Gulf War 1.1?
Topic 23 · 20 responses · archived october 2000
~terry
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 (08:51)
seed
In case no one has noticed, Saddam Hussein isn't allowing any more UN
inspections, and the U.S. is preparing to bomb Iraq in retaliation.
Support from erstwhile "allies" is luke-warm, at best, although it is
notable that the French, at least, are not making objections, either.
Isreal, meanwhile, is breaking out the gas masks on the assumption
that Iraq will "get back" at the U.S. by throwing Scuds loaded with
who-knows-what at Israel.
Sanctions have killed over a million Iraqis since the end of the war.
Most Iraqis probably think that air strikes (Clinton is obviously
afraid to actually send in ground forces) won't kill or maim
more than are already dying from malnutrition and curable diseases.
~TIM
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 (21:51)
#1
THere is only one way to end this and insure that it won't happen again anytime soon. NUKE THEM. Turn the whole country into a sea of glass, and any other nation will think twice about doing this to us. Do not send in ground troops. One American life is worth more than everything living in Iraq.
~wolf
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (09:59)
#2
wait, wait, wait! why punish the innocent people living under the rule of a tyrant?
they don't know he's a tyrant, but we do. and wouldn't nukeing them have ramifications?
i.e. fallout????
~TIM
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (13:17)
#3
fallout can be controlled. I am not talking punish. I am talking eradicate. You are 100% correct. Nuking them would have long lasting ramifications. No other third rate country would dare to defy the United States for quite some time. Terrorists using third world countries as bases would become unwelcome over night, All the harassment of Israel would stop overnight. If we had done this to Libya, when we did the air strike, this situation with Iraq would not be happening. As far as the other Mid-East coun
ries go, split Iraq's oil amongst them and none of them will say a word.
~wolf
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (20:52)
#4
so, how does one go about controlling a nuclear strike? we do have allies in that general area. (ok, i'm not versed in politics and all that, OBVIOUSLY) but
i don't understand why so many people think nukeing them is the answer. (for
any conflict)
~TIM
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (22:30)
#5
When you nuke someone, they never bother you again. Other people in similar situations, start re-thinking their position. To put the how in perspective: you can nuke the capitol building, and leave the white house relatively un harmed, and Arlington, VA would be unscathed. That tight enough for you? I hope so, because that is as good as it gets right now. Aren't "Enhanced Radiation Devices" wonderful? Fallout? Next to nonexistant, with half-lives of the elements measured in minutes. This is known as
a tactical nuke, as opposed to strategic nukes, which, by treaty, we've destroyed most of.
~wolf
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (10:28)
#6
ok, so you're a truck driver now that you've retired from covert ops, right? (you
do know that i'm teasing, right? *toothy wolf grin*)
~TIM
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (16:49)
#7
I was never covert. I was assigned to G-2, III Corps. Four years. Giving detailed briefings was a very small part of my job.
~wolf
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (20:04)
#8
that's it, 4 years? not 20? no retirement????
~TIM
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (21:55)
#9
I was in for 6 years. Two years were spent on other assignments. When you work where I was, you get a real close look at the quality of leadership at the top.
The thought of going to war with these people leading was enough to scare the hell out of me. Most of our senior leadership was extremely inept.
~ratthing
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (08:35)
#10
a friend of mine is an O4 in the navy doing medical research. he
says the same thing. his view is that the only reason the US is
such a global superpower is that the military leaders in other
nations are just more fucked up than the ones we have!
~TIM
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (13:19)
#11
He is right about that. But the situation is volitile, it could change overnight.
~autumn
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (22:03)
#12
And fortunately it has.
~TIM
Fri, Nov 20, 1998 (04:03)
#13
I assume by fortunately, we got better, not they got better.
~autumn
Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:31)
#14
I meant that the pressure is off because Iraq consented to the UN inspections.
~TIM
Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:51)
#15
Temporarily anyway.
~autumn
Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:56)
#16
As you (or Ray) said, the situation can change overnight.
~TIM
Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (23:23)
#17
Unfortunately, that is very true.
~terry
Mon, Nov 23, 1998 (07:07)
#18
60 Minutes showed a few of Saddams 40 or more palaces. The sanctions are
making the power elite much richer because they control all the smuggling
now. Sanctions are making the rich richer and killing off the poor.
~terry
Fri, Dec 18, 1998 (18:14)
#19
Cyber-terrorism: Threat or Menace?
Yes, right now all Saddam can do is sit in his bunker and spew
over-heated rhetoric. But soon it may be possible to trash the U.S.'s information
technology systems in a way that'll make the Y2K bug look like a crashed
floppy disk.
For more info:
http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9812/18/terrorism.idg/index.html
~sprin5
Fri, Oct 13, 2000 (07:54)
#20
Saddam has troops on the move, opportunizing on the US Navy ship blowup and the Middle East events yesterday. Meanwhile, oil prices skyrocket and the Northeast is hit with a heating oil crisis. Not to mention the plummeting stock market.