the Impending Iraq conflict from an Aussie point of view

[MKSheppard]

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.

Give me one freaking example when wartime laws were repealed when the war ended within a REASONABLE amount of time. A while
back we finally repealed a tax on phones intended to pay for the SPANISH
AMERICAN WAR!!!!!!

And the thing is, AMERICAN CITIZENS are being held without trial. Give
them a trial, and then take them out to be hung for treason, is my POV.
Don't keep them stewing in our jails like a TURD WORLD COUNTRY
would do.

Finally, of course, all indications are that there may be a rollback in gun control at the federal level.

HAAAA

HAHAAH



*gasp choke thud*

You damn near killed me with laughter!

If that's true, then why the fuck is the ATF still around? Why the fuck hasn't
the 1986 MG manufacturing ban been repealed? Why is the NFA still
around?

[Wicked Pilot]

Just to throw in my two cents,

I'm for war. I've been for removing Saddam ever since the first Gulf War. Bush senior and Clinton where both for it too, but the American public up to now would not even consider losing a few hundred servicemen to do the task. Now things have changed, people are scared, people want vengence for 9/11. Afganistan looked too easy, we need to make someone else pay. Bush junior comes along and says "let's attack Iraq." The American people say OK. I myself say yeah, we should attack Iraq, but not for the wrong reasons. Launching a preemptive strike because people are scared, and want vengeance is not the right course of action. I would like to think that Bush and company are doing what they are doing for the right reasons, but in all honesty I can't. They say Iraq has violated UN resolutions, yet they still support Israel. They say attacking Iraq would help the "War on Terrorism", yet they still support Saudi. Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, so is North Korea, but we aren't threatening them with attack. So I must ask, what the fuck is going on here? Someone once said that before we were treating Iraq like a cold, now we are treating them like full blown cancer. Which the fuck is it? There are many asshole states out there that we should be bombing, Iraq is just one. There are some asshole states out there that we actually support. You know we'll never do the right thing all the time and always for the right reasons. Is it acceptable to do the right thing for the wrong reasons?

There, that was my rant. The world is complicated, and unfortunately there are no easy answers.

[weemadando]

Well, this thread has been remarkably reasonable and logical.

I would like to ask one question though, why is Iraq on the brink of getting invaded for developing NBC weapons when it is undeniable that the US has the biggest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

I know that Saddamn mightn't be the most stable man in existance and yes, he did use Chem weapons against the kurds, but lets not forget that the US gov't has admitted to testing NBC weapons on its own soldiers AND civilians often without their knowledge, let alone their approval.

I don't want to start a "rule for one should be a rule for all" debate, but surely people can see the logic in destroying the stockpiles of these weapons that are truly indiscriminate (not that 500lbs of HE dropped from 2 miles up is really that discriminating, but...) and contradictory to everything that the UN and the "free" world in general believes in.

[Vympel]

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?

The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN. They are unilateral US constructs- their legitimacy is completely unrecognized. This is why the US didn't use Iraq firign on their aircraft as evidence of material breach- because it would never fly.

[pellaeons_scion]

I do see the logic of destroying the stockpiles. Indiscriminate weapons like this should be destroyed. And I mean all of them.

Your absolutely right. The US is being a bit hypocritical. To rant at another country for developing the weapons that they themselves hoard is...odd

Also Ill go with SeaSkimmer. War, yes. But do it for the right reasons. If you want to eliminate their MAD programs, why not use special forces, or CIA to "remove" the scientists from the picture, then use your airpower to flatten the factories etc. Not just declaring Iraq an open fire zone.

Granted I know its hard to conduict a war without accruing civillian casualties, but they would be a lot less if only these targets, military and political, were attacked

[Falcon]

Need I remind you people that Iraq signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War that to date it has not honored. America, technically, has every right to go in and enforce that treaty by any means necessary. All this wrangling and second chances just go to further show how soft America actually is when dealing with foreign nations. Even nations extreamly hostile to freedom, their own people, and America itself.

[One True Spoon]

Need I remind you people that Iraq signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War that to date it has not honored. America, technically, has every right to go in and enforce that treaty by any means necessary.

Israel has broken resolutions, Australia has not honored UNHCR agreements, America doesn't give a fuck what the UN says. That does not justify the wholesale slaughter of thousands of people.

All this wrangling and second chances just go to further show how soft America actually is when dealing with foreign nations. Even nations extreamly hostile to freedom, their own people, and America itself.

Freedom is a western ideal. Should we impose it on different cultures?

[pellaeons_scion]

Need I remind you people that Iraq signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War that to date it has not honored. America, technically, has every right to go in and enforce that treaty by any means necessary.

"by any means necessary". And at what point do you stop? If someone breaks a treaty does that mean you will then crush them under your boots? In all seriousness, what REAL threat does Iraq pose? If they have MAD weapons, then they pose a possible threat. But would they even use those weapons? True Saddam is a madman, but I dont think he is insane. A retaliatory strike would decimate his country if they dared to use these weapons.

I dont know if freedom is a western Ideal or not. Question is, who is truly free?

[HMS Furious]

On the AA fire

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

* Would you prefer that the Allied air units involved did sustain losses?*

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

*According to all published reports, thay have been doing just that.*

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

*Whether you or I have problems with Patrolling the No-Fly Zones agreed to in the surrender terms of 1991 by The Iraqi Government(Saddam Hussein himself) is immaterial. The Iraqis have been flipping off the entire civilized world since 1991 and has been a center of instability in the ME for 30+ years. They have murdered their own civilians(Amnesty International, where ARE you?) in the thousands, they have initiated at least TWO Major Regional Conflicts, and they are on a mad mission to develop nuclear weapons to add to their stockpile of nasty, nasty little death toys. What has the world got to lose when Saddam Hussein is sent to his 75 skanky "virgins"?
I'd like to know what the effete "Allies" of the USA have against the people of Iraq that they would prefer a murderous tyrant over a vibrant democracy in the ME? So far, no one has been able to supply me with a good answer to this simple question.*
*This is my first ever post on this fine forum, and I hope it isn't too terribly nasty, and I hope it doesn't get me banned.*

[Stravo]

Need I remind you people that Iraq signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War that to date it has not honored. America, technically, has every right to go in and enforce that treaty by any means necessary.

"by any means necessary". And at what point do you stop? If someone breaks a treaty does that mean you will then crush them under your boots? In all seriousness, what REAL threat does Iraq pose? If they have MAD weapons, then they pose a possible threat. But would they even use those weapons? True Saddam is a madman, but I dont think he is insane. A retaliatory strike would decimate his country if they dared to use these weapons.

I dont know if freedom is a western Ideal or not. Question is, who is truly free?

I say look to North korea as the PRIME EXAMPLE of why Iraq needs to be crushed immediately. Once Sadaam has the bomb the US becomes as paralyzed as we are in North Korea. Right now we couldn't do what we're doing with Iraq for the prime reason that the NK's could wipe Seoul off the map with artillery strikes. Sadaam lacks this abiltiy because the only long range weapon he really has is the SCUD. But if the SCUD were nuclear tipped or bioweaponed enabled or chemical...how soon before Israelies come under fire, etc?

Do we want to wait until we cannot do anything but negotiate as we are forced to do in North Korea? I say no, nip this in the bud now. The rest of the world lacks the will (or does not care) but we have to do it because no one else is going to look out for us.

[pellaeons_scion]

No problem at all with the post, cept the colors make it hard to read

And welcome to the board *POKE!*

As for allied losses, nope course I wouldnt prefer them. It was just a query as I didnt know. Same goes for the wild weasel comment, I was looking for input.

I dont support Saddam, I agree he should be got rid of. Im just not sure if a full invasion is the best way to do this. Like I said, its really only feasible if the Iraqis help themselves and aid the Allies in removing him. Else its imposing a form of rule over the IRaqis that they may or may not want

[Vympel]

Need I remind you people that Iraq signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War that to date it has not honored. America, technically, has every right to go in and enforce that treaty by any means necessary. All this wrangling and second chances just go to further show how soft America actually is when dealing with foreign nations. Even nations extreamly hostile to freedom, their own people, and America itself.

What parts of the treaty has it not honored?

[pellaeons_scion]

Stravo

Agreed that this kind of behaviour should be discouraged, but are you essentially saying that only the US should have nuclear weapons? Personally I dont like nukes in the slightest, too much collateral damage.

Granted the Israelis have the most to fear, and are potentially the ones that would retaliate with nukes ( I think). Perhaps that idea alone is enough to warrant a Conventional military assault and replacement of Govt, before Israel, as its done before, takes matters into its own hands if it feels under threat

[Vympel]

*Whether you or I have problems with Patrolling the No-Fly Zones agreed to in the surrender terms of 1991 by The Iraqi Government(Saddam Hussein himself) is immaterial.

Bullshit. Iraq never agreed to these no-fly zones (and I'd like to know your source for claiming they were in the surrender terms) and the UN never sanctioned them. They are by all accounts except that of US officials, simply illegal, and the US tacitly admits this by not counting their aircraft being fired upon as 'material breach'.

