Jump to content


Photo

War On Iraq


66 replies to this topic

#26 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 22 March 2003 - 01:48 AM

Ask and ye shall receive!

Hrm. By following that wonderful link I just posted, I discovered that Evil was right all along. Iraq claimed to have destroyed it's scud arsenal which was in violation of the 150km rule. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that any of the missiles launched were actually scuds. At least two of the missiles are reported to have been Seersucker anti-ship missiles.

Most media are calling them scud launches because they're used to calling Iraqi missiles scuds.

Well, I believe it was NBC, but regardless, it was plainly stated that missiles that had been possitively identified as long range skuds had been shot down in the past 24 hours.

VACC
  • 0

#27 Grinch

Grinch

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 10:48 AM

It seems every time there's a topic on Iraq people's posts are miles long. :o

But mainly, about George W. Bush. I hate the fact that people are referring to him as a warmonger, or that he only is in the war for the oil. If this was a democratic president, this controversy would not be as strong. When Bill Clinton was forced to bomb, negative feedback about his actions were not a strong as what Bush is getting.

It's a hard decision. Bush has the lives of many people in his hands. Can you imagine that a phone call that he makes could result in hundreds losing there lives? Bush is trying to make the best of the situation, and I respect him for that. And about the oil, we already have more oil that Iraq does. There is more oil in Alaska than there is in all of Iraq. We are going to war against them for the safety of the world. Yes, we are killing innocent Iraqis by bombing them, but the Iraqi casualties US is killing is far less than the amount Saddam has killed during his reign.

Well, that's my opinion.
  • 0
Webmaster of Nerf World

Previously mrgrinch_nm!

#28 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 11:55 AM

Yea, politics are definately playing into this moreso than anyone is willing to believe. Case in point, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (D) of South Dakota.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#29 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 01:30 PM

Unfortunately, I'm way to tired to read all the posts in this topic. I will, however, post my feelings, cause that doesn't take too much patience.

There is probably no one on these boards who is as interested in international politics as I am, and I've been thinking about this war intensely for a few months.

The way that I see it, there is absolutely no beneficial outcome to war. There are some certain outcomes, and some uncertain outcomes, but for every scenario there are drawbacks that outway the possible benefits.

First of all, I am extremely interested in the military and am quite impressed with the force we have in Iraq. It is the most advanced and probably the most powerful force every assembled in one location in the history of the world. That said, it means very little in the big picture. This is not a conventional war. We are up against an army without morale, we are up against a people who do not care. The person who we wish to eliminate will use every dirty trick possible, and in this war we are giving him hundreds of possibilities to exploit. He will withdraw into Baghdad with 20,000 special republican guard troops. He cannot fight a land war because the other 380,000 troops in his army will probably surrender. What he will do is withdraw into an area where he can do the most actual and political damage to the United States. In Baghdad, he will shamelessly use civilians as shields, he will be in constant hiding, and his troops will be hidden and spread out. This will make a flattening of the city impossible, for the political consequences would be horrendous (we'd be rightfully blamed for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths). We would have to systematically take the area using ground forces. There aren't enough members in the US special forces to make that a safe thing to do. No matter how advanced your ammo, gun, and equipment is, urban combat is messy as hell and prone to small mistakes that can cost the lives of hundres of soldiers if they are left out to dry. Although it is not exactly analogous, look at the situation portrayed in Black Hawk Down (the book, not the movie). The absolute best soldiers the army had to offer were almost overrun by untrained people with AK47's. But we're not facing 10,000 civilians, we're facing 20,000 specially trained elite (Iraqi) forces, with 100,000 civilians thrown in the mix. It is extremely messy, and will be a hell of a thing to undertake. Now lets look at the possible outcomes.

