Attacking Iraq...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Editing? Why do you edit your posts?

Almost always for grammar, spelling, or forum codes. You, however, altered the content of one of your posts in order to remove a mistake both SMH and I called you on. For chrissakes, you tried to change it after you were corrected. What, you thought no one would notice? You're the one who screwed up; it's there in black and white for anyone to see, and you don't even have the courage to admit it. Yes, bright boy, the President is your commander in chief. Congratulations on figuring that out.

 

End of story. End of this discussion.

Oh, if you say so... wait, you aren't a mod, are you? Good luck with that crap on a message board.

 

Phr33k, no, Iraq doesn't have any nuclear weapons as far as we (oh dear, there's that word again) know. Even if he did, there's no way in hell he could reach the United States. India and Pakistan have been working on theirs for longer with much greater resources and theirs can barely cross a couple thousand miles.

[Guest Nezbyte]

4Life acted like a major bitch in this thread.

 

I thought we trained our soldiers to be blood thirsty ...

[Guest Phr33k]

Um...why can't we fight a war and fix the economy at the same time?

 

Oops, there's that pesky "we" stuff popping up again.

 

Better yet, why not invade Iraq and take it over, pump the oil out of it for a few years, and then leave it when we're finally using alternative energy vehicles and transportation? Sounds good to me.

Because the rest of the Arab nations get even more pissed than they already are.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I really don't care. They've killed 3000 of our innocent civilians already. The fact that they haven't yet killed more isn't due to lack of desire, it's due to lack of means. They want a war, they should get a war. Far be it from me to deny any man his dying wish.

[Guest EricMM]

First of all, I'm not a soldier. But I think that if you volunteered to join the Armed Forces, if they go to war then you should accept it. I mean if you were drafted that's one thing. But regardless. And I know that perhaps I shouldn't "talk" about "military matters" because I'm not a "soldier" but I don't think that makes me any less important. Just because I'd rather be an English Teacher than a Soldier, does that make me a wimp?

 

About Saddam, I'd love it if he was removed. I don't like dictators. I don't like people who think that people in their own state (in this case the Kurds) are a pest to be exterminated. He should have given them their own state if they were a problem.

 

I am mostly a peace monger. But Saddam has always threatened us, and I feel that he is a threat. That's not cool...

 

BTW jeez this thread was No Holds Barred looking. Insults never argued any points...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Here is a suggestion: Build up our intelligence to where we DON'T need to attack the country, we can just go in with a special forces team and take Hussein out. I mean I am in favor of taking Hussein out of course, but I don't think that we should be killing civilians in the process and then saying, oh well, their citizens just don't matter.

Plus, the problem with taking Hussein out is, WHO WILL REPLACE HIM? It is better to know your enemy then to have Iraq start fresh with a new guy who will try for Sworn revenge on America.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That's the 64 million dollar question, NCM. And that's exactly what makes taking out just Saddam impractical and inconclusive. His sons are worse than he is. There's no doubt in my mind that they would continue along the same path he's chosen: that they would oppress their people, terrorise their neighbours, butcher the Kurds, and be unremittingly hostile to the West. That is what makes war inevitable. There is no serious opposition in Iraq. If we want the Iraqi people to know peace, we have to impose that peace ourselves. Just like we did in Germany and Japan. Yes, there will be civilian casualties. That's unavoidable in war. It's not that they don't matter, it's that it is absolutely certain that even more people will die if we don't go to war.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Imposing peace via acts of war will only worsen our relations(if we even have any) with Iraq.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Remind me again why I should care? They waged an aggressive war and were soundly trounced. They have refused to abide by the terms of their surrender and they broadcast anti-US propaganda 24/7. Our relations with Iraq will worsen if we attack them again? Dear me. I have to put a cold compress on my forehead now. What a nightmare. I can't imagine anything worse.

 

No, wait. I can. I think I might have chipped a fingernail a few minutes ago.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I'm coming to this thread late, but sweet jesus, that whole "I'm a soldier boy, so my opinion is the only one that matters" argument was effing retarded. And, for pc reasons, I don't like saying "retarded," but that's the only word that can do it justice.

