Oceania Yo Saddam - I'm callin' you out!

That lying sack of...!

(Now watch the French send in the Foreign Legion.)

 

Obviously America's interests will have to monitored carefully in regards to UN policies. But the same goes for France, Russia etc.

Where were the SCUDs from again? I mean originally, before Iraq's launching pad.

 

the french suck ass but the FFL kick ass those guys are truly a force to be recond with

 

SCUD Missiles aren't a problem; their range is limited and it's really dependant on the warhead, as accuracy was never their strong suit. Missiles like that can carry conventional warheads or be replaced with NBC Warheads, and it's then they become more of an issue.

wedge3210, the SCUD is a SovBloc missile that could be found within the USSR, PRC and DPRK during the Cold War.

E_S

 

So the SCUDs are basically Russian? Like the MiGs and AK47s the Iraqis have?

And if the SCUDs are going into Kuwait at all, it kinda shows they have some decent range. It's not Isreal (yet at least), but it's still a longish range missile.

 

According to the news, only one of them was a SCUD - inbound for Kuwait City, and the others were anti-ship missiles (Al-Samoud I?).

 

Actually this course of action from the USA is very smart. They've drawn out Iraq's WMD and shown the world they're there and the forces aren't as action packed as promised giving a sign that not many civillians will be killed. The world's anti-war worries are in a shambles at the moment.

 

I'm quite impressed that the US is making such a deal about trying to save Iraqi lives (bith civilian and conscript)... it will be a nasty humanitarian (and probably political) situation if there are heaps of deaths.

 

I've heard it's going to be a nasty humanitarian situation anyway.

US Not For Us for those interested.

 

How very interesting Bob Brown's stance is. Back in 1991, he made a speech to the Tasmania parliament urging PM Hawke to put the "full force" of our country into taking out Saddam because of his treatment of the Kurds. Also in that speech, he mentioned his desire for Australia's allies to help in the process. Not doing anything would, according to him, result in the crime of Australia and her allies "sitting on their hands".

Here we are, 12 years later, and the only thing that's changed is Bob Brown's stance. All this fool does is disagree with whatever government is in power (his stance in 1991 was in opposition to that of Hawke, just as his stance today is in opposition to Howard) to get some free publicity out of it despite the fact that he completely contradicts himself.

 

The difference between '91 and now?

That in '91 Saddam was the aggressor. It's a very simple concept. We were at least doing something that felt right.

But as for browne... bit of a ****er I'm afraid.

 

I support the US led war.

 

Has anyone heard anything about this rumour that Saddam has been killed?


According to the CIA and 'informants', he was in a building that was bombed and is now either dead or badly injured...

 

Yeah, I've heard something to that effect, although I can't really add much to what you've already said.

 

Apparently it was reported in the Washington Post - good ol Bob 'Watergate' Woodward & a new friend of his are claiming that he's either dead or severaly injured, that the 'live' appearances were taped last week, and that he is now using body doubles ...


How's that for a conspiracy theory ?

 

You forgot the aliens!! It's not a real conspiracy without aliens!

 

HOLY CRAP! It must be true then !?!?!?

 

Hey, how come none of you guys know the most famous of all conspiracy theories!

People in the Middle East seriously believe that Saddam is a CIA Agent. Why? Well, how else could the mighty USA NOT get rid of him? He keeps the region in check for them by allowing their military to strike at a target and reaffirm their greatness.

I **** you not, that's a theory they have, right there.

E_S

 

I think the saddam's dead thing is more an attempt to lower morale among the iraqi forces than actual fact.

 

Something that really annoyed me.

There was a report that during a conflict the american marines had surrounded a bunch of iraqi soldiers who had taken cover in some kind of compound.

The american marines called in an airstrike and blew the compound up, killing all the iraqi soldiers.

Does that not seem totally wrong to you?? Im sure they could have taken them prisoner or something. It just seems like they took the easy/fast option hecause the humane option was too much hassle.

Now there are reports of a large number of american soldiers having been captured. Does america really think these troops will be treated well after what they have done??

I always get the impression that america thinks their lives are worth so much more than anyone elses.

 

Their lives are worth more! and their opinions are better! and their way of life is far superior! It must be true or I must face the fact that TV lied to me!!

But as for blowing up the compound - I think in light of allied troops being lured by 'surrendering' troops and civilians, it was probably the best option to avoid more casulaties on their side.

 

Hello Pot, this is Kettle - you are Black!

Does anyone else have a problem with US citing the Geneva convention, and insisting that Allied POWs be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, when it is itself flaunting UN conventions and waging an unsanctioned war on Iraq?

And why are they threatening Iraq with pursuing them for war crimes, when they themselves don't recognise the war crimes tribunal? huh?

Talk about having your cake and chucking it too!

 

I'd highlight the Third Genevation convention and Camp X-Ray, actually...

E_S

 

Darth-Tom: There were approximately 110 Conscripts & Republican Guard troops scattered around the general area. The Marines, backed up by tanks, could have moved in by themselves, but there almost certainly would have been casualties and almost every Iraqi soldier would have had to be killed, especially since:

A) They are trying to secure the town.
B) The presence of Republican Guard troops and commanders suggest that the Conscripts would have been shot if they tried to surrender.

War is not supposed to be 'fair'; at its most basic level (such as the one seen at Umm Qasr), the aim is to kill as many of the opposition troops without losing many of yours. Since the lives of Marines would have been lost in conventional battle, air support was called in.

 

I'm talking to a fair few americans about this and one of them brought up the fact that america isn't technically at war, so they could pull the same trick that they did in afghanistan, calling them "unlawful combatants."

The US hasn't really been officially at war since WW2, i believe, ( not sure about vietnam.)

And knowing the US, I bet it would just love to do that, would save them a lot of trouble.