StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:26am**

Or rather later this morning. I don’t have an article handy, but it appears that a new resolution will be voted on concerning Iraq tomorrow. Both Russia and France have folded and are expected to fully support a tough resolution on the liens that Bush wanted, and even China has been reported as enthusiastic about it. They may not be abstaining after all; wonder how many artillery pieces Kuwait bought this time?

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:27am**

Oh shit. Here comes Dubya's little war.

Hey, Mike can I live in your basement if they start the draft?

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:28am**

Turkey- Just elected hardline Muslim govt. Doubtful that there'll be any support.
Saudi Arabia- Not allowing US to use bases OR airspace in a war on Iraq

I'm looking for more... Posted as I find them. Have fun waging a war without assets.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:36am**

weemadando wrote:Turkey- Just elected hardline Muslim govt. Doubtful that there'll be any support.
Saudi Arabia- Not allowing US to use bases OR airspace in a war on Iraq

I'm looking for more... Posted as I find them. Have fun waging a war without assets.

Kuwait and Qatar however do support an attack, and the USN has shuffled things so that FIVE Carrier Battlegroup will be on hand over the next four months. Thats more then ample basing. Turkey so far has made no statments removing its support.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:37am**

Stormbringer wrote:Oh shit. Here comes Dubya's little war.

Hey, Mike can I live in your basement if they start the draft?

Didn't need a draft, or even all the military forces that got deployed, to win against Iraq when it had twice the troops and three times the firepower and an air defense system that actually brought down aircraft.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:40am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Oh shit. Here comes Dubya's little war.

Hey, Mike can I live in your basement if they start the draft?
Didn't need a draft, or even all the military forces that got deployed, to win against Iraq when it had twice the troops and three times the firepower and an air defense system that actually brought down aircraft.

True but I don't trust Bush not to screw something up. And I have a bad feeling the this war is going to be much worse. After all, we have no real supposrt in the region. Most likely we'll have to force our way in if we go, and that'll be bloody.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:41am**

weemadando Turkey will most likel still allow it's bases to be used for a war in Iraq, why? Because they already do and it wasn't an issue during the elections.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:45am**

weemadando Turkey will most likel still allow it's bases to be used for a war in Iraq, why? Because they already do and it wasn't an issue during the elections

Turkey allows aircraft to defend themselves in the no fly zones. Invading with the purpose of toppling the govt is different.

Im not sure they will allow offensive operations, but who knows. I believe Turkey is concerned over what happens to the Kurds on their border.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:46am**

Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Oh shit. Here comes Dubya's little war.

Hey, Mike can I live in your basement if they start the draft?
Didn't need a draft, or even all the military forces that got deployed, to win against Iraq when it had twice the troops and three times the firepower and an air defense system that actually brought down aircraft.
True but I don't trust Bush not to screw something up. And I have a bad feeling the this war is going to be much worse. After all, we have no real supposrt in the region. Most likely we'll have to force our way in if we go, and that'll be bloody.

If there's going to be a general war in the region, and eventually there will be regardless, then its better now then later.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:48am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Didn't need a draft, or even all the military forces that got deployed, to win against Iraq when it had twice the troops and three times the firepower and an air defense system that actually brought down aircraft.
True but I don't trust Bush not to screw something up. And I have a bad feeling the this war is going to be much worse. After all, we have no real supposrt in the region. Most likely we'll have to force our way in if we go, and that'll be bloody.
I couldn't disagree with that more. We've got no justification, no support, and we still need to finish off Bin Laden and Co. And I don't like the idea of Dubya invading and killing to avenge his personal grudge against Saddam.

If there's going to be a general war in the region, and eventually there will be regardless, then its better now then later.

Posted: **2002-11-08 01:49am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Didn't need a draft, or even all the military forces that got deployed, to win against Iraq when it had twice the troops and three times the firepower and an air defense system that actually brought down aircraft.
True but I don't trust Bush not to screw something up. And I have a bad feeling the this war is going to be much worse. After all, we have no real supposrt in the region. Most likely we'll have to force our way in if we go, and that'll be bloody.

If there's going to be a general war in the region, and eventually there will be regardless, then its better now then later.

I couldn't disagree with that more. We've got no justification, no support, and we still need to finish off Bin Laden and Co. And I don't like the idea of Dubya invading and killing to avenge his personal grudge against Saddam.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:04am**

Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: True but I don't trust Bush not to screw something up. And I have a bad feeling the this war is going to be much worse. After all, we have no real supposrt in the region. Most likely we'll have to force our way in if we go, and that'll be bloody.

