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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Primitive has made some very good points.

I feel the U.S.A has found itself between a rock and a hard place.

It gambled that it would get U.N. support and lost.

It gambled that it would get a number of nations on-board with it and lost.

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

They said they would go ahead with or without a U.N. resolution and now they have to make good on it. I don't think they really reckoned on going it alone, but as a coalition, albeit a small one.

Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

But they have lost the war of world opinion and confidence.

Since they are committed, IMO their only hope of salvaging what is left of their good name is to win the battle in Iraq, reconstruct Iraq quickly and then get out.

To do it they may have to hand Iraq to the U.N. who will finish the reconstruction.

The fait accompli coupled with proving a lie to those who claim the USA wants Iraq oil will go a long way to restoring world opinion and confidence in the USA.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C

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

Click on the link below to play an strategy game about a possible scenario for the "Gulf War II" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gulf War II

.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it was more like giving the UN a chance to save face and enforce its own demands.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They have a coalition, even if it is a small one. Something like 45 nations.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To not go ahead would mean the US's word would be relegated to the same worth as the UN's word--worthless. It's meaningless to use the threat of force if you're not willing to make good on it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Major expense would have already been incurred if Saddam had gone ahead and done what was demanded months ago. Threatening force still costs a significant portion of what using force does. Still, having gotten to this point, not going in would be a huge misuse of our funds.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the same world which gives out Nobel Peace Prizes for saying "Shape up or else we'll tell you to shape up again!"--it'd be nice if they liked us, but it's not really vital.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or to uncover evidence of French and German complicity in Iraq's lack of cooperation and/or participation in oil/weapons transactions beyond what is allowed under sanctions.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heaven forbid the UN gets its hands on Iraq. They've done such a great job in Bosnia, and Rwanda, and everywhere else they've gone. To top it off, they'll drag out the process indefinitely. Who's going to provide the peacekeeping troops and the money for the next 20 years? The US. If we're going to fund this and protect this, we might as well be in charge of it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, but again, their opinion is just an opinion. They'll hate us if we go in, and they'll laugh at us and hate us if we don't. The next time someone threatens them, they'll be more than happy for us to come help them out.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to disagree -

a) Al Qaeda and Iraq are seperate, Al Qaeda may attack the US but that is seperate from the war with Iraq.

c) Iraq does not have the ability to attack the US with WMD. It's possible that terrorists in the employ of Iraq could use WMD.

d) or the EEE. It's about as likely.

e) The Taliban are in a seperate war.

f) Iran and Iraq hate each other. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran during their war in the early '80s.

h) see d above.

Even if any of these things happened the US would not lose the war, it would just be prolonged.

i) that's the one to watch out for.

G

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

I wonder why all these lists of possible consequences of the war on Iraq have completely skipped over the most likely. Isn't it fairly obvious the Iraq will not be the only country in the Middle East to experience a change of regime? The people in Iraq's neighbor countries are just as much against the war as the European population, if not more so, and they have lots of other reasons for anger at the US. When the troops march there could be revolutions in our 'ally' countries like Jordan or Saudi Arabi. Not a very good outcome to have to occupy Iraq while trying to rebuild it and simultaneously deal with the sudden cut off of all Saudi oil. Even Egypt is not safe from this possibility. Now that would be a serious mess if the most populous Arab country were to have a revolution and switch to Islamic radicalism. No more acces to the Suez canal and Israel would have serious security problems again.

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

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

Btw, atrocities, you accuse BaronM of flaming you, but he was only continuing in the tone you set. Remember, earlier on you accused people protesting against the war (ie half this thread) of being "like crazed followers of Satan", and then go on to make all kinds of other rabid accusations. As someone who has protested here on the forums and out on the streets I could consider your comments 2 pages ago as flames.

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

Point taken Dogscoff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However what I said was not directed at anyone personally here at the forum. Baron Munchausen comments were directed at me personally.

But hey, we all have opinions on this, and we are all passionate about our views. Sometimes in the heat of the moment fingers type faster than reason.

I would hope that nothing said here in this thread is ever taken to heart.

[ March 19, 2003, 16:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

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

Seems like I stirred up the pot which was my intention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But I stand by what I have written. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, more stuff to promote a conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Sure the war may widen. But God, I hope not. Which is why I suggested the USA get out ASAP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And yes, the UN may not do well. But at least it becomes the UN problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A coalition of 45 nations? Well, if you want to call it one. Canada's ships are doing picket duty there but will not invade Iraq. Other nations have made their position clear as well.

EDIT: I guess you can technically say even France is part of the coalition when they say they will become involved if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction in the war.

[ March 19, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: tbontob ]

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

All I have to say is blame these radical nations who support terror for the coming war. By funding these Groups they up'd the antie in the world. Did these nations think the US would not react after 9/11. The US would rather avoid war at all cost. We have to strike now. Bush will probably not not win re-election because of this. But I give him credit, he is has the backbone to what is right. This will send a message that escallating attacks against America will have consequences.

