OT, (like it matters) How long will the war last.

[Dave W]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:52:08 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
>The initial barrage will be so severe that the rank and file Iraqi soldiers will surrender at the
>first opportunity (remember them surrendering to the camera crews last time?). These guys aren't
>willing to die for Saddam. Good choice.
>
>There will be some hard line Republican Guard types that put up a fight in Baghdad no doubt - and
>that will cause the most allied casualties (probably not a huge number, though any is too many).
>
>The Iraqi civilian deaths will be relatively few - certainly fewer Iraqis will die during the war
>than would die over the next decade under Saddam. This is one of the reasons the billions spent
>developing smarter weapons pays off. Sadly, there will be unnecessary civilian deaths because of
>Saddam's penchant for locating military targets in the middle of Iraqi civilian centers (for
>example, locating anti-aircraft guns on hospitals and schools, or filling military bunkers with
>civilians).
>
>After the smoke clears we get to see if it was all worth it or not. If we dig through the rubble
>(and pay off the scientists) and don't find any chemical or biological weapons, or any evidence of
>an ongoing nuclear program, there will be a well-deserved backlash toward the Bush and Blair
>administrations.
>
>If OTOH we turn up the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and programs in great quantities, Bush and
>Blair look like geniuses and the UN Security Council takes on the relevance of MV at a NORBA
>conference.

That's the way I'd like to see it. Kudo's for adding the troll and the Security council in the same
sentence!!

>
>>Do you care?
>
>Of course. War sucks. Any war. But sometimes war is better than the alternative. IMHO this war
>really isn't all about Iraq, but how the world is going to deal with the WMD that could soon going
>to give huge destructive power to any two bit thug who wants it. You can bet Kim Jong Il is
>watching what happens in Iraq closely, as are many other regimes in the near and middle east (Iran,
>Pakistan, India).
>
>We can (as a world society) try to prevent the proliferation of WMD into the hands of those who
>would use them to gain political power, or we can sit back and wait for the inevitable.
>
>Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

No doubt. While I'll agree Iraqs regime must be dethrowned, I'm more concerned about North Korea
than any of em' And we all know what happened the last time our military went down that road, and I
don't mean M*A*S*H re-runs for life.

Dave

 

[Martees]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a moot
> point...

Iraq is not incongruous. Brit and American pilots fly over that dirt speck every day and risk
their lives getting shot at trying to enforce UN Sanctions. Avoiding another 9/11 is one goal here
from my perspective but a more important point for me is shutting down the time sucking waste
called UN sanction enforcement in Iraq. I think its time to shut Iraq down and make the UN
irrelevant in that region.

>
> > Do you care?
>
> Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
> England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.

In my opinion, the freedom haters who are disposed to attack our countries don't need an excuse or
orders from Iraq to do it. It also highlights the chemical blackmail these idiots can bring to bear.
What makes you think that America and Britain weren't getting daily threats anyway? Some credible
and some not. So what's changed? More threats? Please. These people hate what we stand for and will
not alter planning because of Iraq. War or no war.

Just my opinion.

>
> bomba 'nostradamus'
>
> --
> a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
>
> a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> After the smoke clears we get to see if it was all worth it or not. If we dig through the rubble
> (and pay off the scientists) and don't find any chemical or biological weapons, or any evidence of
> an ongoing nuclear program, there will be a well-deserved backlash toward the Bush and Blair
> administrations.

I'm going to be ultra-cynical, but I won't automatically believe them even if they do find weapons
of mass destruction.

> We can (as a world society) try to prevent the proliferation of WMD into the hands of those who
> would use them to gain political power, or we can sit back and wait for the inevitable.

Who's going to take them away from George W. Bush?

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Bomba]

Martees wrote:

>>Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a moot
>>point...
>
>
> Iraq is not incongruous. Brit and American pilots fly over that dirt speck every day and risk
> their lives getting shot at trying to enforce UN Sanctions.

You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.

