Is a 1st strike really the answer & what will we gain from it?

[Boats]

Every day I've been reading and watching the news about this Iraq situation. It's beginning to impact our economy once more. Why a 1st strike? Is it in America's interest to be the aggresser?

What do we gain? Sure Sadam is RAT but so is Arafat and so many others. Cuba was thorn for a long time too. Is it an oil issue? Soon I hear gas prices are going up and what else will be affected?

Does he have weapons of mass destruction? I think he's close.
Why do other other Countries continue to trade with Iraq? Russia and France and some other 3rd world countries want his oil. We want his oil.

I've read some of the articles on the military.com site about the subject and they are mixed as well. After VN what have we learned? The Gulf war should have taken him out then!! We had the support - just two more weeks and it would have been over.

Our political thinking must know one hell of a lot more than they are telling us. The military can do the job but at what cost and will they be given 100% support!!!!

Our kids and grandkids will suffer the long term effects of this conflict if this isn't handled correctly.

I've read many threads where our guys want to use nukes. Sure that would take care of the whole thing - but really guys launching those will just escalate the big picture.

I'd like to read some honest feelings from those who've been in a war has to how this should be handled. Take some time and think about the lives that will be lost - and the reasons behind the losses. What will be the long term effects? Who will police the land once Sadaam is taken out? We are already in Afganastan how many more places will we have to police?

Should America become the aggresser? What about the poor in the world? How about the poor right here in our Country. Whose paying all these bills for all these conflicts? How much more tax money can we pay out of our paychecks?

How will the rest of the world react? Do we really care? If we are cut off from our oil supplies - what next? Should we turn our backs and allow radicals to run rapid - NO - but whatever we do I sure hopes its the last time!!

Boats

[SEATJERKER]

...that the world wants the answer to...

...where do you start, yea, george the 1st had the shot to finish him off, but didn't back then, why...

... I think your right on with saddam being close, as why did we shift so fast from the first issue at hand being "tin head", to back to Iraq if something didn't start to swell fast, and the "insiders" that know spelled it out as far as who's on the hot list...

...It all ties together with a common thread, and it hasn't surfaced yet, but I don't believe it is all being done "just" in the name of "world ""good"" ", has someone discoved mass amounts of oil over there, and a "pipeline through Afganistan to the former USSR", or is it because we're gonna tell Saudia Arabia we found someone new to rely on...

...In this "war on terror" is the almighty buck the "X" factor in it all, is long term world peace the inital objective. My dad says...

"when your up to your ass in gators, it's diffucult to remind yourself that the inital objective was to drain the swamp" , ...

...Me,.. I say it's not just the gators you have to worry about, it's the snakes, skeeters, and spiders also,...

......If we're gonna play hard ball this time, we damn sure better clear the bases this time cause there won't be extra innings...

...all the eggs are in one basket now, and it's off to market, how far is the market, and how many eggs do you throw at the wolves, all of them , but poison each one so you get um all..........

[Packo]

I am feeling very torn on this issue. Don't want to see war, yet don't want to wait until the nut case gets nukes and uses them. Then when we try and take him out, uses nukes on our troops...cause' he could give a shit less about his country when he thinks his tickets punched.

I am 55/45. Lets get him now or soon. I don't think his army has any more will to fight then they did in the Gulf War. Lets do it before he's able to kill more of our boys. I don't truely believe its all about oil.

Packo SENIOR MEMBER NOW!

[Boats]

God I feel great someone else thinks like me. It's a major delema and its us against the many. The position stinks and in the beginning we will be alone. But when they decide to do this they better pull out all the guns!!

Boats

[SEATJERKER]

...It's a plain as the nose on you face,...

...these assholes DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, give a rats ass weather , or not we're going in, I think with all the 'enlightening ' they been doing over the last few weeks, it is just the prep work to let the public know why...

...from this article on my opening page, they know we're coming, it's just a matter of how soon, and "who's with us, or against us"...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq 'Couldn't Care Less' About U.S. Threats
Updated 11:36 AM ET August 27, 2002


By Samia Nakhoul

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Iraq said on Tuesday it did not fear threats of military action from the United States, a day after Washington said it was safer to act against Baghdad's weapons program than to do nothing.

