Iraqis will fight with sticks and knives

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mr. Anderson, Mar 17, 2003.

  1. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #1
    Iraqi President Saddam Hussein says his troops would fight any U.S.-led invasion with sticks and knives if necessary and would attack "wherever there was sky, land and water."

    Given the moral of the last war in Iraq, not many soldiers are going to be running up to an M1A tank with a big stick with a nail in it. ;)

    All this talk and propaganda - he's making a mockery of the UN - this little conflict will end up changing the world for years/decades to come. And not necessarily for the better. Its really sad that it can't be resovled peacefully.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/sprj.irq.iraq.fight/index.html

    D
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    Saddam isnt a man of peace or love in the first place so that is the root of the problem. I think when the U.S. does roll in there will be many many people who will glad to finally have this dictator gone. He has murdered,tortured etc a lot and lot of people/families. Just knowing someone who was vocal against Saddam could get you killed. No trial no nothing and then the next day they would grab someone that new you! There is no Law just rule of Saddam.
     
  3. leprechaunG4 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #3
    Fight with sticks and knives, ahhahaha, that's a good one. On MSNBC the other day they were interviewing some of the marines that are already in the middle east getting ready to go, and they were training on how to take prisoners properly. They were even talkign about the stratigical slow down that might occur from the fatc that they will be having to stop to take so many prisoners on their way to Bahgdad. In the Gulf war 80,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered. My guess is more will surrender this time. Hopefully this keeps the bloodshed down. Hey if they all just surrender, loss of life would be optimum minimum.
     
  4. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    It would be nice, but we can't expect it to happen everywhere. And we can't be complacent to think that it will be easy. I'd love to see us waltz right in and get it over with, with no one getting killed. Unfortunately, that won't happnen :(

    D
     
  5. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #5
    Yeah I bet those sticks and knives will be real useful when a US armored vehicle pulls up with a 50cal mounted to it! My guess is whoever makes it through a dramatic air bombing campaign, will just live a few more days until they either surrender or get mowed down by heavy guns.
     
  6. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #6
    dukestreet:

    Yeah people are going to die, but hopefully it gets done quickly and Iraq can finally get on with life. No more sanctions, no more WMD programs, so more dictator. I'm hoping for the best... we'll see...
     
  7. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #7
    Despite all the rhetoric, Iraq has not attacked the USA. This sets a very bad precedent. I guess we haven't learn our lesson from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Lebanon, Panama, and all the other sh*t wars we have engaged since WWII.

    If the Gulf War2 goes bad, Bush will go bye bye next November 2004.

    Pete :)
     
  8. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #8
    Is it Bush?
     
  9. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #9

    im not really concerned with the loss of life within THEIR military. if they want to fight the US then thats their decision. i really am only concerened for the civilians.
     
  10. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #10

    but saddam is threatening the world just by developing and storing these weapons. also we see what he is willing to do to stay in power. he should be removed. the thing im worried about is WHY dont we go in with more precision? bombing them is gonna have massive civilian casualties. i cant stand the thought of my girlfriend being blown to bits because the leader of my country was a tyrant. i wish we could go in there with some secret operation and remove saddam in the night. now THAT would be succesful to me.

    going in and bombing with our smart bombs seems so broad handed especially when the iragi military is just gonna hide in civilian populations like stray dogs.
     
  11. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #11
    Just more rhetoric. A few weeks ago a group of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to the troops in Kuwait, but they were told to go back because the war had not began yet. So if that is any indication, which it probably is for many of the regular conscript troops, few will put up much of a fight. Although, I heard that Saddam put members of the republican guard in the regular troops to make sure the conscripts fought and did not try to desert.
     
  12. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #12
    As long as it is iraqi soldiers and not civilians it will not be a problem for the perception of the war. If civilians are accidently killed as they were in one major incident in 1991 then there will be problems. The civilians killed in a botched attack on a munitions storage building and the percieved brutality of the US destruction of the convoy fleeing Kuwait in 1991 are part of what led to the first war going unfinished. The world thought we had killed the iraqis who were trying to flee Kuwait, but it was actually an armed retreat and the casualties were vastly overstated at first. This caused Bush and Powell to decide that they neede to wrap up the conflict, against the will of many of the military leaders in the gulf.
     
  13. barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #13
    It's ok for America to go rolling in and attack iraq, there's actually the question of whether Tony Blair will end up being tried for war crimes for making britain join in.

    I can just see it now, "sorry judge, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong, uncle georgie told me it would ok to do it, he even said we were saving the world or something, I always did like those justice league cartoons... no don't lock me up... Prescot made me do it by being mean to me, he ate all the pies you know, wouldn't share them with me either, george is my best friend now, can you help me george ? george ??"

    Okay, it's not funny really, it could be very serious for the UK but we all know it's almost all about oil, bush being pissed off he's not got bin laden yet and bush senior having another shot at doing it properly this time through his son.
     
  14. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #14
    They shall fight with sticks so that they may annoy us to death.

    I guess you gotta do what you gotta do right?
     
  15. brogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #15


    People disagreed with Bush Sr. for initiating Dessert Storm. He stopped short because he told the coalition that he would not go into Bagdad. It was part of the agreement with the other Arab Nations to gain support. He abided by that and stayed out. People dissagreed when he did not "finish" the job.

    I would argue that if Bush Sr. got Sadam, people would argue he should not have. If Bush Jr. does not take him out then people will say he should have. Let's disagree with the Bush's just for the fun of it.

    It is obvious that the week arguments like the one above are just creative ways of saying."I don't like Bush"....Jr. or Sr. Why not just say it instead of calling it oil, family revenge, corporate greed or some other crap. It is clear to any educated person that this is not about those things at all.

    If I'm Sadam, I am sitting back getting empowered. I can make all the weapons I want, gas whomever I want, Lie to the UN whenever I want because the UN is useless, people hate Bush and Bill Clinton did not even look my way....and it is doubtfull that if Bush gets beat in '04 any other Democrat will look my way. I might just sell some arms to a terrorist.

    Too late for that Sadam. Bush may go out in '04, but your butt is going out in '03.
     
  16. MacFan25 macrumors 68000

    MacFan25

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    That would be great if they all just surrendered, but, I doubt that is going to happen. :(

    Let's all just hope that not much, if any blood will be shed.
     
  17. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #17

    oh no LOL,

    i hope that isnt true. that is truely sad. and i cant believe we didnt take them in. they obviously didnt want to fight. why send them back? thats silly.
     
  18. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #18
    It is true. They never said how many, but i have heard a few times that a group of iraqi soldiers surrendered to British troops. The troops said that they were not yet ready to recieve prisoners of war because they couldn't as the war had not yet begun.
     
  19. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #19
    Well, those are the front line canon fodder troups. The elite troups won't be such a push over, but with those nice new ulta hi explosive bombs (MOABs) that take out huge tracts of land, it shouldn't take many to convince that ground troups that if they want a chance to live through the battle, they'd be best off to give up.

    I just hope its not as bad as some people are thinking it will be.

    D
     
  20. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #20

    actualy it will be as bad as it can get for thousands of the unfortunate dead meat sacks. america will forget about any civilian casualties once they release a new reality series though....hmm maybe they can hold off on the final episode of "Are You Hot" or whatever its called till the wars over....they can use the final episode to blind the sheep yet again.
     
  21. macphoria macrumors 6502a

    macphoria

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    #21
    President Bush just gave ultimatum and 48 hours for Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq to prevent war.

    Though Saddam and his regime are problematic issues, I can't agree with Bush administration taking action without agreement in U.N..

    In essence, U.N. and its predecessor League of Nations, were established to allow nations to exist in harmony, to prevent conflicts, and to resolve conflicts in democratic manner in world wide scale. But U.S., whose very president struggled to get League of Nations off the ground, is showing disregard for this establishment. Reluctance to participate in International Court system is yet another manner.

    In U.N., there is Security Council and members with power to veto certain resolutions. The power to veto means whatever action that was being considered on behalf of U.N. will not take place. And having group of members having such power suggest that they are esteemed members of global community and their judgement should be based on global, not national, interest.

    Bush administration's disregard for the system that many nations take part in will set terrible precedent and lead to other problems. This type of decision making will give other powerful nations with neighbor problems, a lot of leeway in their future conflicts. And despite all the good we are attempting to do, it will only isolate U.S. from rest of the world when we fail to listen to them.

    I want to think this country is a world leader, not a lone cowboy who does whatever he sees fit.
     
  22. RugoseCone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    #22
    500,000 dead civilians!

    I'd like to know where 500,000 dead civilians comes in. Desert Storm resulted in 2300 Iraqi non-combatants killed. That was a pretty massive bombing campaign. That's an increase of 217 times more!

    Seems WAY overestimated.

    Yes the lose of any innocent life is horrific. I by no means mean to marginalize this, but the numbers seem too skewed to keep being bandied about.

    Here's my source on that number...

    http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html


    I want to add this from an article by a George Lopez written in 09/91...

    "There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war. The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according to Greenpeace."

    Yes a much larger number, but a FAR cry from 500,000.

    At what point do we say "diplomacy at all costs"? Even if it means sacrificing your own family members? Your own friends? When do we give up our own safety for the idealism of peace?

    I am certainly no fan of the Bush. No fan of war. But look into your own heart and do you really truly honestly believe George Bush wants to kill Iraq's citizens? DO you think he is sooooo evil and sooooo smart to have cooked up this masterful plan for world domination? Have you ever thought you were right about something, so much so you got into a huge argument with a loved one. Only to find out later you were wrong. What if this is one of those times. What IF Bush is right. What if your inability to see both sides of the coin resulted in your wife/husband/sister/brother/etc losing their life.

    All I ask is that those that oppose the war outright and unconditionally, think about why the average Joe supports it while you don't. I know it's much easier to hurl accusations at Bush and make fun of his eyes beign too close together. But think. I do. I dunno what we should do. But I keep thinking and won't stop and swallow ANYTHING that ANYBODY tells me. Just seems that too many people on both sides keep doing just that.

    So the same goes for all the pro-war people. Is there a better way? Something deep down tells me that this time there isn't.
     
  23. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #23
    While truman did come up with the idea for the league of nations and support it, few others in america did. Congress would never approve of it because of its wording, I believe it was a problem with article 14 dealing with congress' perieved threat to the soveriegnty of the us.
     
  24. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #24
    Perhaps you skipped your economics class, let me enlighten you...

    Iraq drills $6 Billion in oil a year. This war will cost anywhere from $70-100 Billion. This means that it would take 11-16 years to break even. That is at least 1 if not 2 presidents later. I hardly believe that the US government, with a very skeptical legislature would approve of a war that would put us in this type of economic fiasco.
     
  25. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #25
    macphoria:

    What about the precedent Saddam set by ignoring UN resolutions for 12 years? He basically showed the world that the UN is useless. At this moment I don't see that the UN can do much useful because its bogged down by nations that don't ever take action.

    Well, thats not quite true, since it's pretty obvious Russia has done more in Chechnia than we'll ever do in Iraq. :rolleyes: China's not innocent either with the various conquered peoples they currently dominate ... so perhaps of our strongest critics we can only label France and Gemany as being incapable of action.
     

Share This Page