D-Day in Iraq March 2nd.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

There is a full moon tonight. That means 2 weeks from now there will be no moon and complete darkness. On March 2nd I believe Bush will give the order to launch the invasion of Iraq. The air campaign may start sooner, but the ground troops will be going in on the 2nd. We reign supreme in the darkness.

If he doesn't give the order we will have to wait another month for the conditions to be conducive to conduct a ground assault. Time will start to run out as the temps start to rise in Iraq. Saddam knows this and is going to play every game and every trick he can to appease the UN. I have two words to say to the UN, Neville Chamberlain.

[codeorama]

I'm not disagreeing with you totally, but it seems like right now, there may not be a war. The world view right now is so anti war, it's incredible. Personally, I don't know what the answer is, but my observation is that Saddam would be incredibly stupid to launch an attack at this time with the world watching. He has to know that if he were to do ANYTHING, then all hell is gonna come down on him. WMD can be tracked back to him if he gives them to terrorist. You would think he would rather be in power in his own country, living with limitations rather than dead. Other than terrorist attacks, he is not a threat to the US.

[EagleSteve]

Originally posted by codeorama
I'm not disagreeing with you totally, but it seems like right now, there may not be a war. The world view right now is so anti war, it's incredible.

The opinion of the world does not matter when national security is at stake. The decision of our elected leaders is that our security is threatened by Iraq. No number of protesters is going to stop our government and military from fulfilling their primary responsibility: protecting the people of the United States. Currently, we have the support of over 40 nations, 16 of 19 NATO nations. Only 28 countries joined us in the first Gulf War. Even if a few pull out, we'll still have plenty of support.

The only thing I can tell the protesters around the world is that when you have over 3000 citizens incinerated and crushed in a terrorist attack, you don't ignore a country that has WMD and supports terrorists. You destroy it.

[codeorama]

There's no proof that Iraq supports terrorists..... that's not just my opinion, politicians on both sides, Dems and GOP feel the same way. Why else has everything stalled the way it has.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Code, Something is going to happen in the two next weeks that will justify it to the average guy sitting on the fence. I don't know what. I just have a feeling something is going to happen. It just might be that Powell has a trump card up his sleeve.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by tommy-the-greek
Code, Something is going to happen in the two next weeks that will justify it to the average guy sitting on the fence. I don't know what. I just have a feeling something is going to happen. It just might be that Powell has a trump card up his sleeve.
That would be cool. (or not cool actually)
Don't get me wrong, I am not an "anti war" crusader. I just think that in order to risk our guys lives, it better be for something damn good.
Of course, I would enjoy it much more if we didn't have to go to war.

[Park City Skins]

Actually code, Iraq has a history of supporing terrorists. From the Post on another thread:

"As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist. "

[SkinsHokie Fan]

I will honestly be the angriest person on Earth if there is no war against Iraq. I feel this is such a historic oppurtunity for the Muslim people to re-gain their destiny and we just might blow it. Damn will I be mad.

[codeorama]

Park,
I don't disagree with you at all, I should have been clearer..
There is no link from Saddam to BinLaden.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Blazers21


The opinion of the world does not matter when national security is at stake. The decision of our elected leaders is that our security is threatened by Iraq. No number of protesters is going to stop our government and military from fulfilling their primary responsibility: protecting the people of the United States. Currently, we have the support of over 40 nations, 16 of 19 NATO nations. Only 28 countries joined us in the first Gulf War. Even if a few pull out, we'll still have plenty of support.

The only thing I can tell the protesters around the world is that when you have over 3000 citizens incinerated and crushed in a terrorist attack, you don't ignore a country that has WMD and supports terrorists. You destroy it.

Again, you are placing a link between Saddam and Bin Laden that is not there.
Evidently, world opinion does matter................
From the USA TODAY

U.S., Britain reworking resolution
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Rattled by an outpouring of anti-war sentiment, the United States and Britain began reworking a draft resolution Saturday to authorize force against Saddam Hussein.

Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the final product may be a softer text that does not explicitly call for war.

Before Friday's dramatic Security Council meeting, where weapons inspectors gave a relatively favorable accounting of Iraq's recent cooperation, U.S. and British diplomats said they had been preparing a toughly worded resolution that would give them U.N. backing for military action.

British diplomats had said then that any resolution would have to include an authorization of force. They described working versions of the draft as short, simply worded texts that found Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations and reiterated that Saddam now faces "serious consequences" as a result.

