Each and every war led in a recession - the one after the first Gulf War being the main reason for the rather abrupt ending of Bushs government. It is quite natural that recessions are usually being followed by new times of prosperity, but that's got nothing to do with the war itself, it's just the Keynescurve.
The myth of wars boosting the economy stems from the pre-WW1 days when the victorious party could assume it'd recieve large reperation payments, which is however just not the case anymore.
By the way, the 'Roaring Twenties' were contrary to popular belief not that much of a rally - they just seem to 'roar' when compared to the 1910's (WW1) and the 1930's (WW2).
It's difficult to cite those examples because the US was involved in them but didn't have it's infrastructure attacked. Look at nations that did:
- WWI: Germany crippled, revives shattered economy with American loans only to be broken by the 1928 stock market crash. France and England struggle, helped mainly by reperations forced from Germany. Austria-Hungary collapses into seperate nations rife with poverty. Russia spends years and the lives of millions of it's citizens recovering. - WWII: France striken, recovers with American/NATO assitance after war. Britain driven almost to bankruptcy by war debt, survives with US help. USSR: Devestated, takes decades to recover loss of two thirds of it's major factories and 25 million citizens. Germany: Recovers with US help, unburdened of military budget is able to concentrate on manufacturing. Same occurs in Japan. China: also devestated by invasion and civil war, new Communist government strapped for cash and faced with under-industrialised country.
Iraq hasn't recovered from the Gulf War and likely never will. Wars sometimes promote the economy of the winner, but only in certain industries. When they're over you get collapses in many of these war industries and high unemployment. Also, the global economy today is influenced by events such as wars. Checked the price of oil lately? It's rising steadily, because of war fears. Most investors don't like wars, there's too much risk. What would help the US economy? Well, here's a few suggestions that might seem radical:
- free health care to all citizens, with the option for provate health insurance if a citizen wishes this. Healthier society results, people are less worried about their health and don't need to buy insurance premiums: more money to spend. - free schooling to all citizens, with proper funding and high standards. Sorry America, but most of your citizens not being able to find their home town on a map of the US is not the sign of a good education system. Results in more educated population, more qualified for better jobs - compitant police forces that are properly funded and can deal with crime. A subpart of this would be the de-criminalisation of certain illegal substances, and the set-up of treatment facilities for substance abusers, with the goal of reintergrating these people back into society. The health and schooling ideas above also reduce the amount of crime. - Good public transport systems in large cities that reduce the need for cars. Result: healthier, less stressed population, less money needed for massive new freeways and reduced traffic conjestion. - The gradual phasing out of massive firearm ownership. Result: less crime, reduced murder rate. Lower levels of stress and fear in community - Attention paid to environmental matters such as pollution and deforestation. Result: Healther population, less worried about the future of themselves and their children. - Good unemployment services that help the unemployed find viable jobs and assist them whilst they are finding them. Result: more employment, less stress, people have much better chance of finding job then having money to spend.
Now wait for it (drum roll please)................Australia has all of the above! But surely we'd be bankrupt!? I hear you cry! But no! We're almost debt free! How is this possible you ask?! Well, it's pretty simple:
WE DON"T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET LARGER THAN THE GNP OF THE WORLDS' MOST WEALTHY NATIONS
That's it. It's THAT simple. Cut back that bloated beast you call a military budget and help your citizens. How dare you think you hae the right to police the world when you can't police downtown Detroit. I would have though Sept 11 taught you that the biggest military in the world couldn't stop fanatics using civilain vehicles as weapons. So you went and put MORE money into the military? Bush what are you smoking and where can I get some? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Longtooth+Feb 11 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Longtooth @ Feb 11 2003, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The possible war in Iraq is about oil. Simple as that. Don't delude yourself with terms like "weapons of mass destruction" or "evil dictator" or "biological and chemical weapons" because that isn't what this is about. This is about oil. So young Americans will go die so you can get better gas prices, kind of sad isn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As I have said before, if America wants Iraqi oil they could just buy it instead of wasting an estimated 73 billion dollars, countless deaths, and international disputes to disarm Iraq and replace the government only to have to buy the oil. America isn't the Soviet Union, I don't believe they are going to conquer Iraq and make it the 51st state. I don't know how some poeple truely think that America is fighting to conquer a country. Also, many countries (France and sigh Russia) benefit by KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER.
1. The desire to restrain the United States. Each country would like to see the United States contained and stop behaving like a global hegemon, especially when it comes to the use of military power, where they are at a disadvantage. Germany has seen itself as the primary economic power in a united Europe, and has no particular desire to extend its influence militarily, or see the military instrument being used so effectively. France has similar Euro-pretensions, and Russia, of course, has little need for an even more assertive U.S. than the one that brought about the end of the Soviet Empire.
2. The need to stay relevant. It is difficult to maintain ranking as a world power if you are being ignored. France in particular clings to its great power status, which rests solely on the legitimate possession of nuclear weapons and permanent-member status on the Security Council, both legacies of World War II-era agreements long since superseded by reality. Russia is in a similar situation, yet with the added complication of a GDP per capita lower than American Samoa. Germany of course makes a virtue of the fact that its previous attempts at global relevance led to constitutional provisions banning most military action abroad.
3. Avoiding bad precedents. All three countries would prefer to see U.S. actions kept within the framework of the United Nations. Warfare by coalition is bad enough; future regime changes being pulled off by the United States unilaterally would be intolerable.
4. Catering to Muslims at home and abroad. These countries have substantial domestic Muslim minorities, and supporting a war in Iraq could generate various sorts of problems. In addition, essentially siding with the Muslim world against Coalition war talk ingratiates them. Note though that this does not apply as clearly to Russia, as its actions in Chechnya attest.
5. Resisting regime change in Iraq. Baghdad owes France and Russia tens of billions of dollars. Whether those debts would survive the transfer of power or become a "gift of the international community" is anybody's guess.
6. Oil. The oil issue is worth some extended discussion. The familiar mantra "No War for Oil" takes on an interesting meaning when discussing these countries, and France in particular. A war in Iraq would have very negative effects on French economic prospects in the region. (Why they would have obviously positive effects for the U.S. is something best explained by the antiwar crew, because it is not evident to me.) France is currently Iraq's most favored trading partner, and is heavily involved in Mideast regional energy development. The French energy giant Total Fina Elf recently brought the world's largest offshore natural gas field online in southern Iran, along with Russian natural gas firm Gazprom and the Malaysian company Petronas. Total Fina Elf also has multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Iraq, but because of U.N. resolutions, these contracts have not been signed and cannot be executed until sanctions are lifted. The Russian form Lukoil had a similar $4 billion agreement to develop the Iraqi West Qurnah oil field, but an indignant Saddam recently nullified the deal when Russia established contacts with the Iraqi opposition. Seems like Saddam can't trust anybody these days.
It is no secret that the U.S. allies, France and Germany, and the former U.S. rival Russia, oppose U.S. conquest of Iraq. U.S. officials claim it is because the European powers are weak in the face of "threat."
But the real reason is that these major powers have their own strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. Germany and France rely on Persian Gulf oil--their ruling classes are uneasy about the U.S. conducting "open heart surgery" on major oil arteries and, on another level, they are deeply uneasy about the possibility of permanent, direct U.S. control of the world's key oilfields. A U.S. military disaster in the Gulf could deeply disrupt Europe's economy, and a U.S. military victory in the Gulf could leave Europe vulnerable to U.S. control.
Their imperialist interests lead these European ruling classes to support "containment" of Iraq--its disarmament and neutralization through outside pressure--but not "regime change."
The Russian imperialists have huge investments in Iraq and long-standing relations with its current government. The New York Times reports (Oct. 17) that Russian companies control the rights to sell 40 percent of Iraq's oil on world markets. And the Russian capitalists are way ahead in the real prize: One Russian oil company estimates that Russian companies have deals covering more than 70 billion barrels of oil--more than half of Iraq's reserves. All of this could disappear in a U.S. invasion--if the post- Saddam government is told by the invaders to ice-out Russian interests. Without the money from these investments, the Russian economy will be badly shaken.
Meanwhile, a CIA document was leaked to the French newspaper Le Monde which accused the French government of selling Mirage jets to Iraq that were equipped with special tanks for spreading germ warfare. This was a not-so-subtle shot across the bow of the French government--a threat that if they don't join the U.S. war on Iraq, they may find themselves accused of being a co-conspirator in Saddam Hussein's alleged plans.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I have said before, if America wants Iraqi oil they could just buy it instead of wasting an estimated 73 billion dollars, countless deaths, and international disputes to disarm Iraq and replace the government only to have to buy the oil. America isn't the Soviet Union, I don't believe they are going to conquer Iraq and make it the 51st state. I don't know how some poeple truely think that America is fighting to conquer a country. Also, many countries (France and sigh Russia) benefit by KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The people who would benefit from the US warring with Iraq over it's oil are not the people who are spending the money on this war, so they don't care that we will spend a lot of money on the war, they onyl care that they will reap the rewards of a newly capitalised Iraq.
I understand what you mean. The Iraqi dictatorship is overthrown and a new democracy (or whatever type of government) is installed, and a few months later Western companies (food, clothing, electronics, etc) set up enterprises in Iraq and start making profits from the new open Iraqi markets. I don't think that is the sole/main reason for action in Iraq, but I believe it might be the main reason nations that have monoplies with the current Iraqi government are opposing war.
On another point, do you think Iraq should be divided amongst ethnic lines after a possible war? IIRC, it was created by the British after WW1 from lands taken from the Ottoman Empire. They created Iraq not on ethnic lines, but did so to gain as much oil fields as possible, so they could place a puppet ruler that would sell them the oil at great prices. Iraq is made up of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'ite Muslims, which don't have the most in common.
Also, I believe that the U.S. and UN should pass one LAST resolution forcing Saddam to disarm and allow weapons inspector (not weapons hide-and-go-seekers) to destroy any contraband weapons. As well as forcing Iraq to be a little less inhumane. And then if these conditions aren't met, then action should be taken.
Well, it's already beginning. We do have American Special Forces within Iraqi borders as I type this - I heard this from a Major General, so it's not just heresay. No matter what any of us think now, all we can do is pray that as few people as possible are killed to end up with the best possible outcome.
