VWBB - Who thinks we should go to War

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 50 posts from this thread on one page

VWBB (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/index.php)
- General Discussion (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=7)
-- Who thinks we should go to War (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/showthread.php?threadid=7430)

Posted by Remora on 10-01-2002 05:03 PM:

Reasons why taking out Saddam is a good idea:

1) He's f*cking insane and he has WMDs. He's killed thousands of his own people in his country with them, and who knows what else during the Gulf War to other countries.

2) All attempts to get the weapons *peacefully* through the UN have failed. One last-ditch attempt is currently being made (which is very good, but my pessimist side says it's futile) ...

Reasons why taking out Saddam is a bad idea:

1) He controls Iraq with an iron fist. Taking out the leader will probably cause massive chaos and a power struggle (turning Iraq into another Afghanistan) ... this is especially bad since Saudi Arabia (our supposed ally, but a country run by more f*cking insane Islamic clerics -- except they realize America needs oil, so they profit off us instead of fighting us) is so close, pouring tons of Islamic extremists into the region that Saddam currently keeps out.

2) Any war will be a bloodbath ... urban fighting is some of the toughest, ugliest sh!t you can imagine ... don't believe me? Go to any news site and look up the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel can, without a doubt, overrun any opposition it has in straight field-combat ... but they're fought to a standstill in the city. When you think of the next war in Iraq, think Vietnam War ... NOT Gulf War. Carpet-bombing won't happen because of civilians/politics, nukes are way out of the question too (though if someone detonates one on American soil, I guarantee nuclear holocaust WILL follow)

3) Destabilizing Iraq WILL throw the whole region into a conflict. Iraq SCARES its neighboring countries. Think of a neighborhood where the biggest bully moved away. Everyone fights to be the "big-wig power" ... same thing will happen. A lot of you forget about the Iraq-Iran war too ... nobody dares f*ck around with Iraq in the region after that conflict ... it still has the third or fourth largest standing army in the world. Oil is also a factor here ... those Arabian sands hold sh!t-tons of oil ... which = big $$$ to those who exploit it.

Think about it a little deeper when you preach war ... you have to weigh the good versus the bad. The next war in Iraq? Very bad ... I hope my brother (USMC) doesn't end up there, that's for sure ...

Edit: don't get me wrong either ... I don't like Saddam any more than anyone else ... but if we (the U.S. and anyone else willing) are to attack and remove him from power, we need something set up to replace him beforehand ... or something worse than the current Afghani government will result.

Posted by F S W on 10-01-2002 07:26 PM:

I'm British, by the way.

This war is utterly pointless. Iraq couldn't do any major to anyone, even if they do have weapons of mass destruction (which they almost certainly don't). Any attack from Iraq would be suicide.
Iraq is even offering to let inspectors in, but the American government won't agree to NOT attack Iraq.
Besides, Saddam's past crimes don't give America the right to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens. Oh yeah, they'll say they're aiming for military bases and "accidentally missing".

The American government is composed mostly of total ****ing idiots, especially George Bush. Us British also have a ****ing retarded Prime Minister. Tony Blair does anything Bush tells him to.

The real reason the American government wants to go to war is not to defend itself -- it is to maintain psychological and militaristic control, and to keep OPEC in line.

It may also be to make it look like the American government is actually do something, or an excuse to have at picking off and taking over smaller countries, one by one.

It's a conspiracy!

Posted by FlakBait on 10-01-2002 10:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Someone
...

Just send in one squad of Seals or SAS or SPECNAZ or Mossad agents to take him out.

No more problems?

I don't know.

Yes, lets. The terrorist in question lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

And with that, I leave this thread to the dust of history.

__________________
Please don't hold our president against us-it's not like we voted for him.

Posted by Bobboau on 10-02-2002 01:39 AM:

Re: I'm British, by the way.

quote:
Originally posted by F S W
Iraq couldn't do any major to anyone, even if they do have weapons of mass destruction

think of the paradox of this statement

quote:
(which they almost certainly don't)

how is this likely and then how is this nearly a certanty

quote:
Iraq is even offering to let inspectors in

to there military instalations only, anything they don't want to call a military instalation is out of bounds

quote:
Besides, Saddam's past crimes don't give America the right to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens.

no but they do indicate what types of actions he is willing to take, if given the opertunity

quote:
Oh yeah, they'll say they're aiming for military bases and "accidentally missing".

what the ****ing hell type of radical islamic information led you to the though that we are intentionaly atacking civilain targets, when have we ever intentionaly hit a civilian target, we don't do that, if we did Iraq would today be a radioactive glasius crater severaly hundered miles in diamiter

quote:
The American government is composed mostly of total ****ing idiots, especially George Bush.

umm, ok I'll give you that one

quote:

Us British also have a ****ing retarded Prime Minister. Tony Blair does anything Bush tells him to.

I'll take you're word for it

quote:
It may also be to make it look like the American government is actually do something, or an excuse to have at picking off and taking over smaller countries, one by one.

oh like we did with Germany and Japan at the end of WW2?
say just what was the last contry we actualy "imperialised" in that last, oh, 100 years?
do you think it might be posable that you're government might be opposed becase they are the ones that want the oil, and think they'll get more of it by dealing with Sadam and alowing him to build his little toys and kill millions of people (yes he has killed millions, well over 1 million)

__________________
Bobboau, bringing you products that work ......... In theory

Posted by Hunter83 on 10-02-2002 02:12 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by haderak
As a thumb rule, american doctrine dictates that if invasion scenario is at hand, the invading army needs to have an advantage of 3 to 1.

Iraq has now about 400 000 troops (in 1991 had 1 000 000)
USA would then need 1 200 000!!!

Uhh, ok. That is completely wrong, US policy dictates that we send as few troops as possible and still accomplish the mission.

Here's a quote from http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz080202.asp , but u should read the whole thing to get the full idea.

"Even counting what the military is asking for in the way of insurance, total troop strength for the proposed operation would still be far below the number of troops deployed for the Gulf War. Yet even this relatively small number is considered to be too large an invasion force by the civilians at the Pentagon. In fact, the unspoken implication of the report in the Post is that neither side in the debate thinks that we can invade Iraq if the troop requirements reach the high-end estimates of two, or two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand."

And Iraq's "Armed forces
Total number of military personnel 424,000 (2001)"

We sent 550,000 in 1991, for today, the high estimates are 200,000
People don't want to see more troops sent overseas. People want them to stay safe at home.

Here's a very good statement at the end: "Yet the country is unwilling and unable to face the truth about the need for an expanded military in a wartime environment.

I was gonna quote a couple other people but it's a moot point now.

At this point we have to at least help invade Iraq and topple Saddem. The other countries there already think we're pussies (I wonder if it will blank out that word), not goning there after we've said we need to will only further imbed that belief.

The U.N. should already be mobilizing troops to take this guy out. Again.

He agreed to those 16 points after the Gulf War, and like Hitler with the Treaty of Versailles (I know, bad simile) has broken all the points of the treaty.

I had more to say but I got other stuff to do.

__________________
[URL=http://www.teamx.tk/]Team -X- Website[/URL]
[URL=http://www.RFHQ.com]RFHQ[/URL]
[URL=http://www.aodmeagain.com]Me_Again's RF CTF Map Website 500+ Maps[/URL]
[URL=http://www.dictionary.com]Me fail english? That's unpossible[/URL]

Posted by Someone on 10-02-2002 08:38 AM:

...

What plans got the USA and the UN for the next government of Iraq, if they manage to take Saddam Hussain out?

And I guess the best strategy at this time is to look for the military installations, tag them and takethem out. Aim for convoys. Ascertain that they are military by means of a magscan or something.

And like hell that we're aiming for civs. We don't.

