too political. closed
We should not attack Iraq
-
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?
-
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.
-
Yanni, so now we can only attack terrorists if they attack us first? What the hell kinda sense does that make?
-
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?
-
LOL. Good point Emu.
-
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.
-
i think i kind of agree with bossk on this one.
-
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.
Yesterday Saddam threatened Israel and the United States with biological attacks. I dont think we should give him the chance to put his plan into action.
-
Wow, Emu I’d have to say you’d be in more danger driving on an American Road than you were in Israel with Scuds being fired at you.
Iraq is a nation, not a terrorist group. They have done nothing to provoke us. And I am telling you, your going to have hundreds, if not thousands, of US soldiers killed if we do this. Your also going to have tens of thousands Iraqi Civilians killed, for Bush’s political interests.
-
Well then, Yanny, I guess according to your reasoning America should not have entered World WAr 2 against Germany or Italy and should not have fought the Korean War or even the Persian Gulf War because it was not directly attacked. A load of crock, in my opinion. Thousands of Iraqis may die, but that is better than them dying along with thousands of American civilians and the American soldiers who will fight in Iraq anyway after Iraq attacks the United States with biological weapons. It may be part of Bush’s political interests, but it is also a fact that Iraq is dangerous. Their war with Iran cost the deaths of a million people due to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Saddam isn’t bluffing. He will use biological weapons against his enemies. All America has to do is topple Saddam’s regime and leave without imposing any government on Iraq.
Suggested Topics
