The What Would it Take to Attack Iraq Poll

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-23 07:49pm

Well, I think most people on this board will agree that Saddam Hussein is an asshole, and the world would probably be better off without him. He is certainly not alone, there are many other assholes in charge of other governments who the world would be better off without. But for the purpose of this this thread, please tell me what you consider to be a legitimate, and justifiable reason for the U.S. to launch an overthrow campaign against this particular dictator.

Remember, this is not about Bush, Saudi, Exxon, or Israel; please don't hijack this thread. This is for what reason you feel it would be appropiate for the U.S. to launch a first strike invasion of Iraq?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-23 07:52pm

Counting down from the top, I would consider #2, 3, 6, or 7 to be good enough.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-23 07:57pm

All of them are good except for:

"There is no justifiable reason"

That's just plain stupid.

One True Spoon · Post by **One True Spoon** » 2003-01-23 07:58pm

Other: Other Arab nations raise prices for oil so America can't power their SUV's.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-23 08:02pm

I don't think Saddam needs to do anything more to justify a war against him. He is not only an evil dictator, but he is also dangerous. Even if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq by the inspectors, he has them and everyone in the international world knows it. He has committed mass murder on numerous occasions, invaded a neighboring country for no reason (I always find it ironic that people are complaining that Bush's war is motivated for oil, when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait for the same reason), and refused to accept repeated UN appeals. He directly fired on a NEUTRAL country during the Gulf War, and killed several of its citizens. He has secretly been developing weapons of mass destruction, and has repeatedly ordered Iraqi soldiers to open fire on American and British aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zones.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-01-23 08:03pm

More or less everything besides a UN weapon inspectors kick out. Though that would be Saddam kicking himself ass for the US could have an excuse. There is an justiafible excuse too free the people of Iraq.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-23 08:11pm

Perhaps I should clarify what I'm asking. What would need to happen now to justify an invasion.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-23 08:15pm

Captain Lennox wrote:More or less everything besides a UN weapon inspectors kick out. Though that would be Saddam kicking himself ass for the US could have an excuse. There is an justiafible excuse too free the people of Iraq.

Free the people of Iraq? Given that we've been bombing them repeatedly for the last ten years to suit American political interests (also to cover up Clinton's sexual adventures, of course) and ruining their economy with completely unfair sanctions, I think the last thing the Iraqi people want is to be "freed" by the United States.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-23 08:16pm

One True Spoon wrote:Other: Other Arab nations raise prices for oil so America can't power their SUV's.

The last time OPEC tried some silliness like that we didn't go to war, did we?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-23 08:24pm

Kick his ass out of power now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-23 08:47pm

In order to silence most of the opposition (which I presume is what WP is talking about), Iraq would have to attack somebody.

Here's what you do: you set a really loud ultimatum. Then, you blow up a major American target on the day of the ultimatum and make it seem as if he did it. The American people are outraged, and you have full support to do whatever you want.

Or have I just been reading too much "Red Storm Rising?"

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-01-23 09:02pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Captain Lennox wrote:More or less everything besides a UN weapon inspectors kick out. Though that would be Saddam kicking himself ass for the US could have an excuse. There is an justiafible excuse too free the people of Iraq.
Free the people of Iraq? Given that we've been bombing them repeatedly for the last ten years to suit American political interests (also to cover up Clinton's sexual adventures, of course) and ruining their economy with completely unfair sanctions, I think the last thing the Iraqi people want is to be "freed" by the United States.

Yes, point conceded. But thhen again I think they'd prefer a more liberal Iraq than a madman. Pity is, the Iraqis rely on Saddam for supplies and he's losing Iraq's citizens might strave too death insurrection.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-01-23 09:33pm

I don't think that there really is anything that's necessary for us to go to war against Iraq right now. Saddam Hussein is a menace to the world, and must be removed from power.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-23 09:34pm

No first strike. To do as such would go in the face of everything that the UN, NATO and the West in general stand for.

Hell, more than 70% of the populace in many "alliance" nations are against a strike without UN approval. France and China have vowed to veto any strike options in the Security Council.

Nothing short of the use of WMDs on his own people or an invasion of a sovereign nation should lead to retaliation.

Saddam might be an arsehole, but so is Shrub, and we don't see the UN getting lobbied to depose him now, do we?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-23 10:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:In order to silence most of the opposition (which I presume is what WP is talking about), Iraq would have to attack somebody.

Here's what you do: you set a really loud ultimatum. Then, you blow up a major American target on the day of the ultimatum and make it seem as if he did it. The American people are outraged, and you have full support to do whatever you want.

Or have I just been reading too much "Red Storm Rising?"

Yes. Oh, if you like reading about Russia vs. USA, Eric Harry's Arc Light is a good read. More grim, though.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-23 10:45pm

Darth Wong wrote: Here's what you do: you set a really loud ultimatum. Then, you blow up a major American target on the day of the ultimatum and make it seem as if he did it. The American people are outraged, and you have full support to do whatever you want.

