War in Iraq?, version 4.0 (Official Iraq thread)

The 'road of death' was a retreating Iraqi military convoy which our aircraft chanced upon.

Needless to say, they took full advantage of that valid military target.

 

But 45 days would put the deadline into mid-May, which is a bad time to fight a war in Iraq (too hot). This issue needs to be resolved before the end of the month if we want to maintain use of force as an option.


MRHA, I was under the impression that the road of death was a long column of retreating Iraqi soldiers.

EDIT: What DM said.

 

thanks for the precision, as i said, i was not sure about this.

So retrating iraqi are retreating, not very fair play.
But such things can happen in the action I presume

 

These same organizations predicted many more casualites than actually occured in Afghanistan as well.

What organizations, DM? My quote was referring to Pentagaon information and the commentary of a retired Marine general. Are you saying we can't rely on the info given by the Pentagon?

 

The 'road of death' was a retreating Iraqi military convoy which our aircraft chanced upon.

So we attacked a convoy that was withdrawing from combat? Wow, how brave.

 

So retrating iraqi are retreating, not very fair play.

fair play?

This is warfare not tiddlywinks. If you want out you surrender, fi you retreat and get shot, it's your own fault.

Fair play? If the Iraqi's gave a damn about playing fair they'd have stayed in their own country.

the point of warfare isn't to win fair play points of 'brave' points it's to make a point to the other side as graphically as possible.

"Do not **** with us"

I assure you the Iraqi army learned that lesson.

 

fi you retreat and get shot, it's your own fault.

Yeah, but weren't we there to push theem out? So we accomplish the task and send them packing... then shoot them as they retreat? That is a poor "war tactic". If this is going to continue to be debated, can we get some facts on the case? I don't recall the incident, so I don't know if it was a "fighting" retreat, or a passive retreat back to Iraq.

Meanwhile, back in the present...

 

To all those dedicated to "diplomacy":

How are inspections working? What miniscule progress they make only exists because of the fact that Saddam can see tens of thousands of soldiers massing on his border poised for attack. Do you know how expensive it is to maintain such a force there for months at a time? I can guarantee there are familial concerns which would also be problematic for such a stay with so little results to show for it. The cost-benefit analysis does not look promising.

Does the fact Saddam, at the last possible moment, agrees to destroy a few missiles mean that he is disarming at any acceptable pace? He is throwing bones to the inspectors only for the purposes of keeping himself in power as long as possible. He was supposed to fully disarm a lllllooooonnnnnnggggg time ago. How many more "last chances" are we going to give him? Is it just slightly possible that Saddam treats these "last chances" as the empty threats they are?

What kind of example does this wishy-washy diplomacy send to all the thugocracies of the world? If you want to fight terrorism and injustice, emboldening thugs through toothless resolutions defeats your purpose. They will continue engaging in their errant behavior because they know no one will do anything about it. Does anyone want this to change? There is a reason why Osama believed the Soviet Union to be the stronger superpower; the Soviets did not put their tails between their legs and flee when faced with adversity, like the U.S. did in Lebanon, Somalia, etc.

It is high time we get tough or these issues will come back to haunt us time and time again. Did "diplomacy" work with NK? No, it was only a temporary respite for them to get new weapons in the hopes of shaking down the U.S. yet another time. In today's world, becoming a doormat is not the way to keep the peace.

Why should we trust Saddam? Why should we allow him to continue brutalizing his own people? You may say there is plenty of injustice and oppression in the world, so why should we take out Saddam? Well, you must start somewhere.

 

Farraday:

humm the use of the word "fair play" seems not exactly the same (larger in use) in french than in english, sorry.
I mean the same thing than Cheveyo, and if i understand you, you haven't read like this. (I am quite tired, my english becomes worst and worst)

But frankly it's not the debate.

 

Yeah, but weren't we there to push theem out? So we accomplish the task and send them packing... then shoot them as they retreat? That is a poor "war tactic". If this is going to continue to be debated, can we get some facts on the case? I don't recall the incident, so I don't know if it was a "fighting" retreat, or a passive retreat back to Iraq.

