Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
American Ready To Attack Iraq  
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 920 times:

It is widely believed now in diplomatic sources that a US attack on suspected Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is coming shortly.

Iraq even reported that should the US attack its soverignty it will respond with an attack on Israel.

Is this smart of Iraq?

Should the US attack Iraq?

Iraq, like Syria, is fairly devoid of radical Islamic extremism, becuase of its repressive government, what does the US see in Iraq it is afraid of?

Will an Iraqi attack prompt a regional war in the Mideast?

Who will support Iraq if America attacks the country?

Should Israel defend itself against an Iraqi conventional or biological weapons attack?

You can bet all these questions are playing out in the heads of Condi Rice, dubya, and Powell. Anyone here have any ideas on the answers?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAussiemite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 872 times:

for making such stupid threats Isreal should smash Iraq. they havnt really got the power unfortunatly.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 867 times:

Should Israel defend itself against an Iraqi conventional or biological weapons attack?

Dumb question....The question isn't if but when......


Actually at this time I am not in favor of leveling Iraq and eliminating the criminal leadership in that country. I do feel it is a job that is going to have to be done and should have been done 10 years ago.

But.......

Historically opening second fronts isn't in general a good idea. Not an ideal example but look what happened when Germany invaded Russia in either World War One or Two.

Lets finish up in Afganistan first, see where the cards fall and then make the decision.

Maybe we will get lucky and lightning will strike in the meantime.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 863 times:

L-188, not necessarily a dumb question. Israel was basically harrassed by the United States not to retaliate against Iraq when it was attacked during the Gulf War. But yes, they are allowed to defend themselves.

The question should rather be, should they be allowed to counter attack?




NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 860 times:

It took a lot to keep Israel out of the war, including aid, Deployment of US crewed missle batteries and a lot of diplomatic effort.

In the end I think the Israelies figured that it was in their best interest not to risk breaking up the coalition forces by alienating the arab forces that where participating. That was Iraqs sole intent in attacking Israel.

Since a US strike would probably end arab support (accoding to the Arab league) anyway. I would say that there isn't the restraing force there that there was in 1991.

Also, If such an attack was made by the "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq is alleged to have, that raises the stakes, and the likelyhood of a military response from Israel.

The US doesn't mind the leak, rumors, statements made that if we where attacked by chemical or biological weapons, we would respond with nuclear weapons. I have heard before that Israel would respond in a simular fashion. It is a safe bet they have nuclear weapons, despite their offical listing as being a non-atomic power.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 847 times:

Before the Gulf War, Israel attacked and destroyed a nuclear weapons facility and of course were roundly condemned for doing so. Subsequent events showed that they were right to do so, and Israel rightly feels aggrieved for not getting any support.

But attacking Iraq now would be a mistake because it will fracture Middle-East support for the US position. L-188 is correct, it should have been done ten years ago but the fear was that it would create a power vacuum in Iraq and destabilise the Middle-East. I think everyone now accepts that was an error, but an understandable given the circumstances at the time.

I would hope that wider counsels prevail. The US is getting a lot of sympathy right now (as it damn well should) but it doesn't have carte blanche to attack Iraq, no matter how dangerous that regime is. It will happen at some point though, but hopefully not just yet.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 836 times:

Shall we finish one war, before starting another. Afganistan is not over yet, not even close.
Why the US got involved with Isreal I do not know (infact I do, it is becuase there are a lot of high ranking jewish people in he gov.). But I do not think it was a good idea becuase it has caused the US more problems then it can handle. From what I see over here, the UK is behind Palastine, probably because if you look at the death rates, and the fact that Palastine throw rocks, while the Isreal's fire weapons!
At this time I would also like to point out if the Unites States had listened to Thatcher during desert storm, and got Sadam, there would be no need for this action now.


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 832 times:

We should attack Iraq, only because they are failing to comply with the tearms they agreed to that ended the Gulf War. They have not complied with the terms since 1998. Billy C did a quick attack on them real quick, and that was mearly to help the populus forget about all his indiscretions in the white house. For 3 plus years Iraq has plaed the UN and the terms of the cease fire. It's time for them to put up or shut up.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 827 times:

Iainhol, the US supports Israel because Israel has been a freind of the US since 1948, when the US was the first nation to recognize the Jewish State. And Jews in high-ranking government positions is NOT why the US supports Israel. That could be seen as a racists statement. The US supported the existence of the Jewish state in part as a way to make amends for the failure of the world community to condemn and stop Hitler in the 1930's and '40's from carrying out his Final Solution.

Secondly, the aim of the Gulf War in 1991 was never to overthrow Saddam Hussein, although had he been killed, no one would have grieved at his loss. George Bush Sr was correct in not going after him, because, like the prospect of Israel entering that war, had the US gone to Baghdad, it would have broken up the fragile coalition that was built up against Iraq.

As for now, I don't think an all-out attack on Iraq is immenent. According to reports for today (Nov 29). the US has Osama Bin Laden located and he's pinned down and that US forces are closing in on him. Finish off Afghanistan first-AND help stabalize that country first, then go after Iraq sometime in 2002.

As for Israel, if they're threatened this time, then I think there'll be no pressure by the US to stop them from defending themselves this time. If the Arab/Islamic nations haven't learned anything from 9-11, and don't realize that Saddam is just as dangerous to the world as Al Quaeda and OBL, then that's their tough luck.

And who said Israel doesn't have the power to do anything to Iraq? I beg your pardon. Israel is a nuclear power. In 1973, when the Syrians had broken through the last line of defense in the Yom Kippur war (but then didn't attack, not knoing they had broken through), Prime Minister Golda Maier had ordered Israel's nuclear weapons armed, and they were prepared to use them against her enemies. Well, if forced to, Israel would do that again, if absolutely forced to.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 827 times:

If the US can show, if only to it's allies, that Iraq has recently been involved in terrorist activity, and/or is preparing to use weapons of mass destruction, then they should attack.
But if it's just a case a unfinished business, with Bush trying to make up for his Fathers errors, and to make Cheney and his pals feel better about themselves, then no.
In the House Of Commons the other day, a UK Foreign Office minister indicated that the goverment would not support an attack on Iraq unless a threat from Saddam could be demonstrated.
If the US could not keep the UK as allies in attacking Iraq, then they haven't a hope with anyone else.
And stopping further UK troop deployments in Afghanistan, while allowing the Russians in, has gone down badly over here. Many think that Bush is going back to the pre-Sept. 11th 'F--k the world, including our allies' attitude.
Considering the seemingly non-exsistent intelligence the CIA had on the terrorist threat, and the need to close down Al-Queda networks in many nations, including covert cells in allied countries, that would not be smart move.
As for Israel, if the US wants to reign them in, just start making them pay for all their hardware instead of the US taxpayers, along with other economic measures.
They did it to the UK, France and Israel during the 1956 Suez Crisis after all.
In Afghanistan, the hard part is starting, ground action against Al-Queda, let's see how much support for action against Iraq there is in the US when the sadly inevitable body bags come home in some numbers.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 818 times:

Iainhol, by the time Desert Storm was underway, Thatcher had already left office and John Major was PM. Therefore your statement is erroneous.

You have to remember that Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries that would like it removed from the face of the earth. It is hardly surprising that they are quick to defend themselves, and yes, sometimes mistakes are made.

It is true that there is a sizeable Jewish population in the US, but to say that the US's entire policy is predicated on this is unworthy. There are many different communities in America. In this case there are wrongs on all sides and solving them is extremely difficult. Without US support Israel may well have been defeated many years ago with great bloodshed. Is this what we want?

Back to the topic, most Arab states are well aware of the dangers of Iraq, the problem with attacking now would be that it is simply grist to the mill of the fanatics, and will cause fissures throughout the Arabic world. There is already great unease about the US/UK policed no-fly zone and significant numbers believe it is part of an anti-Arab/pro-Israeli policy by the two nations. The Middle-East has politics like nowhere else and has to be handled carefully. I think based on recent events that we should be inclined to trust the US to get it right - they are more than aware of the dangers.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 819 times:

Alpha 1. That was an excellent post, and I agree with you completely. I feel an attack in Iraq is imminent, but will not happen soon, unless Saddam quickly changes his tune. I wish more people posted there thoughts, opinions, and factual based info like you do. If they did, we might have alot better discussions on topics like this.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 814 times:

The factors that restrained Israel in 1991, just simply are not present here in 2001. Therefore an Israeli military reaction to an Iraqi attack would be much much more likely.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 808 times:

The UK's opposition Conservative Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has urged the US-led coalition against terror not to let countries like Iraq "off the hook" over weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Duncan Smith, speaking on a visit to America, played down fears of a split in the coalition if it widens its campaign beyond Afghanistan.

"Politically we must maintain our resolve that this didn't begin and end with Afghanistan"

He backed the increased pressure being put on Iraq by US President George Bush to again allow weapons inspections or face the consequences.

Mr Duncan Smith's comments come after British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed military action in the campaign against terror could be taken beyond Afghanistan.

States too weak to launch action against terrorists on their own territory could be targeted, he said, amid reports America is preparing for military operations in Somalia, Yemen and Sudan.

But the Iraqi government's representative in London attacked those calling for action against his country, and said Mr Duncan Smith spoke out only to seek publicity for his party.

High level meetings

The Tory leader's trip to America is his first abroad as Conservative leader.

