What If Iraq Succeeds?

U.N. Resolution 1441 states in part that "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations ... or of any member state taking action to uphold any Council resolution."

"Beginning in December 1998, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began challenging the coalition enforcement by firing surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery and targeting them with radar.

Central Command said that the Iraqis have fired on coalition aircraft more than 130 times so far this year."
============================

what would happen if Iraq actually downed a coalition plane patrolling the No Fly Zones?

The number of hostile acts including firing artillery and missiles at planes enforcing the UN Resolutions is in the hundreds.

its understandable that it is all in good political fun to show defience to his people and to the world... how would the US/Great Britain react if he actually hit a plane and killed the crew? How should they react?



Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 24 2002, 09:05 AM

[Almighty Colin]

JR - I think about half of all Americans use this formula: 30,000 Iraqis = One American.

30,000 eyes for an eye makes a whole hell of a lot of people blind. Worse, it's difficult to blind people without killing them - unless you want to risk your own life (and eyes!)

I don't know the answer to your "should" question.

Resolution 1441 is a setup. This is what the smart and powerful do in the world to get their way.
I personally think that if they inspectors are permitted 100% access to suspected Iraqi facilities and find nothing, there should be no war with Iraq. The US hypothesis is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Now we should be smart and clever enough to find them if they exist - or not and let it be. I don't think Iraq hitting an American or English plane should be used as a pretext for war but it very well might be.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 24 2002, 09:35 AM

Initially in the UN Security Council resolution there wasn't anything at all about no-fly zones, there really hasn't been since the start of this discussion. I think the US had to fight to get that in there, and as you can see from reading it that's still a bit unclear (since those fighters are ours, not part of a coalition/UN mandate) but we're definitely looking for a reason to obliterate Iraq.

C.

[PornoDoggy]

I'm really ambivelent at best about the whole focus on Iraq at the moment ... I agree that something needs to be done, but only Torone and Don Rumsfeld are convinced there's some linkage between Iraq and al Qaida. Colin, I agree with you re:

I personally think that if they inspectors are permitted 100% access to suspected Iraqi facilities and find nothing, there should be no war with Iraq. The US hypothesis is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Now we should be smart and clever enough to find them if they exist - or not and let it be.

I wonder if the folks with their finger on the trigger are smart enough, or willing to tlet them be if they don't find any. I've wondered if the flyboys have been given orders to push the envelope a bit.

I believe that if it does happen it will give Bush the excuse he's praying for.

[Mike AI]

It has been pretty much pre-determned we are going into Iraq.

This is something I support. However we have much larger enemies who try to make us think they are alies - notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Will Bush have the balls to call them out and out pressure on these rouge states?

I can see taking out Iraq, making it a protectorat, create a democratic regime, and free economic markets - from there we can put major pressure for a regime change in saudi arabia, and we will not have to be bent over and keep on taking it from our "allies"

People cite the post-Hiroshima occupation of Japan and the good things we did for them; I think in Iraq the consequences of occupation would be far worse. The obvious hypocrisy in our support of a new government in Afghanistan vs. our decision to occupy Iraq would piss the world community off further.

I support some sort of regime change in Iraq, though if it went the route of Bahrain it'd make me much happier. I am no fan of modern US foreign policy however, I think Iraq is taking our focus from areas of greater importance; it is and has been a UN issue. If only Congo and Zaire and all the other nations caught in brutal civil wars had nukes, we might help out the people in this world who are truly suffering right now.

It's unfair to blame the US for the world's problems, the UN has been equally derelict by letting all of these poor starving nations kill each other by the thousands. Iraq is a stable nation, however you want to debate the definition of stability. There are other countries in the world that concern me more.

C.

[Mike AI]

Well my problem with the Bush Administration'f foreign policy is confusing tough talk with tough policies and action. So far Bush is good at flapping his lips, but we have not changed any of our policies.

[VooMan]

See... now this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for in my thread...

Clinton was guilty of the same; Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc.

Pisses me off to see everyone with their Countdown: Iraq shows, but who cares that every day in central Africa hundreds of people kill each other. Or even Israel/Palestine for that matter, when was the last time there was a news story about a US diplomat headed over there?

C.

[Mike AI]

Well Cal I am not talking about that - right now the US needs to focus on the hotspots that effect us. Tribes killing each other in Africa is not a major concern for the US right now. ( execpt when it is the spead of Islam, then we may have to do something about it)

It is time to call out Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan....

Hopefully we will pacify Iraq in a matter of months, then once established there will be able to put pressure on Saudi Arabia... they are they real problems. They continue to finance our enemies, people who are murdering our friends and families!!

I think it will be soon time to oust the Hous of Saud!

There's talk that some of the royalty in Saudi is leaning towards the more progressive King of Bahrain-style of leadership. One can only hope.

I wasn't disagreeing that Iraq needs to be dealt with, but we're conveniently ignoring (mostly) Phillipines, Indonesia, as well as Iran, Pakistan, and God-knows-where-else. It is a bit different in a democratic country, granted, but I was just saying that all this 'Iraq' talk is failing to mention there are lots of other places we have to worry about as well. And the singular focus on Iraq is a little fishy when the administration is staffed with more ex-oil executives than an Astros World Series game.

C.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 24 2002, 05:49 PM
Well Cal I am not talking about that - right now the US needs to focus on the hotspots that effect us. Tribes killing each other in Africa is not a major concern for the US right now. ( execpt when it is the spead of Islam, then we may have to do something about it)

It is time to call out Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan....

Hopefully we will pacify Iraq in a matter of months, then once established there will be able to put pressure on Saudi Arabia... they are they real problems. They continue to finance our enemies, people who are murdering our friends and families!!

I think it will be soon time to oust the Hous of Saud!

So, you signing up soon? Or you just going to send some other damn fools to go off and fight for you?

[Almighty Colin]

PD - smart people send damn fools over to fight for them! Didn't you know?

[slavdogg]

Cal, whats the deal with Bahrain ??

Originally posted by slavdogg@Nov 25 2002, 04:50 AM
Cal, whats the deal with Bahrain ??

they are some of the few in the region to realize that they may need to consider life after oil and are striving to develop tourism, the economy and normalcy.

if we think there is a lot of angry poor people wanting to blow shit up now.. wait until we dont buy oil, their economy really suffers and the existing monarchy's which are already weak, finally collapse or are overthrown.

Thats a scarier thought to me than unrealistic boogyman sightings and "what if" scenarios about war in the region today.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 25 2002, 03:29 AM
PD - smart people send damn fools over to fight for them! Didn't you know?

Well, I have always thought that those that cry loudest for war, or who regard war as simply one more element of foreign policy, should be required to put their ass where there mouth is.

In an ideal world, the first wave of an invasion of Iraq should be the niave ones who suggest we try harder to understand them, and who contend we have nothing to fear from them. The slaughter of these innocents should be revenged by those most excited about the prospect for war. After that the professionals can take over.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 25 2002, 09:56 AM
In an ideal world, the first wave of an invasion of Iraq should be the niave ones who suggest we try harder to understand them, and who contend we have nothing to fear from them. The slaughter of these innocents should be revenged by those most excited about the prospect for war. After that the professionals can take over.

Did PD REALLY say that? h34r:

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 25 2002, 10:03 AM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 AM..