Jump to content


Photo

The War With Iraq!


18 replies to this topic

Poll: The War With Iraq!

The War With Iraq!

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Miller Charlie Company

Miller Charlie Company

    Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:46 PM

Yes, I want to know what you guys think. If you have a different answer then what the poll has, please post your thoughts. I believe he is the gun happy texian trying to finish his daddys war. What about you?
  • 0

#2 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 06:17 PM

I think we could and should be focusing on more worthwhile endeavors elsewhere, but when it comes to the Iraq conflict I think it has a secondary importance. As in we should do good elsewhere before we start dropping bombs and rearranging countrysides. Even if it's just dirt, I feel sorry for the people who live there and who have been told that we are the bad guys.

We'd like to help these people, it's just hard to when they have a dictator who is willing to starve his own people into fear. He's a demagogue (sp?), a player of pain and a master of manipulation. The U.S. is evil, I can live with that. But people should come to their own conclusions about us.

Little Bush is not finishing Big Bush's war, that poll option should be scrapped period. It's a matter of doing a little bit to help a few, which again is my problem with this entire situation. We could be doing much more elsewhere. Iraq is a small piece of a much more monstrous picture. They are just a snake who confides in the jungle. A jungle filled with bigger, meaner, nastier snakes.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#3 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 08:47 PM

I think that if the decision were this simple, the war would have started and been over long ago. I personally have very strong feelings about what will happen, seeing as modern international relations and national security are probably the fields that I'm most interested in.

First off, I think that the motives for the war are not only to help the suffering people of a nation, or to disarm a nation who presents a clear threat. While it is not the only motive, oil is a motive, no matter how much bush fans say it isn't. The threat to national security is a motive, although not a valid one IMO. Also a motive is the desire to spur the economy (won't work) and to look good in the war on terror (will backfire).

As for why Iraq is not a threat to our national security: Saddam is a power-hungry autocratic bully. The only thing he wants more than death to the US is death to the Kurds, and the only thing he wants more than that is to stay in power. Saddam is not a man who will sacrifice himself to prove a point in the name of Islam. The only case in which he would use weapons of mass destruction is when his loss of power is imminent (US troops moving into Iraq). Launching any kind of attack against the US is suicide, because that would give the US government complete justification for a full scale strategic nuclear weapon retaliation.

As to why the US will fail in a war: As soon as US troops begin marching on Saddam, he will not hesitate to use chemical warfare. Which, invetably, means US soldiers will die. We cannot use the same type of retaliation because of his tactical use of civilians, so we will be forced to use conventional warfare. The civilians bring an interesting point into consideration too. If they fight back against us, then we have the "somalia situation", in which case urban combat becomes hell, and we are forced with the international political ramifications when we kill thousands of Iraqi civilians and it is well publicized by CNN. If the people of Iraq support us, Saddam will use his chemical weapons against them, blaming the US all the while, and we will be blamed for not protecting Iraqi civilians. On top of this is the Kurds. As soon as we enter Iraq, Saddam will launch a massive genocide against the Kurds, which we couldn't stop in time. These problems that I have outlined are not even the largest problem. That is the american public opinion during the war. The tolerance for casualties in wars has dropped extremely in the past 50 years, for better or worse. On top of this, the network of news sources means that any casualties will be well documented. Saddam knows how we have lost in the past (he most definitely knows how a Somalian warlord defeated the entire US army by using public opinion), and he will use that against us. I have no doubt that there will be well-publicized images of US soldiers being mutilated by "enraged Iraqi crowds" or the aftermath of a nerve-gas attack on US soldiers (the former is more likely). The american people will be outraged, and demand that their sons and daughters be safely returned home before those savage civilians hurt them any more (see Somalia). The nature of modern politics makes presidents a slave to public opinion, of which Bush is no exception. If you get 80% of americans wanting us to pull out, he will pull out.

The only way that we could win a war against Iraq would be a complete blitz, a well organized display of american military technology. I think that if we could win only if we launch a massive assasination attempt against Saddam Hussein and his whole cabinet (as in, tons of special operations units and smart bombs), and then within minutes commence air raids against Iraqi tactical missile launchers and artillery batteries (as to protect civilians). We would then need to perform one of the largest and most complex infantry operations ever, in which we somehow infiltrate a large enough force to hold Baghdad into the middle of Iraq while our Mechanized Infantry and Armored Brigades sweep in from all sides to take hold of the country. I have very little knowledge of american forces in the area, but as far as I can see, this is the only thing that doesn't have obvious downfalls. Anything else that results in prolonged occupation of Iraq without a guaranteed hold on all of Hussein's major weapons would fail.

So, as you see, I have pretty strong opinions. I'm open to debate.
  • 0

#4 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 08:59 PM

Would you blame me, Merlinksi, if I only read 1/10 of your post?
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#5 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 09:40 PM

Would you blame me, Merlinksi, if I only read 1/10 of your post?

No, I realize that I wrote a lot. I just hope that anyone who argues against it reads it all.
  • 0

#6 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:33 PM

well i think there are two power hungry people in this situation. bush i a little trigger happy and is in love with oil, also Sadam is knows this. my father has been doing some reaserch with this thing with iraq. his reaserch shows that afganistan was just like a move on the chess board. to line up forces to attack iraq. Also bush is a idoit! Sadam says that if we attack that he will target the jews in Isrile. now there is a jewish custon if that you are going to punish someone then you do it seven times, now you minght be asking what does this have to do with Iraq and us. the Jewsm when they were attack by sadam they were attack 6 times. the jews say they will not be struckin for the seventh time or they will retaliate. now when you think of jews you don't think of them as a thret but they are most equiped for nuclear war than anyone els in the world! Most nuclear weapons are made in isriel. now the jews if the jew are the most equiped why doesnt bush look at them as a thet? the truth is that he want's oil. that is why he was so interested whith enron. ok you still wonder why he hates us the reason is that the us government has keep us forces in iraq a has carried out missions where we have kill his people. the truth is we have killed more people that he has killed his own. i still think that he is a evil man but that is one of the reason why he hates us so. So if bush want to start nuclear war then that is fine by me as lone as im not hit or affected by the ratiation its ok. but the ods are if neclear war breaks out then you could tell that choas will break out.
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#7 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:37 PM

if you want more information on this topic dont go the newspaper or turn on your tv go to a foriegn newspaper web sight like the jewselm post@ www.jewselmpost.com or you coul go to www.newseum.org and look up all the front pages printed all over the world even the Iraqy news.
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#8 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:45 PM

Jon, the flaws in your logic are mind boggling.

I mostly agree with Merlinski (which is fairly typical I might add) though I don't think there's any real possibility of a nuke strike even if Iraq started a war with us. Our government has made it perfectly clear that they're planning an overwhelming conventional strike force.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#9 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:55 PM

Jon, the flaws in your logic are mind boggling.

I mostly agree with Merlinski (which is fairly typical I might add) though I don't think there's any real possibility of a nuke strike even if Iraq started a war with us. Our government has made it perfectly clear that they're planning an overwhelming conventional strike force.

this is a very hard subject to just write about. but i would be more than willing to talk about over a subway sandwich. yes my logic is very mind bogoling but what i stated i think is going to happen. it just what i think. but i would be able to explane it better one on one. but there are no flaws i have read it for my self and it is what i stand next to
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#10 superadaquabat

superadaquabat

    Member

  • Members
  • 188 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:56 PM

I wonder how much we don't know about all of this. Y'know, like how much spin america puts on all of it. We get all of this stuff on TV about how horrible Iraq is just as they get the same stuff about the US. Now there's nothing horrible at all about America, and i truly believe Sadam is very currupt, but how bad is it? If things are how they are said to be (and i think they are mostly true), then we should go to war. Buch is not at all power hungry, all of you for peace should thing of better arguments then he's after oil. Thats a load of crap. This would all be so much simpler if we fought wars with swords and arrows (or nerf guns), but alas, things are far more complicated. I believe we could stop sadam relatively easily, but who knows what everyone else will do. Will other middle easter countries be happy? Are they just saying they hate us because sadam is aiming missles at them? We haven't really done anything to make them sworn enemies, but attacking iraq like this definitley could give them an actuall reason for anger, thats if they like sadam however. I do truly believe that these problems cannot be solved diplomatically however. Saddam is truly to well in the head, and he cares nothing whether we die or his people die.
  • 0
Happiness is a foam gun.

#11 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 12:14 AM

Don't settle for American media. There's nothing inherrently wrong with it but it's only one viewpoint.

news.google.com

Find an article you like and click the "and xxxx related" link.

I just went there and clicked on the current Iraq-related story and the first page included articles from Australia, UK, United Arab Emirates, India, Taiwan, and USA.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#12 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 06:02 PM

The Nuclear situation I suggested was my projected response to an Iraqi attack on the US mainland using a weapon of mass destruction. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I believe that the main reason Bush is doing this is for public opinion. Its a fairly easy assumption to make, because public opinion is affected both by our national security and our economic standing, things that Bush believes will improve with war.

