Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thoran · 09-10-2002, 04:12 PM

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.

09-10-2002, 04:12 PM	#43
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	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.