Those forces are not in assault missions, they're preparing intelligence networks and bases.
By the way, <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html' target='_blank'>did you read the news lately?</a> Never before has <i>any</i> war, not to mention one that hasn't even started yet, brought that many people to the streets.
Bush has been talking too much and US has already so much forces there after Afghanistan that they are going to attack Iraq. Hey, thats what I do in Civ3. After attacking a country in the otherside of the world its wisest to conquer some more so you have maximum use of those troops sent there.
Edit: And this war is probably going to hurt Iraq civilians more than Saddam does now. There is a different goverment in Iraq. Even if you think Democracy and Christian religion are the best thing in the world, not everyone believes so. I think we should just let Iraq handle its own problems. When people are being oppressed to certain point they will get rid of Saddam by themselves.
Im in the belief that its far more dangerous if a wacko gets in charge in US than in Iraq/Northern Kore/any other "Axis of evil country". It seems that US is much more aggressive and into bombing(and even nuking) other countries than for example Iraq. If someone should be overthrown its Bush.
I've pretty much accepted the fact that we are going to war. Don't get me right, I am publicly against it but it seems ineviteble.
The whole thing makes me pretty sick.
Bush wins a presidential election, uses terror to try and rally the people behind his cause, and the whole time from the moment he was elected he is preparing for war.
Not to mention as all this is going on Cheney is making business deals with saddam and his people. Bush and Cheney are scum. Read about their business practices and you will see why when bush says "I'm gunna run this country like a bussiness," you should be frightened. Basically, he is going to extract as much money out of us as he can, running us into the hole, causing poeple to lose jobs, and then bail out before the end.
But hey, whatever, if the America people want to let them do this then what am I to do about it? Let the sheeple have their war on terror and war on drugs. We will only destroy ourselves or we will finally wise up and get civilized.
The people took to the streets yes. Bush, Blair and my Glorious Leader Howard all ignored them. 1 million people in Australia march for peace (this is out of pop of 18 million) and our Prime Minister says "This is not representive of the views of most Australians". Strangly enough the 17 million remaining Australians were emphatically not taking part in Pro-war rallys. Go figure <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This war is going to happen. Nothing now can prevent it, Bush wants it and Bush is going to get it. All we can do now is hope that it is over quickly, and that not many Iraqi civilians are killed. Given the logical defensive stratagy in such a situation (urban warfare) and the nature of America's very high powered military this seems unfortunatly unlikely. If I was a religious man I would offer some prayers. As it is I will continue to oppose this war and petition my government to stop it, for all the good it will do <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> The entire world has been rendered helpless to stop this attack in the face of US military power. If there are any Americans out there reading this please please PLEASE vote Bush out of office next election. If what he's done so far is a sign of things to come, the UN will be disbanded by 2005 and the entire Middle East under US control by 2007 <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: I was being unrealisitc there but I am still angry. How can a nation that preaches free will and democracy blatently ignore the wishes of the entire globe? I feel so bloody helpless right now. Have your war, get your oil and create hundreds more terrorists than you would have by not invading. And to the people who seem to think Saddam's regime throws out terrorists by the 1000's, consider this. 15 of the Sept 11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. Do I see an invasion there? Wow, I do not. Saddam has never attacked America and left alone he never would. The guy has enough trouble controlling his own country; why the hell would he attack the world's largest military super-power? The guy's a dictator and paranoid as hell but he's not insane. If he was insane then he would have used chemical and biological weapons in 1991, and Iraq would still be radioactive from the American response.
<!--QuoteBegin--Merkaba+Feb 14 2003, 05:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Feb 14 2003, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *shudders at the thought of patriotism*
**** your country, **** my country, **** everyone's 'country' - we are all just bloody human. We are all the same, but different. Repeat. We are all the same, but different. Noone is inferior. Noone is better. We are all the same (but different). Nice little mantra, huh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That man has it all worked out! Thats exactly what I said and think... let us all join the singing and support one world. There is but one race on this freaking planet and that is human, so snap out off your little my country mentality!
<!--QuoteBegin--Sephiroth2k+Jan 8 2003, 11:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sephiroth2k @ Jan 8 2003, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> im an american and im anti-bsh because he is a frickin idiot. if they start a draft im going to canada. they cant force me to die, it is preposterous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All I have to say to draft dodgers is this: If you cannot fight for your country, whether you like it or not, you are a coward and should move to another country. Im not saying that I support this war or that I loathe it. I'm just saying that if my country asks me to fight I will I dont care whether or not I support it. Its my country and I will defend it and my family and friends and if you say that you wont then no offense but you are a coward.
If you want to start a draft discussion, please open a seperate topic. Expect me to take a quite heavy stance in there, though <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you want to start a draft discussion, please open a seperate topic. Expect me to take a quite heavy stance in there, though <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--CutterJoe+Feb 18 2003, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CutterJoe @ Feb 18 2003, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you want to start a draft discussion, please open a seperate topic. Expect me to take a quite heavy stance in there, though <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would probably fight and die...IF the war was in Finland. That is because Finlands army is only for defending purposes. Attack war is a big no no. Guess what war US is doing, 0 conflicts inside their borders. War on the other side of the world in other countries <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
USA, you lose the little respect I have for you now, if Bush will be re-elected.
