I really don't think the whole military action thing against iraq is going to be good...

[Magnum357]

major war anyone ? Now don't get me wrong, I dont' know an immense amount about the situation, but wouldn't it be better to have Hussein assasinated ?

 

[tweakmm]

If the powers that be wanted Hussein dead he would be. The CIA had several oportunities in the early 90's to overthrow the government through Iraqi revolutionist groups but withdrew funding and support for them right before they were about to act.

 

[0ops]

There have been numerous threads on this subject, please do a search next time.
1) If it was so easy to assassinate him, why is he still alive? There are many Kurds who would be happy to do that.
2) Bush wants a change in government, he does not want Saddam W Hussein (aka Qusay) to be next in line.

I believe this has been covered many times, so unless one has something really new to add, please do not
start any more Iraq threads.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

A war to dispose of Saddam will, unfortunately, be no Desert Storm walkover.
Saddam knows this time he is fighting to the death. He will use all weapons at his disposal (the inspectors haven't been in the country in almost 5 years so who knows what he has).
Also, there will be no desert battles. Instead the Iraqi army will hunker down in Baghdad, in civillian dress, and make the US fight an urban war against an almost unidentifiable enemy.
To say it will be messy and that there will be signifcant casualties on both sides (including many innocent Iraqi civillians who will pay the price for thhe Iraqi's militaries cowardly act of 'blending' into the civillian population) is not an overstatement.

Saddam better represent a true and present danger to national security because the 'public relations' backlash from the left-leaning continent of Europe will be enourmous when the reports of massive casualties start rolling in. It better be worth it.

I saw all this sh!t on TV. So it must be true.

 

[Hoeboy]

don't the US have a policy against assassination?

 

[Moonbeam]

Kissenger is against it, so it must be a bad idea.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
A war to dispose of Saddam will, unfortunately, be no Desert Storm walkover.
Saddam knows this time he is fighting to the death. He will use all weapons at his disposal (the inspectors haven't been in the country in almost 5 years so who knows what he has).
Also, there will be no desert battles. Instead the Iraqi army will hunker down in Baghdad, in civillian dress, and make the US fight an urban war against an almost unidentifiable enemy.
To say it will be messy and that there will be signifcant casualties on both sides (including many innocent Iraqi civillians who will pay the price for thhe Iraqi's militaries cowardly act of 'blending' into the civillian population) is not an overstatement.

Saddam better represent a true and present danger to national security because the 'public relations' backlash from the left-leaning continent of Europe will be enourmous when the reports of massive casualties start rolling in. It better be worth it.

I saw all this sh!t on TV. So it must be true.

well i think we would start by doing what we did in Bosnia and Afghanistan, by taking out their power plants (usually not in civilian locations) and hopefully leave them without any power long enough that the majority of the civilians will flee the city...without power= no refrigeration = not being able to keep food = people not staying..this also caused a lot of otehr problems before, but saddam has had enough time to prepare that he could take this into account

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hoeboy
don't the US have a policy against assassination?

I think I recall hearing that the Bush-Lite adminstration, in their infinite < ahem > wisdom, had rescinded that policy, but I can't find a link to it, right now.

If they can't make a stronger case to the world community, let alone U.S. citizens, it leaves Georgie boy looking like a dictatorial war monger, acting on his own to commit acts of war without the Constitutionally mandated consent of Congress. What really scares me is, this is quite similar to the way Milosovic stirred up Serbian nationalistic emotions before leading them into their ensuing national disaster.

I don't think Bush has the brain power to think the problem through to any reasonable conclusion. If Sadam acted first against the U.S., or any ally, or even if he committed another documented act of mass destruction or terror against any of his own people, it would not be hard to make the case for worldwide cooperation to blow him away. Without that, Bush, himself looks like a warmongering egomaniac.

 

[ErmanC]

I say we nuke 'em.

 

[rbhawcroft]

look, if we, us and uk, arent running it on the ground how are we going to guarantte that we not the ruskies and french get the oil contracts?

 

[Harvey]

rbhawcroft -- Do you really think that's the most important consideration before we unilaterally take aggressive action against another nation, even Iraq? You might want to consider trivialities like

• civilian casualties in Iraq.
• casualties to our own troops and, downstream, to anyone we send in to occupy the land for at least decade or two.
• retailliatory strikes with chemical, biological, or at least dirty nuke weapons on Iraq's neighbors, especially Isreal.
• reactions from other Islamic nations.
• reactions from our own allies who would proabably see our actioins as an imperialistic breach of international law.

