I will be jumping up and down, cheering, and laughing as S. Hussein runs and hides again like a sissy girl
 
-----------------------
§è®gèåñ† Jubèî Ñîmîîçhî
®ÅÎÐÈ®§ §QÛÅÐ: Army of the Vast Empire
Master of the "Way of the Juu"
SGT Jubei Nimiichi/TRP7/3SQD/1PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT//VEA/VE
"Being challenged is inevitable...Being defeated is optional" -unknown
"We may have to fight a battle more than once to win it" -unknown

I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to stand up against rogue states who actively do things like openly hate our way of life.  Personally I think war is a horrible option in this case.  Our problem is with their idiotic leader.  I would assume the average Iraqi, like most average citizens anywhere, just wants some food and cable television.  Give a $100 million bounty to the Iraqi national who brings us the head and spleen of Saddam Hussein and another $100 million and new Corvette to the general brave enough to start a government that would at least be a moderate force in the region. Regardless of our chief-of-idiocy's leanings, we don't need everyone to like us.  We just need them to not actively try to find ways to kill us or pay those who would.
 
-----------------------
XO/LTC Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Company Commander
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

I'll address each of JMacs points bit by bit.. We aren't just going into Iraq because they hate us.  POINT ONE: We are going in because they are making weapons of mass destruction, and have shown a past tendency to disrespect human life and all opposition POINT TWO: (Saddam gassed his own people for crying out loud.)  I don't see how we can remove him without attacking, he won't leave voluntarily, and he has the population terrified.  POINT THREE: I think that a bigger issue is Saudi Arabia.  They were begging us just a few years back to come in and stop Iraq from destroying them.  Now they take a break from holding telethons in order to raise money for the families of the suicide bombers POINT FOUR: to tell us that we can't use them as a staging point for an attack on Iraq.  Not that that will do anything, Quatar has been paid well for letting us launch from there, POINT FIVE: but it does show exactly what kind of ally Saudi Arabia is. Point One: Under the freedom of data act (of 1991, I think) several British politicians have attempted to get the Government to show the proof of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. The British Government has, in most of cases like this in the past, given censored information (i.e. a document with the important parts blacked out), which is within that law and perfectly legal. HOWEVER, this time, not one document of any sort has been shown, censored or not, to prove which Iraq is making weapons of mass destruction. So, without proof.. very few British people support invading Iraq. Just because ol' Dubya says they are, doesn't mean its Gospel. Point Two: Contradicting Point One. You've just said that Iraq disrespects human life, but then you go on to say that Saddam gassed his own people.. so surely the Iraqi's must love being gassed?! We have to remember to distinguish between Iraqi's (many in poverty and just wanting food and cable TV, like Fury said) and Saddam Hussein (a dictator who wants to control the Middle East). Point Three: "Begging us to come in and stop them being destroyed". A fair point, except that the Saudi's have so much money they are easily as strong as Iraq - which means Saddam is bending over backwards to please them, unlike with the smaller Kuwait. Point Four: This is over Palestine. The Saudi Government have said that they will not support an American attack on Iraq whilst Israel (and you have to understand that to the Arab World, Israel means "Little America") continues to murder Palestinians. They have publically said that they will support it as soon as Israel uses politics and not their millitary to negotiate with the Palestinians. Point Five: Not very good allies, are they? But then.. nor are the allies which set up anti-nuclear missile stations in Western Europe which protect America and not Europe - and doing it under the cover of NATO, so they don't even have to pay for the privelage. Basically, Saudi aren't going to play ball with the US until the US starts playing ball with them - which also explains the way the Germans and French have been distancing themselves from America for the last few months (but, making us the laughing stock of the rest of Europe, not the UK). Now, my more in-depth talk on it. Desposing of Saddam: Good Doing this with war: Bad For a start, look at the Army. Iraq has an army one million strong, and people who don't have things like the 14th Amendment (whatever that is ) to protect them from being forced to fight. Generals are saying that only the Republican Guard will fight, and everyone else will desert. Possible, yes - but the Republican Guard still has 12 divisions, something like 9 of which are armoured. Thats about 100,000 men at full, including all its support staff. I might not be much of a strategist, but I do know that one man who knows the terrain he's fighting in is as good as ten men who don't. The Iraqi's have grown up in the barren, desert landscape, and know how to fight in it - far better than the Americans and British. If we wanted to bomb the Iraqi's into submission, as we did in the Gulf War, a simple bombing campaign (backed up by Special Forces) would be enough. But to topple an entire regime, decimate an Army AND win the respect of the Iraqi people is going to take a whole lot more. You might all be waiting eagerly for the US of A to kick some major bootay, but I doubt you'll be grinning quite so much when the body bags start coming home.
 
