Sign in to follow this  
Guest

What do we do now

Recommended Posts

The Iraqis have called our bluffWhat do we do Joe?1) In my opinion this is a stalling tactic.2) This is giving the "political cowards" time to organize their tactical withdrawal.3) My preferred option if we are to hit them is to do it now and hard.4) Every option is a gambleWhat do all of you out there think?Think carefully we are being faced with the big Kahoona question!HereslookingupyakiltbonnieladCookie

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Go in and take a look.I absolutely and categorically am against the "Put 'em in a field and bomb the #####" attitude I've been seeing lately. It's not a school playground and I don't think enough respect is being shown to the ordinary person in the street in Iraq.If Iraq wants to stall, let them stall... so what? Are you in a hurry to kill them? Is there a certain time period within which you must bomb people?I have much much more to say, but I think perhaps this isn't really the place to vent my spleen on the subject. So... as I say... go in and take a look. While the Iraqi people are backed into a nasty corner, what have you got to lose? God, I hate all this macho muscle flexing, it makes me wanna puke. Nuff said? :)Simon.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that I am not in favor of the whole "put'em in a field and bomb the **** out of them" but..........Iraq has lots of nasty technology being developed and it is only a matter of time before he uses it. As badly as we don't want to kill innocent civilians, he will do it for us, like he has been doing all along. I don't have any solutions, but I think something needs to be done to stop him and terrorism in general (or at least try). It is all politics, if we wanted someone gone, with all our technology and training I don't understand why it can't just happen, it would save so many lives and so much of our tax money.Just my 2 centsMichael

Share this post


Link to post

Believe me folks I am no gung ho idiot.This time my instincts are leading my common sense and I just feel uncomfortable. The U.N. in my opinion is a waste of good money (not the U.S. "you haven

Share this post


Link to post

My thoery on this one is: It's a stall tactic" We're moving ever so closer to going in. So they are like bring on the inspectors. We back down, in a couple of months or so, you'll start hearing from the Iraqi's is 'Get out, can't inspect here, its only a house/baby formula factory/school house etc, etc, etc Then it will be SSDD all over again. Though I will say this I'm not for the "drop a nuke and raise the Golden Arches in the sign of freedom/The Middle East could use a parking lot" approach either :-outtahttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/images/675-2fs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Hi there,If I were the U.S. I'd stay out of the Middle East. It's an enormous nest overthere and as U.S. you're not really wanted there. And if Saddam has some mass destruction weapons, it wouldn't be a good idea to use ground troops overthere. Let Saddam do in his country what he wants, if the people don't want him anymore, he'll be vanished in no time. No one can stand up to some several millions of unhappy people. Don't see it as your (I am talking to the U.S.) duty to democratisize a country! Only the people of that country can do that. Greetz,Stevenhttp://users.pandora.be/rbeeckman

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Cookie,Ok, folks here is what I think may happen next. The United States has successfully put together a coalition of over 90 countries publically showing support 5 days after his UN Speech. Even Saudi Arabia, who I said has been providing support has agreed for us to use our bases there. Good Stuff.Saddam knows he's cooked.So, is this a stalling technique. ABsolutely, IMHO. Is it sincere. Don't know yet. The UN will pass resolution(s)?, allowing the use of force. The Inspectors are only one resolution that has been violated, so don't get too hung up on only that one, even though that is the one the press keeps talking about. There are many others that have to be addressed to avoid an invasion.The UN will reiterate the current resolutions, set a deadline, and change the makeup of the inspection teams to allow more people in, possibly with UN Armed escorts, so they can inspect any building they want. They will also allow force to be used and the deadline to meet these demands will be November 1st, 2002. Just a Guess related to another theory I have. :-)There is no way Sadaam will allow this, and he will be attacked. If he does, and he meets every single condition of every single resolution that he already agreed to, then I have no problem allowing him to remain in power. But I doubt he will do so.Will it be a quick war. Anyone who advises anything about time, is should stick to Las Vegas. Clinton said a couple weeks. He has no clue, since you can never predict once troops hit the ground.I pray it will be quick, though.So in conclusion, nothing, absolutely nothing has changed. President Bush did not even acknowledge the letter this morning at a speech he gave, since the letter is meaningless.Incidently, the Coalition forces took out some more command and control sites in Iraq. That has not stopped, and continues almost every other day or so.Is this about the Economic interests of The United States and others. Yep. :-) Get over it. :-)Until Oil doesn't run the world anymore, the middle east will not be allowed to implode by the Western Democracies of the world.Because then, the only thing they could sell is sand. And I ain't buying no sand... :-lol :-lolRegards,JoeHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tuscon, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

