War and Majority

And I guess we do the same to Palistine as well, since Isreal would be peaceful without Palastine, and without Isreal Palistine would still be fighting amongst themselves over the same plot of land, just without having a common enemy. Kind of like how they were before there was an Isreal.. Groups of nomadic peoples killing each other over the "holy land" all in the name of religion...

I will just throw this out there.There are some similarities between the situation with Saddam and the situation with Hitler.Hitler defied the Leauge of Nations and massed a war machine, all of Europe knew this. They did nothing to stop him, nothing to prevent him from invading Poland, nothing to stop him from invading France.Saddam is building a large arsenal. He supports terrorists, he has a history of aggressive actions(Kuwait, Iran).Now those that say we need more proof, if given the choice of acting early in the 30's would you have? Or was waiting the better choice?

He is quite capable of wreaking the same if not more havic on the world than Hitler. If able to develop a nuclear weapon, or fully develop chemical/biological weapons do you think he will be content to just have them? More likely he will be quite willing to arm a terrorist group that could quite easily detonate a WPM within the US, or some EU countries border.Waiting him out is not an option. While we contain him his people suffer, he continues to support his weapons programs, most probably arm and train terrorists. And god knows how long the guy will live, we've been "waiting out" Castro for a good 40 years.

quote:

---

redvento, you are completely blowing things out of proportion. Just because he may have a nuke, maybe a bunch of them,(and by the way there is still no evidence for this) that makes Iraq comparable to Germany?
Please explain, through the use of the weapons you just described and the methods of delivery he has available to him, how he would take over any other country? How will he enslave the rest of the middle east, much less Europe or the US?

​

I am not saying he could not hurt a lot of people (if our containment is slipshod), but that is the ONLY threat he poses. And that threat is a far cry from owning and operating a war machine that is set on, and can conceivably carry out, an invasion of surrounding countries and so grow the power of Iraq.

​

Honestly, I'm not even against this war because I think we'd take serious losses in a war with this guy. Iraq is WEAK. Don't cheapen the memory and lessons of WW2 by claiming any tinpot dictator with a nuke is equivalent to what we faced with Hitler's Germany.

​

The threat you are talking about, or even that I am talking about, is equally posed by several OTHER countries which are in a much better position (and demeanor) to use them... so why are we focusing on using the military on Iraq and not on them? Why would YOU argue to take down an isolated figure instead of the one's running open weapons operations?

​

I'm still interested in your explanation of how a war will keep those stockpiles (which we still don't know where they are, or if they exist) from moving into the hands of other enemies. Or more importantly, how will a war prevent the spread of the technology they have? That would mandate killing or imprisoning all of their scientists!

​

By the way, Castro was not as old as Saddam is now when we started "containing" Cuba. Thus it is unlikely we'd have to wait 40 years for him to die (what'd he be 100-110?).

​

And I thank you for bringing up Cuba. That 40 years of containment sure has been brutal hasn't it? All those dead soldiers and civilians and increased animosities in the region? Oh wait, nothing has happened! It's been 40 years (or at least 20) of no conflict.

​

One day Castro will die. And if we can outlast his regime without having to kill anyone, that'd be good wouldn't it?

​

holmes

---

We knew what Hitler was doing and did nothing, he invaded Poland we did nothing, he invaded France the world took notice. We know what Saddam is cabable of, he tested biological weapons on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds. We know he has Al Qaida traning centers in Iraq. Why are the comparisons so different? Because Saddam can't "rule" the world? So what he can terrorize it. We aren't doing anything to N. Korea because they already have nukes, we can stop Saddam now. We already know his children are as psychotic as he is, when he dies his children take over, yipee.So unless a dictator is cabable of taking over the world we should just wait them out? I hope for your sake Saddam doesn't send a special care package to your neck of the woods while we wait. Why bother taking pre-emptive measures for anything, yes its much better to always be reactive. Once Saddam is taken care of we can turn our attentions to N. Korea which require a much more delicate touch, one that I am not sure Bush can handle, but I know for a fact Clinton, nor Carter could either.Castro was never a real threat once the silo's were removed from Cuba, the most he can do is send boatloads of x-prisoners over here to clear his prisons.

I think you would agree that if Saddam and his cohorts were out of the way, his scientists would be more willing to fully disclose the locations of their WMD, and the facilities that are used to create them. With that information destruction of said items would be much easier to accomplish.I seriosly doubt that N. Korea waited until 2001 to re-activate their nuclear program as you claim. I would be highly suspect of any claims that stated N. Korea fully intended to adhere to the 94 agreement brokered by Carter but only after Bush included them in the "axis of evil" did they restart, and then within a year have at least one nuke.Now while I appreciate the determination of Chicago do you really think that a small group of Saddam sponsered terrorists armed with a dirty bomb, or some biological agent, or chemical agent, couldnt get into the city and detonate it? I live in NYC and up until 9/11 felt more threat from the homeless than terrorists but that day showed us all that none of us are safe from terrorism. And while we are hunting down the terrorists themselves wouldn't it be wise to take care of those that support them as well?And if Saddam is so insignificant why does Opec want him out? He brings further turmoil to the region. I assume you feel we had no business in the Balkans, or Nigeria as well? Since they were committing atrocities against their own people as well and were in no position to take over the world.

She wasn't exactly an innocent American...And lets look at the facts..She ran in front of an armor plated bulldozer made to withstand running over bombs, with not what one would call unlimited visibility. She was yelling stop to someone who most likely could not hear her(bulldozers are rather loud).I chaulk this up to darwinism at work, one less moron to spoil the gene pool.

If you think its the oil you are not as bright as you think you are..Iraq produces a miniscule amount of oil compared to the rest of OPEC.Saddam is using banned weapons that he claimed not to have, he was/is pursuing WMD, he WILL give them to terrorists to use against US civilians. He has used them against his own people, he is an aggressor(he invaded Kuwait for THEIR OIL) he invaded Iran and over 1 million died.It must be nice to ignore the threats of Saddam, his WMD and his complete willingness to give them to terrorists when you live in an area that has absolutely no threat of terrorist attacks. Ahh to be able to live in complete ignorance and only see the facts you want to see..

I guess Iraqi scientists who have defected and said they are working on them, or have them is not good enough. I guess the Anthrax they acknowledged to have had is not good enough, I guess them using BANNED scuds and other missles isn't proof enough. I guess the proof you are looking for is an iraqi supplied chemical weapon going off in another US city. But I am sure where ever you are is quite safe so keep the head in the sand.North Korea WOULDN'T have had WMD if Clinton and Carter had been able to do anything except talk and hope. But now that do have nukes dealing with them is a bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq who can be stopped before they can cause any more harm.Living in NY I know who is responsible for 9/11. Osama and a weak administration that did nothing when terrorists attacked us before. As to the rest of the nation? I am already quite certain that a good number of Americans are almost legally brain dead, that kind of stupidity does not surprise me. That said, Osama AND Hussain would like to see the deaths of a great many Americans.
I could care less about the rest of you post which is why I didn't address it. You are saying the war is about oil, how about addressing my claim that Iraqi oil production is miniscule and that the oil we would get control off is not worth the effort?

Why exactly should I be compassionate? Where was she when the towers fell on 9/11? Where is her compassion for the families of the thousands of people who lost someone that day? Where is her compassion for the people who made it possible for her to BE a free muslim in the US, to be able to burn US flags. I have compassion for those who needlessly died on 9/11. I'm sorry, but if she wanted to throw herself infront of a bulldozer that is her problem, and acts of stupidity deserve no compassion.

Back when we gave him FOOD and Money(no weapons otherwise he'd be using them not RUSSIAN AND CHINESE weapons) he was the lesser of two evils, unless you are suggestion we should have supported Iran?http://www.rppi.org/isitabouttheoil.html nytimes.com...
{Shortened URL display, to restore page width to normal - AM}There are some opposing views that you can dismiss.I'm done with this thread and war talk in general. Nothing personal, but neither of us is going to change our views and going in circles becomes way to much like exercise.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2003]

Iraq is sitting on approx 112 Billion gallons of oil, its current output is not worth going after. (3.5 Billion Barrels a Day pre 1991 levels or 1.3% of the WORLD OUTPUT)Consider this, or if you had read my links you would have seen this.The war is going to cost approx 75 Billion, rebuilding the country as well as the oil infrastructure will cost approx 20-100 billion. The oil contracts are not worth nearly that, approx 40 Billion. So you do the math... How is 3.5 billion barrels of oil a day, OR 40 billion in contracts worth at the best 95 billion, the worst 175 billion. It makes no sense.Saddam now is claiming to use chemical weapons you say he doesn't have, if we cross some imaginary line going into bagdad. His troops are outfitted with the latest in chemical weapon protection. Yet I am the one with my head in the sand, I am the one being cynical. Perhaps in YOUR short sighted liberal brain YOU are UNABLE to even contemplate the fact that we are actually there to take care of someone who needs to be removed from power.And the last time I checked Bush wasn't in office during the late 70's or 80's to do anything about Saddam massacring Kurds, however by your logic if we didnt do anything then we have no right to do anything now. Way to look out for everyone, and show your immense "compassion."It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math, or sort through the evidence(both sides) and come to a conclusion. You however seem to be stuck so far to the left that you refuse to see any contrary evidence, your short sightedness is not my problem. I, along with the majority of the nation, understand why we are there.And btw I am a moderate republican who understands what needs to be done to make the world a little bit safer for those like you.

quote:

---

So let's do some maths.

