ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:31 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 12:22 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 30
Location: ...
Speaking as someone who's stepbrother is a USM that will be shipped off to Baghdad shortly, if not already, I have a strong dislike for the idea of going to war with ANYONE in the Middle East, let alone in that continent.

My opinion on this whole issue:

I think Bush had this in mind from the moment his campaign started. Pick up from where his father left off in his last term. But then 9/11 happened and he finally had the motive to pick up on the war - vengeance of the people who died at the hands of terrorists.

So, what he did was some half-assed terrorist search [like a virus, you cannot hope to eradicate them all], in hopes that somewhere down the line he could link Saddam Hussein to the terrorists of Al-Queida [which, in reality, aren't the most dangerous terrorists out there], and then achieve 'vengeance' at the hands of the US Military.

So, sure, the cause seems just.

But, in reality, this may turn into another Vietnam. Over in the Middle East, it is incredibly difficult to tell the fanatics from the innocents, much like the Viet Cong armies in Vietnam. Along with that is the fact that there are SO many of THEM and we're coming over in THEIR territory. They know that area better than we ever could. On top of that is that our armies are considering drafting - bringing in unexperienced soldiers.

So, you tell me - are we ready to kill more innocents and soldiers just to avenge those already dead?

_________________
<i><font size="1">Where there is light there is shadow<br>
Where there is pain there is happiness<br>
Where there is death there is life<br>
When one rose dies, another blooms<br>
To take its place<br>
Balance is the only way.<br>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:19 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Quote:
On 2003-01-04 23:22, Life-in-Review wrote:
But, in reality, this may turn into another Vietnam. Over in the Middle East, it is incredibly difficult to tell the fanatics from the innocents, much like the Viet Cong armies in Vietnam. Along with that is the fact that there are SO many of THEM and we're coming over in THEIR territory.


That didn't help them last time. Considering that one of our tanks, half disabled (broke a track or something and couldn't move - it was waiting for a retrieval unit to come get it), was able to destroy three "top of the line" Iraqi tanks without taking noticable damage, their numbers are not enough to help them.

Air dominance, which the U.S. seizes at the earliest opportunity and does not let go of, makes it so that any mobilized force is little more than a big target (see: what happened on the Highway of Death). The only time their numbers would help them would be in city fighting, and I'm betting our generals are smart enough to realize that a city is not capable of withstanding a seige. Simply cut supply lines going into the city (which, with air dominance, is not overly difficult), wait a couple of weeks so that the water runs out, and move in with minimal resistance.

Quote:
They know that area better than we ever could.


This is not Vietnam, with a jungle canopy that obscured our eyes in the sky. This is open land, desert land mostly, and I would bet that with our high-resolution satellite maps, we know the terrain better than them. Cities are a different matter, but I explained how to deal with cities in my point above.

Quote:
On top of that is that our armies are considering drafting - bringing in unexperienced soldiers.


No, they're not. One Congressman has proposed reinstating the draft, with what sounds like a rather silly reason. There's no serious debate about the draft coming back.

Quote:
So, you tell me - are we ready to kill more innocents and soldiers just to avenge those already dead?


Did the idea that Iraq almost certainly has some WMDs already and is in the process of developing others ever enter your mind as you wrote this post? Furthermore, did you consider the consequences of Saddam Hussein developing a nuclear weapon, which would include one of our cities becoming another Hiroshima if he gave a bomb to a terrorist organization?

Saddam Hussein is a supporter of terrorism; he openly donates money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq has also supplied weapons to the terrorist group Hezbollah.

Granted, "It's all about the vengeance" is a different tack than "It's all about the ooooiiiillllll," but it works out to the same thing: ignoring the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime. Vengeance is a possible, although unlikely, factor, and oil is certainly a factor, but neither of them is a deciding factor. The threat to the U.S. is the deciding factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:39 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 536
Location: High atop...your mom
well in vietnam, our soldiers where completeley untrained for fighting in the jungle, now we have much better training and, last time we fought a war over in the desert, we kicked some ass, of course the army was a little smaller, but thats beside the point. i still agree that even if we kick some ass we are still gonna lose alotta soldiers. so yes, war is deffinatley frowned upon by my standards.

_________________
this isnt who it would be if it wasnt who it is
Motto: Motto's are for people who think to much of and about themselves. 8)
Mama sing sing when ya gotta jibboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:09 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
First it is not certain that we will go to war with iraq.While it looks like we are ready to go in there guns blazing you have to realize that we are deeply involved ourselves in NATO and the U.N and we will not just fly of the handle looking for blood.

Second,you have got your draft thing mixed up.Even if we did go through with it and they probably won't,this isn't russia.We don't call you,give you some basic training then throw you into the fire.We have some of the best training procedures in the entire world and that is what makes our military the most powerful.

And if the fateful decision is made to go to war we won't go in unprepared.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/forcesinthemideast5.cfm

America has learned the lesson of vietnam so don't worry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:46 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 30
Location: ...
Okay, with that stated, I'd like to thank you all for some reassuring statements, but I kid you not - while oil is a very big factor, I think that and the fact that vengeance plays into this are just excuses. Sure, Iraq has nuclear capability (I will admit I didn't take that into consideration) but something about Bush doesn't register to me as correct.
I personally think he's just in a rush to go in there and do what his father never was able to - eradicate Hussein's grasp over Iraq and his threat. I just don't think Bush is being as completely honest about the motives towards war with Iraq. Call it a gut feeling... but I know that I'm rather uninformed and that there are people who know more than me. These are just my opinions and I feel that this'll lead to a slaughter of innocent people, whether Iraqis, or Americans.

_________________
<i><font size="1">Where there is light there is shadow<br>
Where there is pain there is happiness<br>
Where there is death there is life<br>
When one rose dies, another blooms<br>
To take its place<br>
Balance is the only way.<br>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
Believe me,the last thing the United states wants is a slaughter on anybodys side and will avoid one at all costs.

And so what if bush may be trying to finish the job.It's like that old saying "If you hit a snake and don't kill it, you'll be sorry later on."
The only reason most of the world doesn't like this is because they arn't the target of multi-national terrorist organization that would find hussein to be a very good ally.Hell,the only reason russia is against a conflict is that iraq owes them a whole shit load of money and they want to get paid up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:53 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2752
Location: South of the equator
I think Bush and Saddam should go 9 rounds in the cage, WWF smackdown style.

Keep the armies/general population out of it.

Urban Wild Cat
- Of no great political knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:16 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 30
Location: ...
Quote:
On 2003-01-05 02:53, Urban Wild Cat wrote:
I think Bush and Saddam should go 9 rounds in the cage, WWF smackdown style.

Keep the armies/general population out of it.


AMEN! BOOYA!

_________________
<i><font size="1">Where there is light there is shadow<br>
Where there is pain there is happiness<br>
Where there is death there is life<br>
When one rose dies, another blooms<br>
To take its place<br>
Balance is the only way.<br>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:14 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2003-01-05 02:53, Urban Wild Cat wrote:
I think Bush and Saddam should go 9 rounds in the cage, WWF smackdown style.

Keep the armies/general population out of it.


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


Now that is just stupid. First of all, it will never happen, and second, even if it did happen, Saddam would be too cowardly to show up. He has always used his own people as a shield to protect him, he could care less if they died.

You don't understand just who is responcible for the deaths of innocents in war. Take the Second World War. It would never have begun had Hitler not been such an asshole; when he ordered Germany off to war, all the nations he attacked had a right to retaliate. The retaliation eventually cost the lives of many German Civilians, but their blood was not on the hands of the retaliators, their blood was on Hitlers hands, who got them into the mess in the first place. Same with Saddam also. If Iraqis die, their blood will be on his hands, not ours.

Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who silences all who oppose him, and he has a record of invading his neighbors whenever he thought he could get away with it, making him a threat to the regions stability. He has pursued WMD in the past, has used Chemical weapons against Iran and his own people, and he is suspected of working on WMD again. In the previous inspections, Saddam was able to hide his weapons and continue research, after learning that he could get away with obstructing the efforts of the previous inspectors, since the UN was too chickenshit to force Saddam to stop. I doubt that the new inspection team will be able to do any better, and even if it could succeed, why do we have to do it in the first place?

Why do we have to negotiate with the modern equivalent of a cannibalistic savage? What on earth makes people think that thugs are open to rational persuasion? The only type of persuasion a dictator understands is the threat of a bomb over his head and the muzzle of a gun. What Bush needs to do is stop screwing around with the UN "process" and tell Saddam that he either step down from power and surrender immediately, or we come in with overwhelming force and promise that the invasion will not end until Saddam's turned into dogfood. The threat of destruction to dictators is far more effective against them than sanctions and inspections ever will be, even though Saddam won't believe us if we did, and we will be forced to invade. If we do it one or two times, all the other tin pot dictators will see what happens when you defy Uncle Sam and be too afraid to mess with us.

I mean, come on! Saddam tried to have Bush the elder killed! Why is it that if Saddam tries to kill one of our leaders, we do nothing, but when we even consider assassinating Saddam, there is a howl of protest. It is hypocracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
Gold,he was just joking around.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:35 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Quote:
On 2003-01-05 02:53, Urban Wild Cat wrote:
I think Bush and Saddam should go 9 rounds in the cage, WWF smackdown style.

Keep the armies/general population out of it.

Urban Wild Cat
- Of no great political knowledge.


Which Bush might have a good chance of winning, actually. He's a fitness fiend (I remember certain left-wing editorialists attacking him for his devotion to staying in shape), running every day, lifting weights, etc. Saddam, on the other hand, has a slipped disc in his back, it makes him walk with a slight limp. That can't be good if one is going to fight hand-to-hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
And even then how would you know if that was the real saddam.Saddam hasn't made a public appereance in two years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:44 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Elemental plane of naughty touching
Cut off supply lines to a city full of people who are already starving because of our economic sanctions? Ummm... no.

Face it, if we're going to fight a war in Iraq, we are going to be fighting in the streets of Bagdad one way or another, and it's going to be ugly. This isn't going to be another Desert Storm, where we can rely on our air superiority or tanks.

This is why it has a potential to be "another Vietnam"; we will have soldiers that aren't familiar with the streets, and won't have air or artillery support.

It's one of the reasons we didn't put Hussein down the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:12 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 951
Location: the D
Area knowledge only goes so far in a city clearing fight. Um, so what if they know the city, hell the German's knew their city and the French sure as hell knew Paris.

_________________
Come son of Jarel, Kneel before SHO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:47 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Elemental plane of naughty touching
Perhaps, but the reason we've been able to dominate the Iraqis in the past was mainly due to our overwhelming air and armor support, which will be extremely difficult to use against them in an urban conflict, especially considering that this is supposed to be something of a humanitarian mission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 7:34 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Read my last post. If we lay seige to Bagdad, the population inside will slowly starve. It will save thousands of American lives, at the expence of Iraqi civilians. I personally care more about our soldiers than the Iraqis, so I don't have a problem with this. Again, Saddam got his people in the mess they are in in the first place, so their blood will be on his hands, not on ours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
While you may have that view many do not.
Trust me the one tactic saddam is going to use if we get in a fight is to get TV camera footage of the death and destruction,have little kids screaming for mommy who died when the evil americans bombed her and send it all out on world wide television.Doesn't matter if the stuff he shows is fake or made up,as long as is graphic and shows horrible images it will slowly turn our few allies against us.

If we are to overthrow saddam we will need to make a special effort to avoid civilain deaths at all costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:21 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 329
Location: The dark side of the moon
I belive one small detail has been overlooked. If war does break out and Sadam is loseing, he will most likely unleash his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This along with the fact that he has ties to terrorist organizations, means the American casualties might not be restricted to those soldiers fighting in Iraq.

_________________
Let them come.
I will speak with my blade.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 12:06 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Elemental plane of naughty touching
Quote:
On 2003-01-06 06:34, The Goldstandard wrote:
Read my last post. If we lay seige to Bagdad, the population inside will slowly starve. It will save thousands of American lives, at the expence of Iraqi civilians. I personally care more about our soldiers than the Iraqis, so I don't have a problem with this. Again, Saddam got his people in the mess they are in in the first place, so their blood will be on his hands, not on ours.


That's criminal. By taking that position, you can no longer argue that we should take Hussein down because he is a threat to his people or neighbors.

Furthermore, the logic that Iraqi blood will be on Hussein's hands is flawed. We aren't being forced into going to war. We aren't backed into a corner. We don't have to kill them, and Saddam Hussein certainly isn't forcing us to kill his people. You can't go into a country and kill civilians because you think their non-elected leader might be developing weapons.

Other than that, can you give a better definition of terrorist than "someone who kills civilians in attempt to force a change of policy?"

Barghest- Saddam won't have to fight for TV coverage. There are plenty of American journalists with an interest in giving an account of the human cost of war.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UncleFilthy on 2003-01-06 23:08 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 12:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
First I never said that saddam would have to fight to get coverage out.All I meant was that he just had to put the right spin on what was going out.
One of the most dangerous weapons in this modern age is media control.Hell,we are seeing that right now in iraq!Journalist are lead around by iraqi intellegence agents and only allowed to show what they will let them see.You never see a private interview with a iraqi cause he knows if he says anything and somebody knows him he is dead!Fuck the worst was when they paraded journalist around hospitals and had little children say "Oh please don't let them start a war."

Saddam is already a master of media control and he won't have any problems if a conflict starts.

_________________
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
Sir Winston Churchill, My Early Life, 1930


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group