my Mum could sort them out so there [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What did I do now..?? [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/littleangel.gif[/img]

Well at least it got the attention and made people hug which was the intention in the first place :D

Lots of good points... heated (after all... we're all human right?) and analytical. I got a few pennies to add...

- War stinks, even if not one guy on our side dies... killing people still stinks. The analytical part of me knows that Israel alone could clean up in the Middle East if there was an "all out war", but MANY MILLIONS would die. Our weapons platforms provide safety to our people by inflicting HEAVY damage on the opponent, while I'll take that tradeoff any day, knowing so many are dying doen't make me feel good. Hell we still don't know how many Iraqi's died during Desert Storm, but the number is surely HUGE. We (the USA) should avoid such a confrontation at all costs, and I'm glad our allies are playing the counterpoint, becuase although I have no problem with saber rattling,(it works on occasion) I'm not sure how far Pres. Bush is willing to take it.

- Saddam cannot be allowed to build a nuke, simple as that. If Bush has compelling evidence that this is going to happen... I would support surgical strikes (even involving ground forces) to get in, destroy capability, and get out. If they get a crack at Saddam... they should try to take him out. If for some reason small teams won't get the job done... well then how about a targeted airborn incursion, (similar to the forces they moved deep into Iraq by air during the start of the ground offensive) supported by aircraft this sort of incursion could be used to safely give ground forces time to search likely nuke research/build locations.

- It's very possible that if the Allies start a "build up" and make it obvious that Saddam is the target... he'll buckle like an empty soda can. Move the Marines off-shore again, bring in ground attack/close air support aircraft (A10's, Apache's...), and maybe even pull a Battleship out of mothballs to cruise around the Arabian Golf looking mean. Thump chests, make a big stink, whatever... but don't invade unless EVERY other possiblity has been eliminated.

- Regarding not taking out Saddam during Desert Storm... it wasn't the Allies complaining that prevented that (at least that wasn't the only reason). There were reasons to keep the government of Iraq intact, (regional stability being the #1) and a call was made that it would be less risky to leave him in and try to control him than to take him out at that point. I personally don't see a big problem with that decision... it was the right one at the time. Times are different these days, so everyone is second guessing what was done then. Every idiot News Anchor is putting on his army helmet and playing armchair General (or maybe Armchair President). Keep in mind the general assumption that all News Anchors are idiots and you'll go far. Don't second guess the past it's pointless, learn from it and move forward.

<font color="#55aacc"> Doesnt appear to be any doubt that he is trying to make a nuke. They keep intercepting shipments he is trying to buy for their assembly and fabrication. Most recent a shipment of centrifuge parts was intercepted on its way to Iraq. (aluminum pipes used to enrich uranium to make it weapons grade.) As for surgical strikes. You need to know where he has them hidden to do that, and unfortunatley no one can momitor every wearhouse and hidden underground bunker to see whats up.</font>

Talking, treaties, and brinkmanship kept the Cold War from going Hot. So I would say that they certainly have their place in diplomacy.

Excuse me - last time I checked it was Bush Sr. who made the descision to end the land-war after 100 hours himself - against the advice of some of his advisors.

So the Israeli are always right and the Pakestinians are always wrong. I'm sorry Nachtrafe, but the real world isn't black and white like that. And I don't recall your 'allies' doing anything to hamstring Israel, after all they do pretty much whatever they like (even ignoring Bush Jr. when he demanded the withdrawal of their troops after the fighting in Jenin)

Yes, lets throw some bomb. j/k Actually I would like to find solutions that (in the instance of the Israeli/Palestinians-conflict) both sides can live with.

And 'we' can't understand our American 'allies'. With their politics of aggresion, narrowmindedness and bullying-tactics (a bit strong perhaps, but I tried for the opposite of your ridiculous statements).

How exatly is it that 'we' get benefit of your money (are we still talking about the Marshall-plan, culture ( :rolleyes: [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] ), fashion ( [img]graemlins/reallyroll.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] ) and aid. At every engagement that USA have engaged in since the fall of Communism, European troops have fought along side American - For instance in Afganistan where Danish soldier fought and died. But I can tell you that it is attitudes like yours that will make it harder to gather support in the future.

Oh yes the polls! Gotta love the POLLS! They are NEVER One sided and ALWAYS tell the truth as it is!

Live by THE POLLS! Die by THE POLLS! It's all shown in THE POLLS! So Black or White, So giving of what IS and not what it seems to be!

Yes, the POLLS! Long Live THE POLLS!

I had to and I'm not sorry.

<font color="#55aacc"> Umm I have the same dislike for public opinion polls as you Moni [img]smile.gif[/img] but seriously, tell us how you REALLY feel [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Right On!

If it wasn't for the manufactured truth, we'd have to deal with learning the real truth, and the politicians are far too busy for that sort of thing. So figure out what the most convenient truth would be, and then take a poll to prove it. Or really save yourself some time and tune in to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, then you avoid the messy problem of thinking all together...

Well you know that 57% of statistics are made up on the spot [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Last time (a couple of weeks ago) I heard it was around 65-70% and not 85%. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Did it go up again? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-10-2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Actually, I would quite agree with the massing-at-the frontiers-and delivering-an-ultimatum strategy. I really do feel that, if the Iraqi generals are not all incompetent fools, they would possibly talk Hussein into allowing real inspections (with us still mobilised and taking out a target of opportunity from time to time to keep his feet in the fire. They might even overthrow him, though I personally doubt it. He has made of Iraq what Hitler made of Germany, a series of headlless sructures with all power concentrated in himself.

I heard on ABC News just now that the weapons inspectors could not mobilize in less than 6 weeks.

Mark

Six weeks? What is that? If Iraq would send some clear signals, and show their good faith, with us mobilised on their fronteirs, as we are doing, then I am sure that a war could be averted. I am, however, worried that Saddam is too monomaniacal in his determination to build nukes.

Of course Iraq says the info from the USA and England is false and there are no weapons programs going on. That was in this morning's papers.

If so, send in the inspectors to validate the claims. Yeah, right. Iraq's stupidity on this issue is incredible.

Mark

LOL, for once I agree with your stupid posts ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Me wuvs you all too! Don't like all the paranoia and resentment online and in the world today, nuh-uh, me doesn't likes it one bit! *shakes head vigourously*

<font color="hotpink", size=5>GROUP HUG!!!</font> *bounces*</font>[/QUOTE]Don't you just wish all the stupid problems of the world could be solved just like that? Sigh... :(

*Basks in the blissful warmth of LS's and Melusine's hug* [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 09-10-2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

I believe that if Saddam were to build a nuke, he will not use it as a weapon, but as a deterrence. A sort of immunity if you will. Not the kind of situation you want to be in, as India and Pakistan has shown.

Just a never-ending cycle of bitterness and counter-bitterness isn't it.</font>[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

It's not about bitterness. It's about follow-through. If the US' 'allies' had allowed President Bush to finish what he'd started in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussien and his Biological, Chemical, and (possibly) Nuclear weapons wouldn't be an issue right now. Why? because he'd be dead, or locked in a cell so deep in the earth that not even the moles would know where he is. If the US' 'allies' had the intelligence to stop hamstringing Isreal, and the intestinal fortitude to live with the consequences, instead of whining about them, then the Palestinian threat wouldn't even exist. If the US' 'allies' weren't such a pack of whining, liberal, feel-good-politic, panty-waists who actually got up off their collective asses and actually *DID* something about the things they constantly whine about, then the world really *would* be a better place.

So, I say again, it's not about bitterness. It's about anger! Anger at the politics of appeasement, anger at wishy-washyness, anger at cowardice. Our dear European 'Allies'(with a singular exception...and the British still aren't fully on-board) are so happy to enjoy the benefits of our money, our culture, our fashions, and our aid, but, when the chips are down, and there's real work to be done...well, then all you hear is the sound of crickets and cowards.</font>[/QUOTE]Bearing in mind that the politics of the original Gulf War centred around blocking Saddam Hussein's potential control of the oilfields of Kuwait - and therefore protecting the strength of the american dollar rather than people - it's a vile thing to think as you do. Our leaders went in, created a mess, and now our new leaders are having to clean it up ten years later; fair enough. But that doesn't change the fact this started out being about money. No-one's hands are clean. We are the agressors and we've killed thousands so we can stay rich.

But if pushed far enough, won't he still use it as a weapon?

[ 09-10-2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[quote]Originally posted by Nachtrafe:

Quote:

It's not about bitterness. It's about follow-through. If the US' 'allies' had allowed President Bush to finish what he'd started in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussien and his Biological, Chemical, and (possibly) Nuclear weapons wouldn't be an issue right now. Why? because he'd be dead, or locked in a cell so deep in the earth that not even the moles would know where he is. If the US' 'allies' had the intelligence to stop hamstringing Isreal, and the intestinal fortitude to live with the consequences, instead of whining about them, then the Palestinian threat wouldn't even exist. If the US' 'allies' weren't such a pack of whining, liberal, feel-good-politic, panty-waists who actually got up off their collective asses and actually *DID* something about the things they constantly whine about, then the world really *would* be a better place. So, I say again, it's not about bitterness. It's about anger! Anger at the politics of appeasement, anger at wishy-washyness, anger at cowardice. Our dear European 'Allies'(with a singular exception...and the British still aren't fully on-board) are so happy to enjoy the benefits of our money, our culture, our fashions, and our aid, but, when the chips are down, and there's real work to be done...well, then all you hear is the sound of crickets and cowards.

it amuses me to read about europe enjoying the benefits of usa money, culture and fashion... lol... yeah right. you could make an argument about money (pretty hard though) but culture??? fashion??? i am missing something here and the world has turned upside down??? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

That is the thing.

"If pushed far enough".

Will you want to push a guy who has a nuke at his disposal? With a nuke, Saddam will be virtually untouchable.

ADD] I believe Saddam will only detonate a nuke as a last resort, since after said detonation, nobody has anything to lose anymore and it will drive all the nails into his coffin. However, if he has not detonated yet, everybody else will try their best not to make him do so. Ergo, he will have the upper hand so long as he does not detonate first.

PS: I know about Hiroshima, but that was before the world understood the impact a nuke can have.

[ 09-10-2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Dundee Slaytern ]

You really wanna know what he will do with it ? He will wipe Israel of the map, that's what he swore a long time ago, and there's no doubt in my mind he will do that once he can.

Give the man some credit, even if he is a bad guy. I bet even Saddam knows such an action is as good as shooting himself in the head. Last I recall, he is not feeling suicidal at the moment. Saddam does not strike me as the martyr-wannabe type.

ADD] He can use the nuke as a deterrence while he uses other means to destroy Israel, annex other Arab countries, etc... This is a better tactic, and he should know it.

[ 09-10-2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Dundee Slaytern ]

Ummm, the last I heard...the concern was not about Sadam using a Nuke, but the possibility of him giving nukes to terrorist groups.

If we were so worried about Iraq possessing nukes, then we should be equally worried about North Korea who already has them.

Y'think?

Mark

The Iraq Issue is multifaceted:

1) The Bush factor...do it for Dad. ;)
2) Lotsa oil at risk. ;)
3) Dangerous to Israel.
4) Possible (probable?) links to terrorist groups.
5) Run by an abusive dictator.
6) Part of the Axis Of Evil
7) Weapons of Mass Destruction (Phrase of 21st Century) contained within.
8) Thumbs it's nose at the UN resolutions.
9) Attack needed to get Americans minds off Economic Focus as elections draw near. ;)
10) Because we can. ;)

Add more to the list if you think of any more that I missed.

Mark

[EDIT] Forgot to add winky smiles as this was not totally serious!

[ 09-10-2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Eh? I though North Korea's nuclear facilities have been shut down?

The idea of Saddam giving out nukes to terrorists, hmmmm... I suppose that operation will under his protection then. Whatever happened to the idea of a political assassination anyway?

ADD] Or the more palatable arrest version.

[ 09-10-2002, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Dundee Slaytern ]

I think that Saddam would love to be known throughout the Arab world as the guy who nuked Tel Aviv. P.S., the Gulf War involved money, certainly, but it also involved not letting a thug rob his neighbors who had TREATIES with us. Why are you so purblind about money? It may be crass, but it is powerful stuff, ask anyone who lived through the Great Depression. Yeah, we killed a lot of folks in the Gulf War. Yeah, they invaded Kuwait with robbery on their minds (there's that ol' money, again) so they deserved what they got.

The Iraqi civlians deserved to die because their leader tried to rob Kuwait? I don't think that's what you meant! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

Saddam's troops hadn't even set foot in Kuwait when we attacked him.

THat is not true. Saddam's Armor entered Kuwait at 2:00 August 2, 1990. Our first air strike was delivered 6:36 A.M, January 16, 1991, by the B-52's of Barksdale AFB, the "Buffs." Source: Storm Over Iraq, Richard P' Hallion, (Smithsonian Institution Press, New York, 1992).

[ 09-10-2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Attalus ]

Fascinating. They attacked on my birthday! :eek:

D'ohh! *sips at coffee* I meant Israel. Worse, that doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion. I'm going to stop posting late at night, I think... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hold on. Purblind?!? My whole point was that it was people who keep glamorising the Gulf War by conveniently forgetting the financial considerations were the ones who couldn't see the whole side of the story...

At any rate, the entire POINT of the treaties you refer to was to give the UN a legal foothold to intervene if the oilfields (and therefore, Kuwait) were under threat.

I would suggest that the Gulf War COST us a whole lot of money... and while one could argue it was about maintaining the free flow of oil from the region (which was in our national interest), it was also about stopping agression before it had a chance to spread. The security of Saudi Arabia was a MAJOR Strategic concern and it is REALLY the primary reason we got our butts over there so quickly. There is no shame in taking actions to protect the Strategic interests of your country... none at all.

The US (and Western Civilization as a whole) has made a LOOOTTTT of stupid mistakes over the last 226 years, Desert Storm was NOT one of them. It was arguably the single greatest military achievement of the 20th century (and there were a lot of military achievements during the 20th century :( ), and it exemplified how proper application of force can turn a long drawn out deadly war into a sneeze of a campaign with minimal allied casualties (and arguably lower enemy casualties than would have occurred in a drawn out engagement)

We were not the agressors in that war, Iraq was the agressor. The reason Saddam was left in power was to attempt to AVOID making a mess of the region. (and this has been largely successful) His unwillingness to be pacified could not have been predicted with a high degree of certainty at the time, thus our course of action was not unreasonable. Sadly it didn't work, but it was worth the effort. Bringing down Saddam is a risky affair, the power vacuum his departure will make is going to leave a dangerous instability in the region... and likely require long term commitments of troops and support in the region. (not a popular thing with the American people... nor any others I imagine)

<font color="#55aacc"> Yeah and I remember Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Ambasador?) on national television stating that Iraq was in Kuwait by their invitation and that the idea that they had invaded Kuwait was just American Propaganda....Yeah I give the Iraqi pronouncements lots of weight! :rolleyes: </font>

<font color="#55aacc">Tancred, you do the United States a disservice when you accuse it of only doing things for "The US Dollar" and not for people. That is such a total untruth that I don't even know how to really address it. FOR example. Since the Taliban gained control in Afghanistan roughly 6200 Afghani's have been relocated by the US state department to the United states. giiven homes, Jobs, food, and clothing. That isnt because of our war on terrorism, the relocations were started long before Sept. 11 2001. How does that help the strength of the US dollar?

The War in Kuwait did help our economic interests, but that was not the sole reason we were there and any statement to the contrary is just mean spirited and baseless. It is also being grossly unfair to those decision makers who did what was right.</font>

<font color="#55aacc">Tancred, you do the United States a disservice when you accuse it of only doing things for "The US Dollar" and not for people. That is such a total untruth that I don't even know how to really address it. FOR example. Since the Taliban gained control in Afghanistan roughly 6200 Afghani's have been relocated by the US state department to the United states. giiven homes, Jobs, food, and clothing. That isnt because of our war on terrorism, the relocations were started long before Sept. 11 2001. How does that help the strength of the US dollar?

The War in Kuwait did help our economic interests, but that was not the sole reason we were there and any statement to the contrary is just mean spirited and baseless. It is also being grossly unfair to those decision makers who did what was right.</font>[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I have come to the conclusion that no mater what the USA does, we are still, greedy, war hungery, evil,vile monster who have no regaurd for human life.

*shrugs*

Isn't *every* government?

Isn't *every* government?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe, I dont know enough abut every goverment in the world The USA just seems to be a scape goat of things that go wrong in the world.

It is a shame, but that just seems to be what happens... when something goes wrong or someone screws up but you're not sure who, the finger always seems to be pointed at the guy (country) at the top. It happens in business, in families (I blame the parents...) and world politics, perhaps. Human nature again?