Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 01:20 PM

Oh boy..

wdlove · Mar 21, 2003, 01:41 PM

They keep saying that their will be no doubt when the "shock and Awe" phase begins. Sounds as though the US has some communication with Iraqi military in or mear Baghdad!

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 02:01 PM

Are they using MOABs? The weather here is so terrible that I get really bad reception on my TV.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Are they using MOABs? The weather here is so terrible that I get really bad reception on my TV.

I don't think they have yet.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 02:09 PM

Saddam's palace. gone.. or about to be.

iDriveX · Mar 21, 2003, 02:12 PM

Yeah that was a big f-in bomb that just went off. Some journalist in baghdad just said one of the palaces was destoryed in the military district.

BasketofPuppies · Mar 21, 2003, 02:12 PM

Which one?

mishap · Mar 21, 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam's palace. gone.. or about to be.

yeah. 10 major buildings destroyed in 2 minutes.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 02:13 PM

I am betting you'll be seeing more surrendering

iDriveX · Mar 21, 2003, 02:17 PM

Where are the MOABs? They need to drop about 8 MOABs right outside the Baghdad city limits where it's uninhabited just to scare the **** out of their army. and cause it would fricken look cool.

funkboy · Mar 21, 2003, 02:19 PM

We won't see surrendering. Doing that would stop the violence, and that's what Saddam does not want. He'll let his country go to pot as long as his people are angry at the US. If we bombing Iraq's people piss them off... well, that's bad. But it looks like we're not, looks like we're only bombing his particular governmental buildings - good job.

Though creepy to watch.

iDriveX · Mar 21, 2003, 02:21 PM

Saddam can tell them to fight as long as he want, but he doesn't control the army anymore (if he's even alive anymore). They'll surrender if they want to.

davesimondotcom · Mar 21, 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by funkboy:
We won't see surrendering.

The conscripts will surrender.

Saddam won't. (Dead guys can't surrender - and they don't wear plaid.)

calamar1 · Mar 21, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Are they using MOABs? The weather here is so terrible that I get really bad reception on my TV.

i certainly hope they would not use such a thing in the middle of Baghdad. At any rate, i think they do need complete and utter air superiority (including no ground-based fire) to use that kind of thing. i believe that the 'MOAB' ordnance is dropped from a C-130, a slow-flying four-engine cargo plane. Not what you would call a stealthy or agile aircraft.

euphras · Mar 21, 2003, 02:41 PM

They won�t get him by bombing his palaces. Yesterday there was a docu on german TV, they said Saddam has managed to build a shelter, that is atomic bomb save and has facilities 300 m deeper than surface

Spheric Harlot · Mar 21, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by euphras:
They won�t get him by bombing his palaces. Yesterday there was a docu on german TV, they said Saddam has managed to build a shelter, that is atomic bomb save and has facilities 300 m deeper than surface

I saw that too. Built by Yugoslavia some years ago.

"Shock and Awe" will undoubtedly be recieved as "Fear and Anger". Symptomatic for the difference between how the US see themselves and the rest of the world sees them.

I'm betting we'll see LOTs of anger. Already are, in many Muslim states.

-s*

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm betting we'll see LOTs of anger. Already are, in many Muslim states.

-s*

However, in non-Arab Iran, there is this from the Guardian.

The "Great Satan" has invaded Iraq but students at Tehran University seem pleased at the prospect.
"It will be a good thing to have American troops in Iraq. Perhaps that will bring change to Iran," said Namin, a lanky engineering student strolling to class.

"Maybe that will put more pressure on the regime here." Unlike fellow Muslims in the Middle East or their predecessors 23 years ago who seized the United States embassy, students today are not seething with anger against America and are unmoved by the government's daily references to "the enemy" in Washington.

"I think only about the consequences of a war. If the war has good consequences, let it be," said another student, Mohammad. "We're not protesting like European students. We don't have a democratic government like they do. We're not acting like them because we're not in European shoes."

deedar · Mar 21, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

I'm betting we'll see LOTs of anger. Already are, in many Muslim states.

-s*

Lot's of anger right here at home too. Bastards. I'm horrified. This American is ashamed by the actions of our government.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 21, 2003, 03:28 PM

Simey, I hope you're right. Perhaps this will lead to a real restructuring. But at what price?

The United States has already lost.

-s*

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Simey, I hope you're right. Perhaps this will lead to a real restructuring. But at what price?

The United States has already lost.

-s*

It doesn't sound like you hope I'm right. I'd say the opposite sounds more like it.

davesimondotcom · Mar 21, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by deedar:
Lot's of anger right here at home too. Bastards. I'm horrified. This American is ashamed by the actions of our government.

Good for you.

Personally, I'm PROUD of our President, the Prime Minister, the coalition forces.

This is the right thing to do.

Shock and awe will save lives by causing mass surrender. Remember these are MILITARY targets we're hitting. And this campaign will serve as a lesson for North Korea. And like Simey said, might cause Iran to topple by the hand of it's own people.

Oh, and if you wanted to avoid war, don't blame our government. Blame the guy who we're fighting. Rembember, all he had to do is "come out with his hands up" and this could have been prevented.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 21, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It doesn't sound like you hope I'm right. I'd say the opposite sounds more like it.

No.

I am wholeheartedly against this war.

That is quite separate from hoping that it could *possibly* lead to some positive changes.

I don't think that is what's going to happen on the whole, but to say that I want it not to happen is an insult to me, my life, and a whole lot more.

I didn't want *any* of this to happen. War is wrong. This one doubly so. I think I've clarified a number of times here why. Fischer (yes, the man who hit a policeman thirty years ago and is all the more credible for the way he deals with past mistakes) has put into words nicely what many of us feel.

If you believe this means we *want* to see an unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world, I have nothing more to say.

-s*

clod · Mar 21, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Good for you.

Personally, I'm PROUD of our President, the Prime Minister, the coalition forces.

This is the right thing to do.

Shock and awe will save lives by causing mass surrender. Remember these are MILITARY targets we're hitting. And this campaign will serve as a lesson for North Korea. And like Simey said, might cause Iran to topple by the hand of it's own people.

Oh, and if you wanted to avoid war, don't blame our government. Blame the guy who we're fighting. Rembember, all he had to do is "come out with his hands up" and this could have been prevented.

The United States has already lost.

What do you mean by that?

xi_hyperon · Mar 21, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I don't think that is what's going to happen on the whole, but to say that I want it not to happen is an insult to me, my life, and a whole lot more.

I don't presume to speak for Simey, but I would imagine it is the little comment about the U.S. which doesn't seem at all related to what you were trying to get across. One could perceive that you are more interested in engaging in a little schadenfreud towards the U.S. than concern for the outcome of this unfortunate conflict. I'm not saying you are, just that it could be perceived that way. My 2 cents.

jcadam · Mar 21, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No.

I am wholeheartedly against this war.

That is quite separate from hoping that it could *possibly* lead to some positive changes.

I don't think that is what's going to happen on the whole, but to say that I want it not to happen is an insult to me, my life, and a whole lot more.

I didn't want *any* of this to happen. War is wrong. This one doubly so. I think I've clarified a number of times here why. Fischer (yes, the man who hit a policeman thirty years ago and is all the more credible for the way he deals with past mistakes) has put into words nicely what many of us feel.

If you believe this means we *want* to see an unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world, I have nothing more to say.

-s*

Some people do the right thing, even if the consequences (terrorist attacks) are painful.

Some people will do anything, including the wrong thing, to avoid unpleasantness.
Such people are cowards.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
If you believe this means we *want* to see an unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world, I have nothing more to say.

-s*

The basic problem is you are proceeding under the assumption that "unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world" is the only possible result. Therefore, I suppose you think that anyone who supports the invasion actually wants that result to come to be. But the reason I posted the Guardian article about Iran is because it is at least a possible indication that your pessimism is misplaced.

Notice, in particular, that one of the Iranian students quoted specifically contrasted Iranian opinion with that common in Europe. That should make you wonder whether there is at least the possibility that European assumptions about what will happen in the middle east may be out of step with reality.

deedar · Mar 21, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Good for you.

Personally, I'm PROUD of our President, the Prime Minister, the coalition forces.

This is the right thing to do.

Shock and awe will save lives by causing mass surrender. Remember these are MILITARY targets we're hitting. And this campaign will serve as a lesson for North Korea. And like Simey said, might cause Iran to topple by the hand of it's own people.

Oh, and if you wanted to avoid war, don't blame our government. Blame the guy who we're fighting. Rembember, all he had to do is "come out with his hands up" and this could have been prevented.

I will indeed blame our government - WE are dropping the bombs.

The targets may very well be military and governmental, but they are located in civilian areas. For Christ�s sake, we ARE bombing the sheet out of Baghdad as we speak. Many civilians will be killed.

What we will end up with is blood from the deaths of thousands of civilians on our hands, alienated (to put it mildly) allies and friends- to the point of being a pariah state - and inflamed Islamic rage. Oh, and a crippled Iraq that we need to rebuild. Great.

clod · Mar 21, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by jcadam:
Some people do the right thing, even if the consequences (terrorist attacks) are painful.

Some people will do anything, including the wrong thing, to avoid unpleasantness.
Such people are cowards.

I strongly agree. I believe that this is one of those things that are right vs. wrong. Doing nothing is wrong, not "expressing another opinion" as the peaceniks like to say.

davesimondotcom · Mar 21, 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by deedar:
I will indeed blame our government - WE are dropping the bombs.

Only because that's the only option. Saddam could have stopped this at any time.

Originally posted by deedar:
The targets may very well be military and governmental, but they are located in civilian areas. For Christ�s sake, we ARE bombing the sheet out of Baghdad as we speak. Many civilians will be killed.

Again, Saddam locating military targets PURPOSEFULLY in civilian areas is not our fault. Even so, we have spent BILLIONS to try to create weapons that are more accurate to prevent civilian loss of life.

Originally posted by deedar:
What we will end up with is blood from the deaths of thousands of civilians on our hands, alienated (to put it mildly) allies and friends- to the point of being a pariah state - and inflamed Islamic rage. Oh, and a crippled Iraq that we need to rebuild. Great.

Great predictions. But I tend to be a little more optimistic.

I look at it this way: We end up with no Saddam, a freed nation, maybe Iran sees what's coming and the people of Iran overthrow their government.

We end up sending a strong message to North Korea.

I think we end up with a safer world for all that live in it.

And do you think that the French technique is really making them lots of friends?

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The basic problem is you are proceeding under the assumption that "unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world" is the only possible result. Therefore, I suppose you think that anyone who supports the invasion actually wants that result to come to be. But the reason I posted the Guardian article about Iran is because it is at least a possible indication that your pessimism is misplaced.

Notice, in particular, that one of the Iranian students quoted specifically contrasted Iranian opinion with that common in Europe. That should make you wonder whether there is at least the possibility that European assumptions about what will happen in the middle east may be out of step with reality.

This example is plain wrong. Iranians are NOT arabs. Period. They are different nation, speak farsi, not arabic, and are different from arabs same as french and british are different. Moreover, they had long war in 80s and have animosity toward Iraq, so you can always rely on anti-iraq feelings there. Its not example of how ARABS are feeling.

Iranians are not arabs, I repeat, AND arabs are already on the edge. Harlot got it all right. US gives 10 billion $ aid to Israel, which has WMD, which for 40 years ignored UN resolutions, but it bombs Iraq. All arabs see it as extremely biased and they are againts it.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
This example is plain wrong. Iranians are NOT arabs.

Yes, I know that. Nor are all Iraqis Arabs, and for that matter all Egyptians or all Jordanians (my former brother in law's family are Circassian living in Amman). Nevertheless, Iran is Iraq's next door neighbor and a critical state in the region. Therefore Iranian opinion is important and shouldn't simply be presumed.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 05:08 PM

Looks as if thsoe bombs were pretty darn accurate. You couldn't have BEEN more careful.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I know that. Nor are all Iraqis Arabs, and for that matter all Egyptians or all Jordanians (my former brother in law's family are Circassian living in Amman). Nevertheless, Iran is Iraq's next door neighbor and a critical state in the region. Therefore Iranian opinion is important and shouldn't simply be presumed.

While it may be important, it doesnt reflect Arab opinions.

V · Mar 21, 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
While it may be important, it doesnt reflect Arab opinions.

It doesn't reflect iranian opinions neither. I've read articles about widows from the Iran-Iraq war protesting against the US attack.

And don't forget that the conservators just won their first election since 1997, when the reformist first took power.

clod · Mar 21, 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
Harlot got it all right. US gives 10 billion $ aid to Israel, which has WMD, which for 40 years ignored UN resolutions, but it bombs Iraq. All arabs see it as extremely biased and they are againts it.

Man, you really are CLUELESS. You know, my grandfather was an Arab (and not anti-American) and I find it offensive that you think you know how ALL Arabs think. That is racism. That's just as bad as saying all Germans are anti-Semite or that all French are anti-American.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
While it may be important, it doesnt reflect Arab opinions.

This is called "splitting hairs." Read back over the thread. I posted the Guardian piece earlier in the thread with this notation:

However, in non-Arab Iran, there is this from the Guardian.

If you are going to get pissy about details, read the thread first.

boots · Mar 21, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Looks as if thsoe bombs were pretty darn accurate. You couldn't have BEEN more careful.

I must say that I am pretty damned impressed with the way this has unfolded in terms of the bombing. The electrical system is still working, water is still running, and Iraqi TV is still broadcasting.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by V:
It doesn't reflect iranian opinions neither. I've read articles about widows from the Iran-Iraq war protesting against the US attack.

Ever looked at the demographics of Iran? I'd pay more attention to those young students than the mothers of soldiers of a war that ended in 1988.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by boots:
I must say that I am pretty damned impressed with the way this has unfolded in terms of the bombing. The electrical system is still working, water is still running, and Iraqi TV is still broadcasting.

