declined any proposition..There are several intelligence on the internet who reffer to this..


I think a kind of stalemate situation would be very much possible on this war. One of the possible scenario's would be that the US Coalition occupy most of the country, except Bagdad & Tikrit where Saddam and his loyal troops would remain in power. In such a scenario, it's not at all improbable to see massive human casualties on both sides...

There are risks that we are heading that way.All reports indicate that resistance is stiffer then expected..Also, very few Iraqi divisions and batallions have surrenderd, if you look at the bigger picture; There are still pockets of resistance in cities that have been conquered a couple of days ago..The Iraqi army is apparantly decided to apply guerilla tactics to inflict damage to the lighly armored supply troups. I think this conflict has only just started. All of you who thought it was goin' to become a walk-over should reconsider the situation. I think the shock & awe campaign was relativly succesfull, but it's only now, with US Divisions facing the first Iraqi Republican Guard divisions in the defence around Bagdad, that the real war will start. Massive bombings, mainly on Iraqi army troops, will probably do the deal for now. But hitting
Saddam's Special Guard in Bagdad is goin' to be a much more difficult task.. I do not see how this is goin' to be possible without inflicting serious damage to the civilian population. I sincerly hope this battle will be a swift one, and that the Iraqi will surrender in someway, without facing too much civilian casualties.But I fear it's not gonna be too easy.


peace

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Exceeding in this so called "Liberation" of Badgad and the nation of Iraq.

Whether or not you feel that we are at war because of oil, liberation, removing a terroristic regime, or whatever you think, the only way to suceed in controlling this nation will be to bomb it to death.

Peace I'll say it again.
Iraq is the tactical pivot,
S-Arabia is the strategic pivot,
The Muslim World is the prize

Don't forget you are fighting a conflict of ideas.

I doubt massive bombing would be productive in that respect. Let alone using nuclear weapons.


peace </font>[/QUOTE]This isn't Japan. A consistant bombing campaign througout the country would be sufficient enough to snuff out the Iraqi resistance. Now I don't know if they are actually carpet bombing the southern region of Bagdag where the republican guard is located but the simple fact that Saddam has used our own troops and images of our destroyed weaponry as a way to rally up his people and his troops is enough for the Iraqis to fight to the death for whatever cause. </font>[/QUOTE]what to do when the Iraqi's use chemical weapons. I think it's highly probable the US government will use tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. At least, that's what I'm willing to believe after listening to some of the most important American power brokers. I think there are limits as to how far you can go though..If the Iraqi don't seem willing to surrender, I guess you have a big problem..Ousting Saddam surely is the most important goal of this campaign, but it's not the only one..

peace

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Using chemical weapons will put the Knuckeheads in our government at ease because they will have vindicated themselves and express to the world that "WE TOLD YOU".

Nuclear weapons in this case won't be used for the simple fact that conventional bombs are more than enough to succeed in this war.

The weaponry the The Iraqis have compared to the US is like shooting a water gun at someone with a bazooka.


Another thing we have to try and handle is the fact that Russia has been supplying Iraq with hardware that can hinder our use of satellite and radar technology.

[O'love]

Originally posted by lyot:
i'm sorry Olaf, but I believe the exile issue is a misconception. If Saddams wants to end the war by going into exile, the list of countries that want to host him will be long..There appear several countries to be in the run for such a solution, but untill now Saddam has declined any proposition..There are several intelligence on the internet who reffer to this..yes you're right......

Olaf

[O'love]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:

Another thing we have to try and handle is the fact that Russia has been supplying Iraq with hardware that can hinder our use of satellite and radar technology. not to mention the Turkish army trying to make an end to their "kurd trouble"... this US and british action is a precedent for a lot of other military actions by other countries, that see them fit in the interest of their economic or stability issues....

the Russians already have asked to intervene between the struggling parties (ie US/british/etc. and iraqi forces) because it harms their own economic interests in that country.... if Bush can invade a country like Iraq to secure his own stability, why can't Russia, Turky or any other country that thinks it has the military/technological means to do so...
this is only the beginning..

Olaf

[Bold Soul]

Please do not take my comments out of context. I do not allude to moral principle nor political beliefs.

There is a corridor of democracy among nations that have much UN say-so and there is a major gap in several nations who rule by dictatorial force.

A small sample of the hostile nations in the East who support actions of terrorists include Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, Algeria and the Philippines. Eastern terrorism thrives in this gap and is supported by nepotistic dictatorial and military regimes. Money changes hands swiftly among smaller concerns such as Al-Quaida and rebel regimes in Africa and the Pacific Rim.

To attempt to protect and defend the interests of the US and UK from a strong central position in the Middle East is key.

The next target is most likely Pakistan - whether it be through military force or political pressure. This way, the US and the UK will expand their military influence and more effectively implement anti-terrorist operations as well as oversee a desired change-over in democracy.

The entire conflict is required to establish a stabilizing presence in the region and take a position from which to strike targets who are hostile to the US - as those I mentioned above.

France has rarely, if ever, taken a revalent position in world democracy. As their population consists of a considerable number of Middle Eastern nationals and Muslims, to take an unnecessary pro-position in the world political scene would be folly. Germany, since the fall of the Soviet Union and through increasing Eastern Bloc growth, has their own economic and political struggles. One can't take much of a position when they aren't in position, if you will. Russia has proliferated WOMD in an attempt to help stablize their economics after the fall of communism in their country. Iraq owes them 2 billion. 'nuff said.

There are many democracies who are under attack from within by fundamentalist rebels and threatened by neighboring nations who fear the encroachment of western democracy. A strong democratic presence in the Middle East is key for more nations than the US.