If we happen to get Saddam before he does anything:
We face political challenges internationally and in Iraq. There are still thousands of civilians who died, and we are to blame. America will not appear as the true liberator to the rest of the world (France, Britain, Russia, etc.), we will appear as a country who fears no international consequences, a country who will deploy their army whenever they feel like it. We will enter a destructive cycle in which the rest of the world no longer wishes to be part of the US bandwagon because we're powerful, but instead wishes to balance against us because we use our power even when they oppose. The whole continent of Europe will wish to form a power capable of limiting the US, because they fear that we will not listen to them anymore. Unfortunately for the US, some of our citizens (and politicians) believe that we do not need allies, that if we believe something we can ignore them. Well, if we have created an alliance of people who wish to be able to limit us, then we will have problems with whatever we do. Guaranteed.

Then there are the political difficulties with Iraq. We are left with a country that no longer has an infrastructure, where there are 3 major (and many minor) ethnic groups who despise each other on religious or social grounds, and where we need to set up a reliable government fast. The Sunnis, Shi-ites, and Kurds will not suddenly be friends and work together because the US wants them to. Further complicating this is the fact that the only government we will accept will be a democratic one which gives us exclusive rights to their oil. A previous time when we forced a country to accept democracy was after WWI in Germany. The fact that we forced them to accept a government they didn't like led to the rise of the Nazi party. That is a different situation, but it exemplifies the difficulties inherent in forcing government. The US track record for "building nations" is more of harmful than benevolent interference.

Lets not forget the regional social consequences for killing Islamic civilians on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia and other terrorism breeding grounds. This will not stop terrorism, this will fuel it more than Saddam ever could. We will appear as a bully to them, and the propaganda that says that the US hates Islam will seem to be true. The biggest mistake that countries ever make regarding terrorism is to ignore the fact that moderates easily become fanatics. Once again referring to Somalia (don't try to counter this point unless you've read the book), we converted many (100's or 1000's) of the people who were open to the US into fanatics by a misguided action in which something like 50 people died.

All of this will happen even if we succeed. Its more complicated if we don't.

Urban combat is, as I have said, messy. US soldiers will die, and when they do, there are issues that must be dealt with. America has never tolerated American casualties, especially in the modern world in which we see ourselves as invincible to everything but our own helicopter crashes. If american soldiers die in Baghdad, and Saddam (or his regime) gets ahold of their bodies, they will certainly make a "pretty picture" for CNN. That means doing whatever they can to decrease american support for the war, including demonstrations in which horrible things are done to americans. If this war does not end quickly, and we are left with slow progression in Baghdad, there will be issues. Such as "Does this remind you in the least bit of Vietnam"? I've been talking to my parents, and they have been quick to tell me that one of the most prevailing memories for their generation is that of Vietnam. Politicians don't forget bad memories that belong to the voting public. And if all this happens, if, if, if we don't succeed immediately and aren't lucky enough to be faced with the challenges I already outlined, then we face a prospective drop in public opinion. If the majority of americans begin to support NO war, instead of maybe war, Bush will not upset 60% or more of the voters. He will pull out, and we will have failed.

There is the other complication that comes from the possibility of finding Saddam at the very end of the war. If we do not get him quickly, and occupy Baghdad without his capture being guaranteed, we face the risk of him pushing the "last-ditch red button", which could result in thousands of Americans in the area being killed by chemical weapons. He obviously does not care for anything if he is about to die, and will only want to take one last shot at the Americans.

The reasons behind the war are possibly the most disturbing part. We are doing this because our politicans believe either want to secure our oil (and our lifestyle), or because they believe that we have a responsibility to intevervene. I also have strong feelings about this, but I figure this post is long enough and I should write that up later.
  • 0

#30 Batman

Batman

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 09:43 PM

Go watch 'Tears of the Sun'. It's funnny that they came out with this movie when they did. But when you watch it you'll understand a little the idea of needing to intervine, because thats what its like in Iraq. Um, you gotta think about it alot though, this isn't a movie for non-intelligent people.
  • 0
www.Gainsae.com

#31 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 10:01 PM

Go watch 'Tears of the Sun'. It's funnny that they came out with this movie when they did. But when you watch it you'll understand a little the idea of needing to intervine, because thats what its like in Iraq. Um, you gotta think about it alot though, this isn't a movie for non-intelligent people.

