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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm . . . actually the Pakistani military (which actually runs the country) is very supportive of the Taliban and filled with extremists. What country do you think has been sponsoring terrorism in India? Where do you think the Taliban and Osama have been hiding? In factThere is less if anything linking Sadaam with terrorism than Pakistan with terrorism. Fortunately (for Pakistan) there is no oil there. My point with mentioning Pakistan is that this coming war is nothing about fighting terrorism.

[ February 26, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: rextorres ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea but isn't the Government actually pro American? I'm no expert on Pakistan but my understanding is that the government (yes being the top military boys) was trying to weed out the extremists. Certainly Osama my be in Pakistan but do doubt it is in a rural area that the government has little control off. Maybe I was wrong but I got the impression from your post that you were saying anti americal extremists were in charge of Pakistanis nuclear forces. And they clearly do not or they would have used them (at least under my definition of "anti-american extremist")

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

* taking his popcorn, lemonade and starting to watch *

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

Slightly off topic in an off topic thread but hey any terrorists out there? Come to Canada. You can blow up a plane and kill 329 people and only get 5 years in jail.

How sick and disturbing is that!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

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

A couple problems Ive seen:
About the US military being capable to take on the entire world, yes it is a bit of a stretch, but consider, the US Navy and Airforce are completely unmatched. A single battle group consisting of a carrier and support vessels usually has more attack aircraft than most nations. The US has 12 full battle Groups, of which usually 2-3 are in major overhaul, around 6 are in port, and about 3 to 4 are at sea. If serious effort was put into putting all out to sea, I bet a max of like 6 could be reached feasibly. Britain's carrier fleet, although impressive in its own fashion, pales in comparison. The British carriers are much smaller, and operate only V/STOL aircraft. No other Navy comes close (the Russian surface Navy is generally a joke, their carriers are the same idea as the British, I believe; similarly, I don't think the French carrier is seaworthy yet). The US Submarine fleets are the same, for the most part. The Ohio class is generally undetectable, and the Los Angelas class is a very potent boat. The Sea Wolf class (as I recall it being named) is only limited to about 3 or 4 boats I think, so its numbers are almost inconsequential.
So the US Navy probably could destroy most all other Navies and stop a lot of the world's shipping.
Problems with this is that the US lacks sufficient ground forces to invade and garrison large regions of the world. China has insanely huge masses of infantry, but they are for the most part undertrained and underequipped, but that may be changing. The problem for the US would not be taking the ground, but keeping it. As it is, US Armor and Armored Cavalry are for the most part unstoppable juggernauts, if used correctly. Armor though, cannot be effectively tasked to garrison regions.
As to nuclear weapons policy:
In the bad old days of the USSR breathing down Europe's back, the US (and NATO) were of the position that the Soviets had so many tanks and other armored vehicles as to be impossible to stop, as NATO tanks were vastly outnumbered (the US could not feasibly deploy enough tanks to Germany to counter such a threat). To counter this, the policy was developed that NATO would employ tactical nuclear weapons (not strategic nuclear weapons) to destroy the Soviet blitz. (A great deal of emphasis for NATO in preventing USSR from invading all of Europe involved the Fulda Gap, I believe, and the Fulda Gap is one of the most popular scenarios in tank sims, like ATF or BCT, I think) This kept the USSR from attacking.
By the way, nuclear weapons can be subdivided in a couple different ways -- tactical and strategic. Tactical weapons are supposedly for use on a battlefield, and generally range from 100 kilotons to just less than a megaton in yield. Strategic nuclear weapons are used to obliterate cities, and range from 1 megaton to 10 or more megatons. (However, I think that the US doesn't employ many weapons that are close to 10 megatons.)
One Last thing: The US probably has plans for delivering nukes onto EVERY country in the world, even allies. Its paranoia, but dont take it personally.

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

Andrés is right. US government can send a sniper or a CIA commando to murder Sadam, like the one that Kissinger sent to murder Salvador Allende http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif , and put a puppet leader. This war is not necessary.

Spanish government is supporting the war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

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

Okay, sure, except for killing his two sons, too, and then his immediate chain of command. Oh, yeah, then there's the standing orders he's supposed to have given to his commanders, to be followed whether or not he's killed.