If all you're worried about is who gets the oil, you need to do a lot more thinking. :disgust:

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Harvey
rbhawcroft -- Do you really think that's the most important consideration before we unilaterally take aggressive action against another nation, even Iraq? You might want to consider trivialities like

• civilian casualties in Iraq.
• casualties to our own troops and, downstream, to anyone we send in to occupy the land for at least decade or two.
• retailliatory strikes with chemical, biological, or at least dirty nuke weapons on Iraq's neighbors, especially Isreal.
• reactions from other Islamic nations.
• reactions from our own allies who would proabably see our actioins as an imperialistic breach of international law.

If all you're worried about is who gets the oil, you need to do a lot more thinking. :disgust:

lollollol, arent you one of the antipalestinian posters?

first dictatorships has a hidden cost in economic stagnation which increases the mortality rate, second although i dont believe that the uk and us have incorporated locals human rights into the planning stage seriously enough up to now, i think they are getting better.

2nd casulaites to our own troops? what casualties? they are voluteers, they love war, the sas and paras and marines are chomping on the bit to go. peacekeeping troops killed, welll myoptic brain why? because we removed a dictator and installed a legit deomocratic regoime, yeah my as3.

retal strikes on neighbours, what the arabs he stands up for, er no, israel, well scuds are bs and dont do much damage, in terms of nbc why would he burn his bridges at the mid point in the battle? the guy plays it to the brink and the people who would have to fire it would know the personal consquences if later it was though that they could have avoided it or saboraged the aim.

reactions from islamic nations shows tyour moronia, its not a war on islam its the removal of a military dictatory for an outward looking local democracy, dumbas3 why would that inspire 'islamic reactions'? all the other muslims live in dictatorships, they will probably petition america to do they same for them. lol except america prefers casual regime support until it becomes uncomfortable/ osmaful.

europeans are still mentally fractured from ww2, who gives a sht about what these puss ies say?

all im worried about is the oil, hey dont preach to me, preacher to the preacher in the whitehouse. anyway incase you hadnt noticed uk is a net oil exporter, all i give a sht about is the oil profits

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Kissenger is against it, so it must be a bad idea.

kissnger wears sandals.

 

[Bluga]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft

Originally posted by: Harvey
rbhawcroft -- Do you really think that's the most important consideration before we unilaterally take aggressive action against another nation, even Iraq? You might want to consider trivialities like

• civilian casualties in Iraq.
• casualties to our own troops and, downstream, to anyone we send in to occupy the land for at least decade or two.
• retailliatory strikes with chemical, biological, or at least dirty nuke weapons on Iraq's neighbors, especially Isreal.
• reactions from other Islamic nations.
• reactions from our own allies who would proabably see our actioins as an imperialistic breach of international law.

If all you're worried about is who gets the oil, you need to do a lot more thinking. :disgust:

lollollol, arent you one of the antipalestinian posters?

first dictatorships has a hidden cost in economic stagnation which increases the mortality rate, second although i dont believe that the uk and us have incorporated locals human rights into the planning stage seriously enough up to now, i think they are getting better.

2nd casulaites to our own troops? what casualties? they are voluteers, they love war, the sas and paras and marines are chomping on the bit to go. peacekeeping troops killed, welll myoptic brain why? because we removed a dictator and installed a legit deomocratic regoime, yeah my as3.

retal strikes on neighbours, what the arabs he stands up for, er no, israel, well scuds are bs and dont do much damage, in terms of nbc why would he burn his bridges at the mid point in the battle? the guy plays it to the brink and the people who would have to fire it would know the personal consquences if later it was though that they could have avoided it or saboraged the aim.

reactions from islamic nations shows tyour moronia, its not a war on islam its the removal of a military dictatory for an outward looking local democracy, dumbas3 why would that inspire 'islamic reactions'? all the other muslims live in dictatorships, they will probably petition america to do they same for them. lol except america prefers casual regime support until it becomes uncomfortable/ osmaful.

europeans are still mentally fractured from ww2, who gives a sht about what these puss ies say?

all im worried about is the oil, hey dont preach to me, preacher to the preacher in the whitehouse. anyway incase you hadnt noticed uk is a net oil exporter, all i give a sht about is the oil profits

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
lollollol, arent you one of the antipalestinian posters?

No, I am not. I am thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of both the Palestinians and the Isrealis.

I won't even dignify the rest of your bullsh8 with a repost or a reply. Get your head out of your ass, at least until you are willing to be among the first U.S troops to put their blood on the line or to get gassed or sickened by whatever gets thrown at them on that battlefield. If you don't have the balls for that, you don't have any right to be such a greedy putz over something as trivial oil profits. :|

 

[Miramonti]

don't the US have a policy against assassination?

No. See cia vs. castro, albeit unsuccesful.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Kissenger is against it, so it must be a bad idea.

Yes but he was also for the assasination that put pinochet in power who then slaughtered thousands of his own people. Kissenger is a prick. That said tho I agree with him then, altho I don't know his reasons.


There has yet to be any information that shows Iraq is a threat to the US. Some try to tie them with Alquaeda, which is completely a pile of bogus crap. We can't even convince our allies of why military action is necessary, muchless our enemies.

Why should we fight a war so Israel can feel more secure amidst the arab hostilities with the arab nations that they love to enflame with the way they handle the palestinians. They are making their bed and they can lie in it.

 

[HiveMaster]

2) Bush wants a change in government, he does not want Saddam W Hussein (aka Qusay) to be next in line.

The only reason the GW administration (I would not say GW himself...he has not run this gov. since his cronies stole the election) wants this war is to PREVENT a change in government...the governement of the good ol US of A.

A wartime president, no matter what the economic situation and horrible domestic policies...will still get re-elected.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rbhawcroftlollollol, arent you one of the antipalestinian posters?

No, I am not. I am thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of both the Palestinians and the Isrealis.I won't even dignify the rest of your bullsh8 with a repost or a reply. Get your head out of your ass, at least until you are willing to be among the first U.S troops to put their blood on the line or to get gassed or sickened by whatever gets thrown at them on that battlefield. If you don't have the balls for that, you don't have any right to be such a greedy putz over something as trivial oil profits. :|

hey we are doing this for profits, you are doing this for oil and prfits, so dont :disgust: me.
why dont you reply to my comments? because they are correct?

why join an elite regiment if you dont want to fight? if you are a pussy and want to be a soldier you join some crap local one, you dont go for an elite or sf regiment, geekboy, do you?

like i sad the the 'err what if he uses nbc?' questions are just coming from the out of touch wannabee nannies, get out of the way and let the real men take charge.

if there is an nbc attack it would hardly be that effective on trained and equiped troops, muchmore effective in a london subway station i think.

hussein is a known theat, far from presenting no evidence there is a huge amout:
he in a psychopath
he terrorises his own people
his rule was solidifed by uk and us and he was given a repreive in 91
he continies to try and get nbc capabilities
he tried to assassinate gb snr in kuwait
he was liked to mohammed al atta
he was linked to the 93 wtc bombing by some academics working after the official investigation and trial of ramzi yusef had taken place
he is a treat to a world economic resouce - gulf oil, caspian oil and gas.
he is an unfortuante influence if minor on the palestine conlflict
he prevents destabilising regime transformation in the surrounding coutries.

so old man keep your misguided mouth shut on the issue until the real men have dealt with the problems and you get a chance to backbite.

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: Hoeboy
don't the US have a policy against assassination?

this is an extension of diplomatic immunity which all countries have sunscribed to.

 

[Superdoopercooper]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

2) Bush wants a change in government, he does not want Saddam W Hussein (aka Qusay) to be next in line.

The only reason the GW administration (I would not say GW himself...he has not run this gov. since his cronies stole the election) wants this war is to PREVENT a change in government...the governement of the good ol US of A. A wartime president, no matter what the economic situation and horrible domestic policies...will still get re-elected.

Uhhh... George Bush Senior was a war-time president who did NOT get re-elected. What you talking about, Willis? :Q

 

[bulldawg]

Originally posted by: Magnum357
major war anyone ? Now don't get me wrong, I dont' know an immense amount about the situation, but wouldn't it be better to have Hussein assasinated ?

1: Assassination would indeed be effective against Hussein. Problem is that some other idiot would take control and soon we would be in the same situation.