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Using chemical weapons will put the Knuckeheads in our government at ease because they will have vindicated themselves and express to the world that "WE TOLD YOU".

Nuclear weapons in this case won't be used for the simple fact that conventional bombs are more than enough to succeed in this war.

The weaponry the The Iraqis have compared to the US is like shooting a water gun at someone with a bazooka.

Yeah, the hard liners will be satisfied with such a move, but what about public opinion ? Have you got any idea what damage a chemical attack could inflict ? Of course this is a different situation, but during the Iraq-Iran war Iran suffred about 20.000 dead soldiers due to chemical weapons attacks.

I know the US striking force is unequalled, but the question that needs to be asked is whether the US are gonna be able to apply it, taking into regard the fact that you are attacking a city with millions of civilians.

[lyot]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
[QB] Please do not take my comments out of context. I do not allude to moral principle nor political beliefs.

There is a corridor of democracy among nations that have much UN say-so and there is a major gap in several nations who rule by dictatorial force.


A small sample of the hostile nations in the East who support actions of terrorists include Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, Algeria and the Philippines. Eastern terrorism thrives in this gap and is supported by nepotistic dictatorial and military regimes. Money changes hands swiftly among smaller concerns such as Al-Quaida and rebel regimes in Africa and the Pacific Rim.
Isn't your vision of interstate relations a bit too sharp here ? I think there in each of these countries are so called 'pockets of resistance', but to state that these nations support terrorism is a bit farfetched maybe? I do acknowlegde that there is a problem in these countries. Most defenitly something that should be considered a threat to US interests.



To attempt to protect and defend the interests of the US and UK from a strong central position in the Middle East is key.
I totally agree with the goal.



The next target is most likely Pakistan - whether it be through military force or political pressure. This way, the US and the UK will expand their military influence and more effectively implement anti-terrorist operations as well as oversee a desired change-over in democracy.

The entire conflict is required to establish a stabilizing presence in the region and take a position from which to strike targets who are hostile to the US - as those I mentioned above.
The next target should be the Israël/Palestina problem. I disagree that installing democracy would be good for American interest. I think the people in the Middle East and Muslim world would not vote for the so needed puppet regimes. In the end, the US is fighting a war of ideas. This is not going to be done with military force.That's why I think the military domino strategy is erroneous and doesn't take into account the social reality .

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
[QB] Please do not take my comments out of context. I do not allude to moral principle nor political beliefs.

There is a corridor of democracy among nations that have much UN say-so and there is a major gap in several nations who rule by dictatorial force.


A small sample of the hostile nations in the East who support actions of terrorists include Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, Algeria and the Philippines. Eastern terrorism thrives in this gap and is supported by nepotistic dictatorial and military regimes. Money changes hands swiftly among smaller concerns such as Al-Quaida and rebel regimes in Africa and the Pacific Rim.
Isn't your vision of interstate relations a bit too sharp here ? I think there in each of these countries are so called 'pockets of resistance', but to state that these nations support terrorism is a bit farfetched maybe? I do acknowlegde that there is a problem in these countries. Most defenitly something that should be considered a threat to US interests.



To attempt to protect and defend the interests of the US and UK from a strong central position in the Middle East is key.
I totally agree with the goal.



The next target is most likely Pakistan - whether it be through military force or political pressure. This way, the US and the UK will expand their military influence and more effectively implement anti-terrorist operations as well as oversee a desired change-over in democracy.

The entire conflict is required to establish a stabilizing presence in the region and take a position from which to strike targets who are hostile to the US - as those I mentioned above.
The next target should be the Israël/Palestina problem. I disagree that installing democracy would be good for American interest. I think the people in the Middle East and Muslim world would not vote for the so needed puppet regimes. In the end, the US is fighting a war of ideas. This is not going to be done with military force.That's why I think the military domino strategy is erroneous and doesn't take into account the social reality . </font>[/QUOTE]Point 1 - With regard to my "vision of interstate relations" as you put it, the necessity of brevity is due to space. There are several different nuances, and not all nations outwardly support terrorism. Nonetheless, terrorism thrives in and from these natiions.

Point 2 - I am not advocating any strategies. I am only providing perspective that was provided to me. Please receive it for what it is worth.

[lyot]

i know you are only providing perspectives..I was only commenting on that actually.

[ March 24, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: lyot ]

[jurren]

i'll post the link O'love posted earlier again.

http://newamericancentury.org/index.html

read, and you will all better understand what Bold Soul is talking about.

jurren

[AK]

There is a racist, "profiling" aspect to this war that seems to be getting little attention. In short, the Iraqis "look like" those responsible for 9/11. While you or I might regard this as an overly simplistic, child-like analysis, I cannot possibly credit the current administration with more.

[Mah'chew]

Thereby giving any fundamentalist out there a legitimate reason to kill white and black people (hell, where I live we're all from the US! :( )

You must be so proud that the US admin are currently doing an LAPD/Rodney King on an entire culture - you've gotta expect some Watts Riots on global scale because of this heavyhanded agression. mad1.gif

I love Amerikkka and hate Blair for dipping Bush like a whore !

[ March 24, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Mathius ]

[O'love]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
[QBThere is a corridor of democracy among nations that have much UN say-so and there is a major gap in several nations who rule by dictatorial force.

A small sample of the hostile nations in the East who support actions of terrorists include Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, Algeria and the Philippines. Eastern terrorism thrives in this gap and is supported by nepotistic dictatorial and military regimes. Money changes hands swiftly among smaller concerns such as Al-Quaida and rebel regimes in Africa and the Pacific Rim.

[/QB]Where does Timothy McVeigh fit in? I don't exactly recall how many people where killed by this US citizen, but it was not a small terrorist attack....furthermore: did his group receive support from any hostile nation in the East?

Olaf