Attack Iraq

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Now I don't claim to be some military genius or anything but, if the US wants to attack Iraq, wouldn't it make more sense to keep it quiet and surprise them? Yet it's all over the news every day - how we plan to attack, when, who's for and against, etc.

Why is this all over the media? And does it matter?
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I believe more of it can be attributed to a minor psych-job on Saddam. Just keeping him guessing and moving everything. This gives us the opportunity to gather sat-info and wear down his troops morale with all the constant shuffling. When we hit him, he won't know it's coming.


b2bombs.jpg
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I think the whole attack process is moving along just fine. I especially love the Israel angle, and I think that needs to be played up quite a bit. A test nuclear explosion by the Israelis would be great, but a bit impractical.:biggrin:

I think that we (meaning Conservatives and most Independents) learned in 1992 that the Iraqi military serve at gunpoint. They care little for the military, Saddam, or dying for the cause. And I think that any Iraqi who's got his finger on the button, or is responsible for prepping a missile, is going to have a lot to think about if the order to fire missiles at Israel comes in from Saddam. If they know for sure that the Israeli response to their actions is going to be the certain formation of mushroom clouds over their homes and families, I think that they'll say "You know what... F Saddam."

I think that Iraqi forces will either capitulate or change sides within three days of a determined American attack. They don't believe in their leader or government, they just don't want to be shot by their government for not believing. I think the biggest challenge that the US would face would be getting their hands on Saddam, Aziz, and the other rats as they bail out of their sinking ship and try to slink off to France where they'll be treated as heroes and victims of US aggression.:biggrin:
 
G

G.R. Quinn

New Member
Originally posted by Kyle
I believe more of it can be attributed to a minor psych-job on Saddam. Just keeping him guessing and moving everything. This gives us the opportunity to gather sat-info and wear down his troops morale with all the constant shuffling. When we hit him, he won't know it's coming.


b2bombs.jpg
Click to expand...


Bingo!

Kyle, you are right on target!

Can you imagine how confused this fascist dictator Saddam is right now?

Best,

G.R.
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
With a little luck and a lot of political will... Maybe we'll finish it this time.
 
J

jimmy

Drunkard
I have a question for you all (Kyle, mainly). If we really know about the "danger" Saddam presents to us (as is being purported by Cheney and the Bush Administration) why don't we share this intel with our allies ala the "Osama is guilty" campaign?

Its my understanding that the reason that most of these countries (and it IS most of them) are against military action is that they see this as us just pushing a regime change that we've wanted for personal reasons for quite some time there with little actual proof of a direct threat.

Once our allies saw the evidence about Osama Bin Laden, they all seemed to support us in our attempts to get at him (at least not go against us). Now, they don't seem too sure. And all we're getting from the administration is vague references to 'dangers' and 'threats' that we're "pretty positive" about.

Now, I'm not against military action in the defense of our nation. And I'm pretty sure Saddam is NOT someone that will ever be on our side about anything. But if we are NOT sure about the actual threat posed by the Iraqi regime, isn't an unprovoked attack worthy of skepticsm and condemnation by some?

But if we DO know direct info about the real threat posed by Saddam, don't we owe it to our allies and the international community to say something? I'm curious...
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Let's give it a whirl.

First... I don't believe there is any smoking gun on Saddam right at this moment. We have Sat-Intel, minor scuttlebutt and defector (insider) information. Probably not enough to paint a picture. However... We know his desires from his personal quests, we know his character and we know he'll use it if he has it. As he's done with Chem/Bio material in the past. (This guy has a genuine history with the stuff).

So here I don't think we have any other choice. Do we wait until he uses it on Israel? Kuwait? Smuggles it to a group like Bin Ladens and they bring it to our doorstep? I don't think so.

Second scenario. We do have a smoking gun. Do we tell the Saudi’s? Egypt? Syria, Yemen or Jordan? If we do it will end up compromising our intel source, since in my humble view, there isn't a trustworthy soul among them.

Do we share it with Great Britain? Maybe. Germany? Probably not. The French? Never.

We have few options of sharing the info without compromise. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. And if we do have a "smoking gun" type of evidence... We should be pulverizing the place already.

And we're going to have to do this with Iran, Yemen and probably Lebanon and Syria eventually.

We are the most powerful nation in the world and have used force so sparingly, carefully, it makes me sick that there should be any question over our motives. No other nation in the world with that much power would have ever exercised such restraint over the years.
 
Christy

Christy

b*tch rocket
Second scenario. We do have a smoking gun. Do we tell the Saudi’s? Egypt? Syria, Yemen or Jordan? If we do it will end up compromising our intel source, since in my humble view, there isn't a trustworthy soul among them.
Click to expand...

Bingo Kyle! You win the door prize!!!!!:party:

What so few people fail to realize, is that these governments are not a far cry from the terrorists they harbor. Why in the world would we share our intelligence information with these folks?

I somewhat envy those who walk through life oblivious of the reality of the world and how it goes round, and always has gone round. It's not pretty and it never will be.
 
Last edited:
M

MGKrebs

endangered species
I'm jiggy with Kyle's take also...

in fact, I think we very well might have a smoking gun, but we won't tell until during or after the bombs fall.
 
J

jimmy

Drunkard
Kyle, Christy, MG,

Those are good points to an extent. No, these nations are not the most trustworthy of regimes and there is something to be said for not revealing our ENTIRE hand before we start to play.

However, I think you all are underestimating the importance of diplomacy. Yes we are a powerful nation and, in all honesty, we probably have exercised more restraint than many in our position would have.

But isn't that because we as Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard? Don't we claim international peace and stability as our, albeit lofty, foreign policy goal?

I see unilateral action on the part of the US as quite dangerous to international stability ESPECIALLY when we are in the midst of a "war" on terrorism during which we are expecting international cooperation.

I have no doubt that Saddam at this point would use weapons of mass destruction were he to get his hands on them. But this still remains in the realm of the theoretical and I would simply caution the administration to NOT waive off the importance of diplomacy at this critical juncture.
 
F

FredFlintstone

Guest
Too bad daddy Bush

didn't finish the job a dozen years ago.

He wimped out. He let the UN dictate US foreign policy. I now we have his chickenhawk son trying to compensate for daddy's mistakes.

As a bonus for this faux war (to be shown 24/7 on CNN and Faux News), Dumbya can distract the country from his failed domestic policies:

- a possible double dip recession
- surpluses turned into deficits
- unemployment rising
- corporate malfeasance and insider trading (something both Bush and Cheney have intimate knowledge of since they both are part of the problem and not the solution)

And he can distract us from his foreign policy failures:

- the failure to get Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar
- the failure to get even one country (even the UK) to commit to this pre-emptive attack on another country. A pre-emptive attack on another country hasn't occured since the last Bush administration when Panama was attacked. Before that, it was the US attack of Spanish territories in the "you supply the pictures, I'll supply the war" yellow journalism Spanish-American "war."
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Jimmy,

We do hold ourselves to a higher standard. Sometimes to our detriment.

I think we get back to the crux of one of our bigger disagreements. The value of "diplomacy."

The diplomatic option isn't an option here because it has to be recognized and respected by both parties to make it work. With one side of this equation it has never viewed diplomacy as anything other that weakness or capitulation and never will. So we are left with only sanctions (which have done little up to now), blockade (which will likely do little more) and military force.

So we get back to our only options of waiting for him to make a move first (doing nothing), or cutting off the source of the threat before he can use it (doing something).

As for international stability... If this, and there are a few others in the wings, madman obtains and deploys these types of weapons international stability is going to be toast.

Just a thought... Think how much suffering and destruction might have been avoided in WWII if we'd acted sooner.
 
J

jimmy

Drunkard
Kyle,


First, I think I may have not made myself clear with the diplomacy argument. I wasn't necessarily referring to diplomacy w/Iraq so much as within the international community and the instability that would arise as a result of a unilateral, preemptive strike such as that which is being proposed.

Your last point is good about WWII and, likewise, there would certainly be instability should Saddam, say, attack Israel with any sort of weapon of mass destruction.

But he has yet to do so. Is he biding his time? Possibly. Does he actually have the capability? Maybe not. That's my main issue is that the Bush Admin. seems to be dancing around the topic of the actual threat posed by Saddam. Sure he wants nukes, but can he get them? Sure he'd hit us w/a war head full of bio-chem goo, but can he actually pull this off? Again, I'm not so sure...

Bush and Cheney, however, seem to be quite sure despite the protest of the international community and the doubts even in our own congress (who I'm sure are privy to a good deal of security related intel themselves), and are mainly using rhetoric and vague accusations to back up their claim.

I have no real problem in theory w/Saddam being outsted from power. I'm not sure, however, that we have the justification and support needed for a preemptive strike aimed at a regime change, something roundly condemned in "international law".
 
B

bknarw

Attire Monitor
Originally posted by jimmy
Kyle,


First, I think I may have not made myself clear with the diplomacy argument. I wasn't necessarily referring to diplomacy w/Iraq so much as within the international community and the instability that would arise as a result of a unilateral, preemptive strike such as that which is being proposed.