We have been "here" so many times now - Saddam is an expert at playing this game. From what I have seen on the news the Iraqi's seem a little more rattled this time - with at least 3 "high level" meetings to decide what to do (although when did Saddam listen to anyone).Whether this is a stalling technique or not the response should be the same - either the UN inspectors are allowed to do their jobs within the time limit set by the UN with Iraqi approval or the necessary force is used to do it without. The "build-up" should continue so that Saddam can be in no doubt what will happen if he continues to play games.

Share this post


Link to post

Well,I don't think the UNSC will let him slide by this time. They have been down that road before, and George W. Bush embarrassed the UN last Thursday, and the world knows it. It appears that the UN may actually put up this time instead of shutting up which will be a welcome change.Theory number 2. Assume the Coalition attacks, and sadaam is gone, and peace is restored to Iraq. Guess what folks, the United States and the UN now has a rock solid precedant for the resolutions to be enforced with regards to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. It is a lot easier, unfortunately for the Iraqi's, for these resolutions to be enforced here than in the west bank and Israel. They are setting a precedant folks. Watch and see. have not any of you been curious as to why the tragic suicide bombings have at least subsided in numbers lately. They know what's coming down the pike. And I think the States of Palestine will finally be established and Israel will pull back to UN established borders. Just a theory with no facts. I am just guessing and throwing out hyperbole, and conjecture. But I do admit that. :-)The conditions Iraq places will be its downfall, and the UN won't budge. Don't believe he bought any time. It's paper folks, and only actions will stop this one from happening, IMHO.Regards,Joe :-waveHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

I kept myself away from these political thread because my opinions are always vieweed as harsh but I will respond this once.Iraq is playing games. Sandman knows he is about to be invaded because he does not allow inspectors so all of a sudden he says "Yes, they can come to inspect" not the US can't go in to invade because they don't have a good readon anymore. Sandman has had enough time until now to hide what needs to be hidden and now he says "No conditions" but we all know it will be the same as before...armed guards at some places saying "You can't enter here" and so on... then if the inspectors get too close to something Sandman will kick hem out again..and they are back at square 1. The point is that Iraq has or is developing WMD which are a thread to the US and it's allies including nearby Israel. There has been alot of evidence that Sandman has developed or is developing WMD and Chemichal and Biological weapons....some people say that the evidence and accusatios are made up...but why would they be madee up? The US has made it clear (as far as I remember) that they are not going to take over the country for the oil (like some people say)...they are just going in to bring Sandman down and to remove the WMD, Iraq will not become a US state so the oil will still belong to Iraq. Sandman has also supported terrorists like Al Qaeda and Hamas, that is enough cause (IMO) to turn him to sand. So my opinion is that he needs to be hit hard and quick, Sandman has been playing games until now to buy time for god knows what he is cooking up.SO yes...he is a thread to World peace and a threat to the US, so needs to be taken out and the WMD removed.And Joe is right..we don't want to buy sand :-lolJust my insignificant opinion.Take careMike

Share this post


Link to post

I take it that someone somewhere knows that without a shadow of a doubt, that the minute Iraq has a nuclear capability then Iraq will launch inter continental ballistic missiles at New York & Washington D.C. I mean that's the thinking isn't it?Whatever happened to sovereignty? What goes on inside the borders of Iraq is no ones business!