He will attend a US conference on the next steps in the battle against terrorism, see the ruins of the World Trade Center and meet Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on his arrival in America, Mr Duncan Smith said he hoped to find out about the planned next steps in Afghanistan and the administration's attitude towards widening the war.

Even before 11 September there had been concern about countries "beyond the civilised code", harbouring terrorist groups including al-Queda, the opposition leader said.

Following those attacks the message was that "it's time they re-joined the rest of the civilised world and that really terrorism and the harbouring of terrorist groups is no longer acceptable".

"Now is the time for us all to stay together and resolve that we won't let countries like Iraq off the hook and actually ensure that we can inspect and get rid of their weapons of mass destruction."

Coalition 'will hold'

As long as action against Iraq unfolded in "logical steps" with "just and reasonable demands" the coalition would hold together, he predicted.

"It is obvious it's party politics and the subject of Iraq is bringing more attention to his party"-Dr Mudhafar Amin
Iraqi representative in UK

Beginning and ending the campaign in Afghanistan would be to "walk away having cured only one part of the illness".

But Dr Mudhafar Amin of the Iraqi interests section at the Jordanian embassy in London told the same programme Mr Duncan Smith's comments were "obvious party politics" to attract more attention to the Conservatives.

He protested at seven years of sanctions that had left "thousands" dead and the lack of attention paid to Israel's nuclear capability.

"If anybody is sincere in solving the problem this is not the approach: putting Iraq in a corner, demonising it and hitting it - and you expect us to co-operate in a very nice and gentle way?

"If they are really sincere they should use a diplomatic approach, they should use dialogue, they should use the United Nations."

Seems that some parts of the UK will back intervention against iraq and the palestinian question can be seperated from attacks on iraq and weapons inspections issues.

The british people will back action on iraq if it threaterns their seciruty, they have back the afghan war while seeming to support the palestinians, so it seems to me that some people need to have a better grasp of the situation in the UK and display a clear, objective view,such as the one displayed by Alpha One.

as for my own view, im expecting air strikes on iraq next year and for palestine to be independent.

Israel is different now than in 1991, do you seriously expect sharon to sit there and let missles from iraq destory is country and to allow israel to be killed by chemical weapons of mass destruction? of course not, if iraq hits israel then israel will hit back.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineAloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 802 times:

Whatever happens happens. I'm not gonna worry about it.

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 782 times:

The U.S. took over as Israel's main outside weapons supplier from France in the late 60's because the Arab countries were supported by the USSR. The constant supply of Soviet technology from Israel at the time must have also been an important incentive (don't say the US doesn't get anything in return of its support of Israel), the fact that Israel is a democracy, could have also had something to do with it, don't you think?

As for Iraq attacking Israel:

Don't forget that Israel is the first country with an effective defense system against tactical ballistic missiles. The Arrow has been operational for over a year now. Saddam's scuds are not a serious threat to Israel (not that they were in 1991), no matter what warhead they are armed with.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 775 times:

LY744 is absolutely right. Much of the US' inteligence on Soviet weapons and weapons technologies was provided by Israeli defeats of the Soviet equipped Egyptian and Syrian militaries.

User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 773 times:

Iainhol, the US supports Israel because Israel has been a freind of the US since 1948, when the US was the first nation to recognize the Jewish State. And Jews in high-ranking government positions is NOT why the US supports Israel. That could be seen as a racists statement.

It is my understanding that if you are Jewish you have an obligation to protect Isreal. The UK also played a role in setting up the Jewish state, and are not playing a large part in the region any more.

Iainhol, by the time Desert Storm was underway, Thatcher had already left office and John Major was PM. Therefore your statement is erroneous.

I never said she was Prime Minister at the time, please re-read my statement!

I do understand that it is a very difficult situation, and there is no easy answer.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 766 times:

There is no reason to attack Iraq. Anyway, the US (and UK) bomb Iraq almost daily as it is. The whole situation is bullshit. Iraq isn't particularly involved in terrorism (certainly not compared to Saudi or the "beacon of freedom" that is the US itself), this is idiotic Bush finishing off what Daddy didn't finish.

3 questions:
- Did we keep bombing Germany til 1955?
- How will bombing Iraq (more) change the leadership?
- If it does, who's going to fill the vacuum left by Saddam?

Get real. End the sanctions, allow money and trade and the Iraqi people will take care of things their own way.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 756 times:

Words, words, words...
If the US was planning a new strike against Iraq, do you think that we would be the first to be told? No. We wouldn't.

Then what are those wors good for?
Those politicians in friendly and semi friendly countries, who love to bash the US, they get something else to talk about while the job gets finished off in Afghanistan. That's the reason for these words.

It's a problem to be a free and open country fighting a war when a million journalists in fifty countries have a least 900 thousand different meanings about the war which all differ from that of the generals. To have those journalists talk about something else, that helps a lot.

It may also be a dual message, half of which is addressed to Saddam: "Stay quiet and remember what we said about terror and terror supporting countries in September".

Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 746 times:

Saddam Hussein is a dead man walking. He should be pissing in his pants by now. Gadahfi is probably next. Syria had better not do anything stupid. Hopefully the Iranian hardliners are going to be smart and stop their covert funding of Hamas and Hezballah. The reform party should destroy the hardliner regime soon enough.

Hopefully by the 1 year anniversary of the WTC attack the terrorists will be decimated.



"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 743 times:

"Iraq isn't particularly involved in terrorism"

What about the training camp where they teach people how to take over airliners without using weapons (sounds familiar?)?

As for Iran, I don't think the US administration has the balls to take on them. I think it's about time they did, and it doesn't really have anything to do with 9-11 (it would help with the public opinion, though), it's just that the nutcases in power are only a few of years away from obtaining control of nuclear-tipped ICBM's. The US's anti-ballistic missile defense programs do not seem to progress as well, though. Better take care of the problem now, before it gets bigger.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 739 times:

Saddam is a proven homicidal psychopath. He needs to be offed, but Im not convinced sending in the Marines at least right away is the thing to do.

We're the Land of the Free & the Home of the Brave....and the Home of the Cash. Spread the word in Baghdad....Osama's worth 25 million but Saddam is double-or-nothing!

There's gotta be more than a few dudes in Iraq who want this guy a memory....


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 733 times:

Cedarjet, every now and again, something really wierd, like what you said above, comes out of your keyboard. Iraq, not as involved in terrorism as Saudi Arabia? What planet to you live on? Unless you were saying that as a joke. He harbors, bankrolls, and supports terrorists groups all over the Middle East. He's been doing this since he was in power from day 1. Yet you can sit there with a straight face and tell all of us otherwise? God, left to the likes of you, terrorists all over the world would be safe from democracy.



User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 728 times:

Shame on Kuwait. After we helped out their thankless asses in 91 We didn't get any help from them on the war on terrorism! Next time something happens to them. We should see the Kuwaitis beg for our help in 24 hours. Saudi Arabia needs to know it's role along with Yeman. They also have to help out instead of being unhelpful.


"FUIMUS"
25 Aviatsiya : Twaneedsnohelp(butyoudo) Just what diplomatic circles are these rumours flying around in? Israeli diplomatic circles maybe, but their say means diddly
26 Post contains images Twaneedsnohelp : Twaneedsnohelp(butyoudo) More mature personal attacks! Yeah take what this guy is selling! Russia has limited influence in central asia and the middle
27 IrishFlyer : I think we should attack Iraq and remove Sadamm Hussein (Or however you spell the guys name) from power by killing him. I believe Iraq played a big pa
28 IrishFlyer : If I was in position as President and Iraq (Or any other country) used Chemical Weapons on the U.S., Israel or any other close Allie I WOULD use Nucle
29 OzarkD9S : Bush declared war on Terrorism and stated that any regime that harbored terroists would be a target. If that's the case with Iraq (or Syria or Libya e
30 Post contains images B757300 : It is a 100% guarantee that if any kind of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapon is used by Iraq against Israel, then the result will be result i
31 Post contains images VirginA340 : I hope Saddam has a good pair of Ray Bans. Because it looks like a bright sunny day in Baghdad
32 Post contains images Aviatsiya : Twaneedsnohelpneedshelp You are a dimwit aren't you? Firstly, don't refer to me as "you guys". I am not Russian; in fact far from it. Since when has R
33 Banco : Quite right Aviatsiya, but I fear you are wasting your breath.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraq To Attack Kuwait If US Stirkes posted Tue Jan 28 2003 17:24:24 by Bigo747
Does Bush Still Have Ambitions To Attack Iran? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 15:17:48 by Baroque
3 Weeks From Midterms: Anyone Ready To Predict? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 22:27:08 by Falcon84
Indian Army Ready To Adopt Buddhia posted Sat Jun 10 2006 10:57:35 by HAWK21M
Rumsfeld Suggested On Sept. 11 To Hit Iraq.. posted Sat Feb 25 2006 06:16:02 by Beaucaire
Mom Fights Polar Bear Looking To Attack Kids posted Wed Feb 22 2006 12:22:10 by Texan
Man Jailed For Plot To Kill Iraq War Hero posted Fri Jan 27 2006 02:20:22 by Jetjack74
Cronkite "Time For U.S. To Leave Iraq" posted Mon Jan 16 2006 06:50:17 by Clipperhawaii
US To Attack Iran In 2006 - "Der Spiegel" posted Fri Dec 23 2005 19:25:44 by Beaucaire
I Am Ready To Use A Hammer On My Computer, Help! posted Fri Nov 25 2005 08:37:18 by Derico