Should Bush invade Iraq?

[dagger-happy]

Well?

[Character-Zero]

At 8/4/02 04:20 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Well?

I think Iraq should invade us. Think about it, we can just retalliate mercilessly and have a good reason to do so and we don't have to worry about that UN crap. And the rest of the world will know that we're not just bullying them around.

[StrawberrySock]

At 8/4/02 04:20 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Well?

NO! We will just be removing one warlord for another that will immediately rise up after the United States and their allies leave... let's just leave the warlord that's already there.

At 8/4/02 04:20 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Well?

I say we should, Just so Saddam can kick our ass. That would be cool.

[Character-Zero]

At 8/4/02 10:51 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote:

At 8/4/02 04:20 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Well?

I say we should, Just so Saddam can kick our ass. That would be cool.

I don't think he could kick our ass. I wouldn't care if he did, but we knocked the shit out of them ten years ago like it was nothing, and not much has changed since then.

[patach]

Let's say that we kick Saddam's ass, and now that the dictator is in a bloody pulp this is what could happen.

Pretend also, that we spared millions of the citizens of Iraq... who usually don't have anything to do with Saddam, but have suffered under his hiearchy for too long.

Now let's see what could happen. The Kurds, for one, are looking for an independent state, they seem to find Iraq a very good place to create it. However, what will happen to the people of Iraq if the Kurds create an independent state in Iraq? Could it be an Israel and Palestine conflict all over again?!

If that isn't enough, could there also be a possibility that Iraq's people may, themselves, dissolve into civil war?

And remember that there are many groups of Kurds that differ from each other (and even violently). Will there be conflicts that may occur because of that?

Saddam is evil from our perspective, we can all agree on that. But is the U.S. ready to do massive amounts of peacekeeping missions after the war, if even one of these things happen to take place?

[cyberpiesite]

Let's put it this way.

This is either a) another plot to get oil or b) another way of doing his daddy's work. I'd assume it's both.

It's terrifying that Bush could lead the whole world into a (posibly nuclear) war that we may not emerge from. He insists that Saddam has Anthrax etc. but they have no proof. And there's no evidence that Saddam wants to use them against us...if he comes after the US/Britain etc then fine, kill the bastard (just minus nukes, please) but to blindly rush into war with Iraq with something else.

It's always been damn obvious that an ex-alcoholic son of George Bush would be a crap leader. Considering his brother fiddled the vote I'm not surprised that he's doing this.

(GOING OFF TOPIC)

Then there's this new COPA act, which could either knock out Newgrounds completely or force us to make kid-friendly Flah. Hint to Bush-NG ISN'T FOR KIDS. And if it dows get passed, Tom will probably have to pay even more to keep the site afloat-meaning more popups and bestiality ads for us.

(BACK ON TOPIC)

Impeach Bush. And if there's one reasonfor doing so, it's this quote from the BBC, in which he digs his own grave:

"We owe it to the future of civilization to stop the worlds worst leaders from possessing the worlds worst weapons."

Ahem...

Visit my Portal like website at www.hello.to/cyberpie!
Visit a scary pocture by clicking here!

[Slizor]

Bush should invade Iraq! On his own...

[dagger-happy]

At 8/4/02 04:57 PM, Character_Zero wrote: I think Iraq should invade us. Think about it, we can just retalliate mercilessly and have a good reason to do so and we don't have to worry about that UN crap.

Interesting that you say that. A possible nightmare scenario for the US army could be Saddam deciding that they will not stop until he dies so he has nothing to lose. Hence, he will pre-emptively attack the US army in Kuwait with his copious supplies of chemical weapons; whilst the US army is thrown into disarray, Iraqi troops would stream across the border, retaking Kuwait as they did in 1991. Now that WOULD fuck things up for Bush, and it is quite feasible.

Saddam is a nasty man and I would love to see him destroyed, but is this the right time? I mean, the US has done enough to disillusion the Middle East and Islamic world already: attacking Iraq could take terrorism and pan-Islamic fanaticism to a whole new level. Afterwards, they should set up a constitutional democracy, as in Afghanistan. But who knows what new conflicts could be fostered, i.e ethnic divisions?