> Avoiding another 9/11 is one goal here from my perspective

And blowing the **** out of Iraq will help prevent that how?

but a more
> important point for me is shutting down the time sucking waste called UN sanction enforcement in
> Iraq. I think its time to shut Iraq down and make the UN irrelevant in that region.

Why?

>>>Do you care?
>>
>>Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
>>England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.
>
>
> In my opinion, the freedom haters who are disposed to attack our countries don't need an excuse or
> orders from Iraq to do it.

Indeed. There's no proven link between terrorism and Iraq.

It also highlights the
> chemical blackmail these idiots can bring to bear. What makes you think that America and Britain
> weren't getting daily threats anyway? Some credible and some not. So what's changed?

What's changed? The fact that the US and UK are going in to a war unsanctioned by the UN and in
face of public opinion throughout the world. The surge in anger that will accompany an attack on
Iraq is likely to mobilise a whole new band of people that will tie themselves to extremist causes.
Watch and see.

More threats? Please. These people
> hate what we stand for and will not alter planning because of Iraq. War or no war.

You need to better understand the motives of those who are willing to attack you. It's nothing to do
with 'hating freedom' or despising democracy. It has more to do with the actions of the US -
invading Iraq will only augment this feeling.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Martees]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> Who's going to take them away from George W. Bush?
>

Now THAT'S funny!

Marty

 

[Martees]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Martees wrote:
>
> >>Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a
> >>moot point...
> >
> >
> > Iraq is not incongruous. Brit and American pilots fly over that dirt
speck
> > every day and risk their lives getting shot at trying to enforce UN Sanctions.
>
> You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.

Ah. Ok. We have a basic disagreement here. I don't believe that Saddam is unrelated to terrorism.
It's been proven that he supports terrorism and terrorist groups to include AQ.

>
> > Avoiding another 9/11 is one goal here from my perspective
>
> And blowing the **** out of Iraq will help prevent that how?

A chemical/biological armed Saddam and terrorist groups with the means to deliver them into large
cities is the risk. One that I believe is not worth taking.

>
> but a more
> > important point for me is shutting down the time sucking waste called UN sanction enforcement in
> > Iraq. I think its time to shut Iraq down and
make
> > the UN irrelevant in that region.
>
> Why?

I "misspoke" when I said make the UN irrelevant in the region. They've done that all by
themselves. But shutting down Iraq is a win/win for us. We don't have to risk our lives over that
country enforcing sanctions and we can downsize our presence. Although a downside is the loss of
valuable training for our "wing nuts".

>
> >>>Do you care?
> >>
> >>Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
> >>England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, the freedom haters who are disposed to attack our
countries
> > don't need an excuse or orders from Iraq to do it.
>
> Indeed. There's no proven link between terrorism and Iraq.
>
> It also highlights the
> > chemical blackmail these idiots can bring to bear. What makes you think that America and Britain
> > weren't getting daily threats anyway? Some credible and some not. So what's changed?
>
> What's changed? The fact that the US and UK are going in to a war unsanctioned by the UN and in
> face of public opinion throughout the world. The surge in anger that will accompany an attack on
> Iraq is likely to mobilise a whole new band of people that will tie themselves to extremist
> causes. Watch and see.

I don't doubt that people with a penchant for hating our cultures will feel validated but they will
have one less source of WMD and will be less capable of mass murder. I don't agree that the world is
against this action either. The overwhelming majority of the US people support this action. The
overwhleming majority of the UN supports us and over 40 other countries around the world are in
favor of this action. The UN "support" was torpedoed by a very few with motives that I believe had
nothing to do with terrorism.

>
> More threats? Please. These people
> > hate what we stand for and will not alter planning because of Iraq. War or no war.
>
> You need to better understand the motives of those who are willing to attack you. It's nothing to
> do with 'hating freedom' or despising democracy. It has more to do with the actions of the US -
> invading Iraq will only augment this feeling.