Or have I just been reading too much "Red Storm Rising?"

Nope, been reading a little too much right-wing conspiracy whackjob
sites eh, wong?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-23 10:46pm

weemadando wrote:No first strike. To do as such would go in the face of everything that the UN, NATO and the West in general stand for.

That didn't stop us from bombing the shit out of Serbia....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-23 10:47pm

weemadando wrote: France and China have vowed to veto any strike options in the Security Council.

Then why is the Charles De Gaulle en route to the Persian Gulf?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-23 11:06pm

MKSheppard wrote:Then why is the Charles De Gaulle en route to the Persian Gulf?

So it can be the first unit to surrender of course.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-24 12:54am

Iraq attacks Kuwaitt or other neighbor
Iraq attacks the U.S. directly, or indirectly

These two reasons would be justification in my book. The second one would be a large attack, not a shoot down of a single plane.

For a shoot down of a single plane I would think a 72 bombing campain by the USAF in retribution would be a good response.

Then why is the Charles De Gaulle en route to the Persian Gulf?

Am I thinking of the wrong ship, isnt this carrier a broken, underpowered example of how not to design a carrier ???

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-24 01:45am

phongn wrote:
Yes. Oh, if you like reading about Russia vs. USA, Eric Harry's Arc Light is a good read. More grim, though.

Fuck Eric L. Harry. Another one of those fucking authors who use the last 10 pages to have the fucking US or A win against absolutely insurmountable odds through some fucking idiotic plot device.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-24 01:51am

TrailerParkJawa wrote: Am I thinking of the wrong ship, isnt this carrier a broken, underpowered example of how not to design a carrier ???

40 aircraft air wing versus a 12-14 Harrier Air Wing for the HMS Ark Royal...

hmm, which one will I pick, the one that can launch full sized Rafales off
the deck, or one that will fly shit harriers?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-24 02:02am

You can tell the shitty british jump jet helicopter carrier by the fact it's
the smallest carrier in the battlegroup off OMAN, participating in
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM

Splendid and rare image of buildings of 5 nations engaged in the operation Enduring Freedom at sea of Oman. Of top on the left in bottom on the right: ITS Maestrale (F 570), FS Of Fatty (D 612), USS John C Stennis (CVN 74), USS Royal Port (CG 73), FS Charles of Gaulle (R 91), HMS Ocean (L 12), FS Surcouf (F 711), USS John F Kennedy (CV 67), HNLMS Van Amstel (F 831), and ITS Luigi Durand of the Warp end (D 560) (April 18, 2002).

(Original French)
Magnifique et rare image de bâtiments de 5 nations engagées dans l'opération Enduring Freedom en mer d'Oman. De haut à gauche en bas à droite : ITS Maestrale (F 570), FS De Grasse (D 612), USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), USS Port Royal (CG 73), FS Charles de Gaulle (R 91), HMS Ocean (L 12), FS Surcouf (F 711), USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), HNLMS Van Amstel (F 831), and ITS Luigi Durand de la Penne (D 560) (18 avril 2002).

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/air ... awkeye.jpg

At sea aboard Charles De Gaulle, Feb. 28, 2002 — A U.S. Navy
E-2C Hawkeye from the "Golden Hawks" of Carrier Airborne
Early Warning Squadron One One Two (VAW-112) prepares to
take off from the flight deck of the French aircraft carrier
Charles de Gaulle (R 91). The Hawkeye, embarked with
Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW-9) aboard USS John C. Stennis
(CVN 74), made an arrested landing and catapult launch
from the French carrier to demonstrate multinational
capabilities between the two navies. John C. Stennis and
coalition forces are conducting combat missions in support
of Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by
Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Kimara Scott.
[020228-N- 0376S-045] Feb. 28, 2002

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-24 02:09am

MKSheppard wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote: Am I thinking of the wrong ship, isnt this carrier a broken, underpowered example of how not to design a carrier ???
40 aircraft air wing versus a 12-14 Harrier Air Wing for the HMS Ark Royal...

hmm, which one will I pick, the one that can launch full sized Rafales off
the deck, or one that will fly shit harriers?

That is not relevant to wether or not the French carrier is suffering from bad design or mechanical failures. A broken ship is not much use, Rafales or no.
However, if it is working up to speed then off course its a better choice than the Ark Royal.

ps: hope your ferret is okay

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-24 05:12am

weemadando wrote:
phongn wrote:
Yes. Oh, if you like reading about Russia vs. USA, Eric Harry's Arc Light is a good read. More grim, though.

Fuck Eric L. Harry. Another one of those fucking authors who use the last 10 pages to have the fucking US or A win against absolutely insurmountable odds through some fucking idiotic plot device.

Damn right. Arc Light sucked ass, it was oh so full of shit.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The What Would it Take to Attack Iraq Poll

What would justify an invasion?

The What Would it Take to Attack Iraq Poll