Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
same as for my mate hes in the signals in the british army hes a bit nervous he only joind a few mounths ago.

My brother is in the navy and was stationed in Bahrain when the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked. He was out there for a while afterward too. He's going to be on his way to Japan I guess shortly.

what i want to know is how do the people of iraq see sadam? do they like him? apprentally he's quite evil to them. If he were assinated how would they react?

A lot of reporters, especially from ABC have gone in and interviewed people. One woman came up to an ABC reporter and whispered and begged for something to be done to bring down Hussein. But I think generally the situation is like a massive cult. They have a leader that feeds them propaganda and have no other outlet for receiving news. For instance - they expect Saddam Hussein to get 100% of the vote in the Iraqi elections. In order for anyone to get 100% acceptance something is wrong. Also they showed on the news these 8 year olds dressed in military uniforms and singing "we love you saddam, we will spill our blood for you." over and over again in preparation of the elections. It's just strange - but it's also what Hitler did with his youth group organizations.

If military action does take place what form will the action take? A full scale ingvaion or just air strikes?

From what they've been saying here - it would have to be full scale invasion.

[Cirdan]

An assassination would be futile, at least in the short term. Saddam's son is next in line and he is worse from what I have read. Also, as far as the Iraqi peoplego, the reprisals would be most brutal. The final configuration after years of turmoil might be an improvement over the current situation, but the cost in human terms would be high. More reasons for a complete regime change by force.

Young men put into harms way? Anyway a sad story. I'm sure many are in for adventure and have a good idea what kind of risks they run. The ones I really worry about are those in it for financial reasons or the ones who are not so sharp and are swayed by marketing. They are usually the first to be killed in action.

How many here of service age are willing to go to Iraq in uniform?

[Draken]

Air power by itself won't win a thing. Yes you can pound an army to the point of collapse but you still need forces on the ground to bring that collapse about. Plus in 1991 the Iraqi's were adept at hiding military targets in amongst civilians. All a prolonged air campaign gets you is a small but steady trickle of air crew losses, lots of TV footage of bombed hospitals and little that the viewing Western public would see as tangible gains. The West wouldn't lose a war on the battlefield - it could lose it in the sitting rooms of (say) Ohio, though.

Who can say how the Iraqi public would react to the removal of Hussein? Enclaves in the North and South of Iraq hate him with a vengeance. He has executed members of his own family, which speaks volumes of his methods. They certainly turn out all revved up and loyal for the cameras, but who knows how much of that passion is genuine. We could hope for a mass rising against him if he's on the ropes but I don't think we can count on it. Plus I doubt any Western-led force would ever be seen as liberators.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
Plus I doubt any Western-led force would ever be seen as liberators.

Well the Islamic fundamentalists and muslim extremists would never view this as a liberation of Iraq- even if the iraqi people gave a huge parade and were marching down the streets in celebration after Hussein was toppled.

We need the support of Arab countries and in particular the Iraqis themselves. I think meeting and supporting the exiled Iraqis is a good start and having them play a key role is extremely important. One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see anyof it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.

How many here of service age are willing to go to Iraq in uniform?

My cousin has stated that he is considering joining the army to fight in Iraq. I would prefer him to do something less in harms way - like navy or air force though.

[osszie]

"Bush puts world on alert for new wave of al-Qaida attacks "

So now there is going to be a war on two fronts

Maybe the war on terroism does not involve an invasion of Iraq after all........but it should involve war against the ACTUAL terrorists

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
"Bush puts world on alert for new wave of al-Qaida attacks "

So now there is going to be a war on two fronts

Maybe the war on terroism does not involve an invasion of Iraq after all........but it should involve war against the ACTUAL terrorists

Well most Americans feel that both can be managed. The war on terrorism has never stopped. Did we stop fighting Germany to fight Italy or Japan?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

oh, I thought that "barely"a majority, and a minority, if no UN agreement, supported an actual war with Iraq.......opinions must have changed in the USA since surely it would have made more sense to eliminate one threat before taking on another?

JD this has been stated before..........there is no similarity between WW2 and the present time..........why do you keep referring to it

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
oh, I thought that "barely"a majority, and a minority, if no UN agreement, supported an actual war with Iraq.......opinions must have changed in the USA since surely it would have made more sense to eliminate one threat before taking on another?

Whether we can deal with two issues at the same time (one being the fight against terrorism and the war with Iraq) is a seperate question from whether people actually support all ouot war. Surely in England when they do polling they do ask multiple questions - right?

So we should deal with only one problem at a time? I guess we should hold off on the rebuilding of Afganistan because we're still fighting terrorism. Also - the economy should wait too.

JD this has been stated before..........there is no similarity between WW2 and the present time..........why do you keep referring to it

Because I think there are some similarities. Just because others may disagree doesn't change my views.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
because I think there are some similarities. Just because others may disagree doesn't change my views.

Whether we can deal with two issues at the same time (one being the fight against terrorism and the war with Iraq) is a seperate question from whether people actually support all ouot war. Surely in England when they do polling they do ask multiple questions - right?

Yes, we have opinion poles.........but they are opinion taking from just a percentage of the population and they are not a representation of the whole population so IMO they they are not valid

So what are the figures for the american people supporting a these two seperate issues?.........you have already claimed that "most" american people feel that both the attack on Iraq and the war against international terrorism can be won.

If you feel that there are similarities in this impending conflict and WW2, fine, personally, as I have said in numerous posts on this thread, I see none..........WW2 had physical evidence........this situation has none

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yes, we have opinion poles.........but they are opinion taking from just a percentage of the population and they are not a representation of the whole population so IMO they they are not valid

So what are the figures for the american people supporting a these two seperate issues?.........you have already claimed that "most" american people feel that both the attack on Iraq and the war against international terrorism can be won.

They are scientific polls - they take a cross sample of the population that represents the make up of the population as a whole. Polls generally have a small percetage of plus or minus accuracy rating (usually 3 - 4%).

I can't remember. It was in our local paper I think. I'll have to look.

If you feel that there are similarities in this impending conflict and WW2, fine, personally, as I have said in numerous posts on this thread, I see none..........WW2 had physical evidence........this situation has none

Wel considering that it has been shown that Husein buries a lot of stuff., or as the inspectors go in on door, the equipment is going out the other, I don't knwo how you will ever be satisified with physical evidence. What kind of physical evidence do you want?

So if there was physical evidence of what Hitler was doing - then why wasn't anything done before he invaded Poland?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They are scientific polls - they take a cross sample of the population that represents the make up of the population as a whole. Polls generally have a small percetage of plus or minus accuracy rating (usually 3 - 4%).

Wel considering that it has been shown that Husein buries a lot of stuff., or as the inspectors go in on door, the equipment is going out the other, I don't knwo how you will ever be satisified with physical evidence. What kind of physical evidence do you want?

So if there was physical evidence of what Hitler was doing - then why wasn't anything done before he invaded Poland?

Wow your polls are that accurate? Ours certainly are not

So you are saying that there IS physical proof?.......... I had no idea that there was proof that Saddam buried "a lot of stuff" or that as the inspectors were "going in one door, the equipment is going out the other".......if there is that proof then why the need for another investigation, surely any invasion is justified

Hitler was not stopped from invading Poland for exactly the same reasons that Saddam was not stopped from invading kuwait

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
.......if there is that proof then why the need for another investigation, surely any invasion is justified

There is no proof as of yet... only speculation.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
There is no proof as of yet... only speculation.

'xactly

[jerseydevil]

I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys unless there was an ICBM with a huge arrow pointing at it - saying here is the nuclear weapon.

Try this video and tell me if it works for you -

Nightline, 10/9/02:
It isn't easy being a weapons inspector in Iraq.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys [/url]

It's not a case of any amount of proof JD it's a case of any proof and at the moment, there is none

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
It's not a case of any amount of proof JD it's a case of any proof and at the moment, there is none

He just lied and deceived the previous weapon inspoectors and after they left he woke and thought - "I think they're right - I'll just get rid of everything they were looking for and stop working on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

I seriously doubt the weapon inspections will go without a hitch. I think he will prove to the world that he is not sincere about allowing weapon inspections. Of course this will just be enough time for him to prepare for invasion.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys unless there was an ICBM with a huge arrow pointing at it - saying here is the nuclear weapon.

Your link does not work.

I'm sorry but NO PROOF does not work on me. Maybe if there was actually some of this "any amount of proof" I'd be a little more gung-ho about war, but as it stands, there is no proof.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Your link does not work.

I'm sorry but NO PROOF does not work on me. Maybe if there was actually some of this "any amount of proof" I'd be a little more gung-ho about war, but as it stands, there is no proof.

Well the link I provided was to a Nightline show where they interviewed several of the previous weapon inspectors. I just can't see with the stuff that they had gone through that anything has changed in Baghdad.

Also - for some reason - even if Iraq had weapons and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - I can't picture you being "gung-ho about war."

The UN weapon inspectors are going to go in soon - so it'll be interesting how they are actually received in iraq once they get there.

The link is a Real One Player link - but I'm not sure if you need a subscription for it or not. Nowhere on the Nightline page says that you need a subscription.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He just lied and deceived the previous weapon inspoectors and after they left he woke and thought - "I think they're right - I'll just get rid of everything they were looking for and stop working on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

I seriously doubt the weapon inspections will go without a hitch. I think he will prove to the world that he is not sincere about allowing weapon inspections. Of course this will just be enough time for him to prepare for invasion.

Prepare for invasion???..............do you serioulsy think if he had WMD he would not have said "back off or I will use them"????

This is a man who is willing to allow tens of thousands of his own people to die.

65% of captured Iraqi' tanks, during the Gulf War, did not actually contain amunition (even more were captured because they ran out of fuel)............I personally know two people who served as infantry in the Gulf War and the Iraqi soldiers gave up with after only minimal aggression. This is situation based on propaganda.............on both sides (Iraq v's any who oppose them), nothing more IMO.

Actually Saddam played a very clever diplomatic game during the last inspection (1998) as has been said several time in this thread, he discovered that members of the UN Inspection team were on the CIA payroll, therefore making the inspection illegal under the agreed conditions

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - for some reason - even if Iraq had weapons and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - I can't picture you being "gung-ho about war."

You're right. I will never be "gung-ho about war." However, if it was proven that Saddam was harbouring WMD, then I would be 100% behind an invasion.... even if I dislike the idea of war. Some evils are just too great to ignore.