There is a decidedly American spin to what you see on TV, but its nowhere near the magnitude of the negative propaganda that Hussein feeds to his people. I personally don't base any of my opinions on the opinions of others, I try to weed out the actual info from the editorializing.

jon, you obviously have strong opinions, but there are some things I have to respectfully disagree with you about. Israel is not the largest nuclear power in the world, nor are they prepared for nuclear war. I have no doubt that deep down in one of their top secret bunkers, they have last-resort nuclear weapons (their situation requires extreme security measures), but I don't believe that they would ever, ever use them in pre-emptive actions. If Israel is formally attacked by an Arab country, all hell would break loose. They have the best trained military in the world, and could probably fend off at least one Arab country. However, it gets messy when you take into consideration the US's interactions. I'm not as well informed about Israeli and Arab military capabilities as I am about the evolution of United States military action, but I can tell you that Israel would be the biggest loser were it to engage in military conflict with multiple Arab nations at the same time the US attacked Iraq.
  • 0

#13 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 10:06 PM

it is ok to disagree with me but all i can say is what i have seen and my opion. but here is a nother thing that you all of you might find interesting if you can see where the money goes in this nation. oh ya we got some of our nuclear weapon from isreal and the other forieng ones from Rushia. also i didn't say it was the bigest or ment to, but it is one of the bigeest. but this is a good thing about a depate is that we all can respectfuly disagree with one another. oh ya keven i think that it i very wise of you not to just settle with anmerican news. i don't ether
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#14 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 10:16 PM

it is ok to disagree with me but all i can say is what i have seen and my opion. but here is a nother thing that you all of you might find interesting if you can see where the money goes in this nation. oh ya we got some of our nuclear weapon from isreal and the other forieng ones from Rushia. also i didn't say it was the bigest or ment to, but it is one of the bigeest. but this is a good thing about a depate is that we all can respectfuly disagree with one another. oh ya keven i think that it i very wise of you not to just settle with anmerican news. i don't ether

Could you please give me any evidence that Israel is a world nuclear power? As far as I know, they aren't anywhere near the top of the list of countries with the most plutonium-producing reactors. And I'd also like to see evidence that we bought nuclear weapons from russia.

You have to remember that the foreign press has the ability to be just as biased (if not more so) than the United States press.
  • 0

#15 Milkbelly

Milkbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:02 PM

I gotta get to work so I'm not going to read everything in this thread or chime in with all the reason behind my position.
But I did want to say I voted "No" even though the misspelling put me off. Those of us with "dissident" opinions need to be ever more vigilant of how we present ourselves. It's silly, but how professionally you write out a position, the more respect its given.
  • 0

#16 WebbZter

WebbZter

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 09:06 PM

1) The economy is in a slump and a war will not help it as it did in WWII. We have enough military surplus to equipt our troops. Infact, the prospect of war is stopping people from investing (economy isn't my strongest area so I may be wrong).

2) If Iraq does launch a preemptive strike they might as well hang themselves because as Merlinski said, it will fully justify the US in its attack on Iraq as well as give us international support. Then it will become Iraq vs. the World.

3) If any of you have ever watched Black Hawk Down or read the book you'll realize that Saddam has a huge advantage on his home turf. He can pass out AK-47s to the citizens of Baghdad and he'll have an instant army. Sure they might not want to fight but Saddam has ways to convince his people to fight for him (torture, killing children, starvation, murder, use as human shields, propoganda, hostages etc.).


4) Saddam will not hesitate to use his chemical and biological weapons if attacked. A single drop of nerve gas to the skin will kill. Most soldiers probably won't even have time to put on their nuclear, biohazard, chemical protection gear before they are terminally affected.

5) Even if Saddam is funding terrorism, there are other countries that are helping terrorists even more such as Saudi Arabia. That supplies more fuel to Evil Angel's argument that there are bigger fish in the sea.

6) After we kill Saddam, then what do we do? What is going to stop Saddam Jr. from taking over once again?

7) Occupying a hostile country costs a lot of money. It's like sending the US military to an all year camp.

8) Airstrikes on his major facilities will have serious blowbacks. Saddam has used human shields in the past and nothing will stop him from using them again. Now lets say he piles up 2,000 living, breathing, innocent, sweet little children into his nuclear weapons facility and one of our bombs hits it. Then we will have people all over the world getting on our case.
  • 0

#17 Guest_SentinalofNight_*

Guest_SentinalofNight_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2003 - 08:50 PM

Sou u domt lice misck-spellings hih
  • 0

#18 rawray7

rawray7

    Member

  • Members
  • 549 posts

Posted 05 October 2003 - 09:53 PM

Sou u domt lice misck-spellings hih

i am absolutely going to murder your life. what the fuck are you thinking? you just bruoght up a topic 8 months old, so that you could insert a jumble of misspelled words? seriously buddy, chill out if you want to stay here. on the other hand you might think it's fun to waste your time signing up for a site, posting just short of a dozen times before getting banned.

please read this before you post anything else, it might help you just a little: http://nerfhaven.com...p?showtopic=512
  • 0
You, nerfboi, are the suckest gun. -neonerfer

#19 neonerfer

neonerfer

    Member

  • Members
  • 400 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 12:14 AM

Posted Image

We love war!
  • 0
"Do not question that which is. Question that which will never be."


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users