<!--QuoteBegin--CutterJoe+Feb 18 2003, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CutterJoe @ Feb 18 2003, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 18 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you want to start a draft discussion, please open a seperate topic. Expect me to take a quite heavy stance in there, though <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Saturday, I got a document qualifying myself as 'conscientious objector'. Technically, I am already running.
The way I feel is that we should not try to be the worlds police and I hate the fact that we do. But this war with Iraq is not an attacking war. He threatened us so I feel that it is a defensive stance for us. Sure the oil is a big plus <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> , but I still feel like we are defending ourselves against a threat that could pose more of a problem than a terrorist organization. This is only my opinion.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--CutterJoe+Feb 18 2003, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CutterJoe @ Feb 18 2003, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But this war with Iraq is not an attacking war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did Iraq attack us first?
<!--QuoteBegin--CutterJoe+Feb 18 2003, 10:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CutterJoe @ Feb 18 2003, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He threatened us so I feel that it is a defensive stance for us. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>How</i> did Saddam Hussein threaten the United States?
By the way, interesting to note: Kuweit, the country that Hussein attacked last time, took an anti-war stance in the UN hearing.
Well what do you all think would happen if noone intervened in Iraq? Its been proven that Hussein, when given the chance, will decimate his own people to increase his power. What would he do to the rest of the middle east if he goes unchecked? The UN has had a long time to get a handle on things and has failed, partly because they lost supporting military power. The US has finally decided to put <u>its own</u> military force to use to keep the peace and the world flips out. wtf.
Even if you believe that this is <u>all</u> about oil, or some other such nonsense, ask yoursef; where do you think Hussein will be in 10 years if he goes without opposition, especially if he has nuclear weapons at his disposal?
Well, since USA is the protector of freedom etc. why don't you do something about Chinas and Russias human-rights violations?
Oh yeah, you might actually hurt yourself. Im really **** of about USA acting as world police when it fits its purposes. Your just bullying smaller ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 16 2003, 12:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 16 2003, 12:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've pretty much accepted the fact that we are going to war. Don't get me right, I am publicly against it but it seems ineviteble.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I'm saying...just read my sig and you'll see what I've been getting at the whole time.
If we're gonna do it, we might as well do it fast and hard, and get it over with as quickly as possible. Time = money and lives. The more time we spend chit-chatting, the more time Saddam has to prepare for us, and the more time it takes for us to do our thing there resulting in further casualties on both ends. We can only <b>pray</b> that this will be another Desert Storm. That was probably the single most successful military operation in history - I doubt we'll see a repeat, but that's what I'm truly hoping for. Just this time, we gotta take Hussein and co. out...put in a puppet government so we can make the lands plush again, buy cheap oil, and have a nice vacation resort in 20-30 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--Guardian+Feb 19 2003, 07:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Guardian @ Feb 19 2003, 07:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well what do you all think would happen if noone intervened in Iraq? Its been proven that Hussein, when given the chance, will decimate his own people to increase his power. What would he do to the rest of the middle east if he goes unchecked? The UN has had a long time to get a handle on things and has failed, partly because they lost supporting military power. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The containment policy against Iraq did <i>not</i> fail. I can't see Hussein having any weapons of mass destruction, I can't see him moving the Iraqs troops against another country, I can't see <i>anything</i> that would look like a proveable threat against <i>any</i> other country in the last ten years. Thus, the UN didn't fail; Husseins regime is still in check, and nobody has yet been able to prove something different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US has finally decided to put <u>its own</u> military force to use to keep the peace and the world flips out. wtf.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, basically, the US' government has decided to restore peace by filling a few thousand people with lead? Gee, I really can't see why I flip out.
To repeat myself - nobody believes Hussein is a nice fellow, but there's just no alternative to him right now. None. There is no democratic opposition strong enough to keep Iraq together, an UN/US administration wouldn't be tolerated by the neighbours, a 'puppet government' wouldn't survive five minutes.
