WHEN WILL THE US ATTACK IRAQ AND SHOULD THEY?

[shiner]

This is not an american issue, this is an Israeli issue.

No, it is a world issue. AS for where the reports of training camps in Iraq have come from. I've read and heard that they are coming from people that have left the country, and intelligence reports from various, not just American, organizations.

 

[nagger]

I don't agree with bombing Iraq just for the sake of killing/removing Saddam Husein from power.

I think that you americans should think long and hard on this subject because the true motives behind this invasion/assassination conspiracy is the amount of oil that Iraq has in it's soils.

Saddam hasn't got any type of missile that could reach the US, he doesn't pose any threat to the US or it's citizens right now.

This is MHO

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Iraq is no risk to the US in the least, zero

Wrong. Iraq is an exporter of terrorism and gives a lot of funding to terrorist organizations. Also there are reports that Al Queda, as well as Hammas, have been setting up training camps in Iraq. Turn a blind eye to it if you want, but don't come crying to me when another attack like 9/11 happens and you lose a loved one as a result of it.

Its no surprise that they support the palestinians, as with most other arab countries.

And what about the "reports" of al queda in Iraq? What a crock. Gee that couldn't be leaked from 'an anonymous source' in this administration could it be? What a nice propaganda ploy to get americans to buy into it - lets see some substantiating evidence of this.

This is not an american issue, this is an Israeli issue.

how do u know that the reports arent true?? do u know this for a fact? maybe you should be our president since u know what is fact and what is fiction!

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: nagger
I don't agree with bombing Iraq just for the sake of killing/removing Saddam Husein from power.

I think that you americans should think long and hard on this subject because the true motives behind this invasion/assassination conspiracy is the amount of oil that Iraq has in it's soils.

Saddam hasn't got any type of missile that could reach the US, he doesn't pose any threat to the US or it's citizens right now.

This is MHO

as 9/11 showed...u dont need missles that reach around the world...you dont need anything...all u need is a plane ticket.

 

[Alphathree33]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: nagger I don't agree with bombing Iraq just for the sake of killing/removing Saddam Husein from power. I think that you americans should think long and hard on this subject because the true motives behind this invasion/assassination conspiracy is the amount of oil that Iraq has in it's soils. Saddam hasn't got any type of missile that could reach the US, he doesn't pose any threat to the US or it's citizens right now. This is MHO

as 9/11 showed...u dont need missles that reach around the world...you dont need anything...all u need is a plane ticket.

And toenail clippers.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Well the crybaby left wingers that don't understand that people die in war will start whining.

Hopefully more than left wingers have the humanity to be concerned about innocent children dying. Its one thing to not target innocent people, and its another thing to not avoid them, such as Israels practice.

No, it is a world issue. AS for where the reports of training camps in Iraq have come from. I've read and heard that they are coming from people that have left the country, and intelligence reports from various, not just American, organizations.

This issue would be more influential in convincing other arab nations of our risk assesment of Iraq, however I think its a buncha crap to stuff americans with a pack of lies to support overthrowing the Iraqi government for Israel's security concerns. Links would be much more convincing than hearsay.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Iraq is no risk to the US in the least, zero

Wrong. Iraq is an exporter of terrorism and gives a lot of funding to terrorist organizations. Also there are reports that Al Queda, as well as Hammas, have been setting up training camps in Iraq. Turn a blind eye to it if you want, but don't come crying to me when another attack like 9/11 happens and you lose a loved one as a result of it.

Its no surprise that they support the palestinians, as with most other arab countries. And what about the "reports" of al queda in Iraq? What a crock. Gee that couldn't be leaked from 'an anonymous source' in this administration could it be? What a nice propaganda ploy to get americans to buy into it - lets see some substantiating evidence of this. This is not an american issue, this is an Israeli issue.

how do u know that the reports arent true?? do u know this for a fact? maybe you should be our president since u know what is fact and what is fiction!

What convinces you that these reports, whatever you're referring to, are true. Do you believe everything thats leaked out of this administration? I know you're not that stupid, so please identify the convincing sources.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

And when CNN starts showing images of dead iraqi children blown apart by american bombs, what do you think will happen to support for the war?

Well the crybaby left wingers that don't understand that people die in war will start whining.

Won't be just them, support will drop and Bush's rating along with it.

but we'll see. I'm just speculating...

 

[StattlichPassat]

I'm voting for after this year's elections as well- mid-November. Thanks for the awesome link, mindy999!

 

[Alphathree33]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: shinerburke

And when CNN starts showing images of dead iraqi children blown apart by american bombs, what do you think will happen to support for the war?

Well the crybaby left wingers that don't understand that people die in war will start whining.

Won't be just them, support will drop and Bush's rating along with it. but we'll see. I'm just speculating...

I think his ratings will go up for a month or so. The US population seems to get upset only by long, drawn out, losing wars. (Cough, vietnam, cough)

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: Xerox Man

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Early next year. About the same time Desert Storm started. That is the best time of year over there to launch an attack. As for if we should do it? Hell yes. When we're through with Iraq we need to take out Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and a few others.

That's nice of you to commit our people to something. My brother and best friend are in the Army. I sure as hell don't want to lose them because of cowboy attitudes like yours. :disgust:

I'm for it, and I agree with shinerburke on all counts. I can't wait for it to happen. Iran will be easy- most of the population WANTS us to overthrow their regime. We just knock off the government and that's about it. Large support for the U.S. to do something like that with minimal resistance. Target Iran: December 2003, anyone?

 

[Harvey]

I say, if you think we should do it at all with only what is known publically, you really don't know WTF you're asking for. Until you are ready to volunteer to spill your own blood, or get gassed or sickened by whatever would get tossed your way, you have no right to be cheerleading for a war without further information and far more justification.

Are you ready to tell us about the view from the inside of a body bag? :|

 

[charrison]

While all the armchair generals are out speculating, why not speculate on:

when, how many troops and major staging locations.

 

[shiner]

when, how many troops and major staging locations.

I've heard some of that from my cousin in the USMC. He spent three months in Kuwait recently scouting out areas for his tanks. Since then they have been in California playing war games in the desert. He spent some time back at the USMC War College(or whatever they call it) working on attack strategy and plans. He wouldn't give any exact numbers but said it was going to be huge and from multiple directions. Also told me he had heard, although unconfirmed, that SEALS and Rangers have been in Iraq since mid April.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I don't think this attack will be based on vague warnings, there is rock solid proof that Iraq is developing WMD and is working towards a nuke. Do you want someone like Saddam possesing a nuke? I don't. Plus if they develop one they will most likely sale or give the technology to terrorist groups. Maybe the rest of the world won't be with us. Well to them I say F off and hope we remember their actions, or lack of, next time they come crying to us for something. I also doubt this war would take more than 3-4 months maximum.

Where is this proof? The only thing the Bush administration has had to offer thus far is "Saddam is a bad man, we don't like him, he needs to go."

If they have tangible proof, show it to the American people. If they have proof, then I would have no problem supporting it.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI

Originally posted by: Xerox Man

Originally posted by: shinerburkeEarly next year. About the same time Desert Storm started. That is the best time of year over there to launch an attack. As for if we should do it? Hell yes. When we're through with Iraq we need to take out Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and a few others.

That's nice of you to commit our people to something. My brother and best friend are in the Army. I sure as hell don't want to lose them because of cowboy attitudes like yours. :disgust:

I'm for it, and I agree with shinerburke on all counts. I can't wait for it to happen. Iran will be easy- most of the population WANTS us to overthrow their regime. We just knock off the government and that's about it. Large support for the U.S. to do something like that with minimal resistance. Target Iran: December 2003, anyone?

yeah i think all you d have to do is seriously speak to the opposition groups, and get some of the air force tank and army colonels around tehran to go for it, and there wold be heads on sticks within a few weeks.

 

[radiocore]

If Saddamn is innocent...why won't he let the weapons inspectors in to look things over? It just seems to me that he's stalling. And everybody knows it. You think he would pass up the chance at giving the US a black eye?

As for invasion, I don't personally think that it would be a long dragged on war. The hardest part would be building the country back up after we bomb the hell outta them. =\

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison
While all the armchair generals are out speculating, why not speculate on:

when, how many troops and major staging locations.

Exactly, it took approx 6 months to setup for Desert Storm. Until massive amounts of troops start leaving the US, no major attack is near.

Shiner: California is a long way from Kuwait, post back when he's back in Kuwait.

Xerox: Yup, how do you trust an administration that tried to establish a misinformation buaracracy(sp) then said they didn't. Every week since 9/11 Rumsfeld and friends try to scare the bejeezes out of everyone with some imminent threat to a "target". The Bush admin has long made it clear that they hate Saddam/Iraq and it seems odd to me that they are the only ones who keep finding more dirt on Saddam/Iraq.


rbhawcroft: The southern opposition probably would be reluctant to accept US assistance after the Desert Storm fiasco(those who supported the US within Iraq were abandoned). The northern group(the Kurds) can't be supported because they are in conflict with Turkey, a fellow member of NATO.

 

[charrison]

sandorski,

You forget there has been almost a year since 9/11. It is very likely that supplies have been prepositioned.

 

[optoman]

In about a month

 

[sandorski]

Supplies without manpower is useless, that much supply would likely have been noticed as well.

 

[Superdoopercooper]

Hmm... I think the US will invade... but I don't think they should.

I used to think it was cool that the US was the "world policeman". But now, I've come to realize we really do it for the wrong (i.e. very selfish -> oil, etc) reasons. Also, this policing has everyone and their mom pissed off at us. Even countries we've helped from the brink of destruction this century (even the last decade) now think we are a bunch of yahoos.

I'm now of the opinion that we should just decide to be hands off for the next 10 years, and see what happens to the world then. And I don't mean just policing... I mean everything governmental. Quit the funding of other governments, arms sales, etc. [However "free" market trade should be continued -> hi-tech, cars, etc]. Then, I am thinking that other goverments, regimes, and countries will realized that while the US does have some "negative" influence on their cultures... their cultures and people are worse off w/o US intervention. Of course... there is the possibility that the world would end fairly quickly at that point (Packistan/India; Iraq/rest of middle east, whatever).

I'm just sick of the fact that my tax $$ go to help other countries and all that I read in the paper is about other countries moaning and wailing about the US sucking and being evil and stuff. Let's pull a switzerland... play hands off neutral for a while. We'll sit around... hang out with the mexicans and canadians... and drink Molson and Dos Equis and watch football/hockey/whatever.

 

[Random Variable]

I almost hope we do nothing, and Saddam does give a small thermonuclear bomb or maybe a few viles of smallpox to an international terrorist group so that the world will finally realize that you can't play nice-nice with madmen.

 

[HayabusaFIL]

Posting from my undisclosed location

Perhaps we need to attack Iraq. I do not like the idea, but there ya go. Be prepared for the fallout, nuclear or otherwise though. People who ought to know better keep comparing this to the Gulf War. Idiots. If you think invading a large populated area is the same as fighting a desert war, then I question your ability to think rationally. We have no idea what weapons exist there, but if tens of thousands of our soldiers are killed in battle, do not be suprised. Will this happen? Dont know, but if someone says no way, my reply is again- how do you KNOW what they are packing. Now if you say that 50,000 dead is acceptable, then at least I can respect your opinion as being thought out. If you refuse to admit the possibility, then you are indeed an idiot. It CAN happen. If it does not great, but you are lying to yourself if you say it cannot.

 

[HiveMaster]

Jesus, how much bullsh it do we have to endure here????

Fine, then he can go build bridges and earn money in Iraq. The money he earns there will be tax free. If you don't think that threatening the free flow of oil isn't a clear and present danger to the US, you are failing to see the big picture. It is vital to our economic security therefore our national security.

The only threat to free flowing oil is the Saudi Arabian government. Without the free flow of oil, Saddam and Iraq are dead in the water. The last thing Saddam wants to do is starve out his own people and get his ass killed.

Did you miss that thing called the Gulf War?

Oh, you mean that war started because Bush one's representative told Saddam that the US would sit on the side if they decided to invade Kuwait??? The war that resulted in massive profits for US companies involved in the cleanup afterward?

Do you think that if he goes unchecked, is allowed to continue to develop his WMD that the next time he won't stop with Kuwait?

Please pull out of your ass links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy has WMD. The rest of the world thinks that we have NO REASON to attack Iraq. Even the countries bordering Iraq do not think the country is a threat.

Maybe he'll try his luck with Iran again? or Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Oman? What do you think that would do to the flow of oil? Should we wait until he is firmly ensconced in one of those countries, with a more advanced WMD, and have to throw him out? I would say the cost of that in casualties would be lots higher than a premptive strike. I won't mention the terrorists activities they have taken part in.

Puh-lease. His so-called "army" fell all over itself surrendering to the UN troops the last time around. The troops have about as much incentive to fight for Saddam as I have. My worries about his invasion forces are ZERO.

Wrong. Iraq is an exporter of terrorism and gives a lot of funding to terrorist organizations. Also there are reports that Al Queda, as well as Hammas, have been setting up training camps in Iraq.

The MAIN funding source for terrorism on this planet is THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY. Of course nothing will happen to them since they have GW's dad's balls in a vice, and have been tied up with US politics for the last 20 years at least. Keep pointing fingers away from the real culprits if you want...but don't get American soldiers killed for it.

don't think this attack will be based on vague warnings, there is rock solid proof that Iraq is developing WMD and is working towards a nuke. Do you want someone like Saddam possesing a nuke? I don't. Plus if they develop one they will most likely sale or give the technology to terrorist groups. Maybe the rest of the world won't be with us. Well to them I say F off and hope we remember their actions, or lack of, next time they come crying to us for something. I also doubt this war would take more than 3-4 months maximum.

First of all, you have NO PROOF that Iraq has WMD. If you did, you would have posted a bunch of links showing how smart you are. Nuclear technology has been public knowledge for over 25 years, so who is Saddam going to sell nuclear secrets to? Terror-noobs???

Saying F off to the rest of the world is the exact attitude that put us in this mess. I know that Saddam is not a nice guy, but hey--if HIS PEOPLE want to overthrow him, then let them...but it is not up to the US to be the arbiters of world governments.

The only reason GW wants to invade is to keep his poll numbers up. If he REALLY wanted to go after the terror organization, he would invade Saudi Arabia and freeze all of their assets--that would be the quickest way to dry up terror funding. But you know that will NEVER happen.