StarDestroyer.Net BBS

With the war on Iraq gathering moment, and the media jumping on the pro-war bandwagon, I had to stop and think. Now before I go any further I would like to state that I am not a pacifist, and have no problem with military action being used when necessary. And for my Sci-Fi I’m Imperial through and through

But as I watched reports of thousands of US troops being deployed to the gulf region, I had to wonder whether this is necessary. AFAIK there has been no concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction in progress, or any expansion from Iraq into neighbouring countries. Apart from taking pot-shots at allied planes, the Iraqi’s seem to be more or less behaving themselves. At what stage did this nation suddenly become the focus of the “war on terror”? (Gods I hate that term, sorta self defeating really)

Do we have viable evidence to presume that Saddam sanctioned the terrorist attacks? Did he support them, financially or with training or shelter? Has he essentially thumbed his nose at the world by openly giving rest and succor to these criminals? Maybe I have to do some more research, but what I have read/seen so far isn’t giving a very good case for punitive action.

At the same time, we have Indonesia, who more or less openly harbours these people, and in general is totally ineffective against these groups. Granted they have made some arrests, but their overall punishment is yet to be determined. Personally I don’t think much will happen to them. Also, there is North Korea, a nation with a large armed force and nuclear capable. Currently they are rattling their sabres in a more aggressive stance than Iraq is. Yet the troops are committed to the gulf. Gods forbid North Korea makes good on its threats, because the US military will find itself very off balance, and have to redeploy back to that region rapidly.

The UN inspectors do not seem to have found much concrete proof of Iraqs weapons program. Granted I think the UN is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle, but these experts should at least be given a chance to discover IF there is these weapons in production. If they are, with solid proof, sure, go in and smash the factories and installations, destroy their weapons creation capability, and totally crush their armed forces so they are a threat no more.

But invasion? With a view to a possible US protectorate being established? This is extreme. And if it does come about, will that set a new precedent for US foreign policy? What about the casualties that the allied forces will take, if the decision is to completely control Iraq? House to House fighting and CQB always results in heavy casualties and is definitely not good for public opinion

Is it all necessary? Surely there are other nations more deserving of this kind of attention? I know its been stated by some people that this isn’t about terror, but oil. I hope not, if so this is just corporate expansionism, using a nations resources and lives so others can be rich…bah…

To end I would like to state that I am not a conciencous objector. If my country (Australia) decides to join in a military assault on Iraq or wherever, and I am called up, I will do my duty to the best of my ability. But, this war just seems uncalled for to me, and certainly not as yet justified.

Exactly what I think. Bush's more interested in corporate profit than sustaining small-scale capitalism.

I think what Bush is interested in is using this war in Iraq as a way to mask our own screwed-up economy and swiftly disappearing freedoms. Wag the dog...

Maybe it sounds trite Dalton, but that sounds a lil like a small european country around 1938...I know it wont reach that far ( I hope ) but its kinda similar

I fucking hope this entire war isnt just a political ploy by bush to divert attention away from home problems. If so that mans ego and arrogance will be legendary..if it already isnt. How in Thrawns name do that potoato-headed hick become head of your nation?

Not that I can talk....christ we have Howard..(Eyebrows....Eyebrows!!! I BURRN!!)

Dalton wrote:I think what Bush is interested in is using this war in Iraq as a way to mask our own screwed-up economy and swiftly disappearing freedoms. Wag the dog...

The economy was starting to go into the shitter in early 2000.....can we
say "smoke and mirrors" economy sustained by the bullshit tech market?

And besides if we want to talk WAG THE DOG, what about Slick Willie. He
launched a shitload of TLAMS off at an asprin factory when his impeachment
hearing was kicking off

pellaeons_scion wrote: Apart from taking pot-shots at allied planes, the Iraqi’s seem to be more or less behaving themselves. At what stage did this nation suddenly become the focus of the “war on terror”? (Gods I hate that term, sorta self defeating really)

I'd define pot shots as small caliber fire, couple 23mm rounds blasted off by some minor outpost, that sort of thing. You seem to define Roland/SA-3/6/8 launches, medium caliber AAA fire from batteries and fighter sorties, what iraq has beeing doing/using as pot shots.

Intresting. So what would be deliberate fire to you? A salvo of nuclear armed SA-5's?

pellaeons_scion wrote: How in Thrawns name do that potoato-headed hick become head of your nation?

Same way a philandering lying son of a bitch hick from Arkansas became
leader of our country for 8 years....we elected him, same way you elected
JOHN HOWARD.

pellaeons_scion wrote:Maybe it sounds trite Dalton, but that sounds a lil like a small european country around 1938...I know it wont reach that far ( I hope ) but its kinda similar

You make me laugh.

Shep wrote:And besides if we want to talk WAG THE DOG, what about Slick Willie. He
launched a shitload of TLAMS off at an asprin factory when his impeachment
hearing was kicking off

You too.

Howedar wrote:You too.

How so? Willie was getting a BJ from monica under
the desk while he was promising a congressman that
we would only be in Bosnia for a few months, and that
we'd be out by christmas.....we're still there in that fucked
up pesthole.....

Seems to be a tactic that is working its way into US politics. Basically, once the questions or problems become too hard, find a target, any target, claim its a "Threat to National Security" *BARF!!* and then launch a crushing military attack, preferably with no US losses.

Lotsa cheering and "we love the US" crap ensues. Oncemore the public is re-affirmed of their power over the world with the military might (cue imperial march)

Meanwhile Unemployment soars, the economy crumbles, and crime rises. But hey, we sure did smash those Iraqis/Bosnians/Or whoever is enemy of the month

Sorry if its sounds cynical.

You make me laugh.

Whats so laughable? I dont find a great deal funny about the situation. Explain yourself

pellaeons_scion wrote:Seems to be a tactic that is working its way into US politics. Basically, once the questions or problems become too hard, find a target, any target, claim its a "Threat to National Security" *BARF!!* and then launch a crushing military attack, preferably with no US losses.

I believe Clinton invented this, and damn near depleted our TLAM inventory
to the point we were pulling TLAM-Ns (nuke tipped ones) out of storage
to convert them to conventional warheads.....

The similaritites between the USA in 2003 and Nazi Germany in 1938 are few and far between.

On the AA fire

Can anyone give me a list of actual allied losses recently to the Iraqi guns?

And even if they were, your wild weasel capability should be knocking them out whenever they raise their heads

I have no problems with the overflights, keeps their Airforce on the ground and prevents them using airpower to restablish control over Iraqi airspace

Same way a philandering lying son of a bitch hick from Arkansas became
leader of our country for 8 years....we elected him, same way you elected
JOHN HOWARD.

Who else would we vote for? Simon Crean? Bob Brown? Labour is so scared it'll lose votes, so it tries to make everyone happy. We ended up having to choose between the facist and the man who stood for no one.
On top of that, Howard and Ruddock were willing to sacrifice human life, lie, manipulate and bring out the worst of Australia in order to win us over.
No one likes John Howard but the other option is worse.

Well, what a fantastic country we live in. Where our choices between leaders range from bland and possibly useless to moronic and ego driven.

Both options suck ass I agree. Maybe thats a true indication of our nation that we ALLOW these idiots to gain power. Christ they couldnt run a local Deli let alone a country.

Are we that screwed in the politcal arena here?

pellaeons_scion wrote:On the AA fire

Can anyone give me a list of actual allied losses recently to the Iraqi guns?

Three Predators where brought down in the last two months, all to missile launches. MiG's and Mirage's intercepted several more but couldn't bring them donw because of the speeder differances.

pellaeons_scion wrote: And even if they were, your wild weasel capability should be knocking them out whenever they raise their heads

I have no problems with the overflights, keeps their Airforce on the ground and prevents them using airpower to restablish control over Iraqi airspace

When one side is shooting and the other is shooting back that’s called a War and is exactly what's already happening. The US needs no excuse to go to war, one started in December 1998 and is ongoing.

Thanks SeaSkimmer. I needed that clarification

Look, Im not opposed to military action. Like I said, smash his forces into the stone age, cripple their capability to ever be a threat to the region. Im just saying that to justify a full scale land invasion and capture of the nation there needs to be solid concrete evidence that Saddam is a definate and powerful threat to the stability of the region. Smash the military yes, but an invasion will put not just the military in your path, but an entire nation who will learn to hate/fear you even more and do anything in their power to hurt the occupying military or US targets at home.