[TheEvilOne]

Personally, I would love nothing more than to have Saddam's head mounted on my wall. Yes, there are risks involved with going to war, and we need time to plan an invasion of Iraq and to figure out what will happen once Saddam is toppled. That is why we haven't already attacked them, and why we probably won't for another year or two. But still, Saddam is a pest, and his removal would be for the best for everyone involved.

[Susanowoo]

No !

Why? Just to prove to the World that he is the Boss of the World ?

We all know that the USA is the best army of the World.We all know that the USA controls.

Why this fucker of Bush wants to attack Irak ?

[P-Chan]

Kuwait was the excuse 10 years ago, but what about now?

Does the US have any good reason *now* to invade Iraq? And them being "evil" isn't a very good reason.

[Slizor]

Does the US have any good reason *now* to invade Iraq? And them being "evil" isn't a very good reason.

Did they have a reason to invade Afghanistan..? Nope, did it stop them? Certainly not.

[dagger-happy]

At 8/8/02 01:32 PM, P-Chan wrote:
Does the US have any good reason *now* to invade Iraq? And them being "evil" isn't a very good reason.

Oh, they have a reason: oil! Now, if it's honourable pretexts you want then that could be a little trickier...

I suppose you could argue that the USA would not be violating Iraqi soverinty because there are no elections and he's killed copious amounts of his own people, i.e. 180,000 kurds in the North. Mind you, the USA has killed a great deal of Iraqis during the last ten years too so they hardly have the moral highground. For better or for worse, Bush will do what he wants, regardless of vocal opposition.

First off, I am sick of hearing Saddam is evil. Saddam never did ANYTHING to us (Except bail us out of the oil shortage of the 70s)

Secondly, If Saddam wanted to, He could beat us. Saddam has the resources to fight a war that would be something like Veitnam Meets WW1, With gas attacks and Gurella fighters behind every sand dune. And you know what? If he did this, We would LOSE. It has been proven time and time again, America cannot beat Gurellas, And do you know why? Because we have the worst Infantry in the world. All our military has going for us is bombs and the threat of Nukes (It has been proven, however, That our Nuculear submarines are in bad disrepair and probably couldnt fire if they wanted to) Thats IT. Period. Our troops shoot a puny .223 that jams every other shot and has a range of 30 yards. A .223 is barley sutable for killing prarie dogs. MOST Iraqis use AK-47s, A vastly superior weapon. It holds more shots, is more accurate, has MUCH more stopping power and is fully automatic.If you take away the US bombers and add some smart Iraqi tactics, We are fucked.

[Commander-K25]

At 8/7/02 07:00 AM, susanowoo wrote: No !

Why? Just to prove to the World that he is the Boss of the World ?

We all know that the USA is the best army of the World.We all know that the USA controls.

Why this fucker of Bush wants to attack Irak ?

Probably has something to do with his large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and his continual defiance to UN weapons inspections. If he isn't building these weapons, then why won't he allow inspections. He's guilty, we know, he knows it and he also thinks he can get away with it.

[patach]

Probably has something to do with his large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and his continual defiance to UN weapons inspections. If he isn't building these weapons, then why won't he allow inspections. He's guilty, we know, he knows it and he also thinks he can get away with it.

So basically, since Iraq has weapons of mass destruction similar to say... any country that has a military... we must do our best to wipe out the entire country?

If we're pinning Iraq for this, we should've obviously pinned Pakistan, India, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom for it also.

[Slizor]

Probably has something to do with his large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and his continual defiance to UN weapons inspections. If he isn't building these weapons, then why won't he allow inspections. He's guilty, we know, he knows it and he also thinks he can get away with it.

Yet he offered to let them in.....

