Bush Speech

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Fez
But are his general's willing?

yes, because they have been brainwashed and "propagandized" just as much as the US/UK generals...
the difference: iraqi generals will die or face the war crime court. western generals won't...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
by the way: osama bin laden said in his most recent speach,

It's starting to look more and more like the man is a rotting corpse. Why the change from videotape if you want to prove that you are still alive?

PS The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 weren't in anyway poor.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
PS The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 weren't in anyway poor.

no, but they are morally backed by thousands of dead-poor people...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Fez


But are his general's willing?

If his general's aren't willing to use weapons of mass destruction when their country is about to fall, why would they use them before the US invaded their nation?

Or are you suggesting that Iraqi generals will use tactical nbc weapons? Well that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when the US invades and inevitably destroys their nation, when Saddam feels he has lost all hope and that death is near, that suitcase nuke in DC goes off.

[Ned]

Obviously Bush's warning to the Iraqi generals not to accept an order to use WoMD recognizes the real threat that Saddam represents to use WoMD in any fight to the death. The Iraqi generals are now between a rock and a hard place. If Saddam does give such a order to them, they will have the following choices:

1) carry out the order and be executed by the Allies;

2) refuse to carry out the order and be executed by Saddam; or

3) revolt.

I suspect that 3) will happen if Saddam gives the order.

[Lorizael]

In that case, what threat is Saddam to the United States?

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Faded, IIRC, the lack of use of the airforce was due to lack of spare parts and maintenance. Also, many of the pilots were pro-Shah and had fled.

I think they had the same problem with the tanks, plus a lack of ammo for them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lorizael
In that case, what threat is Saddam to the United States?

I listed the three options in case of a war against Iraq. The revolt will be caused by Allied threat to arrest the generals for war crimes given yesterday by Bush in his speech. This would only be a credible threat if the Allies are closing in.

Until then, Saddam remains a threat to attack the US and its allies by giving al Qaida bio-weapons.

Once he has nukes, he can restart his war machine and keep the US at bay by threatening New York or London. Who knows what is in all those containers on inbound freighters? Saudi Arabia will be the first to go, IMHO. The ploy just might work if we elect a peacenik idiot such as Gore.

[David Floyd]

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.

So basically, instead of refuting anything I say, you resorted to the infallible "na na na na you're stupid na na na na" defense.

Keep digging your intellectual hole there, buddy

It is disgusting, especially you Floyd

First of all, I'm not a communist, as you well know.

Second, why single out me? Perhaps because I've posted more and longer posts on the subject in this thread? You're perhaps directing your attacks at the person most likely to refute you point by point in an effort to forestall said refutation?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
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!

We help many of their economies every time we import oil...but they cant seem to distribute the wealth equitably.

[Roland]

Ned:

"Roland, except for a few instances after the Republic, the Empire went into a defensive shell. It no longer ran a preemptive foreign policy."

The Republic had no clear foreign policy or strategy.

"The exceptions were Claudius's conquest of Britain and Trajan's conquest of Dacia."

Conquering Britain was barely preemptive - preempting what ?

"So long as the policy of pre-emption was in place, the Empire grew and prospered."

The most prosperous phase was from Augustus to Antininus Pius, when according to you they had given up the pre-emptive policy.

"that the United States must pursue a policy of pre-emption to ward off further 9/11 attacks."

The US is simply too weak for that.

[TheStinger]

I love the way Fez makes you side with people you don't agree with

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Fez is sometime black&white minded.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
We help many of their economies every time we import oil...but they cant seem to distribute the wealth equitably.

That's an intrinsic property of Capitalism.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
We help many of their economies every time we import oil...but they cant seem to distribute the wealth equitably.

i wasn't only talking about iraq. also pakistan, afghanistan, palestine, philipenes, caucasian republics, african countries, etc.
of these only the first two are getting some help... and only since approx. one year.

distributing wealth is difficult, and as urban ranger said, an intrinic property of capitalism. but if you tie payments to agreements (e.g. "at least 80 of these 100 million dollars go to reforming of the economical systems, privatisations, etc.") you can get the money distributed better. maybe still 80% get lost in corruption, but that's better than the "normal" oil-buy, where ALL money goes to just a few powerful people.