I think the only way an occupation and removal of saddam would succeed would be if there was popular support within Iraq to help. Then, by all means support the removal, coz at least then you have support from within. Saddam is bad, and is a cancer in the region and does need to be removed. But without support from the Iraqi's then the occupation will be bloody

pellaeons_scion wrote: I think the only way an occupation and removal of saddam would succeed would be if there was popular support within Iraq to help. Then, by all means support the removal, coz at least then you have support from within

Uhm, EVERYONE is AFRAID of the mofo.....they all know what he does
to his opponents. They'd welcome us with open arms.

Bring back Paul Keating I say.


Better than nothing.

True Spoon, SO true

Least he had a spine, and was a higher life form than the Ameoba Howard

pellaeons_scion wrote:Thanks SeaSkimmer. I needed that clarification

Look, Im not opposed to military action. Like I said, smash his forces into the stone age, cripple their capability to ever be a threat to the region. Im just saying that to justify a full scale land invasion and capture of the nation there needs to be solid concrete evidence that Saddam is a definate and powerful threat to the stability of the region. Smash the military yes, but an invasion will put not just the military in your path, but an entire nation who will learn to hate/fear you even more and do anything in their power to hurt the occupying military or US targets at home.

I think the only way an occupation and removal of saddam would succeed would be if there was popular support within Iraq to help. Then, by all means support the removal, coz at least then you have support from within. Saddam is bad, and is a cancer in the region and does need to be removed. But without support from the Iraqi's then the occupation will be bloody

Smashing the military and ignoring the rest is exactly what's led to the current problems, look up Desert Storm. Only a full-scale invasion will end this for good.

Uhm, EVERYONE is AFRAID of the mofo.....they all know what he does
to his opponents. They'd welcome us with open arms.

Heres hoping. I would like to see that manaic removed from Iraq...permanently. Its funny actually. We had some Iraqi doctors on exchange over here a couple of months ago and they were really nice people.

Maybe theres hope for Iraq after all. Hell, maybe they'd even help in removing Saddam before the war got too intense?

Dalton wrote:I think what Bush is interested in is using this war in Iraq as a way to mask our own screwed-up economy and swiftly disappearing freedoms. Wag the dog...

The economy isn't screwed up - the fat just boiled off - and with the new stimulus package is set for an increase the likes of which we haven't seen since the Reagan tax cut. Despite all the worries of government budget deficit, we will probably have doubled government revenues, despite tax cuts, within eight years.

Furthermore, freedoms are not disappearing, or at least one cannot prove it: Firstly, the actions against Enemy Combatants are covered under WWII decisions by SCOTUS, and early Civil War decisions; while the majority of the Homeland Security bill, indeed all the sensitive proportions requires renewal. Though one should, I do grant, never trust the government, it is also inane to think that when the present danger is past a considerable amount of pressure will not be brought to bear to roll those back.

Finally, of course, all indications are that there may be a rollback in gun control at the federal level; and this would hardly be happening under an administration bent on restricting the freedoms of the populace, as gun control is the central insuring freedom - Someone with a gun in their hand can get any of the other freedoms whether they've been lost or not, unless the government sends in two people with guns. Since the gun owning populace will always massively outnumber the national police force, disarmament is a necessary condition of tyranny; and that's not happening. People are just being paranoid.

"In time of War, Laws fall silent." The quote holds true; some things are simply necessary in war. There are indeed, the Laws of Peace, and the Laws of War, and they are different.

pellaeons_scion wrote: Heres hoping. I would like to see that manaic removed from Iraq...permanently. Its funny actually. We had some Iraqi doctors on exchange over here a couple of months ago and they were really nice people.

Maybe theres hope for Iraq after all. Hell, maybe they'd even help in removing Saddam before the war got too intense?

They were cheering for America when the situation got chaotic during the release of prisoners back a bit ago - Even the prison camp guards. Some people thought it might turn into another Rumania.

Saddam's people universally hate him and he stays in power only because of his Republican Guard and paramilitary thugs and his security apparatus.