Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 193

Thread: Attack Iraq?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Montreal,Quebec,Canada
    Posts
    1,026
    A. Yes. Hussein ain't no sunshine in the park. He gased thousands of Kurds, did the same to Iranians. Used it against Americans, and assassinated his own family members when they wanted to defect.

    B. Preferably alone. One is to leave all the decisions to the U.S. and two, so we don't bow to foreign demand. I.E. Canada and Syria are the real reason why Sadam is still there.

    C. Ground Forces preceded by continuous air strikes. No fancy tech either, good old style B-52 Stratofortress bombers obliterating targets into the ground. Also, we don't take Saddam alive.

    D. The point of the invasion should be to remove him and his weapon factories. The vacuum can be dealt by the regional leaders. Maybe the uncle of the King of Jordan will take the Hashemite thrown of Iraq.

    E. The Middle East will cry bloody murder, but secretely thank America. Europe will also scream unilateral "evil" decisions by the U.S. but also secretely thank them. Let's all face it, he ain't no saint and borders as a devil.

    BTW, Joe your post wasn't funny. You want something in bad taste? How about the fact that you live in a state which started two World Wars, slaughtered countless Jews in concentration camps and made it a point to kill Russian POW's? Not funny is it, neither was your post.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
    -Joan Robinson, economist

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Waynesburg, PA
    Posts
    1,361
    Originally posted by Ramage
    On the coldly practical end, one reason Bush II wants a war is that the US electorate rarely unseats a war-time president. An active war is entirely to his benefit politically.
    False, the record of wartime presidents is not so clear cut my friend. A look at the record shows that presidents take a huge risk in war and most times end up on the losiong end.

    James K. Polk (Mexician War) did not stand for reelction in 1848, the people then dumped the Democrates and voted in a sucessful General from the war who was a member of the Anti-War Party (The Whigs).

    Aberham Lincolin (Civil War) did stand for reelection and won, but that was more related to his rect victoie and growing status as a near god in the wartorn Republics eyes. Assinated shortly after being sworn in second time.

    James McKinnley (Spainish American War) did not have to face reelction until after the war was over and the Phillipinne Insurection had yet to become a big issue. Assinated shortly after starting second term.

    Woodrow Wilson (World War I) campiagned on "Keeping US out of the war" and promptly within a month of being sworn in Declared war "To make the world Safe for Democracy". A stroke beat the Hypocrite down before he could play out his illusions of scantimonous sainthood and running for a Third Term.

    Franklin Delano Rosevelt (World War II) See Lincolin. However FDR died of natural cuases shotly after being sworn in for a forth term.

    Harry Trumen (Korea) Did not stand for reelection in 52 even though he could have. Chances are old "Giv'em Hell Harry" would have been beaten soundly.

    Dwight D. Esinhower (Korea) campiagn on ending the war and promptly did so in the year he was sworn in. Re-elected and is considered one of the most popular presidents to this day.

    Lyndon B. Johnson (Veitnam) did not stand for reelection in 68, in all likilyhood would have been soundly beaten.

    Richard Nixion (Veitnam) faced re-election won, ended the war and then resigned.

    George Bush I (Gulf War) did not face election during war but was beaten soundly in the following election.

    Polk, Trumen, Johnson and Nixon all had to quiet more or less due to the fact they could no longer do anything in the congress and had lost the support of their respective parties. Lincoln, McKinley, and Rosevelt died after winning new terms, in the case of both Lincoln and Rosevelt the war had sevearly beaten there repsective healths to a pulp. Bush and Trumen faced worsening economic troubles which tied there hands. Wilson had wreacked his heath in the campiagn for his inane league of nations (which nobody believed in or wanted) when he should have been a national leader. In the case of Lincoln relection was not a sure thing until October when Atlanta fell and Sheridien won in the Valley at Ceder Creek.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    589
    Posted by Dan Stack
    Joe, Is that what you really think of the United States of America, run by a bunch of evil people who look for any excuse to kill people?


    Actually, no I don't.
    I think and occasionally only hope, that the people in charge are reasonable, level-headed and responsible.

    Posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
    BTW, Joe your post wasn't funny.


    Not all satire is knee-slapping, sprite-spewing, heart-attack inducing funny.
    Above all it should make you think. If it can make you laugh, all the better.
    I was hoping somebody would have picked up on the movie I quoted repeatedly in my post. I do see parallels between characters and attitudes in that movie and in this discussion (not only this thread) here.
    Last edited by Joe Dizzy; 08-03-2002 at 03:12 AM.
    No power in the 'verse can stop me.

    "You know this roleplaying thing is awfully silly, let's just roll the dice." - overheard during a D&D 3E game.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,548
    satire... "You use that word a lot. I do no think it means what you think it means."

    Anyway, I assume the 'no' votes are from people who didn't see the interview with the guy who used to run Saddam's nuclear weapons program before and during the Gulf War yesterday.

    Main points the gentleman made during the interview..

    1. Saddam pressured his people to finish development of a nuke during the Gulf War, but they dragged their feet and didn't accomplish this in time. But that was 11 years ago.

    2. If he had one, he would probably use it, in the estimation of the program chief. (Which is why they footdragged.)

    3. The former head of the weapons program believes that some weapons remained hidden from inspectors. Whom do you believe, him or Hussein's mouthpieces?
    "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid" -- Quantum Crook

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    589
    Originally posted by First of Two
    satire... "You use that word a lot. I do no think it means what you think it means."
    Encyclopaedia Britannica defines satire as:

    artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement.

    (highlights inserted by me)
    No power in the 'verse can stop me.

    "You know this roleplaying thing is awfully silly, let's just roll the dice." - overheard during a D&D 3E game.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    MetroWest, MA USA
    Posts
    2,590
    But satire generally has a link in some truth.

    Let us suppose I am slow and cannot appreciate satire after all. Explain your point to it. By my reading of your "satire" you seem to be suggesting that Americans can't wait to kill Iraqis just for the sheer orgasmic fun of it.

    Do you really think that little of us? Is it even possible that you are wrong and Iraq is a threat? Or is it an unalienable truth that Iraq just wants to get together and sing happy songs with the rest of the world?

    YES!! YESSS!!! YESSSSS!!!!!
    Why?
    Well, there's always some bullshit reason to kill people!
    AKA Breschau of Livonia (mainly rpg forums)
    Gaming blog 19thlevel

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    589
    Originally posted by Dan Stack
    But satire generally has a link in some truth.

    Let us suppose I am slow and cannot appreciate satire after all. Explain your point to it. By my reading of your "satire" you seem to be suggesting that Americans can't wait to kill Iraqis just for the sheer orgasmic fun of it.

    Do you really think that little of us? Is it even possible that you are wrong and Iraq is a threat? Or is it an unalienable truth that Iraq just wants to get together and sing happy songs with the rest of the world?
    Again this wasn't directed towards Americans in general. I was rather commenting on a certain attitude I've seen in posts by various members on this board regarding the middle-east conflict(s).

    I don't know if Iraq is a threat. I have neither seen the psychology profiles of Saddam Hussein, the economical profile of the area, nor do I have enough experience with islamic culture or have the correct information regarding Iraq's attack capabilites.

    And frankly, I think neither do any of the people on this board.

    I used exaggeration and movie quotes to not only underline the absurdity of these attitudes but also to point out what I considered a remarkable parallel to a very poignant satire made in 1964.
    No power in the 'verse can stop me.

    "You know this roleplaying thing is awfully silly, let's just roll the dice." - overheard during a D&D 3E game.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Montreal,Quebec,Canada
    Posts
    1,026
    Joe, some people on these boards know more than you think. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a dictator who used chemical/biological weapons on his enemies would use a nuclear device if he got one.

    I'll be the first one to admit that I've never been to the Middle East, excluding Israel. Fact is I wouldn't be caught dead in most of these states. What I have learned after reading, studying and listening to Arabic media, texts and official mouthpieces of Hussein is that he would use a nuclear device the first chance he got. Iraq is a rogue state, meaning it doesn't bow to the standard deterence the U.S. uses against other states such as China.

    Others things I know, is that Hussein is a perceived atheist, he doesn't play the Islamic card very often. How do I know? By speaking to Iraqis in Mosques here in Montreal for my thesis.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
    -Joan Robinson, economist

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    863
    I am of the opinion that Iraq is a rogue state led by a murderous coward that uses the suffering of his own people as a tool to infuriate the rest of the Middle East and further widen the gap between those nations and the US and Israel.

    I believe that it was a mistake not to enter Baghdad in the 1990s and arrest or kill Mr. Hussein. I think that an American military force should enter Iraq by land, sea, and air, and make it a point to subjugate the Iraqi military, kill Saddam Hussein, and establish a temporary UN-led government to stabilize the region, feed and medically treat the people, and reestablish a sense of sanity there.

    My biggest concern is that the Iraqis have nuclear capabilities, and that they will use them against American tropps. Such an action would lead many Americans to believe that we have no alternative but to destroy at least Baghdad with nuclear weapons, if not the entire nation. I disagree with that course of action, but I do think that that is what would happen.

    I think that, more important than the actual invasion, would be the follow-up. If the US invades, then the US should call the shots once the Iraqi military machine is destroyed. If an international team does the clean-up work there, then the UN should determine what happens afterward.

    I do not want a war with Iraq (or anyone else, for that matter). I do think that it is both necessary and inevitable, however, and am already planning for the worst.

    Oh, and by the way, Joe... your characterization of Americans and warmongers, particularly the way that you delivered it with sarcasm and utterly unforgivable bad taste, was exceptionally offensive. Of course, that's just the opinion of an evil American, so take it for what its worth.

    mactavish out.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352
    A. Yes


    B. With multinational _support_ if available, however we should go it alone if not. Note that, as Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreement multinational support/ UN support is not required for hostilities to resume. Also, I'm talking about verbal support from states in the region, frankly the soldiers of any other nation besides the UK would just get in our way.


    C. Not sure where the US would get assassination squads... maybe Iran would loan us some.

    USAF should conduct deep strikes against Iraqi C3I and targets of military importance. Damage to civilian infrastructure, even dual-use structure, should be minimized to facilitate governance of the country after hostilities have ceased.

    US Army armored forces should attack out of Kuwait (after US removes all US military forces and support from Saudi Arabia) with USAF close air support.

    USMC should sieze port facilities in Iraq and conduct riverine operations in conjunction with the US Coast Guard and US Navy special operations forces to secure navigable portions of Tigris and Euphrates rivers as supply corridors.

    USN should provide close air support, naval gunfire support and logistical transport of afloat prepositioned equipment.

    US Special Operations Forces should seize stratiegic locations, airfields, suspected special weapons sites. Assets of civilian importance should also be secured to prevent their destruction.

    US Coast Guard should provide green-water support and expert advice for port seizure, riverine and coastal operations, and port security forces for ports in Kuwait and seized ports in Iraq.


    D. Removal of current power structure by any means available. Emplacement of a temportary government, with representation of all opposition elements in Iraq, similar to what was done in Afghanistan. If members of the current regime surrender or are captured, and have no criminal actions pending, they should be allowed to live in any nation that will accept them. US Army and National Guard forces provide critical civilian support services (medical, water, food distribution). US Army Corps of Engineers repair and rebuild civilian infrastructure. US Army Special Forces and US Army Reserve training battalions train and equip new Iraqi national army.


    E. Individual Arabs will blow more of themselves up. Neignhboring Arab states will express outrage, while really being quite relived.

    Peacniks around the world will smugly assert their moral superiority over the knuckle dragging warmongers from the safety of their flowergardens . US-bashing in the UN will increase from states who are happy to accept the strength and support of the US when it suits their purposes, and just as happy to demonize the US when it looks good at home.

    US families will mourn their honored dead. The US military will rest, repair, refit... and then continue training for the next time.
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    404

    Thumbs down For the vultures who thirst for blood and oil

    Originally posted by Dan Stack
    Nor does our involvement in Afghanistan.
    I think you'll find that our military action in Afghanistan has everything to do with oil and nothing to do with terrorism.

    Take up some reading on the UNOCAL Pipeline in Afghanistan. The Taliban wanted a larger cut than we were willing to give them. They backed out on the pipeline deal. We told them upon this act that Afghanistan can either be 'paved in gold, or paved in bombs'. They chose bombs, their mistake.

    LeMonde reported in Dec 2001: Newly appointed Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai is revealed as being a former paid consultant for Unocal.

    Dig past what CNN shows you and find out the truth for yourself.

    Check out From The Wilderness, a very informative site with nothing but the facts (which are well-documented and do not rest on speculation). And the facts lead straight to the single greatest criminal act in our nation's history.
    Last edited by Anomaly; 08-03-2002 at 10:04 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352

    Re: Warning! Satire in progress! Warning!

    A German advocating appeasement. The irony...



    Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


    YES!! YESSS!!! YESSSSS!!!!!
    Why?
    Well, there's always some bullshit reason to kill people!



    ALL OF THEM! FROM EVERYWHERE!!! AT ONCE!!!
    They'll never know what hit 'em!!!!



    Everything!!! Troops. Air Raids. Assassination. Gas. Nuclear bombs. ALL OF IT!!
    I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.



    Total annihilation!! Your Commie..err.. Iraqi has no regard for human life. Not even his own. Make room for a new world order!



    WHO CARES?! They're all just rats biding their time, till they have the guts to launch the bomb! THE BOMB, I SAY!!

    Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

    Dr. Joe Merkwürdigliebe

    P.S. - JA! I can walk! Mein Fuhrer, I CAN WALK!
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352
    It wasn't sarcasm, it was an insult. A childish insult, but an insult none the less.

    As I'm not Viulcan, I take offense where offense is intended.


    Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir
    ITOS

    It's the Oil, Stupid!

    It's always been the oil, and it will always be until the Earth is depleted from it. There are other oppressive, 'USA-menacing', regimes, but the US doesn't go after them. GWB needs to secure his position (and a falling US economy) by securing the Arab region with a new puppet. Saddam cut his strings some time ago.

    BTW, Joe, they'll never understand European sarcasm.
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352
    1. Who
    2. Yes, he is
    3. Yes, some of us do
    4. So what? Iraq isn't Vietnam.



    Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


    Again this wasn't directed towards Americans in general. I was rather commenting on a certain attitude I've seen in posts by various members on this board regarding the middle-east conflict(s).

    I don't know if Iraq is a threat. I have neither seen the psychology profiles of Saddam Hussein, the economical profile of the area, nor do I have enough experience with islamic culture or have the correct information regarding Iraq's attack capabilites.

    And frankly, I think neither do any of the people on this board.

    I used exaggeration and movie quotes to not only underline the absurdity of these attitudes but also to point out what I considered a remarkable parallel to a very poignant satire made in 1964.
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352

    Re: For the vultures who thirst for blood and oil

    So... you're saying we wouldn't give them money, so they blew up the WTC?



    Originally posted by Anomaly


    Check out From The Wilderness, a very informative site with nothing but the facts (which are well-documented and do not rest on speculation). And the facts lead straight to the single greatest criminal act in our nation's history.
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •