Bush's Ultimatum: War Begins on 3/19/03?

Remove all ads!

At least one of the attacks was made with a SCUD. Hans Incompetent Blix has already said that if this is the case, then they were using weapons they were not supposed to have.

I know it is a logical fallacy, but try to use some common sense here. If the Iraqi's lied about SCUDS, then they probably are lying about other things as well.

 

What I heard so was the SCUD's used in the strike against Kuwait City a smaller version with shorter range, missiles that was not part of the disarmament treaty, but I might be wrong. It doesnt really matter as I have never questioned really what they have, that was up for the inspectors to find. I also think there is a huge difference between conventional missiles and ICBM's which you seem convinced that Saddam has stashed away in his back yard.

 

Where the heck did that come from? I never, ever said that he has an ICBM. He has Vx, small pox, anthrax, and assorted other party favors, but I don't believe that he even has a nuke yet. An ICBM, whatever!

If it wan't for the fact that this came from you, I might be offended.

 

The answer is 'yes'. During war, an attack upon troops is honorable. This is not like the attacks performed by Hamas or Al Qaeda. This is somewhat civilized.

 

Darkwolf,
Hans Blix' success and the inspector's success is shown by the fact that it has been only one Scud, with a conventional warhead - and not a a couple of dozens a day, maybe with sarin. The inspectors destroyed a few hundred scuds, along with their warheads - much much more than the coalition destroyed over the whole gulf war ... maybe that's a thought worth to ponder about for a sec.

 

Saddam's plan is to act the part of the innocent victim. He is working under the assumption that the U.S. will not want to take huge casualties by attacking Baghdad. At this point, he can negotiate and still be in charge.

If he uses bio/chemical/nuclear weapons he ruins this plan. When we attack Baghdad, it might open up a can of horrors at the hands of Saddam.

 

gusa,

One confirmed SCUD. Some of the others may have also been SCUDS, but that hasn't been proven. Blackhawk is correct about using chem/bio weapons at this point. It would bring down all of Saddam's support. Another thing is that these weapons work best on large concentrations of densely packed people. For both of those reasons they will be saved until the COALITION (there are 44 nations supporting this action now, more than the first attack on Iraq in 1991) forces are at the doorstep of Baghdad.

I just hope that Saddam is laying somewhere getting the bare minimum medical care that will keep him alive while he writhes in unimaginable agony, begging for death itself.

 

Depaara -- Sorry about the name. Please note that I went back and repaired it. Those who are for this war keep harping on Saddam's motives, or what he might do. I think we can agree on the motive part. If he could, he would attack his neighbors, including Isreal, tomorrow. Perhaps he MIGHT attack us. But to do any of this he needs two things: opportunity and means, of which he has neither. He has not been able to do much of anything outside his own borders for 12 years.

Finally inpectors were allowed back in, and it is widely agreed in a lot of places in this world - except the US - that given time the inspectors running all over Iraq could have done their job. But they were not allowed the time needed. Shrub was in a hurry because he was afraid that they would have found little evidence of anything. Thus, he slammed the door on the process. If I am wrong then why are we having such any easy time THUS FAR of conquering Iraq? Where is this capability that Shrub has been yammering about? Surely Saddam would have used it to defend himself. But the real test will be after Saddam is gone. If the US sets up a puppet regime and forces Iraq to accept the grand American way -- which may be great for us, but the Iraqis may have some other ideas of their own -- then this will have been a war of conquest. We were successful in Afganistan because we worked with the people of that country who fought alongside us. We will have to see if the same is true for Iraq.

[ March 22, 2003, 11:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Thanks for fixing the spelling -- they say the most important word to anyone is their own name!

If Afghanistan is any example, then Iraq will get a decent government and the people will be happier than they are now. While I don't deny that Iraq will be subject to a lot of U.S. influence, I don't think it will be a "puppet" regime.

I've also never heard the term "Scrub" applied to George W. before. Could someone explain its derivation?

 

Depaara - Shrub - Little Bush -- We use it here in Texas. While he was governor it was a lot more popular. Again, sorry about the name(s). I was just in too much of a hurry.

[ March 22, 2003, 06:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Depaara.

It may pay to actually visit Afghanistan. Some people are very much worse off now that the US is there, because old tribal fueds and rivalries are now rekindled...

 

Darkwolf,

you cannot use something you don't know as a "but it could have been" argument. Of course it could have been, just as well, it may indeed just have been one scud and two other missiles. So what is that triumphant nonsense aimed on?

