Bush Speech

[faded glory]

"you all do know that the west supplied Sadam with the technology to fight Iran, don't you?"

The stupid thing was Iran had a very modern military left by the Shah in 1979. M60a3, F-14's and F4's. Tow ATG, M113, German and other NATO arms. We supplied the then monarch Shah's army with alot of firepower.

the Iranians were far from defenseless. Its just for some ungodly reason they chose to use Suicide waves to attack and not tanks. And after 1982, the Soviet Union had lent the Iraqi military enough forces to easily wipe the iranians out. But the Iranians continued to waste thousands of good soldiers on an offensive in Southern Iraq which captured Basra to Kuwait but were too weak to hold.

Iran had some 1600 tanks and 400 modern Jets. Almost none saw any action except in retailatory raids on Baghdad.

here is a really good pictures

http://www.pitt.edu/~megst20/war.html

This war always interests. It was so stupid, yet there were alot of issue's between the two countries.

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by Fez
2+2 does not equal 5. It just doesn't.

So why do you keep saying it does?

Take this equation: Iraq + Saddam = Misery, Death, and possible WMD strike against 1st world countries). This equation is so damn true it is unbelieveable. Now take into mind.

Four years have gone by since the weapons inspectors left Iraq. Saddam has had plenty of time to develop his weapons, and it's quite possible that he had some weapons programs running when the inspectors left. If all he wanted to was to strike against first world countries, why hasn't he done so already?

I believe that yes, Saddam would probably love to strike against US or Europe. But he doesn't, because such an action would be sure to get him killed in the counterattacks from US/Europe. Saddam loves his life and his power more than he hates US/Europe.

On the other hand, if Iraq is invaded and Saddam sees that he's fighting a losing battle, then he'll have a reason to use his WMDs: He's dead anyway, so why not finish his life with a powerful strike against those he hate?

The way I see it, the US might be giving Saddam a reason to use his WMD by invading Iraq...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus




The Empire launched several invasions into Parthian and Sassanid lands, with mixed success, long after the end of the Republic.

True, but these were no more than border skirmishes not unlike the seeming endless wars against the Germans and Goths. The Romans never embarked on a national effort to conquer Parthia/ Sassanid Empire/Perisa as they did Carthage, Macedonia or Gaul. Perhaps Trajan would have carried through after conquering Mesopotamia, but he was faced with a Jewish revolt in Africa that forced him to withdraw as soon as the fighting had ended.

Most emperors after Augustus simply followed his advice to stay in a defensive posture. The Senate, had they still been the real power in Rome, may have had a different view on Persia. But we shall never know.

BTW, I think Bush has come to realize, if he hadn't before, just how much more powerful the United States is if we enter into a conflict with a national commitment to a clear objective. Congress will undoubtedly authorize a war against Iraq in the next few days by an overwhelming majority.

I also believe our Allies and the UN will be their with us after Congress's vote. Had Bush not sought and received the support of Congress, the ability to pursuade the UN or our Allies to join us would have been greatly reduced.

[Kepler]

Bush will definitely be in a stronger position with the US voters after cornering Congress with the high school "fight or you're a ******!" tactic. But I doubt it will help with the UN or the allies. The rest of the world tends to see us as having an imperial president and a lapdog congress and public. Nothing happening now will change that perception. Hopefully, the leaders in those countries will likewise realize that this is the best chance they're liable to get of kicking Saddam out, and cajole their own publics.

[Adam Smith]

Pull yourself up to the keyboard and write your congressman. There might still be time to make a difference.

[Saint Marcus]

True, but these were no more than border skirmishes

Hardly. The Romans got all the way to Nineveh. Not to mention the war for control of Armenia.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Kepler
Bush will definitely be in a stronger position with the US voters after cornering Congress with the high school "fight or you're a ******!" tactic. But I doubt it will help with the UN or the allies. The rest of the world tends to see us as having an imperial president and a lapdog congress and public. Nothing happening now will change that perception. Hopefully, the leaders in those countries will likewise realize that this is the best chance they're liable to get of kicking Saddam out, and cajole their own publics.

Nothing happening now will reverse that opinion, but we can (and probably will ) make it much worse.

[Giancarlo]

You people are clueless. I am not going to talk with clueless people like David Floyd. Get a damn clue. You don't know who you are dealing with... this is not a man you would consider a good neighbor... he ****ing kills people.

[Bosh]

Fez: the very model of eloquence

[Giancarlo]

How can you even have compassion like so many of you anti-war communists are for such a man like Saddam Hussein? It is disgusting, especially you Floyd.

[Lorizael]

Fez, when has anyone here claimed to have compassion for Saddam Hussein? When has anyone claimed that Saddam is a great guy that they'd consider being ruled by or living with?

All we are trying to do is explain to you that there are consequences to the actions Bush wants to take. The US may be the most powerful country in the world, but that does not mean it is all powerful.

The one thing I have not seen you do is explain how to deal with what happens when the US attacks Iraq. You claim that the United States is in danger becasue Iraq had WoMD that is ready and willing to use. If Saddam is ready and willing, what's to stop him from using them the moment the first marine lands in Iraqi territory?

Answer that question.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Hardly. The Romans got all the way to Nineveh. Not to mention the war for control of Armenia.

Well, all the wars with the Persians, etc., ended in peace treaties. The Romans perhaps were not strong enough to conquer Persia, nor the Persians strong enough to conquer the Roman Empire. Logistical problems may be partly responsible. Yet I cannot help but wonder if the Caesar had not been assassinated whether he would have been successful where Crassus had failed. Caesar was not one to back off from a reverse (Britain, for example) without coming back at a later date and finishing the job.

Regardless, I have been listening to the debate in the House much of this afternoon. Pro and con. But I must say some of the best speeches are from Democrats who actually address the arguments of the naysayers, point-by-point. I think the best speech I heard in this tenor was by Congressman David Wiener from New York. He gave a simply terrific speech. But his essential thesis was that pre-emption is the right policy when the danger is clear. We should not have to sit back and wait for the inevitable attack if 1) the hostility is there; 2) the means are there; and 3) the willingness to use the means has been demonstrated.

[sabrewolf]

either dubya oder rumsfeld are discussing here under the nick "fez" or you've totally fallen for the war-propaganda of mr. "my words are backed with nuclear weapons"-bush jr.
the same as you fell for the anti-communist propaganda ("communism is BAD").
and also to dubya's black-and-white-only-propaganda ("either you are with us or with the terrorists")

damn it! can't you make your OWN opinion?
try and think, why the current US-regime (yes, regime) says all these things? look BEHIND the words... after all, it's not difficult - bush jr. is quite transparent if you only try to see.

i don't like saddam - but no person in the world has the right to decide who should lead another country.

many big mistakes where done: helping the taliban in afghanistan against the soviets, fighting in vietnam, helping iraq against iran, etc., etc., etc.
who sais that this is the right decision?

[Giancarlo]

If Saddam is ready and willing, what's to stop him from using them the moment the first marine lands in Iraqi territory?

But are his general's willing?

[sabrewolf]

by the way: osama bin laden said in his most recent speach, that terror will go on, as long as US-aggression goes on.

allthough we can't trust this guy, it does sound logic and very true.
i bet you, that if the US would immediatly stop intervening in those countries and just help them build healthy economies, there won't be any more voluntaries to kill themselves in order to hurt the west.

think about this!