 |
|
Kaak
|
|
spraybear...i think you are being a little negative here. I think the kill ration in the last war was about 250 to 1. and good number of our losses were friendly fire...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999 time: 15:26
|
|
Don't worry Sprayber, chances are you'll just get gulf war syndrome - unlike however many Iraqi civilians are killed thru so called 'collateral damage'...
Coalition fatalities last time around were less than 1% and that includes all the friendly fire cases.
I really wish that people would stop calling Blair Bush's lapdog because, much as I think that Blair is a git and a slimeball - he is the only reason the US hasn't gone to war on at least 3 seperate occassions.
Blair is the lone voice of reason in the Pro War camp as without him the US hawks would have already run amok like a bull in a china shop!
As for war, what's the rush!!? Rushing things and hamfisting the Al-Qaeda link 'evidence' like a bunch of amateurs has got the Turkish parliament and the British public telling the US to F*ck off. Also countries like France and Germany throwing their toys out of the pram because of US bully tactics - they're acting unreasonably as well because they're saying they will automatically nix a 2nd resolution because they can. I think the UN needs to agree just what constitutes starting a war and using that as the 2nd resolution - saying 'no' to war, not even as a final resort is crap IMO. But then so is using the words 'dire consequences' as an excuse for war - though the US has already declared an airwar now after stepping up attacks (many unprovoked) on Iraqi positions.
Slow and steady wins the race - let Saddam be disarmed (as is currently happening) or hang himself.
My biggest fear is that there ARE WoMD stored in secret bunkers all around Iraq and as Saddam's power collapses from a US attack all those guards decide to enrich themselves by fleeing with these WoMD straight into Al-Qaeda's arms - wouldn't that be the ultimate irony, the US being responsible for Al-Qaeda acquiring WoMD!!?
So, while we're able to twist Saddam's arm and force him to disarm as we are, there is no hurry IMO. Things are working.
If he decides to resist (as opposed to caving in as he has been at every turn during these inspections), then by all means bomb the sh*t out of him...
Hell, I applaud the success of capturing the Operations guy for Al-Qaeda the other day, way to go AND without killing thousands of innocent civilians either!
But as things stand, might does NOT make right (quite how the hypocrisy of such an action is lost on the Pro War camp I'll never understand), the US needs to play by the rules of civilised society otherwise it will end up like the schoolyard bully who has no friends...
So my opinion is the UN has to agree a final and unequivocal line in the sand where there is no alternative to force - if/when that is crossed, then we get him.
So Non US only pro war after all due process is exhausted. We need more inspectors to speed things up and assent for Saddam that they stay there indefinitely, evidence or not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lancer
Didn't the Brits send some 20,000+ troops? That's significant... |
Actually, the last I heard, the Brits had committed 42,000 people to the Gulf (including naval personnel). A sizeable contribution indeed, especially once you consider that Britain is about 1/5 the size of the US in terms of population, and even less in terms of GDP. That would make for an equivalent US contribution of over 200k (or, roughly what the US is committing).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS
I actually believe that Al-Qaeda has more chance of getting these weapons if Saddam's regime disintegrates through the US attacks, and whoever's guarding any WoMD decides to skeddadle with the gear and sell it to Al-Qaeda...
Tell me why this scenario isn't likely to happen, and then remind just why it is you want to attack Iraq again...?
|
For starters, how are they going to get the WMD out of an Iraq collapsing from U.S. military pressure? Sure people can walk out, but vehicles aren't as easy to sneak through. And where will they go? Turkey, and Kuwait are on board against the Wahabbi terrorists, as is Iran to some extent. In any event, Iran already has WMD and I can't really see them being anxious to be fingered for proliferation to terror groups as they work their way up to nuclear weapons while trying to keep the Great Satan at bay. Especially with such a large force so near at hand. That leaves Syria, which is left in a tough position against the Turkish - Israeli - U.S. alliance. Whether they will want to play it tough or seek a detente at this point is an open question. If they merely want to keep their options open then I think we can assume that they don't want to be caught assisting terrorists moving chemicals or biological agents.
IMO the chemicals are too much trouble for the weight anyhow, at least for terrorists. They are tough to apply effectively, though I'm sure there is a way to do so. The bio weapons seem to have much more bang for the weight, and they can spread themselves to some degree. A much better terror weapon.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
Jaguar : you are mostly right
However, France's radical position doesn't only come from its will to get bargaining power within the UN or EU. It has also much to do with the overall radicalization of international diplomacy lately, whose apex was during the "old Europe / new Europe" week.
French diplomacy wanted to postpone the war (not avoid it) in order to further its agenda, but also because it thinks the west shouldn't give the impression it's waging war against the muslim world.
Originally (before 1441), France tried to convince the US to avoid war because such a war would only result in more support (i.e money and manpower) to terrorism. The war in Iraq is contrary to the war on terrorism, in which France takes part.
1441 shows the past willingness of France and US to conciliate their views. Unfortunately, as warmongers continued to hassle America, and as the French and European population became almost unanimously anti-war, the gap widened. And we got the declaration of Chirac-Schröder late January, the letter of "European Eight" a week later, and the whole "Old Europe / New Europe" week after, which led to the mess we now know.
France tried to advise the US to calm down, for both countries own interests. There could have been an agreement on France's imperialistic interests in Iraq (return to pre-Gulf War 1 status quo).
It was and remains part of De Villepin's rethoric : "A true friend doesn't follow you blindly. A true friend warns you when you're going to make a mistake".
If the antifrench hysteria abates in the US, and the mild raise of antiamericanism abates in France, the relationship between the two countries would become healthy again. It would be utterly stupid from France to lose support from the only superpower of this world, and it would be stupid from the US to alienate the 2nd most influent country of the EU.
Especially over small matters (realpolitically) like the war in Iraq.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:26
|
|
I'm a US citizen, and I oppose the war under ANY circumstances.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|