Sure, Saddam is a liar, and? This, by no means makes Blix' inspections a failure - as they didn't have the time needed. And it doesn't make Ritter's and Butler's inspections a failure. With his vastly reduced armament, chemical weapons and missiles especially, as a result of the inspections Saddam is much less a threat than he was after the gulf war. There can be no doubt about that.

 

Damn! ...and I thought I had a mean streak!

 

Khazraj -- I agree with much of what you have written about on this subject. But I really believe that women are much better off now than they were under the Taliban. Also, we knew that they were harboring Osama. Afghanistan was a good move. The problem is that America will have to allow the people of Afghanistan the right to setup a government of their own choosing, and not impose its own values on them. There will always be those problems with rival factions. Even in Kosovo there are still problems, and I thought we were doing pretty well there also.

[ March 23, 2003, 06:08: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hey, Dispara

About this "LINK" between terrorism, 9-11 and Saddam Hussein. There is non.

All those newspaperarticels u read concerning this link, well, there were just bad. Or they should have stated, that only the US-Goverment believs in this link.

The british Goverment itself had to apologize to the public and the parliment, because it also participated in spreading this rumour, that Irak is somehow linked to terrorism.

The US-Goverment on the other hand may freely distribute every rumour the may seem fit for the audience. Because not to share the same view as the Goverment is "anti-american". That's the advantage of an one-party system.

And about Afghanistan. Women were in a pretty good situation before the Taliban took over. So it's not like "werstern" troops bringing something "new" to that country, like "women-liberation" or something.

 

Good points, Yago, but go read the FAQ about spelling and posting etiquette, lest the wrath of Tal fall upon you.

I just don't buy the logic that the U.S. is feeling frisky, so they decided to whomp on someone. It's nice that you assert the articles are wrong, but I'd need to see some actual refutation of them beyond mere assertion.

And it's not just the Americans who think Saddam is up to no good -- remember the Israeli airstrike several years ago? The Israelis are in a tenuous position, so I doubt they would have done that if they didn't have some intelligence that made the risks of the airstrike worth it.

 

Yago -

Saddam Hussein has been funding the Murder-Bombers in Israel. He has been very public with this.

 

And the US govt has funded the Israeli tanks that has blasted Palestinian hospitals and children. What goes around comes around...
One side of the atrocities is led by a democratic elected goverment and another side is led by individual maniacs...which side has the possibility to take the initiative and which side really is not a unified side at all?

 

AFAIK Saddam has offered socalled "honour rents" for the families of suicide bombers, whin indeed may have made that bloody business more attractive in palestine.

However, it is unlikely that his support reached the amount of money donated by saudi billionaires. Mind that all except one or two of the 9/11 bombers were saudis, Bin Laden is a saudi. The saudi wahhabi movement is the atm most virulent religious direction in islam, a path followed by the chechens (ignoring their originally sufi roots), the taliban (again ignoring the original direction of a more sufi oriented islam) and of course, quite a couple of saudis (it originates in saudi arabia). It is quite common for rich saudis to donate money to islami groups to buy themselves free from islamic pressure.

 

I think this whole affair can be easily summed up with the substitution of countries (and people) with children and their toys;

Little Georgy Bush is running around blatantly disregarding the orders of his parents to not go and fight with any other children, as it is naughty, and has just decided to IGNORE his parents, TELL them that he is going to beat up the poor little ethnic kid because his dad hates all the other ethnic people and the little ethinc kid, although known to have been naughty before, hasnt actually done anything wrong for over 3 months, has some of the best toys on the neighbourhood.

Little Georgey has then, bullied the local British kid into coming and helping with the beating, and has allowed the Aussie kid to come along as long as he doesnt play with the toys until Georgy decides to let him have a go (but secretly doesnt actually plan to let him have a go, but is going to make him pay his WHOLE allowance to have a quick go). Meanwhile the North Korean kid has decided that if Little Georgey can beat up people and HIS parents aren't stopping him, then he will go and beat up the South Korean and the Japanese kids.

While this has been happening, Little Georgey has surrounded the little ethnic kid and has said "You can get out of this without being beaten, as long as you leave your toys there, and make sure nobody burns them." Whilst this has happened, the British kid has gotten into trouble with his parents and is going to get grounded if he doesnt come home. Now, the little Spanish kid has decided he wants in, and Little Georgy has just landed the first punch.

Right now, the Australian kids little brother and sister are yelling and screaming at him to stop it, as he doesnt really need to listen to Little Georgey and can come home without getting in trouble, Little Georgey's parents have gone into the house with their shrink and won't come out, and the British kid is about to be disowned.

Sound familiar? I just gotta say, all those out there that say the war is just, your wrong. Justice isnt Vengeance, and it sure as hell aint a reason for war.