The actions of the US? Everything we do around the world pisses SOMEBODY off. No other country in
the world has done so much with so little thanks. As far as I'm concerned if they think we are out
looking for a fight after 9/11 then they are right. A miniscule number of people with body bombs
or other improvised devices should not be able to hold the free world hostage.

>
> --
> a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
>
> a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

Dave W <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:50 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But it's difficult to be convincing when you are not
> >> entirely convinced yourself.
> >
> >It is indeed, and sometimes, all you _can_ say is 'hey, I'm scared too
kid'
> >and give them a hug. Knowing they aren't alone in their fears can be as great a comfort as you
> >can bestow, sometimes.
>
> So far that has done the trick. But in a few day's, when the cameras start rolling on the "War
> Channel" (CNN to those that don't know that distinction) And it's broadcasted into every home with
> a T.V, I'm afraid it won't do the trick any longer.

Maybe, but if that's all you've got, then that's all you've got. We all get scared, it's a thing
we have to learn how to deal with throughout our lives, whether child or adult. Just think, if
this sort of thing worries/scares him now, then he's more likely to grow up anti-war. Ain't that a
good thing?

> >> Dave (somehow bicycles are very far from my mind now. Sorry.)
> >
> >Yeah, death and aggression suck, and in the concentrations they are found during a war, suck
> >right off the whole scale of suckiness.
> >
> >Later,
> >
> >Shaun aRe
>
> Agreed. Sometimes you DO sum things up pretty well.....

Cheers.

> Dave (aww, this is a Kodak moment!)

Snap it quick - it ain't likely to last, heheheheh ',;~}

Shaun aRe

 

[Bomba]

Martees wrote:

>>You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.
>
>
> Ah. Ok. We have a basic disagreement here. I don't believe that Saddam is unrelated to terrorism.
> It's been proven that he supports terrorism and terrorist groups to include AQ.

Do you have a link to further information about that? I was under the impression that even the US
government had dropped that link.

> I "misspoke" when I said make the UN irrelevant in the region. They've done that all by
> themselves. But shutting down Iraq is a win/win for us. We don't have to risk our lives over
> that country enforcing sanctions and we can downsize our presence. Although a downside is the
> loss of valuable training for our "wing nuts".

Fair enough, although some may argue that it would be a side effect rather than a reason.

>>What's changed? The fact that the US and UK are going in to a war unsanctioned by the UN and in
>>face of public opinion throughout the world. The surge in anger that will accompany an attack on
>>Iraq is likely to mobilise a whole new band of people that will tie themselves to extremist
>>causes. Watch and see.
>
>
> I don't doubt that people with a penchant for hating our cultures will feel validated but they
> will have one less source of WMD and will be less capable of mass murder.

There's been no proof that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction, as of yet.

A lot hinges on the main argument that is going on between nations at the moment - does Iraq pose a
credible and immediate threat to the US and UK? I'll side with everyone else and say no, although
I'm sure you disagree

I don't agree that the world is against this
> action either. The overwhelming majority of the US people support this action.

Firstly, the majority of the US is not 'most of the world'. Secondly, I think you'll find that the
majority of the US is not in favour of the war. In a recent Gallup poll only 47% were in favour of
going to war without a second resolution. 50% were against.

The overwhleming majority of the UN supports us and over
> 40 other countries around the world are in favor of this action. The UN "support" was torpedoed by
> a very few with motives that I believe had nothing to do with terrorism.

We can speculate on motives, but it is unlikely that the US would have got a second resolution
backing force, even without the threat of vetoes of France and Russia. It's one of the reason's that
the US and UK have skipped it altogether.

>>You need to better understand the motives of those who are willing to attack you. It's nothing to
>>do with 'hating freedom' or despising democracy. It has more to do with the actions of the US -
>>invading Iraq will only augment this feeling.
>
>
> The actions of the US? Everything we do around the world pisses SOMEBODY off. No other country
> in the world has done so much with so little thanks.

