PDA

View Full Version : Bombs Away: Gulf War 2 begins Feb. 11


peter2002
Jan 22, 2003, 09:34 AM
That is my date, what's yours? Top Russian military leaders leaked that the US will begin its punishing attack in mid Feb.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030122/wl_nm/iraq_russia_dc_4

Get your gas mask and stock up on gasoline while you still can.

Pete

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 10:22 AM
The report sounds pretty authentic:

1) Everyone knows the U.S. already decided long ago that they were going to attack Iraq

2) Controlling the oil fields makes sense, not only for the economic reasons cited in the article, but also to avoid Saddam implementing the same scorched-earth tactics that he emploeyed on GW I when he torched the Kuwaiti oil fields.

3) The article is consistent with what I read before that the U.S. strategy was to take over part of the country first, then attach Baghdad later if necessary. The U.S. can basically walk into southern or norther Iraq unopposed, since Saddam has very little control over those regions, and he has pulled back all his forces to defend Baghdad anyway.


Looks like war is inevitable, so let's just hope it's quick (and not a bad quick like ending in thermonuclear war).

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 11:01 AM
My date is February 19th. And if we go, and the opperation is swift. There will be chemical or biological weapons used by Sadam. You know the irony there is that will finally prove that he does have them and was decieving the inspectors.

Oh, and there will be at least one tactical nuke used in this war. Bank on it.

Nipsy
Jan 22, 2003, 11:05 AM
I'm going to Vegas on the 12th, so if it doesn't start on the 11th, and you wanna lay some odds lemme know.

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
My date is February 19th. And if we go, and the opperation is swift. There will be chemical or biological weapons used by Sadam. You know the irony there is that will finally prove that he does have them and was decieving the inspectors.

Oh, and there will be at least one tactical nuke used in this war. Bank on it.


Ummm...no. Why on earth would the U.S. use a tactical nuke when it has so many other weapons at its disposal? If they really need to flatten a large area they can roll out those fuel-air bombs and not leave a whole region irradiated. You're way off-base here, man. I disagree with almost everything the cunning, deceitful Bush Jr. does, but I don't believe he's incredibly stupid or just plain crazy, which is what he would have to be to even entertain the idea of using a nuke. Despite what some people would like to delude themselves into believing, Bush is a very smart, methodical man who knows exactly what he's doing and knows how to play the media and the public. But not even he could sugarcoat using a nuke.

I agree with you though - if we move on Baghdad, Saddam will launch is WMDs, probably poison gas bombs since they're the easiest to deploy effectively (as Saddam himself proved against the Kurds and Iranians). Except instead of killing U.S. troops it'll just turn into a Bhopal-like environmental disaster against his own people.

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 11:23 AM
Ummm yes. The White House has already said that if we go in and Saddam uses WMD's then we will nuke him. Period.

ddtlm
Jan 22, 2003, 11:55 AM
lmalave:

Everyone knows the U.S. already decided long ago that they were going to attack Iraq.
Yes, but if Iraq gets real cooperative such that the weapons inspectors are happy, then the USofA will have a very hard time starting any sort of war. Saddam is still shooting at aircraft in the no-fly zones for crying out loud; he's making no effort to avoid a war. I maintain that Saddam could stop all of this any time, if he wanted to. But failing that, if this comes down to a game of "chicken" between stubborn Saddam vs stubborn Bush, my money is on Bush.

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ummm yes. The White House has already said that if we go in and Saddam uses WMD's then we will nuke him. Period.

That's just using the premise of Mutual Assured Destruction that served as an effective deterrent during the Cold War. Keep in mind the current administration is dominated by aging Cold Warriors. Just because we say we'll nuke doesn't mean we'll nuke.

ddtlm
Jan 22, 2003, 11:59 AM
Backtothemac:

Ummm yes. The White House has already said that if we go in and Saddam uses WMD's then we will nuke him. Period.
Actually they have not. They have said we reserve the right to nuke him.

j763
Jan 22, 2003, 12:07 PM
nuke him?? *************

you're just nuking the innocent civilians (those who are still alive, that is). Haven't they suffered enough?!

agreenster
Jan 22, 2003, 12:13 PM
Nuclear bombs are the most awful things on earth.

Period.

I will hate the US is we nuke them.

ddtlm
Jan 22, 2003, 12:26 PM
j763:

nuke him?? *************
:rolleyes: Hello, come back to the real world. Nuking is and always has been the USofA policy in the event of a WMD attack on us. You will find that all nuke-armed countries say the same thing about themselves.

agreenster:

To my knowledge noone has threatened to do anything with nukes except retailiate against a similar attack (WMD). This is not new.

ooartist
Jan 22, 2003, 12:40 PM
Not going to happen. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

<Vent>

Honestly I like Bush because he is a good old boy from Texas.
He is not the greatest president that we every had but he beats the hell out of having that pansy stiffy Gore (I feel I can say this about Gore considering I am from TN and he tought a class at my college).

Yeah war is bad but so is terrorism and killing kurds and his own people which Saddam is guilty of both directly and indirectly. Someone has to do something about him why not now during the push to stomp out terrorism? France, Germany, and most of Europe are big on human rights etc.. why aren't they on the US side to punt this guy? Because they all have contracts with Iraq to produce Oil for them. Oh if the US goes in and wacks Saddam then they lose their flow of oil. So it all boils down to oil on both sides of the argument. The way I look at it this guy needs to be removed and should have been removed a long time ago ('91) the oil is just a added incentive.
Do you think anyone (Countries) would care that US was about to remove this freak if he didn't have a country so rich in oil?

Lets be real here people it's not just the US/Bush that is the bad guy here.

I guess I am just a war monger.

</Vent>

ooartist

Macs rock!

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 02:06 PM
I hope this war is at least a little more graphic than the last one. I want to see charred flesh! Especially mangled, decapitated little kids. Then I and my GOP homiez will know that justice has been done and freedom has prevailed.

yzedf
Jan 22, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
That is my date, what's yours? Top Russian military leaders leaked that the US will begin its punishing attack in mid Feb.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030122/wl_nm/iraq_russia_dc_4

Get your gas mask and stock up on gasoline while you still can.

Pete

Please, not 11 Feb 2003. That is my birthdate. That would suck.

Jays
Jan 22, 2003, 03:40 PM
Besides oil, the countries opposing the war on Saddam, like Germany and France also know what weapons saddam has they after all sold him knowledge and materials.

no wonder they don't want to send their soldiers east to be massacred by WMD.

MrMacMan
Jan 22, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Nuclear bombs are the most awful things on earth.

Period.

I will hate the US is we nuke them.

You mean you don't already???

That is Bush's Job!


Anyway, I doubt the U.S can get France, Germany, China and everyone else to lay off their backs before the 11th, maybe by the 19th.

Lets hope never.

MyLeftNut
Jan 22, 2003, 03:55 PM
Christ! The fact that you guys concede there is something wrong with the current situation and the way our governments are handling it just proves to me how ****ed up the human race really is....and youre betting on it??

Gus
Jan 22, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by j763
nuke him?? *************

you're just nuking the innocent civilians (those who are still alive, that is). Haven't they suffered enough?!

THEY KNOW WE'RE COMING. They can leave now and get out of the way. Besides, Saddham is the reason they are suffering, not the USA. We have been paying them boatloads of $$$ for oil under the UN program. Do you really think Saddham makes sure everybody gets it?

Regards,
Gus

P.S. The use of a tactical nuke is not for the Iraqis, but to show N. Korea that we are not kidding around.

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Gus


THEY KNOW WE'RE COMING. They can leave now and get out of the way.
Yeah, they'll just... walk! And they'll tell all of Hussein's Republicam Guard that will try to kidnap them and use them as human shields "No thanks, we've decided to leave instead," and the Iraqi government will go, "OK!" And the countries to which they will defect will say, "Welcome!"

mkubal
Jan 22, 2003, 06:02 PM
I love that there is a basic consensus that Bush will use nuclear weapons to kill innocent Iraqi children. Call me a right wing nutcase, but if you all can't see how very ridiculous this is then maybe you should spend less time calling Bush an idiot and little more time figuring out how you come up with these retarded ideas.

