Bush and Nukes?
- Thread starter Aries
- Start date
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
I would caution against underestimating the opposition. If you think you're just going to go over there and win, then you're going to get beat.
From memory, it was about 150, the majority being mishaps, not actual enemy casulties.
I'm not sure if anyone would remember, but does anyone remember Air Strike Patrol or Desert Fighter? The game was quite realistic in that you would pretty much lose no matter what you do. After completing all your missions, how much of the enemy you destroyed, the casulties you've taken, and the public image of the war (inncents killed, for example), and always there's something that you're shit on for, such as how expensive the war was, or how the war has caused a new wave of terrorism and the world is set to collapse (like it is now) as examples. I say this because who you fight against is obviously Saddam Hussain. Well if you fail the final mission, Saddam Hussain launches nukes and brings the world under his total domination. The entire world is basically forced to live like rats. Considering how realistic the game is, I think the actions Saddam takes in the game are a fair and accurate discription.
And really, you can't win.
True enough.
?!?!? You're kidding! Where'd you hear this?
WildWeasel
Spaceman
That's the attitude I bring into every situation. Are you saying I should change?
Look on the bright side. At least you're never disappointed.
On a slightly more serious note...
I remember hearing about this, although I don't remember the network involved, and I didn't recall the number of Iraqis involved (a full battalion seems a bit big, although a company is more believable - but I really don't remember).
You have to remember, though, that once the ground war got underway, the Iraqi army pretty much surrendered en masse (with the notable exception of the Republican Guard units). Any Americans wandering around on their own around the front were "obviously" US troops, and thus a legitimate candidate to surrender to. I doubt the locals are familiar with the idea of battlefield correspondents, particularly in a nation such as Iraq.
I do find it ironic, however. You can pack so many people into the streets of one of the Islamic nations shouting "Death to America," that its easy to feel that the entire Middle East must hate the US, but at the same time, both of our wartime experiences there have involved armies surrendering or fleeing en masse rather than face us or those we directly support on the battlefield. Sooner or later, whatever causes the collapse will cease to be a factor (hopefully later rather than sooner), but given the vitreol toward the US that one often sees, I find it very odd. You'd almost expect our opponents to fight like cornered rats.
WildWeasel
Spaceman
Never.
Aries
Vice Admiral
and the US didn't start those. The Maine was an accident, we just blaimed Spain cause we were about to get into the war anyway and that was as good as a reason as any. and we won that war. the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was in RESPONSE to North Vietnamise aggression, and Vietnam turned out the way it did cause the political leaders tried to run the war. The Linebacker 2 raids of 1972 (think thats the right year) proved that if the president and his staff just gave the military a objective and let the military do it's job, we could've won Vietnam
for the "underestimating an opponent" bit, the US went into the Gulf War with an Army that hasn't seen real combat since Vietnam, whose leaders were for the most part just as inexperienced as their men, and with equipment that was unproven on the battlefield. We went up against the 4th largest army in the world, with troops and equipment that was battle tested in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, and utterly decimated their army to the point that it would take them 10 years to recover. Their best units, the republican guard, compared to the US army are like recruits just out of basic and A.I.T. We thought we would just go over there and win, and we did. we thought that in Grenada, Hati, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Spanish-American war, Mexican War, and the Revolutionary War. and win we did in all except Korea and Vietnam, and Korea wasn't to take out N. Korea, but to protect S. Korea, and we did, and i already said what happened in Vietnam.
If we go into Iraq, there is no question about who would win the military war. Iraq would get its ass kicked just like last time. Its the Political war that is the questionable one, which is why i say just go in, kick their ass, take Saddam out, and turn the country over to its own people, and let them take care of it. Its their country after all
the most likely explination for the surrenders is that the Iraqi army knew it would get its ass whipped and they didn't want to die. also the majority of their soldiers were concripts. as for the singing in the streets, its easy to sing and dance when you arn't the one getting you ass kicked by the "great satain". its much harder to do the same when a armoured cav regiment is rolling toward you like hell on wheels, killing anything that moves.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
What I'm saying, this was a warning made by Chuck Daley on the first USA Olympic Basketball Team (the Dream Team) by the way, but what I'm saying is that just because you're the best doesn't mean you'll win. Fighting with determination and intent, having the will to work for that goal, instead of just dropping in on Iraq and saying you've won. That's what's required to win, at anything. You only have to remember Vietnam.
Hmmm...I do have a bit to say about that, but I can't put it into words. It's a good thought, I'll have to get back to you on that one.
I suppose this could be attributed to what we see on TV. Remember the Vietnamese girl who went down fighting American soldiers in Full Metal Jacket? Or how many other cornered bad guys fighting off the surrounding good guys scenario, or any number of cornered good guys fighting off surrounding bad guys scenario you can think of. How many times had Confed been cornered, and then come out on top against the Kilrathi?
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Yes, because they undoubtedly interviewed Saddam Hussein several times in order to truly understand his thinking.
Not.
Besides, not even Bush would go as far as to claim that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, because he knows that everyone would laugh at such a blatant lie. Therefore, the game you described isn't realistic at all.
Gulf of Tonkin: http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/vietnam/tonkin-gulf.html
As for the Maine, yeah, we were about to go to war with them. They had stuff, we wanted it, so we took it. We were a little late to the imperialism game, but we made up for lost time.
The point of mentioning the Maine, was that it was not attacked by Spain, but was still used as an excuse to get into a war. Then, the Herst papers publicized accounts of Spanish brutality and a nefarious plot to bomb the Maine.
In 1991, the media reported the story about Kuwaiti babies being left to die after Iraqi soldiers took their incubators away.
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/gulf-war-not-true.html
So, I think we have significant reason to question what we are being told about the reasons for going to war. Oh, BTW, two weeks ago there were reports of Iraq shelling a Kuwaiti patrol boat, I was half expecting the bombs to start falling right then.
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/vietnam/tonkin-gulf.html
As for the Maine, yeah, we were about to go to war with them. They had stuff, we wanted it, so we took it. We were a little late to the imperialism game, but we made up for lost time.
The point of mentioning the Maine, was that it was not attacked by Spain, but was still used as an excuse to get into a war. Then, the Herst papers publicized accounts of Spanish brutality and a nefarious plot to bomb the Maine.
In 1991, the media reported the story about Kuwaiti babies being left to die after Iraqi soldiers took their incubators away.
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/gulf-war-not-true.html
So, I think we have significant reason to question what we are being told about the reasons for going to war. Oh, BTW, two weeks ago there were reports of Iraq shelling a Kuwaiti patrol boat, I was half expecting the bombs to start falling right then.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Why would you think it's realistic? Is there any evidence whatsoever to indicate that Saddam Hussein would want to use nuclear weapons? It all seems to come back to the "he wants to get them, so he obviously wants to use them" argument, which is based on fear-mongering rather than on facts and logic.
Aries
Vice Admiral
it's not based on fear-mongering. it's based on what kind of person Saddam is. you give the most powerful weapons on the planet to someone like him, it's like giving a kid some toy he/she really wants....both WILL use them. Saddam is like Hitler. Neither gave a shit about anything except themselves, and don't care what happenes after they die. If hitler had nukes, he would have used them, even if the rest of the world had them. So will Saddam.
On top of that, he is in the most unstable and violent region of the planet. So far, only israel has nukes. but, given the hatred btwn the two religions, and the fact that israel has kicked the ass of just about every country in that region (not as impressive as it sounds, given the quality of the militaries in said region), those countries probably want revenge. Even though Iraq and Saddam are two of the most unreligious entities in that region, they are still arab, and historically, when fighting a non-arab foe, the arab countries band together. and if that happened, i would bet on that any nukes in the region would go off (yes israel had nukes in the '73 war and didn't use them but if the arab countries had them they would have used them).
On top of that, he is in the most unstable and violent region of the planet. So far, only israel has nukes. but, given the hatred btwn the two religions, and the fact that israel has kicked the ass of just about every country in that region (not as impressive as it sounds, given the quality of the militaries in said region), those countries probably want revenge. Even though Iraq and Saddam are two of the most unreligious entities in that region, they are still arab, and historically, when fighting a non-arab foe, the arab countries band together. and if that happened, i would bet on that any nukes in the region would go off (yes israel had nukes in the '73 war and didn't use them but if the arab countries had them they would have used them).
