[CP5670]

Let's see how the European pacifists respond to his post...

[daveb]

Eh, I'm no expert, but I'm betting any replies to the contrary will contain at least one instance of the following words and/or phrases :

"Bush" AND ("low IQ" OR "clearly dim")

"unilateralism"

"Turkey"

"hegemony" OR "imperialism"

"I'm a cheese eating surrender monkey"

Ok, I'm kidding about the last one. Without France, the American Revolution would never have been won  

[CP5670]

hehehe...unfortunately you are right about some of those. (also, add in "morally right thing to do" into that )

[vyper]

The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out. And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation. Thank God for Pakistan for once.

Yeah, just carry on thinking that way. Please.

But I'm digressing here from what I was going to say:
Removing the threat that Saddam and his WMD pose is a definate short term goal for any nation that has an ounce of common sense. The method by which to remove him is more of a debatable issue.  If you simply remove Saddam, you're leaving the door open for a replacement. If you oust his government you're left standing around looking for a replacement. If you wipe out his country you risk world war with the UAE and condemnation by the EU humanitarians.

Personally I don't know which would work better - but I get the feeling we will all live to regret not taking Desert Storm to the terminal conclusion that both American and the UK wanted.

(btw CP5670 I think you should clarify who you consider to be Europe because Britain certainly ain't pacafistic. )

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by daveb
I was speaking more along the lines of strategic nuclear weapons. That is to say, Saddam may churn out a WMD or two in the short term and have the ability to hold a country hostage, terrorist-style - but that's peanuts in the big scheme of things. If the major, traditionally radical ME countries continue along the lines they have now, in 10-15 years they could have significant arsenals of nuclear weapons which will change the whole concept of "terrorism". If they find themselves coddled by the UN (that is, not smacked down HARD when supporting terrorism) they'll learn that terrorism and threats pay. And then we won't be talking about 100,000 dead, or even a flattened city of millions. We're talking the ability to scour entire countries or continents (read : Europe).

Ahhh, clarification noted. But Iraq's already tested those Shihad missiles, the latter of which have the range to reach Israel and beyond, IIRC. That's why the US is talking/planning on going in "now" (whenever that is...) to remove Saddam.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Close Air fighting is not an American strong point, because we don't really ever get that close to enemy fighters.  However, you the Isreali's are also using American made or American based on designs.  The biggest worry are those of the Mirages, MiGs, and SUs.  Why shoot a guy with your guns when you can blast him at 50 miles with a Pheonix?  We also have mass numbers of fighters as well, even though a lot of countries can out fight the US, we can out number you pretty quick.  Iraq is a good example, in mock battles they beat the **** out of US fighters in Dogfighting, but when US fighters engaged them for real over Iraq, those Mirage's and MiG fled to Iran after being murdered by long range missiles, and their lack of ground based radar to give off US Aircraft positions, since Wild Weasels and A-10's kinda fixed those.  And of course, the A-10 and Apache helicopter kinda handed the Iraqi mighty T-72's there own ass.  Persian Gulf also showed how much better the British and American tanks are compared to the Russians and their mighty T-72's and T-84's.  

Lack of military discipline?

The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out.   And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation.   Thank God for Pakistan for once.

Actually, last time I checked, Adid was more afriad of the 20,000 US Marines that were there over any of the UN forces including British.  Once those Marines pulled out then he got brave.  And then got his ass shot off, until "Our Great Almighty President Clinton", decided to remove those troops and those Rangers and Delta Force died for nothing.

I don't know what you guys think is the best aircraft.  I still say the AC-130 Spectre gunship 0wnz j00!!!!!!:D

Last time i checked the British Army didnt lose more soliders due to friendly fire, than to the enemy, which is what happened to the Americans during Vietnam and we didnt bomb any weddings, that Pilot was told to await confirmation but he decided to fire before he received it, how Ak-47 firing into the air can be mistaken for substained AA fire is beyond me.

Now i seem to remember 4 British Marines going into a Prison full of Taliban and rescuing an American but im not talking about Elite forces here though.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb
Nuclear weapons are inherently a deterrent. But this deterrent works on the assumption that the countries wielding them are rational. Countries such as Iraq (as led by Hussein) are _not_ rational and therefore require "special" attention.

Isn't it interesting how Iraq is always Irrational whilst say; saudi Arabia is rational enough to Trade arms with. Although the Iraqui government leaves a lot to be desired (Marsh arab and Kuwaiti conflicts), I can tell you for sure that it's a lot less "irrational" than Shrub or Blair would have you believe. Looking back through history America has had some pretty "irrational" conflicts. Vietnam Anyone? I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.



P.S. Dave What about Ashcroft? he's a bigger loon than Bush could ever hope to be.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out.   And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation.

and remind me...who was getting their rear ends kicked around in both world wars prior to U.S. intervention?

Admitted, the U.S. goes around the world trying to solve other people's problems, but those problems would eventually affect everyone so its more preventive than otherwise.  Also keep in mind, Black Hawk Down was a "catch the warlord's best buddy" mission that went bad, and rangers dont leave their own behind.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by LtNarol
and remind me...who was getting their rear ends kicked around in both world wars prior to U.S. intervention?
 

Not Us , we kicked the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian all the way back to Berlin. You see Britian, nobody else won the Battle of Britian.

[daveb]

Most don't consider Saudi Arabia rational at all. Their ties to overt and tacit support of terrorism are clear and becoming more clear every day. Hence the reason I included them in the list 10 years down the road. They are the source of Wahabbism, which apparently is the source of the militancy evident today. There's also very strong evidence at the moment that both the US and Saudi Arabia are working to come up with a "clean" way to end their alliance.

I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.

Hyperbole. Unless you honestly believe the US specifically targets civilians to further political gains, this comparison is meaningless. The US does not say "
we can make America's people sleepless and frightened to go out in the streets ". The US does not use chemical WMD on its own civilians, or any other civilians for that matter.

Although I know you would like to believe the US is some horrible human-rights violating power seeking to control the world - that's just a fiction. I'm rather baffled at the extreme anti-American stance that comes from Europe very clearly these days. I would also note that _this_ is precisely the reason the US wants nothing to do with the ICC. Those-in-charge would absolutely relish the chance to wield their newfound power at the Americans they so despise - resulting in bogus charges and an overall circus atmosphere. Bet on it.

I realize its popular to believe every American just loooooves going out and kicking other people's asses. We're certainly good at it. But the reality of it is, we have no more desire to go to war than any of the self-appointed Euro intellectual elite. However, Saddam has been tap-dancing around political and economic strategies to remove him from power for decades. He's the master. If you think a few decades more is going to work, feel free. When he's got his nuclear tipped boot up your rear in a few years, you'll probably be thinking otherwise.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by Zeronet


Last time i checked the British Army didnt lose more soliders due to friendly fire, than to the enemy, which is what happened to the Americans during Vietnam

Yes, and british guns weren't a piece of **** and jammed to death which would get you killed.  You have to remember this is thick jungle fighting back when a radio was only carried by one person.  And the fact your own soldiers were tossing away their M16's for AK-47's doesn't help since, then you are shooting the same gun the enemy is shooting.

The parts a very true however, but what do you expect.  The airforce is just a bunch of former jocks that were actually smart enough to get somewhere, but still had the ego's to prove and thinking that bombing something would make them a hero is really sickening.  Most of those could have been avoided if it weren't for the UN and NATO.  They think Britian and the US are its big sticks that is can swing at anybody.  I hate the UN and NATO.  They can both burn in hell for all I care, they were both a mistake, a very stupid mistake.  

On Iraq, you could always do what the US has done in South America.  Support the most powerful rebel groups in the country.  Arm them and have them over throw Saddam, then replace them with US appointed officals.  But of course...the people did rise up against him and we let him use his Hinds to slaughter the uprising.   Go figure...

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by Zeronet


Not Us , we kicked the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian all the way back to Berlin. You see Britian, nobody else won the Battle of Britian.

Yes, but Hitler had you guys by the ass at Dunkirk.  His mistake was letting british forces go.  One of 3 mistakes he made.

[Blue Lion]

War on two fronts in Europe....Idiot! Hitler never played Risk?!?!?! Everyone knows that, you get a spot in Austrailia and work your way up, come on!

[Unknown Target]

In response to daveb's aricle, I think that the U.S. should simply go in right now. The longer we wait for the conflict in Afghanistan to end, the more time Sadddam has to re-group and get ready for the impending attack. So wha  think is the U.S. should load it's ICBM's with conventional warheads, launch an attack on, or at least bomb, Iraq's main military facilities.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND


Yes, and british guns weren't a piece of **** and jammed to death which would get you killed.  You have to remember this is thick jungle fighting back when a radio was only carried by one person.  And the fact your own soldiers were tossing away their M16's for AK-47's doesn't help since, then you are shooting the same gun the enemy is shooting.

The parts a very true however, but what do you expect.  The airforce is just a bunch of former jocks that were actually smart enough to get somewhere, but still had the ego's to prove and thinking that bombing something would make them a hero is really sickening.  Most of those could have been avoided if it weren't for the UN and NATO.  They think Britian and the US are its big sticks that is can swing at anybody.  I hate the UN and NATO.  They can both burn in hell for all I care, they were both a mistake, a very stupid mistake.  

On Iraq, you could always do what the US has done in South America.  Support the most powerful rebel groups in the country.  Arm them and have them over throw Saddam, then replace them with US appointed officals.  But of course...the people did rise up against him and we let him use his Hinds to slaughter the uprising.   Go figure...

Im not trying to knock America, im support Britians relationship with American very much, i just think some parts of its Military need more discipline. With Iraq the best thing to do, it get a large taskforce to the area, bomb Saddamns ass repeatedly and then go in with M1A2s, Challenger 2 tanks and Troops.  Blast Iraqs military powerbase, kill Saddamn and install a Sane government. Same with North Korea.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND


Yes, but Hitler had you guys by the ass at Dunkirk.  His mistake was letting british forces go.  One of 3 mistakes he made.

He didnt let us go, he'd never let the British Army escape willingly, we escaped through one of the Bravest acts of the war and then returned and kicked his ass.

[CODEDOG ND]

I like Britian, but somebody has to defend us!

Oh, then why did his forces halt just before taking the city?
If he wouldn't have made mistake number three which was ally with Japan and declaring war on the US as well, he would have met the Japanese in India.

But Britian didnt kick his ass, it was Britian, US, and Russia that kicked his ass.  And if somebody says France and I am going to slap you!

[CP5670]

Oh good, a political debate.

Isn't it interesting how Iraq is always Irrational whilst say; saudi Arabia is rational enough to Trade arms with. Although the Iraqui government leaves a lot to be desired (Marsh arab and Kuwaiti conflicts), I can tell you for sure that it's a lot less "irrational" than Shrub or Blair would have you believe. Looking back through history America has had some pretty "irrational" conflicts. Vietnam Anyone? I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.

Who said Saudi Arabia is any more rational? We just help them because they are helping us at the moment; they can be dealt with as well in the future. (same with Pakistan) Also, one thing that is interesting that Iraq is the only nation in the world that officially supported the 9/11 event (not even Afghanistan); although many nations had at least some sympathy for that, Iraq's official statement shows that it is willing to operate in the open against the US, making it much higher of a potential threat. Opposing a global superpower in a time of its crisis takes courage, and people with such courage can be dangerous.

The Vietnam involvement was indeed quite irrational, but not for the reasons most people give (atrocities or casualties do not really matter much as long as the objective is met); the paranoia that the US had against communism was unfounded and they simply did not have anything to gain by getting into that conflict. I don't like what the US government did in the past in some places, but at least they are shaping up now.

Personally I don't know which would work better - but I get the feeling we will all live to regret not taking Desert Storm to the terminal conclusion that both American and the UK wanted.

Yes, I think they made a big mistake then by not taking out Hussein and his top generals right there. The majority of Europe would have of course condemed it because the general resentment against the US is almost a part of the current cultural paradigm there, but as Dave said, they would have spoken out against almost anything done by the US to find some excuse to oppose the US and vent their sentiments.

(btw CP5670 I think you should clarify who you consider to be Europe because Britain certainly ain't pacafistic. )

Actually, while the current administration is said by many to be basically a puppet of the US, the majority of the people even there are the pacifist types. The worst are the moralistic nuts in the US itself though, people like Chomsky.

War on two fronts in Europe....Idiot! Hitler never played Risk?!?!?! Everyone knows that, you get a spot in Austrailia and work your way up, come on!

Yes, that was Hitler's biggest mistake; he was a master politician but a blundering fool in terms of military strategy, and he should have listened to his generals and left the USSR alone until Britain had been dealt with.

[daveb]

Chomsky.

Argh! Rage.....building.......anger......rising.....

Man, I hate that guy

[LtNarol]

and you also lost every other major land battle in Europe, radar and RAF were the only saving grace for the Brits during WWII...

As for how to invade Iraq...break out those million-dollar-apiece cruiser missiles and start leveling his military bases...hell, tac nukes could be used on a number of them.  After which, hit him from the air with B2 bombers and F14s (which the navy loves so very much).  Finally, roll in the M1A1s.