If there's going to be a general war in the region, and eventually there will be regardless, then its better now then later.
I couldn't disagree with that more. We've got no justification, no support, and we still need to finish off Bin Laden and Co. And I don't like the idea of Dubya invading and killing to avenge his personal grudge against Saddam.

The nations who supports we don't have today are the ones we'd be fighting in a General middle eastern conflict.

.

Justification? Over a dozen UN resolutions already existing, the fact that the guns have already been firing since Dec 1998 and that the US has spent months attempting the diplomatic route dispute already being at war and having every right to defend its self, and is now committing to a document that will add months more to that process is not enough for you?

No support? Yeah, all we have is every nation we need, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, UK, and Qatar. Hell Qatar is inviting more American forces in and has suggested that all American forces in Saudi Arabia are welcome within its boarders. Much equipment has already been shifted. Course four or five carriers make an all out attack and invasion possible without land basing.

The forces used to invade Iraq are not those needed to find Bin laden or maintain the US presence in Afghanistan.

I suggest you get up and walk around a bit, sitting at your PC for to long seems to have cut down on blood circulation to your brain.

God forbid a democraticly elected leader would not like a dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people and enimies, attempts to kill a former US president, violates countless UN resolutions, steals billions intended for fod and medical supplies for his own people, orders other supplies left to rot on the docks, gets a million of his own people and two million others killed over control of half a river, funds terrorists in Isreal, and is attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Yes, Bush clearly does have a personal grudge against Saddam. Its what most people call morality, common sense and national intrests.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:11am**

God forbid a democraticly elected leader would not like a dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people and enimies, attempts to kill a former US president, violates countless UN resolutions, steals billions intended for fod and medical supplies for his own people, orders other supplies left to rot on the docks, gets a million of his own people and two million others killed over control of half a river, funds terrorists in Isreal, and is attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Yes, Bush clearly does have a personal grudge against Saddam. Its what most people call morality, common sense and national intrests.

The US did not give a rats ass about his use of chemical weapons in the 80's.
This is only brought up to demonize Sadam.

UN resolutions are a tricky thing, cause we ignore ones we want when we want.

We didnt give a rats ass about him attacking Iran either, since they were
our enemies at the time.

Morality has nothing to do with this one. China, Pakistan, Kuwait, SA, all these nations have "immoral" regimes according to our values.

Yes, this is about national interests. Interests that involve oil. Funny how nobody in the Bush govt is advocating invading the NK's.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:26am**

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
God forbid a democraticly elected leader would not like a dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people and enimies, attempts to kill a former US president, violates countless UN resolutions, steals billions intended for fod and medical supplies for his own people, orders other supplies left to rot on the docks, gets a million of his own people and two million others killed over control of half a river, funds terrorists in Isreal, and is attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Yes, Bush clearly does have a personal grudge against Saddam. Its what most people call morality, common sense and national intrests.
The US did not give a rats ass about his use of chemical weapons in the 80's.
This is only brought up to demonize Sadam.

UN resolutions are a tricky thing, cause we ignore ones we want when we want.

We didnt give a rats ass about him attacking Iran either, since they were
our enemies at the time.

Morality has nothing to do with this one. China, Pakistan, Kuwait, SA, all these nations have "immoral" regimes according to our values.

Yes, this is about national interests. Interests that involve oil. Funny how nobody in the Bush govt is advocating invading the NK's.

Actually, from the monement its was apparent that the was with Iran would be a long one, which was from about week one of the eight year war onwrods, the US very much gave a damn. The War hurt America greatly through increased fuel prices and lost lives in the form of a pair of exocets and a mine.

The US refused to sell Saddam the equipment he needed to build chemical weapons. The Germans had no problume with it though. The risk was seen and actions where taken to avoid it from an early stage.

Actually several people have come out and suggested an a bombing campagin against North Korea, both in congress and the adminstration. North Korea wont be invaded because unlikel Iraq, we can't easily reverse the situation.

Iraq can be totaly turned around and disarmed in a a short hot war with minimal loss of life on our side, and likely no very much of one on Iraq side.

If the Us was driven soly by oil we'd be invading countries several hundred miles north east of Iraq and have a carrier battle group in the South China sea enforceing the Phillpeines claime to the Spratlys.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:34am**

It's come to light very recently that the US is worried that Iraq might have stocks of smallpox. If Iraq does have smallpox then there's more than enough justification to turn the country into a vitrified parking lot.

That said, the US argument is somewhat lacking in credibility given that the Americans have been throwing justifications into the wind for the past few months looking for something that'll carry for long enough to get the troops moving. Given that some of these justifications have been extremely stupid (i.e. Shubby's whining that Saddam 'tried to kill his daddy.') one must be forgiven for doubting just how much of the latest US story is true and how much is the result of media management intended to justify Shrubby's chest beating.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:43am**

Enlightenment wrote:It's come to light very recently that the US is worried that Iraq might have stocks of smallpox. If Iraq does have smallpox then there's more than enough justification to turn the country into a vitrified parking lot.

That said, the US argument is somewhat lacking in credibility given that the Americans have been throwing justifications into the wind for the past few months looking for something that'll carry for long enough to get the troops moving. Given that some of these justifications have been extremely stupid (i.e. Shubby's whining that Saddam 'tried to kill his daddy.') one must be forgiven for doubting just how much of the latest US story is true and how much is the result of media management intended to justify Shrubby's chest beating.

Dude. The US still has stockpiles of small pox but you don't see the rest of the world mounting up to go and "inspect" USAMRIID.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:44am**

Enlightenment wrote:It's come to light very recently that the US is worried that Iraq might have stocks of smallpox. If Iraq does have smallpox then there's more than enough justification to turn the country into a vitrified parking lot.

That said, the US argument is somewhat lacking in credibility given that the Americans have been throwing justifications into the wind for the past few months looking for something that'll carry for long enough to get the troops moving. Given that some of these justifications have been extremely stupid (i.e. Shubby's whining that Saddam 'tried to kill his daddy.') one must be forgiven for doubting just how much of the latest US story is true and how much is the result of media management intended to justify Shrubby's chest beating.

Considering our fucked up soud bite culture that we live in, its no wonder that a dozen or so reasons are floating around out there to invade Iraq. Some are good, and others are not but those that are not do not invalidate the ones that are and vice versa. We have had people over there for ten years enforcing a no fly zone and those people have been getting shot at for ten years. I don't think that a war is just starting, one has been going on very slowly for a decade and its time we pay some attension to it and ended it for good.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:48am**

Iraq can be totaly turned around and disarmed in a a short hot war with minimal loss of life on our side, and likely no very much of one on Iraq side.

The loss of life probably will be small, but compared to what? A couple thousand on a side? Are you willing to loose a family member for this?

Actually several people have come out and suggested an a bombing campagin against North Korea, both in congress and the adminstration. North Korea wont be invaded because unlikel Iraq, we can't easily reverse the situation.

We cant easily reverse anything in Iraq. We will be there for decades.

If the Us was driven soly by oil we'd be invading countries several hundred miles north east of Iraq and have a carrier battle group in the South China sea enforceing the Phillpeines claime to the Spratlys.

I dont think oil is the sole reason, but its a major contributer. China would take a dim view of us enforcing PI claims to the Spratleys. Besids China has nukes, we are going to risk a fight with them unless its really neccesarry.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:54am**

weemadando wrote:Dude. The US still has stockpiles of small pox but you don't see the rest of the world mounting up to go and "inspect" USAMRIID.

The US is hardly a shining example of..umm..enlightened civilization but their WMD security is decent and they're not exactly likely to weaponize smallpox and release it.

Iraq, on the other hand, is an Arab dictatorship with unknown WMD security and a thug for a leader. Saddam is probably not stupid enough to throw WMD at anybody but given the potential death toll for a smallpox release could reach into the hundreds of millions 'probably' isn't an adequate level of security.

Posted: **2002-11-08 02:55am**

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
God forbid a democraticly elected leader would not like a dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people and enimies, attempts to kill a former US president, violates countless UN resolutions, steals billions intended for fod and medical supplies for his own people, orders other supplies left to rot on the docks, gets a million of his own people and two million others killed over control of half a river, funds terrorists in Isreal, and is attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Yes, Bush clearly does have a personal grudge against Saddam. Its what most people call morality, common sense and national intrests.
The US did not give a rats ass about his use of chemical weapons in the 80's.
This is only brought up to demonize Sadam.

UN resolutions are a tricky thing, cause we ignore ones we want when we want.

We didnt give a rats ass about him attacking Iran either, since they were
our enemies at the time.

Morality has nothing to do with this one. China, Pakistan, Kuwait, SA, all these nations have "immoral" regimes according to our values.

Yes, this is about national interests. Interests that involve oil. Funny how nobody in the Bush govt is advocating invading the NK's.

The US also didnt give "a rats ass" as you so put it, when Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern and southern Iraq after the so called "Gulf War", after the US promised to support them if they rose up against Saddam......once again the US promises and then turns its back after it loses interest....just like it happened in Afganistan back when the Russian invaded it...we supported the Afgans against the russians and as soon as the Soviets withdrew we turned our attentions elsewhere...and then the Taliban moved in, now WE are paying the price for our indifference.

Posted: **2002-11-08 03:00am**

BTW...when and if I am called up to "go do my duty" I'll go...do my job and come back home to my wife and kids(I hope), even if I do not personaly agree with the situation. Thats what happens when you sign on the dotted lines kids and swear to do it....or maybe Iam just too stupid.

Posted: **2002-11-08 03:01am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:If the Us was driven soly by oil we'd be invading countries several hundred miles north east of Iraq and have a carrier battle group in the South China sea enforceing the Phillpeines claime to the Spratlys.

American foreign policy has rarely been exclusively driven by pure access to resources. Rather, American foreign policy is driven by the desire to protect the financial interests of domestic corporate entities which have close ties to the government power structure.

In short, you people are going to conquor Iraq not for access to oil period but rather to give US oil companies (at least some of which belong to the Bush family) ironclad contracts to pump cheap Iraqi oil out of the ground and sell it on the world market. Certainly there is some national security/prevention of terrorism component that has become attached to US objectives but national security concerns are very much an also-ran that--in the wake of Sept 11--were attached to a pre-existing Administration desire to take Iraq for the greater glory of American Oil.

Posted: **2002-11-08 03:04am**

Iraq, on the other hand, is an Arab dictatorship with unknown WMD security and a thug for a leader. Saddam is probably not stupid enough to throw WMD at anybody but given the potential death toll for a smallpox release could reach into the hundreds of millions 'probably' isn't an adequate level of security.

Most countries in that region are run by thugs or dicators. Its not a reason to invade.

Doing something about the WMD's is a different matter. Chemical weapons are not really effective nor are biologicals. Nukes are the real threat among those three.

In all honesty Im more worried about Pakistan and their WMD security.

Posted: **2002-11-08 03:26am**

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Doing something about the WMD's is a different matter. Chemical weapons are not really effective nor are biologicals. Nukes are the real threat among those three.

Smallpox is contagious. It's potentially much more deadly than even a nuke.

If Saddam gets a nuke to a large population center the most he's going to get is perhaps ten million dead. He's probably not nuts enough to accept the exchange of a few thousand RVs sent via mach 25 businss reply mail. Given the potential scale of destruction and the knowledge that Saddam is a reasonably rational actor, innocent until proven guilty applies.

If Saddam uses a few hundred suicide 'bombs' infected with smallpox to infect people passing through major air transport hubs, the overall death toll when all is said and done could be in the hundreds of millions. In this case, the qualifier of Saddam as a 'reasonably' rational actor isn't good enough. It's much better to shoot first and ask questions later rather than accept the risk of Saddam--or any other tinpot--going out in style by killing a few hundred million people.

Posted: **2002-11-08 11:14am**

Enlightenment wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Doing something about the WMD's is a different matter. Chemical weapons are not really effective nor are biologicals. Nukes are the real threat among those three.
Smallpox is contagious. It's potentially much more deadly than even a nuke.

If Saddam gets a nuke to a large population center the most he's going to get is perhaps ten million dead. He's probably not nuts enough to accept the exchange of a few thousand RVs sent via mach 25 businss reply mail. Given the potential scale of destruction and the knowledge that Saddam is a reasonably rational actor, innocent until proven guilty applies.

If Saddam uses a few hundred suicide 'bombs' infected with smallpox to infect people passing through major air transport hubs, the overall death toll when all is said and done could be in the hundreds of millions. In this case, the qualifier of Saddam as a 'reasonably' rational actor isn't good enough. It's much better to shoot first and ask questions later rather than accept the risk of Saddam--or any other tinpot--going out in style by killing a few hundred million people.

I actually agree with most of your argument here. However, I believe that Saddam needs to be forcibly removed from office. Just the chance of him developing NBC weapons is enough justification.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Vote on UN Iraq resolution expect tomorrow!

Vote on UN Iraq resolution expect tomorrow!