the Iraki war is inevitable... - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- the Iraki war is inevitable...
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Posted by malek on Jan-28-2003 00:30:

the Iraki war is inevitable...

... post your predictions!

Posted by IronDragon on Jan-28-2003 03:19:

(without making any jokes about your I'm sure accidental typo)

Oh yeah. Bush has too much invested in this politically and militarily (<100,000 troops and an extra 50K on the move is more or less critical mass in terms of the point of no return) to the point where to say no would lead to a revolt within the administration.

And for those who feel the change in Colin Powell's rhetoric is the sure sign of war (for me, we hit the point of no return in August of last year) this article by Robert Novak (the best conservative columnist, IMHO) is quite interesting.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/nova...dt-novak27.html

Oy, it looks like I misunderstood the question. So here's my answer:

I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying the United States, Great Britain, a bunch of cajoled (and oddly conservative) Western European leaders and the hegemonic powerhouse known as Bulgaria will win.

Casualities will, if you're an optimist be around 500-1000 (Gulf War claimed about 150). Granted the Iraqi army is (at least it should be) reduced in numbers from what it was during Desert Storm, but an actual ground invasion is always more costly than a beatback war. Civilian casualites would be about 25,000 or so (Desert Storm claimed about 15,000) at least.

But if the hawks are proven to be wrong (i.e the military stands firm, there is significant civilian resistance and subsequent Mogadishuesque house to house warfare, so called smart bombs aren't so smart; least of all, God forbid, Saddam does indeed unleash Weapons of Mass Destruction) than this could in fact become another Vietname, or much worse.

That is to say nothing of the significant economic, it still is the economy stupid, costs of the inevitable occupation(especially if there is no significant mulitlateral action to help with "nation building", Iraqi infrastructre destroyed, A true rousing of anti-american sentiment in Arab world leading to more terror attacks) But, if a clear coherent case is made that Iraq poses an imminent threat and that all attempts at a peaceful resolution have fallen by the wayside (I will reserve judgement until February 5th at the earliest) I guess we simply will have to do what we have to do.

Posted by cap on Jan-29-2003 23:50:

Predictions on what? Who will win? Obviously US, but it will be much tricker than the gulf war.

The gulf war was fought in the desert, where the most powerful army wins easily. However, if America attacks, Saddam will bring the war into his cities and use his tight, compact allies to trap and fight the US military.

Kinda like what happened in Black hawk down...

Posted by Greedy on Jan-30-2003 06:27:

the tricky thing about going to war with iraq, is that saddam promises that if we do attack them, he will destroy all of the oil wells like he did in the gulf war. Currently, he is rigging all of the oil wells (approximately 1500) with explosives in case the war breaks out. Why is this bad? If this happens, the oil destruction will be 20 times greater than the exxon spill and will cost approximately 40 billion dollars to clean up. This man is evil.

Posted by Izzy on Jan-30-2003 20:28:

"you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage."

Machiavelli - from The Prince, chapter 3, written in 1513

Posted by intrinsic on Jan-30-2003 22:21:

Well, I honestly think that there is more to the build up than just Iraq. I think Iraq had given the Bush Administration the perfect excuse to beef up US Military presence in the region (which I feel is the ultimate goal). This will give them the opportunity to react swiftly to any threat from that region (which at this time is the only real threat to our national security).

Posted by JM on Jan-31-2003 01:41:

predictions heh....

they wont get asshole hussein. just like they didnt get osama. on purpose of course, whatever that purpose is.

>JM<

Posted by IronDragon on Jan-31-2003 03:12:

Just watching NewsNight on CNN and there's a report about Iraq's ability (or lack thereof) of ability to handle the casualties a war would cause. Iraq says it would be able to cope. That means they won't.
That means 800 cruise missles on Baghdad in 2 days causes HUGE (don't even want to dare speculate) casualities.

But then again, wouldn't be anything worse than what Saddam has done but kind of makes you think.

Posted by razorbrax on Jan-31-2003 03:43:

President Bush is after Saddam Hussien To take revenge for the attempt on his father, mother and brothers lives when they visited Kuwait city in 1993 by Iraqi inteligence.

Posted by Az on Jan-31-2003 11:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
"you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage."

Machiavelli - from The Prince, chapter 3, written in 1513

so you're quoting a philosopher from the 16th century about the current Iraqi situation? great
Can't quote anyone fromt his day and age with any credibility that supports a war? thought not

Posted by Izzy on Jan-31-2003 17:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Az
so you're quoting a philosopher from the 16th century about the current Iraqi situation? great
Can't quote anyone fromt his day and age with any credibility that supports a war? thought not

Posted by Az on Jan-31-2003 18:08:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
Saddam Hussein's support of terror, and links with Al-Qaeda, as well as other terror organizations, coupled with the unconventional weapons in his possession, are a strategic threat to the entire free world

Saddam Hussein has no links with Al Qaeda, and I don't see any proof that he has unconventional weapons in his possession...... and compared to places like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel etc... he's an absolute nobody......

Posted by Az on Jan-31-2003 18:17:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
no one care what you see..
Saddam Hussein going to die

you're a fucking lunatic

Posted by joeh on Feb-01-2003 16:30:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
ohh shit..now how can i live with that

you cant, so just kill yourself now.

Posted by joeh on Feb-01-2003 20:47:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
your joke killed me first

If only that were the case.....

Posted by oDrori on Feb-01-2003 22:31:

Comon guyz, no childish arguments here please (Don't anyone tell me "He started this" )

Posted by Time2Burn on Feb-01-2003 23:16:

quote:
Originally posted by Az
Saddam Hussein has no links with Al Qaeda, and I don't see any proof that he has unconventional weapons in his possession...... and compared to places like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel etc... he's an absolute nobody......

To dispell some of these senseless arguements and name calling lets start talking some TRUTH here.

Mr Az you are right! Suddam and Iraq do not have ties with Al Qaeda! Never have and never will. Once people stop believing all the rhetoric that comes out the president's mouth we could actually start understanding stuff.

And this one is easy:

Who are Al Qaeda?

A group of Islamic Fundamentalists against all who do not follow their interpretation of the Koran (sp?). I know I'm simplifying their philisophical structure but generally I am correct. They are agianst those who do not follow their ideals. And as a result are prepared to fight.

Iraq is country that is on the complete opposite end of Al Qaeda's Ideological Spectrum. It is a country based on secular ideals. They have short hair and do not wear the religous clothing like they do in lets say Iran. As a result countries like Iraq are ememies of the Al Qaeda as they are not devoted Muslims in their opinion.

Iraq themselves have had to deal with the problems of Islamic Fundamentalism/Militarism.

It sucks that GW can speak so much misinformation and because he is the prez people hold "his" "thoughts" in high regard.

Please people take information with a grain of salt.

Posted by DJ_Skaya on Feb-03-2003 04:41:

This "War" with iraq is just Bushes Ticket to re-election. Anyone who actually believes the bullshit he spoonfeeds us about Iraq without realizing that there is no evidence or solid reason to start a war is an idiot. At this point, if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, the U.S. is the instigator, and the U.S. is in the wrong.

Posted by DJ_Skaya on Feb-03-2003 04:44:

Posted by malek on Feb-03-2003 05:21:

he should read the thread i just created about the non-existent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Posted by Az on Feb-03-2003 13:27:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag

keep crying
saddam is gonna fall

oh right,so your saying that because there is no evidence, and your hatred is clouding your judgement?
well thats my 2 cents anyway
take it, save up, and buy yourself a clue

Posted by joeh on Feb-03-2003 16:25:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
i didn't say there is no evidence
i'm saying no matter what evidence it will be
you too blind to see it
because you dont want to see it

if Az took a stick, sharpened it up and dug himself in each eye 17 times he would be able to see what was going on better than you, mate.

Posted by Az on Feb-03-2003 16:30:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
i didn't say there is no evidence
i'm saying no matter what evidence it will be
you too blind to see it
because you dont want to see it

On the contrary, I'd LOVE to see some evidence, but when it comes down to it, there are far more pressing matters to be looked at, like north korea for example. Hmmmm Saddam Hussein with no Nuclear Weapons, no way of getting them, and no way of delivering them, or North Korea, who we know have the capability to build at least 6 nuclear weapons (and all the recent intelligence is saying that they are building them),and are commiting far more Human Rights violations than Iraq......
so where should the priorities lay?
Would America give a shit if Iraq didn't have any Oil? would they fuck....
there's 4 cents
keep saving, you'll be able to buy a clue then Guetag

Posted by joeh on Feb-03-2003 16:53:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
ok..
you are the smartest guy on earth
Us,Britian,israel,france and more countries that support the attack of iraq are wrong..But AZ is right because he want peace..
stop being so "world saver" wannabe

israel also goes round stealing land and bombing people, doesnt mean its right, arse.

Posted by Az on Feb-03-2003 16:59:

quote:
Originally posted by guetag
ok..
you are the smartest guy on earth
Us,Britian,israel,france and more countries that support the attack of iraq are wrong..But AZ is right because he want peace..
stop being so "world saver" wannabe

So let me get this straight......
Because a guy who can't read past the 4th grade level wants to finish daddies job, I'm supposed to like it?
about 3 people support the war in Iraq in britain, just a shame those 3 people are the ones that make the decisions
Ariel Sharon wants to attack some arabs, nothing new there.....
I'm not sure France support the attack
Germany certainly don't
neither do Belgium, Holland etc....
I can't believe someones just tried to take the piss out of me for wanting peace!
and what the hell is a "world saver wannabe"?
6 cents!
your well on your way to buying this clue you so desperately need!

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »