Iraq

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess the war won't be expensive after he uses the weapons then.

You can't honestly believe that the probability of him having them is less than him not having them.

I am not in any way for a war based on the probability of Saddam having WMD. By all reckoning I doubt that he does. The gulf war should have been an indication how poorly resourced Iraq is. However, IF it is proven that he does have WMD, then by all means, finance your blasted war. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Somebody has to.

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

He COULD have WMD. He could have something to hide. He could be wary of having his security compromised after last times inspections with CIA on the payroll. It could be any number of reasons. Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
hmm maybe because the former Yugoslavian states (any war like states) that had conflict with the UN did not have 30% of the worlds oil resources and subsuquentially did not have any sanctions forced upon them..........and no other country in the world has ever had to trade "oil for food"....................gods we give any country aid, willingly, but with Iraq it has to be traded for oil if we can put food drops on a starving country then why can we not have food and medicine for Iraq?.........probably because most of the cancer suffer's in Iraq are suffering because of "depleted uranium" missiles which were used during the Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox...........and the western world cannot give aid to the suffering we caused............can we

Milosevic was removed from power. He didn't have to be sanctioned like Iraq. UN imposed these restriction on Iraq.

You mean give aid - - even as Hussein lives in his palaces? The US has been arguing for smart sanctions which would allow more aid to the Iraqi people. But several countries, such as Russia, block this because it would put close the loop holes that allow them to get other things into Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am not in any way for a war based on the probability of Saddam having WMD. By all reckoning I doubt that he does. The gulf war should have been an indication how poorly resourced Iraq is. However, IF it is proven that he does have WMD, then by all means, finance your blasted war. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Somebody has to.

Well chances are he does. He's not going to just dismantle his program after he successfully got the world to back off of him and give him free rein for 4 years.

He COULD have WMD. He could have something to hide. He could be wary of having his security compromised after last times inspections with CIA on the payroll. It could be any number of reasons. Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.

Are American arm forces invading Iraq right now? i don't think so. We are waiting for the weapons inspections.

Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%. Unless they pull out a nuclear weapon fully built - it's not 100% that he has nuclear weapons. Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You mean give aid - - even as Hussein lives in his palaces? The US has been arguing for smart sanctions which would allow more aid to the Iraqi people. But several countries, such as Russia, block this because it would put close the loop holes that allow them to get other things into Iraq.

No I don't mean give aid, once again you are misinterpreting what I say...............there is no "aid" for Iraq there is only "oil for food"............and you have repeatedly said that the impending war is not about oil ........as I have said priviously did anyone really expect Saddam to provide for his people with the money the UN allowed him to have...............he has spent the last 18 yrs brainwashing his people into beleiving the west was evil, do you really think he would feed, clothe and treat his people with money the west allowed him to have.......................emergency food supplies are daily distributed throughout the third world but would food drops be made in Iraq? No..........we judged that food could only be exchanged for oil ............ do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well chances are he does. He's not going to just dismantle his program after he successfully got the world to back off of him and give him free rein for 4 years.

Speculation.

JD:
Are American arm forces invading Iraq right now? i don't think so. We are waiting for the weapons inspections.

No. Congress has just set it up to give Bush consecutive powers to invoke war, and a couple of planes have been sent in to take out Iraqi radars.

JD:
Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%.

You're right. Nothing is 100%. But then, war has never been waged without pretext before.... always a first for everything, I guess. "He tried to kill my daddy."

It is about self-defence and reaction, NOT offensive and preemptive strikes.

And if we're worrying about threats, then what about Bush revoking the anti-ballistics treaty?

JD:
Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.

What utter bollocks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No I don't mean give aid, once again you are misinterpreting what I say...............there is no "aid" for Iraq there is only "oil for food"............and you have repeatedly said that the impending war is not about oil ........as I have said priviously did anyone really expect Saddam to provide for his people with the money the UN allowed him to have...............he has spent the last 18 yrs brainwashing his people into beleiving the west was evil, do you really think he would feed, clothe and treat his people with money the west allowed him to have.......................emergency food supplies are daily distributed throughout the third world but would food drops be made in Iraq? No..........we judged that food could only be exchanged for oil ............ do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq

And we're supposed to fly over Iraq how? when they even fire at US AND Bristish plains while patrolling the no-fly zone. Do you think he would just let food supplies in from the west?

Also - if as you say - the people have been brainwashed to think the west is evil - why would they even accept our food and medicine?

Were food drops ever suggested? The US did institute that in Afganistan during the bombing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[osszie]

Once again you ignore my question by trying to divert the subject

I'll repeat myself for posterity sake

Do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq? Got that? Good!!

As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops .............. but they don't ....because there is no oil in it for them

Food for oil.........phfah!!!!!........wot next food for soil in Ethiopia???????

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No. Congress has just set it up to give Bush consecutive powers to invoke war, and a couple of planes have been sent in to take out Iraqi radars.

We've been taking out radar for years.

You're right. Nothing is 100%. But then, war has never been waged without pretext before.... always a first for everything, I guess. "He tried to kill my daddy."

It is about self-defence and reaction, NOT offensive and preemptive strikes.

I didn't like the "he tried to kill my father, after all" statement either.

Come to think of it - Milosevic never really attacked any other countries - so technically I guess we shouldn't have gone into Bosnia. That was preemptive. True he was killing people - but they were his people.

And if we're worrying about threats, then what about Bush revoking the anti-ballistics treaty?

That was a treaty between Russia and the US. We didn't revoke it - we negotiated our way out of it.

What utter bollocks.

