Desert Storm 2

[Starkey]

With the Iraqi war seeming inevitable and due to start tomorrow night, I want your opinion on the above poll. I think it will be 3 days of HEAVY BOMBING, plus 4 days of ground battle, max.

I´d also like to know if you think that Bush and Blair will come out of the war as heroes or villains.

Personally, I think they should have shown more proof of Iraqi´s so called *weapons of mass destruction*. It was an error, in my opinion, to ignore the Security Council, demoralizing an institution whose rules were made mainly by the U.S. and its allies.

I think this war will be good for the Iraqis, who will be free of a bad dictator, but the war will also spark massive international terrorism and also increase the tension on the Medium East. War is NEVER the best option, and I think there´s no immediate threat in Iraq for the Western nations right now.

Last but not least, it disturbs me seeing Bush talking *in the name of God*, calling himself "good" and everyone who doesn´t like him "evil". I´ve heard that story in the Middle Age, when Kings proclaimed that they were doing God´s will, for they were Gods on Earth.

Finally,

 

[ChrisReid]

As I've said many times, that sign quote is one of the silliest things ever. Lack of war is not necessarily peace.

 

[Starkey]

ok, but bombing in the name of peace doesn´t make sense, specially when there´s no immediate danger. Saddam doesn´t pose a threat now and, if weren´t for U.S.´s diplomatic blunders - which put the country in a situation that if it doesn´t go to war now, it will seem like a defeat - inspections could go on for months without any danger of Iraq harming the Western countries.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

ok, but bombing in the name of peace doesn´t make sense, specially when there´s no immediate danger. Saddam doesn´t pose a threat now and, if weren´t for U.S.´s diplomatic blunders - which put the country in a situation that if it doesn´t go to war now, it will seem like a defeat - inspections could go on for months without any danger of Iraq harming the Western countries.

It's a fun word trick, but it doesn't hold water. Modern weaponry exists *specifically* to create peace. Bombing for peace is like eating for nutrition. A well devised military campaign can *certainly* create peace -- just look at how we resolved the situation in Serbia/Yugoslavia/whateveritscallednowsville.

 

[Starkey]

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Yeah, but there you had an ongoing war, and entered it (with the approval of the Security Council, BTW) to stop the war. Now Bush is *supposing* that Saddam has chemical weapons and will start a war for that. I really don´t think that´s going to make the world more peaceful, it will only enrage those Allah-fanatics even more

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Starkey
With the Iraqi war seeming inevitable and due to start tomorrow night, I want your opinion on the above poll. I think it will be 3 days of HEAVY BOMBING, plus 4 days of ground battle, max.

well, all that happens tomarrow night is saddam's time limit runs out. however, if we don't hit em soon, the weather conditions will turn against us and could delay the war for months. but my prediction is that the war will last 2-3 weeks, if any iraqi military forces run and hide in the cities. if they don't, or better yet, if they do the smart thing and surrender, the ground war, which will probably be launched at the same time as the air war, will only last a couple days

I´d also like to know if you think that Bush and Blair will come out of the war as heroes or villains.

IMO, they won't be either

Personally, I think they should have shown more proof of Iraqi´s so called *weapons of mass destruction*. It was an error, in my opinion, to ignore the Security Council, demoralizing an institution whose rules were made mainly by the U.S. and its allies.

they've shown all the proof that they need. but remember, the war just isn't about WMDs. it has been proven that iraq is in material breach of multiple UN resolutions (don't even start with israel Napoleon); resolutions which promise 'severe consequences' (which in diplo speak means military force) if broken. as for the security council, it has done the damage to itself. any institution that has to debate if they will follow through on what they say, and the worst thing they do is pass another resolution isn't worth the paper it's charter is printed on

I think this war will be good for the Iraqis, who will be free of a bad dictator, but the war will also spark massive international terrorism and also increase the tension on the Medium East. War is NEVER the best option, and I think there´s no immediate threat in Iraq for the Western nations right now.

well, it's not like that if we don't go to war we'll be at any less risk from terrorism and middle east tension is already high. and you're right: war is never the best option, but sometimes it is the only option, and this is one of those cases. it is clear now that there are many countries in the world that have to learn there is some problems that CAN'T be solved diplomatically

 

[ChrisReid]

I'm not necessarily sure war is the only option now.. we can appease and delay for a year or two probably until another major terrorist strike. But really, in the long run, it'll be much better for everyone (except Saddam Hussein) if we go in now. Terrorists don't appear because we topple a regime and start shipping in food and rebuilding a country. Terrorists come from poor disenfranchised youth being manipulated by the few that have power in 3rd world countries.