The point is, there's a command structure which goes deeper than just Saddam. It's small, sure--it's a dictatorship--but it's large enough to make it impossible to take out everyone at once. The minute Saddam's gone, his son will take over--and from all accounts, he's worse than his father is.

[Edit-switching "too" for "two" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ]

[ February 26, 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

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

However, it is against US law to assassinate foreign heads of state. Whether or not this policy is followed and if Saddam is actually a recognized head of state is debatable.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well the Spanish government is supporting the war but the people aren't. The rally turn outs in Madrid and Barcelona were awesome.
Sydney got over 250,000 which was pretty cool, the biggest rally of any kind in Australia. Pity our elected leader is a chump and the opposition leader has not the wit or testicular fortitude to capitilise.

Askan

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

...assassinate...shhh

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course not. Our leader has commited a political suicide.

I voted him Last elections http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif May peace lovers forgive me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">FYI, Charles de Gaulle - the nuclear powered carrier - participated Last month in combined exercises with Harry S Truman group in Mediterranean. As to US taking over the world, I am glad that Russia still have a capability to completely annihilate US. With this warmonger in White House any peace and freedom loving country must have a potent military force ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now you start talking some sense! Isn't it exactly what will happen next month ?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Our friends in France and Germany would never stand for that. Their reasons for opposing this war have very much to do with their desire to keep getting that oil. You start talking about taking out the oil fields and they may end up going to war after all....with us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Geoschmo

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Friends??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

They're all screaming "No war for oil!"

What they really mean is "No war!" for oil.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, it just take one nuke in an American city and its game over for the US Hegemony. The American economy is based on the consumer confidence, and if that confidence its lost you'll see a recesion worst than the one in 30's. Every Hegemon through out history have had its greatest weakness on his very greatest strengh, like the British and their colonial empire, or Rome and their professional Heavy Infantry Legions.
You see, the Arabs know this, and that's why I understand the Americans going to war with Iraq, though I don't actively support them.
There is a lot of intelligence going around that Saddam already have a couple stolen Russian nukes, and that its something that any American administration can't accept.
Bad thing for America that this corporate cowboy became president. I'm pretty confident that Al Gore would have fought Al Qaeda to the end instead of trying to get Irak and its oil.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Friends??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

They're all screaming "No war for oil!"

What they really mean is "No war!" for oil.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, our Bundeskanzler screams "No war, re-elect me!".

Edit: "our", not "your"...

[ February 26, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

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

Thanks Oleg for the update on the Charles de Gualle -- I read a while back that the French suspected sabotage because of the massive delays and mishaps, anything come of that? EDIT: I just read that the CdG carries and operates 40 aircraft, making it about only 1/2 of a US carrier. It is a step up from British carriers (which are S/VTOL only), but that is really no match for a US battlegroup. Seeing that the French made their own carrier aircraft (other than the kickin E-2C), I think that they will have a few kinks to work out. When they get all of their Rafale M's into service, they should be pretty well off. The Etendard is too old.
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.

[ February 26, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: Instar ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think so. They have re-invented a new kind of warfare, in which a faceless terrorist organization do the attack. If Al Qaeda nuke a city who would you nuke back? Who will support you?
And even if you did, the damage its already done. I don't even wanna think how a post nuked US will be. I can easily see Democracy and individual freedoms being buried under 6 feet of military concrete. Or worst.

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

If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)

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

OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)

In response to this:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would say this:
First, there were all kinds of nationalities in the WTC, including plenty of fellow Brits.

Second, the US has been all too keen to make the 9/11 attacks an international threat when it suits them. To suddenly shut out the rest of the world because it happened on US soil is pretty poor, imho.

Third, we have been putting up with terrorist attacks for a long long time. Ever heard of the IRA? France and Spain have their Basque seperatists... terrorism isn't new you know, and US doesn't have a monopoly on it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not defending Saddam Hussein, and I'm not sure anyone else is. Even if you take out the pro-war lies and propaganda about him, that still leaves plenty of proof that he is unfit to be in charge of a country. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that I do think him a monster.

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

Oh, and South Korea is not a threat. Sure, they have a huge army, but who doesn't these days? (Apart from Iraq, I mean) It was only when they heard that George had them on the hit list that all that stuff with the nuclear power stations started happening. With all this talk defending nuclear deterrents in this thread, can you really blame them for building nukes?

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

The UN is a joke. When you have a ruling class member from Lybia running the Human Rights commision you gotta shake your head. And the UN is very, very anti-sematic. The Un puts the League of Nations to shame. But unfortantly it is the best thing we have for world police.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.

Your the perfect example of the gallup poll's number mentioned in a previous post. Of those who want war.

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

Well, we found out that Al-Qaida were in Afghanistan, and we waged war on them and the Taliban. This is where it gets to be a grey area. If they nuked us, but they are a pathetic pushover in conventional warfare (like the taliban), do we have the right to nuke them back? Similarly, if Saddam uses Chem or Bio weapons in war, do we have justification to level Baghdad and put in a parking lot? In my opinion, it is yes on both counts. Firstly, once ANYONE escalates to the nuclear level, retaliation is all but guaranteed. If NYC was hit with a nuke instead of two planes, perhaps there would not be much of Afghanistan left, other than radioactive cinders. Again, with the chemical or biological weapons used in combat, we would be justified in using nukes in retaliation, because any WMB counts, even if the WMB used does little or no damage (US forces are very well prepared to fight in a WMB environment, and such an attack would be well nigh useless). During the Gulf War, the threat of massive US retaliation kept Saddam from using chemical weapons.
As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11.

[ February 26, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Instar ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think so. They have re-invented a new kind of warfare, in which a faceless terrorist organization do the attack. If Al Qaeda nuke a city who would you nuke back? Who will support you?
And even if you did, the damage its already done. I don't even wanna think how a post nuked US will be. I can easily see Democracy and individual freedoms being buried under 6 feet of military concrete. Or worst.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be quiet easy to track the device to the source. All fissionable materials carry a signature that can be linked to their source of manufacture. So based on byproduct yield, we would know the source in less than a day. At that point, it would just be a case of tracking it to the end user. If any large city was to be nuked by terrorists, then the gloves will come off in the war on terrorism.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In an American Carrier Battle Group, the air wings are moving from a defensive role into strike rolls. Even the F-14 has been fitted to operate in an air to ground role. Some carriers have no F-14 wings. The battle group is defended by the Aegis system. One Ticonderoga class cruiser is capable of eliminating the entire air forces of most countries. It is the Aegis system that allows the American Navy to project itself into areas normally dominated by land based aircraft. This electronics system when teamed with the Standard II surface to air missile makes the American carriers a viable strike force, and allows them to operate almost anywhere in the world. Also, these Groups are always accompanied by at least one Los Angles class attack sub. The French have built a small carrier, and feel that this is an indication that they are still a super power. But the fact is that it probably would not be able to live very long were it to be operated within range of land based aircraft. Also, I doubt that the French have the ability to protect it from submarines that would surely be sent against it.

While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations. The French will also come to this conclusion. A carrier force that can not operate as a blue water navy is of little use, and will be a very expensive symbol of national pride.

Does anyone have a link to the makeup of the French carrier air wing? With only 40 aircraft, they would be rather limited in what they could do. I would think that they would need 2 airborne radars, at least 2 COD’s. And 4 rotary wings would be the minimum needed for ASW duties. That leaves 32 of which teeth to tanker would be 3 to 1 at best. So they would be able to put up a strike force of about 10 aircraft with a CAP of four fighters. That would leave 2 fighters over the carrier and 4 on deck alert, with 6 tankers and 4 in the hanger for repairs. If the tankers are DP and the fighters have a strike capability, then they might put 20 aircraft on target if the mechanical crews are really on the ball. In the real world, I think it would be more like 10 to 15.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it.

All you guys sound so Naive I just read today that we will keep a couple of HUNDRED thousand troops in Iraq for at least two YEARS if not more.

All you gamers out there think about - I know (if I were playing a war game and some of those games are based on reality) I would want a huge protection force on top of MY most precious commodity. Fortunately for us Iraq gives us an excuse to just move them there.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The key word here is 'bankrupted' If certain nations pushing peace have thier way and they get their hands on Iraqi oil then Iraq will quickly no longer be bankrupt. Now what?

[ February 26, 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: DavidG ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You got that right. The UN have become a hotbed of anti-semitism. They do nothing more than encorage terrorist attack on Israel. And the European Union just need a little push and will be inventing an excuse to invade Israel. Talk about double standards. They support a dictatorship in Irak and fight a democracy in Israel.
I don't like Bush's corporative gang, but I would support them for the only motive of opousing those bastards in Europe.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Faceless terrorist group" means that they claim to be independent. Or do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden is the one pulling the strings in Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition.
Who they are?
Ask your CEO, I mean, President, why he haven't make public their names and attack them instead of bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, a country where he knows perfectly well Al Qaeda was present just to atract the American rage after 9/11 from the real enemies.
But I guess oil is more valuable than truth.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing

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

I am jumping into this discussion and I do not know how much of this has been covered in other Posts or similar topics....this is just my opinion...

1. It was mentioned other countries have also been on the recieving end of terrorism...then do something about it, one of the countries (France) choses to veto any actions by the US to thwart terrorism. Hell even Egypt was attacked by muslim terrorists looking to assassinate the president, they are not even safe from their own people.

2. I agree that Iraq is not the nucleus of 9/11, but they are hiding weapons of mass destructoin that they were suppose to destroy that alone should be reson to move in.

3. Along with 2, Suadi Arabi is where most of the 9/11 terrorists called home (although some officially are outcasts), we should be putting the screws to them also and any other nation that harbors terrorists. But we cannot take on the entire middle east at one time, it is impractical both strategically and finacially.

4. Isreal has been dealing with this crap for decades, and if let loose they could whip up on all the countries around them, internatioanl pressure is the only thing stopping it. Who is stopping the attacks on Isreal?

5. Saddam is a scape goat for the time being, and maybe GWB is just finishing what daddy started. Saddam actually is very liberal by Islamic standards, he recognizes other religions and there are other churches in his country that are allowed to operate unmolested...he does have issues in other areas such as his dealings with teh Kurds, hiding weapons, etc.

6. Almost every war has some kind of fianicial aspect...Korea was rubber, did the US care that the commies where taking over no...the US wanted the rubber for it's industry, Kuwait was oil...today it is oil, tommorow who knows.

7. The UN is ineffective, they cannot enforce diddly crap. Do I want the the US policing the world? no. Do I want the US to ensure my safety? yes, and so does the majority of the nations that are lacking any military of their own.

8. Everyone seems to like bashing the US for wanting to defend itself now and in the future, calling us Imperialistic...maybe we are alittle imperialistic...we financially aid at least half of the world, they are essentially our colonies if we are funding them. Where would half these countries be with out our aid...I say let them find out.

In closing I feel terrorism and any country supporting it should be eradicated.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?

No one has made a case how things will be better after the war. My perception is that the world will be more dangerous for American with all these pissed off muslims floating around.

[ February 26, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: rextorres ]

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

Fry them All!!!!

Nuke-em until they glow.

Nuke-em back to the stone age.

They want to use bio-weapons?
Well, we can play that game. Just release the impotance and sterility viruses. Then charge for temporary relief.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excuse me? The EU invading any country? Do we talk about the same world here?

Excuse me, people, but some of you are really frightening me. Some of you talk about waging a nuclear war or a war by the US against the rest of the globe as if it wouldn't be the end to the world as we know it. Any use of nuclear weapons will bring the world to the brink of all out nuclear war.

Sic transit Gloria mundi…

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That case is impossible to make. War never makes things better. War brings death and destruction. War is in and of itself a failure. But the question that must be asked and answered is whether the reuslt of the war is better or worse than the result of continued appeasment.

Geoschmo

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sounds like a fairly simple question to me. They are waiting for their friends to convince the US to back down and pull their troops back. Then get the UN to drop all sanctions cause they're real swell guys now. They will then make a few gazillion dollars selling their oil while they build up their army. Once convinced of their own superiority they will check the map and see which country is next in line to be invaded.

Saddam is surely smart enough to know that if he had used WMD's in the Last 12 years the political climate of the region would have meant instant action by the US and her allies.

[ February 26, 2003, 22:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is an interesting way of describing Sadaam. Iraq today is not any more bankrupted then Germany was after WWI and we all know how well appeasement worked then.

Geoschmo

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

"I am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it."

