Middle East Troops

[Guest Toni Rauch]

Now that the war in Iraq has started in earnest, I'd like to show support for all the coalition troops in the area, by wishing them God Speed and a safe (and hopefully early) return home.Toni.(Tom, I'm sorry you felt these comments are inapprpriate to the MSFS forum. Personally, I think they're appropriate to every forum...)

[Guest Stamatis]

And I'd like to show support for all the innocent people that these "coalition troops" will kill or injure for no apparent reason.And I also happen to think that Tom was dead right that this kind of discussion is innapropriate for the FSForum.Stamatis

[KevinAu 441]

>And I'd like to show support for all the innocent people >that these "coalition troops" will kill or injure for no >apparent reason. >>Stamatis ...to finally rid the world of an oppressive, brutal dictator....to take action to defend ourselves before he has a chance to act against us.

[Guest Stamatis]

> ...to finally rid the world of an oppressive, brutal dictatora) Then "take him out". Don't bomb an entire innocent nation.:( There are plenty of those around. The US has even been working with them and supporting them in the past. How come?In my own country, the dictatorship survived only because of US support...I frankly cannot accept this "selectiveness". But we all know why it is happening, don't we? Let us stop pretending and call it by its name: OIL. If Iraq was not such an important oil producing country, no one would mind Saddam's brutalities, unfortunately so.> ...to take action to defend ourselves before he has a> chance to act against us. Sorry, I do not buy this excuse. There is no proof whatsoever that this ##### intended to attack the US. And even if he was planning to, he can't do it, doesn't have the means.Take care,Stamatis

[KevinAu 441]

>> ...to finally rid the world of an oppressive, brutal dictator>>a) Then "take him out". Don't bomb an entire innocent >nation. >:( There are plenty of those around. The US has even been >working with them and supporting them in the past. How come? >In my own country, the dictatorship survived only because of >US support... >With regard to "a" that is exactly what last night's operations were about. The US has invested billions of dollars on GPS and laser guided munitions so that we don't bomb an entire innocent nation. Our pilots put themselves in unncessary risk in order to prevent bombing unintended targets.With regard to "b", the elmination of these dictatorships is the eventual goal of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. But you can only take on one at a time, and you've just got to start somewhere....>I frankly cannot accept this "selectiveness". But we all >know why it is happening, don't we? Let us stop pretending >and call it by its name: OIL. If Iraq was not such an >important oil producing country, no one would mind Saddam's >brutalities, unfortunately so. >You see, if we were all about OIL, we would actually take France's position. Starting a war, having oil fields go up in flames, and having oil tankers sunk in the Persian Gulf, is not the smartest way of preserving your oil supply. To best preserve your oil supply from a brutal dictator, the best way is to ink contracts with that dictator owning the oil fields to provide monetary and infrastructure support in exchange for cheap oil and exploration rights, and to sell him parts to keep his Dassault Mirage F.1 fighters flying....>> ...to take action to defend ourselves before he has a>> chance to act against us. >>Sorry, I do not buy this excuse. There is no proof >whatsoever that this ##### intended to attack the US. And >even if he was planning to, he can't do it, doesn't have the >means. >That's right, he doesn't have the means right now. And now, he never will.... That's what preemption is about. Solve the problem now while it is manageable and the costs are acceptable. Look at North Korea...it is in the exact position that Saddam has continuously sought to be at...I for one, am not willing to bet my life, or the life of my family, that this ##### has no intention of attacking the city I live in, when he finally manages to put the right weapon together, and deliver it by any means at me.And I for one, am grateful that this country finally has leadership which is ballsy enough to do what it feels is right for the good of the country, regardless of the "international opinion".

[Guest]

Keven ,you are right on most parts, but you forget to mention some important things:the thought of a pre-emptive strike is very dangerous: imagine e.g. India doing this with Pakistan,this could lead to some very bad consequencesFurthermore, you can't neglect the fact that the terrorist threat will be higher by the war

[Guest Toni Rauch]

GuysBy starting this thread, I merely wanted to convey support for the troops sent to the Gulf who have no choice but to fight whilst we enjoy the 'luxury' of watching the conflict on our TV sets...For what it's worth, I'm not for the war itself but will feel safer in the knowledge that Saddam Hussein and his regime are no longer capable of exercising the attrocities they've become famous for.Of course I'm also concerned for all the innocent victims and their families who will be 'caught up' in this and I pray that these casualties will indeed be minimal.To suggest that this is all about oil is, respectfully, naive. Other gulf states are as 'oil rich' as Iraq and not one supports Saddam Hussein's regime - they'll be quite happy to 'see the back of him' as will most of the civilised world.Sure, there are other 'undesireable' regimes in the world and in time, they too will hopefully fail. But the action being taken mainly by Bush and Blair will at least send a very strong message to those who believe they can hold the world to ransom through potential terrorist means and in time, their removal will surely make the world a safer place......Toni.

[KevinAu 441]

You're right, it is a risky strategy. It in fact, is quite ballsy. But 9/11 convinced our leadership that the alternative of always waiting to be struck first presents too high a price at this day and age for the sole purpose of having the "moral high ground" when the weapons at our enemy's disposal and the creativity with which they are able to convert even common everyday items, such as 767s, into WMDs, can kill thousands of people per event.As for the terrorist threat being "higher" or "lower", that is a red-herring issue. The fact is the terrorist threat is there...does whether an Al-Queda cell in Buffalo activate this month or a year from now, really make any difference? They are going to attack anyways. Now or later. Just because we're attacking Iraq now, does not mean the war on terror is over. The troops are still in Afghanistan. They're still in the Phillippines. It makes no difference. That front of the war continues and probably will for many more years. Heck, maybe we'll be able to flush out a few more sleeper cells because of this war. The sooner the better. The sooner to remove this cloud that hovers over all of us.As for India vs. Pakistan, they've been attacking each other and trumping up charges for, what, forty years already... Neither of them have ever refrained from shooting at each other solely because the US has never shot at anybody pre-emptively. Whether India and Pakistan or any other country with a quarrel with a neighbor decides to attack each other is going to depend more on their own calculations of success vs failure, as has since the beginning of mankind, than whether they saw us attack Iraq on CNN last night.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Well Toni, as you can see, this thread may be inappropriate in ALL forums, as obviously it will set off a political debate that is far and away nothing to do with our hobby. As we see here, there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and none of them deserve the space or the bandwidth in these forums. So, I am shutting this thread down, and our guys will immediately remove any threads that are in the same vein. Ours is a hobby guys. Let's keep to the hobby.