You didn't read my post.

Tears of the Sun is nothing like the situation in Iraq because its a movie, and because its not 300,000 people, and because its not clear black and white, and because there were no political consequences in the movie, and because the crimes there aren't as prevalent. Seriously, read my goddamn post for 100 more reasons that there shouldn't even be a slight comparison.

While your at it, I recommend everyone here read this:
http://www.totse.com...expl169226.html
  • 0

#32 Batman

Batman

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 12:38 AM

Dude, shut your mouth. I was saying that as a general blanket statement. Taking what I say out of context is understandable, but stupid none the less. I was not writing that to you, I was writing it to all. And yes, the movie gives a glimpse into what life is like over there. Rapes, aimless murders, and so on. I really don't think I need to go on and on. But really, I ask that you NOT take what I say out of context.

PS. You had wwwaaayyy to much time to write all that. And I'm not gonna read it all, cuz well, it bored me after the first paragraph. Sorry bout that, but I really do have a short attention plan.
  • 0
www.Gainsae.com

#33 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 09:21 AM

It took me somewhere near 15 minutes to write that, and that was only because I was talking to people on AIM at the same time.

As for your "blanket statement", I never thought you were only talking to me, I just thought it was a ridiculously wrong statement. Did I "take it out of context" because I took it seriously? Because it really shouldn't have been meant that way. Like I said before, the situation portrayed in Tears of the Sun is not analogous to the situation in Iraq, the genocide their isn't constantly perpetrated by machette-weilding army divisions, it was perpetrated once when Saddam gassed the Kurds. There isn't a constant burning, raping, and pillaging of every village. If there was, every country in the world would be with us in our fight.

I personally thought the movie was OK. A little over-simplified, and a little too much hollywood.
  • 0

#34 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 11:27 AM

It looks like we've got some executed American POWs, what a shame...
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#35 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 01:00 PM

It looks like we've got some executed American POWs, what a shame...

Shit hits the fan.

This is what I have been saying, that war is messy and there is the possibility that horrible things will happen and decrease the enthusiasm of the country.
  • 0

#36 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 01:56 PM

This was is definately an ugly conflict Merlinski, no doubt. But I must say that the atrocities which we will prevent outweigh the costs we will sustain. At least that's how I see it.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#37 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 March 2003 - 02:07 PM

It looks like we've got some executed American POWs, what a shame...

Shit hits the fan.

This is what I have been saying, that war is messy and there is the possibility that horrible things will happen and decrease the enthusiasm of the country.

If you think this will Decrese enthusiasm you've obviously misjudged the very nature of this conflict. Perhaps if our soldiers viewed this as a losing battle your annalysis would be astute, but the fact remains that the outcome remains fairly certain. This violation of geneva convention standards only strengthens our case that Saddam is a monster and a tyrant that must be cast down. Furthermore I guarantee that this act will only further strengthen the resolve of our soldiers, and that's what really matters. If you think a few more hippies in the streets are really gonna' turn W's thick skull, you're a fool. Of course war is messy, it's fucking war. Did you think they'd be serving tea with the bullets?

VACC
  • 0

#38 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 02:30 PM

You have to remember that America has largely forgotten that war is messy. We haven't had more than 200 casualties in one war since Vietnam.

And I don't think this one instance will turn public opinion, I think its more of an indication of things to come. I stand behind every statement I have made in my extremely long post, and believe that I will be proven right in the long run.
  • 0

#39 Ash

Ash

    Member

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 06:41 PM

How can you say that America has largely forgotten that war is messy when we just had bunch of planes smack into the sides of huge buildings and send body parts fucking everywhere right in our front yard? You are now officially speaking out of your ass from a truly pussy-footed hippie perspective. America knows damn well the spoils of war.. even media reminds us on a daily basis. Look at the success of "Saving Private Ryan". That goddamn movie aired on PUBLIC tv fully uncensored and un-interrupted (less the intermission) just because it was viewed as such a powerful film. If that movie doesn't smack America with the "here's the dirty fucking ugly part of war" message in the face enough for you, then I'm sure all the damned coverage of the WTC tragedy should satisfy you. There's more than 200 hundred casulties for ya right there buddy. Sure, we weren't directly in a wartime atmosphere at the time, but it still counts. America knows damn well the price, and all those stupid assholes marching in NYC and LA with the damn signs that say "Give them more time" can go to hell. That's just about their only argument for us not to go to war. They pretty much just go on the principle that war is "bad" and kills people. We gave the man 12 years, what else do you want? What makes you think another year is gonna make him comply? Sure, war is bad, but war is always gonna happen wether it involves us or not. You just happen to live in a country that is pretty much the world superpower, and in case ya didn't know, that makes us good at the whole war thing. That pretty much means we are gonna have to be involved sometimes. I think they should make it a temporary law that all the protesters in NYC have to protest right in front of ground zero, and right across the street we'll stand all the remaining families of the victims of 9/11 along with all the police, firemen, and all the other workers involved right across the street... let's see how gung-ho fucking american those protesters seem then. I hate fucking protesters... any protesters.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the lyrics to "Why Can't We Be Friends" are all fine and dandy, but that's not how the world works. There's gonna be war, and America just so happens to be the country to trounce the rest... deal with it. One damned generation of people who grew up with the bad taste of Vietnam in their mouths can't expect thier whining and hypocrasy to keep the world at peace at all times. What these assholes don't realize is they are basically creating another atmosphere for the same damn outcome as Vietnam. They all protested Vietnam and made all the veterans and heroes feel like shitheads who fought for all the wrong reasons when they came home, and now they are trying to do the same to the next generation of heroes. Fuck off.

And on a lighter note...

I really like frozen M&M's.
  • 0
Name's Ash, Housewares

#40 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 08:02 PM

I can't believe that ignorance is that prevalent in America.

First of all, I don't agree with protesters. I never have and never plan to go to a war protest. I believe that there is a time and place for war, simply that this is not the time and place. Your entire post was dedicated to dissing anti-war people, so I don't even need to respond to most of it.

As to the vietnam part though, have you noticed that most vietnam veterans oppose war? The people who want war are those who have never seen combat.

And if America accept it's role as world policeman and accepts casualties, why did we give up our "responsibilities" as soon as 18 soldiers were killed in somalia?
  • 0

#41 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 08:27 PM

And if America accept it's role as world policeman and accepts casualties, why did we give up our "responsibilities" as soon as 18 soldiers were killed in somalia?

That was politics in all honesty. The Clinton administration got cold feet after the results they wanted weren't being achieved as quickly as they had wished. To this day for some reason the incident in Mogadishu (sp?) is viewed as an American defeat. I'll never understand how that is the logical conclusion after reading the book. Over 1000 Somalis died and some 19 American soldiers lost their lives, sounds like one hell of a kill ratio to me.

Oh yea, and if you haven't, please read the book. It's just flawless.

As for us accepting our international policeman responsibilities, you're going to have to as I said before, attack the Clinton administration for their own failure in Somalia. As for us now, we're a different group of people as a whole. We're each who we used to be, just that we've been awakened by the sheer shock of 9/11. We're honestly more aware of what the world is all about now that we've been subjected to the same pains and perils that others have had to put up with for so long.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#42 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 01:44 PM

BTW, HOW THE FUCK DID FRANCE GET ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL? PACIFIST PUSSY BITCHES!

hey dude like i said last time don't trust just american news. then thing is there are ship from france that are helping are navil forces. and i want to know how i know this is beacause my teacher has a son in the navy and he has been constantly writing her. also if you read the consetution your will see that there are many things that we are doing that the consitution said we should never do. we are breaking the contrac. personaly i think that Sadam is an evil man but i don't think that we have to fight his people or his army. i think that this war against him need better reasoning ya he surports terrorist but think of this once we take away some of terroris funds then they are goiong to hit the one that took the $ from them what i think.
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#43 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 02:00 PM

This war will be judged ultimately by whether we can find stockpiles of chem/bio/nuke weapons in Iraq. If we do, we look great. If not, what was the fucking motive again?