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<<<<Remind me again why I should care? They waged an aggressive war and were soundly trounced. They have refused to abide by the terms of their surrender and they broadcast anti-US propaganda 24/7. Our relations with Iraq will worsen if we attack them again? Dear me. I have to put a cold compress on my forehead now. What a nightmare. I can't imagine anything worse.>>>>>>

 

As I remember, they waged war with Kuwait, and we invaded in order to protect our oil interests. And you should care about attacking a country that is already in bad shape, because desperate people do desperate things, remember Sept. 11th? Would taking out Hussein be worth another terrorist attack? Would the death of ONE MAN, be worth an attack via bio-chemical weapons in NYC or Washington???

 

I don't understand how you can just not care that thousands of innocent people will die? (and please don't reference that last line to something like, "what about the WTC?")Like I said, I want Hussein dead, but there is no reason we need to just start bombing the country when we could just use our intelligence departments to send a task force over there to take him out. Hell even we could round up their entire army of soldiers and just wipe them out with some Napalm, then fine, but will there be outrage when innocent civilian deaths over there start racking up?

[Guest DrTom]

"And you should care about attacking a country that is already in bad shape, because desperate people do desperate things, remember Sept. 11th?"

 

September 11th didn't happen because Usama bin Laden, Al'Qaeda, and Afghanistan were "desperate." It happened because they're despicable cowards who march to the drumbeat of a horribly outmoded and cruel religion.

 

"Would taking out Hussein be worth another terrorist attack?"

 

I think it's inevitable that we're going to be attacked again. We might as well eliminate some of the likely suspects, their cronies, and their support networks first.

 

"Would the death of ONE MAN, be worth an attack via bio-chemical weapons in NYC or Washington???"

 

That seems to imply that we'd simply put a bullet in Saddam's head and then send all the troops back home. That's not going to happen. Hussein will be taken out, along with his lackeys and the wastes of sperm and egg he calls his sons. We'll have to do some nation-building here, and it will take a while to establish a moderate government in the area, but it will be worth it in the long run.

 

"I don't understand how you can just not care that thousands of innocent people will die?"

 

Nobody has said they don't care if civilians die. The reality is that civilian casualties are inevitable in a war effort (Especially when you're fighting pussies who will use civilians as shields), and all you can do is try to be responsible and minimize them.

 

"... but will there be outrage when innocent civilian deaths over there start racking up?"

 

"Racking up" implies that we're careless about civilian casualties, and I don't think that will be the case. Civilians WILL die, and of course, there will be outrage over it. People seem to be under the impression that wars can be fought without anyone dying save a handful of soldiers, and it's simply not true. Technology like Stealth Bombers, "smart" bombs, etc, has given people the rather naive impression that war is something high-tech and impersonal that's waged from a distance. In reality, it's much harsher, much more personal, and high-tech gadgetry only serves to support the efforts of the soldiers.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As I remember, they waged war with Kuwait, and we invaded in order to protect our oil interests.

We also invaded to free the Kuwaitis and to uphold the UN denunciation of all aggressive wars. Our interests don't sully our ideals. As D'Souza noted, our ideals dignify our interests.

 

And you should care about attacking a country that is already in bad shape, because desperate people do desperate things, remember Sept. 11th? Would taking out Hussein be worth another terrorist attack? Would the death of ONE MAN, be worth an attack via bio-chemical weapons in NYC or Washington???

Yes, I remember 9/11 all too well. Thank you for making a good argument for my point. If Iraq is as serious a threat as you suggest, we have not only a right but a duty to invade. Now.

 

I don't understand how you can just not care that thousands of innocent people will die? (and please don't reference that last line to something like, "what about the WTC?")

Why the fucking hell not? Do you only count the dead if they're wearing turbans?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

One other thing:

you should care about attacking a country that is already in bad shape, because desperate people do desperate things, remember Passover? Would taking out Arafat be worth another terrorist attack?

With a couple of name changes, your argument becomes a perfect match for the flawed, equivocal, and utterly disastrous arguments advanced against Israeli self-defence for decades by the evil and the morally blind. The Palestinians were offered peace, just as the Iraqis were offered peace. In both cases, a corrupt, hateful, and authoritarian leader rejected peace at the cruel expense of his own people. We're told every day that the Palestinians will lay down their arms and stop butchering Jews, those "spawn of dogs and apes," if they're just given some hope. We were told that Hitler would be happy if we just gave him a few pieces Czechoslovakia. After all, his people had suffered unjustly, and he had a historical and ethnic claim to the land. They just needed some hope. Sound familiar? Why on earth do you expect anyone to believe that Saddam Hussein will roll over and wag his tail if we just pat him on the head, too? The man is evil. You can't appease evil, and you don't talk to evil. You destroy it.

[Guest Moleculo]

I can't believe people in this thread actually attacked a soldier's patriotism.As if there's a dedication of your patriotism more severe than becoming a soldier.Being a patriot doesn't mean defending your country blindly even when they're wrong,which in the Iraqi situation they are.Let's face it,acting like there's only one person in Iraq,bombing the shit out of them and starving people will not help in any meaningful way and will just foster MORE anti-American sentiment and support of Hussein.Oh,and nearly everyone here except for Dr. Tom could stand to be just a teensy bit less patronizing in their posts.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You're so right. I now see the error of my ways. Allowing a vicious madman to perpetuate his brutal regime with horrific chemical and biological weapons and inhuman cruelty isn't just necessary, it's downright noble.</patronisation>

 

No. We were not in the wrong in 1991 and we are not in the wrong now. Furthermore, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could become a soldier without understanding a concept as basic as the chain of command. I believe I attacked the patriotism of a liar, a fraud, and a coward - and even if he really were a soldier, I'd do it again. You think no one has ever joined the Army just to get a job? If he's a soldier, he's in a very small minority, and it's a contemptible one. His uniform, if he has one, does not protect his opinions from criticism.

[Guest 4Life]

...........

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I work for a living unline any "West Point" grad out there.

I would love to watch you tell your CO this.

 

You sound just like people who attacked our soldiers criticizing war in Vietnam.

Hmm, if I recall, I said I'm perfectly willing to send the armed forces in tomorrow. You said everything would be just fine if we'd stick a few roses in Saddam's hair and danced around the campfire with him, singing Kumbaya. How do I sound like the hippie idiots who criticised the war in Vietnam?

 

It's all about oil anyways....

What blinding insight. Yep, you've penetrated all the lies of the MAN with that one brilliant revelation, all right. Your son will be proud of you. In twenty years, you will be remembered as the patriotic genius who first had the courage to speak that shattering truth: "It's all about oil."

 

Sir, I salute you!

[Guest J*ingus]

He did bring up something I was curious about: just what is it that you do for a living anyway, Marney?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Mostly, I train people. <g> You'd need an S/CS CLPSD for me to elaborate further.

[Guest J*ingus]

You'd need an S/CS CLPSD for me to elaborate further.

::Jingus's eyes glaze over, and he goes to play Super Nintendo::

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Heh. It sort of creeps up on you. I once ordered a new guy to attend an M82A1A SASR LFE with C/NS MILCLPSD SLAP UCRs... I couldn't understand the sudden bewilderment on his face.

[Guest J*ingus]

Okaaaay... um, when the initials M and I follow each other in government parlance, it usually stands for Military Intelligence. And I'm pretty confident that at least one of the S's in SASR stands for Seminar. Did I at least get one right so that I didn't make a 0 on the test?

[Guest Invader3k]

I just wish the US would attack Iraq soon and be done with it. We need to teach the Arabs a lesson. Muslim extremists like Hussein need to die, along with the scum that support them.

 

Yeah, innocent civilians will be killed, but that is inevitable in a war.

[Guest Moleculo]

"We need to teach the Arabs a lesson."

-Yes,because all Arabs are inherently bad people who love Saddam Hussein.Also,it's not just Muslim extremists that have to die.The problem lies in extremists who support ANY religion,not just Muslims.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Military" is right. <g> "Intelligence" and "Seminar" are wrong.

[Guest 4Life]

..........

[Guest deadbeater]

Cool, invade Iraq. Then the Kurds, obstensibly out allies will invade Turkey, forcing the NATO by treaty to intervene, not on our side.

 

Another fine mess.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The Kurds... will invade Turkey? WTF? The Army corps has a 50 thousand man rapid deployment force, 4 field armies, 2 mechanised infantry divisions, and 14 armour brigades. The Air Force has about 160 F-16s. And you think they need NATO to beat back the Kurds? Where the fuck do you get your foreign policy analyses from, The Simpsons?

[Guest deadbeater]

Marney, the Kurds are in a cvil war with Turkey for over thirty years. And Iran may support the Kurds as well as Iraq as a buffer. Turkey itself is concerned enough not to endorse the impending invasion in Iraq. Israel has a much better army, and look how easily they put down the Palestinian uprising and the troubles in Lebanon. Wait, they didn't.

 

Your hatred of the Moslems seemed to have overlooked the fact that they can fight very fiercely.