Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid!

[billvon 3,118]

>Because others will sell nukes . . .

Only one country's used nukes against civilians, ever.

>and anthrax . . . .

Only terrorist attack with anthrax used anthrax from a US lab. (Remember the anthrax scare?)

>and anti aircraft missiles that will knock down buildings and kill your
> children...

Most stingers, the terrorist missiles of choice, come from the US. We gave the Mujahideen (i.e. Al Quaeda) 900 of the things. If your children are killed by such a missile, it's likely to have "Made in the USA" on it.

"Imposing our will on others" to enforce sanctions is one thing. "Imposing our will on others" because they sell anti aircraft missiles, have bioweapons, or might someday have nukes, is incredibly hypocritical, and may someday backfire. How would you like to be told by the UN that we have to give up all our biological research into anthrax (including vaccines) because they have proof it's been used as a terrorist weapons (which it has been?)

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. A man much wiser than us once said that, and it's worth keeping in mind.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Why impose our will on others...

Because others will sell nukes and anthrax and anti aircraft missiles that will knock down buildings and kill your children...

Rhino

Has it occurred to you to stop and wonder why they might want to do this to you, rather than to, say, Poland or New Zealand or ...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Has it occurred to you to stop and wonder why they might want to do this to you, rather than to, say, Poland or New Zealand or ...

Nope... Fill me in...

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Only one country's used nukes against civilians, ever

to date.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Has it occurred to you to stop and wonder why they might want to do this to you, rather than to, say, Poland or New Zealand or ...

Nope... Fill me in...

If I fill you in, you won't have to think about it for yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

If they could have gotten a nuke New York City would be gone right now..

We used it in a war in a different day and age..

And I am not a mamber of the Al Queda so I don't give a damn why they are on a holy war.. They are terrorists and it's them or us...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How would you like to be told by the UN that we have to give up all our biological research into anthrax (including vaccines) because they have proof it's been used as a terrorist weapons (which it has been?)

Yeah, that would be like the UN telling us that our military should be subject to war crimes tribunals like we expect everyone else's to be. Oh wait, no problem, we could just refuse to abide by that rule. After all, who's going to impose sanctions on us, right?

[Muenkel 0]

Rob,

I assume your response was directed to Bill. If not, go back and read mine. You may have taken it the wrong way.

[rhino 0]

I was responding to Bill..

[billvon 3,118]

>If they could have gotten a nuke New York City would be gone right now..

Nonsense. They could have sent agents here years ago with a dirty bomb built with their nuclear-reactor fuel; they didn't. They could have hijacked a 747 and flown it into the WTC; they didn't. They could have put VX in the NYC subway system back when they were making the stuff; they didn't.

In any case, if you were Hussein and you had one nuke, what would you do? Use it as a bargaining chip to get money and power, or blow it up in NY knowing that your country (and your dictatorial butt) would soon be turned to glass? Which would be more attractive to a dictator?

Note that other countries that we have lumped into the axis of evil have nukes, and NYC is still standing. The USSR had nukes, and they regularly claimed they were going to destroy us - and NYC is still standing. From the perspective of history, boxcutters are a much. much greater threat to NYC than any nuclear power, anywhere - and you can still get on a plane with them.

[rhino 0]

You make a valid point but I am not sure Saddham thinks that far ahead..

[jraf 0]

Iraq or Iran, Israel or Syria, Paraguay or Venezuela, Poland or Germany I would like to blow up the world. Oil or not I want to ride with the Valkyries bringing death and distruction to all. Humanity deserves nothing better. Let's handgrenade the fuckers, to hell with all the people let them die in mysery while i burn their villages, slaughter their cattle and cut the trees in their orchards

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[Deleted 0]

Honestly, I think the American public is pretty puzzled by the whole state of affairs. No one I know wants to invade anybody anywhere for anything. Historically Americans are a stay at home kind of people. Not particularly interested in imperialist designs on any region. There just is'nt much money to be made in occupation. Just ask the British and the French. They created the region in the first place. Used to be a few cities and lots of Bedou.
I haved lived in Arabia. It is a strange, confusing, mystical place. Mostly happy, hospitable people. They just don't understand us any better than we understand them.
I think a nice warm day and a pocket full of jump tickets makes the world a better place.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Only one country's used nukes against civilians, ever.

Thus ending a world war, and saving literally millions of American lives, which was the goal.

Quote

Only terrorist attack with anthrax used anthrax from a US lab. (Remember the anthrax scare?)

I'm not convinced that wasn't a domestically sourced problem (i.e. a local trying to cause extra panic).

>and anti aircraft missiles that will knock down buildings and kill your
> children...

Quote

Most stingers, the terrorist missiles of choice, come from the US. We gave the Mujahideen (i.e. Al Quaeda) 900 of the things. If your children are killed by such a missile, it's likely to have "Made in the USA" on it.

C'mon Bill, even a hard-core military hawk will say the Stingers were marginal in their effectiveness against the Soviets. And their perceived threat during our campaign in Afghanistan was nonexistant. Also, the anti-aircraft missle systems that were found in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere were old Soviet designs, not Stingers.

The Mujahadeen does not equal Al Qaeda. You are doing a great disservice linking the two, when one has little to do with the other in terms of vision, or mission. Many of the PEOPLE were in one versus the other, but that does not account the existence of both exclusively. Bear in mind, Al Qaeda developed mostly after the Gulf War, because of the US involvment and "residence" in Saudi Arabia (which pissed UBL off to no end).

Quote

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. A man much wiser than us once said that, and it's worth keeping in mind.

While I agree with you in principle, that is also the very reason why we are a secular society, separating church and state.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>Thus ending a world war, and saving literally millions of American
> lives, which was the goal.

I'm not arguing that point. But we still better be careful about saying that anyone who would use WMD's against civilians is a monster.

>I'm not convinced that wasn't a domestically sourced problem (i.e. a
> local trying to cause extra panic).

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was. Still, in Rhino's example, his kids are more at risk from a US lab's anthrax than an Iraqi strain of anthrax.

>C'mon Bill, even a hard-core military hawk will say the Stingers
>were marginal in their effectiveness against the Soviets.

I agree; unfortunately, they are still somewhat effective against commercial airliners, should Al Quaeda decide to use them in that way.

>The Mujahadeen does not equal Al Qaeda.

The Mujahidden was the CIA-funded terrorist resistance to the USSR. As we funded them (via the ISI) they got larger and splintered into many groups, one of which had Bin Laden as one of its leaders. After the USSR left Afghanistan, Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia with his organization, and it became known as Al Quaeda. Much of the funding and weapons that allowed them to fulfill their early missions came from the US; indeed, we encouraged them to do so since they were against the USSR.

Some links to research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1717297.stm

>Many of the PEOPLE were in one versus the other, but that does
>not account the existence of both exclusively.

Hmm. Think if Iraq changed its name to Kumar, and Hussein's son became Vice Dictator and CEO of Kumar, we'd say "Hey, it's a new country! Problem solved. Let's send those battle groups to North Korea." Somehow I doubt it. It is Hussein and his government that Bush wants to topple, and similarly it is Bin Laden and the leaders of his organization that we want to get our hands on. The name of his current organization is a detail.

No matter what you want to call them, we funded radical islamic terrorists to go on a jihad against a massive force (the USSR.) Bin Laden was in that group, and he used our money and our weapons to set up Al Quaeda and, later, go after us.

[Zinger 0]

Quote

>Greater good for the entire world enough reason?

Pray that we don't use that reason, because the US is currently the most dangerous country on earth.

Quote

I don't pray and who is most afraid of this dangerous country? I'm not sleeping underground tonight.

***>The dictator kills his own people in many different ways. Including
> mass death with weapons of mass destruction when he killed
> thousands with gas.

We supported him militarily while he did that. It's a little late to claim that now it's not OK.

Who gave the order to gas the kurds? And when did the U.S say it was O.K?

Quote

>Some people make it sound like the U.S. is going to conquer Iraq
> and all the oil and keep it for ourselves.

We appointed a former Unocal consultant to be leader of Afghanistan. Think we're not going to do the same in Iraq? And think he's really not going to be partial to US oil companies?

Quote

Being that the U.S did most the work and spent the most money that sounds fair to me.

Quote

We don't want to own Iraq, we just want them to sell us really, really cheap oil in huge quantities forever. Again, that would be really nice, but not worth even one death, much less 50,000.

I think this 500,000. number is extreme unless Saddam kills his own people with WMD. And even then no one can say we did not warn the people, If I lived there I would of packed up and walked my goat eating kids outta there a long time ago.

>When in reality, the U.S. and the rest of the U.N. will help a new Iraq
> government sell the oil at a fair market price to the rest of the world
> and use that money on building a better country for the Iraqi
> people.

Oh please. Tell that to the Indians that Union Carbide "helped" with their chemical plant, or to the people of Nigeria who are dirt poor and who work on the oil rigs there. Someone is making tons of money; it sure ain't the locals, and never will be.

Quote

Atleast someone is working and making money and there not doing it for free.

>People also say "Give the U.N. inspectors more time". Who's not
> giving them more time? Don't you think it would be wise to let The
> Inspectors do their thing and have the military build up? If it was
> not for the military build up Saddam would not of let the inspectors
> back in. Progress is being made.

If he indeed does hold off until inspections are completed, and abides by their findings, I will be the first to congratulate him on a job well done.

I look forward to that day.

Quote

However, in the past week, Powell has said that if the inspectors don't find anything, that's sufficient cause for war.

Quote

I agree, as soon as he fired at the first plane in the no-fly zone was sufficient cause to resume the war.

Bush himself said that if they don't turn anything over, they're in violation. A few days later, an administration spokesman said that handing over empty warheads voluntarily should not be mistaken as cooperation. Apparently, any move by Iraq, no matter what it is, is yet another argument for an invasion.

Inspectors find some warheads that Saddam is not suppose to have, There excuse is "We misplaced and lost them, We do that all the time, Here look we just found more here" You REALLY think thats a good excuse for having them Bill?

***I hope all this is just saber rattling, because it sure sounds like the groundwork is being laid for an invasion no matter what the outcome of inspections. I hope that's not the case.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I hope we don't go to war but I believe if war is what it takes to get this madman dead then so be it. The world will be a better place with out him.

Easy to say from the safety of your home, or job. If we go to war, are [edit]you[/edit] going to enlist?

[Gawain 0]

**Trying to pare down response text to make it easier to read***

Quote

I'm not arguing that point. But we still better be careful about saying that anyone who would use WMD's against civilians is a monster.

I think there is a distinction. That's like saying we're as bad of a monster for Hiroshima as the Chinese are for Tienamin Square.

Quote

>I'm not convinced that wasn't a domestically sourced problem (i.e. a local trying to cause extra panic).

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was. Still, in Rhino's example, his kids are more at risk from a US lab's anthrax than an Iraqi strain of anthrax.

I think we agree, to reiterate (to ensure that we're on the same page), I don't think the Anthrax scare was a foreign based effort. I think it was the result of a domestic effort.

Quote

>The Mujahadeen does not equal Al Qaeda.

The Mujahidden was the CIA-funded terrorist resistance to the USSR. As we funded them (via the ISI)...
...Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia with his organization, and it became known as Al Quaeda.

Some links to research:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1717297.stm

Great links, and not ironically they vindicate my argument almost perfectly:

From the BBC:

Quote

The Afghan jihad against the Soviet army was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the "Arab Afghans", as Bin Laden's faction came to be called, looked forward to a warm welcome at home.

But Bin Laden quickly became disillusioned by the lack of recognition for his achievements.

This turned to anger when his offer to provide an army of mujahedin to defend the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, was turned down.

Instead, half a million US soldiers were invited onto Saudi soil - a historic betrayal in Bin Laden's eyes.

Never a wholehearted supporter of the Saudi regime, Bin Laden now became an out-and-out opponent and began to direct his efforts against the US and its allies in the Middle East.

In 1991 Bin Laden was expelled because of his anti-government activities.

From the Global Research site (which does not mention Al Qaeda in any way BTW):

Quote

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help".

Quote

>Many of the PEOPLE were in one versus the other, but that does
>not account the existence of both exclusively.

Hmm. Think if Iraq changed its name to Kumar, and Hussein's son became Vice Dictator and CEO of Kumar, we'd say ...... .... It is Hussein and his government that Bush wants to topple, and similarly it is Bin Laden and the leaders of his organization that we want to get our hands on. The name of his current organization is a detail.

Even the BBC article you cited to me disputes that to a point:

Quote

American officials believe Bin Laden's associates may operate in more than 40 countries - in Europe and North America, as well as in the Middle East and Asia.

The fear must now be that even if Bin Laden himself is captured or killed, the movement in which he is a leading figure will be harder to crush.

Quote

No matter what you want to call them, we funded radical islamic terrorists to go on a jihad against a massive force (the USSR.) Bin Laden was in that group, and he used our money and our weapons to set up Al Quaeda and, later, go after us.

I don't dispute that at all. What I think is interesting though, is that we are the not the exclusive reason for its existence and mission. It was his own country that betrayed him. I think he wants Saudi Arabia to burn a little more than us.

P.S. Sorry my response here was so long.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Zinger 0]

Quote

Quote

I hope we don't go to war but I believe if war is what it takes to get this madman dead then so be it. The world will be a better place with out him.

Easy to say from the safety of your home, or job. If we go to war, are [edit]you[/edit] going to enlist?

Your right it's super easy to state my opinion in a free country. And I would enlist if I was young enough to be accepted. I would fight for others freedom. And I would also die for freedom, If your not free your not alive anyway.

------Have a good one!--------

[jerry81 10]

Quote

I think this 500,000. number is extreme unless Saddam kills his own people with WMD. And even then no one can say we did not warn the people, If I lived there I would of packed up and walked my goat eating kids outta there a long time ago.

I already pointed this out in another thread, but here it goes again. The people do not hear your warnings. The people only hear what their government wants them to hear. And even if some messages from US do get through, they're less likely to be belived than the messages sent by their own country. If you lived there, (and don't take this too personally, it's just an illustration of circumstances) you would be living in constant fear of what might happen, not really knowing what was going on and your kids would be eating government-issued provisions, not goats. Also, walking away would be less easy than it may seem from our point of view.
As for the 500.000 deaths, it's an estimate, and, as I already said, most of those people would die after the war, not in it.

---

[f1freak 0]

It may have been said (i didnt read the whole thread) But Bush has been looking for ANY excuse to pick up where his dad dropped the ball, i mean you would have to be blind not to see that...
Just my opinion...

HAVE FUN...
...JUST DONT DIE

[rhino 0]

Make no mistake about it.. Iraqi soldiers will be running to our troops with white flags again yelling WE HATE SADDHAM!!!! GET HIM OUT!! lol

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Make no mistake about it.. Iraqi soldiers will be running to our troops with white flags again yelling WE HATE SADDHAM!!!! GET HIM OUT!!

I have no doubt. That much is clear.

It's clear that Sadam is a very evil man. It's clear that any person with the intelligence of a rat wouldn't want to live there. It's clear that he's violated fundamental human rights of his citizens.

That puts him in a list of about a hundred different world leaders, all who are quilty of doing the exact same things. Should the US invade Zimbabwe next just because Mugabe is an asshole to his people?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[rhino 0]

Quote

That puts him in a list of about a hundred different world leaders, all who are quilty of doing the exact same things. Should the US invade Zimbabwe next just because Mugabe is an asshole to his people?

True.. But now we are on a fight against terror.. And we will seek it out.. lol

[kmcguffee 0]

Aaah. Another US bashing thread. I say we pull out completely and let the Europeans handle this. They are content to sit back and let us get attacked by terrorists as long as it doesn't pose a threat to their economy (France, Russia) or security (Turkey). I believe a prominent English woman was quoted by CNN as saying (I'll paraphrase) It's about time something like this happened to the United States. Yet, they are acting like they are taking the high ground on this matter. I'm sure plenty of people in the US will blame this lady's comment on the US. The same way that 9/11 was the fault of the US.

Is this war about oil? In some ways. I think it is more about security and stability. Oil effects the security and stability of the modern industrialized world enormously. People are trying to turn everything into some big idealistic crusade. This is ultimately about security and stability.

We've been trying to disarm Iraq for over ten years now. Diplomacy is not working. How much longer do we allow Hussein to play the UN like a bunch of fools? There are a lot more self interested parties in this than just the US. These other parties are just portraying the US as a war monger because it serves their interests right now (looking hard at France, Germany, and Russia). The Europeans and more and more Americans are being duped daily.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin