Iran may face US attack after all
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
Post #120 isn't bad.surfinguru said:
OK, I don't think he should be allowed to develop a nuke, but I have to say you're making some BIG steps there. He develops a nuke therefore he will use it? Hmm, actually this is fairly unlikely. He may be religious, but it doubtful he is that stupid to think he could use a nuclear weapon without being assured of his own place as part of the glass parking lot. He may supply a device to a terrorist organisation, but once again, everyone is going to know where it came from and the result is the same.
People like you were saying the same thing about North Korea - A madman with a nuke cannot be allowed. NK have nukes now and what has happened? Well, nothing. Actually NK has a better position in negotiations, so actually they achieved their objective, which if you apply a littel logic is the same thing Iran are trying to achieve. It's still a far from desirable situation, but you can't assume it will result in mushrooms.
Please explain what you mean by "doing their jobs like they are trained to". Killing even more people? Yeah, that's worked out really well for you hasn't it?
Please, put the grammar police badge away already. If I go back and fix it will it make you happy? Pay attention to the thought that was being expressed instead of focusing on the irrelevant spelling of a few words. Didn't realize that this was a graded forum.LordOpie said:which is why I stopped posting in this thread early on
Really? Are you 100% sure? Will you base your life and all the people of the Middle East on that bet? Or how about the potentiality that one goes off in a nearby city to you? Do you risk that chance and throw the entire world into chaos, or do you go in and take out the ability to even create such a weapon and risk the politcal fallout? Certainly not easy choices....changleen said:
At least we have the option to even express our opinions. Think about that one. As far as Jong-Il goes, he might be a little nutty but he wasn't running around saying **** like all South Koreans should be wiped off the face of the earth along with the West now was he? These are two very different situations. Iran has a commodity in oil reserves. What does NK have to offer the rest of the world? Umm....not much that I can think of. NK was obviously more of an economic ploy rather than a religious / ideological stand.changleen said:
Dude, you say that **** like they're out there shooting women and children. Please, they're after the guys that would just as soon see you in front of the camera getting your head sawed off as your mom, or your dad, or your neighbor. The problem is those *insurgents* only understand force. Until the chains are removed from the Coalition Forces that inhibit them from really going out there and getting those guys, the **** will be perpetual. And why is it that Coalition Forces are unable to do just that? Because of the fear of being politically incorrect. War is ugly, and war is downright evil. I only wished we actaully lived a world that could exist in peace. However, that's not the reality we live in today. There are megalomaniacal men of the world that would indeed risk the destruction of everything around them because they are so blinded by their beliefs. And yes, that just might include good ol' Dubbya.changleen said:
Interesting take. What specifically would you like to have seen US forces do that they weren't allowed to do, and what would the result have been of those actions. Or conversely, what were the specific actions of the "pussy libs" and what have been the effects?surfinguru said:
It's a fricken war, people die. Innocent people die that shouldn't. It sounds callous, but that's a hard fact. The Coalition Forces should have been allowed to go in and use all the weaponry and tactics available at their disposal. The intense focus by the media and the Liberal politicians about loss of civilian life in addition to the loss of troops, forced the military to fight a war it wasn't really designed for - policing instead of fighting. Armies are built for one thing and one thing only: kill the other guy first and kill more of them. As soon as *feelings* or *political correctness* come into play on battlefield decisions, that edict becomes unatainable.ohio said:
So the coalition should be able to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as executing prisoners and torturing non combatants for information?After all these are things they have at their disposal. Putting constraints on the conduct of combatants is nothing new. Are you saying that the Geneva convention should be torn up?surfinguru said:
Like what? Which weapons and which tactics?surfinguru said:
I hate to point out the obvious, but you didn't answer any of my questions. What specifically should the military be doing, or would they be doing if they weren't under such intense scrutiny? Assume that there is no transparency and the US public doesn't get to see any of it, what steps should the military take to win this war? What tactics should they use but aren't?surfinguru said:
How are "feelings" and "political correctness" coming into play on the battlefield? If you can't explain conceptually, at least give me an example.