Either way it's a step backwards in the war against terrorism and in relations with the Middle East.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#44 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 02:01 PM

I can't believe that ignorance is that prevalent in America.

First of all, I don't agree with protesters. I never have and never plan to go to a war protest. I believe that there is a time and place for war, simply that this is not the time and place. Your entire post was dedicated to dissing anti-war people, so I don't even need to respond to most of it.

As to the vietnam part though, have you noticed that most vietnam veterans oppose war? The people who want war are those who have never seen combat.

And if America accept it's role as world policeman and accepts casualties, why did we give up our "responsibilities" as soon as 18 soldiers were killed in somalia?

right on the money dude i agree. there is a time and place for war but this is not it. and i do think that the americans are not fond with war. terrorism but not war. those are two different things and the case here there are do separted people. sadam and benladin. beladin was the terrorist but sadam is the person we are picing a fight with. a nother resont i don't suport the war is that there are to many sulivans involved they want that tyrant out of ther gov. but they say in the us troops tought there homes they are going to fight back. and guess what are missles have done.
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#45 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 03:30 PM

beladin was the terrorist but sadam is the person we are picing a fight with.

Saddam counts as a terrorist, don't tell me he doesn't. He's killed 180, 000 of his own people, and done worse human damages to the Iranians whom he waged war with for a long 8 years. If Saddam isn't a terrorist, I don't know who is.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#46 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 05:57 PM

That was politics in all honesty. The Clinton administration got cold feet after the results they wanted weren't being achieved as quickly as they had wished. To this day for some reason the incident in Mogadishu (sp?) is viewed as an American defeat. I'll never understand how that is the logical conclusion after reading the book. Over 1000 Somalis died and some 19 American soldiers lost their lives, sounds like one hell of a kill ratio to me.

Oh yea, and if you haven't, please read the book. It's just flawless.

As for us accepting our international policeman responsibilities, you're going to have to as I said before, attack the Clinton administration for their own failure in Somalia. As for us now, we're a different group of people as a whole. We're each who we used to be, just that we've been awakened by the sheer shock of 9/11. We're honestly more aware of what the world is all about now that we've been subjected to the same pains and perils that others have had to put up with for so long.

Actually, it wasn't simply the Clinton administration. I not only read the book but researched the political consequences. The ones who made the biggest fuss in favor of pulling americans out were the Republicans. John McCain made a huge deal about getting the soldiers back home, and it was Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas who said "The people dragging americans through the streets don't look very hungry to the people of Texas" (paraphrased). The fact that we pulled out was more of a result of overwhelming public opinion in favor of pulling out.

I know completely what you mean about the battle being a defeat. It was most definitely not, and if you asked the soldiers they would have wanted to flatten the city looking for their guys. However, it was as General Garrison predicted, we won the battle but lost the war. I think it is the quintessential example of how public opinion can kill our enthusiasm for a military conflict that we happen to be winning.

I've read the book 3 times, cover to cover. I believe it is the best book I have ever read, and probably the most intriguing true story of combat ever.

I'm not sure if 9/11 affected America as much as I personally hoped it would (and you believe it did). To this date we see it as the work of an insane man who harbors a personal vendetta against America, not as the result of years of religious and social conflicts that created breeding grounds for irrational hate. More than anything else, the result of the incident is that we wanted to crush those who hurt us and go back to living our lives. There was no large movement in favor of funding psychological and social programs in the Middle East, or attempting to help the next generation of Arabs accept America. The reaction was closer to the reaction to Pearl Harbor, one of "kill the guys who did this so we can be happy again", or "we're america, we should get them back". There are very few americans who fully understand what other people have been subjected to, because 9/11 was 1 event. I was at ground zero 4 days ago, and although the impact on the Manhattan skyline is noticable, the area is no longer remarkable. It is a construction site. There is a wall with names on it, but there is no longer the pile of rubble. The construction that is currently there really represents the fact that we've accepted and moved on. For better or for worse.
  • 0

#47 Ash

Ash

    Member

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 09:39 PM

As to the vietnam part though, have you noticed that most vietnam veterans oppose war? The people who want war are those who have never seen combat.

Vietnam vets are opposed to war because 1. It was drilled into their heads. They came home to a bunch of assholes who shunned and hated them. If they weren't hated, then they were simply told that what they did was wrong and pointless. I wouldn't want war either if that's what I had to come home to.
2. That war was half against civilians... that's just not fun, man. Killing women and kids is never something that people want to repeat. Sure, bombing kills civilians, sure, but it's not so up close and personal.

Why the hell should we pay for psychological and social programs in the Middle-east? This country doesn't pay for psychological programs in itself... Besides, that's simply brainwashing. That would make us pretty much repeating the crusades, only for America instead of God. Sure, I understand what those people were subjected to, and that's a shame. I know that they have been raised to believe what they do just the same as we were raised to believe the things we have engrained in our skulls; The problem is that that's who they are, and that's what makes them our enemy. When a serial killer goes around and kills a good number of people and he's finally caught, we aren't like "oh, that poor soul, look at what he was subjected to when he was young, let's not hate him for what he did", people are more disgusted and hateful of that person. This is pretty much the same thing. I'm not so much as even saying those people are wrong for believing what they do. I completely see where they are coming from and I can even say they were justified in some sense, but that still makes them our enemies, regardless of wether we had it coming or not.

And what the fuck do you want them to do to ground zero? Leave the rubble there for all to observe? Be realistic, of course it's a construction site. They are going to rebuild it which, if you ask me, is possibly one of the best ways to get back at them. It's kind of like saying "yeah sure you knocked 'em down, but we are just gonna put better ones up" followed by a flip of the bird. If I were in charge, I'd build ones that looked exactly the same, but alas I am not. If we were to leave shit laying around, it wouldn't be us remembering what happened, it would be us letting them win.

Oh, and that whole post wasn't aimed at you, at was aimed at people who have been posting here in general, hence the lack of names.

BTW, Jon, learn to spell and work on the grammar there pal, I had to read your post at a snail's pace to figure out what ideas you were trying to convey.

Yeah, we are at war with Sadam, no he isn't the one who attacked us HOWEVER, Sadam has a large surplus of weapons he shouldn't... and what's to keep him from supplying the terrorists who have offended us? That's one of the things we are trying to avoid here.

And, on a lighter note...

I at the time was a communist
Lived on a collective farm
She was a part-time anarchist
Our sex went off like a bomb
Living the life of a terrorist
Looking for the man Saddam,
Who gave me a gun as Iran to the sun
If you die like a dog then you are
then you are

Saddam
They shall drown in their own blood!
Hail Saddam a go-go!

Going to Saddam a go-go
Everybody is there
Business of strange bed fellows
Makes you dance around like a bear
Ein, Schwein, kick him in the eye
Teamed up with the Asian eye
They were the ones
Who could rise with the sun
As they lived in their planes
And they died
How they died...

Hail!
The running paper tiger chases its own tail
Hail Saddam a go-go

He was someone who was there for people like me
Hi there Saddam, loved the party
Yes they're all here with me
Bloody Saddam
Loves you always, always a kick
Bloody Saddam
Even though the smell is making me sick
As we sit on our roofs
And cheer as your scuds fall like rain

Here at the ancient ziggaraunt
Saddam is presiding there
Running around with a saxophone
Where is the president, where?
Here it comes, the black tornado
Let's have a cheer for Sarajevo
If you survive what falls out of his mind
You'll make the political world
  • 0
Name's Ash, Housewares

#48 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 10:35 PM

There is the other complication that comes from the possibility of finding Saddam at the very end of the war.  If we do not get him quickly, and occupy Baghdad without his capture being guaranteed, we face the risk of him pushing the "last-ditch red button", which could result in thousands of Americans in the area being killed by chemical weapons.  He obviously does not care for anything if he is about to die, and will only want to take one last shot at the Americans.


Sometimes I hate being right.

Saddam just drew a red line around Baghdad and said that if we enter it, his troops are authorized to use chemical weapons. The question is, how do we handle this situation. We can't let him go, but what person could live with themselves after sending soldiers into a city in which they know there is a high probability of many of them dieing a gruesome death? This is no longer conventional warfare, this is risk management.
  • 0

#49 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 25 March 2003 - 05:12 PM

I just realized why Bush started this whole Iraq thing...

He wants to run the place because he had a drug flashback and he thinks it's TEXAS!

It's about the same size and if you squint a little it's kinda the same shape.

There's lots of oil there and it's way too hot.

The place has a large concentration of Shiite.

It has a history of bad leadership.

I tell you, the similarities are fucking eerie.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#50 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 March 2003 - 05:46 PM

Sometimes I hate being right.

Saddam just drew a red line around Baghdad and said that if we enter it, his troops are authorized to use chemical weapons. The question is, how do we handle this situation. We can't let him go, but what person could live with themselves after sending soldiers into a city in which they know there is a high probability of many of them dieing a gruesome death? This is no longer conventional warfare, this is risk management.

So wait, you think that the fact that he DOES have chmical agents and IS willing to use them in HIS OWN capital city proves the point that we should have just givin him an indeffinate timeline for convinving us that he did not have them? You think it would have been better if we had simply never found out he had these weapons?

Is this dangerous? DUR! You think you're the only person who thought this might happen? What, are you fucking Nostradamas (personally, he's not my type)? Yes we could stand to lose many men, but the postponement of this siege would not have solved that problem, not matter what Michael Moore tells you. After 2 days of college classes since my break, I'm already at my fucking limit. One of my professors yesterday told me that what we need to do is sit down and have a philisophical discussion with Saddam and his cabinet concerning the religious ideals behind this war. Look, nobody likes war, nobody likes losing lives. The fact is that we are not living in a world where all conflict can be averted. This is not a utopia, as I'm sure we're all very aware. In a perfect world the strategy of avoiding confrontations at all costs might be a wise and fair one, but we simply are not there. And despite what some might say it is not our simpleminded president's fault that such a world has not been achieved. People would argue that his is a self perpetuating mode of thinking that only begits more violence, but that would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts. We're not plundering and imperialising. I guarntee you we will not stay in Iraq or steal their oil. If we wanted their oil we would have flipped the UN the bird back in the first war and taken it.

The point is, we are not acting out of some self-indulgent beliefe in manifest destingy, but we are reacting to a problem that the world cannot deny exists. Sadam IS a madman who starves, rapes, torchers, and kills his own people on a regular basis. Now we have proof that he's a madman who starves, rapes, torchers, and kills his own people, with weapons of mass destruction that he is willing to use. We can't talk him down, we've tried. The U.N...well the U.N. can't even take a piss without someone to hold its dick.

I understand you hate war, and I understand that war is bad and "messy", no argument there. I'd just like something a little more creative than run of the mill "I told ya' so", or "he needs more time". He's had time, he's still crazy.

This has been a product of seeing the academy awards and attending a New Jersey State College. I mean no offense to you personally merlinski, and you certainly have a right to your opinion(s). Cheese is good.

VACC
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users