__________________
*is lost, but then...*
*Oh well...*
*...I think*

**the above: Someone in a nutshell...see? He's IN a nutshell...**

Posted by Remora on 10-02-2002 03:22 PM:

Re: Re: I'm British, by the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau
to there military instalations only, anything they don't want to call a military instalation is out of bounds

According to what I just read on CNN, Iraq is agreeing to let inspectors back in, under the same terms as after the Gulf War. So Bobboau is exactly right ... Saddam has had FOUR YEARS (since he kicked the inspectors out) to move that sh!t from the "military sites" to his presidential palaces, which aren't covered and can't be inspected. THEY CAME RIGHT OUT AND SAID PRESIDENTIAL PALACES WON'T BE CHECKED. Saddam is psycho, but he's not a f*cking idiot. Those inspectors won't find a damn thing anymore, it's hidden way too well.

U.S. Intelligence knows this (which is why we're going after him without the UN), Iraq knows this (which is why they're letting inspectors, to discredit the U.S. attack) and the U.N. knows this (but they're too f*cking weak to do anything, so publicly they criticize both, underneath they want this taken care of so they look good)

Moral of the story ... the U.S. looks like total militaristic pieces of sh!t, even though they're doing the world a favor. Irony is great.

Posted by FSF Ashrak on 10-02-2002 04:18 PM:

umm who says they dont have nukes/chemical weapons (which they OH SO DO)

so umm they will nuke USA...... they dont give a **** for god sakes they rammed a boeng into a building ..... what would a nuke do to them you see a flash your dead no pain.

__________________
[URL=http://www.hot.ee/ashrak]Ashrak and Miburos Render Lair[/URL]

WEBSITE NOW UP AND RUNNING!!!!!

Posted by Dynamo on 10-02-2002 06:35 PM:

Something just doesn't add up to this proposed attack. Why Iraq? It's like FDR waking up on December 8, 1941 and telling the nation, "OK, we're going get those bastard Austrailians."

If you ask me, this whole fiasco reeks of oil. Iraq sits on top of one of the largest, if not the largest, oil reserves in the world. If the US were to successfully invade Iraq, oil companies could move in and tap those reserves. Why do you think the Saudis don't want any part of a US attack on Iraq? Quite frankly, I bet the Saudis don't give two rats asses about religion and holy lands. What they are concerned about is that they provide the most oil to the US out of anyone. We get those Iraqi reserves, and all of the sudden, Saudia Arabia doesn't matter anymore. But wait, who in the US administration has any ties to oil companies?

Up until now, the US hasn't had very good reason to go into Iraq. I mean, if we go in and invade without provocation, we're just as bad as they were in Desert Storm. September 11th has provided Bush with a nice reason for us to go in and get Insane Hussein, and the oil. Maybe it just seems like this to me, but after 9/11, we didn't start talking seriously about going after Iraq until Enron went belly-up. Coincidence? How much do you think Enron will profit by a new influx of cheap Iraqi oil?

As much as the talking heads in Washington want to say how this is a preventative strike and they are "preserving freedom", I can't believe them. There's no hardcore proof that has been publically shown in my mind that Iraq even has the capability to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hell, if they can't even get decent food and water there why do we think that they can get nuclear weapons capability? And even if Iraq did have these purpoted WoMDs, what makes them think that they'd use them on us? Hussein has been very adamant about keeping power in Iraq. He has to know that any attack that he would launch would result in a massive military campaign that would probably have him out of power or dead within days.

The reasons just don't add up. I agree that Hussien is not the most ideal leader we want in this region, but just because we don't like him isn't enough of a reason to oust him from power.

Posted by Hunter83 on 10-02-2002 08:36 PM:

Re: Re: Re: I'm British, by the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Remora
According to what I just read on CNN,

Read on CNN?

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo
I agree that Hussien is not the most ideal leader we want in this region,

There's an understatement

Posted by IceFire on 10-02-2002 11:43 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm British, by the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Hunter83

Read on CNN?

There's an understatement

Obviously he's reading the CNN.com website. I do several times a day, along with CBC.ca and News.bbc.co.uk. Getting a straight CNN spoonfed American perspective all the time bothers me so I need to get some perspective from other sources and other media outlets altogether.

__________________
- IceFire
Volition Watch Project Manager
[url=http://www.volitionwatch.com]Volition Watch[/url], [url=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater]BlackWater Operations[/url], [url=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon]The Babylon Project[/url], [url=http://terra.sourceforge.net]Machina Terra[/url], [url=http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ott/]Over The Top[/url]

Posted by Bobboau on 10-03-2002 12:24 AM:

why Iraq?
1. nukes
2. controled by insaine islamic dictator who hates america probly more than anyone else alive
3. Iraq is the one were closest tobeing able to go after

we didn't start talking seriously about going after Iraq until Enron went belly-up.
Enron didn't go belly-up untill after the fall of Kandahar (the last major talaban strong hold in Afganistan).
Coincidence?

"We get those Iraqi reserves, and all of the sudden, Saudia Arabia doesn't matter anymore."
and this is a bad thing? I for one am tired of being there bitch

hey tell you what, can we invade Iraq if we promise to only let European oil companies in?

you know Bush ran on being a domestic policy guy (and his domestic policy was quite scary) he didn't even know who that one pakistani general that did that thing in that place (Musharief) was, you think he realy had any plans to invade Iraq?
(do you realy want him to getting back to makeing domestic policy? )

"There's no hardcore proof that has been publically shown in my mind that Iraq even has the capability to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction"
yes let us broadcast every chemical weapons site and say on November 27th at 11:43pm we are going to come from south by southwest and atack this plant (lat 53/lon 72) useing an f177 with the IFF transponder signal of 432.57396 khz and two lazer guided (532.645Mhz) 8000lb bombs

"if they can't even get decent food and water there why do we think that they can get nuclear weapons capability? "
maybe... becase he's useing all the cash he should be spending on food and water on getting nuclear weapons capability, and at the same time makeing an environment that he can blame america for and swell world wide hatered for us

__________________
Bobboau, bringing you products that work ......... In theory

Posted by Dynamo on 10-03-2002 07:29 AM:

Ahh, why did I get into this?

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau
why Iraq?
1. nukes
2. controled by insaine islamic dictator who hates america probly more than anyone else alive
3. Iraq is the one were closest tobeing able to go after

1. There are seven (maybe eight) countries that have nuclear capabilities and not all of them are friends. The Russians hated us more in the cold war yet they didn't kill us with any nukes. The Cold War taught us that mutally assured destruction is always a possibility with nukes. If Iraq uses any nuclear weapons on American interests, or on any thing at all really, they will face the retribution of those seven countries. Hussein wants to stay in power of Iraq. If he was just intent on killing as many people as he wanted, he would've joined al Queda right after the Gulf War. If Hussein uses a nuke, he will be ousted, no ifs and or buts.

2. China is controlled by an insane communist that hates America as well. So is Cuba. We don't go after them with threats of invasion, why Hussein?

3. Just because a target is easier pickings than another one doesn't mean we should attack.

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau

we didn't start talking seriously about going after Iraq until Enron went belly-up.
Enron didn't go belly-up untill after the fall of Kandahar (the last major talaban strong hold in Afganistan).
Coincidence?

With their financial struggles, Enron probably isn't in a position to take advantage of the Iraq situtation, but that doesn't mean that other oil company CEOs have Bush's ear in a number of matters. Bush had some heavy coporate ties to Enron and I'm sure he got to know his competitors very well.

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau

"We get those Iraqi reserves, and all of the sudden, Saudia Arabia doesn't matter anymore."
and this is a bad thing? I for one am tired of being there bitch

I don't like being a slave to the Saudis, but I hate being a slave to oil even more. The solution to that problem isn't to get your own shares of oil (an irreplacable resource that'll probably run out in our lifetimes) but to develop technology to escape the bounds that oil places on our economy.

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know Bush ran on being a domestic policy guy (and his domestic policy was quite scary) he didn't even know who that one pakistani general that did that thing in that place (Musharief) was, you think he realy had any plans to invade Iraq?
(do you realy want him to getting back to makeing domestic policy? )

I'm sure following in Daddy's footsteps was always in the back of Bush Jr.'s mind, probably one of his little guilty presidential fantasies or something. (at least his fantasies are more decent than our former presidents

) Besides, it's obvious that no concrete planning has gone into an Iraqi attack until recently. (why do you think they're having all the discussions and such. If they were prepared to make an attack on Iraq, they'd just go and do it. They wouldn't need to debate to get a good plan in place because it'd already be there)

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau

"There's no hardcore proof that has been publically shown in my mind that Iraq even has the capability to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction"
yes let us broadcast every chemical weapons site and say on November 27th at 11:43pm we are going to come from south by southwest and atack this plant (lat 53/lon 72) useing an f177 with the IFF transponder signal of 432.57396 khz and two lazer guided (532.645Mhz) 8000lb bombs

I said I wanted concrete proof not exact locations. Proof can be confinscated warheads, intercepted shipments, non-doctored photos, or something. We have billion dollar spy satelites trained over probably every inch in Iraq. Something as big as a factory for producing WoMD shouldn't go unnoticed.

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau
"if they can't even get decent food and water there why do we think that they can get nuclear weapons capability? "
maybe... becase he's useing all the cash he should be spending on food and water on getting nuclear weapons capability, and at the same time makeing an environment that he can blame america for and swell world wide hatered for us

Where is Iraq getting their money for this nuclear weapons capabilities? I'm pretty sure there's been some heavy sanctions applied on Iraq and its populace isn't exactly know for its riches. Nuclear scientists don't work for free you know.

I really need to not get into this because it makes my brain hurt just thinking about it. Of course, maybe this also has something to do with the fact it's like 3:40 in the morning.

Posted by Someone on 10-03-2002 10:10 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by FSF Ashrak
umm who says they dont have nukes/chemical weapons (which they OH SO DO)

so umm they will nuke USA...... they dont give a **** for god sakes they rammed a boeng into a building ..... what would a nuke do to them you see a flash your dead no pain.

...Nuke Iraq?

Nuclear fallout would reach Europe, making life miserable for us europeans. We went trhoguh Chernobyl, thankyouverymuch...

And I think that if necessary, America can defend itself adequately against a nuke-strike.

__________________
*is lost, but then...*
*Oh well...*
*...I think*

**the above: Someone in a nutshell...see? He's IN a nutshell...**

Posted by Edwin on 10-04-2002 02:48 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Bobboau

when have we ever intentionaly hit a civilian target

WWII, Vietnam.

And i am a us citizen so don't call me a ****ing racist.

Posted by haderak on 10-04-2002 09:54 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo

Maybe it just seems like this to me, but after 9/11, we didn't start talking seriously about going after Iraq until Enron went belly-up. Coincidence? How much do you think Enron will profit by a new influx of cheap Iraqi oil?

Newsflash for you: ENRON is no more

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo

Hell, if they can't even get decent food and water there why do we think that they can get nuclear weapons capability?

Your pretty naeeve
Do you think Iraq was rich when he built the army and fought all its wars?
Theres enough gold in Saddams palaces to feed the entire population for years, even now.

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo

There's no hardcore proof that has been publically shown in my mind that Iraq even has the capability to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Suffice to say that Desert storm didnt hurt much the existing stock of chemical weapons, thats why they sent inspectors and they left without finishing their jobs.
Ever since 1998 Hussein had plenty of time to stuff his palaces beds.

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo

And even if Iraq did have these purpoted WoMDs, what makes them think that they'd use them on us?

Saddam wouldn have any trouble hurting US with chemical weapons if he could, hell he maybe already did it with anthrax (wich was suplied to him by the americans) making contraband to whoever wants to send love letters and presents.
If saddam gets a good aim at the massing US army, he will do it because he has got nothing to loose, this time his ass is on the line.

An all out invasion will indeed hostilize the whole arab universe, specialy if the american invasion does intend to make US self sufficient at the expense of Iraq's oil putting aside OPEC.
Terrorist attack's will be a day to day afair to US citizens and that can be explioted by the goverment to hurt people's liberties.

The best way to take out saddam is with UN mandate, but europe for example needs to be more determinated, and without ground occupation, let the saddam oposition throw him down With alies spec forces support like in afgahnistan.

US's rush in doing it all alone is suspicious and wont help.

__________________
-Weep for us Na'toth, weep for us all, I've seen the darkness, you cannot do that and be the same again... [G'kar, in Revelations]

-No money, no wife, no car, NO PROBLEMS!!!!

Member of Babylon5 to FS2 MOD
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/

Member of Wing commander to FS2 MOD
http://www.scifi3d.de/wcsaga/

Posted by FSF Ashrak on 10-04-2002 01:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Someone

...Nuke Iraq?

Nuclear fallout would reach Europe, making life miserable for us europeans. We went trhoguh Chernobyl, thankyouverymuch...

And I think that if necessary, America can defend itself adequately against a nuke-strike.

actually if there is a nuke war were all just gonna die no exeptions......humans are SUCH morons......why tha hell do we need nukes or wars.....god damn wed have NORMAL space ships by now if no wars.

__________________
[URL=http://www.hot.ee/ashrak]Ashrak and Miburos Render Lair[/URL]

WEBSITE NOW UP AND RUNNING!!!!!

Posted by Dynamo on 10-04-2002 03:18 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by haderak

Newsflash for you: ENRON is no more

Newsflash for you, [url=http://www.enron.com]you are wrong.[/url] Just because a company files for bankruptcy doesn't mean that the company is gone. Bankruptcy just means you get shielded from your creditors and you get the chance to come out clean on the other side. So

to you.

quote:
Originally posted by haderak

Your pretty naeeve
Do you think Iraq was rich when he built the army and fought all its wars?
Theres enough gold in Saddams palaces to feed the entire population for years, even now.

Maybe, but at least I can spell it. (Lets all try it together now, n-a-i-v-e. Good!

)

Anyways, do you have any idea how much money it takes to run an army, a country, and develop nuclear capabilities. It's more money than you or I will probably ever see in our lifetimes. With all the sanctions on Iraq since the Gulf War, Saddam can't be making much new money and he can't last off his gold reserves forever. Remember, the Soviet Union is no more not because the people rose up against their leader but because they became bankrupt. Iraq is nowhere close to being as formidable as an opponent as the Russians. All the gold in the world still can't buy you it.

quote:
Originally posted by haderak

Suffice to say that Desert storm didnt hurt much the existing stock of chemical weapons, thats why they sent inspectors and they left without finishing their jobs.
Ever since 1998 Hussein had plenty of time to stuff his palaces beds.

Did Saddam even have a stock of chemical weapons before then? I know he launched some nerve gas during the war, but if I remember right, most of it wasn't that potent.

quote:
Originally posted by haderak

Saddam wouldn have any trouble hurting US with chemical weapons if he could, hell he maybe already did it with anthrax (wich was suplied to him by the americans) making contraband to whoever wants to send love letters and presents.
If saddam gets a good aim at the massing US army, he will do it because he has got nothing to loose, this time his ass is on the line.

He's got EVERYTHING to lose. He's the ruler of a soverign nation with a huge supply of oil underneath his feet. I wish I could be sitting as pretty as he is right now. If Hussein gets ousted from power he will have NOTHING and he knows the best way to get ousted from power is by launching an attack on the US.

quote:
Originally posted by haderak
An all out invasion will indeed hostilize the whole arab universe, specialy if the american invasion does intend to make US self sufficient at the expense of Iraq's oil putting aside OPEC.
Terrorist attack's will be a day to day afair to US citizens and that can be explioted by the goverment to hurt people's liberties.

I'd gladly pay an extra $.20 to $.30 per gallon of gas so we don't have to put up with half the stuff that people like Sandwich have to put up with every day. Cheap gas is not worth losing our individual liberties and confidence to walk out in the street without worrying that you're going to die.

quote:
Originally posted by haderak

The best way to take out saddam is with UN mandate, but europe for example needs to be more determinated, and without ground occupation, let the saddam oposition throw him down With alies spec forces support like in afgahnistan.

US's rush in doing it all alone is suspicious and wont help.

There is no one good way to take out Saddam, but does he even need to be removed from power anyways? His options are pretty limited. He may hate us, but there's nothing he can do about it without losing what he has. Maybe if we gave him reasons not to hate us, he would stop hating us and we wouldn't have to worry about him? We get along with most of the other countries in the world, why should he be any different?

Anyways, I just spent way too much of my life talking about this and I swear this is my last post on the subject. Seriously.

Posted by Remora on 10-04-2002 04:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by FSF Ashrak
.god damn wed have NORMAL space ships by now if no wars.

no we wouldn't ... the whole reason why "we" went to space was because of the Cold War (i.e. nukes)

Posted by Remora on 10-04-2002 04:37 PM:

No, I'm not done with you yet haha

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo
Anyways, do you have any idea how much money it takes to run an army, a country, and develop nuclear capabilities. It's more money than you or I will probably ever see in our lifetimes. With all the sanctions on Iraq since the Gulf War, Saddam can't be making much new money and he can't last off his gold reserves forever. Remember, the Soviet Union is no more not because the people rose up against their leader but because they became bankrupt. Iraq is nowhere close to being as formidable as an opponent as the Russians. All the gold in the world still can't buy you it.

He doesn't make as much money as he used to, because of sanctions. This much is true. However, think black market ... there's tons to be made there. Also, he gets around the "oil for food" program somehow and that still feeds his weapons program(s). Why are the people in Iraq starving? Oh yea, Saddam would rather spend money on WMDs than feed his own damned people.

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo
Did Saddam even have a stock of chemical weapons before then? I know he launched some nerve gas during the war, but if I remember right, most of it wasn't that potent.

Yes he did... and it was potent enough. The "Gulf War Syndrome" isn't caused by inhaling sand!!

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo
He's got EVERYTHING to lose. He's the ruler of a soverign nation with a huge supply of oil underneath his feet. I wish I could be sitting as pretty as he is right now. If Hussein gets ousted from power he will have NOTHING and he knows the best way to get ousted from power is by launching an attack on the US.

Yes, that is what he meant. He's got nothing to lose because either way he plays it, he's gonna get f*cked in the end ... so why not go out with a bang? If I were him, I wouldn't be lying in wait while an army was preparing to invade ... I would be preparing heavily as well ... and I'm sure Saddam has been. Like I said before ... he's f*cking insane ... but he isn't stupid.

quote:
Originally posted by Dynamo
I'd gladly pay an extra $.20 to $.30 per gallon of gas so we don't have to put up with half the stuff that people like Sandwich have to put up with every day. Cheap gas is not worth losing our individual liberties and confidence to walk out in the street without worrying that you're going to die.

True dat.

Going back to a previous post of yours though ... you are blaming Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East for our oil problems. Sorry bud, look domestically for that problem. Why would American car companies want to explore new technologies when the current ones make them so much money and our government isn't pushing too hard for it?? The bottom line isn't PROGRESS for corporations ... all they give a sh!t about is THE BOTTOM LINE. It sucks ass, but that's the truth, plain and simple. Welcome to capitalism.

No (and I'm not sure if this is just human nature or what), we would rather blame someone we don't know for our problems instead of confronting them ... in reality, they (OPEC states) are only doing the same as we would do in their place ... profit off a bunch of idiots who don't know any better.

__________________
Remora - [url="http://www.volitionwatch.com"]Volition Watch[/url]
Rem says: You may not see me ... but I am still watching you.

All times are EST. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 50 posts from this thread on one page