What does Iraq mean by "doomed?"

[Susan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/international/08CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1029470400&en=41dafd1824928886&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

 

Do you think this threat was a valid threat or just bluster by someone who knows he hasn't got much longer to rule?

 

[Havoc]

They will repulse any attack by completely obliterating our military logistics system. To do this they will surrender en masse in such huge numbers that our system will collapse under the weight of POW's. Without logistical support our Forces will be doomed.

Havoc

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by Havoc
They will repulse any attack by completely obliterating our military logistics system. To do this they will surrender en masse in such huge numbers that our system will collapse under the weight of POW's. Without logistical support our Forces will be doomed.
Havoc

Well now, didn't know we had a resident military strategist aboard. Hmmm.
Let's see now the Iraq Army during the onset of Desert Storm was estimated to have 1,000,000 soldiers including the So-called Red Guard Elite.

Presently, it's estimated that there are 200,000-250,000 soldiers in the Iraq Army including the Red Guard. The numbers decreased primarily due to moral decline following the Desert Storm War- Iraq ground forces were defeated in less than seventy-two hours.

Iraq has no superior weapons to the offensive and defensive weapons of the United States be it land air or water.

United States Armed Forces are trained better. Our Special Forces have great advantage over even the Red Guard, by training, technology and weaponary.

Iraq is and has been in violation of the U.N. Security Council's mandates for Independent visits to ensure that Iraq is not producing weapons of mass destruction.

An ex-Iraq Goverment employee that worked on nuclear research states that if Iraq continues as is, they will have nuke capabilities by 2005.

Our system collapsing because of POW's? That's really out there and then some.

Ole' Suddam is spewing his same old rhetoric how United States and the infidels are doomed and going to come to quick and swift ruination.

Talk is cheap. I as an American Citizen and veteran of the Armed Services know with certainity that Iraq does not have the military capabilities to defeat us in any way shape or form, regardless of POW's. That is quite original I must say, POW's (prisoners that we capture) will cause a negative outcome in a military engagement with Iraq.


GySgt James

 

[strathyboy]

Gunny, I'm pretty sure he was joking, and it was funny.

In any case, I agree with you that Iraq really doesn't stand a chance against the US. But Saddam seems like the kind of guy who would blow up his own nation rather than let somebody else rule it.
All that being said, I still don't think it's a good idea for the US to invade Iraq.

 

[HazyRigby]

I think it was sarcasm.

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by strathyboy
Gunny, I'm pretty sure he was joking, and it was funny.

Originally posted by HazyRigby
I think it was sarcasm.

It's sort of hard telling sometimes on the:

Open Discussion & Debate (for Christians & non-Christians) forum.


GySgt James

 

[Havoc]

It was sarcasm Gunny, I`m a verteran too and I remember desert storm. The biggest problem of the war, as I`m sure you recall, was the huge number of unexpected POW`s. The worst part was trying to get the APC down the road to your objective when it was blocked by hundreds of Iraqui`s trying desperately to surrender. I remember talking to one news cameraman who couldn`t get footage because of the Iraqui`s who were trying to surrender to him.

Havoc

 

[PrinceJeff]

Hussein has about as much intellect as I have dollars after paying bills.

 

[Blynn]

I think it's all talk from Sadam, Susan.

My concern about the whole matter is that the U.S. is even finding it hard to get support from allies to take any action against Sadam. Saudi Arabia is not going to let us use the facilities that we got to use last time. The whole region is unstable. It is a complicated situation.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Blynn
I think it's all talk from Sadam, Susan.

My concern about the whole matter is that the U.S. is even finding it hard to get support from allies to take any action against Sadam. Saudi Arabia is not going to let us use the facilities that we got to use last time. The whole region is unstable. It is a complicated situation.

I think the reason our allies our reluctant to support an invasion of Iraq is the dangers of the precedent of a pre-emptive strike. Imagine if India decided to employ this philosophy concerning Pakistan. They are also afraid that the US will continue to add countries to the list with less and less justification.

 

[Job_38]

That is baloney. They are simply afraid to put in what must be done. Every country we have gone to war with was completly justified.

 

[strathyboy]

Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, the Phillipines, and dare I say Vietnam were not exactly "just" military actions on the part of the US. In the Cold War, the US replaced leaders and toppled democratically elected governments, with little justification besides a moderately socialist viewpoint by the leader (and sometimes not even that).

You all know that the US has been sponsoring an overthrow of Hussen since 1998, right? Anyone in Iraq who wants to overthrow the government get American support. Does this qualify as an act of war?

 

[Gunny]

The architects of this wickedness will find no safe harbor in this world. We will chase our enemies to the furthest corners of this Earth. It must be war without quarter, pursuit without rest, victory without qualification.
--Rep. Tom Delay majority whip, US House of Representatives

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by strathyboy
Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, the Phillipines, and dare I say Vietnam were not exactly "just" military actions on the part of the US. In the Cold War, the US replaced leaders and toppled democratically elected governments, with little justification besides a moderately socialist viewpoint by the leader (and sometimes not even that).

You all know that the US has been sponsoring an overthrow of Hussen since 1998, right? Anyone in Iraq who wants to overthrow the government get American support. Does this qualify as an act of war?

 

 

The only unjust part of the Vietnam war was the way the pathetic people treated the vets when they returned.

      Sure that qualifies as an act of war. If an evil dictator needs to be removed, remove him.

   You seem to skip what the Soviets did during the Cold War. Enslaving their own people, moving in on Afganistan, the persecution of the Jews, Stalins murder of 60 million people, sending nuclear arms to Cuba.

 

 And don't forget why we went to Nam. With the North's invasion of the South, we were asked to help. We did it first with millitary aids, then with full force.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Job_38
You seem to skip what the Soviets did during the Cold War. Enslaving their own people, moving in on Afganistan, the persecution of the Jews, Stalins murder of 60 million people, sending nuclear arms to Cuba.

I'm very much aware of what the Soviets did during the Cold War. But I'm simply pointing out that both the US and the USSR did things they shouldn't have. Pointing out that what the USSR did was much worse (even though it was) does nothing to justify certain actions by the US.
The USSR sent nuclear arms to Cuba at the request of Castro in 1962. Castro had legitimate concerns over the safety of his nation after the Bay of Pigs in 1961, and Operation Mongoose which involved the bombing of Cuban sugar-fields and terrorist attacks on Cuban infrastructure by the CIA, as well as assassination attempts on Castro himself. Only after the Bay of Pigs and Mongoose did Cuba seek nuclear weapons from the USSR.

Originally posted by Job_38

The only unjust part of the Vietnam war was the way the pathetic people treated the vets when they returned.

Originally posted by Job_38

And don't forget why we went to Nam. With the North's invasion of the South, we were asked to help. We did it first with millitary aids, then with full force.

I absolutely disagree with both statements, and the second is rather naive; but I don't want to turn this into another Vietnam thread. I do agree that the way Americans treated their veterans was terrible, though. Look back a page or two and you will find a thread where myself and coastie discussed some of these issues. That should answer some of your questions, but let me know if you would like more information on this issue.