"Fighting harder" or "killing more" aren't tactics. I'm pretty sure they're fighting pretty hard right now.
You do have the beginnings of a point, but attacking Iran will throw the region into Chaos for sure just as much, if not more. Like people have said, this is complicated question.surfinguru said:
Actually, I think they mostly bomb women and children.
Uhhh, didn't the US invade THEM? And why was that again?
Get who? Every Iraqi male who resents having his country illegally invaded?
What are you trying to achieve? Who are you trying to kill?
And your side started it. Why was that?
That's the most intelligent thing you've said.
Well, he's doing such a fine job. After all, he won it months ago.The Amish said:
Ok, it's clear I should have been much more specific with this crowd. I never meant to imply that the military should operate outside the boundaries of the Geneva Convention - are we clear on that one? I'm saying we should have went in there and absolutely kicked the living crap out them. Like it or leave it, that's my opinion and you do not have to agree.
The US Military has enough capable, conventional equipment and training (tactics) to conduct a battle that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons really aren't necessary in Iraq.
The enemy I refer to is the Iraqi military personnel that shed his uniform and blended into the societal fabric who is now deploying road side bombs, strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing up innocent civilians in markets, Iraqi policeman, people in mosques and anywhere else they deem fight to terrorize. Those hardly seem like men defending their country and way of life. Those are the people I imply we should be hunting after with minimal constraints.
And quite frankly, no we didn't start it. Saddam did when invaded Kuwait and then continued to violate the numerous UN sanctions imposed upon him by the rest of the free world. Hardly a US only led effort. We're the only country with the means to actually do something about it.
Yes, invading Iran now would absolutely throw the region into chaos. I never disputed that. However, I did preposition the idea of do you want a smaller problem now, or a much larger one later with bigger ramifications. This is good reading for what I'm talking about:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak02.html
Look, there's absolutely no clear right or wrong answers here. Only subtle shades of gray the have no positive outcome. It reall sucks we even have to contemplate this topic in todays age, but the reality is this crap has been going on since the beginning of time and will more than likely continue to well beyond our lifetimes. It all comes down to *my god is better than your god.*
The US Military has enough capable, conventional equipment and training (tactics) to conduct a battle that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons really aren't necessary in Iraq.
The enemy I refer to is the Iraqi military personnel that shed his uniform and blended into the societal fabric who is now deploying road side bombs, strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing up innocent civilians in markets, Iraqi policeman, people in mosques and anywhere else they deem fight to terrorize. Those hardly seem like men defending their country and way of life. Those are the people I imply we should be hunting after with minimal constraints.
And quite frankly, no we didn't start it. Saddam did when invaded Kuwait and then continued to violate the numerous UN sanctions imposed upon him by the rest of the free world. Hardly a US only led effort. We're the only country with the means to actually do something about it.
Yes, invading Iran now would absolutely throw the region into chaos. I never disputed that. However, I did preposition the idea of do you want a smaller problem now, or a much larger one later with bigger ramifications. This is good reading for what I'm talking about:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak02.html
Look, there's absolutely no clear right or wrong answers here. Only subtle shades of gray the have no positive outcome. It reall sucks we even have to contemplate this topic in todays age, but the reality is this crap has been going on since the beginning of time and will more than likely continue to well beyond our lifetimes. It all comes down to *my god is better than your god.*
*slaps forehead*surfinguru said:
You STILL didn't answer the question. We DID go in and kick the living crap out of them. Like a said before "fighting harder" is not a tactic. What is it exactly that you want our military to do? What are the specific tactics that the libs are preventing them from using? What types of weaponry should we be using? Which troops? In what ways should they be engaging? What kind of covert ops would be helpful? I may very well agree with you, but until you can offer at least a single example of where the military was unable or disallowed from doing something that would have helped them win a battle, you have no point.
Are you clear on what "specific" means? Your statement is rediculous. It's like me saying that if Seattle just played harder, they could have beat Pittsburgh. Statements like that are of no use to anyone. What is the specific offense and defense they should have employed? What key decisions should the coaches have made differently? Which players should have been used at which times? Those are specific tactics.