In diplomatic terms, coupling the consequences with material breach would be tantamount to an authorization.

But the measured reports by inspectors, in addition to massive global opposition to war — expressed both in the council and in the streets — came as a blow to their plans.

The two English-speaking allies had hoped to push through a new resolution quickly, and there had even been talk of a Saturday council meeting to introduce it. But their plans were put on hold Friday after staunch opposition — led by France, Russia and China — drew rare applause inside the council chamber.

British and American diplomats conceded they would need to go home, consider the views of others and soften the tone of the draft.

Adding to the pressure, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in an interview Saturday with Abu Dhabi Television that another resolution, following up on Resolution 1441, which was passed in November, would be necessary if force was used against Saddam.

"I think a second resolution, following through on the conditions of 1441, is necessary," Annan said.

Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said, "The situation is very fluid and so is the language right now."

He said a resolution giving Saddam an ultimatum to relinquish power or be removed by force was still an option. But Akram said it would be very hard for Pakistan — a key ally for the United States despite an anti-American population at home — to vote in favor of any resolution authorizing war.

Others council members agreed.

While Secretary of State Colin Powell said after Friday's meeting that there was no talk of compromise yet, some diplomats said privately that it was the responsibility of the five council powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — to negotiate a way out of the impasse over Iraq.

Unless that happens, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are unlikely to gain U.N. support for a war to disarm Iraq. While they may be prepared to act without it, U.N. backing would offer international legitimacy and a guarantee that reconstruction costs would be shared.

U.N. backing is particularly important for the British government, which faces strong public opposition to a war. More than 750,000 people attended an anti-war protest in London on Saturday, police said, and millions more joined in similar demonstrations across the globe.

Noting the opposition, diplomats from Mexico, Chile, Angola and Bulgaria — key swing votes thought by the United States to be likely supporters — were considering abstaining in a vote as long as the five powers were unable to agree.

At NATO headquarters Saturday, Belgium, trying to end a bitter dispute within the NATO alliance, said it would join France and Germany in endorsing a U.S. proposal on war planning as long as it was clear that preparations to help Turkey were defensive in nature and not seen as pushing the alliance toward war against Iraq. The compromise offer was to be discussed in an urgent session Sunday.

For the past month, Germany, France and Belgium have blocked a U.S. proposal for NATO to send early warning planes, missile defenses and anti-biochemical warfare units as a precaution to Turkey, the only NATO country bordering Iraq. The other 16 NATO allies say the delay undermines the alliances credibility while sending a signal of weakness to Saddam Hussein's regime.

A Monday meeting of the European Union will be the first opportunity to gauge readiness on the continent to negotiate. On Tuesday, the Security Council is to hold an open meeting on Iraq, designed mostly to embarrass the United States by providing a forum for non-council members to air their opposition to war.

But diplomats say that by the middle of next week, Washington and London will have a better idea about how soon they can circulate a draft.

All sides acknowledge they want to avoid forcing France, Russia or China to veto the resolution. So the draft will have to be considerably reworked or be designed to be withdrawn — a diplomatic strategy that would demonstrate Britain and the United States want U.N. support but not at any cost.

A similar situation occurred in the run-up to NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999 when a resolution authorizing force was withdrawn in the face of a threatened Russian veto.

At the end of the 78-day bombing campaign, the United Nations then came together to pass a resolution authorizing a U.N. administration of Kosovo and a framework for its reconstruction. Several council diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a similar play on Iraq may be the best way around the current split in the council.

[Tarhog]

Regardless of what Ari Fleischer tells the daily press, the train has left the station. There is no way we do not forcibly remove Hussein and destroy his weapons caches now, with the only possible exception that there is a coup. Even if there is a coup, you'd have to have the US military go in and destroy their WMD capability. There's no doubt the mass protests you're seeing are not helpful to the Bush Administration, but only because they embolden those fence-sitting nations to take a more passive position and make it harder to obtain a desired 2nd (or 18th as Condi Rice pointed out this a.m.) UN resolution. If, after 3 weeks of war we have devastated Iraq's military and killed or run Hussein out (as expected), the critics will be mostly silenced. Particularly if (as I expect) Saddam launches a bunch of chem/bio weapons at us and Israels, effectively proving the US assertion that he had mass stockpiles all along.

[EagleSteve]

Originally posted by codeorama


Again, you are placing a link between Saddam and Bin Laden that is not there.
Evidently, world opinion does matter................


