How many of you support the attack on Iraq by USA?
-
Well??????????
-
nyet!Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Well?????????? -
franly speaking...i am the same of the aussie...i dun currently....
-
Originally posted by duotiga83:franly speaking...i am the same of the aussie...i dun currently....
-
But why?Originally posted by duotiga83:franly speaking...i am the same of the aussie...i dun currently....
Frankly speaking, i dun support usa too.
but i would like to hear yr reasons. -
-
there is no concrete proof tt Iraq hav mass destruction missile and after the attack of the afgan..i dun think is a gd idea of attack Iraq...it destablise the middle east a lot....israel palestine still no agreement yet....2 many conflicts there....onli put more oil into the fire there....
-
well... to mi, US is juz plain dominent. why? i think he is using the reason tt Iraq is 'planning for a huge attack' to 'attack' Iraq and obtain its HUGE reservoir of precious oil...
-
I'm for it!!!!
That Saddam need to be flushed out! But hope US will be humane to the Iraqi ppl! Coz they r innocent.
-
i think attack on iraq is just right, but it should be a special forces assasination attack in my opinion. They should take out Saddam Hussien and his madcap commanders and asscoiates rather invade the place a create a big hole in the middie of no where... desert storm failed cause it was too big... dun want a repeat, assasination more effective
send in Green Beret or Delta, back up by heli transports and heli gunships and it should solve the problem. will reduce casualties too -
Ya.... and logistics would be hell of a big problem too.Not a single middle east country wants to support US.Originally posted by laser51088:i think attack on iraq is just right, but it should be a special forces assasination attack in my opinion. They should take out Saddam Hussien and his madcap commanders and asscoiates rather invade the place a create a big hole in the middie of no where... desert storm failed cause it was too big... dun want a repeat, assasination more effective
send in Green Beret or Delta, back up by heli transports and heli gunships and it should solve the problem. will reduce casualties too -
Could this be another one of those American political drama...?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Ya.... and logistics would be hell of a big problem too.Not a single middle east country wants to support US.
The state of the American economy is in a bad state....so could this........
A.Divert the american public attention away...ala Wag the Dog....?
B.Revive the American defense industry....?
C.Divert the world attention away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict......?
D.A diversionary tactic.......the real target is Al Qaeda..gives them the impression that the yanks are distracted....? -
In terms of SF deployment, it hinges on up-to-date intel all the time. Given that Saddam knows that US is eyeing him like an eagle, it would be difficult to pin-point him. Not to mention his personal bodyguards who are fanatically loyal to him. Not mission impossible but probably mission almost impossible.
In my opinion, US should buy over an immediate family of Saddam. Lie to him that he will be the next president. From him, get all available intel off him, and then kill Saddam and him together. Afterall, anyone who can betray his family is very likely to do the same again.
Gunships and Pave Low SF heavy heli will be required. However, there might be a need to take out SAM sites by fighters before SF operators can be sent in. And then there is the issue of a stand-by ground force really to roll into Iraq once the primary objectives of eliminating Saddam and Co. is accomplished.
Another method is to airborne insert using HAHO (high altitude high opening). This way, SF operators can glide towards objective without being picked up by radar. This too required a stand-by force of SF operators for back-up ready to be inserted by heli from nearby location. As usual, a task force group of amour and infantry will be needed immediately after the assasination.
The problem with the above 2 scenarios is in the event of failure, the extradiction of SF will be very difficult and possibilities of getting SF casualties and POW is very high.
3rd scenario, multi-prong attack. SF group 1 to hit saddam, SF group 2 to secure air strips. Air cavalry with air transportable light tanks and arty pieces to immediately deploy after securing the air strip. Large group of ground forces of heavy armour, arty and infantry to strike at the same time SF attacks begin.
In all 3 scenarios, I stressed that US air force will have to support the ground troops all the time. So the essence of such attacks depend on gaining air superiority at the earliest possible time. Of course in all 3 scenarios, the logistics can be a nightmare, but still it is possible. Lastly, ground and air reconnaissance is a must. No recce equals to no eyes and no ears which equate to high casuality rate and failure to accomplish primary objective (kill saddam).
What do you guys think? Comments welcome as I admit there are flaws in my plan which I might not see it now. -
if like the movie Air Force One..then i got nothing to say....