Maybe that is what the Awe was about.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by clod:
Man, you really are CLUELESS. You know, my grandfather was an Arab (and not anti-American) and I find it offensive that you think you know how ALL Arabs think. That is racism. That's just as bad as saying all Germans are anti-Semite or that all French are anti-American.

OK, majority of arabs. All is too strong, i agree.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is called "splitting hairs." Read back over the thread. I posted the Guardian piece earlier in the thread with this notation:

If you are going to get pissy about details, read the thread first.

Yes, I am gonna be, you bet. You cited the article as an example of arab opinion and I tell you that your example is as wrong as citing mexican opinion as an example of american public opinion.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
Yes, I am gonna be, you bet. You cited the article as an example of arab opinion

No, I didn't. I specifically stated that the article was about "non-Arab Iran." That's what "meanwhile in non-Arab Iran" means. It means that Iranians are non-Arab.

wdlove · Mar 21, 2003, 05:55 PM

"The United States has already lost"

Originally posted by clod:
What do you mean by that?

According the Liberals like Tom Olifant speaking for Teddy, Hillary, & Tom et al "The US will win the war not by the military victory. But how well GW embraces the UN & allows the UN to rebuild Iraq using our money. (US Taxpayers)" Their game plan for '04 is hoping for things to go badly with the war and the economy. So they can put the US under direct control of the UN. If you listen to the Liberal rhetoric they always put the UN concerns ahead of Americans and our Constitution.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 05:59 PM

The basic problem is you are proceeding under the assumption that "unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world" is the only possible result.

..But the reason I posted the Guardian article about Iran is because it is at least a possible indication that your pessimism is misplaced.

[/B]

So here are your own words. Read THEM carefully. Harlot talks about possible wave of terror in ARAB world. You post the article saying the pessimism is misplaced.

HOWEVER, the article is about Iranians, WHO ARE NOT ARABS.

Zimphire · Mar 21, 2003, 06:00 PM

Come on Hash, please stay on topic. I know you can do it.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
So here are your own words. Read THEM carefully. Harlot talks about possible wave of terror in ARAB world. You post the article saying the pessimism is misplaced.

HOWEVER, the article is about Iranians, WHO ARE NOT ARABS.

Like I said, you are splitting hairs. I went with Spheric's words because I wanted to quote his exact words, which only referred to Arabs, and not any other ethnic group in the region (of which there are many).

As I said to you before, read the thread. Look at the posts in context. My disclaimer that the Iranian opinion article from the Guardian came before the one you quote above. Obviously I knew we are talking somewhat about apples and oranges because I said so before I posted the link to the Guardian article. Nevertheless, the Iranian piece is relevant because it is quite clear that Shperic was talking about middle eastern opinion, rather than narrowly talking about one ethnic group. Iranians are neighbors of Iraq, and middle easterners and if you thought you caught me by informing me that they aren't Arabs, you were wrong as the order of posts in this thread clearly demonstrates. Now, stop being so pedantic and join in the conversation.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 06:14 PM

Yep, lets stay on focus and remember that arabs are arabs, iranians are iranians, and be precise in pursuit of truth - which is, after all, all we need.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 06:26 PM

If we talk about arabs, the following story reflects reality maybe better, than what Iranians are thinking. And this is reality. There is no need to lie to yourselves.

l'ignorante · Mar 21, 2003, 06:38 PM

Shock and Awe.....sad. Who makes that **** up: I mean compared to 'search and destroy' , now THAT is scary !

Spheric Harlot · Mar 21, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The basic problem is you are proceeding under the assumption that "unprecedented wave of international terrorism and Islamist upheaval across the Arab world" is the only possible result. Therefore, I suppose you think that anyone who supports the invasion actually wants that result to come to be. But the reason I posted the Guardian article about Iran is because it is at least a possible indication that your pessimism is misplaced.

Notice, in particular, that one of the Iranian students quoted specifically contrasted Iranian opinion with that common in Europe. That should make you wonder whether there is at least the possibility that European assumptions about what will happen in the middle east may be out of step with reality.

I'm not going to make any more predictions, because frankly, I don't think anybody can say - not even the Pentagon. (One reason why many consider this war foolhardy.)

We shall see.

By "The United States has already lost", to answer the question above, I meant that it has lost:
- all remaining credibility wrt international relations/rights
- the respect of a great many people
- the trust of a great many people
- any right whatsoever to claim to be morally, or otherwise (except militarily) superior, or to be in touch with "God".

There is ONE LESSON to be learned from war, and I think the "Old Europe" has learned it well:

In a war, there ARE no winners.

You attack, you already lose.
Morally, the United States has lost.

Cowardice, jcadam, has little to do with it.

But your comments lead me to believe that a great deal of it's about penis size.

-s*