And this is exactly the attitude that gets you in to trouble. Perhaps it is because it's so poorly
reported, but the US is not always the knight in shining armour - in fact, often quite the opposite.

As far as I'm concerned if they think we are out
> looking for a fight after 9/11 then they are right. A miniscule number of people with body bombs
> or other improvised devices should not be able to hold the free world hostage.

I agree, but this goes back to the link between Iraq and terrorism. More substantiative proof would
convince many to side with the US and UK, but it's the lack of this, and the constantly changing
motives that cause many to object to attacking Iraq.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Martees]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Martees wrote:
>
> >>You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist
activity.
> >
> >
> > Ah. Ok. We have a basic disagreement here. I don't believe that Saddam
> > is unrelated to terrorism. It's been proven that he supports terrorism
and
> > terrorist groups to include AQ.
>
> Do you have a link to further information about that? I was under the impression that even the US
> government had dropped that link.

Try this one as a start. Some are tenuous but others are worth thinking about.
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/al-queda-iraq-connection.html

>
> > I "misspoke" when I said make the UN irrelevant in the region. They've done that all by
> > themselves. But shutting down Iraq is a win/win for us. We
don't
> > have to risk our lives over that country enforcing sanctions and we can
downsize
> > our presence. Although a downside is the loss of valuable training for our
"wing
> > nuts".
>
> Fair enough, although some may argue that it would be a side effect rather than a reason.
>
> >>What's changed? The fact that the US and UK are going in to a war unsanctioned by the UN and in
> >>face of public opinion throughout the world. The surge in anger that will accompany an attack on
> >>Iraq is likely to mobilise a whole new band of people that will tie themselves to extremist
> >>causes. Watch and see.
> >
> >
> > I don't doubt that people with a penchant for hating our cultures will
feel
> > validated but they will have one less source of WMD and will be less capable of mass murder.
>
> There's been no proof that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction, as of yet.

Again though I think we have to disagree on this point. I think there is ample proof from the UN's
own inspections and our intelligence that there are tons of CBW unaccounted for. And again there is
evidence of attempts by terrorists to obtain this very same material. That is the root of this whole
problem. He says he NO LONGER has these weapons. We (the UN and us) say prove it. He obfuscates and
threatens but never provides evidence.

>
> A lot hinges on the main argument that is going on between nations at the moment - does Iraq pose
> a credible and immediate threat to the US and UK? I'll side with everyone else and say no,
> although I'm sure you disagree
>
> I don't agree that the world is against this
> > action either. The overwhelming majority of the US people support this action.
>
> Firstly, the majority of the US is not 'most of the world'. Secondly, I think you'll find that the
> majority of the US is not in favour of the war. In a recent Gallup poll only 47% were in favour of
> going to war without a second resolution. 50% were against.
>
> The overwhleming majority of the UN supports us and over
> > 40 other countries around the world are in favor of this action. The UN "support" was torpedoed
> > by a very few with motives that I believe had nothing to do with terrorism.
>
> We can speculate on motives, but it is unlikely that the US would have got a second resolution
> backing force, even without the threat of vetoes of France and Russia. It's one of the reason's
> that the US and UK have skipped it altogether.
>
> >>You need to better understand the motives of those who are willing to attack you. It's nothing
> >>to do with 'hating freedom' or despising democracy. It has more to do with the actions of the US
> >>- invading Iraq will only augment this feeling.
> >
> >
> > The actions of the US? Everything we do around the world pisses SOMEBODY off. No other country
> > in the world has done so much with so little thanks.
>
> And this is exactly the attitude that gets you in to trouble. Perhaps it is because it's so poorly
> reported, but the US is not always the knight in shining armour - in fact, often quite the
> opposite.
>
> As far as I'm concerned if they think we are out
> > looking for a fight after 9/11 then they are right. A miniscule number of people with body bombs
> > or other improvised devices should not be able to hold the free world hostage.
>
> I agree, but this goes back to the link between Iraq and terrorism. More substantiative proof
> would convince many to side with the US and UK, but it's the lack of this, and the constantly
> changing motives that cause many to object to attacking Iraq.
>

Ah well, someday maybe we can hash this out over a cold beer and some burned out post ride legs
but for now we have to agree to disagree.