-
more like 'black hawk down' to me...hahaha...
hopes it never ends up like tat.. -
mfscrewu, nothing i want to comment on except US army has their own planes... u can probably get more cohesion if the army uses their own planes instead of the Air Force's planes since you'll have non of the familiar rivalry between the services...
-
WOWIE, your second and third scenario sounds like all out war. And how do you propose to get large numbers armour and arty their without the Iraqis coming finding out and mobilising? The purpose of SF is to reduce casualties by sending in only a few special people to take out super important targets and spare the innocents. You whack with infantry, armour, arty, every thing you've got, and the whole Middile East will come charging towards you declaring Jihad.Originally posted by mfscrewu:In terms of SF deployment, it hinges on up-to-date intel all the time. Given that Saddam knows that US is eyeing him like an eagle, it would be difficult to pin-point him. Not to mention his personal bodyguards who are fanatically loyal to him. Not mission impossible but probably mission almost impossible.
In my opinion, US should buy over an immediate family of Saddam. Lie to him that he will be the next president. From him, get all available intel off him, and then kill Saddam and him together. Afterall, anyone who can betray his family is very likely to do the same again.
Gunships and Pave Low SF heavy heli will be required. However, there might be a need to take out SAM sites by fighters before SF operators can be sent in. And then there is the issue of a stand-by ground force really to roll into Iraq once the primary objectives of eliminating Saddam and Co. is accomplished.
Another method is to airborne insert using HAHO (high altitude high opening). This way, SF operators can glide towards objective without being picked up by radar. This too required a stand-by force of SF operators for back-up ready to be inserted by heli from nearby location. As usual, a task force group of amour and infantry will be needed immediately after the assasination.
The problem with the above 2 scenarios is in the event of failure, the extradiction of SF will be very difficult and possibilities of getting SF casualties and POW is very high.
3rd scenario, multi-prong attack. SF group 1 to hit saddam, SF group 2 to secure air strips. Air cavalry with air transportable light tanks and arty pieces to immediately deploy after securing the air strip. Large group of ground forces of heavy armour, arty and infantry to strike at the same time SF attacks begin.
In all 3 scenarios, I stressed that US air force will have to support the ground troops all the time. So the essence of such attacks depend on gaining air superiority at the earliest possible time. Of course in all 3 scenarios, the logistics can be a nightmare, but still it is possible. Lastly, ground and air reconnaissance is a must. No recce equals to no eyes and no ears which equate to high casuality rate and failure to accomplish primary objective (kill saddam).
What do you guys think? Comments welcome as I admit there are flaws in my plan which I might not see it now.
The first secnario sound vaguely plausible, 'cept how on earth are you gonna find a family member and communicate with him... and Saddam will kill his own family members if he is displeased with them...
...not easy to fight Iraq unless you wanna kill of most of the Muslms in Middile East whom you have to fight after making a crater in Iraq
Just my two cents... Once again, I'm from no defence industry, no armed force, no company, just a secondary 2 student and all views expressed are mine and my responsibility... and pls don't flame me for anything, just argue ok liao... -
Laser51088
Thanks for your comments. Don't worry I will not flame you if it is a logical discussion.
The last 2 scenarios which I posted do amount to a total war. By taking out saddam, there will be a power vaccum. There must never be a power vaccum once saddam is removed, or else one of his fanatical followers might grab the power and started launching her arsenal of nukes, chemical and biological missiles, hence the necessity of a stand by invasion task force.
From a strategist point of view, sacrificing SF operators might not be a big deal. However, if I am the team leader of this SF group, the important issue is mission and also getting my man out alive as best as I can.
As for moving of heavy equipment, I agree there will be no hiding from Iraq, but the covet SF surgical strikes can be seen as one of the trump card to this campaign. I must admit that I rather like the 3rd scenario as it offers the best chance of keeping the SF operators casualties low but does introduce the factor of getting civilians killed. One of the major concern will be in the event of saddam handing over his control of his missiles to his followers, all will be lost.
One other point I like to include is that prior to any strike by US, it might be a good idea to get green berets in there to win the hearts and minds of the local people (similar to what they did during vietnam war). It serves to get up to date intel and also less resistance when the actual invasion starts. -
Except one thing.Saddam is playing Urbun now.Casualties for any SF would be very high.We might see another black hawk down.
-
Gas prices going up again sign...
-
Ok heres my thoughts on whether Iraq should be attacked:
Saddam is one bad egg. No doubts there. I was 14 when the Republican Guard rolled into Kuwait City in 1990 and can still remember the pictures I saw on TV that August, which, incidentally made my blood turn cold. Then of course there were the smuggled pictures out of Kuwait showing public executions a few weeks later. Cue more frozen blood And then, who can forget the pictures of Kurdish babies, frozen in death by rigor mortis, after being gassed in Halabja. And anyone who tells you that ever since the last UN inspector left Iraq, Saddam hasn't been busy rebuilding his WMD program is obviously seriously deluded or on Saddams payroll. So should the US drop what its doing immediately and bomb the living crap out of Iraq tomorrow? No.
This is an issue which affects the entire world. Not just militarily, not just economically, but also geopolitically. Should the US unilaterally start bombing Iraq to remove Hussein and bring back the Inspectors, the ramifactions would be felt round the world. What it will mean is that countries will have to right to intervene militarily to a situation that is not to their liking in other countries, without the proper consultations through the UNSC or other world bodies. It bodes ill for the future.
So what should be done? We hear the US harping on how they have proof that Iraq is aiding Al-Qaeda. We hear them say that the WMD program is reconsituted in Iraq and they have The Bomb in X number of years. I say Put Up or Shut Up. As long as the US say they have proof of Iraq's nefarious deeds and refuse to show that proof to other world leaders, its no wonder why the rest of the world is vacillating.
As for Europe and the other liberal do-gooders who constantly rail about US unilateralism, I say Shut the F*** Up. The pressure is not being applied fairly, nor at the right place. Instead of telling the US why it shouldn't bomb Iraq, it should instead be telling Iraq to give the world concrete reasons why it shouldn't be bombed. Iraq is a signatory to the Gulf War ceasefire, and as a UN member, obligated to the UNSC resolutions calling for an inspections regime of its WMD program. It should abide by its obligations and the rest of the world has an obligation to press it to do so. At the same time the world has an obligation to tell the US to show the world its evidence of Iraqs misdeeds.
Its about time the rest of the world, especially Europe, stood up to be counted. Do something constructive for a change -
As to your earlier statement of asking Saddam to say why Iraq SHOULD NOT be bombed, it smacks of the authoritarianism that is so prevalent in Singapore.
People are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around. Its the job of the prosecuter to make a case and show the proof. Its not the job of the defendant to prove his innocence.
What USA is doing is WRONG .. it has to show proof. My guess is that it has proof but can not show it as it will compromise its source. But in any investigation, that is cause of reasonable doubt.
If it wants to invade Iraq, go ahead. But if it wants everyone to join in, it must show proof. -
To me that line does not mean authoritarianism. I think Viper52's point is simply that the people are putting pressure on the wrong side. "People", not Governments. USA, and indeed, the majority of the world regard Saddam and Iraq as a "threat to global security", and if the UN were to debate on whether to attack Iraq or not, I am pretty sure by end of next year Saddam would cease to exist.Originally posted by kenhor:As to your earlier statement of asking Saddam to say why Iraq SHOULD NOT be bombed, it smacks of the authoritarianism that is so prevalent in Singapore.
Iraq is definitely a threat to the world, and thus that justifies the line saying that "why Iraq should give reasons so that it will not be bombed". -
Look at the UNSC resolutions that call for a full and open inspections regine in Iraq. Look at how they have repeatedly, systematically and blatantly flouted by the Iraqi regime, which, even as the UN Inspectors were carrying out their job in Iraq until they were driven out by the regime in 1998, continued to work on, and tried to hide from the inspectors, the WMD program.Originally posted by kenhor:As to your earlier statement of asking Saddam to say why Iraq SHOULD NOT be bombed, it smacks of the authoritarianism that is so prevalent in Singapore.
People are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around. Its the job of the prosecuter to make a case and show the proof. Its not the job of the defendant to prove his innocence.
What USA is doing is WRONG .. it has to show proof. My guess is that it has proof but can not show it as it will compromise its source. But in any investigation, that is cause of reasonable doubt.