 

[Starkey]

Originally posted by Aries
however, if we don't hit em soon, the weather conditions will turn against us and could delay the war for months.

So much for the modern weaponry...

they've shown all the proof that they need.

Such as?

but remember, the war just isn't about WMDs. it has been proven that iraq is in material breach of multiple UN resolutions (don't even start with israel Napoleon); resolutions which promise 'severe consequences' (which in diplo speak means military force) if broken.

It could mean a lot of things: embargoes, inspections, not only war. Also, UN inspectors say they have been allowed to inspect anywhere they want to, and interviews were being made with iraqi scientists, in private.

as for the security council, it has done the damage to itself. any institution that has to debate if they will follow through on what they say, and the worst thing they do is pass another resolution isn't worth the paper it's charter is printed on

That´s not what the majority of the Council (and the rest of the world) thinks. I say it again: Iraq is not a threat now, inspections could go on for months and no harm would be made to Western countries by Saddam.

it is clear now that there are many countries in the world that have to learn there is some problems that CAN'T be solved diplomatically

Yes, many of them... MOST of them. U.N. is supposed to be a democracy and, in a democracy, the MAJORITY makes the call. So, if the majority of the Security Council (and U.N. as a whole) doesn´t want war now, the minority should listen.
The regime where the STRONGEST decides what´s right and what´s wrong is called DICTATORSHIP.

Originally posted by Chris Reid
I'm not necessarily sure war is the only option now.. we can appease and delay for a year or two probably until another major terrorist strike.

I don´t think a war against Iraq will stop terrorist strikes, on the contrary. Those people hate the U.S. for several reasons, one of them being the use of massive force every time U.S.´s (economic, security, etc.) interests are jeopardized. U.N. could solve the situation more peacefully by sending lots of inspectors to Iraq, and using those billion dollars that are being spent buying weaponry to send supplies, build schools, homes, and sending a little of HOPE for those (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) people, instead of more bombs and guns.

I hate Saddam and I think he should die. Don´t start a war for that, though. Send in some 007 to poison his food, then work in the background to put the opposition in power. Where´s the CIA when you need it?
If U.S. carries the Iraqi opposition to the presidency, they won´t last there as much as an opposition that rises to the top by its own strength (with a little foreign intel support, of course). You don´t change all the terrorists in the world by deposing a dictator only. That will only set fire on their anger. You have to make those people fight for their freedom, they won´t know what to do with it if they get it as a gift.

 

[LeHah]

I agree with us going over there and bombing Saddam's ass. Considering theres even slight evidence that he has WMDs, we should've been more aggressive in disarming him. He's never shown anything of himself except being a loose canon. We have no reason to trust him for anything.

12 years is 11 years too long to disarm.

I never agreed with Bush's "Cowboy" approach to this. He sounds too righteous and far too "We're the good guys" to be completely right. However, it'll definitely put my mind at ease once Saddam is gone and (hopefully, probably) soon to be followed by Bush.

Yeah, Bush may be pushy. But Saddam must want this if he's not complying. I also love how some German Conservative said that Bush was defying international law by waging war against Iraq; yeah, well, Saddam has his buildings surrounded by "innocent" civilians. Boy, since when is human sheilds allowed by international law?

 

[Aries]

Re: Re: Re: Desert Storm 2

Originally posted by Starkey
So much for the modern weaponry...

actually, it's not as much as the weaponry as it is the ability to move it. the army is most concerned with the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates (sp?) and the rainy season is comming. the bridges could be washed out, or destroyed by the iraqis, which would slow up any ground campaign

Such as?

such as the fact that they haven't provided the documentation of much of their stores of Anthrax and VX, i believe the two major ones. if they destroyed them, as they claim, why would they not turn over the documentation that proves it? simple, they didn't destroy them and they want to try to hide them.
the inspectors found those chemical weapons warheads, which were in 'good' condition. i've said this before, but military equipment isn't in 'good condition' unless it was made recently or has been maintained since it was made. they didn't just forget about them. both choices indicate that the iraqis either have or are in the process of getting chemical weapons.

It could mean a lot of things: embargoes, inspections, not only war. Also, UN inspectors say they have been allowed to inspect anywhere they want to, and interviews were being made with iraqi scientists, in private.

they were already doing embargoes and inspections, both of which didn't work. and when did you see that thing about the inspectors. everything i've seen says they were allowed to look anywhere they wanted, but not that thing about the scientists. and anyway, it isn't the inspectors jobs to search for the weapons. it is their job to inspect the destruction of said weapons.

That´s not what the majority of the Council (and the rest of the world) thinks. I say it again: Iraq is not a threat now, inspections could go on for months and no harm would be made to Western countries by Saddam.

well, since the majority of the council and the rest of the world are for debating if the council should back up what it says and of not doing anything except passing another spineless resolution that saddam will just laugh away, of course they are gonna think that they arn't a useless institution. i'm sure the league of nations thought they were usefull too

Yes, many of them... MOST of them.

just one more reason the UN is useless. there are times when you just have to say, 'enough is enough'. the UN clearly cannot do that.

U.N. is supposed to be a democracy and, in a democracy, the MAJORITY makes the call. So, if the majority of the Security Council (and U.N. as a whole) doesn´t want war now, the minority should listen.
The regime where the STRONGEST decides what´s right and what´s wrong is called DICTATORSHIP.

and if the majority says everyone should jump off a cliff, should the minority still listen. because that is, in essence, the UN is saying. the majority chooses to ignore the problem (yes, giving iraq a million 'last chances' is ignoring the problem), while the minority chooses to solve the problem. if the US and our allies choose to wait with the rest of the UN, by the time the majority chooses to do something about it, it will be too late

 

[Starkey]

Originally posted by Aries
the UN is useless.

Hitler thought the same thing about the Nations League before WWII.

Originally posted by Aries
if the US and our allies choose to wait with the rest of the UN, by the time the majority chooses to do something about it, it will be too late

Thanks for making my point, Aries. I won´t even care to answer the rest of whatever you said. You think just like the Bush administration: "Either you agree with us or you´re our enemy". The "majority" of U.N. is not a bunch of illiterate people. We´re talking about France, Germany and many other civilized countries who deserve to be listened to. Next time your Congress raises your taxes, order the closing of the Congress, because the majority who raised the taxes is stupid for not agreeing with you. You seem not to actually know what democracy really means.

Originally posted by LeHah
12 years is 11 years too long to disarm.

That´s true. The U.S. and UK should had done that in the last war, when they had control of the country. Now, after they cut back on inspections, after they let Saddam grow strong again, they are pressing him to disarm. I like Clinton, but I think that was pretty much his fault.
I will say it again just one more time: If U.N. keep a strong inspections schedule on Iraq for the next months, any hidden weapon will eventually show up and Iraq won´t be using those weapons as long as U.N. keeps the knot tight on them, which they should have done 12 years ago.

Originally posted by LeHah
I also love how some German Conservative said that Bush was defying international law by waging war against Iraq; yeah, well, Saddam has his buildings surrounded by "innocent" civilians. Boy, since when is human sheilds allowed by international law?

Saddam is a dictator, a moron and an evil person who has no respect for international laws. That doesn´t give Bush the right to be like him.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Hitler thought the same thing about the Nations League before WWII.

Oh, well, if *Hitler* thought so, then Bush must be Hitler! Thanks for showing us the error of our ways, Worlds Stupidest Man!

For obvious reasons, this especially stupid thread is closed.

Stupid.