Can someone explain this to me (about US vs Iraq)

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What do you think the consequences of going to War and kicking the sh!t out of Iraq and their Military will be? Will it make the region more secure and stable? How do we go about adminstering the country to make sure it doesn't turn into a hotbed of Anarchy and Fundamentalist Radicalism? If it does how do we go about preventing some of those WMD Caches he has hidden all over Iraq from ending up in the hands of those who support Al Qeada?

All of those can be turned around and directed to the one who asks.

I don't have the answers. I am a Computer Tech for God's sake. I know for a fact though that if we do nothing then the WMD will end up in the hands of those that support the destruction of all that is not Islam. I have personal thoughts as to why this war is needed too and those are not at question here.

The fact is, if we don't do anything, all of your questions you posted above wont matter. WMD will get to Radical's, The region will not (and never will in my opinion) be more stable than it is right now, The country currently has a radical in power. If we go in and try, at least the U.S. wont be to blame when other countries (like Canada) are brought into the front lines of terrorism.

Do you really think we should sit back and wait for ANOTHER attack on our country? Saddam has said publicly what he wants to do to the U.S and he has the ability to carry it out. Should we wait for him to do it and then attack after more have died? I think that if the leader of a country states that they are going to destroy another country, then they should either back up their words or retract them D@MN quick. What would you think China would do if we flat out said "We will drop nuclear weapons on main land China and make their days nights and nights hell." I promise you they wouldn't sit on a beach with a drink in hand waiting for us to show up, having anti China demonstrations in Bejing(sp?).

First of all Iraq doesn't have the capability to deliver a Nuclear strike on the US and even if he did it would be suicide. If theres one thing he's demonstrated over the years it's his instinct for survival. Secondly he's never said he was going to attack our Homeland, most of his blustery Saber Rattling has been in response to our threats of invasion. And if we do wipe out the Iraqi Government we need to make sure that we have control of all his caches of WMD's or it's a certainty that those with no qualms about using it against us will get possession of some of them


All that aside, he's definately a pain in our ass and obviously unstable because if he had any common sense he'd agree with our demands and try to cozy up with us like he did in the early 80's. If there is anything that is certain it's that the US will tolerate a Despot Dictator as long as he's on opur side. If we are going to get rid of him we better make damn sure that it will make things better. Him retracting his worthless rhetoric is a non issue. His threats mean about as much as some wanker threatening to kick your ass over the Internet.

Red, I partially agree with you but wankers on the internet don't control a large army. They don't have(at least I hope the ones I have pissed off don't have) chemical or biological weapons. All it would take is one person with an aerosol can or even deliberately infected (such as small-pox) to spread a disease throughout the US. Iraq has that capability. It would also be very difficult to impossible to trace it back to Iraq. Do not discount so flippantly his threats.

My point is that if we are going to attack him we better have plans to make sure we can attain access to every single one of his hidden caches of WMD's or it could be a total execise in futility. If we don't then we should hold off until it's possible to do so.A tatical error here could have dire consequences. There's no question that we can rout his army but there is a question on whether we can manage the situation after we do.

 

[etech]

Red

My point is that if we are going to attack him we better have plans to make sure we can attain access to every single one of his hidden caches of WMD's or it could be a total execise in futility. If we don't then we should hold off until it's possible to do so.A tatical error here could have dire consequences. There's no question that we can rout his army but there is a question on whether we can manage the situation after we do.

If we don't attack him and he uses them on the US or Israel, what is the difference. Either way we're fvcked.

Of course you are making the assumption that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Bluga
Because US government's "evidences" are all LIES.

You're right. How could I have been so narrow minded to think that Iraq could be doing something wrong... My bad. Once again.. those pesky Americans are pulling one over on me.




On a side note... Red, thanks for the intelligent conversation. It is something laking in many threads here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Bluga
Because US government's "evidences" are all LIES.

You're right. How could I have been so narrow minded to think that Iraq could be doing something wrong... My bad. Once again.. those pesky Americans are pulling one over on me.




On a side note... Red, thanks for the intelligent conversation. It is something laking in many threads here.

Well give me time as I'm sure I will stoop to personal insults

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Bluga
Because US government's "evidences" are all LIES.

You're right. How could I have been so narrow minded to think that Iraq could be doing something wrong... My bad. Once again.. those pesky Americans are pulling one over on me.

The two are not mutually-exclusive, fool.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech
Red

My point is that if we are going to attack him we better have plans to make sure we can attain access to every single one of his hidden caches of WMD's or it could be a total execise in futility. If we don't then we should hold off until it's possible to do so.A tatical error here could have dire consequences. There's no question that we can rout his army but there is a question on whether we can manage the situation after we do.

If we don't attack him and he uses them on the US or Israel, what is the difference. Either way we're fvcked.

Of course you are making the assumption that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.

I don't believe that he is going to use them on us or Israel unless we attack him first.

To bad he isn't like the Sadam of old who could be bought off by us. Hell he was willing to sacrifice a million Iraqi's in a war with Iran for our weapons technology. I wonder what's gotten into him

 

[bsobel]

To bad he isn't like the Sadam of old who could be bought off by us. Hell he was willing to sacrifice a million Iraqi's in a war with Iran for our weapons technology. I wonder what's gotten into him

Probably nothing, I'm sure he could still be bought off. But then again we need a bad guy we can actually go find...

Well give me time as I'm sure I will stoop to personal insults

If this thread provided nothing, at least I got a new signature out of it.
Bill

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Well give me time as I'm sure I will stoop to personal insults

If this thread provided nothing, at least I got a new signature out of it.
Bill

You are rather easily entertained..even for a Neff!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech
Red

My point is that if we are going to attack him we better have plans to make sure we can attain access to every single one of his hidden caches of WMD's or it could be a total execise in futility. If we don't then we should hold off until it's possible to do so.A tatical error here could have dire consequences. There's no question that we can rout his army but there is a question on whether we can manage the situation after we do.

If we don't attack him and he uses them on the US or Israel, what is the difference. Either way we're fvcked.

Of course you are making the assumption that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.

I don't believe that he is going to use them on us or Israel unless we attack him first.

To bad he isn't like the Sadam of old who could be bought off by us. Hell he was willing to sacrifice a million Iraqi's in a war with Iran for our weapons technology. I wonder what's gotten into him

Saddam started the war with Iran before the US was involved with him. He did not start it to get our weapons technology. When the Iranians started beating him and it looked as if Iraq might lose is when the US stepped in to help. The fear of the Islamic fundies taking over Iraq was rather frightening to the US.

Saddam was not "our boy" in the Mid East. The US did not put him into power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech
Red

My point is that if we are going to attack him we better have plans to make sure we can attain access to every single one of his hidden caches of WMD's or it could be a total execise in futility. If we don't then we should hold off until it's possible to do so.A tatical error here could have dire consequences. There's no question that we can rout his army but there is a question on whether we can manage the situation after we do.

If we don't attack him and he uses them on the US or Israel, what is the difference. Either way we're fvcked.

Of course you are making the assumption that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.

I don't believe that he is going to use them on us or Israel unless we attack him first.

To bad he isn't like the Sadam of old who could be bought off by us. Hell he was willing to sacrifice a million Iraqi's in a war with Iran for our weapons technology. I wonder what's gotten into him

Saddam started the war with Iran before the US was involved with him. He did not start it to get our weapons technology. When the Iranians started beating him and it looked as if Iraq might lose is when the US stepped in to help. The fear of the Islamic fundies taking over Iraq was rather frightening to the US.

Saddam was not "our boy" in the Mid East. The US did not put him into power.

Hmm I know we didn't put him in power but do you have a link to any document that proves what you say regarding your other statements?

 

[etech]

Red

Hmm I know we didn't put him in power but do you have a link to any document that proves what you say regarding your other statements?

Red, you should know by now that I do.

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

"Gradual Superpower Involvement

Iranian military gains inside Iraq after 1984 were a major reason for increased superpower involvement in the war. In February 1986, Iranian units captured the port of Al Faw, which had oil facilities and was one of Iraq's major oil-exporting ports before the war.

In early 1987, both superpowers indicated their interest in the security of the region. Soviet deputy foreign minister Vladimir Petrovsky made a Middle East tour expressing his country's concern over the effects of the Iran-Iraq War. In May 1987, United States assistant secretary of state Richard Murphy also toured the Gulf emphasizing to friendly Arab states the United States commitment in the region, a commitment which had become suspect as a result of Washington's transfer of arms to the Iranians, officially as an incentive for them to assist in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon. In another diplomatic effort, both superpowers supported the UN Security Council resolutions seeking an end to the war.

The war appeared to be entering a new phase in which the superpowers were becoming more involved. For instance, the Soviet Union, which had ended military supplies to both Iran and Iraq in 1980, resumed large-scale arms shipments to Iraq in 1982 after Iran banned the Tudeh and tried and executed most of its leaders. Subsequently, despite its professed neutrality, the Soviet Union became the major supplier of sophisticated arms to Iraq. In 1985 the United States began clandestine direct and indirect negotiations with Iranian officials that resulted in several arms shipments to Iran.

By late spring of 1987, the superpowers became more directly involved because they feared that the fall of Basra might lead to a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in largely Shia-populated southern Iraq. They were also concerned about the intensified tanker war. "