"Retreating" is not "surrendering." Because an enemy drops his gun -- do we give him another one to fight with because it's fair? Hells no, so we deprive them of soldiers who are clearly not planning on not fighting -- else they would have surrendered, not retreated.

 

I have to address the following two comments:

MHRA said:

So retrating iraqi are retreating, not very fair play.

and

Cheveyo said:

So we attacked a convoy that was withdrawing from combat? Wow, how brave.

Obviously, you guys have no concept of how to wage war. What were we supposed to do, let them go? NO. You take FULL advantage of that situation and wipe them out so they can't come back and attack you later. A retreating army is a fair military target.

Geez, I'm glad you guys aren't in our military leadership.

 

I'm going to give you two the benefit of the doubt and assume that because you're opposed to most military action you never learned how military action works.

It does not follow the rules of negotiations or cricket. It is not a formalized exchange of volley fire at 30 paces until one side breaks and runs.

War isn't supposed to be fair and both sides are trying to make it as unfair as possible for the other.
International law regulates some conduct, but when push comes to shove, it often comes down on the side of winning.

 

POLUNIS:
To all those dedicated to "diplomacy":

How are inspections working? What miniscule progress they make only exists because of the fact that Saddam can see tens of thousands of soldiers massing on his border poised for attack.

Alright, imagine that YOU are President Saddam Hussein.

Now, can you tell yourself that you are willing to cooperate nicely with the UN and an arrogant American Hegemony, without the threat of force?

If world leaders did a lot more of fill-the-other-person's-shoes kind of thinking, maybe we would see a lot more peace.

Do you know how expensive it is to maintain such a force there for months at a time?

Ah, so now the best course of action is the cheapest one. Why don't we just blow the whole world up? Then we wouldn't need to spend any money on defense!

More to the point, if we can just get the British, Bulgarians, and Spanish to chip in in the martial displays, then maybe we can cut the costs, huh? Whatever happened to UK's awe-inspiring fleet?

And, frankly, I wonder if such shows of force are really necessary to force President Hussein's compliance. I don't think he's stupid. He KNOWS what the US can do to his behind.

I can guarantee there are familial concerns which would also be problematic for such a stay with so little results to show for it. The cost-benefit analysis does not look promising.

Well, I'll tell you this - the cost-benefit analysis of war is even less promising. Unless you can put a price on a life.

Actually, I think you can put a price on a life, even though that may seem horrible. But it'd be a high price. My point is, war must be avoided at all costs. And if and when it does happen, it had better be for a damn good reason.

Does the fact Saddam, at the last possible moment, agrees to destroy a few missiles mean that he is disarming at any acceptable pace? He is throwing bones to the inspectors only for the purposes of keeping himself in power as long as possible. He was supposed to fully disarm a lllllooooonnnnnnggggg time ago. How many more "last chances" are we going to give him? Is it just slightly possible that Saddam treats these "last chances" as the empty threats they are?

Look, what do you expect from him? As long as disarmament is continuing, then I don't see the problem. Give him some time - everything going on right now must be really hard on him. Again, you need to look at things from his perspective to fully understand the situation.

President Bush is scrabbling for bones of contention for his personal vendetta on Iraq. First it was that President Hussein needs to disarm, then it was that he's not doing it fast enough, now he has to go altogether. When will President Bush and the rest of the warmongering pack make up his/their mind(s)?

What kind of example does this wishy-washy diplomacy send to all the thugocracies of the world?

Like the Bush Administration?

If you want to fight terrorism and injustice, emboldening thugs through toothless resolutions defeats your purpose. They will continue engaging in their errant behavior because they know no one will do anything about it. Does anyone want this to change? There is a reason why Osama believed the Soviet Union to be the stronger superpower; the Soviets did not put their tails between their legs and flee when faced with adversity, like the U.S. did in Lebanon, Somalia, etc.

I have no problem with a get-tough-attitude - as long as President Hussein complies.

If he doesn't, then war would be more justified (emphasis on "more"). But he is complying, isn't he?

It is high time we get tough or these issues will come back to haunt us time and time again. Did "diplomacy" work with NK? No, it was only a temporary respite for them to get new weapons in the hopes of shaking down the U.S. yet another time. In today's world, becoming a doormat is not the way to keep the peace.

I agree.

Why should we trust Saddam? Why should we allow him to continue brutalizing his own people

 

Regardless, images from the retreating convoy carnage (and let's not forget it was a convoy loaded up with Iraqi spoils of war looted from Kuwait - how sorry are we supposed to feel?) were one of the things that brought the first Gulf war to an end -- the absolute certainty that Bush and Colin Powell had that a full-scale invasion of Iraq would create an even bigger public relations nightmare and shake the coalition apart.

The main difference for the Gulf War Part 2 is that we will never have had a real coalition to begin with. Grotesque pictures of dead Iraqis are going to make a bad situation much much worse.

Sure CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. will cooperate with American military censors, but no one else in the world has any incentive to hide the truth. No one has a clue how bad this is going to make us look.

 

~ug

 

Well, here's my point: REGIME CHANGE IS UNJUSTIFIED.

Did I post all those links to articles as to why war with Iraq is justified for my own amusement Kuna_Tiori? At least read through some of them and then tell us again that "Regime Change is unjustified."

 

Did I post all those links to articles as to why war with Iraq is justified for my own amusement Kuna_Tiori?

Yes, yes you did.

 

Kuna_Tiori said:

everything going on right now must be really hard on him

Awwww poor Saddam.

It's unbelievable how some people think.

Saddam will be out of power in one to two months, you can count on that.

 

You asked what I will do when war breaks out, DM? I will likely go into hiding so as not to be arrested for ianti-nationalistic views. That... or order pizza. I wonder if the FBI guys like pepperoni....

 

Pizza sounds good.

 

Doesn't it though?!

Okay, going back to this whole French thing again (can't say it without rolling my eyes):

Am I now considered anti-American for French-kissing my wife?

What if I have a croissant for breakfast??

Oh my gosh!! What about the French Quarter in New Orleans??? Are they all Anti-American? No, they can change the name, then it'll all be alright. whew. That was close!

 

"There are also some who no matter what facts they are presented with would rather not be confused with any sort of information that contradicts their beliefs. I hope that truly cannot be said of anybody here.

Thanks for proving me right about the closed mindedness of the anti-war crowd Cheveyo. They would rather get up on their soap box to hear themselves talk then listen to any facts presented to them that may sway them. Have fun wallowing in your ignorance & excercising your constitutionally protected freedom to be an utter moron.

GOD BLESS AMERICA & PRESIDENT BUSH!

-Kanos has left the building.


EDIT: for at least 24 hours. Who's next?

 

Hey, I live in New Orleans, Cheveyo!

Leave my town out of it!

Actually the locals call it the Vieux Carre', or simply "the Quarters".

 

This crisis with Iraq has nothing to do with disarmament (as if the US government really cares), nothing to do with human rights, and nothing to do with national security.

It's about removing Saddam. It's an ingenious method because the US knows that Saddam will not and cannot comply with the resolutions. So it's war. It was inevitable the moment Bush labelled Iraq as part of the axis of evil.

- "I say we bypass the security council and do it on our own reasons for national security."

- "All I'm saying is that we have legal justification for carrying out this fight."

These two statements epitomize the American attitude that has effectively turned the world against them.

If Saddam did comply, they will still be war. The US goal is not disarmament, but regime change.

Consistency. Why isn't the US going after Saudi Arabia - whose link to al'queda is stronger than any other country in the world?

A nation can never been 100% secure. It's the way of the world when you have enemies. The irony is that by going to war with Iraq (especially without UN approval) the US is likely to engage in war with other arab nations - what do you get? A third world war. At the very least, Bush has placed his country and precious constitution in danger in an attempt to avoid danger... there will be a higher chance of terrorists attacks than ever before. But that's the problem, the USA doesn't understand why there's such anti-American feeling, and why should they when their leader spouts rhetoric about how 'they're attacking our freedom and democracy' etc.