Suggest you read the post I was replying to. It very clearly said that Bush allowed 9/11 so he would later have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Phoenix-D

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said WMD program, which means manufacturing, R&D, in addition to actual stockpiles. As to why they haven't used what they do have, who knows.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Judging from your little attempt at "muck raking" that isn't be much of a surprise.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like they were supposed to do when we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan? "The Arab Street", and such?

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

Peace lovers my ***! Where is this peace that you are talking about? What little peace there is in the world has been partly paid for with american blood. And if you think that there is peace in the middle east, then you are a fool.

Last night Saddam said that he would die before he gave up power, so be it! This guy is evil. He is right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Who amoung you is willing to vouch for him? Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not. There is a large comunity of exiled Iraqi [sp] people here, and while they disagree on a lot of things, the one thing that they agree on is this; no one in Iraq can even speek against Saddam and avoid jail or death. He is not the chosen leader of Iraq, his people fear him. His own kin fear him.

It should also be noted that America does not use much oil from Iraq. Of late there has been a lot comming in because of disruptions in our regular supplies, but we can do without it. Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now you start talking some sense! Isn't it exactly what will happen next month ?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No need to apologize, friend. (I hope I can call you that.) I was sincere when I said you had found a flaw in my thoughts.

My main source of frustration is directed at people who are happy to take our financial aid (there are precious few countries in the world that do not receive it in some fashion) but are unwilling to accept that maybe we know something about how things ought to be done.

If they don't want us exposing the world to our ideology of civil freedom or if they do not approve of our ideology, they should refuse to accept any aid we provide. Anything else is hypocritical.

The question as to whether Saddam is responsible for 9/11 is certainly slippery. I would say, that the world community's inability to make him 'play nice' has emboldened the likes of Osama Bin Laden to accomplish the tragic events of 9/11. If anyone disagrees with that, fine. I, however, believe it.

The security of the US (as well as the rest of 'Western Civilization') may well depend on our ability to make an example out of the 'thugs' of the world. Iraq, the PLO, and N. Korea are probably the top three candidates.

I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts.

If the people funding Osama Bin Laden were afraid we would kick their sorry butts, his funding would dry up. Not completely, but at least partially.

This entire excercise is not so much about actually kicking butt, but rather making sure the enemy believes we will. (Incidentally, that is the core of the doctrine that makes nuclear weapons useful as deterrent.)

This time, I am afraid, we will have to actually do it to prove we have the resolve.

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

"Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition."
That has yet to be proven in any intel circles. By faceless I thought you meant invisible or something.

"Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user."
Well, the signature of the fissionable material is identifiable, and altering it may or may not be feasible. You can't flat out say that its wrong without stronger evidence. I am no nuclear engineer, but I don't see how your argument holds up.

"I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts."
The way I read history as is that it was more of an Anti-Carter move by the revolutionaries. Carter did try a military solution which failed. I doubt the instant Reagan was in power he would be able to change the fact that US forces couldn't rescue those people.

[ February 27, 2003, 04:22: Message edited by: Instar ]

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

Samurai, so you're saying I'm the one who should mind my own damn business.
That financial aid is payback of the money you're taking from us.

And of course that your ideology of civil freedom is ok, (BTW that's not something exclusive of the US as you're implying) but your ideology of maintaining your illusion of safety by fear is not.

Of course US government has the right and the duty to ensure its people safety.
They should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks, and in bringing those responsible to justice, not bombing innocents.
But again, the US is not the police of the world.
Fear of a US retaliation is not what maintains "peace" in the world.

The fact that the US is passing through an economic golden era does not mean they are morally superior to others.

I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage), the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.
That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.

Imperialism means your colonies fund you, not the other way!

This is not even a question if your feeling of safety is worth the weight of lives of millions of lives in your consciousness.
Even if everything is this war goes nicely, you manage to kill Saddam, innocent Iraquis casualties are as little as possible, and you help install a new government.
What then?
Will the world be a safer place? Will the US be any safer? Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

Oh and I've noticed my ranking has dropped, all I have to say about that is that I couldn't care less.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.

I personally feel that we are less likely to have such an attack if we dethrone Saddam Hussein that if we don't.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Taking from you? How? I am not aware of my country stealing from you.

If you don't like the terms of trade, then by all means trade with someone else. We like the free world economic model.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wasn't aware I implied exclusivity. I certainly didn't mean to. I did mean to imply leadership.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are entitled to your opinion. Whether we like it or not (I don't BTW), might makes right by virtue of the mighty being the only ones left after the defacatory material hits the oscillatory object.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unfortunately, much of the world seems to think that is not so.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ask the conquered and then liberated portions of Europe and Asia about WWI, WWII, and the Korean Conflict. At the time, they might have disagreed.

Someone has to do it. If we didn't, I suspect another set of people would likely be complaining that with all of our resources, we should do something.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fear of US or Soviet retailiation kept the peace in Europe for about 40 years. As soon as the Berlin Wall came down (signifying the beginning of the end of cold war tensions) the same old factions that had been fighting for hundreds of years started all over again. A prime example of this would be what used to be known as Yugoslavia. Oh, by the way, put down the war crime victims of that time period in your list to ask about who is the police force.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I would say any moral superiority (if we have it) comes from the willingness to spend our resources in improving the standard of living of people around the world who hate us. I defy you to find another culture in history that did this much for this many without occupying first.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A little collateral damage? My response would get me Banned from this newsgroup. I encourage anyone who is offended by this statement to voice that offense.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please note that the corporate structure of this country is what fuels the economy that provides the foreign aid. More on this in a moment.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I think you are on to something here. The foreign aid encourages people around the world to appreciate the USA and, to some extent, our values. THIS is what really bothers some of these people. They know that if the concept of educating the masses ever gets to their turf, they will likely lose their power base. THAT is why the leadership hates us.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I sincerely do not believe that millions of lives are at stake at this time. If we let this go on, someday it could come to that. If we end it now, nowhere near that many people are likely to be affected.

Think of this a pulling a thorn. We have already waited 12 years too long and it is now infected. If wait much longer, we may lose the limb.

I say pull it now while we still can (if it is not already too late).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It will be for the Kurds. Oh by the way, add them to your list about who is the police. Ask them how many would have died in the Last 12 years had it not been for the forces we have kept in the area. They were the targets of chemical warfare before. Maybe you will accept their opinion.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I honestly think so. Bullies never seem to attack the strong, only the weak. I think that the weakness shown by our government in the 8 years prior to 9/11 is part of the problem.

Our government uncovered evidence showing there had been a failed assasination attempt on the president by the IRAQI GOVERNMENT. Not some rogue band of terrorists --- THE GOVERNMENT.

Our response was one missile. One.

Weak.

And as for your rating.. I have not voted your rank down. You earned your rating for activities pertinent to Space Empires. I think your shipsets are exceptionally fine. You have great talent in that area.

I disagree with your politics. I think you have said some things for effect that you really don't mean (like collateral damage). I hope that I can give you food for thought that might sway your opinion. (As you are trying to sway mine.)

I have no idea how old you are, but I suspect that in 10 or 20 years, you will feel much different than you do today. Unfortunately, idealism is usually a casualty of experience. (It is not as bad as it sounds... Realism is more reliable.)

If I have said anything that angers you, I apologize. It is not my intent.

Sincerely

[ February 27, 2003, 06:21: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If I have misunderstood your statement, I apologize.

With all respect, I didn't read it. I lived it. I was a young adult at the time.

I felt that Reagan won a landslide victory in part because the public was tired of how Carter's foreign policy was making us a laughing stock.

I feel the truth is closer to 'the Iranians were not sure just how far Reagan would go.'

Carter's military solution was an attempt to rescue the hostages. At no time did we deploy a force to punish the government for allowing it to happen. I always heard (from military sources that may or may not be reliable) that the failure of the rescue mission can be pinned sqarely on Carter. I was told that he personally insisted that no one but the rescue team know what their mission was until the left the carrier. Because of this the flight crew did not know to install sand filters on the engine intakes. When the choppers got over the desert, the engines ate themselves.

For the record, I supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. I think he has been the best ex-president we have ever had.

I still disagree with his foreign policy.

Sincerely

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

Without getting too deep into the subject, I'd just like to point out the situation in Israel is a LOT more complex than "Isreal=good, palestinians=evil" as implied by some recent Posts.