I wonder what would happen if ALCADA attacked multiple sites in Europe, Russia, or China. Do you think human life would be a priority on their list. Well, maybe Europe. But then America would have to foot the bill for the EU.

I'm not saying this should be the responce to every nation like Iraq. But then again every other nation hasn't had 12 years of sanctions and signed treaties against chem/bio weapons. With the current Iraqi government gone countries like Iran and North Korea will take notice. The US does not make empty promisses. Maybe they will think twice on supporting terror Groups.

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

Another thing, I think the US has had plenty of patients with Iraq. If we look at history wars began for lesser reasons. WWI kicked off after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinan. WWII began because of the failure of Euro appeasement to Germany. Falkland Island War started because of Argentina's 100 year old claim to the island and viewing the UK as a weaker power. Sometimes war is the only option. Iraq should have been taken care of 12 years ago.

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

You know what, in a year we will all look back at this thread and ask ourselves why.

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

atomannj
i do hope your including USA in that list of nations.

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

List of nations? Do you mean that have a high reguard for life? Sure. I think it's very well documented that the US is among those countries.

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

Bombing???
No, Let us call it "parking lot development".

http://www.milspecgear.com

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That could be one massive parking lot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A few thousand deaths in a war are absolutely nothing compared to how many of his own people Saddam has already killed, and will kill in the future if he is not stopped. We are not fighting a war to "save face".

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey guys, nobody liked the little flash game?

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

We played that flash game months ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Regardless of Fryons opinion, that game did highlight some possible losing scenarios.

How many countries are stilled ruled by Royal Families? How many goverments have survived with dirt poor starving population and ultra rich ruling class? Does this sound like Saudi Arabia?

/
/
/
Another repeat: French Army Knife
http://www.milspecgear.com/french.html

[ March 19, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Wardad ]

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

It was a load of garbage the first time we saw it, and it is still a load of garbage today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

From the Middle East Watcher:

"Bush Accelerates "Road Map" March 16, 2003

According to the NEW YORK TIMES (1), there is every indication that President George W. Bush is on the verge of the greatest double-cross since the Allied nations sold the Sudetenland to Adolph Hitler. Bush, in a frenzy to save Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair and himself, desperately needs a public relations counterbalance to the war against Iraq which cannot be stopped. Bush himself cannot be seen as the same failure as his father - now having pledged enormous physical assets in the Gulf.

Blair has apparently begged Bush for a life ring to save his plunging career. The only thing Bush had to offer was publically exposing the ’unmodified’ "Road Map", as a sop to the British Parliament and others. His excuse will be that Yassir Arafat has (finally) proposed Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as a figurehead Prime Minister. Abu Mazen will have no real power but for the propaganda purposes that can be sold to the Media and the U.N. He will do to it to pull off the betrayal. Israel will be the bone thrown to the pack to stop their barking as each scrambles to get his share.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon thought he had a solid deal with Bush but he was mistaken. He thought that a ‘modified’ "Road Map" with Israel's 120 corrections included, would be presented to Israel and the world - but - only after the war against Iraq was over. Sharon "thought" Bush would keep his earlier pledge to mandate that Arafat’s Palestinian Authority would first (I repeat first) cease their terror, cease training their children to hate and kill Jews, cease anti-Israel propaganda, and a host of other agreements that, when acted upon - only then would the concept of another Arab Palestinian State begin to take effect.

As it seems to be turning out, Sharon will pretend that what he is being offered is exactly what he had in mind. The trade-off will be what his aide, Dov Weinglass negotiated - or rather had to accept for the needed financial aid to boost Israel’s sagging economy which has crashed due to Sharon and Silvan Shalom’s fumbling. As in the Oslo debate, the words will be there on paper but, as with all the Oslo agreements preceding, only Israel will be forced to fulfill her obligations, denials notwithstanding. The Arab Palestinians will only have to ‘promise’ to try. The words "even-handed" will be the oft-repeated mantra.

It appears that, when Sharon once said that Israel would not be another Sudetenland in order to pacify the Arabs and the other nations, he was wrong.

Sharon, a clever man but, in some ways unworldly, is about to find he has made Israel vulnerable in the extreme. Sharon bet all his chips on the word of one man when he should have also been solidifying his relations with the American Congress and the Christian Right Coalition which is Bush’s political base.

Israel is about to be sold to pay for Blair’s job, Bush’s war and the good will of Arab nations who will continue hating America and Israel - no matter how much Israel is pushed to the wall.

Bush may think that the American Congress, the American people and the Christian Coalition that has been his bedrock, will forget what he is about to do to Israel, but they will not. Bush will pull out all the propaganda stops to make the selling of Israel look like a great leap into peace but, few will believe the hype.

Yassir Arafat still rules but, even if he is killed off, another Arab state of Palestine will still become the most concentrated Arab nation of terror this old planet has ever known.

