Should we go to War against Iraq?

[Taboo]

Should we go to War against Iraq?

[Blank Verse]

Of course not. War is plain stupid. There is no logical use for it at all. If anyone has a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

[Canuckkev]

I agree...somewhat. I think I would rather there not be a war, but I would also rather live in a world where rogue nations such as Iraq do not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Still, as stated on this forum before by someone (Dusty?), cornering a country that is suspected of having weapons of mass destruction isn't exactly the best line of action.

I really don't know or follow this issue enough to have a complete opinion...

[zoobie]

Where's the option of having a big fat Russian woman sit on Saddam until he cries? :(

[Unregistered]

let's kick sudam husane butt :D

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by zoobie
Where's the option of having a big fat Russian woman sit on Saddam until he cries? :(
This all works under the assumption that you know a big fat Russian woman.

[mbs]

the economy is already bad enough.... war would definitely make more people miserable :o

[patton]

Originally posted by mbs
the economy is already bad enough.... war would definitely make more people miserable :o

It depends on what country you are talking about. The US economy is resisilent and should be out of the slowdown when more supply sided tax cuts get through. The German economy is in the doldrums, and could slump. The US is doing fine registering +2.4 - +3% GDP growth. If this was a recession, it has been the most mild recession ever recorded in history.


Of course not. War is plain stupid. There is no logical use for it at all. If anyone has a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

I guess you would be saying the same about Hitler when his forces marched over Europe and brutalized the people there? Maybe the US should of done nothing and let Hitler rule. War is necessary sometimes. In the case of removing tinpot dictators it is required.

[Daniel]

Originally posted by patton



I guess you would be saying the same about Hitler when his forces marched over Europe and brutalized the people there? Maybe the US should of done nothing and let Hitler rule. War is necessary sometimes. In the case of removing tinpot dictators it is required.

Hitler wanted a war, no one else did. Same as how Bush wants one aswell.

[patton]

Originally posted by Daniel
Hitler wanted a war, no one else did. Same as how Bush wants one aswell.

Bush doesn't want a war. Again that is a media spoon-fed lie. Bush is leaving this to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has not followed through on his promises and has lied. If he was really cooperating he would actually be turning things over.

But it is out of our hands now, as there will be a war in Feburary with the backing of Britain, the US (of course). I also heard that Spain, Hungary, Poland, Romania, possibly Bulgaria, Italy, and to a limited role Turkey will sign on to help, whether militarily or logistically. The decision has already been made. Definitely Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and maybe Saudi Arabia (big if) will provide the US with ground bases I am guessing.

[n7of9]

australia SAS troops left sydney today headed for the Gulf....i hate this whole damn business!!

[patton]

Hate this whole damn business? As you can see my username is after the Great General George Patton. Sometimes it has to happen.

[Daniel]

Originally posted by patton
Hate this whole damn business? As you can see my username is after the Great General George Patton. Sometimes it has to happen.

And also GC's username on a different forum...

[edit for spelling]

[patton]

There is also Omar Bradley and a few others... and of course on the other side, Rommel.

[Jan]

Originally posted by Daniel
And also GC's username on a difference forum...
Also this one :rolleyes: Good try GC

[patton]

Originally posted by Jan
Also this one :rolleyes: Good try GC

Damn it... I almost got away with it too...

:(

I was just bored... my boyfriend was out... not here yet... so I decided to haunt you people again. :)

[DJsexie]

I think the whole point of going to war with Iraq is Bush wants the rich oil supply in that region...well, also he is scared at the fact that there is ANOTHER country in the world that has the weapon his country has.

He might be doing this for economical reasons also, the economy in US right now is just down bad...and if there is a war then most people would be employed into building weapon and artileries, and the spending power would increase and the economy itself would pick up (for example, during WWI, a lot of people are employed and the industries flourished...well, at least it helped to improve the Canadian economy)

just my two cents

[keith]

Originally posted by Blank Verse
Of course not. War is plain stupid. There is no logical use for it at all.that is probably the most ignorant, uneducated statement i've ever seen in my life.

saddam is hitler... and if we'd left hitler be, where would we be today?

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Jan
Also this one :rolleyes: Good try GC


Boo-yah....I mean, I knew something was fishy.. :rolleyes:

[Webdude]

Originally posted by DJsexie
I think the whole point of going to war with Iraq is Bush wants the rich oil supply in that region...well, also he is scared at the fact that there is ANOTHER country in the world that has the weapon his country has.

He might be doing this for economical reasons also, the economy in US right now is just down bad...and if there is a war then most people would be employed into building weapon and artileries, and the spending power would increase and the economy itself would pick up (for example, during WWI, a lot of people are employed and the industries flourished...well, at least it helped to improve the Canadian economy)

just my two cents

Someone I see isnt staying up to date.. The U.S. and Alaska has more oil under it than all of the Middle East combined. The problem was how deep it is, which increased the cost of getting it to be too much. New technology within the last couple of years has just emerged that will allow us to get to it at a much lower cost. The war isnt about oil. The last war was said to be about oil...if it was, we'd own Iraq right now.

Economical? Our exonomy is just fine. My income has actually increased.


and if there is a war then most people would be employed into building weapon and artileries

??? Are you stuck in 1955 or something? People have normal jobs. Most military equipment is made by a small workforce now because such makers as Lockeed have machines that do a big part of it. Now I'm just waiting for someone to say we need to donate our cars and x-boxes as scrap parts for the war effort :rolleyes:

We'll fight this war, and the most we will feel it is the interuption of our favorite tv shows for the media's special reports :devious2:

[CareBear]

Originally posted by Webdude
Someone I see isnt staying up to date.. The U.S. and Alaska has more oil under it than all of the Middle East combined.Depending on where you look for the numbers, the whole of the US contains maybe about 1/5th-1/7th the amount of oil left in just Iraq alone.
Iraq is the world's second largest oil reserve with Saudi Arabia on first place with about 2 times as much as Iraq.
So just those two countries of the Middle East have about 15-20 times the amount of oil in the US.

I'm glad your wage increased. Plenty of others weren't so lucky.

The U.S. economy registered a net loss of 181,000 jobs in 2002. While payroll gains were recorded in the spring and summer months, the year 2002 ended with a big thud. The economy lost 101,000 jobs in December, far below Wall Street's expectation of roughly a 25,000 job gain. Total employment has fallen by more than two million jobs since the latest recession began in early 2001.

[Archbob]

I'd give the call to the UN. Or just send Lara Croft over, we need to get rid of her anyways.

[Blank Verse]

Whatever you say Keith. When you die fighting for your country (and the oil they want to obtain), let me know.

[keith]

Originally posted by Blank Verse
Whatever you say Keith. When you die fighting for your country (and the oil they want to obtain), let me know. you really proved your point with that statement. :rolleyes:

typical liberal babbling. never makes any sense.

[Webdude]

Originally posted by CareBear
Depending on where you look for the numbers, the whole of the US contains maybe about 1/5th-1/7th the amount of oil left in just Iraq alone.
Iraq is the world's second largest oil reserve with Saudi Arabia on first place with about 2 times as much as Iraq.
So just those two countries of the Middle East have about 15-20 times the amount of oil in the US.

I'm glad your wage increased. Plenty of others weren't so lucky.

The stats differ. You have to remember that being that ours is so deep down, that there is no way to really tell just how much we have. "Estimates" are that it is the largest deposit in the world. We simply never had a cost effective way to get to it. It was cheaper to ship it in. You have to remember that we once had oil wells all over the U.S. and they all simply stopped...and not because we ran out of oil. Some areas were ordered to stop by the Government. So are we simply saving ours while using up the other guy's oil?

Not that I know a lot about oil anyway. I simply know some stats. One thing odd though, it would seem to me that when you pump out the oil that you leave a huge gaping oil underground. I'd be afraid the topsoil would cave in...

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by keith
you really proved your point with that statement. :rolleyes:

typical liberal babbling. never makes any sense.

Whoever said I was a liberal? I may be a little naive, sure, but I just think the theory that for you to be safe, thousands of people you never met have to die first is a ----ing con. Going back to the original point of this thread...Will there be war with Iraq? Of course, that's inevitable. Should there be war with Iraq? Well, I suppose if things were handled better by both sides, we wouldn't even be having this debate. And if I'm ignorant for not wanting to have a war, well, then yes, I'm ignorant, but then I wouldn't consider that to be a bad thing.

[tandoc]

i don't support the war, but i am in full support of some one kicking 'so damn insane' in the butt

[CareBear]

Originally posted by Webdude
"Estimates" are that it is the largest deposit in the world. We simply never had a cost effective way to get to it. It was cheaper to ship it in. Can I have a link to that? The largest one I found was the Alaska one with a reserve of "just" 16 billion barrels.
For all the others ones I came across the exploitation was quoted in millions, not billions.

[Webdude]

Sure, I'll give you a link right down to your local library and the documentations you can find in it. I'm sure the same stuff can be found on the web....as well as a bunch of bullcrap stats. Go to your library and read up. That's where I found the info a few years ago.

[conkermaniac]

Webdude, you may be right in saying that America has more oil than the Middle East, but what's the point in arguing about that? Nobody really gives a d*** if America has the most oil in the world because it would be too costly to exploit it. By the time technology really becomes that great, we would have other substitutes.

[CareBear]

Originally posted by Webdude
Sure, I'll give you a link right down to your local library and the documentations you can find in it. I'm sure the same stuff can be found on the web....as well as a bunch of bullcrap stats. Go to your library and read up. That's where I found the info a few years ago. verified oil reserves of the world (in billion barrels):
(American continent)
US: 30.4
Canada: 6.6
Mexico: 26.9
Venezuela: 77.7
Brazil: 8.5
(Middle East)
Total: 685.6
Saudi Arabia: 261.8
Iraq: 112.5
VAE: 97.8
Koeweit: 96.5
Iran: 89.7
etc...

Source: BP (End of 2001 stats)

Looks like my post from before was fairly close. 20 times the amount of oil in the Middle East then there is in the US. Doesn't look like I was the one making up "crap stats" :p

[Canuckkev]

97.8% of statistics are made up.

Anyways, back to the point...

I admit that I, like many in this thread, don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But, I do have a few bs opinions...

The US has become a target for terrorists, because of their involvement in international affairs. Now, probably the propoganda being fed to the people by such people as Saddam Hussein is what makes people become extremists anti-Americans. Either or, I see the states as having two options. Either completely remove yourself from international affairs...compltetely, or, go to war against these terrorists, and then impose democratic governments in the tyrant's place. Probably, right now, the terrorists don't have the capabilities to cause mass destruction...so fighting "terrorism" now, while still quite costly, would be "cheaper"(in lives and money), than in the fuure. It seems the United States cannot chose option 1 because of their need for oil, so, it appears to me that war is inevitable.

[Webdude]

I think that post pretty much summed it up..

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Canuckkev

The US has become a target for terrorists, because of their involvement in international affairs. Now, probably the propoganda being fed to the people by such people as Saddam Hussein is what makes people become extremists anti-Americans. Either or, I see the states as having two options. Either completely remove yourself from international affairs...compltetely, or, go to war against these terrorists, and then impose democratic governments in the tyrant's place. Probably, right now, the terrorists don't have the capabilities to cause mass destruction...so fighting "terrorism" now, while still quite costly, would be "cheaper"(in lives and money), than in the fuure. It seems the United States cannot chose option 1 because of their need for oil, so, it appears to me that war is inevitable.

This war is inevitable, but America clearly does not realize that they are making more and more enemies. Today, France and Germany are the only major European powers refusing to help the United States. As the US economy continues to crumble, soon, the UK, Spain, Poland, and maybe even China and Japan may refuse to offer assistance. This is a serious problem - Bush is only worsening international relations - not improving them.

There is no such thing as "fighting terrorism". It's impossible because "terrorism" is only a concept. By removing Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin-Laden, you have not eliminated terrorism. There are still many people who continue to terrorize the world - bellicose leaders like Ariel Sharon. Then there are terrorists in N. Ireland, all over South America, and in Africa. But even if America kills every single last terrorist in the world, terrorism will still be there.

[Canuckkev]

Yes, you cannot eliminate "terrorism", but by removing a leader who feeds his people anti-American propoganda, you remove the threat of increasing anti-American sentiments in this part of the world. You can fight terrorism, you just can't win a decisive victory.

As for France and Germany, I didn't hear they would refuse to help the United States. They only stated they would rather find a peaceful solution to the concept. That's the same feeling I had a few days ago, but now I am starting to see the need for this war.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Canuckkev
by removing a leader who feeds his people anti-American propoganda, you remove the threat of increasing anti-American sentiments in this part of the world.


Unfortunately, if America were to remove many of the anti-American leaders in the Middle East, then insanely brutal leaders like Ariel Sharon will have the power to continue wreaking havoc upon the region without resistance. :(

[Archbob]

Yes, just like America removed democratically elected leaders in south America and installed dictators in their place. I think Bush's first concern should be domestic and not foreign.

[awayfromforum]

Originally posted by Archbob
Yes, just like America removed democratically elected leaders in south America and installed dictators in their place. I think Bush's first concern should be domestic and not foreign.

yes, but bush only cares about the economy, many people been saying that this is a war for the oil companies and nothing else.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by X-Istence
yes, but bush only cares about the economy, many people been saying that this is a war for the oil companies and nothing else.

Hmm...I don't think he cares too much for the economy either. I mean, if he did, I wouldn't have received that tax return from the IRS. :p

[Weirds]

I HATE THE WEIRDEST WORLD!!!

[Gayowulf]

here are some highlights of an interesting thread i ran across in one of my favourite newsgroups. I have taken the main post and inserted commentary from both a poster who agree's with the original poster's assertions, and someone who disagrees.

also here is one of the many interesting files that was posted with a reply (http://24.69.69.207/thealgebraof.txt)



I know this is a bit off topic in some respects, but I think it is
on-topic in the respect that it affects everyone in this group.

I can't believe how George Bush is so incredibly arrogant and blind
that he would try to start a war lacking international support and
even support of its citizens. Is he so incredibly stupid to believe
that the media can brainwash the citizens into supporting a war that
is not only wrong, but useless? Does he believe that by throwing us
into a deep economic ressession by draining our economy with useless
tax-breaks, and getting his cronies to work with OPEC to increase the
price of oil that we will support such a stupid war? Nothing will come
of it. We will not capture Saddam. We will not change the government.
That is the job of the people of Iraq, and it would mean so much more
to them if they did it themselves. We can't fight both Iraq and N.
Korea without support of countries in the region.

<<commentary1>>
USA won't mess with N korea, they might actually stand up to the task.
Asia is one place the USA best tread lightly.<</commentary1>>

<<commentary2>>Pardon? The assertions and logic stated as "fact" here are
demonstrably false. OPEC is made up primarily of Arab (and muslim) oil
producing nations who oppose the US activity against Iraq for a whole
variety of reasons (Kuwait is the only one that supports it and that
is only because of their hatred of Saddam Hussein for attacking them
prior to the Gulf War). OPEC are not increasing oil prices to suit
American intentions against Iraq. Quite the contrary. Were Iraqi oil
available and the embargo ended the price of oil would drop
precipitously. OPEC doesn;t want that and is quite happy for the
status quo to remain because that keeps prices up. But they do not
want to keep the price of oil so high that they kill off economic
recovery/activity in customer countries which would, in turn, kill off
demand for oil. Not much point having a high price if no-one is
buying. So they have taken very active steps to increase producition
to dampen oil prices for that very reason because a high oil price is
not only bad for business ultimately it is seen as an impetus for the
US to take action against iraq (and create an oil price war). Those
efforts to reduce oil prices by OPEC have been largely undone by the
totally unconnected political problems in Venesuela which is now
entering a third month of strikes that have shut down the local oil
industry (and Venezuela is one of the biggest suppliers of oil to the
US market)<</commentary2>>


<<commentary1>>Back in the day, an ambitious dictator could invade his hapless
neighbor-country without international reprisals. Desert Storm wasn't
about liberated Kuwait, it wsa about the oil of course.<</commentary1>>

<<commentary2>>Huh? What about Afghanistan? The US had zip support from the region
on that one. Indeed Pakistan was positively virulent in its
opposition to a change of gobernment in Afghanistan. At best the US
had neutral acquiesence from neighbouring countires like Iran. Hell,
Iran is against action in Iraq (and they suffered heavily during the
Iran/Iraq war). There are numerous recent examples of such
intervention leading to regime change. East Timor, Bosnia/Serbia,
Afghanistan. The Bush adminsitration thinks, with some justification
based on recent experience, that a similar result can be achieved in
Iraq. The evidence supports that conclusion not your assertion stated
as fact <</commentary2>>

This war is absolutely stupid and is about one thing: Control of
Iraq's oil. I assure you that to someone like G. Bush, the freedom of
people of Iraq is only an afterthought.

<<commentary2>>War is stupid? Now there's a brilliant piece of rhetoric. Greed and
oil is what OPEC is all about (and the developed world is held to
ransom by OPEC every day) so what's the difference when the US wants
to take the initiative away from them? Does the fact that the US has
a broader agenda in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) make the
removal of a murderous, despot any less worthy. On your logic only
murderous dictators in tin pot countries that have no strategic
significance can be countenanced because they are the only ones where
we can be sure the US has no alternate agenda. With respect, that is
nonsense.<</commentary2>>


It strikes me as kind of funny that we don't even need oil. We can use
cleaner technologies such as fuel cells, electricity, etc. We can
generate energy using the almost endless supply coming from the sun!
Wind, solar panels, etc can produce enough power if we only deployed
them on a larger scale. Fuel cells and flywheels together are a proven
technology and would result in more powerful cars than we have now.
The research is even all there. Its greed that holds back its
implementation.

<<commentary>>Agreed it's greed. And remember, all the cleaner technologies will still
be there after fossil fuels are depleted, so no rush...</commentary>>

<<commentary2>>I agree with you on this score. But again, enormous swathes of the
economies of developed countries have oil production and use at their
hearts. You can't simply eliminate that overnight. If there were a
viable alternative don't you think some entrepeneur would have latched
onto that? Whoever did would be guaranteed of success and
unimaginable wealth. The reailty is that while all the alternate
forms of power you mention are theoretically better none of them are
as economic or easy to produce and use as oil. One day we may have
batteries that can store as much power (cheaply) as it costsw to fill
a tank of gas. But that is a long way off. We can't operate on
wishful thinking here (and dismantle oil econmies in the hopes that
something else will come along). It is a little like the greens who
advocate going back to old forms of farming. It can;t be done and
maintain modern crop yields. You would have smaller, much more
expensive crops that would make living a whole lot harder for ordinary
people. It's the same with oil. You could force people to opreate
solar powered cars or whatever, but it would result in shrinking the
economy in the medium term which would make orindary people a lot
poorer. We would regress very rapidly. It would be the reverse of
what is currently happening in countries like China. Not a pleasant or
acceptable prospect despite the misguided passion of conservationists
<</commentary2>>

The people of the world and of the United States need to unite against
this ridiculous war and tyrannical administration of George Bush. He
doesn't have our interest at heart and will send MILLIONS of OUR
CHILDREN to DIE in the name of GREED!

<<commentary>>Millions of gods children maybe, USA has no stomach for casualties.
Thats why a North Korea could sit us down and quick. No more playing
world benefactor/saviour. -Fagen<</commentary>> (all commentary by Fagen)

<<commentary2>>
A tad hysterical. I still can;t see how perceptions of greed or
hidden agendas on the part of the US means that a person as
undeniably
evil as Saddam Hussein should simply be allowed to keep on truckin.
It isn't a matter of Iraqi people being left to take matters into
their own hands. They can't. Saddam has such a total policed
state
going that the sligtest hint of dissent is dealt with siftly and
lethally. The only way regime change is going to happen is with
outside assistance. OK, so the US is hypocritical. So the US
could
be doing the same thing to innumerable African nations that do not
have the geo-political significance of Iraq, OK so the US (and the
world) will benefit from cheaper oil if Saddam is gone but that
doesn;t mean doing nothing in Iraq is justifiable. I for one think
they should press on.
<</commentary2>>
Commentary1 by Fagen
Commentary2 by mousefart


here are a couple other noteworth replies:



The problem is way older of course starting with the colonization of
Africa, Asia and South America by the Western civilizations expoliting
their resources and people by enslaving them.
Today's colonization means forcing upon them our ethics and structures
without giving them a chance to develop themselves.
Apart from the fact that the banks still hold the Third World states
on a leash with theirnfinancing.
And instead of dialogue and an effort to think about what could help
them we are using monetary and military force to "solve" the problem.
And in that ALL Western nations are guilty.



I have two comments:
First is, yes this off-topic for this group.
Second, you are both brainwashed by the liberal press.

The truth is that, in some form of depraved denial, you are waiting
for
either an islamic mushroom cloud or a poison cloud. Then you will
whine and
moan: "why didn't someone do something to prevent this?"
American Hero's, volunteers, not drafted misfits, will handle the
situation
for you.

Enough said.

= )manowar

watching a war via cnn is so thrilling with the tv-dinner....
isnt it?

It's like the poetry on a Tshirt I saw 30 years ago-
"Fighting for peace is like f*#king for virginity."