Share this post


Link to post

Actually,this could be a rather stupid move from Iraq.They can say the U.S. has no reason anymore to attack,but they're putting all the international pressure now with themselves.Suppose weapon inspectors do go there for inspections=>1)Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction=>everything's fine2)Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction=>they're screwed :)of course,as Joe pointed out,weapon inspectors must get full access,which is doubtful if they actually have such weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

Guess we got tired of funding an organization that constantly talks bad about us. We all should feel bad about Rwanda, that should not have been allowed to happen.Just my opionion.Matt

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with all who believe this is a stalling tactic. And a shrewd one at that, but only in the short term.The Iraqi's are trying to develop any kind of negotiating ground. They, of course, don't want any inspectors... or a situation they have some control over within their country. The coalition wants full inspections without Iraqi interference. The Iraqi's will settle for something in between.The next move is the U.N.'s (which isn't good). Mr. Annan was pleased yesterday that the Iraqi's had made their overture. Hopefully, the U.N. won't bite on this latest carrot. But if it does, the coalition must then take control of the situation and bypass the U.N.This is as much about the U.N. changing it's ineffective (and often meaningless) philosophy of negotiating away problems... only to have them return another day. It has proven itself to be a body of Neville Chamberlains. If the coalition must disregard any negotiated settlement the U.N. accepts from the Iraqi's, so be it.The only acceptable solution is to insure that Saddam cannot murder his own citizens, neighbors, and any country who disagrees with him. The civilized peoples of the world must be prepared to do whatever is required to insure their security.

Share this post


Link to post

Remember,The press has only been concentrating on One specific resolution. (That of the inspectors) There are many more that he has violated. It is those that will allow us to act if he does not comply.The weapons inspectors are but a small piece of this puzzle. Don't let the press or I sway your judgement. Make sure you understand the resolutions as they will most likely be trumpeted out as the weeks go on.That way you will understand a bit more. It is not all about the inspectors. That is what certain countries like canada, and Germany think it is about, but they are Naive, and in denial, IMHO. Read the resolutions and you will understand.Heck, go read Bush's speech to the UN as he laid out those past resolutions in detail.Regards,JoeHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

As many of you have stated, we have been down this road before. SH agrees to let the inspectors in, then play's ring around the bunkers, stalls, and then kicks the inspectors out. All the while, he is building his weapons, and hiding them most well.Anyone who DOES NOT think this is happening is looking in the rearview miror, or smoking something which is affecting their judgment. This guy has a track record of doing this and he will continue to do this unill he is stopped . . .either by a coup by his own people or someone else, (read that the US) moving in and doing away with him.He has no redeamable values . . . he is a terrorist with a title, and he likes it that way. Now, to those who say we should just leave the situation alone, I say this: When he does get his nukes in a row, he will point them -- and we all know where he will point them. Israel has just about had it, (read that: Bagdad could end up being a glass parking lot), and that, my friends, is the beginning of the end.I believe, (just my humble .02cents worth) that the United States should follow the UN and send the weapons inspectors, while at the same time sending in special teams which will hunt down this guy, and put him in his place, (read that, in a 3x6 wooden box), and try to give that country the peace which has evaded them for so long.It will not be easy, but nothing worth doing is easy . . . it is the job of the entire world, want it or not, in this age of nuclear weapons, to make sure that they are not used!As a former combat pilot who has seen more than his share of action, I am not one who desires war. War is a most terrible thing, with most terrible results, however, some times, war is the only way to get rid of an individual and his cohoarts, who regard war as just the price of doing business. And lets not forget that this individual, supports terrorism in every way he can. His own people have suffered terribly at his hand--even his own family have been the objects of his terrorism.If, SH would leave the rest of the world alone, then I would be tempted to say; "well, its up to the people of Iraq to get rid of him . . ." but he won't . . .we saw what happened during the Gulf War, and as Stormin Norman said, "...if we don't get this guy, we'll just have to go get him and do this again in five years . .." No one on this forum would be more pleased than I, for the weapon inspectors to enter Iraq, not find anything, and we would all know that this is true and this issue would be a done deal . . . unfortunately, I don't believe that will be the case . . . and I can only ask the Good Lord to Bless America and her allies to do the job to free the people of Iraq from this tryant for good . . . before he has the chance to use a nuclear weapon against one of his neighbors and perpetuate more terrorism.Best to all,Clayton T. DopkeMajor, USAF (retired)"Drac"B52Drivr@aol.com