If it wants to invade Iraq, go ahead. But if it wants everyone to join in, it must show proof.
For people like that idiot Scott Ritter who consistently maintain that the Iraqi WMD program has stopped, look the the regimes track record. It continued to research, produce and attempt to hide a massive WMD program EVEN AS THE INSPECTORS WERE STILL AROUND IN IRAQ. What makes these people think Iraq has stopped the WMD work now that there are no inspectors for 4 years already?
People should be innocent until proven guilty?: I agree with you 100% on that. Problem is, this Iraqi regime has already BEEN proven guilty. And it has consistently refused to accept its punishment, which was what the UN mission to uncover and destroy Iraqs WMD program was. By driving out the inspectors in 1998 before the destruction of the WMD was complete, it means that the guilty has not been punished yet.
I know where you're going to go next with this. You are going to condemn the sanctions and embargo on Iraq which liberal do-gooders the world over are claiming is killing the innocent women and children in Iraq. I ask you to do proper research first and find out how many BILLIONS of dollars Iraq has with the UN to buy food and medicine for its women and children under the Oil-for-Food program. The money is there, in UN hands for Iraq to buy food and medicine with, yet Saddam and his sidekicks prefer to let their women and children die for lack of food and medicine claiming that the embargo is stopping food and medicine from reaching his people.
Yet, the money is there, the programs are there to prevent that. and there is only one person whos causing the deaths, Its the Iraqi government itself.
To show the world why Iraq SHOULD not be bombed. Simple. Comply with ALL UN resolutions on inspections on Iraq's WMD program. That will be enough.
I find your posts, along with all those in the media etc who condemn the US over its stance on Iraq, very interesting. I see a lot of condemning the US over its actions, but never once hear people like you comment on Iraq's refusal to comply with UN(not US) resolutions, nor comment on how Iraq has money to buy food and medicine yet claim the sanctions are killing Iraqi women and children. Maybe you would like to buck the trend and comment on these issues?
To conclude, yes the US is wrong, but Iraq is no saint either. It has the ability to ward off a needless war yet it subbornly refuses to do so. -
I agree totally with Viper52. However, I doubt the matter with Iraq will be ended just by complying with UN's demands. Iraq and its impact on the world will have to be examined in close detail which I will not go into, nor have the ability or credibility to go into.
(basically I have just squeezed my way out of that)
I believe Iraq remains an unstable country with policies implemented subject to the opinions of certain powerful figures there, in particular Saddam Hussein. They do not have the similar checks and counterchecks before going deciding on matters. While this means efficiency in the carrying out of orders and policies, this means that the situation is risky if a tyrannical despot like Saddam Hussien has the position. This is unlike the US, where every policy has to survive one big political mess before being implemented. Thus, the world would have to continue monitoring Iraq for as long as this form of government is used there and for as long as Saddam stays in power. (which ever is longer) We must also not discount the fact that there are Islamic extremists there. Most of Singapore's Malays are moderate and this has perhaps clouded the view of how extreme is a Islamic extremist until the Sept 11 attacks. These will also have to be weeded out for Iraq to make any progress and gain the respect of the world community.
A largely unrelated point I would like to add largely unrelated point:
Basically, I admit that Singapore has many authoritarian policies in place. But think for a moment why many countries do not and yet are prosperous and successful. For Singapore, any loss in business ventures would be multiplied due to our small populaton and lack of strategic depth. This is not true for larger nations such as the US. Also, as SM Lee Kuan Yew stated in his book 'From Third World to First', the govt of Singapore seeked to create a fair, rather than WELFARE state. That is why in Singapore, taxes are considerably lower, look abroad to Europe for eg. if you do not believe. Also, some people have commented that the Singapore government helps babysit its citizens, but it citizens do not appreciate it. How many countries force their citizens to have CPF accounts to ensure that citizens are able to provide for themselves after retirement? This means that the Singapore tries to ensure that every Singaporean is able to take care of themselves rather than having to hand out a pension to jobless and/or retired workers. This has served Singapore well, as the money in CPF is also invested and brings in revenue for Singapore.
I personally feel that kenhor has a very pessismistic outlook of Singapore and the goernment here. Please attmpt a more optimistic view...
some facts may be outdated or iaccurate here, anyone pls correct me if possible, thanx