Sharon, Bush and Blair will be the co-godfathers for years of misery for the 3.5 to 5 million Arabs stuffed into a tiny, dysfunctional State, thereby causing the probable elimination of the Jewish State of Israel. These demographics are the greater threat to the only democratic state in the Middle East and America’s best and most reliable ally.

Those most pleased will be the "Quartet" (the E.U., the U.N., Russia and the U.S. State Department). France, Germany and China will be delighted and Tony Blair will get to keep his job for another few years. NATO, having drifted into irrelevance with the collapse of the Soviet Union, will be given the "make work" job of being the military force guarding the "New State of Arab Palestine" and thereby restraining Israel from responding to ongoing Terror attacks.

I believe that Bush, like his father, will be a one-term President. Sharon will retire to his farm and try to write such memoirs that will explain away his Last years in office when he betrayed all of his principals.

The scum of this planet have been trying to eradicate the Jews for a few thousand years. It appears that, with the help of some weak Jewish leaders, they may very well succeed.

(In the meantime) URGENT SOLUTIONS on the IRAQI TRACK

If Saddam either attacks Israel pre-emptively, or in the first days of the coming war with Iraq s hit with chemical, biological weapons - or even conventional explosives - since no one will know if Saddam’s next missiles will be with the catastrophic WMD (Weapons of Mass Death). Arik Sharon should consider the following strategy of response:

1. Before Israel strikes back, release reports on the damage and human suffering which is taking place due to Saddam’s first strike. (Note! I realize this will negatively impact the civilian morale of the nation, however, there will be certain macabre benefits, as follows):

2. After Saddam’s first strike, Israel must strike back quickly with nuclear weapons across Iraq, to include Bagdad, Takrit (Saddam’s hometown) and the Iraqi military bases, bunkers and Saddam’s palaces (which probably conceal many stores of his WMD (Weapons of Mass Death). While the Arab world, America and the E.U. will object, it will be hard to make their case if, as I said earlier, an International news report is issued on the colossal damage done by Saddam’s expected first strike on Israel.

Israel’s retaliatory strike may not be liked but, it will be understood. It will shield Israel from efforts after the Iraqi war to punish Israel with various embargoes, trade restraints, imposition of foreign troops as in Bosnia, even the possible emplacement of a new NATO (without America) positioned as if they are a "peace-keeping" force or "international monitors" to allegedly "protect" the Arab Palestinians from Israel’s efforts to control the Arabs’ Terrorism.

3. Release videotapes of the damage done in Israel for International distribution. Insist that the foreign Media use their satellite feeds to transfer the scenes to American, European and Arabic networks.

If we must suffer the consequences of a first strike from Iraq, then make use of it. Israel was requested/ordered by America NOT to strike Iraq pre-emptively and to exercise their proverbial ‘restraint’, which Israel did religiously.

This should be repeated in nationally televised speeches by the Prime Minister - before their retaliatory strike(s). Hopefully, Bibi Netanyahu will be similarly urged to make the point that Israel - at great risk, restrained herself in deference to the requests by President Bush.

Israel would have paid the highest price any nation could be expected to pay in order to accommodate a friend and ally. Having been hit by an enemy with whom no one could reason, and having sustained unacceptable casualties, we have had no choice but to eliminate an enemy who has shown himself ready to destroy Israel and any other nations who stand in his way.

Message: "We regret that we were forced to make the choice between elimination of our own people and the destruction of Iraq."

This message should be repeated numerous times. International journalists should be briefed several times a week and, if necessary, be forced to transmit Israel’s message or be ejected from the country as supporters of hostile enemy actions. Israel’s future ‘vis a vis’ the U.N. and the E.U., America will be shaped by the thoughts and positions taken by Israel during the time of war.

1. "Bush Promises to Adopt Plan for Mideast" by Steven R. Weisman NEW YORK TIMES March 15, 2003

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

It is, Baron, but most people prefer not to see it. Or they just refuse to think about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
You are right about the international law matter and I fear that in the long run the US and the rest of the world will see what they have done when they abandoned the law in favour of might.

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

Aloofi:

Or better yet, Isreal should set off a cluster of nukes in the Iraqi desert to show how it could have made a giant mirror out of downtown Bagdad, but "once again" was capable of demonstrating a super-human amount of restraint. It would be important that Isreal somehow manages to broadcast the unbelievable sorrow of a devastated Israel.

I'd suggest that the desert-->insta-glass demo be postponed at least 2 days after the Isreal incident, to allow some play time of the Isreali sorrow. Otherwise, the world press will focus instead on the "plight of the Iraqi Red-Brested Desert Tit" or the "devestation of the rare Double-Barrel Euphrates Spine Cactus" following the "uncalled for" Isreali reprissal against the vast unoccupied Iraqi wastes.*

* Perhaps I seem a little pesimistic about the objectivity of the worlds' press agencies regarding the likelyhood of Isreali suffering getting equal air time with the suffering of others. In my defence I'll simply say that, while I don't know about the rest of the world, our major news agency (the CBC) loves to report things like
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They never say that the bombing attack targetted and killed a bus load of children, or that the bomb killed a group of people who were doing nothing more than a little Sunday shopping. I'm pretty sure that Jews have funerals, but I've yet to see one displayed on my TV! (okay, that's a bit overboard, I have actually seen two scenes of Jewish mourners over the Last few years, one of and Isreali family, the other of a Dutch-Jewish family on holiday). And when do we ever actually get confimation on the numbers of Palestinians killed? Remember the Jenin (sp) masacre - three weeks later we learn from UN observers that not one person had been killed! But retractions don't make front line news... just unconfirmed, questionable numbers.

Well thats my opinion, take it for what it is (or isn't) worth.
And from the other Canadians: am I reading the CBC wrong here? What's your opinion?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This guy really means that doesn't he? No trace of irony discernible... presumably what he'd really like to do is line them up and shoot them if they don't report the 'right' story.

But apart from the scary mentality revealed here, there is one viewpoint that I would really like to understand. From my perspective (pro-US Brit, for what it's worth) I have never been able to understand this - why does Israel consider itself to be such a great ally of the USA? The converse goes without saying of course. But Israel is a financial drain and a massive political liability to the USA, and should be grateful to have such a loyal ally. Frankly, if the US says 'jump' then Israel should be saying 'how high', not *****ing about the US considering it's other interests and alliances for once.

Any of you Americans feel that way? Because I would in your shoes.

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

I am not sure what statistics you guys are quoting but 3-4x as many Palistinian have been killed than Israelis and more Palistinian civilians have been killed than Israeli.

The symantics in the American media are appalling. Everytime an Israeli dies it's a massacre and everytime a Palistinian dies it's collateral damage. Any Palistinian who defends his city is a gunman Israeli invaders are soldiers. Illegally occupied areas are called settlements. etc., etc.

If some israeli occupier came into my country and displaced me and some israeli tanks came into my city even though I was minding my own business I definitely would pick up a gun and fight back.

If my son were "accidently" killed as collateral damage I would probably be angry enough to exact revenge on the people of the state that supported that government.

The Palistinians are simply doing what a lot of you have stated in this forum that the Iraqis should be doing - "fighting back against an oppressive regime". Someone even quoted Patrick Henry if I recall correctly.

[ March 19, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A few thousand deaths in a war are absolutely nothing compared to how many of his own people Saddam has already killed, and will kill in the future if he is not stopped. We are not fighting a war to "save face".</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well Fyron would you be willing to die. Or would you want someone you know to die to displace Saddam. It's easy to dismiss "a few thousand deaths" as long as it's not you or someone you know.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only objective thing to do is to report both of course. I don't know about CBC but I'd say that overall the BBC does a decent job of that. But they still get criticised of course. It is a firmly held conviction in the Arab world that an Arab life is considered to be worth less than an Israeli one (by the West). Maybe they should watch CBC...

The interesting thing here (for me) is the subtext that Israel is held to higher standards than the Palestinians. I agree that this is indeed the case. For example, the Palestinian Authority are mainly incompetent crooks who have embezzled or wasted millions in aid; but you are much more likely to hear about some slightly dodgy farm deal that Sharon was involved in. This may seem unfair but it is inevitable for two reasons;

a) Israel is overwhelmingly more powerful. If you don't see the buildup/provocation, there seems no excuse for a soldier with a rifle to fire at someone throwing rocks at him. Or to drive his tank through a building. The gut instinct is always to side with the underdog.

b) The Western media will hold 'Western' cultures to higher standards than others, every time. In the case of Israel the assumption, usually unspoken, is that Israelis are more 'like us' than the Arabs and are held to those higher standards. After all, Israel is a democracy, has diverse multi-party politics, free speech, a market economy, high technology, Nobel prizewinnners...its a Western country. This can be argued pretty strongly to be a form of racism in itself of course. But it's not anti Israeli at all, but the opposite, however unfair and frustrating it might seem.

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

I think that links like that would be from Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, David Baramian, Edward Herman James Petras, Steven Shalom, and Howard Zinn. Even Jello.

Fantastic writters. Though I do not always agree with what they write. I do enjoy reading their words.

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

Change of pace http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Looks like there may be some in the EU who arn't all that chummy.

____________________________________________

DATE=3/19/2003

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE= EU / SPYING (S-O)

NUMBER=2-300903

BYLINE= DOUGLAS BAKSHIAN

DATELINE=LUXEMBOURG

CONTENT=

INTRO: Officials in Brussels say telephone tapping systems have been found on the phone lines of several countries at the European Union headquarters. The discovery was made before an E-U summit scheduled for Thursday. Douglas Bakshian is monitoring the situation from Luxembourg.