The Iraqis have been flipping off the entire civilized world since 1991 and has been a center of instability in the ME for 30+ years. They have murdered their own civilians(Amnesty International, where ARE you?) in the thousands, they have initiated at least TWO Major Regional Conflicts, and they are on a mad mission to develop nuclear weapons to add to their stockpile of nasty, nasty little death toys. What has the world got to lose when Saddam Hussein is sent to his 75 skanky "virgins"?

Hate to break it to you, but the US didn't consider Iraq a source of 'instability' until 1990, and turned a blind eye to the alleged crimes it now trumpets from the roof tops to get support for an invasion. In addition, Saddam is not a religious man, and to date there still has not been any evidence uncovered whatsoever that Iraq currently has WMD. Until there is such evidence, the US has no case for 'regime change' (that is if a regime having WMD is an immediate cause to go to war).

I'd like to know what the effete "Allies" of the USA have against the people of Iraq that they would prefer a murderous tyrant over a vibrant democracy in the ME? So far, no one has been able to supply me with a good answer to this simple question.*
*This is my first ever post on this fine forum, and I hope it isn't too terribly nasty, and I hope it doesn't get me banned.*

It definitely won't get you banned.

[phongn]

Well, this thread has been remarkably reasonable and logical.

I would like to ask one question though, why is Iraq on the brink of getting invaded for developing NBC weapons when it is undeniable that the US has the biggest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

The United States is destroying her chemical and biological weapons, Anders. Congress ordered the destruction of our chemical arsenal years ago (2007 is the target date for the elimination of our stockpiles) and biological weapons research was halted in 1970 with all stocks destroyed by 1973.

I have no numbes on either the US or Russian nuclear forces, but I suspect that the Russian stockpile has greatly degraded since the fall of the USSR.

Hardly "undeniable" that we have the largest stocks of CBWs, eh Anders?

I know that Saddamn mightn't be the most stable man in existance and yes, he did use Chem weapons against the kurds, but lets not forget that the US gov't has admitted to testing NBC weapons on its own soldiers AND civilians often without their knowledge, let alone their approval.

Evidence that we have tested nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on civilians, please, or that we have tested such weapons on soldiers without their knowledge. Primary sources are preferable.

[Stravo]

Stravo

Agreed that this kind of behaviour should be discouraged, but are you essentially saying that only the US should have nuclear weapons? Personally I dont like nukes in the slightest, too much collateral damage.

Granted the Israelis have the most to fear, and are potentially the ones that would retaliate with nukes ( I think). Perhaps that idea alone is enough to warrant a Conventional military assault and replacement of Govt, before Israel, as its done before, takes matters into its own hands if it feels under threat

I believe that it is a matter of gradations of danger. The casualties we will suffer versus the casualties if we do not act. In WWII if te allies had acted early enough teh german militray machine would have folded under, but they waited too long and by the time they acted, the Germans were nearly unbeatable and the casualties suffered in 39-45 were an order of magnitude greater than if they attacked and took out the germans in 37 or 38. Its a simple matter of numbers in teh case of attacking.

As to the US having nukes, let's remmeber that we are not the sole power with nuclear weapons but the vast majority of nations that do act responsibly with them. I for one am not afraid that the Pakistanis have one or that the Indians have one. They too are slwoly learning the lessons the US learned during the cold war that nukes are more of a barganing chips than actual military weapons as seen in the recent crisis over the Kashmir.

HOWEVER is there ANY doubt that regimes like NK and Iraq would either sell these arms to terrorists or simply use them to strike fear in the hearts of their neighbors. This is not an example of the US trying to keep poorer countries from having nukes but think it through...MILLIONS have died of starvation in NK, do they REALLY need to spend money and resources devloping nukes?? Why don't they feed their people?? These poor countries, many of them dictatorships are simply too unstable to have them because they think that if they have nukes they are automatically invited to the big boys club...well guess what? The big boys can feed their people and have civil rights for their folks. A nuke does not a great power make.

We need to face facts that certain nations CANNOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons. How would you feel if one of the malysian countries with links to terroists networks in Australia suddenly went on a crash course to develop nuclear weapons. I don't think you would be that thrilled with the option. Its the same thing here.

[phongn]

Stravo

Agreed that this kind of behaviour should be discouraged, but are you essentially saying that only the US should have nuclear weapons? Personally I dont like nukes in the slightest, too much collateral damage.

There are only supposed to be five nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC) under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are, of course, a few more than just those five. IIRC. Iraq and the DPRK are signatories to the NPT.

Granted the Israelis have the most to fear, and are potentially the ones that would retaliate with nukes ( I think). Perhaps that idea alone is enough to warrant a Conventional military assault and replacement of Govt, before Israel, as its done before, takes matters into its own hands if it feels under threat

A chemical warfare attack on Israel would very likely result in a nuclear bombing of Iraq.

[pellaeons_scion]

So, essentially what your saying is that the US is acting in a preventory ( is that a word?) role to disallow these 'rogue' nations access to weapons that would allow them to further bully smaller nations into doing what they want? Essentially make a pre-emptive strike that would remove its capability.

Hmm, that makes sense to me. Once more getting back to the topic of proof.

But to act swift to prevent a bloodier war makes logical sense to me. I agree that certain nations shouldnt be allowed to have these weapons. Like I said I thoroughly dislike nukes. And I see your point, last thing I want is to wake up one morning to a small tacnuke fired from Irian Jaya making Darwin glow in the dark

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, this thread has been remarkably reasonable and logical.

I would like to ask one question though, why is Iraq on the brink of getting invaded for developing NBC weapons when it is undeniable that the US has the biggest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

I do. But I also think that hypocrisy is a perfectly normal and acceptable condition in international affairs. Furthermore, it is also perfectly normal and acceptable to cloak hypocrisy in moral rectitude. All of this is a necessary part of statecraft, nothing more.

I know that Saddamn mightn't be the most stable man in existance and yes, he did use Chem weapons against the kurds, but lets not forget that the US gov't has admitted to testing NBC weapons on its own soldiers AND civilians often without their knowledge, let alone their approval.

Well, the direct effects of the weaponry were not employed against those persons. It was sort of like second-hand smoking. It's a fine moral line, I grant you.

I don't want to start a "rule for one should be a rule for all" debate, but surely people can see the logic in destroying the stockpiles of these weapons that are truly indiscriminate (not that 500lbs of HE dropped from 2 miles up is really that discriminating, but...) and contradictory to everything that the UN and the "free" world in general believes in.

No, there would be no logic in it, because without nuclear and chemical weapons as the restraining final threat of the great powers, lesser powers would develop them in successively greater frequency to try and gain an edge. It's already happening and it would just get worse if that policy were to be enacted.

You can't reduce a technological advantage by treaty, WMA; you must negate it with a defensive advantage, and that is AMB technology.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Evidence that we have tested nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on civilians, please, or that we have tested such weapons on soldiers without their knowledge. Primary sources are preferable.

He's referring to having soldiers file into trenches, miles and miles from the detonations, and downwinder civilian populaces even further away; the effects in both cases still being debated.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Actually I vaguley remember watching a show about a U.S. soldier being injected with some disease or chemical or whatnot without him even knowing about it. I think his family found out about it after he died...or something like that. I dunno, I forgot.

[Darth Wong]

Just so we're clear: the rationale for attacking Iraq is that they destabilize the region, they might get nukes, they are in violation of UN stipulations, and they have attacked neighbours.

Ummmm ... Israel destabilizes the region, they have nukes, they are in violation of UN stipulations, and they have attacked their neighbours. Why don't we invade them too?

As I see it, the current US behaviour tells the second-rate countries of this world one thing: get nukes NOW, so the US will leave you alone like NK. I don't know what message you think you're sending, but that's the one that's being received.

[jegs2]

Only thing I've been injected with that was unusual were six separate Anthrax shots, several years ago, but I knew about them -- they were certainly no secret to me. Years ago I was a Chemical Officer, and in OBC, we went into a VX contaminated environment in MOPP level 4, but we knew there was VX nerve gas in there with us. It was an exercise designed to build confidence in chemical protective gear.

[jegs2]

Just so we're clear: the rationale for attacking Iraq is that they destabilize the region, they might get nukes, they are in violation of UN stipulations, and they have attacked neighbours.

Ummmm ... Israel destabilizes the region, they have nukes, they are in violation of UN stipulations, and they have attacked their neighbours. Why don't we invade them too?

As I see it, the current US behaviour tells the second-rate countries of this world one thing: get nukes NOW, so the US will leave you alone like NK. I don't know what message you think you're sending, but that's the one that's being received.

Mike, believe it or not I'm with you on this one. I can see no good reason to attack Iraq, especially since I'd likely go myself. Containment seems a better policy, and perhaps a black ops campaign within Iraq proper...

[Knife]

Just a side note. Alot of people think that the US is leaving NK alone due to the fact that NK probably has nukes. Wouldn't it also be possible that we are just ignoring NK and that their bluster is just that....bluster. That country will implode in the near future. The people are starving, the military will start to run out of food soon without international aide. They have very little in the way of power......the dictator (who's name I can't pronounce, let alone spell) can not hang on to power much longer and the country will fall apart. Why should we play their little game of "look at me, look at me, I am powerful.." when they are not.

IMHO.