---

Yes.. lets do some math.. never heard of a plural to math...
edit.. well according to merriam webster there maths is a word, although its usage is mostly british. Then again the also call an eraser a rubber.One typo resulting from quickly responding(that the person I was responding to missed as well) + someone just getting into the conversion = complete waste of my time.Billions should have been Millions, in my haste to simply restate what was properly stated in the links that I am fairly sure no one has bothered reading I had billions on the brain. Sue me. The fact remains that PRE gulf war Iraqi oil output was 1.3% of the global output. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-28-2003]

So now is oil the main reason or not? That seemed to be your stance. And I never mentioned CURRENT output, I was talking about PRE Gulf War output. Thanks for putting words into my mouth.Lets see we could have supported a fundamentalist ruling power in Iran that had taken US hostages, or.. supported someone who appeared to be pro-US. Or maybe we should have closed our eyes and pretended the mid-east didn't exist. What would YOU have done differently?Weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands of people are weapons of mass destruction? And if he uses them what then? Do you honestly think he would only use them to thwart an attack? That he wouldn't give them to terrorists to use against the US?How much less safe can it be for Americans? They were attacking us BEFORE the war they will be attacking us after the war. Does that mean we should do nothing but wait for it to happen?

Ok first let me touch on this point :

quote:

---

I would have put all of our best scientists and engineers on the long-term job of increasing all fuel-efficiency, and also on the task of finding alternate sources of fuel, so we didn't have to be so dependent upon middle-east oil. I would have made tough mandatory fuel efficency requirements for the auto industry, despite their protests and attempts at lobbying.

​

The very best thing to do is make it so we don't need their oil, or at least not as much of it.

---

I agree 110% with you on this point, and am hoping the California initiative towards fuel cell powered vehicles helps the cause along. However we do use oil, and if we want to blame someone then lets be totally honest and place blame where it really belongs.. The millions of people who use gas guzzling SUVs who enable oil companies to price gouge and make this kind of war needed at all (if it is about oil). When soccer moms, and yuppies stop needing huge gas guzzling vehicles, or simply a huge truck to feel "better" then perhaps we can move out of the mid-east all together (which I agree would probably be the best thing we can do.. they were killing each other before we/isreal got there, let them kill each other after we leave)Do I think Bush has the right to mislead the public? Yes, its his job to bolster his support for his actions. If Clinton can make a big deal about the word "it" and convince the nation that oral doesn't count then Bush can make tenious connections between Saddam and Bin Laden.
edit: Perhaps being in NYC (Wall Street actually) on 9/11, my wife worked in the WTC, my step-brother did as well and died, makes me more willing to see the connection and why the war is justified. If that is the case and is irrational forgive me and my seeing things into non-existant threats. /end edit.You do know that there are Al Qeida forces fighting in Iraq now correct? While Al Qeida and Saddam might hate each other, they hate us more.. and as the saying goes.. "you're enemies enemy is your friend"North Korea has been building arms for long before Bush said anything.Why don't we do things about other dictators? Because our national interests don't lie there at the moment, we have other things to attend to, it wouldn't accomplish enough? Replacing Hussain with a more pro-US government WOULD accomplish something so he is a priority I would guess.While no chem weapons have been found to date(that I am aware of) there have been thousands of chem suits found which would definetly suggest the presance of chem weapons(2002 gear, not old stuff).How long would you have given Hussain to disarm? 12 years hasn't seemed to make a difference. He had thousands of gallons of stuff that he would not account for, he conviently finds stuff he fails to mention then gets rid of it to appease the world. To me that sounds like he was playing the UN and doing it well.Perhaps war wasn't the way to go, I don't know of a better way. I seriously doubt he would ever had complied with the UN, and would have envetually done what he did before(kick out US inspectors, then all) and what would that have shown the world? Would he have armed a terrorist? I believe so, would he have continued to smuggle oil to fund his own programs while starving his own people? I believe so.BTW, I have a friend who's father is a military contracter.. I am trying to convince him to send me footage he has gotten from his father of Iraqi Soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians, if I can and I get permission to show it I will post the link here first.One thing that mystifies me is how the anti-war people(not you shraf neccissary, but those I have spoken too in person at rallies here in NYC) never have an opinion about saddam terrorizing his own people(rape rooms, torture areas, treatment of kurds and Suni Muslims in southern Iraq) I am not sure how they can be so against us possible killing iraqi civilians yet have no problem with saddam doing it on a regular basis. If anyone can shed some light on this I would very appreciative.Shraf one last thing, in your opinion, knowing what was done in the past and that it can't be changed, how do you think we should have handled Saddam if he continued to string the UN along. Meaning, say we did give him more time, and in that time he failed to prove he had disarmed, what should the UN have done? Knowing full well that France/Germany would never autherize the use of force due to their oil contracts with saddam.And regardless of if you are pro-war or anti-war please support the troops(screw Bush he isn't putting anything on the line other than his political future) they are the ones fighting, they are the ones who have made it possible for us to even have this discussion in the first place.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-31-2003]

If dont have time to go over my work then yes it is sloppy.. I think to fast and type to slow to get it all out properly at times. And that day I was actually working while typing.You Brits are so cool btw.. Regardless of how anyone feels about Blair, he is prolly the best speaker in a long time.. As most British are, it must be something about the extra few hundred years of practice with the language before we American's butchered it and let people like Eminem become superstars.... =/Edit: This is totally off-topic but I figured I'd ask... I am thinking about going to Scotland to research my family roots and all that and was wondering what is the best time of the year to visit your side of the pond?[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-31-2003]