Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure Saddam have WMDs, but I don't think he will use them unless he starts to lose the battle for Bagdad. Of course, he can always, and probably already did, give some toys to the nuts in Al Qaeda......

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure Saddam have WMDs, but I don't think he will use them unless he starts to lose the battle for Bagdad. Of course, he can always, and probably already did, give some toys to the nuts in Al Qaeda......</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The "conspiracy of the willing" will take Bagdad. Once they get the supply lines secured - that's what's holding them up. No one is allowed to say, but they have M1s sitting there with no fuel waiting for supplies.

[ March 27, 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Mephisto:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It could have. It would have pushed the potential fight into summer, which would make the troop movements more difficult in that part of the world (or so I am told, never having been there in summer.. or at all for that matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). As Geo stated, it's likely that this would have left the threat of force somewhat impotent.

The real threat to me however was the incredible cost of having troops sit for extended periods of time. My friend, Basam, who has lived in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is of the opinion that the Kuwaitis would have gladly paid the US forces upkeep costs. If this is so, then I would definitely change my opinion - yes, the USA should have waited. Now that's a pretty big should! I've not seen any reports of Kuwaiti willingness to pay these costs.

Primitive:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay, I've thought on this. Yes, GWB should be willing to give Blix & Co. enough time to complete the inspections. However compliance did not really occur until threat of force was apparent.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" costs nothing then yes, the USA and UK should have waited for Blix and crew to do their job, that is, give enough time for the job to be done.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" will cost the USA a whole bundle of cash while other UN security members sit on their duffs, then no, the USA and UK should not have to wait and pay infinitum. If they are the only ones making the Iraqi government cooperate, then they should be allowed to set the expectations.

Finally, Blix is correct that it will take months with full cooperation to complete his job but they had months in which to complete it during which Sadam & Co. did not cooperate. However it was Sadam who did not cooperate, so that is Sadams' "lost time". I don't think that somebody else should have to waste their precious time when Sadam came to the "cooperating table" months, if not years late!

[ March 27, 2003, 20:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The scary thing about the whole thing is that there are 5M citizens in bagdad. If even a small % decide to fight then the american forces will be severely outnumbered. I was listening today how Rumsfeld wanted to send in only 50k troops and the military wanted a lot more than they did send. It makes you wonder what they were thinking.

[ March 27, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Saddam’s army is finished; without air support they can not maneuver. Just today they tried to move several companies of mounted infantry, perhaps a brigade. Two BUFF’s and some F-18’s utterly destroyed them, highway of death revisited. This leaves Iraq with a hard choice to make. Do they pull out all of the stops and use Gas and VX? Or do they begin to position themselves for what happens after Baghdad falls?

Guerrilla warfare might cause the US to increase the amount of troops that are in country, and they might prevent the countryside from being fully under allied control. But they can not take on armored unit’s head to head, and they will not prevent Baghdad from falling to the Allies. The lead Allied units are setting up a classic armor battle, one where you have to maneuver or be killed in place. The Guards will have to make a decision in a day or two as to how they will fight. Doctrine would advise closing on the Americans so that the air power would be removed from the battle. Problem with this is that it is very hard to close on an Abrams with a T-72. So given that problem, the doctrine would advise falling back into an urban area. But if that area is not Baghdad, then your forces run the risk of being isolated and bypassed. And a run for Baghdad at this point in time would make the retreat from Kuwait look like a minor skirmish. So, do they go all out? Or position themselves for a diplomatic solution? I don’t have a clue what is in the mind of that madman, but if they use WMD, then there will be no settlement of any type.

Personally, I think that Saddam thinks his four divisions of RG’s can take the one American infantry division out first and then wheel on the Marines, inflicting severe casualties that will force the US to negotiate a settlement. Or, that the slaughter of his troops will be so horrific that the world will force the US and Britain to back off and negotiate. The wildcard here is the Republican Guards they hold the key. If one or two of the four division turn on Saddam, then we have a whole new ball game, and a bunch of staff officers will have just made a place for themselves in the new Iraqi government. This corp of officers has tried to take Saddam out on several past occasions. Also, for them the plan is self-serving, the best of all possible outcomes. The Americans are re-supplying for the drive on Baghdad, and should push off very soon, I think the first big engagement will determine what happens within the RG leadership. A lot could happen this weekend.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you can really perceive a situation where this could actually happen, then you need to stop Bogart’n and pass that thing around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

You guys still expecting people switching sides?
Come on, its obvious by now that Saddam is not nearly as hated as the western media said.
The fact that for us he is a bloody dictator doesn't make him such for his own people. Or are you believing what the Iraki opposition in exile says, which of course, they would say anyway?

