We should not attack Iraq

[Jazz]

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?

[izcoder]

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.

[EmuGod]

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.

[yourbuttocks]

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!

[Guest]

@yourbuttocks:

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!

[izcoder]

@yourbuttocks:

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:

[EmuGod]

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.

[Field Marshal]

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…

[cystic crypt]

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.

[izcoder]

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.

[yourbuttocks]

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.

[izcoder]

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.

[EmuGod]

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.

[Yanny]

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?

[Jazz]

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?

[EmuGod]

@Yanny:

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?

I’m not just talking about what bush says, Yanny. Saddam is dangerous and I know first hand. I lived in Haifa, Israel during the Persian Gulf War and felt me whole house shake as a scud passed over my house. I had to wear the gask masks and that was no fun, it was almost impossible to breathe in them. At the end of the war, they found out that they didnt even work properly. It was very scary. Today he plans on giving biological weaposn to the Palestinian terrorists and on possibly attacking the United States with biological weapons. The longer we sit on our asses the slimmer our chances become, because his twists and demented plans become closer to a reality. History has proven time and time again that America’s policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked. Hundreds died on the Lusitania in 1917, 2400 died at Pearl Harbor on the “date which will live in infamy” (December 7, 1941) and over 5000 on September 11, 2001. Each time the attack is worse and worse. A biological attack could wipe out 80% of a city such as Los Angeles very quickly. The time has come to break history’s repetition and to wake up early to smell the coffee.

[izcoder]

Yanni, so now we can only attack terrorists if they attack us first? What the hell kinda sense does that make?

[EmuGod]

That’s a better policy than what Israel can do, according to Yanny. According to him, Israel can’t retaliate against terrorists at all because they might kill civilians in the crossfire which makes them like Nazi Germany. What the hell kinda sense does THAT make?

[izcoder]

LOL. Good point Emu.

[bossk]

No, terrorists are different than sovereign nations. You see, Iraq is a sovereign nation, terrorists are not. Going around toppling sovereign nations is a bad thing. Imposing our will on sovereign nations is bad. Sure Iraq is hostile towards us (or at least it’s leader), but that doesn’t mean we should crush them; I consider that bad. Next we’ll be crushing communists right and left in the US becuase they don’t like the way things are run and have the potential (small, but there) to recreate the government, and that’s scary becuase it’s change. Communists don’t make Americans (most) feel safe, therefor they must go. I can simplify this further, going after Iraq is BAD.