I never mentioned a direct link between Bin Laden adn Iraq, though now it is fairly clear that Iraq is not expelling known Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. That's enough for me. However, it is abundantly clear that Iraq supports Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. There is NO denying this.

Again, world opinion does not matter. I don't care what the US Today has to say. The president obviously feels that Iraq is a major threat to US security. No outpouring of world opinion is going to stop him from fulfilling his obligations of defending America. For better or worse, there will be war before mid-March. In fact, it may all be over by mid-March.

[codeorama]

My response would be;

If you feel that way, then Bush is letting you down.... He is not making a move. He is holding back because of world opinion.

[Art]

I'd argue the question of what world view is as well Code. Again, when you only bother to listen to the spoon-feeding given by the liberal press it may appear that the entire world is against us and we are the only nation on earth interested in doing what must be done in Iraq. However, there are some 40+ nations who have expressed support for the efforts we must make. Many will provide logistical and/or manpower to the effort.

The majority of on the record countries in Europe wrote a wonderful letter in support of the U.S. and in recognition of all the U.S. has done for Europe and the world. Only Germany, France and Belgium have been openly disapproving and they are no more important than the open support received from England, Italy and Spain as an example.

The majority of people in this nation support action. This, again, despite overwhelming liberal slant media reports that may suggest otherwise. So, it can legitimately be stated that world view isn't so incredibly slanted whatsoever. No matter how tenderly that message is served up, it doesn't make it completely applicable.

[inmate running the asylum]

Tommy-the-Greek,

I may disagree with you slightly on the start of D-Day, Tommy. Whereas the bombing will start possibly on March 2nd [assuming that is a night of complete darkness], the ground invasion will not start on that date. You are not allowing time for the degrading of the Iraqi air defenses by aerial bombing. Whereas I have read from military experts that we will not need to bomb Iraq for 40 days or so as in Gulf War I, we will have to bomb them at least from 3 to 5 days or several weeks, depending on which military general you believe. Therefore say allowing for two weeks of bombing, the ground invasion may not start until mid-March. The ground forces can go in any time on any dark night, but it is more desirable for the airplanes to bomb Baghdad on a moonless night.

Also, as of today, Sunday, February 16th, there is another potential fly in the ointment. I just read minutes ago that Turkey's parliament may not approve by February 18th, permission for U.S. ground forces to use their bases as a launching point. Supposedly we need Turkey in order to set up a northern front facing Iraq, so that Iraq has to divide its forces in defense. Conversely, however, I also read that U.S. construction crews landed in Turkey today, to upgrade Turkey's air bases and ports.

Although I am aware we have equipment stored in places like Kuwait, I also read about a week ago where other heavy Abrams tanks were enroute to Turkey, but it would take about 3 weeks for this equipment to arrive and be offloaded. The same for the Apache helicopters for the 101st Airborne, which were only being loaded a couple of days ago. Then allowing time for the troops to fly over and join their equipment and acclimate for a few days, I do not think there will be any ground action for at least 30 days or mid-March at the least.

Being that all the troops and equipment are not in place yet, the administration can afford to appear to "negotiate" or stall for at least another 30 days. It also appears that Turkey has been influenced by the worldwide anti-war demonstrations over the weekend or is playing hardball to get more economic aid. If Turkey's parliament screws us up and our northern front option is abandoned, I am not sure what the pentagon will decide to do. :(

So the vote by Turkey's parliament on Tuesday, Feb 18th or whenever is crucial to our military planning. :(

[EagleSteve]

Originally posted by codeorama
My response would be;

If you feel that way, then Bush is letting you down.... He is not making a move. He is holding back because of world opinion.

He's actually holding back because preparations are not yet complete. When they are, we will be at war.

And, yes, he has been a disappointment - he never should have gotten the anti-American UN involved. This would all be over by now if he hadn't bent to pressure to waste time with the UN. Now we're stuck with it.

Once the dissenters really understand that we are going with or without them, it will suddenly be in their national interests to join us. Where will that leave all the protesters? France definitely wants a say in the reconstruction of Iraq. They won't get it unless they play ball by the time Bush is ready. They are too selfish not to join us.

I really wish it would have never come to all of this. Peace is certainly the better way, but strength alone preserves freedom when confronting fascism. If only the world would learn.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by inmate running the asylum
[B]Tommy-the-Greek,

I may disagree with you slightly on the start of D-Day, Tommy. Whereas the bombing will start possibly on March 2nd [assuming that is a night of complete darkness], the ground invasion will not start on that date. You are not allowing time for the degrading of the Iraqi air defenses by aerial bombing.

We have 2 airborne divisions in theater right now. One will be dropped into the oil fields to secure them and prevent the Iraqi's from destroying them and setting them on fire. The other will be dropped into an airbase to secure the base to use as a staging area. This will happen prior to an all out air offensive. Then they will bomb sam sites , communication hubs and the republican guard units. Then the main ground assult will commence from Kuwait. I still think March 2nd is the date we start with the airborne troops.

[codeorama]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Art
I'd argue the question of what world view is as well Code. Again, when you only bother to listen to the spoon-feeding given by the liberal press it may appear that the entire world is against us and we are the only nation on earth interested in doing what must be done in Iraq. However, there are some 40+ nations who have expressed support for the efforts we must make. Many will provide logistical and/or manpower to the effort.

The majority of on the record countries in Europe wrote a wonderful letter in support of the U.S. and in recognition of all the U.S. has done for Europe and the world. Only Germany, France and Belgium have been openly disapproving and they are no more important than the open support received from England, Italy and Spain as an example.

The majority of people in this nation support action. This, again, despite overwhelming liberal slant media reports that may suggest otherwise. So, it can legitimately be stated that world view isn't so incredibly slanted whatsoever. No matter how tenderly that message is served up, it doesn't make it completely applicable. [/QUOTE

I realize that we have support of other nations, I did not intend to imply that EVERYONE is against us... However, world opinion is a factor, that is a fact, if it were not, we would have already done something.
I am aware that some media is slanted left, but some is slanted right. I don't watch the news on tv, it irritates me because it is so slanted (either way). However, I do browse several online newspapers and you can obviously see which way they lean. My local Newspaper is very Right slanted. I try to look at both sides and think for my self. The main question I have for some (not meaning just you Art), is would they be in support of this war if Clinton was in office? I truly believe that some, maybe many, but of course not all, would not be infavor with a dem president. I would have the same view if it were Bush, Clinton or Regan or who ever. I think think if the Government expects citizens to support military action, there needs to be a legit reason. Of course, they can do what ever they want with out the support of the people and they may or may not pay on election day. That's their choice.
I just don't see a connection with Al Quaida and Iraq and I don't think Iraq is stupid enough to use WMD against the US in a terror attack. Saddam wants to be a dictator, not a deadtator...:laugh:

[yank]

Hussein has supported extremist Islamic terrorist organizations for decades. This fact should be undisputed. While the direct link to 9-11 between Iraq and al quaida is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a standard not necessary here) the Czech Republic has stated that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officers 4 times in Praque during the summer of 2001.

Colin Powell presented conclusive evidence of a current link between al qualida and Hussein. He is now harboring yet another terrorist organization committed to the destruction of the non-Islamic world. The next attack doesnt have to be al quaida folks - it could be from dozens of groups that Iraq supports.

The fact that a direct link to 9-11 is unproven is moot. Iraq actively supports dozens of organizations that could be the perpetrators of the next attack on the US. Their chembio weapons are at their disposal to do Husseins dirty work.

And it may not be the US who will be next. Ricin has been found in the possession of cells in London and other European capitals. It is not there as a threat to stay out of Iraq -- no threats have been made. It is there in preparation for the next attack.

Apologists for Hussein sound eerily like Chamberlain in the 1930s. Hussein is plenty deadly to make comparisons to Hitler valid. He's already killed hundreds of thousands (or more).

Ostrich foi gras and chicken fricassee seem to be the menu of the day for the naive French and their comrades.

[Art]

Code,

You're dead wrong about us acting if not for world opinion. As I said, the world that is with us is as significant and important as the world that isn't. The reason we haven't acted yet is because we don't have the proper massing of troops to carry off what we intend to carry off.

We have, by most credible estimates, some 200,000 troops in the region now. That didn't happen overnight. We're adding more every day. When we get our sweet spot in terms of being ready militarily, then we'll act. And the world that is against us has absolutely no part in how quickly it takes us to prepare and ultimately act.

Iraq has supported terrorism for years. The links to Bin Laden are not the driving point here for this nation or why we must act. If there was a substantial link it would be a nice piece to bring most on board, but, most realize the link, while there more after 9-11 wasn't probably there before then, and that link is iffy at best. It just happens to have little to do with what must be done in Iraq and who must take the lead in doing what must be done.