You got to understand that people from a diferent culture have a diferent view of what's good and what's bad.

And don't forget the effects of propaganda....

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hell no. That's not my problem, not my war.
Why should I be loyal to a country that plans to cut my country in half to please the Arabs?
No way.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermodyne is right anything outside of Bagdad is finished, but the real battle will be in Bagdad proper. This might be a stretch, but the only analogy I can think of is Berlin and the Russian took a million casualties with "the gloves taken off". Unless, of course, the media is lying - 1000 militia are holding back the Brits in Basra I don't see how Bagdad can be any better.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, Cities have some defense advantages.
There are ways to counter the advantages, BUT... you can not do that and preserve civilian homes and lives.

Using concusion bombs, flame throwers, and flooding basements and tunnels with water can be quick and very effective.

To clear a city surgically with minimal loss of troops requires intel (native cooperation) and time to play a patient game cat and mouse.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No . . . the Turks are on our side so it's O.K. for them to mistreat their Kurds. It's only the Iraqi Kurds that need liberating.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats the problem . When GWB starts killing civilians.... where does it end?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Russia tried the destroy-way in Grosney (or how do you spell it) and after years, they still are there. Thats not an option for Bush.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no way to play it with few losses. City war cancels out all technoligy. Big guns and tanks just won't work in cities.

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.

Its a loose-loose position GWB is in right now. If he is cornered to much, who know what will happen??? Maybe nuking Bagdad? cuz the war took to long and to many soldiers???
But this is a horror senario that is possible! Dick C. said before (and the neo-conservatives) "We will use "Tactical nuke" when needed". *shudders*

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This was in the Australian press, as Australia did not officially declare war. The Prime Minister said there was no reason to declare war as there was enough justification through the Last million or so resolutions. As our PM seems to parrot Washington's argument I assume the US has taken the same stance.

Askan
Oh, I understand the Ratings systems is silly, but after my small whine I noticed a got a few good Ratings. I feel like a little beggar boy now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that's why he refuses to put a timeframe on the war, instead saying that we'll fight "as long as it takes."

RE: casualties--Right now, the PR problem with casualties is that there are too few of them. The media can take time to cover each one in graphic, mind-numbing detail and still not have enough news to fill up their 24-hour coverage. They would still report it if there had been hundreds so far, but they would be limited to just one or two stories, instead of forty. I'm not saying that I want casualties, just commenting on the coverage of them.

RE: civilian casualties--There will be civilian casualties in any war. That is part of the cost of waging war. The US is pussyfooting to prevent any civilian casualties, perhaps too much to wage an effective war. When the fight gets to Baghdad, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian casualties. If the US is too aggressive, they will be perceived as uncaring. If they are too passive, though, hundreds or thousands more US troops will die (aren't their lives worth something, too?), as well as far greater numbers of Iraqis who die from the side-effects of having a drawn-out war fought in your city. [edit] Oh, and there is the technology to negate the defensive advantages of city fighting, but it's not ready for widespread use yet. Probably in 2-3 years, though, it will be standard equipment at the division level, at least.

RE: WMDs--My guess is that Saddam will use them at some time against the US troops, provided he gets the chance. I also have a suspicion that he has several mobile launchers sitting out in the desert, just in range of...the coalition POW camp. Yep, let's finish off the infidels and the cowardly traitors at the same time. Just a guess.

[ March 28, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I started with my 4 stars (that's a deliberate 4, by the way) and I still have 4 stars- no-one listens to me, obviously http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Listens to who? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Askan

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Today a US Command centre was attacked by artie. 37 injured. IT did return fire. Only problem was that it was an artie marine base that lobbed the shells over.

The Iraq army should pull back and let the British and US attack each other. This friendly fire is brutal... Where is the inquries to remove these blunders.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Granted, there was not much time left but I think at least one or two more weeks would have been possible. One could argue that they even could have waited over the summer and attack – if needed – in autumn. I see that this would have been very cost intensive. However, maybe an arrangement would have been possible to collect the money from the UN member states. I think after France and Germany could hardly said “no” to this after they demanded more time. Don’t know about Kuwait, maybe they too would have given money. Finally, this war will cost at least 70 to 80 billion dollars. If you used this money to support the troops over summer and maybe avoid the war altogether, it would be worth it and maybe it would even be a cheaper way. But we’ll never know…

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats what he says now, but GWB told the US civilians/world before that this war would be swift and easy. If this turns out to be Vietnam 2, we'll see a huge shift in US opinions considering the war. GWB has just a year to complete this.

Also a big problem for him is that the iraqi summer is comming.

Thats why im afraid what GWB will do. When Someone is cornered (Bush or Sadam) he will do "strange" things.

R.

p.s. Who hacked Al Jazeera? Just patriotic Hackers? or maybe hackers supported by the US gouverment?... IF....

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes there is.

*dogscoff waves a spoon in front of Aloofi's face.

Look! Spoon! Spoon! Oh hang on, that's a spork...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Found this list of the coalition members at CNN (Guess this is in addition to UK, USA and Australia) :
According to the Bush administration and press reports, the coalition consists of: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

Can anyone else spot some countries here you normally wouldn’t find in a coalition fighting for “democracy and human rights” ?
Wonder what reason they are giving their own population for joining the coalition ?

And then there are of course some countries that have absolutely no armed forces at all. Well, I guess GWB really appreciate the moral support as he don’t get very much of it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I'm ashamed that the Netherlands are in that list, the majority of the population is against the war though. The goverment that made that decision had to resign a couple of months ago and will only be in office untill the coalition talks for the new goverment are ready, also it's only political support not military, whatever that may mean. I hope the new goverment will show some more common sense.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually no, one or two more weeks was not an option. But not because of the US/UK. The final UN resolution that never came to a vote would have given the Iraqii's another week. But the French and Russians made it clear they would veto it if it had any sort of ultimatum or approval to use force at the end of it. France had determined they were not going to approve the use of force under any circumstances until the inspectors made the determination that they could do nothing more constructive. (I think that was Chiracs term. I can find the link if it matters.) They would not consider any timetable, no matter how long. Of course that would have never happened. The inspectors were being duped, and they would have gone on being duped forever if neccesary.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe I am naive, but for me the money is irrelevant. 75-100 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it's not that big a deal when you compare it to the gross national product. And what exactly is the monetary value of our national security? What is the value of a human life, American, British or Iraqii? I don't like getting into those sorts of discussions because to me it cheapens all of us.

What is not irrelevant is the degradation of operational readiness of the forces sitting in the desert. You can't keep the soldiers on a razors edge like that for months and then expect them to be able to perform at their peak once you give them the go.

The only relevant question in this regard is was their any usefull purpose for continued inspections. I believe there was not. I am human and will allow the possibility that I am wrong on that point, but that determination being made deadlines and timetables become irrelevant. You go when you believe your forces are operationally ready, or you don't go at all.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As far as I know and can speak for my country we are not members of any coalition. We did't approve the attack but we sent anti-chemical(don't know the right term) squad to help anyone affected by any biological weapons. We are not under US command(well the reality in Irak is a bit different but this is how the orders were given when the unit left the country). We would help anyone including Irak's citizents. I wonder how many other countries were added to that list unvoluntarily.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Should I be surprised if GWB/CIA would throw a B- or C- bomb killing even coalition forces within the next weeks... Of course they would pin the blame for it on Iraq.

http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf
http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions_2.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...-iraq-lie.html

Not necessarily my opinion, but I have lost my faith in almost everything and everyone (the theories about conspiracies included).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Interesting to see afghanistan on that list too. I guess you can hardly be surprised with the US pulling their strings now. I wonder what the afghanistani people think about it all.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If anyone want to read intel from the russian side http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...Id=902&sesid=2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7Q262I80.html

That's real nice, firing at your own people who are trying to get out.

And we are still being questioned for trying to oust him?

Anyone read what his son did to the Olympic Athletes who failed, there is another real 'humanitarian'.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Crazy_dog:
Thanks for the link. The info is great, and I’m sure it is more accurate than the BS we can get from our Western media (lots of eye-candy, but low on facts).

Hunkpapa:
Nobody on these forums has ever called Saddam a nice guy. We know all about the atrocities he has committed. But that is not what this war is about.

Dogscoff:
My guess is that most Afghanis don’t know (like most Czechs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

and the loser is.....
Turkey

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...653857544.html

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/28/iraq_syria030328

ANYONE NOTICE WHERE THIS IS GOING.

20 dollars on Iran to show in the 3rd race of the afternoon.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Guys, you got to read this! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
What's next?
Will they start lynching people?

"Last week, the Shelby County Alabama Legislative Delegation hosted a
"Stand
Up for America Rally." More than 1,200 people attended including featured
speakers Chief Justice Roy Moore, Adjutant General Mark Bowen and Alabama
State Auditor Beth Chapman.

Below is a copy of Mrs. Chapman's speech, which resulted in five standing
ovations, tremendous applause and an encore. It's a short read and well
worth it.

"I'm here tonight because men and women of the United States military have
given their lives for my freedom. I am not here tonight because Sheryl
Crowe, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Jane Fonda or Phil
Donahue, sacrificed their lives for me.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not movie stars or musicians, but
the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the
jungles
of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy. Tonight, I say we should support
the President of the United States and the U.S. Military and tell the
liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippy, tie-dyed liberals to go
make their movies and music and whine somewhere else.

After all, if they lived in Iraq, they wouldn't be allowed the freedom of
speech they're being given here today. Ironically, they would be put to
death at the hands of Sadam Husssein or Osama Bin Laden. I want to know
how
the very people who are against war because of the loss of life, can
possibly be the same people who are for abortion?

They are the same people who are for animal rights but against the rights
of
the unborn. The movie stars say they want to go to Iraq and serve as
"human
shields" for the Iraqis. I say let them buy a one-way ticket and go.

No one likes war. I hate war! But the one thing I hate more is the fact
that
this country has been forced into war - innocent people have lost their
lives -- and there but for the grace of God, it could have been my
brother,
my husband, or even worse my own son.

On December 7, 1941, there are no records of movie stars treading the
blazing waters of Pearl Harbor.

On September 11, 2001, there are no photos of movie stars standing as
"human
shields" against the debris and falling bodies ascending from the World
Trade Center. There were only policemen and firemen - -underpaid civil
servants who gave their all with nothing expected in return.

When the USS Cole was bombed, there were no movie stars guarding the ship
--
where were the human shields then?

If America's movie stars want to be human shields, let them shield the
gang-ridden streets of Los Angeles, or New York City, let them shield the
lives of the children of North Birmingham whose mothers lay them down to
sleep on the floor each night to shelter them from stray bullets.

If they want to be human shields, I say let them shield the men and women
of
honesty and integrity that epitomizes courage and embody the spirit of
freedom by wearing the proud uniforms of the United States Military. Those
are the people who have earned and deserve shielding!

Throughout the course of history, this country has remained free, not
because of movie stars and liberal activists, but because of brave men and
women who hated war too. However, they lay down their lives so that we all
may live in freedom. After all - "What greater love hath no man, that he
lay
down his life for his friend," or in this case a country.

We should give our military honor and acknowledgement and not let their
lives be in vain. If you want to see true human shields, walk through
Arlington Cemetery. There lie human shields, heroes, and the BRAVE
Americans
who didn't get on television and talk about being a human shield - they
were
human shields.

I thank God tonight for freedom - - those who bought and paid for it with
their lives in the past -- those who will protect it in the present and
defend it in the future.

America has remained silent too long! God-fearing people have remained
silent too long!

We must lift our voices united in a humble prayer to God for guidance and
the strength and courage to sustain us throughout whatever the future may
hold.

After the tragic events of Sept. 11th, my then eleven-year-old son said
terrorism is a war against them and us and if you're not one of us, then
you're one of them.

So in closing tonight, let us be of one accord, let us stand proud, and
let
us be the human shields of prayer, encouragement and support for the
President, our troops and their families and our country.

May God bless America, the land of the free, the home of the brave and the
greatest country on the face of this earth!"

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

An the tension escalates with Syria

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...653885385.html

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Have you seen Bushs war record for when his country called for him.

18 months awol National Guard Texas.

some even may say it is Desertion..

cheney.... deferments "had other priorities than military service

Ashcroft

WEll you get the picture...

Perhaps the speach could have went like this

"I'm here tonight because men and women of the United States military have
given their lives for my freedom. I am not here tonight because George Bush Jr, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, or John Ashcroft, sacrificed their lives for me.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not Republicans or Republicans, but
the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the
jungles
of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy.

.... well you get the picture again.

nice speach... well written

Thanks Aloofi I enjoyed that one.

Has anyone seen any reports of t-72's being destroyed, That is kind of nerve racking...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

no doubt the WMD have been secertly moved to Syria... Perhaps in July we can here that one...

Then come Novemenber... Iran....