Share this post


Link to post

Ihor wrote:"What goes on inside the borders of Iraq is no ones business!"First, and perhaps most importantly, what goes on within Iraq's borders is SPECIFICALLY our business because, as a term of the cease-fire of the Gulf War, Iraq unconditionally agreed to subject itself to inspections and to disarm itself of biological and chemical weapons. It has NOT complied with the agreements it made, which means that the U.S. can stop the 10-year-old cease-fire at any point. The Gulf War was not "ended" with a peace treaty. Technically, a state of war still exists, and hostilities could legally have been resumed as soon as the agreements were broken years ago.Next, threat levels. For nations that are not run by madmen (and I do believe that using chemical weapons on his own people ... a fact which has been documented and on film, not just hearsay) counts as actions of a madman ... allowing them to develop weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated by the rest of the world. Iraq has demonstrated that it poses a threat to its neighbors. If you doubt this, ask Kuwait. With missile-deliverable chemical, biological, and (soon, according to Hussein's own former scientists) nuclear weapons, the threat he poses to his close (and not so close) neighbors is intense. Specifically speaking of the U.S., the fact that Iraq has ties with terrorists -- as apparently described in great detail in a dossier being prepared in England -- puts them SQUARELY on a very specific list. Right after our towers and the military headquarters of all our armed forces were attacked, the U.S. President said that any person or nation who harbored and/or gave comfort or aid to terrorists were going to be taken care of. In this specific instance, the U.S.'s own national security is specifically at risk.Tangentially, as mentioned above, Iraq is a threat to its neighbors, several of which are military or political or economic allies of the U.S. It is quite likely that we have mutual defense agreements that could be in play. I don't know for a fact.Saddam could stave off any and all military action by unilaterally complying with the agreements he signed 10 years ago.He signed the agreement.He chose (and still chooses) to break his word.If hostilities resume to keep him in check, it's only due to his own inaction.--Tony

Share this post


Link to post

>>That way you will understand a bit more. It is not all about the inspectors. That is what certain countries like canada, and Germany think it is about, but they are Naive, and in denial, IMHO.<

Share this post


Link to post

Gosta, what can I say. You are a smart wonderful person. Have a day,JoeHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Tony but I don't read Arabic, how about a translationNo comprehendum quotam estRopem kangaroo downus sportam! (Crocodile Dundee Circa 1989)Cookie

Share this post


Link to post

"....Let Saddam do in his country what he wants, if the people don't want him anymore, he'll be vanished in no time. No one can stand up to some several millions of unhappy people...."I disagree.... The people in Iraq are so repressed, they are powerless to fight back. Machine guns and gas are quite effective, even against millions of unhappy people, and Saddam knows how to gas his own people--he's proven that. Why do you think Saddam lives underground? And most of the Arabs, Europeans, and Asians have turned a blind eye to what's going on there...after all, there's his oil to think of.... It is often said that Europe and Asia would suffer much more than the U.S. if Saddam were to cut off oil exports... One of the reasons why I think they're a bit soft on him... But I do agree that it's not the U.S's job to force democracy on another country. On the other hand, if Saddam and his regime have even the slightest connection to any part of 9/11, his regime (but not Iraq) should be destroyed. To heck with the U.N.... It's our right as a country to defend ourselves against any attack, and demonstrate to the world that we will avenge any attack we can't defend. The U.N. certainly won't do it for us. I am almost certain that Saddam aided the 9/11 terrorists--he certainly applauded them. And to this day, most of the Arab world (and many Asians and Europeans) still tries to rationalize 9/11 against how we are disliked. Why should we care about their opinions--which basically aid and comfort our enemy? When such opinions are voiced about 9/11, how credible can the same people's opinions be in regards to Saddam?You do raise an interesting point. If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and he used them internally in Iraq to defeat an invading army, would he be justified? I think he would be, given it's his own country... But is he worthy of negotiation? IMHO, no...he's been given too many chances, and all he is doing is manipulating any fool willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I wish the U.S. would walk away, and let him overrun the Middle East, and threaten Eastern Europe, Russia, Pakistan, India. Because that's where his weapons will be targeted first.... And he is growing old, and I suspect wants to cement his legacy soon...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this