TEXT: E-U spokesman Dominique-George Marro says the devices were found at the E-U Council building. The spokesman says devices were discovered on the telephone lines during a regular security check a few days ago, but only a small number of lines are affected. The E-U says the phones of the French and German delegations were tapped, and the British delegation says it was also tapped.

Other reports said the bugging system was apparently put in place through a switchboard to monitor telephone lines to rooms used by delegations inside the building. The E-U spokesman said an investigation has been launched and there is no immediate indication who is behind the bugging.

Leaders of the 15 E-U nations are to hold a summit in the same building Thursday and Friday. (SIGNED)

NEB/DB/AWP/RAE/KBK

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

Whoops forgot to say that we are at w-0:08:10 and counting

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You missed the point. Deaths have already been happening in Iraq because of Saddam. Many, many deaths. More will undoubtedly happen because of him. A short period of war and a few deaths in it will stop the madness of Saddam's rule. Many lives will be saved.

I don't want anyone to die. But, people have been dying already. Stopping the mass-murders is worth a few lives.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

I think we know the players on the Allied side, so here is the home teams line up.

Baath Party Regional Command / Revolution Command Council
Chairman Husayn, SADDAM

Vice-Chairman Ezzet [Izzat] Ibrahim
Member Lieut. Gen. Ali Hasan Al-Majeed

Member Mezban Khider Hadi
Member Aziz Salih Numan

Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member [until May 2001] Zubaydi Muhammad Hamza al-

Supervisor of Republican Guard Qusay Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti

State
President Husayn, SADDAM

Vice President Maruf, Taha Muhyi al-Din
Vice President Ramadan, Taha Yasin
Adviser to the Pres. Azzawi, Hatim Hamdan al-
Adviser to the Pres. Habubi, Safa Hadi Jawad, Dr.
Adviser to the Pres. Qasir, Nizar Jumah Ali al-
Adviser to the Pres. Tikriti, Barzan Ibrahim Hasan al-

Adviser to the Pres. Tikriti, Watban Ibrahim al-Hasan al-
Adviser to the Pres. for Military Affairs Jabburi, Sadi Tuma Abbas al-
Government
Prime Minister Husayn, SADDAM

Deputy Prime Minister Aziz, Tariq Mikhail

Deputy Prime Minister Azzawi, Hikmat Mizban Ibrahim al-
Deputy Prime Minister Khudayir, Ahmad Husayn al-
Deputy Prime Minister Huwaysh, Abd al-Tawab Mullah al-

Deputy Prime Minister [until May 2001] Zubaydi Muhammad Hamza al-

Min. of Agriculture Salih, Abd al-Ilah Hamid Mahmud al-
Min. of Awqaf & Religious Affairs Salih, Abd al-Munim Ahmad
Min. of Culture Hammadi, Hamid Yusuf
Min. of Defense Jabburi Tai, Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-, Lt. Gen.
Min. of Education Shaqrah, Fahd Salim
Min. of Finance Azzawi, Hikmat Mizban Ibrahim al-
Min. of Foreign Affairs Hadithi, Naji Sabri Ahmad al-

Min. of Health Mubarak, Umid Midhat
Min. of Higher Education & Scientific Research Abd al-Ghafur, Humam Abd al-Khaliq, Dr.
Min. of Housing & Reconstruction Sarsam, Maan Abdallah al-
Min. of Industry & Minerals Shalah, Muyassar Raja
Min. of Information Sahhaf, Muhammad Said Kazim al-
Min. of Interior Ahmad, Mahmud Dhiyab al-
Min. of Irrigation Swadi, Rasul Abd al-Husayn al-
Min. of Justice Shawi, Mundhir Ibrahim al-
Min. of Labor & Social Affairs Naqshabandi, Mundhir Mudhafar Muhammad Asad al-
Min. of Military Industrialization Huwaysh, Abd al-Tawab Mullah al-

Min. of Oil Ubaydi, Amir Rashid Muhammad al-
Min. of Planning
Min. of Trade Salih, Muhammad Mahdi al-
Min. of Transport & Communications Khalil, Ahmad Murtada Ahmad, Dr.
Min. of Youth [unofficial] Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti

Min. of State Zibari, Arshad Muhammad Ahmad Muhammad al-
Min. of State for Military Affairs Shanshal, Abd al-Jabbar Khalil, Staff Gen.
Other Leadership
Governor, Central Bank Huwaysh, Isam Rashid al-
Head of Interests Section in the US Duri, Akram Jasim al-
Permanent Representative to the UN, New York Duri, Muhammad Abdallah Ahmad Shati

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OMG The CIA did it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

it has started

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bombsaddam.shtml

[ March 20, 2003, 04:14: Message edited by: mac5732 ]

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

I hope the 40+ cruise missile strike happened to hit Saddam, so we can end the war quickly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:
Looks like they didn't. Oh well.

[ March 20, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

There's an almost-subtle but funny war-dig on today's diesel sweeties.

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

the gulf war two drinking game

drink when:

bush is called a crusader
x2 if its by saddam
saddam is called evil
x2 if its by bush
iraq troops surrender to the media
x2 if to a unmanned vehicle or inanimate object
iraq uses weapons it claims not to have
the united states uses weapons it won't allow iraq to have
a member of the media gets shot at
a toast to the shooter if its ashleigh banfield(msnbc), geraldo riviera(fox) or arron brown(cnn)
saddam uses a scud he doesnt have
x2 if its towards Israel
the united states terrorist threat level changes
the united states government tries to link iraq to 9-11
france goes pro US invasion
germany takes the side of the united states in a global war
Dominique de Villepin reminds you of that annoying rich kid in high school
someone implies tony blair is bush's *****
someone implies scott ritter is Saddam's *****
anybody 'warns' anybody
the word "escalation" is used
iraq and the united states are shown seated next to each other in the united nations
an American is shot down over iraq
x2 if an iraqi makes in into an aircraft
an American is shot,
x2 if its by an enemy
the media compares the war to blackhawk down
x2 if its because a blackhawk really goes down
a puppet government is installed in iraq
x2 if its by the puppet government installed in the US
saddam uses the word 'Zionist'
x2 if its bin laden
you change your opinion on the war
the media shows iraqi children in a hospital because of international sanctions
x2 if its because of american military action
finish your drink if saddam actually put them there, but claimed it was the united states
iraq promises full and complete cooporation with inspectors
Iraqi civilians greet Americans with cheers
x2 if its with bullets
the saudis do something the united states accuses iraq of doing
north korea does something the united states accused iraq of doing
x2 if they don't get away with it
al-jazeera is referred to as the "arab cnn"
finish your drink if cnn is referred to as the "american al-jazeera"
the conflict is compared to the vietnam war
x2 if the word "quagmire" is used
saddam goes missing
finish your drink if he is confimed killed
the pope is said to "pray for peace"
bush mispronounces the word 'nuclear'
finish your drink if its referring to a bomb that has gone off
richard armitage's neck shows up
if you can't find kuwait, bahrain, qatar, oman, or the united arab emirates on a map
x2 if you even own a map of the region
finish your drink if you can pronounce them all correctly
any of the following commentators are on tv:
x1 ken pollack, khidhir hamza, general wesley clark, col david hackworth, general bernard trainor, david kay, richard butler, thomas friedman, scott ritter, thomas andrews, anybody running for United States President
x2 general norman schwarzkopf, general walt boomer, general buster glosson, brent scowcroft, james baker, richard perle, william kristol, james woolsey, henry kissinger
x3 any former united states president
an actor or actress expresses an opinion on the war
x2 if this is the first time you've seen them in a year
an american reminds the french of world war one and two
x2 if a frenchman reminds the americans of the revolutionary war
saddam torches the oil fields
someone reports from "the arab street"
colin powell looks exasperated sitting at the u.n. security council
x2 if its because a country you didnt know exists is commenting on the war
anyone in the bush administration says "make no mistake"
the american military are told what to do by someone with no military experience
x2 if they dodged the vietnam draft
x3 if they dodged the vietnam draft, are an ex-governer of a southern us state, and ever held or holds the title of 'commander-in-chief'
tariq azziz's glasses get larger
somebody says saddam "tortures his own people"
you momentarly confuse george roberston with shrek
an arab country staging american troops speaks against the war
an arrow anti-missle missle is fired
x2 if it intercepts something
tom ridge laughs while discussing potential terrorists attacks
God picks a side
finish your drink if its not yours
somebody implies a blood for oil trade may be in progress
x2 if that person owns a S.U.V.
a protest sign attacks Bush directly
x2 if it attacks saddam directly
The united states bombs anything in iraq before the fighting 'offically' starts
x2 if iraq tries the same thing
Saddam is compared to Hitler
x2 if bush is compared to Hitler
someone compares the size of iraq to california or france
The media refers to itself as 'embedded'
someone says "shock and awe"
The words "Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction" are used
x2 if its shortned to "WMD"
A US Official uses the word "liberate"
Bush says "innocent civilians"
Bush quotes scripture
x2 saddam quotes the koran
Somebody says "between Iraq and a hard place"
A videophone craps out
x2 the anchor apologizes for it
Someone on TV says something contradictory to what is on their news ticker
A news correspondent asks if they can still be heard
x2 if they say "Can you hear me now?"
Any political or military leader refers to Australia

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

Tesco, that's about the most sensible thing I've heard in a long time. I'm going to get drunk and stay there. Someone pour a bucket of water over me when all the liars, warmongers and bastards have choked on their own poisonous words.

[ March 20, 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

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

Combat has begun on the ground.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They might have. It's hard to tell. The speech during his broadcast was kind of vauge. It might have been previously recorded. Or it could have been a body double.

Random throught #1:

Hey, maybe they really got Sadaam back in '91 and Iraq has been ruled for the Last 12 years by a series of surgically enhanced body doubles.