I love how the Reps. are in control of Congress and the White House, but it is the liberals' fault that the war planning and execution sucked.surfinguru said:
It was Bush and Co. that disbanded the Iraqi military instead of keeping the infrastructure.
It's also hard to tell who is an enemy and who isn't (like in Vietnam). Do you advocate that the soldiers simply open fire on anyone they see, since anyone might be an enemy? I posted a video not too long ago where kids were throwing rocks at American Humvees and the soldiers inside were lamenting that they weren't allowed to shoot the kids. Would you allow them to kill the children?
Also, could you enlighten us as to which UN sanctions Saddam violated?
How about seventeen of them?Old Man G Funk said:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
* Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
* Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
* States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Really, all of them are about weapons of mass destruction, correct? Did Iraq have any WMD? Did Iraq force out the weapons inspectors before we invaded, or did we pull them out so that we could attack?surfinguru said:
Since we're tapdancing around the point, I believe the surfinguru is calling for the good old days where dropping napalm on gook kids was a-ok!
****ing liberals...don't they know those raghead kids grow up into raghead terrorists?
****ing liberals...don't they know those raghead kids grow up into raghead terrorists?
The best part about your post is that we did drop white phosphorous on some Iraqi towns.Silver said:
Yeah, but we didn't get any photos of a little naked girl burning. Until we have that, the terrorists are still winning.Old Man G Funk said:
Now we're talking!Silver said:
So I'm wondering what everyone else's solution to the problem is then? Do nothing, let the bomb be built and risk having one get into the hands of a terrorist or?
Jesus Christ, we gave them how much time to move it, bury it whatever? The majority of the worlds leaders and politicians were in agreement that he had them. Hell, even H. Clinton was quoted as saying such. Funny how those facts are so easily forgotten....Old Man G Funk said:
Did you forget that Saddam was firing on UN sanctioned No Fly Zone patrols? Did also forget that his regime was using oil for food money to research, build and buy weapons? (albeit with help from the Frenchies, Russians and a few others?)
There are no inoccent parties here! The world is a corrupt, power hungy cespool filled with lies and deceit. Now what?
Let's just push the damn red button and get it all over with already. The Muslims will all get their 72 virgins, the Christians will either go to heaven or hell, etc., etc., etc.
You sure about that?surfinguru said:
I remember that happening when Clinton was in office, I think.fluff said:
I don't want your dodgy recollections, I want to see UN sanction of no-fly zones.BurlyShirley said:
Sorry saladtosser, best I can do.fluff said:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch-2002.htm
Click through the yearly updates on the right. That info is only for the northern no fly zone....
Click through the yearly updates on the right. That info is only for the northern no fly zone....
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htmsurfinguru said:
UN sanctioned?
Aye, you are.BurlyShirley said:
Aye, it is.BurlyShirley said:
1st paragraph on the last page of the document 1441 it says:
"On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations."
Firing AA rounds hardly construes ensuring safety...
"On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations."
Firing AA rounds hardly construes ensuring safety...
I guess you missed this bit:
"Iraq's firing on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq is not a violation of the latest Security Council resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday.
Contradicting the United States' interpretation of Resolution 1441 on Iraq adopted two weeks ago, Annan indicated that the Security Council would not see such action by Iraq as a trigger for war.
"Let me say that I don't think that the Council will say this is in contravention of the resolution of the Security Council," Annan said when asked if Iraq was violating 1441 by firing at alliance planes, as Washington contends.
Key Security Council member, Russia, also on Tuesday dismissed the U.S. claims.
"Recent claims that Iraq's actions in the "no-fly" zones can be seen as a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, have no legal grounds," the Russian foreign ministry said.
The United States is alone among the 15-member Security Council member states in insisting that the no-fly zones are included in the resolution and that firing on the aircraft policing the two zones is therefore a breach of 1441."
So apart from the US (and its UK lapdog) no one else considered the no-fly zones UN sanctioned.