On top of this you people are predicting the date on which we go to war. Please realize that you've been doing this predicting for the past few months and you all have yet to be correct.

If you are against a war, that's fine, it's your opinion and you have every right to it. But if you're going to tell people your views please attempt to use logical arguements.

I can sum up the basic ridiculous ideas you guys have into one sentence: George Bush is stupid and we will go to war against Iraq because Bush just wants to steal the Iraqi oil so that he can fatten the wallet of a few oil tycoons, but to finish them off for good, Bush will nuke them.

I think I caught all the stupidity in that one sentence. If not, let me know.

Matt

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by mkubal
I can sum up the basic ridiculous ideas you guys have into one sentence: George Bush is stupid and we will go to war against Iraq because Bush just wants to steal the Iraqi oil so that he can fatten the wallet of a few oil tycoons, but to finish them off for good, Bush will nuke them.

I think I caught all the stupidity in that one sentence. If not, let me know.

Matt

You forgot the part about Bush avenging his father :)

And if you think this war isn't about oil you're deluded. It's exactly why we're going after Iraq and not North Korea, because North Korea has few resources, is not a serious threat to its strong neighbors, and is therefore not a threat to U.S. interests.

We really don't care about Iraq or its WMDs in terms of them being used against us. That is patently ridiculous, despite Bush's rantings about things like drone planes and Iraqui-organized terrorist attacks. What we really don't want is Iraqui domination over the region which would have serious worldwide repercussions. I mean come on, do you really thing we gave a ******* about Kuwait back in '91? We didn't then and we don't know, and our motivations are exactly the same: prevent an Iraqi sphere of influence. Except this time we're nakedly establishing our own sphere of influence, for better or for worse (and I say this as someone who thinks we'd do more good than harm in the Arab world, despite the horrible precedent I think the pre-emptive doctrine will set).

brogers
Jan 22, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I hope this war is at least a little more graphic than the last one. I want to see charred flesh! Especially mangled, decapitated little kids. Then I and my GOP homiez will know that justice has been done and freedom has prevailed.


Interesting thought. We can be for sure that the terrorist had the same idea in mind on 9/11 except they actually ment it and they got it.

My feeling is this. No matter if it is religion, politics, oil, money or whatever, terrorist hate us and they would just soon kill us and our families, take our way of life and cram it up our #@* than look at us. They are plotting now as I type to attack us or our interest around the world. They have no problem killing our women, children and fathers. They don't care and will never care. They see us as evil. The game is afoot and will not stop.

So we can either sit back with peace shirts on and sing Beatle songs or we can take a stand and try to root it out. Lives will be lost. That is war. I would go today if they would let me because I owe some dead boys/men my gratitude as I am able to sit here in my cozy home with my shinny Mac and type freely.

Terrorist don't sing about peace and love. They hate. Should we??? Maybe not, but I don't really want to see another building fall or another American child murdered at the hands of someone we could have stopped but did not have the guts to. Mr. President, You have my full support as a citizen to be sure this kind of stuff does not happen again. I don't like war either, but sometimes you just gotta..........

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by brogers

So we can either sit back with peace shirts on and sing Beatle songs or we can take a stand and try to root it out. Lives will be lost. That is war. I would go today if they would let me because I owe some dead boys/men my gratitude as I am able to sit here in my cozy home with my shinny Mac and type freely.

Terrorist don't sing about peace and love. They hate. Should we??? Maybe not, but I don't really want to see another building fall or another American child murdered at the hands of someone we could have stopped but did not have the guts to. Mr. President, You have my full support as a citizen to be sure this kind of stuff does not happen again. I don't like war either, but sometimes you just gotta..........

Why do you think that a war against terrorism will be any more effective than the drug war? If our government, the wealthiest government in human history with something like a $2 trillion budget, can be totally mocked and humiliated by international drug syndicates that are just out to make a profit, how the ******* are we going to beat suicidal religious fanatics that hate us more than they love their own life?

I just think we're going about this totally the wrong way. The ONLY way I have justified our takeover of Iraq is if we're going to Marshall Plan them and write them a new constitution the same way we did for Japan and Germany. Then, and only then, would we have any hope of getting rid of terrorism. Not by "rooting them out", but by giving the young people something better to do than plot revenge agains the U.S.

Look, kids left to their own devices in a free country will always prefer vegging out in front of MTV instead of following religious fanatics. I really believe that the reason American culture has spread so successfully is that it is closest to human nature, for better or for worse. That's why you can find the best (creativity, entrepreneurship) and the worst (gun violence) of human nature in the U.S.

But I just don't think this president and administration have the vision to implement a new Marshall Plan. Just look at how involved we've been in Afghanistan :rolleyes:

kiwi
Jan 22, 2003, 07:03 PM
The REAL reason Bush wants Iraq (and, later in the timetable, as we spread our resources, other "rogue" nations on ALL continents)...location, location, location. It's not necessarily simply about oil or resources, fear, peace, revenge, or justice etc - those are secondary "lowly" reasons given to the masses to suck on, and they change from time to time to throw us off course. It's most likely going to happen whether we like it or not as it unfolds before our apathetic and naive eyes...

"To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia."

Full article here...

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Has anyone actually read Bush's National Security Strategy of The United States of America? You might be frightened to realize where we're headed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

All of this, while our vital infrastructure is left to decay. It's the critical basis of a healthy economy. I suppose the so called "evil ones" imagine they can take their time, watch us rot from the inside and go broke in our confused priorities, divide and conquer.

http://www.rebuildamerica.org/

brogers
Jan 22, 2003, 07:13 PM
Imalave....you make a good argument and I agree with alot of what you are saying. I stated in my post that we need to stand up and try to root them out. The continued failure as you call it with respect to the war on drugs is not a reason to now stop trying. Our county is good at making messes out of things, but I prefer to look at that glass half full and pose the question "what if we simply did nothing." Drugs would be a whole lot worse.

The war on terror is in its enfancy and can not yet be messured....except by the press and I will not dignify them with an explanation. We must try and continue to try.

No administration could begin to see all the answers to this huge global problem, but I personally can not sit on the sidelines and monday morning quarterback an adminstration that is faced with something this huge. That does not mean that I blindly follow. It simply means that I fear what happens if we don't try and I, like you and everyone else here, are simply not in possession of all the facts. Therefore, I must trust and rally behind my President.

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by brogers
My feeling is this. No matter if it is religion, politics, oil, money or whatever, terrorist hate us and they would just soon kill us and our families, take our way of life and cram it up our #@* than look at us. They are plotting now as I type to attack us or our interest around the world. They have no problem killing our women, children and fathers. They don't care and will never care. They see us as evil. The game is afoot and will not stop.
No question, I agree 100%. But I wonder: What does Iraq have to do with all of this. What effect would leveling it and removing its government have on terrorism? My answer: Not a gosh darn lot! "But they're brewing WMD," say the pro war dudes and dudettes. Of course they are. And as the drug war has taught us, you can try as hard as you like to stamp out supply, but demand will only create more. If you want to win the war on drugs, you've got to target the demand. I believe the war on terrorism is just the same - if you want to win it, you've got to eliminate the demand for WMD.
[Mr. President, You have my full support as a citizen to be sure this kind of stuff does not happen again.
The president has my support on this as well... but instead he chooses an ineffectual course of action that will do much more harm than good in both the short and long term.

brogers
Jan 22, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

No question, I agree 100%. But I wonder: What does Iraq have to do with all of this. What effect would leveling it and removing its government have on terrorism? My answer: Not a gosh darn lot! "But they're brewing WMD," say the pro war dudes and dudettes. Of course they are. And as the drug war has taught us, you can try as hard as you like to stamp out supply, but demand will only create more. If you want to win the war on drugs, you've got to target the demand. I believe the war on terrorism is just the same - if you want to win it, you've got to eliminate the demand for WMD.