Oh yeah - just like the accusations from some muslims that the US blew up the nightclub in Bali. I guess you aren't aware that some people are accusing us of blowing up th nightclub in order to justify going into Indonesia. Not to mention that some people still feel that we blew up the Twin Towers.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops .............. but they don't ....because there is no oil in it for them

He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq? Got that? Good!!

Yes it is obviously partially for oil. A lot of wars have been fought for the free flow of resources. But the majoity of it I BELIEVE is because of the potential threat that Hussein and Iraq can cause in the future.

As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops .............. but they don't ....because there is no oil in it for them

Food for oil.........phfah!!!!!........wot next food for soil in Ethiopia???????

Well then I guess the UN should have done something about it. It is supposed to be a WORLD governing body - and the US is only one member. Any number of countries could have come up with that plan - including any in Europe. New Zealand could have even have suggested it. But as i said - if Iraqis are as brainwashed as you claim - would they have accepted it?

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship!

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then I guess the UN should have done something about it. It is supposed to be a WORLD governing body - and the US is only one member. Any number of countries could have come up with that plan - including any in Europe. New Zealand could have even have suggested it. But as i said - if Iraqis are as brainwashed as you claim - would they have accepted it?

If the food was dropped on their heads theyd bleedin eat it

By the gods man there have been food drops in many a country ruled by dictatorship ........................yes it is supposed to be a "world governing body.............why then did the USA ask for "special sancions"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
If the food was dropped on their heads theyd bleedin eat it

By the gods man there have been food drops in many a country ruled by dictatorship ........................yes it is supposed to be a "world governing body.............why then did the USA ask for "special sancions"

But they didn't have to grant them.

[Draken]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BeardofPants
He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship!


'Tis better to be a mere lapdog to a stripling of a girl than a...a...git!'

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That was a treaty between Russia and the US. We didn't revoke it - we negotiated our way out of it.

We? Were you there? Bush did revoke it and Russia was against ending the treaty.

Yes it is obviously partially for oil. A lot of wars have been fought for the free flow of resources. But the majoity of it I BELIEVE is because of the potential threat that Hussein and Iraq can cause in the future.

So that is a justification? It's acceptable because its been done before? Brilliant.

Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%. Unless they pull out a nuclear weapon fully built - it's not 100% that he has nuclear weapons. Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.

The world is grey? I always thought it way blue and tan and white. So who is going to make this claim that the US planted a Nuke? Are they going to sneak it in to Iraq in their pants? That is the silliest thing you've said yet.

Oh yeah - just like the accusations from some muslims that the US blew up the nightclub in Bali. I guess you aren't aware that some people are accusing us of blowing up th nightclub in order to justify going into Indonesia. Not to mention that some people still feel that we blew up the Twin Towers.

Who are these crazy people you keep talking about and what could possibly be your point here... that some people make wild accusations? And that means what?

Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it happened.


The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house. You keep repeating that bilge about Saddam being a threat to world peace. Under what scenario is world peace threatened? Do you not see the flaw in the logic of saying that we must wage a war to have peace? You compare SH to Hilter and say he is crazy. Crazier than Kim of N. Korea? And he actually does have nukes. We know that because of intelligence. The truth is that the administration tried out several different justification stories and picked the one that the polls showed the public responded to the most. Why didn't they START with the UN and then say it was hopeless and we needed to go it alone? Were you worried about WMDs a year ago or was it just pounded into your head by shear repetition?

When asked whether they support the war in the context of the cost in terms of human life, money and regional stability, most americans are against the war. It is normal when asked a generic question about support to want to be patriotic and say one supports it.

Would it not be simpler and more effective to let Hussein know as a matter of policy that any use of WNDs by terrorist would bring a retaliatory strike against Iraq? This was used during the gulf war and he didn't use them against US troops. Someone should step up and state what would be the required steps for getting disarmament AND the removal of sanctions so that at least we tried to have real peace and bring home our troops.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house.

Truest sentence on this thread.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, but a non-American can't say it for fear of retribution from a certain Jersey Devil....

[Sween]

Ok ill admit that at times i can be a bit of a wind up merchant (but you allways rise to it JD ) but also the way your country has handled itself (esspecially your president) to a lot of things shocks and apparls a lot of us on this board.

You havent answred this question which i think is key. What would sadam hussain gain from attacking america?

I accept that you are a proud US citizen that i can respect i am proud to be english. BUt i do not take the we are right and you are wrong attitude that you seem to accustomed to.

There are ways in which the most powerful countrys behave and by attacking the USA would be breaking the most important. Only act in self defence. This is the way the more powerful countries have to behave. You do not have the right just to declare way on a country because of suspecission and fear.

You have not once provided in your argueements one peice of soild evidence that sadam is a threat to you. I can understand why he doesnt want UN inspectors in Iraq. Its been over ten years now since the war ended. Isnt he entitled to a bit of peace? Has he done anything wrong to any country in that time?

As for paying the US back after the marshal plan that was done more out of stablising the world economy rather out of pure good will. If we hadnt had support we would of surely still be struggling to recover even to this day.

Ive given you a few points there but i want you to answer only one not the others because you seem to want to drag this topic into things away from this.

Answer this

What would sadam have to gain from attacking the US?

[osszie]

If you mean, "Are we all going to get killed?" Yes.
Clearly, Field Marshal Bush is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches
closer to Bagdad.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween

What would sadam have to gain from attacking the US?

I don't think Saddam would directly attack the US - unless he supplies weapons to terrorist groups. But even then it's not a direct attack.

So then I guess you're right - we should just let him go on about his business. If he's making weapons and working on nuclear weapons - we should just trust in his common good sense and nice character not to use them.