Ask yourself, where would the world be in ten years if some powerhungry fundamentalist warlords managed to seize the oilrich parts of the Iraq?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well what do you all think would happen if noone intervened in Iraq? Its been proven that Hussein, when given the chance, will decimate his own people to increase his power. What would he do to the rest of the middle east if he goes unchecked? The UN has had a long time to get a handle on things and has failed, partly because they lost supporting military power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He decimated his own people to maintain his hold on power. What, you think he's the first national leader to do that? What will he do if he goes unchecked....your lack of understanding frightens me. look at 1990, his troops took Kuwait and he was ready to move again after 24 hours. Just across the border from Kuwait lie the main Saudi Arabian oil feilds. If Saddam was some kind of rampaging Neo-Hitler bent on Middle Eastern domination he could have gone straight into there. Did he? Why no, he did not. He took Kuwaiit because he thought the US wouldn't do anything; did the US complain when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran? No, because Iran were the "bad guys" of the time. Saddam came to power with US backing, he thought they wouldn't mind if he took a few oil feilds. Turned out they did, so nuts to that, he was driven out. Saddam doesn't have either the militaty power nor the inclination to attack and dominate the Middle East. 12 years of sanctions have crippled his nation, his military is a joke. His missiles can't hit anything nearby and the larger scuds can be easily shot down by jets or ground defenses. All his neighbours are opposing this war; if he's such a massive threat why aren't they baying for his blood? There is no proof, NOTHING that Iraq has WMD. Why the hell would Saddam want them, they're nothing but trouble for him and he doesn't have the offensive capaicty to do anything with them even if he DID have them. He can't hit the US, the inspectors have found nothing (and they're looking HARD btw). What about Nth Korea? THey can hit the continental US, they've admitted to nukes, why isn't there a massive invasion force there? Oh, that's right, no oil and the US might get hurt. Boo hoo. Don't expect us to support your "disarmament" of Saddam when Israel is running around with nukes. Oh yeah, and for every person Saddam has killed, China has killed 10 more. Don't preach to us that he's some kind of Satan come to life, governments have been doing what saddam does to his people since the dawn of settled society. He isn't a threat to the region or the world. That won't stop George "Cowboy" Bush, but at least we can protest in here and be ignored as much as if we'd protested in the streets.
Saddam has been living rather quietly and peacefully now hasn't he? Even if he had nukes, WHY would he risk his comfortable position by using them? He knows that using WOMs cause action from UN/NATO and he would end up dead. He doesn't want that, so only reason why he could have nukes, is that he tries to scare other nations from invading Iraq, thats why for example USA has them.
This is simple and logical, you should undesrtand it, so Saddam is NOT a threat to USA or any other country. He knows he would get his arse whooped in military conflict. Why are you arguing that he is a threat when everyone(even Iraqs neighbor countries) can obviously see this. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Use your hotdamn brains! </span>
If you really wan't to see nukes flying, DO attack Iraq, thats the only chance Saddam would use them(if he has any).
Hey, the only nation that has said it might use nukes in Iraq is the US. Now that makes sence doesn't it. To limit the "spread of WMD" we're gonna use them. Go figure <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Feb 20 2003, 10:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Feb 20 2003, 10:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even if he had nukes, WHY would he risk his comfortable position by using them? He knows that using WOMs cause action from UN/NATO and he would end up dead.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, we all know that people, especially cruel dictators, act in rational logical ways. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, they weren't crazy they were just misunderstood.
I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.
Just face it, government know more than you, the people, and has to make important decisions. The decisions you think are wrong are usually better than any other decision that could have been made.
Support you government...unless you have crazy dictator in power.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Soviet~Dictator+Feb 20 2003, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soviet~Dictator @ Feb 20 2003, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Support you government...unless you have crazy dictator in power. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So GW lost your support then?
Comments
Each and every war led in a recession - the one after the first Gulf War being the main reason for the rather abrupt ending of Bushs government.
It is quite natural that recessions are usually being followed by new times of prosperity, but that's got nothing to do with the war itself, it's just the Keynescurve.
The myth of wars boosting the economy stems from the pre-WW1 days when the victorious party could assume it'd recieve large reperation payments, which is however just not the case anymore.
By the way, the 'Roaring Twenties' were contrary to popular belief not that much of a rally - they just seem to 'roar' when compared to the 1910's (WW1) and the 1930's (WW2).
- WWI: Germany crippled, revives shattered economy with American loans only to be broken by the 1928 stock market crash. France and England struggle, helped mainly by reperations forced from Germany. Austria-Hungary collapses into seperate nations rife with poverty. Russia spends years and the lives of millions of it's citizens recovering.
- WWII: France striken, recovers with American/NATO assitance after war. Britain driven almost to bankruptcy by war debt, survives with US help. USSR: Devestated, takes decades to recover loss of two thirds of it's major factories and 25 million citizens. Germany: Recovers with US help, unburdened of military budget is able to concentrate on manufacturing. Same occurs in Japan. China: also devestated by invasion and civil war, new Communist government strapped for cash and faced with under-industrialised country.
Iraq hasn't recovered from the Gulf War and likely never will.
Wars sometimes promote the economy of the winner, but only in certain industries. When they're over you get collapses in many of these war industries and high unemployment.
Also, the global economy today is influenced by events such as wars. Checked the price of oil lately? It's rising steadily, because of war fears. Most investors don't like wars, there's too much risk. What would help the US economy? Well, here's a few suggestions that might seem radical:
- free health care to all citizens, with the option for provate health insurance if a citizen wishes this. Healthier society results, people are less worried about their health and don't need to buy insurance premiums: more money to spend.
- free schooling to all citizens, with proper funding and high standards. Sorry America, but most of your citizens not being able to find their home town on a map of the US is not the sign of a good education system. Results in more educated population, more qualified for better jobs
- compitant police forces that are properly funded and can deal with crime. A subpart of this would be the de-criminalisation of certain illegal substances, and the set-up of treatment facilities for substance abusers, with the goal of reintergrating these people back into society. The health and schooling ideas above also reduce the amount of crime.
- Good public transport systems in large cities that reduce the need for cars. Result: healthier, less stressed population, less money needed for massive new freeways and reduced traffic conjestion.
- The gradual phasing out of massive firearm ownership. Result: less crime, reduced murder rate. Lower levels of stress and fear in community
- Attention paid to environmental matters such as pollution and deforestation. Result: Healther population, less worried about the future of themselves and their children.
- Good unemployment services that help the unemployed find viable jobs and assist them whilst they are finding them. Result: more employment, less stress, people have much better chance of finding job then having money to spend.
Now wait for it (drum roll please)................Australia has all of the above! But surely we'd be bankrupt!? I hear you cry! But no! We're almost debt free! How is this possible you ask?! Well, it's pretty simple:
WE DON"T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET LARGER THAN THE GNP OF THE WORLDS' MOST WEALTHY NATIONS
That's it. It's THAT simple. Cut back that bloated beast you call a military budget and help your citizens. How dare you think you hae the right to police the world when you can't police downtown Detroit. I would have though Sept 11 taught you that the biggest military in the world couldn't stop fanatics using civilain vehicles as weapons. So you went and put MORE money into the military? Bush what are you smoking and where can I get some? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I have said before, if America wants Iraqi oil they could just buy it instead of wasting an estimated 73 billion dollars, countless deaths, and international disputes to disarm Iraq and replace the government only to have to buy the oil. America isn't the Soviet Union, I don't believe they are going to conquer Iraq and make it the 51st state. I don't know how some poeple truely think that America is fighting to conquer a country. Also, many countries (France and sigh Russia) benefit by KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER.
1. The desire to restrain the United States. Each country would like to see the United States contained and stop behaving like a global hegemon, especially when it comes to the use of military power, where they are at a disadvantage. Germany has seen itself as the primary economic power in a united Europe, and has no particular desire to extend its influence militarily, or see the military instrument being used so effectively. France has similar Euro-pretensions, and Russia, of course, has little need for an even more assertive U.S. than the one that brought about the end of the Soviet Empire.
2. The need to stay relevant. It is difficult to maintain ranking as a world power if you are being ignored. France in particular clings to its great power status, which rests solely on the legitimate possession of nuclear weapons and permanent-member status on the Security Council, both legacies of World War II-era agreements long since superseded by reality. Russia is in a similar situation, yet with the added complication of a GDP per capita lower than American Samoa. Germany of course makes a virtue of the fact that its previous attempts at global relevance led to constitutional provisions banning most military action abroad.
3. Avoiding bad precedents. All three countries would prefer to see U.S. actions kept within the framework of the United Nations. Warfare by coalition is bad enough; future regime changes being pulled off by the United States unilaterally would be intolerable.
4. Catering to Muslims at home and abroad. These countries have substantial domestic Muslim minorities, and supporting a war in Iraq could generate various sorts of problems. In addition, essentially siding with the Muslim world against Coalition war talk ingratiates them. Note though that this does not apply as clearly to Russia, as its actions in Chechnya attest.
5. Resisting regime change in Iraq. Baghdad owes France and Russia tens of billions of dollars. Whether those debts would survive the transfer of power or become a "gift of the international community" is anybody's guess.
6. Oil. The oil issue is worth some extended discussion. The familiar mantra "No War for Oil" takes on an interesting meaning when discussing these countries, and France in particular. A war in Iraq would have very negative effects on French economic prospects in the region. (Why they would have obviously positive effects for the U.S. is something best explained by the antiwar crew, because it is not evident to me.) France is currently Iraq's most favored trading partner, and is heavily involved in Mideast regional energy development. The French energy giant Total Fina Elf recently brought the world's largest offshore natural gas field online in southern Iran, along with Russian natural gas firm Gazprom and the Malaysian company Petronas. Total Fina Elf also has multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Iraq, but because of U.N. resolutions, these contracts have not been signed and cannot be executed until sanctions are lifted. The Russian form Lukoil had a similar $4 billion agreement to develop the Iraqi West Qurnah oil field, but an indignant Saddam recently nullified the deal when Russia established contacts with the Iraqi opposition. Seems like Saddam can't trust anybody these days.
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins021103.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robb...bbins021103.asp</a>
and
It is no secret that the U.S. allies, France and Germany, and the former U.S. rival Russia, oppose U.S. conquest of Iraq. U.S. officials claim it is because the European powers are weak in the face of "threat."
But the real reason is that these major powers have their own strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. Germany and France rely on Persian Gulf oil--their ruling classes are uneasy about the U.S. conducting "open heart surgery" on major oil arteries and, on another level, they are deeply uneasy about the possibility of permanent, direct U.S. control of the world's key oilfields. A U.S. military disaster in the Gulf could deeply disrupt Europe's economy, and a U.S. military victory in the Gulf could leave Europe vulnerable to U.S. control.
Their imperialist interests lead these European ruling classes to support "containment" of Iraq--its disarmament and neutralization through outside pressure--but not "regime change."
The Russian imperialists have huge investments in Iraq and long-standing relations with its current government. The New York Times reports (Oct. 17) that Russian companies control the rights to sell 40 percent of Iraq's oil on world markets. And the Russian capitalists are way ahead in the real prize: One Russian oil company estimates that Russian companies have deals covering more than 70 billion barrels of oil--more than half of Iraq's reserves. All of this could disappear in a U.S. invasion--if the post- Saddam government is told by the invaders to ice-out Russian interests. Without the money from these investments, the Russian economy will be badly shaken.