The president has my support on this as well... but instead he chooses an ineffectual course of action that will do much more harm than good in both the short and long term. [/B]

With all due respect, how do you know that. For the life of me I can't imagine the President of the United States along with his top advisers sitting around the White House and asking: "What is our most ineffective cource of action that will cause the most harm to the global community over the short and long term? Whatever it is, let's do that."

I am one lowly citizen that is not in possession of all the facts and never will be. Therefore, I must trust, rally and support.

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by brogers
With all due respect, how do you know that. For the life of me I can't imagine the President of the United States along with his top advisers sitting around the White House and asking: "What is our most ineffective cource of action that will cause the most harm to the global community over the short and long term? Whatever it is, let's do that."
I didn't say it was the worst... I said it was ineffectual and would do more harm than good. There would be worse options, like, I don't know, nuking Iraq as a show of force to North Korea. So this option isn't the worst, it's just, IMO, not the best. (And I'm against anything less than the best course of action)
I am one lowly citizen that is not in possession of all the facts and never will be. Therefore, I must trust, rally and support.
Your government loves you :p

resm
Jan 22, 2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, and there will be at least one tactical nuke used in this war. Bank on it.

there are also predictions that have been around
since Saddam invaded Kuwait:

1. this invasion will be the trigger-off for world war lll

2. 1/3 of the human population will be killed by a world war lll

3. the world economy will collaps and slide into a depression worse then 1929 with jobless rates up to 40-50 % in certain areas.

4. this depression will be accompanied by inflation.

usually depression is accompanied by deflation but if the roads of supply are cut or destroyed then the little money that will still be around will be hunting for the few goods that are still available.

Based on this horrible picture, I think it is arrogant to assume that the US can just walk in and close down Irak without trigger-off events all over the world that in the end they can't controll anymore.

Will this be the end ?

No..but surely it will be the start of an end to our political systems where incompetent and corrupt leaders know nothing better then to screw up our lifes.

Because when the "critical" mass has reached its saturation point, meaning enough people are pissed off, then changes will happen.

So, to make this a betting game I feel is distastefull and to ask for a disaster will often bring one.

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by brogers
No administration could begin to see all the answers to this huge global problem, but I personally can not sit on the sidelines and monday morning quarterback an adminstration that is faced with something this huge. That does not mean that I blindly follow. It simply means that I fear what happens if we don't try and I, like you and everyone else here, are simply not in possession of all the facts. Therefore, I must trust and rally behind my President.

Well, I guess that's the main difference in our approaches. I personally think that's it's more important than *ever* for people to state their disagreements with the government *because* the stakes are so high. I and a lot of people have in this country have plenty of ideas, and I think they need to be heard. I haven't heard anything from the administration about a Marshall Plan for Iraq, and what I've seen from Afghanistan does not give me any hope that Bush wants to move beyond the callous policies that have made people in the region distrustful of the U.S. to begin with. Realize that Afghanistan and Pakistan were already incredibly angry at the U.S. for helping flood the region with arms and heroin to help fight the Soviets, and then abruptly pulling out and not raising a finger to help those impoverished countries clean up the mess we helped create.

And hey, I feel perfectly justified in Monday-morning quarterbacking. Unlike some sports team that is only there to provide us entertainment, Bush is OUR president and chief executive of OUR government. I won't let Bush off the hook any more than if I was shareholder of a company and I disagreed with the business strategy the CEO was promoting. I'm not going to give the CEO a free pass, and I'm certainly not going to give a U.S. president a free pass.

<edit>
Oops, I guess this is the wrong website to talk about following CEOs blindly :D
</edit>

Phil Of Mac
Jan 26, 2003, 12:08 AM
Weapons of mass destruction are far more difficult to make than drugs. The analogy breaks down there.

Thanatoast
Jan 27, 2003, 08:55 AM
I was emailed this today. Thought I'd post it just for fun.

(Sung to the tune: "If You're Happy And You Know It, Clap
Your Hands")

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 11, 2003, 02:01 PM
I guess it hasn't happened yet.....

any revised numbers here?

D

Ovi
Feb 11, 2003, 08:19 PM
11