Anti-aircraft fire and explosions have been reported in Baghdad, and Ari Fleischer has announced that the war has begun. President Bush will address the nation in 15 minutes.
Well, did anyone expect it to begin so soon?
THE WAR HAS BEGUN
1,304 Views | 24 Replies
what is this, sportscenter?! live coverage of a war is being treated like an NBA game...this is just desperation for ratings.
At 3/19/03 10:13 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: what is this, sportscenter?! live coverage of a war is being treated like an NBA game...this is just desperation for ratings.
I agree with Deadzone on yet another thing (yay, he posts lots and has some good ideas, brave enough to say what he thinks), Lol. I am not watching the news right now. Bush isn't going to say anything totally new and insightful. It's everything you'd expect him to say and stuff he's aid before.
Watching the live coverage to me is kinda pointless too. Me being so far away and with no friends in that area right now, I don't need to know what buildings are being hit, or where gunfire was first sighted.
Sure some footage would be nice to have just because it's a historical event I guess, not that I'll watch it =P.
Well, obviously, the various channels will compete to show the best/most sensational coverage to get the best ratings. But even so, I think it's a good thing to know when the war begins, and when we make a major strike. I'm actually pretty interested in the strategic aspects of war.
oh and if anyone was watching MSNBC, they had the countdown of the deadline, and i was expecting people in times square to be celebrating like new years but good thing that didn't happen...
it's kinda interesting that both America and Isreal seem to think "leadership targets" are fair game in modern warfare.
At 3/19/03 10:32 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: it's kinda interesting that both America and Isreal seem to think "leadership targets" are fair game in modern warfare.
Well, if we can kill Saddam with a quick missile strike, it saves us the trouble of capturing him, trying him for war crimes, and putting him in the chair. I think it's clear that Saddam is a target, and we will either get him with a bomb, or if our troops find him, they will shoot him. Is there anything wrong with targeting Saddam and his cronies, who are among the most evil men in the world? We did target Osama in Afghanistan, after all.
At 3/19/03 10:43 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Is there anything wrong with targeting Saddam and his cronies, who are among the most evil men in the world? We did target Osama in Afghanistan, after all.
well, Al-qaeda did attack the Pentagon - but i'd call that a military target, not a leadership target. The theory is that martyrdom is all about dying in battle, not by getting banged up the ass in some US jail and bleeding to death :)
curious how Bush normally sez "if our troops die in brave valour on the battlefield - they will be remembered as heroes" ..it translates similar to martyrdom
Ok, why does America name battleships (battle-groups) after past-Presidents?
At 3/19/03 11:12 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:
Ok, why does America name battleships (battle-groups) after past-Presidents?
they ran out of states
At 3/19/03 11:12 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: curious how Bush normally sez "if our troops die in brave valour on the battlefield - they will be remembered as heroes" ..it translates similar to martyrdom
Well, the idea of those who die in battle being remembered as heroes is not a new concept. It is similar to the concept of martyrdom, but I don't consider the 9/11 hijackers or anyone else who blows themselves up to kill civilians to be "heroes".
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"
-Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
the missle attacks made were targeted at the leaders in several bunkers surrounding Baghdad. they used bunker piercing missles to get to them to "cut off the head of the snake" as it's been said using cruise missles from naval ships and F-117 stealth bombers. excellent strategy if you ask me.
OK, I just had to jump in and say what I think. First Saddam is a sick bastard and he needs to to removed from power. I may or may not agree with Bush for the way he is going about it, BUT most other countries wouldnt get off their asses and do anything. Saddam has been and will continue to be a threat to the world until he has been killed. History proved that exile doesnt work and you know hes not going to change his ways. As far as war is concerned, I dont see much of a battle. The Iraqi soldiers will give up (just like last time). I dont usually have any thing to say about who gets voted in as president because the poor get screwed no matter who gets elected. The only time I care is when the lives of our people (by people I mean the human race not just americans), are in danger. Had a democrat been elected we would have certainly lost our right to bear arms (and who knows what else) but instead we get a republican and we go to war. It seems to me we always lose in the elections no matter who wins. I dont care if Bush says this had to be done or if the pope said so, The point is we have troops from more than just the USA fighting to stop a dictator who could aid terrorists in an attack on any country. WE cant let terrorism win. I hope we kill the SOB!
At 3/19/03 11:44 PM, Delamorte wrote: I hope we kill the SOB!
i actually hope we capture him and lock him up so he can live, for the rest of his life, with his failure and shame. i think that is far worse than his demise.
Ok, why does America name battleships (battle-groups) after past-Presidents?
We don't have any active battleships, the last were decommissioned several years ago.
The Navy follows certain themes when naming ships(FFG's for admirals, CG's for civil war battles SSN's for Cities,, ect.) It is only appropriate that the most powerful vessal in our fleet, the nuclear Carrier (CVN) be named after our most powerful people i.e. Presidents.
At 3/19/03 11:47 PM, mysecondstar wrote: i actually hope we capture him and lock him up so he can live, for the rest of his life, with his failure and shame. i think that is far worse than his demise.
Yep. That's an arguement I use for life-imprisonment rather than capital punishment =P. Although some prisons give too much freedoms... heh...
this is spooky. a SKY news correspondent in Baghdad is in a flak jacket and helmet. there are reports that there are explosions outside of the city. also there are artillery fire heard just across the border of Kuwait.
Dammit we all need to sleep, but I can't stop watching the news and responding to posts.
watch post watch post work on midterm? nah. watch post watch post...
aww, persephone. i hope you can get some studying done.
I think it's clear that Saddam is a target.
THEY WANT THE OIL!!!!!!
At 3/20/03 09:44 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: They're going to shave his 'stache and hair, too!
YAY~! i would pay to see that.
Let me attempt to jump-start more talk about what's going on in Iraq:
We have begun moving ground troops into Iraq, while we continue to pound Baghdad with bombs. There are reports that Saddam himself was in a compound that was hit. Saddam may already be dead.
So, does anyone think any of this may have the Iraqi military in disarray? If Saddam is dead, then who is in charge right now? And if Saddam is still alive, is he still able to effectively command the Iraqi military? We do seem to still be encountering some resistance, so maybe someone has control over the Iraqi military.
Sun Tzu was told to make a group of concubines march by Emperor Lo. when he tried they wouldn't march. so Sun Tzu asked the Emperor if he could do anything he liked with them and the Emperor said yes. so Sun Tzu cut off the head of the head concubine, and lo, the concubines marched.
