What is up with that? anyone? Rocket River I said we'd be at war in 3 yrs and SOMEONE here jumped down my throat. Well looks like they ahead of schedule ------------------
Thats standard policy. Iraq was increasing their missle attacks on our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Bombings are standard reprisal. Personally, i think bombardment by Navy Battleships would send a stronger signal. ------------------ The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?
I'm of the mind. . . bomb/invade/take over put in our puppet and run the country be done with it. . . . all this going their and spanking them every 4 years or so is getting tiring. Rocket River we need more protectorates ------------------
Chronology of Air Strikes http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010216/wl/us_iraq_chronology.html against: Now they're pissed and claim they will retaliate against the US. Personnaly I'm sick of hearing of the Middle East. It makes me feel life is all good in the hood! ------------------ Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
Rocket River....let me just say that I'm glad you are not running the show. The US would seal their fate if they invaded Iraq now and tried to take out Saddam. Everyone would turn against us except for Israel(who have tons of their own problems because they cannot make peace with Palestine and Arabs) and Britain. Hell, we would be cast out of the UN if we did try anything like what you are saying. This would be the quickest way to instability in the region....as if it is not unstable enough. All we are trying to do is enforce the no-fly zone without having our birds at risk of being shot out of the sky. Iraq is tired of it and doesn't recognize the no-fly zones. However, they don't even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with their invasion of Kuwait. Iraq is trying to play the other countries against us by crying "we've had enough" and "usa is satan". Fortunately, their feeble cries fall on deaf ears because everyone knows Iraq is run by liar Saddam who, in his mind, can do no wrong. Saddam and Iraq call for a Jihad or holy war against Israel, Britain, and the US. If they had their way, it would be Iraq and all of the Arab nations along with Russia, France, and whomever else vs. the US, Britain, and Israel in another world war. The problem is we are scared. If we do not police Iraq, then noone will. This gives Saddam power to proceed with his weapons of mass destruction. He will then look to build long-range missiles with nuclear or biological capabilities and target the US, Israel, and/or Britain. Obviously, we cannot let this happen or happen easily. Our only hope is to continue to do everything in our power to get Saddam out of power and get someone in power who is more cooperative. Who that is....who knows? It certainly isn't one of Saddam's own family members. We were hoping for a coup or overthrow but that is highly unlikely. One of these days...a flash point will be reached. They won't let weapons inspectors in and allow them to do their jobs. Other countries are starting to become lax in their approach to Iraq. Soon, they will call for sanctions to be lifted. The no-fly zones will be gone. Then, Saddam will be free to Jihad. No telling what happens then. He probably becomes a nuclear power and God help us all if that happens. Surf ------------------
Surf, I am confused, you started off by saying how glad you are RR is not running the show and how installng a new gov would add instability to the region, and then you run off a very impressive list of reasons to do that very thing.... Bottom line...How long can you live with a venomous snake in your house before you get bitten? Eventually you have to kill it or remove it. No difference here.... ------------------
This calls for a covert operation to take out Saddam and put a "Yes Man" in charge. Damn I wasted my 600th post. ------------------
We don't have battleships anymore. The Navy retired the last of them several years ago. Basically, they were horribly expensive, and very dangerous. (Remember the turret explosion that killed 26 people.) The navy felt that they were obsolete, since guided missile cruisers and destroyers could place missiles more accurately and at a longer range. The other problem is Saddam feels no problem using human shields, whether it be putting a command center in a hospital or an anti-aircraft battery on the roof of an elementary school. Even using their most accurate weapons, the US has to pray that Iraq didn't decide to do something wild, like holding "Bring the Orphanage to tour the Bunker Day." ------------------ Stay Cool...
StringThing I was thinking the same thing. my Point is that this guy is not cooperating with the world leaders . . . so we either 1. Get him on board [not happening so far] 2. Remove him and put someone else there 3. let him b*tch and ignore him [dangerous] I'm tired of Saddam. . . I think some of his points maybe valid . .. my point is if we gonna get involved. .. GET INVOLVED don't do this half assed sh*t I want this issue closed. Rocket River ------------------
Of course there are reasons to get rid of Saddam directly. But, it cannot be done or we would have done it already. The reasons it cannot be done are many. It has nothing to do with is it physically possible. It has everything to do with every other country in the region and how they would respond to it. We could have done it back in the Persian Gulf war but chose not to(which was a mistake). We do, however, have active funding for anti-Iraqi oppositions in the no-fly zones. We can only hope he dies or is overthrown. I'm not sure I see where you are confused. We can help to remove him indirectly. We just can't move in and do the deed ourselves directly via force. Now, if a bomb falls on a communications target which was used to strike at our birds and Saddam happened to be there at the time and died, then that would be great. But, there would still be a tremendous amount of backlash from the region even then. Who knows what would happen? It would be bad in my opinion but it would be worse if we targetted Saddam directly. Surf ------------------
I don't think many Americans realize how much the Arab nations hate us. They hate us because we stand for Christianity. They hate us because we are not Arabic. They hate us because we are sucessful. They hate us because we steal their oil. Surf is right. There are so many things that we don't know about and reasons why we can't do certain things. Our only real allies are Britan and Isreal. The only reason why the other Middle East nations supported us during the Gulf War was because they were afraid of Iraq. Not that their army is laid to waste, we are their new enemy. And yet, we are more concerned about a bunch of gay people getting marrige rights ... ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
I tend to think that the USA wants Sadam to remain in power. I can;t for the life of me figure out why except to posture a few theories:- 1. If Sadam is killed/removed, who is next? Maybe someone worse is witing in the wings who has a martyred Sadam to whip up loyalty? 2. Removing Sadam will create furthe instability in the region, prompting Iran to assume regional domination. 3. The risk of offending Russia/China? Russia was anti-gulf war last time around and China is the only other nation the USA would be overly concerned about. 4. Unwillingness to undertake caretaker role of a defeated Iraq. I bet that any UN security Council Resolution to allow Iraq to tbe invaded would be contingent on the US provifding a large chunk of the peacekeeping force afterwards. That would be an extremely unattractive proposition. I agree with string's venoumus snake analogy. How much longer before we see some serious retaliation on US soil? ------------------ Maybe all the rulers are wrong. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
the day that they fight back on our soil will be all the excuse we need to bomb him into oblivion. As long as the sabre-rattling is all that is happening, the other countries will distance themselves. If Iraq actually were to launch a strike, the other countries will probably think "We could be next." and be inclined to allow us to kick the sh*t outta Saddamm. (I hope) ------------------ You would have to pry the ball outta his hands with a crowbar. Bill Worrell referring to Cuttino.
Who bombed the world trade center ... wasn't it a bunch of Arabs? What about USS Cole? (i understand UUS Cole was not Iraq, but no doubt they had a part in it) ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
You might want to be careful making statements like that Space. Broad ethnic generalizations are dangerous. Good point though. It appears that there is precedent for terrorist attacks on US soil. Rockets2k " the day that they fight back on our soil will be all the excuse we need to bomb him into oblivion. As long as the sabre-rattling is all that is happening, the other countries will distance themselves. If Iraq actually were to launch a strike, the other countries will probably think "We could be next." and be inclined to allow us to kick the sh*t outta Saddamm. (I hope)" And that is probably why we haven't seen any Iraqi attacks in the USA - Sadam knows he is history if he does anything. That threat alone should be enough. ------------------ Maybe all the rulers are wrong. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
I think the US has stated that they want Saddam out of power -- more specifically, they want Iraq to have actual, as opposed to sham, elections, and that we would recognize any legitimite elected ruler. But, we can't tell people to but out of our internal politics and then tell them how to run their country. Well... we do it, to an extent, but there's a limit to how far we can push it. The US does have to deal with countries other than Iraq. We also do not want to alinate Iraq or any other country -- we have to at least be able to talk to them. Advocating the assasination of a leader, or targeting him, or removing him from office by other means, would ruin our ability to work with that country. It would damage our relationships with other countries we disagree with. It would also alienate our 'friends' who would feel obligated to show that they are not under our thumbs. Even if we disagree with a leader, we have to acknoledge them in order to make progress toward peaceful relations. Cuba's the perfect example. It's been ruled by a despot -- and would be better off without Castro. However, our willingness and ability to at least talk to him has given us stability. Interfering with world leaders will only cause difficulty, and force other countries to become defensive. Sometimes we just have to let things play out. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Wow, As a citizen of Kuwait, an Arab, I am so shocked to hear your statements. Do you guys even know what the f*** is going on in the Middle East. The US doesn't give a **** about Saddam ... they care about the oil. If the threat of another invasion is removed, the Arab nations have no reason to pledge allegiance to the US. That means less oil to the US. Let me ask you, there is civil unrest in India and Pakistan, in Rwanda, in Zaire. There are UN Security resolutions for all those areas ... do you see the US forces or government taking actions over there? No ... there is nothing to be gained by going in those areas. As far as Iraq crying foul ... yeah right. They have nothing left - civilians die by the score every day ... but who the hell cares, they're terrorists. It should also be noted that the US hasn't always sided with Democracy in the past. You can take NUMEROUS incidents from Central and South America. This is the country that instigated a civil war in Panama so that the Panama Canal could be built. Everything (good or bad) has an immediate effect on US interests. Surfguy ... Iraq's pleas falling on deaf ears? Not really ... most all nations in the world (China, Russia, France ... to name the biggest), condemned the attack and are actively seeking to remove embargos. Not because they forgot what has happened, but because the need is no longer present. The height of US ignorance was unveiled when during the Oklahoma bombings, without ANY investigations, the Presidency assumed it was plotted by foreigners ... who am I kidding ... by Middle Easterners. I have to say that the US is a great country ... ruled by extremely intelligent and far sighted individuals, and my hats off to them for that. Rockit PS: I have all the reason in the world to hate Iraq ... I lost my entire past, everything because of the war. However, whats happening now is painful. ------------------
First, most Americans are not that naive to believe that we were over there helping you guys. Most of us believe it was for the sole purpose of protecting our oil.(which, I don't blame them) I think Iraq only did the invastion to destroy as much oil as possible. Yes, you are correct here. But Americans are not constantly blowing up their own buildings and threating other countrys that they are going to bring terrorism (speaking toward terrorist groups, not specific countrys) to their lands. I don't call it ignorance ... If your child was raped and killed, the first person you would look to would be the child molester down the street. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
rockit: Thank you for that very insigtful commentary. It's really cool that this board has someone in the middle east who can point out the arrogance of we westerners. We could stand a dose of humility from time to time. As for bombings, the middle east, etc, much of the instability of that region remains because there is a holy war being fought that far pre-dates America. The irony is that we've long thought that we could somehow intervene and protect our interests. However, we usually do nothing but make it worse. In the 80's, we funded the Aftghanistani rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union. At the time, Iraq was an ally. We even sold them weapons to fight against our arch enemy, Iran and the Ayatolla. Well, during the Gulf War, the Iraqi's found someone new for us to hate, Saddam Huessein, and we went after him. Of course, he used weapons against us we sold Iraq in the first place!!! Now, in Afghanistan, the world's number one terrorist, Ben-Ladin, is using the weapons and technology we sold Afghanistan in the 80's against us. Oh, the irony. We all know that we fight there to protect our interests. There are two reasons we get involved in domestic conflicts today... 1. Communism 2. Money We don't get involved in Pakistan and India because, despite the threat of nuclear war, there is no real communist threat or monetary interest of the US represented there. Rockit's analogy there holds very true as does Rwanda and Zaire. The oil in the Middle East represents billions to industry in America. We get involved with Korea because it represents a "communist threat." Generally speaking, peacekeeping missions are not popular or facilitated very often. Only in the most uncomfortable situations does America risk the loss of life as it should be. But, we are all naive to believe that Hussein represents any greater risk than any leader of any country that isn't an ally of the US. We pledge support to Isreal because they are an ally but they have done far more to create instablility in that region than most of the Arab countries have. They are just more important to us because of their ties to wealthy interests in the US. Honestly, it is no wonder people from around the world dislike Americans. Too often we ride around on the white horse of freedom and push people around because we can. The British Empire was once the most powerful empire ever. It didn't last either. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited February 19, 2001).]
Space, No, I would call it ignorance by all means. It's just something about Middle East ... the mystery ... that makes everyone think that evil brews there. Something about the language, the customs, the culture. Oklahoma isn't the only time this has happened. More often than not, terrorist attacks aren't planned by Arabs, or executed by them either. It's just the mentality that 'yeah, they're to blame' without having the facts down straight. What happened in the case of the airplane that crashed a few years back ... where the black box contained voices of the pilots talking in Arabic ... wasn't it assumed right away that it was a covert operation, and the pilots were 'Islamic fundamentalists' plotting to take the plane down. There are numerous occasions where just based on Arabic writing, airlines suspect a terrorist activity. That, to me, is ignorance - blaming or suspecting something/someone without anything to back it up. If the Arabs were known for blowing up every thing that had to do with America ... fine, blame them all you want, but that is hardly the case. ------------------