[Kuronir]

At 8/8/02 04:43 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: First off, I am sick of hearing Saddam is evil. Saddam never did ANYTHING to us (Except bail us out of the oil shortage of the 70s)

Come on, as long as saddam is threating kuait the economy is under risc. He is a founder of terorisem, and a risc for peace in the middle east, And he is developing nuclear weapons

[TheEvilOne]

First of all, to the person that said that if we attacked Iraq, we would lose: under that logic, shouldn't we have been defeated in Afghanistan? There, we were able to bomb the hell out of the Taliban, and let opposition groups do the rest. Is there any reason that it wouldn't work in Iraq? There are a number of groups within Iraq that would love to see Saddam dead. Saddam's army is probably bigger and/or better organized than the Taliban, but all that means is that we may have to send in some of our own troops as well. I see no reason why we couldn't win. Yes, Vietnam was a disaster, but we have learned much since then.

As for the people who say that an attack on Iraq is unjustified, remember that they agreed to let in weapons inspectors as a condition of ending the Gulf War. They haven't held up their end of the bargain, so why should we hold up our end?

[P-Chan]

At 8/8/02 05:51 PM, patach wrote:

Probably has something to do with his large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and his continual defiance to UN weapons inspections. If he isn't building these weapons, then why won't he allow inspections. He's guilty, we know, he knows it and he also thinks he can get away with it.

So basically, since Iraq has weapons of mass destruction similar to say... any country that has a military... we must do our best to wipe out the entire country?

I think that the logic here is that the US believes that Saddam is irrational enough to actually use those weapons against the United States or Isreal. (That is assuming that he does have those weapons).

But Saddam actually using any biological or nuclear weapons against the US or Isreal would be pure suicide, as world opinion would completely sway against him and he'd lose everything. I'd say that most sound people would realize this, and I'm sure Iraq's regime realizes this too. I don't see why they would want to dig their own graves.

If we're pinning Iraq for this, we should've obviously pinned Pakistan, India, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom for it also.

We should have pinned Isreal as well.

[PsykoTygr]

Okay, to the moron up there that said Iraq could kick our asses, your logic is totally wrong.

You can't compare this to Vietnam because Vietnam was in the jungle and we couldn't fight specifically because we had absolutely no experience whatsoever fighting in that terrain (experience which we NOW have because of it) and the enemy had nothing but experience in that terrain which they had lived in for their whole lives.

Iraq is a fucking desert. They aren't going to hide behind dunes and ambush our infantry, which isn't nearly as bad as you claim it is. How the hell do you think our military beats the shit out of people all the time if they suck, huh? Our infantry is not bad. They get the best training available and our outfitted with the best equipment. British troops were the ones in Afghanistan whose guns were jamming and whose boots were melting in the desert heat.

Now, let's go back 10 years ago. By your logic Saddam should have kicked our ass then too. Do you know how badly he kicked our ass? At the end of the war when the two sides came to the negotiating table, the Iraqi negotiator asked the Americans for a prisoner exchange, citing that they had maybe a dozen Americans to trade. Upon asking how many prisoners the American's had, the American negotiator quipped a number something like TEN THOUSAND.

Besides that, the vast majority of our casualties in that war were friendly fire. The vast majority as in like almost all of them.

Take a history class and maybe do some research before saying a half assed country like Iraq could beat us. Their only chance is chemical weapons, and that'll only happen when they are already pummled so badly all we have to do is finish them off.

As far as whether we should invade Iraq, the answer is yes. People keep saying "well what if he uses chemical weapons on us." A valid conern. But the fact is we should have attacked Iraq and finished them off 10 years ago so they would have never had time to build up those weapons. But we've hesitated and the threat is greater. So instead of MORE hesitation and letting the threat become GREATER still, we have to take them out now. If we don't now, another time will come down the road when we ask the same question and the enemy is even stronger. So let's take him out now! If all the pussies that don't want to fight have it their way, Iraq will just get stronger and they WILL be a viable threat. They aren't now, and that's why now is when we have to attack.

[Slizor]

Heh, Bushism "Saddam is guilty until proven otherwise". Nice bit of justice there.

[dagger-happy]

At 8/11/02 08:31 AM, Slizor wrote: Heh, Bushism "Saddam is guilty until proven otherwise". Nice bit of justice there.