Radmon thought #2:

Despite my personal belief in the justness of this war, and whatever the eventual outcome, it's kind of nice to see India and Pakistan finally agree on something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

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

The solopian position:

As I write the war has begun. I have little doubt that the United States will prevail in an overwhelming fashion. However, this misconceived war with Iraq needs to be brought to a quick and successful conclusion. The items publicly offered by the Bush Administration as casus belli are patently inadequate as justification for a full scale war, particularly in this case, since we have tolerated Hussein and his weapons for decades. However, those items do offer additional proof to the mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is an evil, murderous thug who has had biological and chemical weapons for over twenty years and who may have nuclear weapons now. It is not, perhaps unfortunately, the American way to launch an unprovoked war against anyone based on the fear of what they might do. The correct course of action was to have Hussein and his henchmen removed by covert means or to wait for them to act overtly against us. I am dismayed by the clumsy thought processes evidenced by the preference for an expensive, flashy and unjustified war as opposed to quieter and much cheaper methods of achieving national security goals. Most importantly, if there are good, unpublicized reason to fight Iraq, make them public. Our government has not deserved unquestioning trust for 30 years, so tell us the whole story for I want to support them.

Now that the mistake has been made, a greater danger has been created in the United Nations. China, France and others, each for their own reasons, may use our actions as fodder to create a new cold war, rallying the jealous or ignorant masses of the Third and even Second worlds against us. International commerce will be made more difficult for us and trade will become the great weapon of the next decade. Countries like France will leverage themselves into the commercial gaps they will create by fanning hatred of the USA. New economic giants will be created to compete with us, in part by supplying enemies such as China in exchange for support. China and India will be ideally situated to play both sides, given their huge domestic markets, and they will surely use the opportunity to create or become major economic competitors to the American industrial juggernaut. This will not happen quickly or completely. We have our own supporters as well, but our relative power will be diminished and a more dangerous world will be a result. We may even see the legal and political precedents we are setting used against us by our competitors, using the UN as a legal tool. Since war on Iraq is to be pursued, the most logical course for the USA to take in furtherance of its own long term protection and benefit is to withdraw from the United Nations and let it collapse before it can become self-sustaining without our support. With that forum removed, not only does Washington become more important in world affairs, but a forum for our foes is removed.

The war on Iraq and Hussein has created a morass. I don’t even want to think about the quagmire presented by post-Hussein regional politics and Iraqi reconstruction. War is an evil thing, a Last resort at best and this was not yet the time for it. End the war quickly to minimize the political and moral damage……And worry about Korea.

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

Guess what, Solops...

The US has been trying to remove Saddam by 'covert' means for most of the Last decade. Once it became apparent that he was not going to fall to the rebellion that sprang up after Gulf War I there was funding publicly voted to support the opposition in Iraq, and in a regime that doesn't allow opposition parties that means plots against the regime. Not only did they catch every attempt, but US handlers got calls from the Iraqi intelligence agents on their own equipment to tell them their agents had been caught and arrested. Presumably they are all dead by now, or perhaps we should say 'hopefully' they are all dead by now. Being alive in a prison run by Saddam is not a pleasant thought.

I personally think this is why Bush has gone bonkers on this issue. The US is quite used to having its way. How many governments have we over-thrown in the past 5 decades or so? It's hard to count... So anyway, Saddam was better at the 'covert' game than the US and the boys in the back room can't stand it. They want his head at all costs.

[ March 20, 2003, 22:35: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

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

I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.

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

Goddamn it, solops, It's North Korea, not Korea. Look at my location (the "From" below my post) to see why that matters.

Also, a question to all you war buffs: can you tell me how the Iraqis managed to get french mirages?

Edit: typing mistakes...

[ March 20, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: TerranC ]

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

What is a french mirage?

Tesco:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wax is grow brighter, wain is grow dimmer (to avoid looking up the astronomical terms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ March 20, 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">French-Developed Fighter planes. CNN says that the Iraqi air force has about 10-20 of them.

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

Iraq has F-1’s, not really front line fighters any more. The Mirrage became famious in the hands of the Israilies. But are very over rated. The F III and F 5 are the delta wing fighters that most people think of as Mirages. The F-1 is a swept wing fighter that looks like and old US Navy F-11 (don’t remember the original designation) The F-1 went onto service in the mid 70’s, and would have been a contemporary of the F-4 Phantom and a year ahead of the F-14 and F-15. So it was a generation behind as soon as it went into service. But then the French would sell to anyone, no questions asked.

F-1 Data

Within a year of the Mirage III entering service with the French air force, Dassault-Breguet was developing a successor. The Mirage F1 has 40 per cent more internal fuel than the Mirage III and a better wing design that improves maneuverability and enables it to take off from shorter runways.
Following on the Mirage F-2, which was a revival of the classic arrow-wing design with stabilizers, the Mirage F-1 is a defense and air superiority single-seater plane. This revival was made possible by technological advances which permit manufacture of ultra-thin but robust wings, enabling at supersonic speeds flight performance equivalent to that of delta wings. The integrity of the fuselage structure allows the aircraft to carry a maximum amount of fuel.
The wings are high-mounted, swept-back, and tapered. Missiles are usually mounted at the wing tips. There is one turbojet engine in the body. There are semicircular air intakes alongside the body forward of the wing roots. There is a single exhaust. The fuselage is long, slender, pointed nose and a blunt tail. There are two small belly fins under the tail section and a bubble canopy. The tail is swept-back and tapered fin with a blunt tip. The flats are mid-mounted on the fuselage, swept-back, and tapered with blunt tips.
The Mirage F-1 prototype made its maiden flight with René Bigand at the controls, 23rd December 1966, at Melun-Villaroche (the Seine-et-Marne region of France).
The French air force ordered the Mirage Fl for its interceptor squadrons, and the first F1s entered service in 1973. The Fl proved a very popular export, with over 500 of them sold abroad in the first 10 years of production. More than 700 Mirage F-1's have been sold to some 11 countries. The Dassault Mirage F-1C was the standard French fighter before Mirage 2000 entered service in the air force in 1984. The Mirage Fl has seen combat in the Persian Gulf, where Iraqi Mirage F1s played an important role in the attacks on tankers during the late 1980s. There are several Versions now operational - all-weather interceptors, fighter-bombers and dedicated reconnaissance aircraft.

Specifications
Country of Origin France
Builder team : Dassault Aviation, SNECMA, Thomson-CSF
Role Mirage F1 CT - Close Air Support (CAS) / attack / fighter
Mirage F1 CR - Tactical reconnaissance / fighter
First flight : November 1981
1992 for the new weapons system (F1 CT Version)
In-service in French Air Force : 1983
Similar Aircraft Super Etendard
Mitsubishi F-1
AV-8B Harrier II
Fantan A
Crew one
trainer--two
Length 49 ft (14.94 m) 15.33 m
Span 27 ft, 7 in (8.4 m)
Height : 4.50 m
Weight 8.1 t empty
15.2 t maximum at takeoff
Power plant / Thrust : SNECMA Atar 9K50 jet engine / 4.7 t and 6.8 t with afterburner
Ceiling 52,000 ft [20,000 meters ?]
Maximum speed : Mach 2.2
Cruise range 1160 nm
In-Flight Refueling Y
Internal Fuel 3435 kg
Fuel capacity : 4,100 l internal / 6,400 l maximal / In-flight refuelling
Payload 6300 kg
Sensors Cyrano IVM radar (-200 has IWMR), RWR
Drop Tanks 1160 L drop tank with 927kg of fuel for 157nm of range
2300 l drop tank with 1837kg of fuel for 310nm of range
Armament 2 30mm DEFA 553 cannon
2 Matra Magic R550
free fall and parachute drag bombs
Special equipment : Radar Thomson-CSF Cyrano IV-MR (air-to-air, air-to-ground), inertial navigation system, panoramic camera Omera 40, vertical camera Omera 33, IR thermographic captor Super Cyclope, lateral radar Raphael, electromagnetic emissions detector Astac, photographic pod RP35P, Desire digital video recce pod, electronic counter measures
NATO interoperability : In-flight refuelling by NATO aircraft, armament and ammunitions in accordance with NATO standards
User Country France
Greece
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Morocco
Qatar
South Africa
Spain
Number of units produced : 740 (all types of Mirage F1 included)
French Air Force inventory : 40 aircraft in 2 squadrons

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Between 1982 and 1987 Iraq bought 100+ Mirage F1s from France (This was done with US blessing so don't use this for France-bashing). Most was destroyed in Gulf War 1. Some sources also claim that Iraq stole 8 Mirage F1s from Kuwait during the same war.

Anyway, these fighters is now antiquated and will probably be of little use.

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

Well, I don’t want to be rude here, but your statement is untrue. France actively sought out sales in Iraq. They were even trying to set up joint ventures to build the 2000 mark. France would sell their soul if someone was willing to pay for it. Remember they are the bastards that sold this tyrant a breeder reactor.

Quote from Global Security :

The equipment of the air force and the army's air corps, like that of the other services, was primarily of Soviet manufacture. After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese Version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq's overall airpower was considerable.
Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. The first transfer occurred in 1978, when France supplied eighteen Mirage F-1 interceptors and thirty helicopters, and even agreed to an Iraqi share in the production of the Mirage 2000 in a US$2 billion arms deal. In 1983 another twenty-nine Mirage F-1s were exported to Baghdad. And in an unprecedented move, France "loaned" Iraq five SuperEtendard attack aircraft, equipped with Exocet AM39 air-to- surface missiles, from its own naval inventory. The SuperEtendards were used extensively in the 1984 tanker war before being replaced by several F-1s. The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil. Iraq also bought more than 400 Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and at least 200 AS30 laser-guided missiles between 1983 and 1986.