2: If the US had told the UN where to leap and how fast in '91, we wouldn't have this idiot to deal with now.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
hey we are doing this for profits, you are doing this for oil and prfits, so dont :disgust: me.

Speak for yourself. I'm not doing anything for oil profits. I think that would be a lame, immoral motive to start a war. If we had hard evidence that Hussein was directly connected to 9-11, or that he was behind other terrorist activities, or he was about to use weapons of mass destruction, there would be some justification for the risks taking of such action. As it is, Bush-Lite is way out on a political limb with no international support and disagreement from a large percentage of American conservative hawks, including Henry Kissinger and Dick Army.

why dont you reply to my comments? because they are correct?

No, it's because they are really stupid. :Q

why join an elite regiment if you dont want to fight? if you are a pussy and want to be a soldier you join some crap local one, you dont go for an elite or sf regiment, geekboy, do you?

Even those who join to fight don't join to die without a reason and an objective worth the sacrifice as well as some chance of success. That isn't bravery; it's suicidal stupidity.

like i sad the the 'err what if he uses nbc?' questions are just coming from the out of touch wannabee nannies, get out of the way and let the real men take charge.

As I said, we would be justified in taking action IF and WHEN Saddam poses that threat in real time. Until Bush-Lite has hard evidence of this, he looks like some blow hard warmonger desperately looking for political advantage. I don't think he has the brain power to see how lame and dangerous a game he's playing.

if there is an nbc attack it would hardly be that effective on trained and equiped troops, muchmore effective in a london subway station i think.

Think??? You??? You're joking, right?

hussein is a known theat, far from presenting no evidence there is a huge amout:
he in a psychopath
he terrorises his own people
his rule was solidifed by uk and us and he was given a repreive in 91
he continies to try and get nbc capabilities
he tried to assassinate gb snr in kuwait
he was liked to mohammed al atta
he was linked to the 93 wtc bombing by some academics working after the official investigation and trial of ramzi yusef had taken place
he is a treat to a world economic resouce - gulf oil, caspian oil and gas.
he is an unfortuante influence if minor on the palestine conlflict
he prevents destabilising regime transformation in the surrounding coutries.

so old man keep your misguided mouth shut on the issue until the real men have dealt with the problems and you get a chance to backbite.

Real man??? You??? You're still joking, right?

Real men know that muscle, alone, doesn't win wars. They use their brains to choose the time and place for their battles.
Real men make sure they have just cause before they offer to put their lives on the line.
Real men don't blow hard on juvenile testosterone, especially when it isn't their own blood that will be spilled.

Since your profile says you're from the U.K, as far as I know, you're just some blowhard Limey twit who is all mouth and no balls. Obviously, you don't have anything to lose if OUR country starts shooting, so until you do, your opinion is meaningless. I believe it is YOU who should STFU... Asshole! :|

 

[StageLeft]

Since your profile says you're from the U.K, as far as I know, you're just some blowhard Limey

I was born in the UK as well

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I was born in the UK as well

Skoorb -- I hope it was pretty obvious I was talking about our loudmouth < ahem > friend, rbhawcroft, a guy who's quite willing to volunteer a lot of someone else's blood, but not his own, or even that of his countrymen.

Peace, amigo.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

The Gassed Dog on CNN. From Whatreallyhappened.com:

"This is the purest war propaganda. One video of what may be Osama bin Laden plus a video of a dog being gassed which could have been created anywhere equals the US sinking to new lows trying to manufacture support for a war nobody but the oil companies want. This dog-video reminds me of Hill & Knowlton's much ballyhooed claim that Iraqi troops were stealing incubators from Kuwait hospitals and leaving premature babies to die on the floor. That was a hoax to sell a war. And until proven otherwise, the safest course is to assume this latest "shock video" is just another hoax by the public relations firms which grow rich and fat off of your tax dollars by lying to you for the US Government. Anonymous US officials have declared this to be "unquestionable" evidence that al Qaeda has chemical weapons. I find it very questionable. For one thing, compare the quality of the dog video with that of the famous Osama "confession" tape or even the most recent Osama tape. Why does a dog get much better video quality than the boss? Add to that the cuteness of the dog, as if intentionally selected by central casting to provoke the greatest feelings of sympathy in the viewer, instead of just grabbing any old mangy stray mongrel to use in such a test. "