Will we go to war with Iraq?

[Vance]

I wanted to hear some opinions of military/ex-military/military fanatic on if we will go to war with Iraq. When I say ''we'' I mean mainly the US, maybe Canada and Britian. Im not entirely sure, I mean all the evidence we have found so far are those empty missles......your thoughts?

[Ichhabe]

Do the bear **** in the wood?

[FallenAngel]

good lord man, have you seen the news lately? :roll: :bash:

Thurs I think it was, UN inspectors found empty artillery shells with "traces" of chem/bio weapon residue. That, to many politicans anyways, raises a hell of a big red flag.

Also, the US has a contingency plan- and I kid you not about this. If the UN inspectors find NOTHING....the US will go to the security council and say basically the following...

"Well, of course they didn't find anything! Saddam had months to hide this stuff while we debated this whole thing. That's why....he has already hidden them and now we MUST go in to find them..."

And don't even get me started on what will happen if Saddam fires on Israel again. They have said (Israelis) that they will not hold back this time. They will invade Iraq if nessicary. Only problem is that the Israelis would have to go through Syria and/or Jordan to get there....both of which are backed by Iran. Saudi Arabia is BORDERLINE on helping the US at all...and you can bet your sweet ass that if the evil jews and the imperialist west start pushing around poor undefended Islamic countries....well, the US, Israel, England, etc would be in for a world of hurt.

But, that's just a worst case senario.

Oh, but HERE is a mind-bender. Will the US assassinate Saddam? It's currently illegal under US law to assassinate foriegn leaders., but will they do it?

My personal opinion: Yes. They will either have a 3rd party ( british SAS?) do it....or we would "accidentally" drop 10 tons of high explosive on his presidential palaces....ALL of them

[Trigger]

I think we will go to war. I think we probably already have some kind of damning evidence and we're just letting the 'U.N. process' run it's course. Otherwise why the enormous buildup. As for Saddam, we hit buildings that we believed he might be in during Desert Storm. As their President/Commander in Chief he's a legit military target just like any general. However, as romantic as an SAS hit sounds we will use a dozen B-2s loaded with Big Blu 'bunker busters' on every suspected hideout and see if anything crawls out.

[hood]

I think Trigger's right, but it raises another problem, which we also encountered in Afghanistan. After dropping tons of bombs all over the place, you don't know who you've killed because nothing comes out of the hole and the whole place has been buried. In cases like Bin Laden, it makes it very difficult to know for certain if we've killed a particular target until they start issuing new fatwahs from some shack in Pakistan. The problem with a lot of people, is that they overestimate the capabilities of the U.S. military. Sure we're very impressive, but we're not all knowing and all powerful. We don't have the ability to insert a SpecOps team and have them take him out. Every single day, he has as many as 5-10 body doubles in identical cars, all driving around with full sets of guards going in various directions. Unfortunately the only way to win this conflict is through the front door.

[Trigger]

I think the biggest difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that after the initial air assault, if we manage to knock out Saddam or even if it is perceived that he's gone, you will see his troops and the population in general sing 'ding dong the witch is dead' and surrender/submit en masse to our follow on ground forces. In my humble opinion, those people know what were capable of militarily and socially. They want a Big Mac not a knuckle sandwich and the only thing in the way is the fear of Saddam and those who would do his will.

[snake6264]

Yes we are going to War but what I don't understand is that we can mass 500,000 troops for a guy like Saddam but yet we have not made much progress in the way of getting public enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden

Hell we have'nt commited ourselve to getting the real bad guys of the world why are we sooo worried about Saddam and his bunch of clown lackies

My 2 cents
Snake6264
:fork:

[Tubbs]

several good points are being made here. IMHO, the ideal situation is to have fellow Arab states take care of Saddam. However, the world is not that simple. The US has more Arab allies than many may think. Jordan has close ties with the west. Remember HRH Queen Noor who was married to the late King Hussein is American. President Mubarak of Egypt has pushed for diplomatic solutions and although Iran may be on the "Axis of Evil" list, they were at war with Iraq. Even within Iraq, the west has potential allies with the Shiite Muslims. They have long been opressed by Saddam's Suni's. If I were in charge (fortunately I'm not) I would not waste the SAS's time on an assasination attempt. I believe the Mossad can handle it. The question is will they???

What bothers me is that absolutely no one is saying anything about what happens after. If you're going to war, fine. The U.S. is probably going to win the war. However at this point they are going to lose the peace. Just like they did after the Gulf War.

Also... after this war, are troops then going to mass near North Korea? They have weapons of mass destruction! Then Pakistan after that? They have weapons of mass destruction! What about India??? hmm???

I don't thing Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction. It's about something else.

[rangerone]

Can the United States capture Saddam and charge him with war crimes and genocide for what he did to his own damn people? We did it with Noriega in Panama, but that was for drugs, so can't we do the same here?

[FallenAngel]

you would need one hell of a swat team to arrest Saddam. *IF* he is in Baghdad (one of the most heavily defended cities in the world these days...) then that's a hell of an ambitious mission. If he isnt there....well, your guess is probably as good as the CIA's 'cause he has mutiple body doubles, hiding places, etc.

and even IF we could find him and go for the arrest, I personally think he would off himself (a la Hitler) and make himself a martyr to those die-hards who follow him rather than face a court.

[Jedi]

Snake,
Your frustration with the build up against Iraq and the apparent lack of attention on OBL is not uncommon. Unfortunately, it does not take into account several factors.

The first is that we are, in fact, actively searching for OBL and other terrorist heads.
Secondly, keep in mind that we (the United States) has never once stated that they were after OBL. The fact of the matter is that taking him out of the equation would do little to prevent another terrorist attack.
Additionallly, it was just recently announced that JSOC would gain the ability to plan and execute missions on their own. This was not done to support a war with Iraq, but to support the #1 mission of preventing another terrorist attack.
Finally, by entering Iraq we are removing yet another hiding place for OBL and other terrorists. It is well known that Iraq has many high profile terrorist cells with extensive training camps.

As to Sadam being caught and tried vs. killing himself. I beleive that he would not take kill himself. He is extremely ego centric, and I believe that he would instead expect that his followers would continue his war on the US and free him.

But, who knows?

[Trigger]

What bothers me is that absolutely no one is saying anything about what happens after. If you're going to war, fine. The U.S. is probably going to win the war. However at this point they are going to lose the peace. Just like they did after the Gulf War.

Also... after this war, are troops then going to mass near North Korea? They have weapons of mass destruction! Then Pakistan after that? They have weapons of mass destruction! What about India??? hmm???

I don't thing Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction. It's about something else.

What do you think will happen after? We will occupy the country until a stable democratic form of government is established. Then maintain a garrison i.e. S. Korea, Japan, Germany etc. How is that 'losing the peace'? The Gulf War ended without us eliminating the Hussein regime (which by the way was not the stated goal of those military operations) so there was no peace to lose. We simply drove him out of Kuwait.
After this war...possibly N. Korea. Why? of the countries you mentioned they are the only one with WMD who are openly/actively belligerent toward us and others in their neighborhood.
If it's not about WMD but OIL instead, SO F'ING WHAT?! What does EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET RUN ON??
OIL is a legitimate reason to fight for.
I'm out

[Sirpad]

One thing is as sure as the fact that the sun shines: If the iraqis will try to **** with us israelis, it won't be good-boys-of-'91 again.
This time we'll give them a serious boot up their ass, with EXTREME prejudice... :bash:

I remember back then we crowded in the neighborhood bomb shelter, wearing gas masks, and praying it will be conventional - and not chemical - Scuds to fall on our heads.
Funny - there a great similarity between ballistic missiles and suicide bombers: there's little you can do to stop them once they are launched. and they both make a big BANG when they go off...

[Tubbs]

Personally, I don't think sending some of the finest men and women of America to fight and die so people like Trigger and myself can save a few cents on a gallon of gas is worth it. Besides, there is oil elsewhere in the world. The province of Alberta has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Except "we" and I mean that in the broad sense will find it too expensive to gas up the family SUV. Also, fuel prices are higher NOW than they were BEFORE the Gulf War.

And yes peace was lost because here we are twelve years later massing troops in the region AGAIN. There was a chance twelve years ago for regime change and we blew it.

If somebody asks you to fight for them, would you willingly go without question? Or would you ask why? American servicepeople deserve a damn good reason why they are being sent to Iraq and NO ONE has given them that.

[hood]

The oil reason is just one of many. I think his point was that the "it's just for oil" isn't a reason against war like some people like to believe it is. The idea of paying a few more cents per gallon to gas up your car also isn't really valid. You forget the shipping industry. You forget the power companies that burn truly incredible amounts of oil to power your home and gizmos; the chemical companies that use petroleums to produce all types of plastic products. It's not just a few more cents to fill up your car, it adds up to a lot of money when you combine the many things in your life that we all take for granted. Iraq as you said is not our primary supplier of oil, but there's trouble in other OPEC member states like Venezuela, where oil shipments have all but stopped because of civil unrest. Lastly, we messed up by not taking out Saddam Hussein back then. Why does that mean that we shouldn't finish the job now, when we have the chance? I'm not seeing that as a reason to hold back.

[Trigger]

Hood nailed it. Also, yes there's oil elsewhere...but who is drilling for it right now? How much is there? How long before any of it is delivered? Is there enough to offset the amount that would be lost if we ruled out Iraq's supply? Iraq (for those who think it's just about gassing up the Hummer) has the second largest supply in the world. I would rather fight one quick war and secure that supply, and I don't mean steal it, than wait til we're being strangled with it later. Yes I WOULD GO if I was needed, and it's not without a good reason. I defy Tubbs to find any American serviceman or woman who is whining about why we're going. EVERYBODY knows it's the right thing to do. Don't believe your fellow Canadian Peter Jennings when he tells you otherwise. :roll:

[Jedi]

It is important to keep in mind that if Iraq is allowed to develop WMD, they will use them to intimidate smaller countries into their war against the US. So we would not only loose the oil of Iraq, but Kuwait, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates.

It is all about oil... and the stability of the global economy. Drastic changes in the ownership of oil rights will have a fanominal destabalising effect on the global and the US economy.

Lets also look at the Iraq and Isreal factor. Many believe that Sadam would without a doubt use WMD on Isreal. This would create a large scale war between Israel and Iraq, most likely ending in the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, we should not forget that a war between these two would have to involve Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Now we are talking about a rather large multi country war. Imagine what effect this would have on the global economy.

[hood]

Not to belittle the conversation here, but I think North Korea just took a turn for the worse.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3902/kim_jong_ii.html

[Trigger]

lol, I bet that giant robot suit was made in China!

[Uber Lieutenant]

lol, I bet that giant robot suit was made in China!
If it's cheap and plastic, you know it's Chinese-manufactured lolol

[EvanL]

I don't think it will happen.

[MBG]

I don't think it will happen.

rofl Smartass rofl

[Aerosoul]

lmfao......

[towelie]

lmfao......

rofl:-P:grin::-D:-):backhand::slap:roflwoot:hug::cantbeli::petting::|

[Bombtrack]

I don't think it will happen.

I like the cut of your jib.

[Zarathustra]

I don't think it will happen.

What word did you use to search and bump that thread ?

[EvanL]

What word did you use to search and bump that thread ?
Zarathrusta is a homo.

[Beppo]

Reviving this thread woulda been funny until you consider that when it was first posted, thousands of other people (including 2,500 coalition soldiers) who are no longer on earth were probably wondering the same thing ("Will the US go to war with Iraq?"), and possibly hoping that we wouldn't.

[Hiroshima]

True... But then again, I laughed at those three insugents getting ambushed by one of our stealthy apache helecopters, so I'll giggle.

[redflash]

T stealthy apache helecoptersroflrofl
ok..now the old question, pix!!?

[Hiroshima]

It was a video where an apache was peeking at three insugents/gurrillas/morons from someplace..apparently they had walkmans or this thing was sitting off a good distance becaue they were going about their buisness of planting a bomb or two as if they weren't really paying attention to the helio in the area. First one to get wacked was walking back from what seemed to be either a pickup or an open topped car towards a big old truck. The second one got it when he was rooting in the back of the truck/car for something (it turned out to be an rpg from what I remember), and the third one got nicked as he dived behind the truck..he got hit again when the apache aimed just infront of the truck and fired...last I saw of him was he was on his back slowly stilling. In retrospect I shouldn't laugh, but seriously, if there's something going 'whopwhopwhopwhop' in the area, are you really gonna run the risk?

[AussieJohnDoe]

This thread delivers.

[Andreas]

This thread delivers.

You are just as bad as Mr. Loyd for bumping this stoneage thread.

[dacanadianbomb]

holy necropost EvanL

[Bombtrack]

Read the first page of posts though.. pretty interesting looking back on it now. Tubbs was pretty bang on.

[Pille1234]

Read the first page of posts though.. pretty interesting looking back on it now. Tubbs was pretty bang on.
Absolutely. There are several old threads I enjoy reading with hindsight. Esspecially interesting if you hear people say today that "everyone believed" or "noone could have imagined" etc... Really eyeopening.

[Trident-za]

Absolutely. There are several old threads I enjoy reading with hindsight. Esspecially interesting if you hear people say today that "everyone believed" or "noone could have imagined" etc... Really eyeopening.

Indeed, I was looking a couple of days ago at my first few posts. Here is the earliest one I can find ( was made in response to the killing of 4 US troops in an ambush. Post made on 06/16/2003:




This is just the start, I'm afraid (I know it's been going on for 3 months or so, but its nowhere near ended). Just after the war "offically" ended I sent an email to one of the staff members of Defense Watch saying that , despite the military victory, the US had embarked on a path which will ultimately lead to a loss in the middle east, and the downfall of the US "Empire". I predicted that after a few weeks, the US military would start to take loses from random terrorist attacks, which whould gradually increase in frequency and skill, and may continue for the next 20-30 years. Ultimately, the US will be worn down, and they will go home.

Although I have no doubt that America has superior military forces (and the moral highground), I see this as inevitable for a number of reasons. First, economically, the US cannot afford to maintain the necessary military forces in these countries (including Afghanistan) for the next 20 years. The US economy is already under pressure, and all this military activity costs BIG bucks.

Secondly, and more importantly, I feel that the US leadership has underestimated the affect of "cultural differences". I know all about these, living in Africa. Trust me, the majority of the Arab world has absolutley nothing in common with America, apart from obvious anatomical simililarities. Ive seen many posts recently about how Africa is "screwed" etc. etc. True. And its because of cultural differences.

Did you know for instance, that although the vast majority of Iraqis are glad to see Saddam go, they do not feel they owe America any thanks? Afterall, it was Allah's will, not America, that removed Saddam. The American troops were merely Allah's tool. These people are happy to see Saddam go, but that doesn't mean they want US style democracy, and a MacDonalds on every corner. If you don't believe me, go ask any Zimbabwe/Liberia/Congo citizen if they want America to dictate how there country operates. They don't share your value system.

Saddam will be replaced by another just like him, who will initially (just like Saddam himself) be trained by America, and who will ultimately turn on the US. You cannot possibly win a war against a culture like this - you can only temporarily scare them into submission. (and even that is not working too well)


And another early post, in the midst of a thread where I took a LOT of flack (06/24/2003):



I see this whole topic is going nowhere fast. Beowulf, I know that Hood helped create this site, and I respect him too. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I apologize if that offends you. And, as it seems that my remarks have been misinterpreted somewhat, I apologize to Hood for any offence which I may have caused - that was not my intention.

I would like to clear up one point, and then make a suggestion. The comment I made about the the US being a big buyer of Iraqi oil was a side issue, more a matter of interest than a point vital to my argument. I did not bother to check how much oil the US used to buy from Iraq because quite frankly it seemd irrelevent to the point I was trying to make. (I believe my point was that this anti-american activity is not going to go away because of oil exports, or water and electricity being available)

My suggestion: lets all make a prediction about when the US troops will withdraw from Iraq. If you read my posts again you should see that the whole issue is about how long this war/peace will go on for. However, all the comments above (from all of us) are not going to have any impact on reality - whether you choose to believe Hood's approach or not will make any difference. So, to prevent this turning into a huge flame war over individual opinions, lets all make a prediction, and leave it that.

My prediction: the US will still be in Iraq in June 2007 (I know this is only 4 years from now, so no smart-ass remarks about my math are required ).

As I've stated before, I hope I'm wrong, actually. I am not putting this here because I disrespect Hood/America/Congress/the military. I'm just calling it as I see it - really sorry if this offends you. If it turns out that the US military are gone within a year, I will heave a sigh of relief, and then come post here and say to Hood "Sorry mate, you were right"



It's actually kind of depressing to see some of these old posts.

[ElHombre]

It's actually kind of depressing to see some of these old posts.

Agreed.

1234567890

[Dronetek]

Indeed, I was looking a couple of days ago at my first few posts. Here is the earliest one I can find ( was made in response to the killing of 4 US troops in an ambush. Post made on 06/16/2003:



And another early post, in the midst of a thread where I took a LOT of flack (06/24/2003):




It's actually kind of depressing to see some of these old posts.

This is interesting, but even Rumsfield said it would be a "long, hard, slog."

[Trident-za]

This is interesting, but even Rumsfield said it would be a "long, hard, slog."

Yes, that is true. So perhaps a better question would be: what was Rumsfield saying in June 2003? I have no idea, actually... but I bet it wasn't along the lines of "it will be a long, hard slog".

Not that means anything, of course. My concern at the time of the initial post was that either the "powers that be" where were being unbelievably naive, or where choosing not to believe that the situation was complicated. My concerns today aren't much different. Does the current strategy reflect a realistic approach to what has proven to be an incredibly complicated situation? You will know better than me... I have limited access to US news.