Your last point is good about WWII and, likewise, there would certainly be instability should Saddam, say, attack Israel with any sort of weapon of mass destruction.

But he has yet to do so. Is he biding his time? Possibly. Does he actually have the capability? Maybe not. That's my main issue is that the Bush Admin. seems to be dancing around the topic of the actual threat posed by Saddam. Sure he wants nukes, but can he get them? Sure he'd hit us w/a war head full of bio-chem goo, but can he actually pull this off? Again, I'm not so sure...

Bush and Cheney, however, seem to be quite sure despite the protest of the international community and the doubts even in our own congress (who I'm sure are privy to a good deal of security related intel themselves), and are mainly using rhetoric and vague accusations to back up their claim.

I have no real problem in theory w/Saddam being outsted from power. I'm not sure, however, that we have the justification and support needed for a preemptive strike aimed at a regime change, something roundly condemned in "international law".
Click to expand...

We are the most powerful nation in the world; we create our OWN international law.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I don't think that the issue with the international community is about trustworthiness, but rather about their motivations. All of the major European countries deal with countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, etc., because they are a major source of trade dollars. Also, most European countries rely on Middle Eastern countries for almost all of their oil (unlike the US who's about 50% or so.) So these countries can't really be seen to be going against their customers or suppliers without risking severe damage to their economies. Think of the US declaring war on Canada, Japan, and Mexico. Plus, these countries all have contracts with the existing regime that would be in jeopardy if new people we put into power.

The second issue is terrorism. Most of the major European countries have paid bribes to terrorists to leave them alone at one time or another, and this is their preferred method of dealing with the problem. They feel it's better to pay the bully than to stand up to him. If that's their thing fine, but it makes it hard for them to do anything that might tick off the bully again.

Lastly, I agree with those who say that countries like most of those in the Middle East aren't looking forward to a democracy being installed in Iraq as it will make them look worse than they already do. Democracy tends to spread quickly, and once it does the ruling monarchs and their dynasties aren't going to survive for long.

If you look through post-WWII history, very few countries have done much to help other countries except for the US and the Soviet Union. Europe, the Middle East, and Japan have been little more than money sponges since 1945. As a result the economies of all these countries are very fragile and it doesn't take much to seriously disrupt them. Yeah, they'll all be against us in the beginning, but once Sadam is gone we'll have no problem finding all kinds of fair-weather buddies who were behind us all the way.
 
Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
:clap:
I think the whole attack process is moving along just fine
Click to expand...
YO! Bruzilla YA! You have it about right. I 'specially like your view on the Israeli angle, a well-placed nuke would speak volumes. Lastly, your assumption of the State of France welcoming into it's bosom Ex-Iraqi leaders is not that far from the truth!!!

penncam
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Jimmy,

Sorry about that, my mistake, I reread your post without distraction this time.

Bruzilla addressed this very well with his review of European ties to the Middle East and their policies of bribery and capitulation. The French can provide text-books to teach it. So we can't really expect an "un-biased" or even convincing look at our side to this.

As far as Saddam's capability it's fairly well accepted that he desires the weapons. It's also fairly well accepted that he is pursuing the capability. The only question mark comes in "Does he have it yet or how soon will he?".

High level defections, including his prized physicist in his nuke program, have provided us with a picture of his capability in this area. The Euros "choose" to ignore those testifying to the facts and without the UN inspectors, unhindered in their searches, there is nothing to confirm its progress or abandonment.

The International law aspect of our effort at regime change is a small concern. But I don't think it should stop us from doing what is right. After all is it the Euros or Israel and the U.S. that will pay the price for their (European) reluctance?
 
Christy

Christy

b*tch rocket
Bush and Cheney, however, seem to be quite sure despite the protest of the international community and the doubts even in our own congress (who I'm sure are privy to a good deal of security related intel themselves), and are mainly using rhetoric and vague accusations to back up their claim.
Click to expand...

Actually Jimmy, the majority of Congress aren't privy to much intel. There is good reason for that. They have proven themselves over and over again to be untrustworthy at keeping secrets "secret". So most of Congress is talking out their arse when it comes to Iraq.
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Christy
... They have proven themselves over and over again to be untrustworthy at keeping secrets "secret"....
Click to expand...
Thats what p!$$#$ me off the most! These maggots names need to hit the airwaves, Demi's and GOP alike, so we know which ones are responsible for the leaks. :burning:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top