"Hit them before they hit us"
- Thread starter Ferret
- Start date
G
Gizmo
Guest
American planes have attacked targets inside Iraq on an almost daily basis for ten years. Its not reported in the news simply because... well... its old news.
What you hear about is when the attacks escalate, or there was an incident where US planes were being put under radar lock by SAM sites or something. But US planes destroy iraqi military infrastructure and materiel on a pretty much daily basis.
What you hear about is when the attacks escalate, or there was an incident where US planes were being put under radar lock by SAM sites or something. But US planes destroy iraqi military infrastructure and materiel on a pretty much daily basis.
T
train
Guest
Gizmo's right - some of the bombers fly out of Dyess daily...
S
Svenmonkey
Guest
I thought the planes patrolling Iraq's airspace were just there to enforce the no-fly zone around the edge of the country. I didn't think they attacked ground targets on a regular basis. But 
, anyway.
, anyway.
I believe that America has military campaigns against countries all of the time, but you will not here about it on Tv because it would be a matter of national security... or they just wouldn't be popular. Heaven knows that we've been in enough unpopular wars over the past fifty years...
-Ferret
"...I just wish, we'd become a dictatorship already so we can stop acting all goody-goody about everything..."
-Ferret
"...I just wish, we'd become a dictatorship already so we can stop acting all goody-goody about everything..."
Now, that's a relative question. I believe that World War II was popular if you were French and tired of Nazi occupation. The war w/ Afghanistan is popular if you're a woman and tired of being stoned to death because you left your face exposed.
For the most part invasions are never popular if you're the controlling government. However, if you're the opressed population it can be quite popular...
Of course, that was not my point. Over here in this country we have problems with invading other countries when we still have people that are starving, dying for dumb reasons, and living in misery...
-Ferret
"...should we be invaded? Naw..."
For the most part invasions are never popular if you're the controlling government. However, if you're the opressed population it can be quite popular...
Of course, that was not my point. Over here in this country we have problems with invading other countries when we still have people that are starving, dying for dumb reasons, and living in misery...
-Ferret
"...should we be invaded? Naw..."
The French is not really the same, they're the ones being occupied and it's the Nazis/Germans who were the interlopers. Kinda like Kuwait and Iraq.
Afghanistan I can see, but then that kinda negates your point about being in unpopular wars...
Of course, every country has its own internal problems of people dying of starvation, homeless, living in poverty, etc. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where everything is hunky-dorey. However, sometimes some governments perpetuate that misery and actually don't care about their citizens and then perhaps it's time to intervene, either militarily or economically.
Afghanistan I can see, but then that kinda negates your point about being in unpopular wars...
Of course, every country has its own internal problems of people dying of starvation, homeless, living in poverty, etc. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where everything is hunky-dorey. However, sometimes some governments perpetuate that misery and actually don't care about their citizens and then perhaps it's time to intervene, either militarily or economically.
G
Gizmo
Guest
Well the German invasion of France was relatively popular in France, possibly as many as 40% of the French population would rather have been under Hitler than a french socialist government.
Austria welcomed the german army with flag waving and flowers, as did the Czech Sudetenland.
I dont think it`s fair to say liberating a country from a previous invasion really counts in this sort of discussion.
Austria welcomed the german army with flag waving and flowers, as did the Czech Sudetenland.
I dont think it`s fair to say liberating a country from a previous invasion really counts in this sort of discussion.
Maybe it's just contradictory to say that an invasion to a welcoming populance is an invasion at all...
It seemed Desert Storm was brought into this from above and it just got expanded... but I agree and like I said before, there's usually a difference between liberation of an already invaded country and a fresh invasion of a previously untouched country.
It seemed Desert Storm was brought into this from above and it just got expanded... but I agree and like I said before, there's usually a difference between liberation of an already invaded country and a fresh invasion of a previously untouched country.
B
Bob
Guest
I agree.
Iraq really isnt threatening us now, and Saddam might be a cruel dictator, but he's not stupid. If he attacked the US, Sharon would nuke the entire Middle East (except for Israel, of course) into oblivion. Bush is such an arrogant jerk. He should be impeached and be replaced with a young, middle class african-american woman!
It's kinda obvious the Iraqis will rebel and overthrow Saddam. Most oppressed people do.
If any nation needs to be dealt with, it's North Korea!
Iraq really isnt threatening us now, and Saddam might be a cruel dictator, but he's not stupid. If he attacked the US, Sharon would nuke the entire Middle East (except for Israel, of course) into oblivion. Bush is such an arrogant jerk. He should be impeached and be replaced with a young, middle class african-american woman!
It's kinda obvious the Iraqis will rebel and overthrow Saddam. Most oppressed people do.
If any nation needs to be dealt with, it's North Korea!
M
MrXarvox
Guest
actually...
the Iraqi people aren't very likely to overthrow Saddam.
case in point:
Iraq recently held a poll of the people to see if Saddam should stay in power, and an overwhelming majority voted "yes".
This would probably have something to do with the fact that Saddam had a military presence at all the polling locations.
If the people are afraid to vote him out, do you think they'll be willing to throw him out?
the Iraqi people aren't very likely to overthrow Saddam.
case in point:
Iraq recently held a poll of the people to see if Saddam should stay in power, and an overwhelming majority voted "yes".
This would probably have something to do with the fact that Saddam had a military presence at all the polling locations.
If the people are afraid to vote him out, do you think they'll be willing to throw him out?
There can be another reason they don't want to verthrow Sadam: They might actually like this guy. If your were to compare Iraq to other Middle-Eastern Muslim-dominant countries, you'd find that Iraq is one of the most liberal. Women walk around w/ faces bare and don't get stoned to death and they're encouraged to own businesses. If you were to compare their country to ours it would appear that they're pretty barbaric, but if you compare them to other companies of their size and industrial developement, they're quite modern...
-Ferret
"...but, their leader is still a psycho..."
-Ferret
"...but, their leader is still a psycho..."
Yeah, but those weren't state-sponsored assassinations (and in the case of Lincoln, it was the state) (barring conspiracy theories aside).
In Iraq's case, it'd be Saddam who'd be hauling one's tush to jail.
Just ask yourself this: could anyone get away with criticizing Saddam as they do with Bush? I mean, we have late night show comedians and political cartoons, just to name two. I'm fairly certain those aren't allowed in Iraq.
In Iraq's case, it'd be Saddam who'd be hauling one's tush to jail.
Just ask yourself this: could anyone get away with criticizing Saddam as they do with Bush? I mean, we have late night show comedians and political cartoons, just to name two. I'm fairly certain those aren't allowed in Iraq.
Funny how some people can believe the wackiest ideas, yet not take the info that's just plain out there... no offense ; it's just peculiar .
Again, the difference is that Hussein IS the head of state, while in your example two heads of state were assassinated. In other words, bowing to your ideas, there apparently is infighting within the state (or if you consider the Confederacy a legitimate state, that's okay too) yet with Hussein, he quashes internal dissent pretty quickly (within the state).
The question remains: Can you safely criticize the Iraqi government without fear of retribution as you can hear? I'm not talking death threats, I'm talking satire or political cartoons and whatnot. That's what I mean by "rocking the boat".
; it's just peculiar .Again, the difference is that Hussein IS the head of state, while in your example two heads of state were assassinated. In other words, bowing to your ideas, there apparently is infighting within the state (or if you consider the Confederacy a legitimate state, that's okay too) yet with Hussein, he quashes internal dissent pretty quickly (within the state).
The question remains: Can you safely criticize the Iraqi government without fear of retribution as you can hear? I'm not talking death threats, I'm talking satire or political cartoons and whatnot. That's what I mean by "rocking the boat".
B
Bob
Guest
I'm not sure how many iraqis really like saddam.
He probably forces people to vote for him and support him. The last time people voted against him, they were thrown in jail.
Also, I heard there was a poll in Iran, and 60% or Iranians like Americans, and 40% agree with Bush that Iran is evil. Of course, the people who set up the poll were either jailed or killed.
He probably forces people to vote for him and support him. The last time people voted against him, they were thrown in jail.
Also, I heard there was a poll in Iran, and 60% or Iranians like Americans, and 40% agree with Bush that Iran is evil. Of course, the people who set up the poll were either jailed or killed.