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Do you even realise how irrational your claims are? That is fear-mongering. You're saying that Saddam Hussein will use nuclear weapons because... and this is the great part... because he wants to. And then there's the little comparison to Hitler. "If" Hitler had nuclear weapons, blah, blah... he didn't. Nobody else did, either. You can speculate all you like what he would have done if he had them, but it doesn't matter, it has no bearing whatsoever on what Saddam Hussein would do. And there seems to be no logical reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is anything like Hitler.
And as for the region... I will limit myself to saying that Arabs - shock, horror - are perfectly capable of logical thought. Like everyone else, they know that using a nuclear weapon in today's world is equivalent to shooting yourself in the head. Also, I would suggest that you don't apply for any jobs that require a knowledge of Middle Eastern history.
And as for the region... I will limit myself to saying that Arabs - shock, horror - are perfectly capable of logical thought. Like everyone else, they know that using a nuclear weapon in today's world is equivalent to shooting yourself in the head. Also, I would suggest that you don't apply for any jobs that require a knowledge of Middle Eastern history.
Aries
Vice Admiral
What makes you so sure that Saddam doesn't want to use nukes when he gets them? you say it is rational or logical thought. what was so rational or logical about going to war with the US back in '91? nothing, and he got his ass kicked for it. when "Mr. Rational thought" detonates a nuke somewhere, don't say i didn't tell you so.
Saddam nothing like Hitler, huh. both killed thousands of their own citizens just cause they didn't like them, both purused nuclear weapons, both are dictators, both used WMDs, both actively conducted aggressive war, need i go on?
I never said that arabs arn't capible of logical thought. the ones i know are quite smart. however, what is logical about walking into a shopping mall with several pounds of C-4 strapped onto yourself and detonating it, killing indiscrimantly and then celebrating it like it was a great victory?
Saddam nothing like Hitler, huh. both killed thousands of their own citizens just cause they didn't like them, both purused nuclear weapons, both are dictators, both used WMDs, both actively conducted aggressive war, need i go on?
I never said that arabs arn't capible of logical thought. the ones i know are quite smart. however, what is logical about walking into a shopping mall with several pounds of C-4 strapped onto yourself and detonating it, killing indiscrimantly and then celebrating it like it was a great victory?
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
He didn't go to war with the US. He invaded Kuwait (and while the invasion was a bit extreme, he did have valid reasons in that dispute). And prior to invading Kuwait, he made sure to get the US' assuraces that they would not react. Put into that context, his invasion was most certainly a rational act.
No, you don't need to go on, because you're not going anywhere.
Saddam Hussein does not kill people because he doesn't like them - he kills them because they oppose him. This is not what Hitler was doing.
Many countries have been pursuing nuclear weapons, and dictatorship isn't exactly a rare phenomenon. Neither constitute signs of similarity to Hitler. The same goes for the use of WMDs and conducting aggressive war. You have presented no proof whatsoever of anything more than a cursory similarity between the two.
What is logical about repressing a nation and then complaining when they strike back? Besides, what exactly is so illogical about doing what you described? Don't confuse immorality with illogicality.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Saddam Hussain being like Adolf Hitler? Hmmm... if I can speak freely for a moment, I will say, quite bluntly, that he is a fucking psycho. Even the Devil thinks so, for those who watch South Park. Okay, enough jokes. The people I've talked to about Saddam Hussain say that he is the most cruel and inhumane dictator to his own people in history. Even worse than Adolf Hitler. Below is an article I have transcribed from Time magazine, November 2001.
Global Agenda, by Michael Elliott.
Thinking About Saddam
Whatever Iraq's role in terrorism may be, shackling him won't be easy.
It is the suspecian that dare not speak it's name. We know that Saddam Hussain, President of Iraq, has reason to harbor a burning hatred for the U.S. and anyone whose second name is Bush. We know that Iraq has the will and the technical capacity to "weaponize" anthrax. We know that in 1988 Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people. We know that for seven years his officials lied to, cheated and frustrated the United Nations-imposed regime designed to eliminate his capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. We know there has been no inspection of Iraq's weapons facilities for almost three years. We know that Mohamed Atta, thought to be the ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorists, met in Prague with an Iraqi spy. With all that data, it is hardly surprising that some have made the obvious connection and wondered, ever since the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Suppose it is Saddam. What then?
For now, nobody paid to do so has to answer that question. After an internal debate immediately following the atrocities, all members of the Administration have lined up behind a strategy of "Afghanistan first." A second wave, if it comes, may not involve Iraq. Last week law-enforcement sources tended to think the anthrax attacks were the work of a homegrown maniac, not a foreign terrorist. So far, little evidence suggest that the Sept. 11 atrocities were hatched in Baghdad. Sources say the British have insisted loudly that they see no intelligence to link the hijackings to Iraq. That is significant. The British (unlike say, the French) are not squemish about Iraq; they have been helping the U.S. bomb it for a decade. Tony Blair's government has nothing to gain from sucking up to Saddam; he's always going to hate the British.
But the old suspecian is still there, like a jagged tooth you can't stop playing with. Some seasoned observers, like R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, have been convinced from the start that the case for Iraqi involvement had to be taken seriously. Imagine that incontrovertible evidence connected the anthrax attacks, or Sept. 11, to the murderous panoply of Saddam's state. What would happen?
The easy answer is: another Gulf War. But like most easy answers, this one just begs more questions. Most military analysts assume that to be sure of success, a second Gulf War would have to be fought like the first. That is, the U.S. (and any Allies it might rope in) would spend months assembling, say, 500,000 troops on the ground, launch massive air strikes, and then march on Baghdad. But that strategy-so sucessful in 1991-would not work a second time. For one thing, Iraq would not give the U.S. the luxury of a leisurely build up. But much more importantly, Saddam knows that the objective of any new war would not be the removal of his forces from Kuwait, as in 1991, but the removal of *him* from this mortal coil. He wouth thus have no incentive to do anything other than to fight with every weapon at his disposal, however villainous-and would have the time to do so. The U.S. would have to reply with some massive display of force. So a second Gulf War fought like the first could escalate to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Is there another, quicker way of defeating Saddam? In 1998 a committee of conservative foreign-policy analysts-many of them now in the Bush Administration-wrote to President Clinton proposing the recognition of an alternative government if Iraq and the establishment of safe havens from which local forces could attack Saddam. Richard Perle, the sharpest-taloned hawk in Washington, who co-authored the 1998 letter, insists that Saddam's power is overrated: "He is in my view highly vulnerable." Perle might be right; histories of the Gulf War have concluded that the Iraqis were not much of a fighting force. But few if any allies would rally to the American side in such a proxy war. A senior European official, well disposed to the Bush Administration, calls the plan "incoherent." That means the U.S. would have no cover from a coalition if the operation went wrong.
That risk may not be determinative. If Washington really wants to go to war, it can. The real worry is this: even a "quick" proxy war against Saddam would take weeks to plan and win-more than enough time for him to use the weapons he has assuredly been preparing since the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out. So the choice of a slow or fast war against Iraq is one of equel evil. Either could end with horrors of a sort the world has not witnessed since Nagasaki.
Global Agenda, by Michael Elliott.
Thinking About Saddam
Whatever Iraq's role in terrorism may be, shackling him won't be easy.
It is the suspecian that dare not speak it's name. We know that Saddam Hussain, President of Iraq, has reason to harbor a burning hatred for the U.S. and anyone whose second name is Bush. We know that Iraq has the will and the technical capacity to "weaponize" anthrax. We know that in 1988 Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people. We know that for seven years his officials lied to, cheated and frustrated the United Nations-imposed regime designed to eliminate his capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. We know there has been no inspection of Iraq's weapons facilities for almost three years. We know that Mohamed Atta, thought to be the ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorists, met in Prague with an Iraqi spy. With all that data, it is hardly surprising that some have made the obvious connection and wondered, ever since the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Suppose it is Saddam. What then?
For now, nobody paid to do so has to answer that question. After an internal debate immediately following the atrocities, all members of the Administration have lined up behind a strategy of "Afghanistan first." A second wave, if it comes, may not involve Iraq. Last week law-enforcement sources tended to think the anthrax attacks were the work of a homegrown maniac, not a foreign terrorist. So far, little evidence suggest that the Sept. 11 atrocities were hatched in Baghdad. Sources say the British have insisted loudly that they see no intelligence to link the hijackings to Iraq. That is significant. The British (unlike say, the French) are not squemish about Iraq; they have been helping the U.S. bomb it for a decade. Tony Blair's government has nothing to gain from sucking up to Saddam; he's always going to hate the British.
But the old suspecian is still there, like a jagged tooth you can't stop playing with. Some seasoned observers, like R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, have been convinced from the start that the case for Iraqi involvement had to be taken seriously. Imagine that incontrovertible evidence connected the anthrax attacks, or Sept. 11, to the murderous panoply of Saddam's state. What would happen?
The easy answer is: another Gulf War. But like most easy answers, this one just begs more questions. Most military analysts assume that to be sure of success, a second Gulf War would have to be fought like the first. That is, the U.S. (and any Allies it might rope in) would spend months assembling, say, 500,000 troops on the ground, launch massive air strikes, and then march on Baghdad. But that strategy-so sucessful in 1991-would not work a second time. For one thing, Iraq would not give the U.S. the luxury of a leisurely build up. But much more importantly, Saddam knows that the objective of any new war would not be the removal of his forces from Kuwait, as in 1991, but the removal of *him* from this mortal coil. He wouth thus have no incentive to do anything other than to fight with every weapon at his disposal, however villainous-and would have the time to do so. The U.S. would have to reply with some massive display of force. So a second Gulf War fought like the first could escalate to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Is there another, quicker way of defeating Saddam? In 1998 a committee of conservative foreign-policy analysts-many of them now in the Bush Administration-wrote to President Clinton proposing the recognition of an alternative government if Iraq and the establishment of safe havens from which local forces could attack Saddam. Richard Perle, the sharpest-taloned hawk in Washington, who co-authored the 1998 letter, insists that Saddam's power is overrated: "He is in my view highly vulnerable." Perle might be right; histories of the Gulf War have concluded that the Iraqis were not much of a fighting force. But few if any allies would rally to the American side in such a proxy war. A senior European official, well disposed to the Bush Administration, calls the plan "incoherent." That means the U.S. would have no cover from a coalition if the operation went wrong.
That risk may not be determinative. If Washington really wants to go to war, it can. The real worry is this: even a "quick" proxy war against Saddam would take weeks to plan and win-more than enough time for him to use the weapons he has assuredly been preparing since the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out. So the choice of a slow or fast war against Iraq is one of equel evil. Either could end with horrors of a sort the world has not witnessed since Nagasaki.
Aries
Vice Admiral
What are these supposed "valid reasons" Saddam had for invading Kuwait. Kuwait was a breakaway Iraqi province? Kuwait was drilling Iraqi oil? those are bullshit. he invaded cause they had oil and he wanted it. the invasion was nothing more than a country-sized street mugging. and how did he get assurance that the US wouldn't react when we most definately DID react? if that's rational to you, fine. And he did go to war with the US. we told him to get out of Kuwait and he didn't, so we made him get out. if that wasn't a war, i don't know what is. as for killing those who oppose him, do you really think that all those villages he has gassed opposed him? no. some mabye, but not all. as for the other reasons, on their own, as you analized them, no they don't share very much similiarity to hitler. but all together, they show much similiarity to hitler.
as for your thing about repression, i will assume you mean israel. as for them, i don't know what the fuck they think. if you ment the US, what country have we repressed? and if you say Iraq, let it be known that Saddam is the reason the UN sanctions are in place, not the US.
okay for the logical part, but then what's logical about pursuing a strategy that doesn't work (which is the example i gave)?
as for your thing about repression, i will assume you mean israel. as for them, i don't know what the fuck they think. if you ment the US, what country have we repressed? and if you say Iraq, let it be known that Saddam is the reason the UN sanctions are in place, not the US.
okay for the logical part, but then what's logical about pursuing a strategy that doesn't work (which is the example i gave)?