"We could not care less about the threats that are out there. Iraq has a long history with these threats and such despotism," Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan told reporters in Syria after meeting President Bashar al-Assad.

Iraq reported fresh U.S. air strikes on Tuesday on no-fly zones in the north and south of the country. The U.S. military said American planes had attacked a radar site in northern Iraq and an air defense command facility in the south.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney laid out the case for pre-emptive action against Iraq, citing mortal danger to the United States. Cheney warned of the danger of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and said: "The risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action."

In Baghdad, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) quoted President Saddam Hussein as saying on Tuesday U.S. action against Iraq would be an attack on all Arabs.

"The American threats do not target Iraq alone but all the Arab nation," INA quoted Saddam as saying during a meeting with Qatar's foreign minister.

Ramadan, asked about Cheney's comments, also said Iraq had lived with U.S. threats too long to quake now.

"(Cheney's) position can only express the depth of rancour and hatred for the Arab and Muslim nations," he said.

"Public opinion increasingly rejects the dominance of American despotism....What matters to us is that the unity of the Arabs and the Arab position vis-a-vis these threats increase."

BUILD DIPLOMATIC DEFENSES

Ramadan was in Syria to build diplomatic defenses against the threat of a U.S. attack. The official Syrian News Agency SANA said President Bashar al-Assad told Ramadan that "Syria would stand by Iraq and opposes the threats targeting it."

The fresh threats against Iraq sparked a flurry of Arab diplomacy and reactions in the Middle East.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Tuesday there could be chaos in the Middle East and many innocent civilians could lose their lives if the United States followed through on its vow to attack Iraq.

Qatar also stepped in to try to ease the pressure within the region, caused by the Iraqi crisis. Its Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani said his talks with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad were aimed at averting a "catastrophe."

Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa was due in Syria later on Tuesday for talks which will also deal with Iraq.

On Tuesday, Assad discussed the threats on Iraq with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah during a sudden visit to Riyadh -- Washington's traditional ally.

Although Ramadan's visit has an economic agenda -- a set of trade, economic, health, education and environment agreements are due to be signed -- analysts say its aim is to send a strong message to Washington, where official policy is to oust Saddam.

"This visit has an economic character but it also has a political dimension, especially as Syria opposes a strike on Iraq and is working hard to build an Arab front to head off any U.S. attack," political analyst Imad Shueibi said.

RETURN OF ARMS INSPECTORS "FUTILE"

Ramadan was quoted by the Rafidain newspaper on Tuesday as saying the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq -- a step the U.N. inspection chief has said might avert military action -- was futile if Washington planned to attack Iraq.

Damascus -- itself under pressure from the United States over its support for Lebanese Hizbollah and Palestinian groups Washington deems "terrorist" -- argues an attack on Iraq is the first step toward installing a host of Middle East puppet regimes subordinated to Washington and its ally Israel.

"All the Arabs without exception are at risk," the official al-Baa'th newspaper said in its commentary.

"What they want is clear -- total control, with no condition, of the Middle East and to force its states to get in line with a global military-political system based on wiping out all forms of opposition and redrawing the map of the area as they see fit and in a way that serves Israel, its interests and ambitions."

Relations between Syria and Iraq -- for decades bitter enemies -- have blossomed in recent years, and include estimated imports of 150,000 barrels a day of Iraqi oil by Syria.

Syria insists all petroleum trade is conducted within the U.N. oil-for-food program governing Iraq's oil exports.

..the time is now, or it will be worse later, ...

... Let's go put a boot up their ass, and be done with it....

[Andy]

If we invade Iraq there will be other World Trade Center type incidents. If we do not invade Iraq there will be other WTC type incidents. Folks we?re going to get nailed again and probably worst than the last time, regardless of that we do or don?t do.

As far as ?IF? the war will happen, forget it. The Bush Administration has painted itself into a corner saying things such as, ?We won?t leave Saddam around for the next administration to have to deal with.? To not attack now means Bush et al, looses large amounts of Political Capitol and trust.

It was mentioned that if there is going to be a party, lets bring all our toys. How very true. No sense in having a half-a$$ed fight which inevitably ends up with more causalities than less. Of course we will suffer casualties but remember we only know about most of the ability of our weapons from the last war. If another generation of advancements have been made since Desert Storm, we could surprise the world again.

Seatjerker: That news story from Syria, what would you expect them to say? This ?hold onto your arse, we?re coming? seems like a classic psy-ops. Saddam?s boys know how bad they got beat last time, they know it will happen again. Some of the military leaders are right now trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam without an invasion, without mega-casualties on their side. Appears to be an interesting card for Bush to play.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[SEATJERKER]

...over there,...
...here we sit almost a year to the day after those mothers hit us, and we still don't have that bastards head on a platter, hide, my ass, we should be just leveling the place, and those that are not terrorists, get the hell out of the way, and watch from a safe distance...

...thr global net has rounded up a great many, but the ones that have not been brought to justice are still the ones we need to catch the most, I've sat back watching as everyone else has, and have we recieved ANY satisfaction for the crimes commited against our fellow Americans...NO...

..To try to oust him by any other means other then FIREPOWER is useless, Bush is getting the ole'2 step, side step from the other nations over there, and by continuing to see who's gonna follow the leader, meaning the good ole' U.S.A. , he's wasting his time, and therefore setting us up for an even worse situation then we have now,...

..I say screw um... get with the possie, or be on the other end of the rope...

...There isn't any diplomatic solutions that haven't been already tried with both sa-"dumb", and "tin head", and nothing, and I mean NOTHING,( think about it), ...what could be offered as an "offering that either one would say "gee, let's just be friends"......WRONG...... what could be offered would defuse either,... NOTHING,... so just go blow the shit out of them, and get it over with so we as a world can just get on with life as it is supposed to be...

...said it before...I'll go, and would not even bat an eyelash about blowing either one of their heads off...

..Oh yea, that quivering liped Arafat would be running a close 2nd on who I'd shoot first.......

[blues clues]

When we start taking out leaded's of countrys that we think don't have the same values as we do and they also have weapons of mass destruction or we think they do, do we take them out too before long we as a nation will be on very thin ice with the rest of the world.
I do agree with what has been said about Sadam Insane he need a keeper. But after Iraq who's next North Korea? Now they've got a leader that is a very sick puppy and they do have NUKES,I sure you guy's can think of more countrys if you put your heads to it. I say NO NO to a first strike,I'm not a peace nick War's sometimes have to be fought but don't be the ones who starts them.
the truth be known it's all about the oil anyway.;
razz

[SuperScout]

So far, I've not seen the argument or the distinction between a preemptive strike and the initation of offensive operations. From my limited perspective from the military, we did not always wait until Charlie attacked; frequently, we were out there ambushing his happy ass as he was trying to set up an attack, ergo, a pre-emptive strike.

Whether on the tactical level of jungle operations or at the strategic level of smart munitions and 'black' operations, one of the principles of war is being followed. To further distinguish this age from all the other military operations of our history, we only need to remind ourselves that counter-terrorism operations are being conducted as the training manuals are being written. This is a whole, new world, and acknowlegment of the unique differences requires unique approaches to preclude becoming the victim again.

BTW: North Korea does NOT have nuclear weapons; they have the beginning of a nuke power station, thanks to an earlier Der Schlickmeister's decision. And I would suggest that avoiding a bio/chem/nuclear attack on our soil by conducting a preemptive strike has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with oil: it's called SURVIVAL. And another reality check: during the Bush I years, there was no mandate to have a regime change; we conducted Desert Storm under the auspices of a UN resolution that called for the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and the restoration of the legitimate government there; all other goals espoused by Monday Morning Generals are simply their personal opinions.

Personally, I think we will and should work for regime change in Iraq, and can envision a scenario that include internal opposition forces, seizing and control of major oil facilities, 'black' ops in the capital, along with massive air strikes to neutralize his armor and air force. Stay tuned to further details!
Scouts Out!!

[phuloi]

Agreed..I think that the Iraqi military will lay down thier arms on day one.They don`t want to fight for Saddam,but they`re scared shitless because he would not hesitate to anhililate to whole bunch of `em.As we speak Special Ops folks are working on an internal over-throw of his regime,but I believe that we will still have to flex our military muscle to complete the job...And as soon as that task is accomplished we should do an about face,head South,and kick some Saudi ass.