Invasion of iraq!!

[Rich]

what are the long term implications of this ?

it was on News24 that the US/UK forces will probbably make a premptive strike on Iraq in a matter of weeks, this is possably one of the most frightnening things that could happen i say this because

1 "The war on terrorism" how many times have we heard this phrase used now? , it was first uttered by Bush but since then the russian president used thos very same words to justify the killing of chechens, the isreali goverenment has used it to justify shooting ambulances and schools in palistine, the Indian government has used it to justify killing kashmiris, and many more. it set a president that was jumped on by so many governments to use to leaglise in the eyes of the world there wars or oppression, now setting a president of a preemptive strike on a country in the name of the war on terrorism without sanction or backing of the UN WILL lead to other countrys doing exactly the same thing and they will not be challengeable in there actions.

2 the war in afganistan failed in its majour objective #(this was just admited on the news) that its majour objective was to capture or Kill Usama Bin Laden and his generals it failed he is still at large as are his men and he is now more dangerous than he has ever been becouse he is tottaly underground noone has any knowledge of his base of operations at all. the over throwof the taliban was a secondary action which has served a perpous, but as this US advisor said if bin laiden had been caught straight away then the taliban would still be there now.

not captureing Bin laden and as he put it slaying the demon of the US it was the natural corse of action to turn to the only other demon and slay him Sadam Hussain, Im not saying Saddam is a nice guy and he should be left alone, i think he has to be monitored and with the backing of the UN monitored or removed by force ,BUT at the moment there is noone to take his place , there is no oposion leader to step in who isnt even more corupt and dangous than saddam and if a member of his government steps in then Sadamism will follow him. i think there are some very frightening times ahead invadeing a country in such an unstable area withoutthe full backing of the UN is dangerous indeed. ;/

 

[Plonko]

Two points Opti.
1) You're right about the war in Afghanistan not having achieved it's initial aim but I think you will find that it hasn't actually finished yet.

2) The invasion of Iraq IS going to happen enentually and isn't it better that it happens soon rather than to wait whilst all the time Saddam is developing his weapons technology? The longer you wait the more difficult the job will be imo.

 

[ProPain]

1. The UN will probably support the USA if they attack.
(rules state that if one member is under attack all others will help)
1 year ago we promised to help, allready most are backing down
But if the weaponscheck in iraq is once more a big farce (which it clearly was the last time we checked, the usa will attack without a shadow of a doubt).

 

[MrMerc]

I think Saddam want's the US to attack, why? because then he will gather support from the countries around him, so Pakistan etc will be against the US

 

[ProPain]

attacking will be quite hard.
What he is doing now is undermining the USA by letting weapon inspectors now.
He is fighting a media war and atm he is winning it.
Bush looks like a complete arse atm (well he always did but now it is even more)

 

[Rich]

rules state that if one member is under attack all others will help

one member isnt under attack, we are attacking them thats the whole point we are makeing a preemptive attack on another country

on five live this morning they were talking about what woill happen when we attack, Iraq is about twice the size of the UK it is more than likly that saddam has his weapons hidden away were we will never find them and more to the point the attack isnt so much to get weapons its more to get, kill saddam

also as has been posted above the attack is without UN backing the UN will not back a preemtive strike on a country that has not attacked anyone in 10 years, as was said on the same radio show other arab countrys without vested US interests will rally to sopport Iraq and seeing as China and Russia have both stated there position on the issus the only 2 countrys who will be involved will be the US and the UK.

Saddam isnt a good guy im aware of that but i do not think attacking him without UN sanction and without agresion is right.

1 years ago countrys offered there support in getting Usama bin laden and stopping cross country terrorism, noone except the UK has offered there support in invading other countrys and over throwing leaders.

 

[Gen76]

im gonna re read this thread when i can be arsed(meaning not after a 13 hour workday),but i have been expecting this thread.

1.Y isnt saddam alllowed these kinda weapons,but USA, israel and awhole buncha other twats are?Sure hes a twat but thats not a good reason.
He did gas some kurdish ppl in the 80`s which is nasty.But that doens mean hell do it again(and i seriously doubt he will again)and u cant punish ppl for a crime they havent done.

And while we`re at it.Saddam may have chem and bio weapons(old tech which we know how to counter atack and protect from.

But what about israel (and a few others) who have genebased mass distruction weapon?wtf is that u say?
Well let me enlighten.Its a bomb like a gas attack which kills everything with a special gene sequence ie. u can target a race of ppl like arabs... and not kill any of say europeans who are in the same area.And israel also has several 100 neutron bombs...

 

[Ace]

Originally posted by Gen76
And while we`re at it.Saddam may have chem and bio weapons(old tech which we know how to counter atack and protect from.

You ever put an NBC suit on ?
How many ppl even have access to an NBC suit ?
U cant exactly protect against nbc that well, its clumsy as hell and u cant really fight very well with 1 on, le alone if it's hot.

Its already too late to counter attack and are u gonan use bio and chem weapons back just coz they started ?

 

[Gen76]

civilians wont have protection unless handed out.
as for nbc siut, yes i have and u can fight in 1.
Your points dont fit well in a abc war senario ace.if a infanterist would need 1 and had to fight in 1 that would mean the nme would also. or the infantry would never have been sent in.

 

[DraizeTrain]

Originally posted by Gen76

1.Y isnt saddam alllowed these kinda weapons,but USA, israel and awhole buncha other twats are?Sure hes a twat but thats not a good reason.

Why do u think? Hes attacked Isreal before so theres always the threat that if possible he'll do so again. Besides, why should the US allow one of its enemies to gain any kinds of weapons if it could prevent it.

When playing UT, do u share the ammo with the other team?

Originally posted by Gen76
He did gas some kurdish ppl in the 80`s which is nasty.But that doens mean hell do it again(and i seriously doubt he will again)

Should we forget that he did that? How about his brutal quashing of the Shi'is in the South by extensive flooding of their farm lands to effectively starve them? Shall we forget that too? Just brush it under the carpet eh cos it doesnt fit ur argument. Isnt it amazing how u remember so much about wrong doings by the Americans and Isrealis but when it comes to Iraq u personally wouldnt hold the murder of its own ppl against it.

Originally posted by Gen76
and u cant punish ppl for a crime they havent done.

This isnt like jailing some1 cos u think theyre going to rob a bank. The latest US stance is that Iraq is breaking international law by not complying with UN resolutions with regards to the manufacture of mass destruction weapons so technically they are commiting a crime.

I dont actually think its anything to do with this. The US has its eyes on a future Iraqi oil supply and they definately wont get that with Saddam in charge.

Originally posted by Gen76

And while we`re at it.Saddam may have chem and bio weapons(old tech which we know how to counter atack and protect from.

Are u suggesting that we let him obtain such weapons cos we can always `dodge the bullets'? How would u suggest that Tel Aviv protect itself from an Anthrax tipped ballistic missile?

Originally posted by Gen76
But what about israel (and a few others) who have genebased mass distruction weapon?wtf is that u say?
Well let me enlighten.Its a bomb like a gas attack which kills everything with a special gene sequence ie. u can target a race of ppl like arabs

There is no known evidence (in the open market) that this type of weapon actually exists. Yes there are rumours of its possible development...but they are only rumours.

 

[TexasTom]

hmm

Well the Americans did try and stop the Isrealis gaining a nuclear capability. It was the co operation of France that paved the way to Isreal having Atomic weapons. Isreal has stood attack from Scud missles etc from Iraq without unleashing even a limited response, and dont forget Neutron bombs, ARE NOT dirty bombs. They are low yield, clean weapons. Would Saddam have such self control?

As for the oil argument, its out of date. The Americans have long term agreements with Russia for an ever increasing amount of its oil. I think only 17% of US oil is now sourced from the middle East, most of this being from Saudi Arabia.

In afghanistan Europe had a hidden agenda, that is to move in abd polic the poppy fields, to try and reduce the Heroine influx Europe is suffering.

 

[DraizeTrain]

Re: hmm

Originally posted by TexasTom

As for the oil argument, its out of date. The Americans have long term agreements with Russia for an ever increasing amount of its oil. I think only 17% of US oil is now sourced from the middle East, most of this being from Saudi Arabia.

I dont agree Tom. Long term agreements with Russia with regards to oil supply arnt worth the paper they are written on...and what happens when the Russians pull the plug?

The US alone uses approx 25% of the Worlds oil `harvest' but only holds 3% within its own borders. It imports 50% from abroad and if it doesnt change its oil policy (which it shows no sign of doing) then its requirements could reach 66% by 2020.

65% of the Worlds oil reserves are situated beneath the Persian Gulf States.

http://www.ucsusa.org/releases/01-16-02.html

 

[TexasTom]

Well the question has to be, why would the Russians do that? The Americans have spent $billions to update and upgrade Russian supplies. The Russians have forged a deal with the biggest Oil importer in the world, just cant for see a reason they would want to stop Billions of dollars coming into Russia. And in the persian Gulf there is Saudi Arabia, the US and UK's biggest Middle Eastern Supplier. I really dont think this is about oil, saddam is an old man, if it was about oil they would simply sit it out and let him die. The oil would still be there.

This is about him spending billions of $ of illegal oil revenues on weapons research. He supposedly has Red Merucy, a cheap but effective alternative to Plutonium. He has been trying to by Centrifuge gas convertors, another source of fissible material.

The Americans arent worried about Saddam having these weapons and attacking them, cos he cant deliver them. They are scared of him sharing with Terrorists and also him attacking Isreal. If he was to attack Isreal with NBC weapons, their response would be, final. The whole region would erupt into disarray.

 

[DraizeTrain]

Originally posted by TexasTom
Well the question has to be, why would the Russians do that? The Americans have spent $billions to update and upgrade Russian supplies. The Russians have forged a deal with the biggest Oil importer in the world, just cant for see a reason they would want to stop Billions of dollars coming into Russia.

For the time being yeah the Russians will take the money...but remember, as they themselves upgrade, their own oil requirements grow. As global oil reserves dwindle nations will be more likely to hold on to what theyve got. The oil in Russia will be worth more to them than the money. A starving nation doesnt sell its food.

Originally posted by TexasTom
And in the persian Gulf there is Saudi Arabia, the US and UK's biggest Middle Eastern Supplier. I really dont think this is about oil, saddam is an old man, if it was about oil they would simply sit it out and let him die. The oil would still be there.

Ur right, the Saudis are the US's biggest supplier of oil but their relationship has always been a bit `tetchy' (too much US friendship doesnt go down to well with its neighbours) and i think they would like another big source.

Ur also right about Saddam being old...but who would he pass the power baton to? He appears to have a very strong hold on his country and that power would be passed to his sons who by all accounts are worse than him.

Tbh I agree that something has gotta be done about him due to his potential threat to the region and possible World security, but i think the US sees that as a secondary objective but its the 1 they wheel out to the press. Lets be honest, the US has actually benifited from him being there with his periodic sabre rattling cos theyve managed to sell shed loads of arms to the likes of Isreal/Kuwait/Saudi due to the fear factor. Now that those countries are armed to the teeth they announce that actually Saddams too dangerous to be left to his own devices and that he must be removed. Sounds like classic American foreign policy to me and they wonder why so many nations despise them.

 

[MrMerc]

Just think, with the US' disliking of Iraq's and other countries governments. What happens if they start to dislike England's, Scotland's or France's governments?, whats to stop them from invading other countries like us just because they don't like who's in charge?.

 

[TexasTom]

Well with Europe the thing that would stop them is the 200+ thermonuclear weapons us and the French have . But the question would be why would they invade their biggest trading partner. When the US wants something it doesnt go to war for it, it buys it. Its cheaper to do it that way.

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Gen76

as for nbc siut, yes i have and u can fight in 1.

Yes, you can. Provided by "fight" you mean:

1. Move everywhere at a slow walk.
2. Use specially adapted weapons and vehicles so that your clumsy gloved hands can use the controls..
3. Blablabla

One thing I do always find amusing though: Note how our leaders all have these fantastic, custom built impregnable underground shelters where they can survive for years if the shit really hits the fan.

Note how they justify this by saying that it is to "safeguard democracy".

How can you safeguard democracy if you leave the civillian voters exposed? I mean, leaders are easy to replace and 10 a penny. Millions of dead voters aren't easy to replace...

 

[jwer_NL]

just watched a program where a military advisor discussed the attack on iraq...

first, what is the main goal of the USA? it seems they want to kill or capture Saddam Hussein... Saddam is in the middle of a 6 million habitants populated city behind 10 meters of concrete... noone will get him there unless you either get lucky or get hundreds of thousands of soldiers in... Iraq's normal army has proven that they could defect and start a rebellion, or just not fight.. but iraq also has the elite national guard (estimated 26000 men) which is truly loyal and have shown they can and are willing to fight for Hussein...

The only chance the US would have of getting Saddam is provoking a rebellion vs him and let his own people get rid of him.. and the chance of that happening are rather slim...

Israel has said that if Iraq is going to attack them with abc weapons they will retaliate with nukes... what is there for Hussein to loose? if you gotta go, go with a bang...

if the US wants to attack Iraq they better know what they're doing else it's gonna turn into one big mess...

then again seeing from their point of view must they sit back and watch their enemy grow stronger and stronger, gaining more confidence every day and who knows one day attack?

hard....

 

[ProPain]

well you are right about saddam hiding in his own country.
and he has a lot of fake saddams walking around to confuse intelligence.

just remember a few things.
saddams so called bunkers are no longer of use.
In the beginning of 2002 the USA introduced new missiles which are capable of penetrating concrete and exploding on a depth they can determine.
of course a single missile won't do the trick but they should have enough of these missiles.

and second.
in the gulfwar iraq had the forth biggest army in the world.
yet his army and his elite surrendered when the tanks came rolling in.

Saddan is a dictator and his soldiers will follow him as long as they have to. But as soon as saddam will go into hiding where he can no longer scare his own soldiers.
thousands will defect.

 

[Rich]

Just remeber a few things like the Bunker busters used in afganistan that were so accurate they missed ther targets by allmost 1 mile and killed 40 people at a wedding?

or the other missles that whent ofcourse and allmost took out the new leader of the country thank god they missed him and only killed 5 of his new cabinet

oh and the marines that couldnt even get there because ther equipment wasnt up to it

or the US tanks that shot and distroyed the britsh tanks by mistake, or the tornados shot down by mistake or the rescue choopers that were shot down by mistake or the stopping of rescue flights to get the SAS and the Delta force teams out due to the US not wanting to look bad.