"Iraq's firing on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq is not a violation of the latest Security Council resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday.
Contradicting the United States' interpretation of Resolution 1441 on Iraq adopted two weeks ago, Annan indicated that the Security Council would not see such action by Iraq as a trigger for war.
"Let me say that I don't think that the Council will say this is in contravention of the resolution of the Security Council," Annan said when asked if Iraq was violating 1441 by firing at alliance planes, as Washington contends.
Key Security Council member, Russia, also on Tuesday dismissed the U.S. claims.
"Recent claims that Iraq's actions in the "no-fly" zones can be seen as a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, have no legal grounds," the Russian foreign ministry said.
The United States is alone among the 15-member Security Council member states in insisting that the no-fly zones are included in the resolution and that firing on the aircraft policing the two zones is therefore a breach of 1441."
So apart from the US (and its UK lapdog) no one else considered the no-fly zones UN sanctioned.
Wait, I didn't see the UN sanction that said "Team America World Police, come invade me".
Do you realize the US broke just about ever tennet of international law by invading iraq? Pot, meet kettle...again.
So it's not ok for them to set up IEDs and fight a guerilla war defending their own sovereign nation...but it's ok to invade multiple countries, none of which had anything to really do with an attack on the us 5 years ago.
Wow, self righteous much? Lemme guess, it's ok cuz God told dubya to do it.
Do you realize the US broke just about ever tennet of international law by invading iraq? Pot, meet kettle...again.
So it's not ok for them to set up IEDs and fight a guerilla war defending their own sovereign nation...but it's ok to invade multiple countries, none of which had anything to really do with an attack on the us 5 years ago.
Wow, self righteous much? Lemme guess, it's ok cuz God told dubya to do it.
Transcend, I love you man! What took you so long to join the fray?
Come on, we all know Annon is a commie, one world Government kind of guy. And why do you think the Russians were siding with Saddam? Hmmm, oil for food scandal maybe??? (Don't forget that Annon's son was involved that as well.) Conflict of interest? <--- (Opportunity to bash the Bush administration...don't miss it!)
Again, let's get back to Iran...do you guys HONESTLY want them to posses a nuke?
Come on, we all know Annon is a commie, one world Government kind of guy. And why do you think the Russians were siding with Saddam? Hmmm, oil for food scandal maybe??? (Don't forget that Annon's son was involved that as well.) Conflict of interest? <--- (Opportunity to bash the Bush administration...don't miss it!)
Again, let's get back to Iran...do you guys HONESTLY want them to posses a nuke?
Exactly. No one wants a nutjob to have a really really big stick. That said, no one really has the right to tell them what they can and cannot have.Ciaran said:
Of course, if they really only wanted power, they would take the western countries offers of FREE nuclear power plants, and enriched fuel from Russia. Sorta makes it obvious what they want to do...
The Amish said:Changleen said:You do have the beginnings of a point, but attacking Iran will throw the region into Chaos for sure just as much, if not more. Like people have said, this is complicated question.
He didn't say it, because it isn't.
Oh wait, did you mean they didn't have US style democracy, christian citizens, McDonalds and "freedom"?
Transcend said:The Amish said:Are you just completly oblivious to everything thats goin on outside your own ass? Why dont you pull your head out for a minute and take a good look around. Theres the whole Palestinian/isreali conflict. Iraqis killing other iraqis on a daily basis over some sunni vs. shiite B.S.. Hardline Iranians supressing a genuine push for reform in Iran. The whole syria/lebanon, conflict, as well as all the craziness goin on in pakistan and afghanistan, not to mention millions of durka durkas runnin around threatening to kill the world over a cartoon as well as killing each other in the process. Thats just whats goin on today. Its the defintion of chaosChangleen said:You do have the beginnings of a point, but attacking Iran will throw the region into Chaos for sure just as much, if not more. Like people have said, this is complicated question.
He didn't say it, because it isn't.
Oh wait, did you mean they didn't have US style democracy, christian citizens, McDonalds and "freedom"?