Meanwhile, a CIA document was leaked to the French newspaper Le Monde which accused the French government of selling Mirage jets to Iraq that were equipped with special tanks for spreading germ warfare. This was a not-so-subtle shot across the bow of the French government--a threat that if they don't join the U.S. war on Iraq, they may find themselves accused of being a co-conspirator in Saddam Hussein's alleged plans.
<a href='http://rwor.org/A/V24/1171-1180/1172/allies.htm' target='_blank'>http://rwor.org/A/V24/1171-1180/1172/allies.htm</a>
The people who would benefit from the US warring with Iraq over it's oil are not the people who are spending the money on this war, so they don't care that we will spend a lot of money on the war, they onyl care that they will reap the rewards of a newly capitalised Iraq.
On another point, do you think Iraq should be divided amongst ethnic lines after a possible war? IIRC, it was created by the British after WW1 from lands taken from the Ottoman Empire. They created Iraq not on ethnic lines, but did so to gain as much oil fields as possible, so they could place a puppet ruler that would sell them the oil at great prices. Iraq is made up of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'ite Muslims, which don't have the most in common.
Also, I believe that the U.S. and UN should pass one LAST resolution forcing Saddam to disarm and allow weapons inspector (not weapons hide-and-go-seekers) to destroy any contraband weapons. As well as forcing Iraq to be a little less inhumane. And then if these conditions aren't met, then action should be taken.
By the way, <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html' target='_blank'>did you read the news lately?</a> Never before has <i>any</i> war, not to mention one that hasn't even started yet, brought that many people to the streets.
Edit: And this war is probably going to hurt Iraq civilians more than Saddam does now. There is a different goverment in Iraq. Even if you think Democracy and Christian religion are the best thing in the world, not everyone believes so. I think we should just let Iraq handle its own problems. When people are being oppressed to certain point they will get rid of Saddam by themselves.
Im in the belief that its far more dangerous if a wacko gets in charge in US than in Iraq/Northern Kore/any other "Axis of evil country". It seems that US is much more aggressive and into bombing(and even nuking) other countries than for example Iraq. If someone should be overthrown its Bush.
The whole thing makes me pretty sick.
Bush wins a presidential election, uses terror to try and rally the people behind his cause, and the whole time from the moment he was elected he is preparing for war.
Not to mention as all this is going on Cheney is making business deals with saddam and his people. Bush and Cheney are scum. Read about their business practices and you will see why when bush says "I'm gunna run this country like a bussiness," you should be frightened. Basically, he is going to extract as much money out of us as he can, running us into the hole, causing poeple to lose jobs, and then bail out before the end.
But hey, whatever, if the America people want to let them do this then what am I to do about it? Let the sheeple have their war on terror and war on drugs. We will only destroy ourselves or we will finally wise up and get civilized.
My heart bleeds cold.
This war is going to happen. Nothing now can prevent it, Bush wants it and Bush is going to get it. All we can do now is hope that it is over quickly, and that not many Iraqi civilians are killed. Given the logical defensive stratagy in such a situation (urban warfare) and the nature of America's very high powered military this seems unfortunatly unlikely. If I was a religious man I would offer some prayers. As it is I will continue to oppose this war and petition my government to stop it, for all the good it will do <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> The entire world has been rendered helpless to stop this attack in the face of US military power. If there are any Americans out there reading this please please PLEASE vote Bush out of office next election. If what he's done so far is a sign of things to come, the UN will be disbanded by 2005 and the entire Middle East under US control by 2007 <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: I was being unrealisitc there but I am still angry. How can a nation that preaches free will and democracy blatently ignore the wishes of the entire globe? I feel so bloody helpless right now. Have your war, get your oil and create hundreds more terrorists than you would have by not invading.
And to the people who seem to think Saddam's regime throws out terrorists by the 1000's, consider this. 15 of the Sept 11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. Do I see an invasion there? Wow, I do not. Saddam has never attacked America and left alone he never would. The guy has enough trouble controlling his own country; why the hell would he attack the world's largest military super-power? The guy's a dictator and paranoid as hell but he's not insane. If he was insane then he would have used chemical and biological weapons in 1991, and Iraq would still be radioactive from the American response.
**** your country, **** my country, **** everyone's 'country' - we are all just bloody human. We are all the same, but different. Repeat. We are all the same, but different. Noone is inferior. Noone is better. We are all the same (but different). Nice little mantra, huh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That man has it all worked out! Thats exactly what I said and think... let us all join the singing and support one world. There is but one race on this freaking planet and that is human, so snap out off your little my country mentality!
All I have to say to draft dodgers is this: If you cannot fight for your country, whether you like it or not, you are a coward and should move to another country. Im not saying that I support this war or that I loathe it. I'm just saying that if my country asks me to fight I will I dont care whether or not I support it. Its my country and I will defend it and my family and friends and if you say that you wont then no offense but you are a coward.
Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would probably fight and die...IF the war was in Finland. That is because Finlands army is only for defending purposes. Attack war is a big no no. Guess what war US is doing, 0 conflicts inside their borders. War on the other side of the world in other countries <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
USA, you lose the little respect I have for you now, if Bush will be re-elected.
Yes but what stance would you take? The run and hide or the fight and die? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saturday, I got a document qualifying myself as 'conscientious objector'. Technically, I am already running.
Did Iraq attack us first?
I didn't think so.
<i>How</i> did Saddam Hussein threaten the United States?
By the way, interesting to note: Kuweit, the country that Hussein attacked last time, took an anti-war stance in the UN hearing.
Even if you believe that this is <u>all</u> about oil, or some other such nonsense, ask yoursef; where do you think Hussein will be in 10 years if he goes without opposition, especially if he has nuclear weapons at his disposal?
Oh yeah, you might actually hurt yourself. Im really **** of about USA acting as world police when it fits its purposes. Your just bullying smaller ones.
That's what I'm saying...just read my sig and you'll see what I've been getting at the whole time.
If we're gonna do it, we might as well do it fast and hard, and get it over with as quickly as possible. Time = money and lives. The more time we spend chit-chatting, the more time Saddam has to prepare for us, and the more time it takes for us to do our thing there resulting in further casualties on both ends.
We can only <b>pray</b> that this will be another Desert Storm. That was probably the single most successful military operation in history - I doubt we'll see a repeat, but that's what I'm truly hoping for. Just this time, we gotta take Hussein and co. out...put in a puppet government so we can make the lands plush again, buy cheap oil, and have a nice vacation resort in 20-30 years.
<b>THAT</b> is the American Way is it not?
The containment policy against Iraq did <i>not</i> fail.
I can't see Hussein having any weapons of mass destruction, I can't see him moving the Iraqs troops against another country, I can't see <i>anything</i> that would look like a proveable threat against <i>any</i> other country in the last ten years.
Thus, the UN didn't fail; Husseins regime is still in check, and nobody has yet been able to prove something different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US has finally decided to put <u>its own</u> military force to use to keep the peace and the world flips out. wtf.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, basically, the US' government has decided to restore peace by filling a few thousand people with lead? Gee, I really can't see why I flip out.
To repeat myself - nobody believes Hussein is a nice fellow, but there's just no alternative to him right now. None.
There is no democratic opposition strong enough to keep Iraq together, an UN/US administration wouldn't be tolerated by the neighbours, a 'puppet government' wouldn't survive five minutes.
Ask yourself, where would the world be in ten years if some powerhungry fundamentalist warlords managed to seize the oilrich parts of the Iraq?
He decimated his own people to maintain his hold on power. What, you think he's the first national leader to do that?
What will he do if he goes unchecked....your lack of understanding frightens me. look at 1990, his troops took Kuwait and he was ready to move again after 24 hours. Just across the border from Kuwait lie the main Saudi Arabian oil feilds. If Saddam was some kind of rampaging Neo-Hitler bent on Middle Eastern domination he could have gone straight into there. Did he? Why no, he did not. He took Kuwaiit because he thought the US wouldn't do anything; did the US complain when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran? No, because Iran were the "bad guys" of the time. Saddam came to power with US backing, he thought they wouldn't mind if he took a few oil feilds. Turned out they did, so nuts to that, he was driven out.
Saddam doesn't have either the militaty power nor the inclination to attack and dominate the Middle East. 12 years of sanctions have crippled his nation, his military is a joke. His missiles can't hit anything nearby and the larger scuds can be easily shot down by jets or ground defenses. All his neighbours are opposing this war; if he's such a massive threat why aren't they baying for his blood?
There is no proof, NOTHING that Iraq has WMD. Why the hell would Saddam want them, they're nothing but trouble for him and he doesn't have the offensive capaicty to do anything with them even if he DID have them. He can't hit the US, the inspectors have found nothing (and they're looking HARD btw). What about Nth Korea? THey can hit the continental US, they've admitted to nukes, why isn't there a massive invasion force there? Oh, that's right, no oil and the US might get hurt. Boo hoo. Don't expect us to support your "disarmament" of Saddam when Israel is running around with nukes.
Oh yeah, and for every person Saddam has killed, China has killed 10 more. Don't preach to us that he's some kind of Satan come to life, governments have been doing what saddam does to his people since the dawn of settled society. He isn't a threat to the region or the world. That won't stop George "Cowboy" Bush, but at least we can protest in here and be ignored as much as if we'd protested in the streets.
This is simple and logical, you should undesrtand it, so Saddam is NOT a threat to USA or any other country. He knows he would get his arse whooped in military conflict. Why are you arguing that he is a threat when everyone(even Iraqs neighbor countries) can obviously see this. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Use your hotdamn brains! </span>
If you really wan't to see nukes flying, DO attack Iraq, thats the only chance Saddam would use them(if he has any).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we all know that people, especially cruel dictators, act in rational logical ways. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, they weren't crazy they were just misunderstood.
I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.
Just face it, government know more than you, the people, and has to make important decisions. The decisions you think are wrong are usually better than any other decision that could have been made.
Support you government...unless you have crazy dictator in power.
So GW lost your support then?