He is guilty of violating the Treaty that allowed him to preserve his little tin pot dictatorship. If he gave the Weapons Inspectors "unrestricted access" as he agreed to 10 years ago, there probably wouldn't be a war. As things stand, there most likely will be, and Saddam has brought it upon himself. There wouldn't have been a Trade embargo either.

As usual, it's the Iraqi civilians who suffer the consequences of the world leaders' arrogance and obstinacy. They died and were bombed in the Gulf War, have starved as a result of UN sanctions, been slaughtered by Saddam's chemical weapons, suffered at the hands of his police state, and now they will die as the USA ousts him. The question is, will they be thankful to Bush for the freedom he grants them, or malevolent for the bloodshed it required?

[Mushroom]

Nope. I'm from the UK and i don't want Blair to follow suit if Bush decides to carry out his family's vendetta against Saddam, because it's obvious now that that's all it is...

[FreedomSlave]

Besides that, the vast majority of our casualties in that war were friendly fire. The vast majority as in like almost all of them.

And what does that say about American troops ?

The Country that invented the term friendly fire and you say that you have good troops ?

you should try taking the histroy lesson

[FreedomSlave]

Besides that, the vast majority of our casualties in that war were friendly fire. The vast majority as in like almost all of them.

And what does that say about American troops ?

The country that invented the term 'Friendly fire' and you say you have good troops ?

oh btw, the british troops in afghanistan were brilliantly trained, why do you think we were sent in to clear out the caves? because the US troops are only capable of nuking the shit out of things. they are poor at actual ground combat.

[Slizor]

He is guilty of violating the Treaty that allowed him to preserve his little tin pot dictatorship.

Heh, like America has never violated a treaty.

If he gave the Weapons Inspectors "unrestricted access" as he agreed to 10 years ago, there probably wouldn't be a war.

He's offering it now.

The question is, will they be thankful to Bush for the freedom he grants them, or malevolent for the bloodshed it required?

I doubt they'd be much freedom, probably just another government in the hands of America.

[TheEvilOne]

If he gave the Weapons Inspectors "unrestricted access" as he agreed to 10 years ago, there probably wouldn't be a war.

He's offering it now.

If you had read the news today, you would have seen that Iraq is backing down from that offer. Iraqi spokesmen said that they would not let inspectors back in, and that accusations that they are building up weapons are a "lie". They never meant to let inspectors back in; they were just trying to stall the US from making an attack. Well, we didn't take the bait. Since we know that they won't let inspectors back in, I think it's time we got to the business of planning an attack.

[PsykoTygr]

At 8/12/02 01:42 PM, Reaper-n wrote:

Besides that, the vast majority of our casualties in that war were friendly fire. The vast majority as in like almost all of them.

And what does that say about American troops ?

The country that invented the term 'Friendly fire' and you say you have good troops ?

oh btw, the british troops in afghanistan were brilliantly trained, why do you think we were sent in to clear out the caves? because the US troops are only capable of nuking the shit out of things. they are poor at actual ground combat.

Alright, the only reason I pointed out the friendly fire was due to the fact that they were pretty much the only casualties. Now don't tell if if your heroes the British got into a ground war with any significant number of troops that there wouldn't be any friendly fire, because that's bullshit. Besides, no matter how well trained they are, it doesn't mean that they are the best infantry. Due to the better training more time and money has to be placed into each soldier, and there will be more selectiveness, therefore fewer soldiers. Yanno why we got the Brits to clean out the Al Qaeda holes? Because that's all they are suited for. I'm not trying to disrespect them by any means, but if they had to fight a Gulf War they wouldn't do so well. And yes indeed, equipment failure as I mentioned is a very important thing to consider and the British equipment isn't suitable for a lot of terrain, especially heat.

Oh, and all the Americans are good at is nuking things? Two nukes were dropped to end WWII, both within days of each other. Never before or after have they been used, despite the large number of wars we've participated in. Only good at nuking things my ass.

As far as being bad at ground combat, (I assume you aren't factoring in tanks) how would you know, hm? Have you personally surveyed all the American soldiers to judge their combat ability and painstakingly analyzed their performance in past wars? Or did you see the word friendly fire and see an opportunity to talk out your ass?