Author Topic: Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches (Read 3893 times)

« **Reply #60 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:12:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace
We are not going at it alone.

Ace

yeah its only because US top Brass and the general public would get a "tad" upset if all of the Body bags comming home were American.

in other words Tony BLIAR is willing to pay the BLOOD price for this "conflict".

« **Reply #61 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:15:23 AM »

We were told of mass casualties during the Persian Gulf War and it was poppycock. I\'m sure the Iraqi army is busy making white flags as we speak.

Ace

« **Reply #62 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:18:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace
We were told of mass casualties during the Persian Gulf War and it was poppycock. I\'m sure the Iraqi army is busy making white flags as we speak.

Ace

no most of them are diggin in citys near hospitals.. and other sensitive areas which will result in a limitation in Air Strikes.

they will most likely want to draw our Forces into dirty urban / Hand to Hand Fighting.

End result a Costly Drawn out war and Not a Repete of the Last one were it was war from 50,000 Ft.

« **Reply #63 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:21:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ooseven
End result a Costly Drawn out war and Not a Repete of the Last one were it was war from 50,000 Ft.

Not likely, but that is my opinion and many others who know a lot more about the possibilities than me.

Ace

« **Reply #64 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:29:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace

Not likely, but that is my opinion and many others who know a lot more about the possibilities than me.

Ace

What.. The UK & US top Brass will consider bombing on sensitive areas?
Result = International Condemnation , plus Growing Resentment within the Islamic world
End Result = Creation of more Terroist willing to givetheir lifes to avange this action

Or will they Para drop forces into a urban conflict
Result = much the same my previous post only more intense

« **Reply #65 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:30:30 AM »

So your policy is do nothing and hope they like us for not doing anything.

Ace

« **Reply #66 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:45:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace
So your policy is do nothing and hope they like us for not doing anything.

Ace

no...i would continue a policy of containment.

More Weapons inspections (triple the amount)

condition to lift UN Sanctions in return for UN Peacekeepers to intiate a state of provisional govement control.

For the Iraq army esp the Republican Gaurd to STAND DOWN on a condition that the nation will not be attacked and will be defended by the UN peacekeepers.

For the UN peaceKeeper force to be made up of 50% of Arib nations. and to seeten the deal only 10% is UK and US.

The Etablishment of The immediate demand of elections .., monitored by the UN.

option to remove saddam to a nutral country made to him by the UK & US.

lifting of the No fly Zones the peaceful removal of Saddam.

the setablishment of trade and new system of Technical support (re building) for oil.

« **Reply #67 on:** March 06, 2003, 06:01:26 AM »

And you think that can happen without a full out war?

Ace

« **Reply #68 on:** March 06, 2003, 08:47:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace
And you think that can happen without a full out war?

Ace

yes..its what termed as the Carrot and Stick approch...

You offer an insentive while on the other hand "threaten" the use of Force or further diplomatic punishment.

You cann\'t just sit back and say....

Do it or Else !

i know Saddam is a monster like the next man.. but its possible to acheive the same results without the all out WAR...

« **Reply #69 on:** March 06, 2003, 08:50:49 AM »

What have we accomplished in 12 years of doing nothing? Answer:Nothing. Saddam won the first round. This time he will either comply with the wishy washy UN resolutions or we will make him comply.

Ace

« **Reply #70 on:** March 06, 2003, 09:00:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ace
What have we accomplished in 12 years of doing nothing? Answer:Nothing. Saddam won the first round. This time he will either comply with the wishy washy UN resolutions or we will make him comply.

Ace

DID I SAY WE DO NOTHING ?

No...

i outlined a strategy for an end to the Saddam recheme(sp) through peaceful means....

yes it would take longer than the initial action that an invasion whould last for.

but it still would be far better and far quicker than the aftermath of an invasion.

Remember once an invasion has occured the possibility for forces being stationed to help with the aftermath could take years.

that plan that i outline would and should of took place at the end of the first gulf war and ans a result would of lead to a productive and democratic Iraq.

but then again where would the profit be for all the warmongers (Mr Runsfeld inc)..be ? :rolleyes:

videoholic · « **Reply #71 on:** March 06, 2003, 10:37:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ooseven

no...i would continue a policy of containment.

More Weapons inspections (triple the amount)

condition to lift UN Sanctions in return for UN Peacekeepers to intiate a state of provisional govement control.

For the Iraq army esp the Republican Gaurd to STAND DOWN on a condition that the nation will not be attacked and will be defended by the UN peacekeepers.

For the UN peaceKeeper force to be made up of 50% of Arib nations. and to seeten the deal only 10% is UK and US.

The Etablishment of The immediate demand of elections .., monitored by the UN.

option to remove saddam to a nutral country made to him by the UK & US.

lifting of the No fly Zones the peaceful removal of Saddam.

the setablishment of trade and new system of Technical support (re building) for oil.

Poppycock. This would never work with a leader like Saddam. Do you have any clue how much money he extorts for himself from the oil????? Any clue??? You do realize that the Iraqi\'s sell all their oil to small companies right, who in turn sell to shell, mobile, etc.... These small companies kick money right back to Saddam.

That country is run like the mafia and this dude is not and will not step down. There is no chance in hell this guy will leave that country without huge pressure from his people and that is going to happen when bombs start dropping.

When a 20,000lb missle hits saddam\'s palace and puts a mushroom cloud up in the air, it\'s going to scare the shit out of the iraqi\'s...

« **Reply #72 on:** March 06, 2003, 10:52:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by videoholic

Poppycock. This would never work with a leader like Saddam. Do you have any clue how much money he extorts for himself from the oil????? Any clue??? You do realize that the Iraqi\'s sell all their oil to small companies right, who in turn sell to shell, mobile, etc.... These small companies kick money right back to Saddam.

but i thought it wasn\'t about OIL

j/k

anyway.. i was on my way home when i heard that Blair is now saying that he would offer a peaceful solution if Saddam and Co were to leave Iraq in exile.

videoholic · « **Reply #73 on:** March 06, 2003, 11:00:39 AM »

Peaceful solution has been offered up ever since 1991. All he has to do is give up his weapons and step down.

« **Reply #74 on:** March 06, 2003, 01:13:38 PM »

Believe it or not, I\'m all through a peaceful solution to ending this conflict. IF Saddam does leave, no need for war. Heck, even other Arab ARE ASKING him to leave into exile. The problem, he isn\'t leaving. If we continue to do this thing called "containment", and Saddam is still there, that only continues him more time to develop his weapons. He has 12 years to develop them, how long do you want to continue.

"But, but...triple the inspectors! That will solve the problem!" the UN couldn\'t even find the weapons he has now. How will tripling the inspections work?

As for the Republican Guard, that "great" army couldn\'t surrender fast enough during the first Persian Gulf War (another war that was supposed to have ended disasterously). Now yes, Saddam will "try" to make this a bloody war. But if the Republican Guard did what they did the last time, it won\'t. Yes, people will die, even civilians. This, unforetuently is NOT aviodable in any war. But, if there is a war, it won\'t be another "Vietnam" either that the left likes to mantra.

Lifting the no-fly zone and lifting sanctions. Again, only if Saddam is gone. In other words, I agree with you. Now, if it is done peacefully, great! I\'m with you again. But the way the wishy washy UN is doing, peaceful solution at the moment isn\'t is still out of grasp.

Now, UN monitored elections...this I\'m fine with. Thats supposing that they can get elections which can only be done with Saddam gone.

The only flaw in your arguement I see ooseven is, the UN isn\'t even doing what you are asking! If they did, maybe I would be on their side for once. But instead, its "more inspections" instead of enforcing their own resolutions.

Second, Avatarr, WE ARE NOT GOING AT IT ALONE! I thought you knew this? We have many nations behind us. The only thing we might not be doing is doing it with the UN. And at the moment, we ARE going through the UN. Which, if anything, going with the UN has only made the situation worse. Again, you are going around in circles.

BTW, Clinton DID go at it alone when he when he bombed that "bomb making" plant in Sudan, bombed Kosovo (if you remember, the US was rejected by the UN, and Clinton went in anyways), AND when he first bombed Iraq, and when he first bombed Afghanistan. Where were you when you were complaining that we shouldn\'t go at it alone? Some precedent.

Hello

Author Topic: Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches (Read 3893 times)