Has it all ready begun.. the Iraq's are begging to do thier imitation ofthe Frech...

[MrVicchio]

SURRENDER: Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to allied forces - because they thought the war had already started... Developing...

From www.drudgereport.com

[Mtx]

I feel sorry for them.

:(

[OneManArmy]

see, even they know they are going to get thier asses handed to them. Why can't saddam just go away, even his troops don't have faith in him :doh:

[Bighoss]

I think Saddam is just insane/retarded. If he had 100 hydrogen bombs he would nuke the hell out of the world by surprise. He is a threat and unfit for rule, No countries deserve a ruler like that and its up to the world to remove him.

[Mtx]

If we wanted to take him out he would be dead.

He's just our excuse for some black gold.

[Bighoss]

maybe so but oil is a good reason to go to war. The only problem is some crazy asshole is guarding it. We can't just say we want some oil so were gonna get some so instead we're saying that we are going to slay the evil demon and uuuhhh take his treasure and live happily ever after with Ms. America:D

[Hellsfire123]

He has to be doing something right, hes been in power for long enough. Dont confuse insane with stupid. He has doubles, he doesnt address crowds, he doesnt give out his schedual. Its much harder to kill a man then you think, especially if he knows you want to.

Besides, no one seriously believes him when he said Iraq would be victorious. He has a badly trained army 1/5 the size of the one in 92, which was professionally trained, and even then it couldnt defend itself. Take alook at the oridinance in the gulf right now. We have enough satalite guided bombs and missles to turn the capital city to dust, i doubt the half million US troops will even find much resistance after the bombings(trust me, there will be bombings).

[Revolution]

Fear not, Rev has the answer:


Remember that war cost they were talking about? What like 80 bil or something? Lets take Half that at the most, put it on Saddam's head as a bounty(WANTED:Dead or Dead), plus the person or party that turns over his head, gets to live in a spot of his choosing being one rich mofo! (Hawaii, whatever...You know somewhere nice, with a lot of money.)

So now we save some, no lives of our forces have to go to battle, etc..

Yes I am aware it will never happen, even know they tried it on Osama, but what was that like 20 million? Throw a fucking Billion or so on a hit....... Hell what about that 15 bill just went ot Africa to help aids?

But seriously, I dont see if and WHEN Saddam is labeled To Be Removed, why they dont use a bounty for him, alive if you bleeding hearts want or no money. If he really is the real bad guy that the media makes him out to be, I dont see why some of his own would not go for it........

[Mtx]

Originally posted by Bighoss
We can't just say we want some oil so were gonna get some so instead we're saying that we are going to slay the evil demon and uuuhhh take his treasure and live happily ever after with Ms. America:D

That's what I want to hear though.

Saddam = Demon

Oil = treasure

Princess = Whoever is smiling like a donut at the time

Now it sounds more like an adventure.

We shall slay the evil Saddam and take his treasure. Then we shall liberate the wench and be rich and happy for the rest of our days.... who's with me?!

*crowd cheers*

[Headrattle]

Oddly enough Rev, I actually agree with you.
People have put bounties on the heads of crimanals through out the years.
While Saddam might be a little silly. I do think that good old Osama should have an increase in his bounty. Just make sure he is alive and positively identifiable.
Saddam might be harder. I read somewhere that he has quite a few doubles.

As for the army surrendering. That was going to happen anyway. The Repoblican Army are the people you need to watch. They are fanatical. They will go down till the last man. And what is worse, they don't care what they do, how many treaties they break, or how many innocent people they will kill.

[Revolution]

I dont think it would be silly on Saddam HR. Even if his doubles are all over. The bounty only after a positive DNA match. And even if bounty hunters were bringing in bodies by the dozens, eventually he would get caught or have to hide in a cave like Osama for a while.

I still think it would be a good try. If they figure the war is going to be billions, take some of it and put the bounty out! Whats the worse?? No one catches the real Saddam and we wasted a little time in advertising??!? The best we catch the Mo Fucka!

Its worth a try! Whats the advertising gonna cost? The new toilet seats for the white house this year?!? You know what I mean.

[Lexington_Steele]

It is not a good time in history to be an Iraqi soldier (or to be Saddam for that matter).

[Sputty]

Well, at leat french waited until the war started to surrender. Come on, I don't think any country could be worse than France...But...ehhh.I guess it IS possible...

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Mtx
If we wanted to take him out he would be dead.

Actually, the American government does not get involved in assassinations anymore. After a whole string of failed assassination attempts in Cuba, the President during that time (can't recall his name) passed a law which prohibited America from actively taking part in assassination. They can't do it themselves, and they can't assist others in doing it. A couple CIA agents were put on trial for conspiracy to assassinate Saddam Hussein in the years following the Gulf War when the Kurds in the northern area of Iraq hatched a plan (with the help of one of Saddam's Generals who wanted to defect) to perform a coup and remove Saddam from power. But, the American government refused to support it whatsoever, and because of it the coup fell apart. The agents who had been in Iraq to help the Kurds were tried for attempted assassination when they came back to America. I know for sure that one quit the CIA immidiately after that, but I don't know if his two associates did. None were convicted, by the way. So, no, if America wanted Saddam dead, which they do, he wouldn't be dead, because it'd violate laws established earlier.

He's just our excuse for some black gold.

I find it so sad that most people callously believe this is the reason America is going to war. Here, another history lesson for you. After WW1 when the Middle East was reformed, Iraq was created to encompass a lot of very rich oil reserves (completely ignoring the fact that the various religious/ethnic groups in the area didn't get along). Anyway, the British wanted to install their own groomed leader to take advantage of the nation's rich oil reserves for the benefit of the Empire. Not long after this leader was installed did the Iraqi people find out that their nation's wealth was being squandered to benefit some foreign power who didn't give a damn about Iraq itself. Long story short, they removed the puppet leader, and plunged Iraq into the decades of political upheaval that eventually lead to Saddam coming to power.

So, the Iraqi people would not stand fo America robbing them of their oil. Not only that, but the world will not stand for it. If America starts taking advantage of Iraq, they will be known the world over as a greedy, self-serving nation who goes to war to further its own greed. And before you say anything like "but they do", take a look at the foreign aid America gives out, and learn a thing or two about the state of Iraq right now. America is doing Iraq a big favour by removing Saddam "I Rule Through Fear" Hussein and giving them a shot at democracy.

[Sputty]

OMFG!!! Warborn's back!!!
/me huggles Warborn I missed ya :hug:

[Revolution]

I mentioned Warborn in a thread and he shows up. My question is who is his other person on this forum. Gues it could be a Koinkie ****................RIght?

[Mtx]

ANyone have the cliffnotes to that shit? :rolleyes:

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Sputty
OMFG!!! Warborn's back!!!
/me huggles Warborn I missed ya :hug:

You have no idea how busy I've been the past month or so. I have barely had a chance to play The Frozen Throne Beta, let alone the Planetside one. It's screwy. Anyway, with things getting back to normal, my shinannigans will continue forthwith!

I mentioned Warborn in a thread and he shows up. My question is who is his other person on this forum.

My other person? I don't have another person. Honestly, I've barely been able to get some quality Interweb browsing in during the past three or four weeks. I'd have been fired and dumped had I attempted to do something as dastardly as create an alternate forum account (why would I want to do that anyway?).

[Squeeky]

Hah! Too funny, Maybe this is a forshadowing of the wars outcome if we do indeed go to war :brow:

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Squeeky
Hah! Too funny, Maybe this is a forshadowing of the wars outcome if we do indeed go to war :brow:

I think it stopped being an "if" and started being a "when" a little while ago.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Mtx
ANyone have the cliffnotes to that shit? :rolleyes:

Here's the Warborn's Post for Lazy People of what I wrote earlier.

Part 1: The USA doesn't do assassinations because it's against their self-imposed laws.

Part 2: The USA won't be able to touch Iraq's oil, because if they do they'll be rejected by the Iraqi people and spat upon by the international community almost without exception.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Warborn

Part 2: The USA won't be able to touch Iraq's oil, because if they do they'll be rejected by the Iraqi people and spat upon by the international community almost without exception.

We have already anounced that is very likely that we will pay for the war with Iraqi oil. That sounds like touching Iraqi oil to me. Besides what we need to pay for the war, we are going to be stealing the oil. We will just be making sure that US companies are not excluded from oil deals with Iraq. Iraqis will be selling the oil for the same prices they would normally be selling it for.

As far as not assinating or starting coup attemts, I thought the patriot restored a large amount of power to our agencies so they could do things like that. (I could be wrong on that one though.)

[NARF]

Actually, I believe a 'trust fund' of sorts is being set up for the Iraqi oil (by the way, Alaska has more oil that Iraq) so that no one country will be able to guzzle, and I believe the majority of the money will go to establishing a new government in Iraq.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by Warborn
Here's the Warborn's Post for Lazy People of what I wrote earlier.

Part 1: The USA doesn't do assassinations because it's against their self-imposed laws.

Part 2: The USA won't be able to touch Iraq's oil, because if they do they'll be rejected by the Iraqi people and spat upon by the international community almost without exception. They just recently changed their policy on assassinations. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a law in the first place, just a change in CIA policy.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Arshune
They just recently changed their policy on assassinations. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a law in the first place, just a change in CIA policy.

As I said in my non-dumbed down post earlier, three CIA agents were put on trial for allegedly assisting the Kurdish military in the northern part of Iraq during 1995 or 1996. If they've changed it recently, I haven't heard about it, but I don't see why they'd change it. It's almost impossible to assassinate Hussein anyway.

We have already anounced that is very likely that we will pay for the war with Iraqi oil. That sounds like touching Iraqi oil to me. Besides what we need to pay for the war, we are going to be stealing the oil. We will just be making sure that US companies are not excluded from oil deals with Iraq. Iraqis will be selling the oil for the same prices they would normally be selling it for.

That's different. What I meant was a long-term subjugation of Iraqi oil, selling oil to the US at a greatly reduced rate. And to be quite frank, being more in favour of the US with regard to where their oil goes in post-Saddam Iraq is the least they can do for what the US is going to do for them. They should still charge the same amount, but they should be more than happy to sell oil to the US.

[Arshune]

The change was extremely recent, I only heard about it a few months ago...I'm almost 100% certain it's a post 2000 thing, but I do know that they changed their policy.

[NARF]

Well, the government (with the NSA's Third Echelon, yes, the thing from splinter cell IS real, just a little less dramatic, it's an area 51 style thing, the government admits they send budget portions to it, but denies it exists) has killed Saddam 20 times and he's still not dead. Ever seen some of the videos, he has duplicates surrounding him, they go outside first, so someone will shoot them, instead of the real guy. They get plastic surgery, so that it is nearly impossible to tell the real man from the fake, unless you know what to look for.

Also, it is very possible that Iraq could be working out something like a deal with North Korea. North Korea has two enemies, South Korea, and the United States. Anyone else who doesn't like the US is thier friend.

My friends, this may very well be a war we cannot win, simply because the US does not have the backing of it's people, mostly because they are all IGNORANT FOOLS!

sorry for the lack of coherency in my post.

[Arshune]

Fact: Iraq's military is a fraction of the size it was back when it was summarily destroyed by the US led coalition way back when.

Fact: Iraq's military is poorly trained, especially in comparison to what it was during the Gulf War.

Fact: North Korea has a missile that MAY reach the Western United States, HOWEVER, it's untested. UNTESTED.

Fact: The US could take North Korea AND Iraq on at the same time, albeit with high diplomatic and economic costs (possibly with many casualties as well, but it would still be a victory).

[NARF]

Yes, mostly true, but!

The Iraqi special forces ARE better trained than the rest of the military, and CAN give us a problem. There ARE, extensive underground tunnels, which, if the Iraqis know them well enough, can prove a MAJOR problem. THink vietnam.

Also, we know little about North Korea's military, it is a VERY tightly run administration.

[Warborn]

Fact: Iraq's military is a fraction of the size it was back when it was summarily destroyed by the US led coalition way back when.

This is actually moot. North Korea has a very large standing army, as does China, but both nations are less advanced than the United States. The fact that the US has kept its carrier fleets in top priority and has devoted a lot of money toward making sure it's the most advanced means that no other nation can touch them. So it doesn't really matter if the Iraqis have 100k or 100 million soldiers. They lack the technology to deal with the US's military. They will be completely unable to stop the US from achieving air control over Iraq, and once that happens, the game is over. No major offensive can ever be taken by an army which does not have control of the skies, otherwise the enemy will be able to react to your movements quickly, bomb/strafe your army and its supply lines, and generally reduce your soldiers to crap in terms of morale.

The change was extremely recent, I only heard about it a few months ago...I'm almost 100% certain it's a post 2000 thing, but I do know that they changed their policy.

I don't mean to offend, but I have a hard time believing that. I'd have read about it if it had, I think. If you can supply a link to a news site which has the article on it I'd be more than willing to take a look though.

[Navaron]

"I don't mean to offend, but I have a hard time believing that. I'd have read about it if it had, I think. If you can supply a link to a news site which has the article on it I'd be more than willing to take a look though."

No offense here either, but I know I would have heard this. I read all kindsa stuff on this, and try and get my hands on declassified intel that is put on the net as much as possible. The CIA has waxed a WHOLE lot of people recently. Plus, the only major inhibitor of assasaination is the Geneva contract, and that doesn't apply here.

[Mtx]

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. You assume the US is ready for a war which it is not. Iraq is one thing. Actually a very dangerous thing. We're taking a madman with chemical weapons (supposively) and telling him we are coming to kill him. What does he have to lose if he uses them? Nothing....

China has the ability to hit the US with nukes. NK also has this ability.

China posses the largest Air Force in the world. Their pilots are just as good as ours and their Migs aren't to be under estimated. I don't care how stealth you are.. it wont matter when you're outgunned 10 to 1.

[Lexington_Steele]

If we decide to go for NK and China decides to defend NK, we better hope the whole rest of the world is ready to come in on our side.

I am not saying that we could not defeat China and NK on our own, however I don't think the losses the US would take (both military and civililian) would be worth defeating NK and China on our own.

We better have the whole rest of the world so as to impose strict and crippling economic sanctions. Crippling enough that it would persuade China to stand down from their support for NK.

[Navaron]

There is a possibility that I missed something, but just two weeks ago China was the frontrunner followed by Japan of an anti NK movement. They promised a full destruction of NK with nuclear weapons in a pre emptive attack if they *thought* NK was going to get froggy. If that's changed, I didn't see it.

[Mtx]

Talk is cheap. Do you really think China would frag its only ally in the area?

[Navaron]

"Talk is cheap. Do you really think China would frag its only ally in the area?"

A) Absolutely, the one thing China wants less the Kim Il Johng having nukes is direct US interference in the region.

B) Yes again because the entire region is against NK having nukes, including China's more scary northern ally russia. If the chinese were to support the NK movement towards nuclear proliferation, then the chinese would be in direct opposition to the entire region. This would increase relations and tensions, and the first thoughts would immediately turn to war in a VERY unstable region. The region is just now beginning to solidify in relations, and I doubt the Chinese who have the most to benifit from a happy "neighborhood" would be likely to throw that out the window. Especially win they win two-fold by defeating the NK nuclear arms movement. 1 - One less person in the region who has nuclear weapons, 2- a much more stable and unified region = more money and trade.

[KoldFusion]

The CIA thing I believe..... means they can not kill recognized heads of state. So Saddam is fair game b/c he was not elected. I may be wrong on this though. Not my area of knowledge really.

China would be a hell of a battle and I would never assume that we would beat. Could go either way.