If so... Every American has a democratic right to rally and rally and impeach the president, ( do not know how it happens, perhaps someone can explain), and get USA back on track and repair the damage that has been done. And make the world a safer place by making sure no chickenhawks get control again...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

It's kind of Pathetic

Of all the members of congress only 1 - the democratic senator of south dakota - out of 485(?) has their son or daughter serving in the military. If we had a draft with no deferments so that people like cheney and rumsfeld couldn't get out of it sending troops into adventures would be far less likely. Also - Gore actually volunteered to go to Vietnam unlike others - it may have been for cynical reasons but he still went.

[ March 28, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

From Practice to Deceive
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Didn't the Germans call this liebensraum? Is it me, or are these "neocons" (Neo-Conservatives) looking to be more and more like the National Socialist party of the 1930's? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not exactly sure which neo-conservatives those are. I have yet to hear anyone advocate the establishment of an American Empire. For one, the overwhelmingly vast majority of both liberals and conservatives would oppose it. Second, there is probably a subset of "neolibs" who would just as gladly impose a "welfare empire" on the world (some would argue that this already exists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The US Congress has to act to impeach the President. Specifically, the House of Representatives has to bring out specific 'Articles of Impeachment' describing what he has done wrong and pass it. If it is passed, the Senate than acts as a 'jury' to try the President on the charges contained in the resolution passed by the House. Didn't you notice any of this when they impeached Clinton? IF the Congress had any spine this would be underway already. GWB has committed numerous crimes in launching this illegal war. But the knee-jerk patriotism is too strong and the Congress-sheep too timid to even discuss it.

Trivia -- Prior to Richard Nixon, the only president to have articles of impeachment introduced against him was Andrew Jackson. But Clinton was NOT the third President to have this happen. Who was the third?

[ March 29, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excuse me, people, but what a speech is this? I could turn this into a speech to support Nazi Germany in WW2 any time by just replacing the locations!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">/Smartass mode on
It was called lebensraum.
Leben equals live, liebe equals love. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
/Smartass mode off

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If we had a draft it ought to run in a different age range. In the past you'd be drafted at 18 or 19 (26 at most) and at that age most people are too conditioned by the propo^H^H^H^H^H patriotism radiating from all the media to know any better than to serve the war machine and go kill foreigners for disobeying their rightful rulers in Washington. If the draft were to run from about 21-35 with NO exceptions for college, marriage, etc. (which their used to be in the old draft) then ordinary 'middle class' citizens with responsibilities would have to pay attention to US foreign policy. Gratuitous wars on disobediant dictators would be much more difficult if millions of people who had established lives of their own and learned to think for themselves a bit were in the line of fire.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can’t be serious. Intel from un-named comm. intercepts? And no sources named? I hope that you realize that this is not intel, it is someone’s opinion.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar28.html

intersting article... Ran on the front page..

warning must put in some FF ( Fake Fields )

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thank you Baron.

US politics is kind of strange, from what i have learned about it over the Last 20 years. ( as is Canada's , Out of all the different types of Democracy, I think Switerland has the best of the systems )

So what do you think about how the US will take war criminals to trial in their own courts...

Do you believe that the US truelly believes that individual countries can prosecute warcriminals.

[ March 29, 2003, 15:07: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Historically, the winners tried the losers in Kangaroo courts. Being tried in the US courts could be their best chance to go free. The way our court system works these days, the war criminals could all walk free. I think they will be able to afford TV lawyers just like OJ.

I say let the new Iraqi government try them under Islamic law.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermo... you should like this link

http://agonist.org/annex/sitmap

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reminds me of the old play by mail war games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It has become obvious that the info being given to the news about future plans is not necessarily what they have in mind. And it is obvious that the original plan has been modified into something very different. This is normal; the first plan always goes to crap after contact. The thing that has me scratching my head is the lack of a heavy armored division. It is as if they wanted to make sure that this was an infantry war, not just a seek and kill against Saddam. But then why have two armored divisions packed up and ready to move? And where are the RoRo’s right now? I have been checking all of the usual sources, and have found no mention of them, except for the ships of the 4thMInf. Also, the First Arm. seems to be cutting way back on operations, at the same time they are flushing out with reservists. If we were war gaming this, I would be rounding up some larger maps right about now. I hope that the long range goals only included Iraq. The holding of the hard hitting units in reserve has me wondering. The units in country now, will require a long refit after Baghdad falls, but since they are not the first string; I wonder what the starters are being saved for?

[ March 29, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]