Not my #s…
just my emphasis!
:-P
:-)
We should not attack Iraq
-
It’s clear that Iraq poses no direct military threat (weapons of mass destruction included) to the US. The US will use the “Hitler Appeasement” analogy to fuel any propaganda towards an attack/invasion of Iraq. The US will also use 9/11 to persuade the US public towards such actions as well. I agree motivations will be mostly political. I believe they will be economic as well. Nothing gets the US economy going like a good war…
-
“It’s clear that Iraq poses no direct military threat (weapons of mass destruction included) to the US.”
Maybe no direct military threat (doubt that Saddam’s skunk works can cook up an ICBM), but indirectly, the threat is still there. Should we let another attack occur on American soil (or aboard to our soldiers) before we open our eyes?
-
Right on Moses.
-
Agreed, however the rest of the world will want Iraq’s hand in it before they’ll agree to an attack/invasion. You’ll have to convince Americans that their son’s, husband’s, and father’s lives that will be lost will be worth the final result.
Our country likes to play cop and referee. We attack only certain terrorist nations and not them all. Again, I don’t see US Marines in Northern Ireland!!!
-
Joseph Kabila of the Congo
Iran’s Ayatollah Ali
King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia
The Entire National Islaamist’s Front of Sudan
Salad Hassad of Somalia
Ali Abdallah of YemenIraq makes the most headlines. In fact, 99% of Iraqis live a stable lie, probably better than if they are in any of their neighboring countries.
Britain and Turkey are NOT with us on this one. The only British Politician (and his close supporters) that want to go with us is Prime Minister Tony Blair. Tony Blair frequents local political cartoons as a dog in Bush’s lap.
I’m not saying Saddam’s military can beat us, but I am saying there will be 10x the casualties of last go around. Our regular military is green, only the most elite special forces have limited combat experience.
If you want to help these people in the third world, this isnt the way. If there is the extended bombing campaign we all know there will be, thousands of innocents will die. But their not Americans, so its acceptable right?
-
Yanny
1. what do you base the fact that England and Turkey are a no go?
2. What do you base your casualty figures on?
-
The main reason that there will be many civilian casualties among Iraqi’s is because Saddam conveniently hides is manufacturing plants and other weaponary facilties underneath houses and cities. A little known fact that the liberal media is so easy to pass by.
-
I agree with you Moses. History repeats itself ever so foten, especially with American involvement in international problems. America didn’t enter World War 1 until after the sinking ot hte Lusitania, World War 2 after Pearl Harbor and did not truly start to fight Fundamentalist Terrorism utnil after Spetember 11. Each time, the American casualties have increased. Break the pattern and enter the war frrom the beginning. America could have ended World War 1 earlier, defeated Japan and Nazi Germany in World War 2 much earlier without having to suffer the losses at Pearl Harobr and could have avoided 9/11 by starting actions againdt terrorism many years ago. How many more Americans will die the next time? 5,000 died in 9/11. How many more need to die before America wakes up and smells the coffee? 10,000? 100,000? We all know that once America wakes up and begins to intervene that the problem will be solved much faster and that America will make a difference in the final outcome of the problem, in this case, Saddam’s evil regime in Iraq. Read my signatuer that was said by Admiral Yamamoto. It still applies today.
-
YOu think our troops are bad? Iraqi commanders during the gulf war literally had their troops at gun point. All we have to do is send in the F-16s and Apaches to level Iraqi tank battalions and the Iraqi forces will liquidate. Most troops we sent to Iraq last go around didn’t even see fighting. Many troops during the gulf war remarked that their training was more difficult than actual combat against the Iraqis. Iraq will be a cake walk. We can destroy most of their fighting abillities before the ground troops, significantly superior ground troops, even enter combat.
Yanny, Sadam starves tens of thousands of children to death each year so that he can blame it on the U.S. I don’t see Saudi Arabia, or Castro, doing that!
-
Iraq will be a cake walk. We can destroy most of their fighting abillities before the ground troops, significantly superior ground troops, even enter combat.
That is what germany thought at the beginning of the WWI.
France is easy to beat, we have won in 1870/71 easily (in a war that had a limited strategic objective), they surely won’t put up much resitance this time (where it will be an “all-or-out” war, a war that you can’t afford to lose, if you want to stay in existance….)…So, i think underestimating an enemy is the easiest way to lose a war!
-
Most troops we sent to Iraq last go around didn’t even see fighting.
YB…It was 10% out of 500,000 I think that ended up even fighting. Just to back up your arguement… :wink:
-
I agree with F_alk. Never underestimate the opponent. The great French “superpower” crumbled ot the Germans in 6 weeks in World War 2 when panzers poured through the Ardennes. Overconfidence brings about the downfall of even the greatest powers.
-
The Iraqi people will fight us to the last man, woman, and child. Kuwait was different. This time it’s their survival - Saddam or no Saddam. Casualties will run high, no doubts there. They will die for their homes and Allah…
-
also it’s just plain rude to go about invading countries etc.
i’m prolly one of the few people that was against the bombing of Serbia (a sovereign country) when there were still other options open. Same thing for Iraq. To commit war on that country would virtually decimate the population. If America was attacked, then aside from the armies established to protect civilian settlements, the army would try to keep battles outside of these settlements. The same would not be true of an attack on Iraq.
Plus you’d kill oil prices. The rest of the Arab world would not “pitch in”, and i don’t think you could count on Israel for very much. Of all of the world leaders, maybe Tony Blair could be relied on (if parliament let him) for support.
bad bad idea. Although i like to say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, sometimes the evidence is not sufficient to prove that. -
Israel won’t support us becuase they all ready have their hands full with Palestine. We don’t necessarily need the support of them either. I mean, c’mon, YB was right on the mark when he said that Saddam’s army will virtually liquify when the fighting commences.
-
Crypt, options to sit and watch genocide?
OVer confidence? Thats like saying that we are too overconfident to assume that we can tie our shoes. We crushed them already. We already are fealing out anti-Sadam groups to take over. We’re not be going in and occupying sities, we will be destroying Sadam’s military so anti-Sadam forces can take over. One plan being tossed around invovles taking the most important military positions /command centers. Once Sadam can no longer give orders, he’ll lose the country. These soldiers were being forced to fight at gunpoint.
-
Agreed YB.
America’s in the toughest position out of any country, becuase on one hand they say we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. But then when something terrible happens, somehow as the world’s only superpower, we were expected to do something. Bush will face immense criticism regardless of what decision he makes.
-
The Iraqi people fight to the death? That’s just another feudal Japan. IF America was able to beat Japan, they can beat Iraq. By the way, Iran and Saudi Arabia are against attacking Iraq and I heard today on Israeli radio that the British found out that Saddam plans on providing the suicide bomber with biological weapons in order to increase te devastation in Israel.
-
The British and the Turks are not talking, no talking means no help. If you understand the Diplomatic World, neither country is going to risk their large Aid packages by saying No.
I still have not heard 1 logical reason to attack Iraq. Iraq is probably the only Non-Fundalmentalist Islaamic State in it’s area.
There was not a Single Iraqi in the planes on September 11th. There were over a dozen Saudis.
Saddam does not starve tens of thousands of people to death every year. You need to stop listening to Bush.
So you want to fight the people who attacked us? Why the hell are you going after Iraq? Oh, you want the Saudi’s oil don’t you?
-
Sorry, i didnt know that yanny was such an expert on international politics. Because how else would he be able to make the claim
The British and the Turks are not talking, no talking means no help.
and yanny, one more time. What do you base your casualty figures on? and why bring up a cartoon about tony blair?
Suggested Topics