Take it easy!

Marty

 

[Bomba]

Martees wrote:

>>Do you have a link to further information about that? I was under the impression that even the US
>>government had dropped that link.
>
>
> Try this one as a start. Some are tenuous but others are worth thinking about.
> http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/al-queda-iraq-connection.html

Got anything from somewhere a little less 'pro-war'? Some of it does seem a little speculative and
there's no independent verification.

Here's something from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59403-2002Sep9?language=printer

[...]

> Ah well, someday maybe we can hash this out over a cold beer and some burned out post ride legs
> but for now we have to agree to disagree.

Indeed, and by that time, I'm sure history will have written itself...

> Take it easy!

You too

 

[Tj]

You should consider your self lucky to live in that bubble of yours. Like the " Confirmed Reports"
said. " Sadam is massing chemical weapons in southern Iraq" I thought he did't have any chemical
weapons. And, I am sure that you will find that there are several links of Iraq to terrorist. You
are just ignoring them. I.E. Saddam allows terrorist to train within his borders. No connection Huh?
I am going to go for a ride and think about my freedom.

TJ without head in sand. "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Martees wrote:
>
> >>Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a
> >>moot point...
> >
> >
> > Iraq is not incongruous. Brit and American pilots fly over that dirt
speck
> > every day and risk their lives getting shot at trying to enforce UN Sanctions.
>
> You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.
>
> > Avoiding another 9/11 is one goal here from my perspective
>
> And blowing the **** out of Iraq will help prevent that how?
>
> but a more
> > important point for me is shutting down the time sucking waste called UN sanction enforcement in
> > Iraq. I think its time to shut Iraq down and
make
> > the UN irrelevant in that region.
>
> Why?
>
> >>>Do you care?
> >>
> >>Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
> >>England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, the freedom haters who are disposed to attack our
countries
> > don't need an excuse or orders from Iraq to do it.
>
> Indeed. There's no proven link between terrorism and Iraq.
>
> It also highlights the
> > chemical blackmail these idiots can bring to bear. What makes you think that America and Britain
> > weren't getting daily threats anyway? Some credible and some not. So what's changed?
>
> What's changed? The fact that the US and UK are going in to a war unsanctioned by the UN and in
> face of public opinion throughout the world. The surge in anger that will accompany an attack on
> Iraq is likely to mobilise a whole new band of people that will tie themselves to extremist
> causes. Watch and see.
>
> More threats? Please. These people
> > hate what we stand for and will not alter planning because of Iraq. War or no war.
>
> You need to better understand the motives of those who are willing to attack you. It's nothing to
> do with 'hating freedom' or despising democracy. It has more to do with the actions of the US -
> invading Iraq will only augment this feeling.
>
> --
> a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
>
> a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Bomba]

TJ wrote:
> You should consider your self lucky to live in that bubble of yours. Like the " Confirmed Reports"
> said. " Sadam is massing chemical weapons in southern Iraq" I thought he did't have any chemical
> weapons. And, I am sure that you will find that there are several links of Iraq to terrorist. You
> are just ignoring them. I.E. Saddam allows terrorist to train within his borders. No connection
> Huh? I am going to go for a ride and think about my freedom.

You have links to these "confirmed reports"? Independently verified evidence of Iraq training
terrorists?

Quick question for you: if it was a link to terrorism, why was this dropped so quickly as a stated
motive for war?

> TJ without head in sand.

No, but it's certainly somewhere...

Go back to your bubble.

 

[Martees]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote some stuff in message
news:[email protected]...

Came across this today.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030318.asp

Just thought it was interesting.

Marty

 

[Paladin]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.

Whoaaahhh! Now that's the best one I've heard all year! But shouldn't it be at least cross-posted to
alt.whoppers?

Paladin

 

[Iddqd@Worldonli]

Dave W wrote:
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
Till Bush is sure he'll win four more years oh and makes sure an US ally is controlling the oil so
that oil prices will stay low just a few years more.

Till Spains national Oil company has secured they will get full control of the oil in Irak.

Till the british feel sure that they can't gain more influence in the golf region.

> Do you care?
>
>

How can I not - I'm frustrated and I wish I knew a way to make the world see the real agenda Bush
and his gang has. Here in Denmark the goverment has decided to have our military take part in the
war and thereby going against hte majority of the people.

Of course I don't want Saddam to keep being a dictator manhandling the human rights of the Iraqi
people, but I can only see war as the absolutely last mean and only then with a full UN backing.

It pisses me of to hear the simplifications and the half lies Bush offer to the US people in his
speaches. Just take the double standards he keeps using - he bashes Iraq for not following the UN
requirements and on the same time he says that if the UN doesn't see it his way he will not follow
their rules!

Let's say we accept the Bush shoot first doctrine then why is it nothing is done about North Korea -
after all it is pretty certain that they will have the bomb soon. Could it be that it's not really
interesting to do anything because they dont have oil :-(

Oh and why is okay that the US wan't everyone to follow rules they don't follow. I'd like to see the
US hand in a complete list of the weapons of mass destruction (Nukes, Hydrogen bombs, chemical,
biological...) and accepting that the UN get access all over to make sure the lists are accurate and
that everything is destroyed. I may have been ready to accept that the US has all the nasty toys but
not with the double standards and shoot first retorics coming from the white house.

Say Saddam is supporting terrorism and making it a reason to attack is more BS. If that was a okay
reason to go to war then the world should have made war with the US long ago. Just do a google
search for Henry Kissinger and war criminal or check who used to the buddy of Osama Bin Laden and
you'll find that he recieved his training from none other than the US - back then he was just
working with goals that was to the US likeing. Or go check who was supplying Iraq with weapons 20
years ago... the list goes on.

Now don't get me wrong I think there are many wonderfull things about the US it's just that it's
citizens need to wake up a elect politicians that are not bought by the big coorporations and they
need to look further than to get people that will ensure cheap gas for the SUV's.

I'm okay with God continuing to bless America I just pray the people of America will stop listening
blindly to their leaders and inform themself.

Regards

Bruno, Denmark

 

[Tristan]

bomba wrote:
> Dave W wrote:
>
>>
>> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
>
> This will be different to Gulf War I, in that the US, UK and the military might of Spain are going
> all out for Saddam. There are two ways of playing this, and it will dictate how long it lasts.
>
> The easiest method is just to flatten Baghdad under a torrent of bombs. Unfortunately, this is
> likely to end in significant 'collateral damage' (or in non-fluffy speak, the mass murder of
> innocents), which is bad PR. In this case, the war is likely to last a few weeks, on the condition
> that the Iraqi army get so disaffected that they surrender.
>
> The second mode of attack is to send in the ground troops. From a domestic political point of
> view, this may be even worse, as the "Allies" are likely to suffer many more casualties. I can see
> this being a drawn out affair with forces fighting for every street, in much the same way as the
> fall of Berlin. In which case, I think it could take well over a month.
>
> Then after that, the next war begins. Firstly, as in GWI, Israel will become a target. If Israel
> retaliates, all hell could break lose in the region.
>
> In addition, such is the anger and huge amount of opposition to this war, especially within the
> Middle East, it means that there are likely to be many more terrorist attempts on both the US and
> the UK. Before, when you had one minority extremist group who was willing to launch attacks, there
> will now be many more. You may even see individuals unconnected to any groups carrying out
> attacks. Surveillance services won't be able to track all of these, and for sure, some will get
> through.
>
> Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a moot
> point...
>
>> Do you care?
>
>
> Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
> England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.

You mean they live in Londonistan? Your appeasement is putting your friends and family in danger.
Wake up Coward !!

The simplistic British................

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>How can I not - I'm frustrated and I wish I knew a way to make the world see the real agenda Bush
>and his gang has. Here in Denmark the goverment has decided to have our military take part in the
>war and thereby going against hte majority of the people.

Could it be they know something you don't? You seem to have no faith in US leaders, but it seems
yours have reached the same conclusions.

>Of course I don't want Saddam to keep being a dictator manhandling the human rights of the Iraqi
>people, but I can only see war as the absolutely last mean and only then with a full UN backing.

You know that's not going to happen though. It's clear Saddam won't disarm without force, and it's
clear that France (and maybe Russia) will veto any resolution calling for force. Checkmate. This IS
the last option, sadly (short of Saddam self-exiling himself, not likely).

>It pisses me of to hear the simplifications and the half lies Bush offer to the US people in his
>speaches. Just take the double standards he keeps using - he bashes Iraq for not following the UN
>requirements and on the same time he says that if the UN doesn't see it his way he will not follow
>their rules!

The flip side of that coin is the people who don't seem to have a problem with Saddam ignoring 12
years and a dozen resolutions, but do seem to have a problem with Bush carrying out the threat
contained clearly in resolution 1441.

I respect your opinion, but we (as a civilized world society) need to decide how we're going to deal
with the very real threat that WMD pose in the post-9/11 world. What happens if we give Iraq more
years, and they DO manage to develop a nuclear weapon? Next time they take Kuwait, they keep it
unless you don't mind seeing Tel Aviv melted. Oops.

History has shown that appeasing brutal, aggressive dictators is NOT a good idea. History will show
soon enough whether Bush, Blair (and your leaders) are right or wrong about Iraq.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> After the smoke clears we get to see if it was all worth it or not. If we dig through the rubble
>> (and pay off the scientists) and don't find any chemical or biological weapons, or any evidence
>> of an ongoing nuclear program, there will be a well-deserved backlash toward the Bush and Blair
>> administrations.
>
>I'm going to be ultra-cynical, but I won't automatically believe them even if they do find weapons
>of mass destruction.

There are people who will buy into nearly any conspiracy theory (my favorite recent one was that the
second airplane that hit the WTC was actually shot down with a missile just before hitting the
building). But realize the logistical implications of transporting and planting tons of chemical and
biological weaponry halfway around the world. Add to that the scrutiny that the weapons will get
from scientists around the world, and it becomes pretty hard to imagine anyone could pull off such a
stunt (and keep it quiet).

>> We can (as a world society) try to prevent the proliferation of WMD into the hands of those who
>> would use them to gain political power, or we can sit back and wait for the inevitable.
>
>Who's going to take them away from George W. Bush?

Would you really feel safer if the US disarmed?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Martees wrote:
>
>>>You've missed my point. That Iraq is unrelated to any terrorist activity.

>> Ah. Ok. We have a basic disagreement here. I don't believe that Saddam is unrelated to
>> terrorism. It's been proven that he supports terrorism and terrorist groups to include AQ.
>
>Do you have a link to further information about that? I was under the impression that even the US
>government had dropped that link.

Saddam has sending families of suicide bombers $25K each, though he recently reduced that to $10K.
There is solid evidence that he has supplied harbor and training to teorrist groups, including AQ.
I'm not aware of anyone claiming a significant "direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11, but if
he's helping train or fund any teorrist activity, he's fair game in my book.

>> I don't doubt that people with a penchant for hating our cultures will feel validated but they
>> will have one less source of WMD and will be less capable of mass murder.
>
>There's been no proof that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction, as of yet.

I'm really amazed at how many people actually believe that. Even Jacques Chirac and Hans Blix
don't believe that. The fact is Iraq has admitted to holding stores of at least 8,500 liters of
anthrax (some of it loaded into weapons), and VX, as well as more "mundane" WMD like mustard gas.
Since admitting this (and after denying it until caught in the lie), they have not provided any
credible evidence at all of the destruction of these chemicals. The UN inspection reports discuss
this and more in detail - it's just those details don't make the news since that tends to take
away the "story".

>A lot hinges on the main argument that is going on between nations at the moment - does Iraq pose a
>credible and immediate threat to the US and UK? I'll side with everyone else and say no, although
>I'm sure you disagree

Hey, war IS hell and no one wants a war. But sometimes it is the best alternative. Look at the
facts: Saddam is known to have had vast stores of WMD, hasn't given them up or destroyed them, is
openly hostile to the US and allies, has attacked Iran and Kuwait, and has used WMD and very
"unbalanced" tactics (such as torching the Kuwait oil fields on the way out). There's nothing about
him to make me think he wouldn't give or sell WMD to anti-US or anti-western terrorist groups. The
guy's a rabid dog that needs to be put down (IMHO of course).

>Firstly, the majority of the US is not 'most of the world'. Secondly, I think you'll find that the
>majority of the US is not in favour of the war. In a recent Gallup poll only 47% were in favour of
>going to war without a second resolution. 50% were against.

Another US poll that asked the question differently found 71% in favor of using military force to
remove and disarm Saddam. I think most of us in the US is pretty fed up with the Security Council's
actions and isn't as patient as they may have been a month ago.

>We can speculate on motives, but it is unlikely that the US would have got a second resolution
>backing force, even without the threat of vetoes of France and Russia. It's one of the reason's
>that the US and UK have skipped it altogether.

True enough - France said it would veto any resolution calling for force. Hmmmm. I wonder what THEY
had in mind to get Saddam to disarm after "only" 12 years and a dozen resolutions being thrown back
in the UN's face. Maybe they'd say "pretty please"?

>> The actions of the US? Everything we do around the world pisses SOMEBODY off. No other country
>> in the world has done so much with so little thanks.
>
>And this is exactly the attitude that gets you in to trouble. Perhaps it is because it's so poorly
>reported, but the US is not always the knight in shining armour - in fact, often quite the
>opposite.

Can't argue that - sometimes we get ourselves into a situation where there are only bad choices to
make. OTOH, while lots of people (in the US too) like to berate the US for acting like the "world's
cop", most would choose to HAVE the US as a cop than none at all.

>I agree, but this goes back to the link between Iraq and terrorism. More substantiative proof would
>convince many to side with the US and UK, but it's the lack of this, and the constantly changing
>motives that cause many to object to attacking Iraq.

I've seen a lot of sand thrown in the air over some of the details (like claims of a direct link
between Saddam and 9/11 or the forged Nigerian uranium document). Even though neither of these was a
reason for what's going on now, they seem to be pointed at as proof that the reason for attacking
Iraq is flawed.

Bottom line, the guy's got WMD, isn't stable enough to be trusted, and isn't going to give them up
without a fight. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

Mark "been doin' a lot of reading on the subject" Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:50 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>So far that has done the trick. But in a few day's, when the cameras start rolling on the "War
>Channel" (CNN to those that don't know that distinction) And it's broadcasted into every home with
>a T.V, I'm afraid it won't do the trick any longer.

Imagine the Iraqi military personnel watching the same (translated) reports. Happily it seems that
there are already indications many (most?) of them will surrender en masse. The US military has been
dropping millions of leaflets suggesting they don't bother dying to protect Saddam, and giving them
instructions about how to surrender safely. Apparently they'll be able to keep their sidearms and
return to their base on the "honor system".

If they take that advice, the loss of life should be pretty minimal. Hope so!

>>Yeah, death and aggression suck, and in the concentrations they are found during a war, suck right
>>off the whole scale of suckiness.

Well put.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame