pull out the bodybags, sf examiner thinks that war is possible

Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Nov 7, 2002.

  1. jefhatfield Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    pushing iraq back to its borders using a huge multinational coalition is one thing

    but going at it alone with just a few nations and occupying iraq is another thing

    sure we can beat saddam but we will not lose just hundreds of us troops, but tens of thousands over a longer period of time

    if we attack, it should be with overwhelming support with military might, many other nations on our side, and us support at home...even then, we are talking about going "into" iraq which will still costs thousands of us soldiers' lives

    why don't we just assasinate or capture the bastard like marcos or noriega?
  2. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816


    Mar 11, 2002
    Franklin, TN
    It is well known that we have been trying for years. Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr have officially given the order to take him out... we are just unable to do so. It is also well known that Saddam went after Bush Sr.

    Its a bad soap opera.

    We will go to war.. there is no doubt about it. It is just a matter of when.

    here is a good article:

    and some more:


  3. ninjachild macrumors member

    Oct 30, 2002
    because we agreed not to do that, so we do not have to fear repurcussions from assassination.

    i understand what you are saying,

    but hopefully we will have alot more military support than we did going into somalia years ago.

    one of the biggest factors in this will be the support from home,

    no one is supporting it, and it does not seem to matter.
  4. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    the article gives me hope for a resolution

    about us not being able to get to sadaam...come on, get real...i just think we might have too much tied up with iraqi oil to do away with saddam right now

    unofficially, in conversations from one navy seal's parents i know and one ex-special forces support soldier, we have assasinated other leaders in the past

    with the funding, technology, and training that is out there, we can take saddam out of iraq and have him in the states this week...i have no doubt about that

    but world opinion, which is tied to our trade with other nations, would have a dim view of us if we started playing god on the world stage

    we hold back our use of force just enough as to not piss off the rest of the world...and that is a good thing

    the last thing we need to do here is become the evil bully dictator of the world

    that would prompt terrorists to start walking into clubs and restaurants on a daily and weekly basis and wiping out dozens of americans as happens in israel

    i don't want to see us soldiers bombing the dwellings of palestinians and seeing shorts on tv of us soldiers killing children who are throwing rocks at them in some unnamed middle eastern country

    the us has to take the high road and be very, very slow to anger and not become terrorists ourselves
  5. Thirteenva macrumors 6502a

    Jul 18, 2002

    In my experience any one high up enough in the military to know such classified things would never, ever discuss them, not with friends or family. I know you'll come back and tell me i'm wrong your sources are solid but remember people high up in the millitary with top secret access did not get there by telling people things they knew..

    I don't want to sit and argue this point its rather off topic. I only brought this up because i don't think you should say so lightly that the US is responsible for assassinations, some impressionable person will walk away from this discussion and say "oh i know a guy who knows a guy with top secret clearance and the US assassinates dictators". Now i know this is not what you said, but its what some person might read, we know how rumors get started, remember all teh ones following 911......
    all of a sudden everyone had an arab friend that told them not to fly on 9/11 and that left the country after that.....

    now back on topic....

    I agree here, the moment we over step our bounds we will lose credibility in our war on terror.

    I agree here too and would absolutely dread such a thing happening in the states.

    I agree here also. We're walking a fine line between self defense and bullying as far as other nations are concerned.
  6. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    great points 13va

    i cannot solidfy my sources but i will say that the navy seal was a low level navy officer so he did not make big decisions

    he became a christian and did not agree with his job as an assasin/sniper anymore and became a protestant minister so i tend to believe what he says over some psycho living off of 40 ouncers in people's park in uc berkeley angry at agent orange

    my father was military intellignece in world war II, japanese american, but was only a sgt so he didn't have high clearance

    i worked as an assistant to a cia operative during the soviet years and worked as a lowly GS-5 at the department of defense after graduating from university so i was low level and did not know anything classified...our office did get the goods on timothy mcviegh's military record after the oklahoma bombing

    i don't claim to know much more than some young 18 year old who masturbates to tom clancy novels, but i just want to say our great country does have some dirty tactics if need be and while most of the police and military are honest, there are a few exceptions

    personally, i would never be a detective, fbi, or special forces since i have religious beliefs and personal beliefs that would make me unfit for the requirements of the job

    and basically, i am a computer techie and just plain too chicken:p :D :eek: :)
  7. ninjachild macrumors member

    Oct 30, 2002
    i think that also if we were to try to assassinate saddam, it would makes us enemies that we cannot afford to have, and it is not like anyone would be like "hey where's saddam, oh yeah hes gone oh well"

    the most plausible concern is to start a rebellion i.e. columbia, afghanistan, and make it out of our hands,

    but the american people would never know until much later on,
    thinking that it's just a solution to a problem.

    i guess what im saying is that yeah the military has dirty tactics,
    and we could kill him, but that also makes us the prime suspect of who is killing off leaders of arab nations.
  8. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Jan 22, 2002
    can anybody in support of the war explain why iraq is a better target than some of the South American countries? i.e. support a rebellion there instead of invading iraq?
  9. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    good point!

    we need to give it some more time and try diplomacy and wait

    if we do need to go to war, god forbid, then we should have a solid plan and backing from others and within the usa
  10. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    Eh? Do you think Dubya can just get on the phone and start a rebellion? Sure some Iraqis don't like Saddam, but they have more or less no chance in hell of defeating Iraq's armed forces. There appears to be very little Iraqi public dissatisfaction with Saddam.


    Of course we are much farther away from the angry Islamic ghettos than Israel is. You can't just strap on a bomb and jump on the first plane to DC. Doesn't work that way.

    Bullcrap. Our Islamic allies sell us lots of oil; we don't give a crap about Iraq's oil. Maybe some day we'll want Iraq's oil but right now gas is cheaper than water (bottled water anyway). Dubya may want to kick Iraqi arse for various reasons, but you can bet oil is not amoung them.
  11. SPG macrumors 65816


    Jul 24, 2001
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    I just posted this in another forum but it seems liek more of a fit here:

    I have still yet to hear a real reason to go back into Iraq.
    Nuclear threat? nope.
    Opression of his own people? UN sanctions have something to do with that. I don't think it's time to lift them, but it ain't like Sadam is sitting in a palace wringing his hands and thinking up ways to inflict pain on the populace. Sure he's a bad leader and he used chemical weapons against the Kurdish uprising, but that was over ten years ago. We were in Iraq after the fact and very easily could have supported the Kurds in their effort to become independent but didn't. In fact Bush Sr prompted the Kurds to rebel publicly promising them support but instead allowed the Iraqi military to use helicopter gunships in the no fly zone to put down the rebellion.
    Security of the free world against terrorism? Iraq is fundamentally at odds with the Islamic fundamentalists.
    Oil? maybe. There sure is plenty of it, and we all know what business W and his buddies are in so that might be it. There sure will be a lot of money to be made when the dust settles.
    Political gains during the mid term elections? Rally around the comander in thief to win the war! What war? Oops, better start one.
  12. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000

    i am talking about al qaeda terrorists living here already who would use homemade bombs

    look at what two snipers could do

    i hope W is using scare tactics to make iraq disarm

    attacking iraq without real support like last time would result in a lot of dead soldiers...it would be a major disaster

Share This Page