-----------------------
        Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, Naval Instructor & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
     INS/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Flight School/Training Fleet/ISD II Crusader/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

All very good points Jubei. As for whether or not Iraq has those wonderful toys, what part of "he used them on his own citizens" did you miss?  Plus I doubt all those scientists he appropriated are just there to enjoy the sites. No, he's what you call a "bad man." I still think it's possible to pop a couple high powered shells through his brain cavity...plus his two boys for all I've read about them. The best thing we could do is take him out, deal with all the crap from Europe about assassination is wrong and whatnot, lift some sanctions, and get the hell out of there for the most part. As for the Saudis, when we get around to selling Israel a freaking aircraft carrier, then they might learn the value of actually being a moderate state like they profess to be.
 
-----------------------
XO/LTC Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Company Commander
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

I would like to point out that Raz is right, in the early 80's when Saddam came to power, we supported him against the Shah of Iran.  Anyways, the US doesn't always back up its allies.  The only reason we backed up Korea is that the guy in charge was a puppet that we replaced ever couple of months.  And in Vietnam, we left them hanging in...  I think it was 1972.  We pulled out quickly and completely.  Not because we were losing of course, we were just starting to pull ahead at that point, but because we didn't think S. Vietnam was worth it. I'm with Bear on the invasion issue, the Republican Guard is a formidable fighting force in the region.  Paraphrasing from The Art Of War: "Attack the enemy only if you possess double their strength, for the attacker is always at a disadvantage or not having chosen the terrain." As I said, paraphrased.  Anyways, the simple idea is that we are going to lose lots of people even if it is only the Republican Guard fighting us.  However, I suspect that more than just the guard will fight back, so the loss figures go up agian. My main question on this issue is why we revert to war all the time.  Are we really that immature as a nation?  If so, I think that sanctions should be passed against the US as the greatest world threat.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

Actually Raz, we prolly would let you Brits take that shot.  Regardless of how good our Special Forces may or may not be, public relations is not one of their finer points. Which is why you guys come in handy.  You usually agree more with our policy than most and you can weather the storms such events cause better.  Basically, do this and we'll back the Pound if you are ever in a bind so you won't have to turn to Euros As for whether or not anyone is going to put sanction on the US, that would be about as stupid as us throwing a trade embargo on Japan or China.  Like it or not, it is a very interconnected world...in case you haven't noticed. Only on uni-product Third World nations that sell something (oil in this case) that we can obtain elsewhere can you really toss down an embargo, much less sanction them from obtaining products. Besides, most of the things that would damage the military readiness of the US (weapons, military vehicles and aircraft, medicine, heavy industry materials) are actually produced here.  It's some raw materials, a lot of consumer items, and textiles that we get elsewhere.  If all else fails, a tons of sanctions would only help fledgling US industry, thus making Wal-Mart the largest corporation on the planet as they have preferential deals with all those small fries.. And who does that help in the long run?
 
-----------------------
XO/LTC Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Company Commander
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

Well, like Fury said, it's an interconnected world out there.  However, this would mean that, like Bear said, we should take Europe more into account before unilaterally deciding to do something. Oh yeah, and about the Iraqi invasion, check this out: http://www.satirewire.com/news/aug02/red_tape.shtml Hehehehe. Anyways, as to the argument about the Gulf War... The reason we didn't lose much is that we were only trying to stop an invasion.  Defense is soooo much easier than offense, and usually less costly in the way of lives.  If we attack, we will lose more lives than we're estimating, and it will be a long time before the last of them is wiped out. Like I said, any nation that's in this much of a hurry to go to war with everyone they disagree with in disaccordance with the wishes of everyone else is a danger to the international world and should have some measures taken about it. Personally, I think that measure should be the EU taking a more active stance on global affairs, covering some of the bases the US has taken on.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper