The possible war between iraq and... others

CMEast · September 2002

<div class="IPBDescription">Should it occur or not?</div>I dont think there should be a war between the US and Iraq and I definitely dont think the UK should join in. I know all the other countries are being far more sensible and refuse to join at all. If the UK says no (which is looking unlikely as Tony Blair is Bush's sex slave) then Bush will have a hard time getting it off the ground.

He only wants a war because he is land hungry and wants to control the oil sources. Noone will benifit from this war and it could get seriously out of hand and cause serious damage. If he has nukes etc then he'll use them on the US and other countries aligned with them. If he doesnt then its wrong to attack him. Its a no win situation.

Comments?

TychoCelchuuu · September 2002

Any war is bad. Period.

CMEast · September 2002

Well technically war has a vital function, its an essential part of humanity and without our warlike tendencies we would probably be no where near as successful, possibly not even as evolved, as we are today.

Thered be no NS!

I was asking the question from a political standpoint rather than a morale one.

Freemantle · September 2002

My Grandfather was in Vietnam (kind of, he was the lead electrical engineer on the <i>Enterprise</i>. He straight up told me, "If he instates a war draft, I'm personally buying you a plane ticket to Canada"

Merkaba · September 2002

Bush and Blair seem to think they have very good reasons for wanting to take down Saddam. They claim to have solid evidence that he is gathering weapons of mass destruction, and they will publish the proof within the next fortnight. I don't think I'm going to take it for granted that any report they give is true, though. Governments have a tendency, and a skill, at releasing false information to suit their needs and intents. (After all, who's going to be able to prove them otherwise in matters such as these?)

I won't pretend that I know the depths of the situation, such as why Bush is suddenly so keen to take on Iraq, but it seems scaringly to me that he simply wants to get his balls out in front of the entire world. He has his father to live up to, and it takes a lot to out-do such a ####### as him.

I havn't yet gathered enough information to take sides on either decision, but I am rooting for the peace-keepers. (For obvious reasons. Any loss of human life should be a very last resort, and only if the problem is life threatening itself, as Bush and Blair claim Iraq to be.) The US government seems all too happy to bomb the crap out of any country it has issues with, and I do wish they would stop because all they seem to do is cause pain and suffering, and then wrap up their guilt with lies and deceit. Bullies of the world.

Don't get me wrong. Our government isn't much better.

But as everyone should know, all governments are liars and murderers.

CMEast · September 2002

Ive heard from fairly good sources that the evidence Blair has is old stuff. That its been sitting around on his desk for ages because its all guesswork and rumour, no solid facts or decent conclusions at all. He's only publishing it now because there is a very good time to attack (something to do with the weather and things) and they dont want to miss the window of opportunity.

Oh and Freemantle, dont bother escaping, just refuse. They cant carry you bodily over to iraq and hold the gun for you and then... well miss.

Battousaix · September 2002

All the wars suck, if they want to kill Saddam Hussein they should send a special team, and kill him, and not sending tons of bombs and "accidentally" kill a lot of people........

HBNayr · September 2002

I really, really, really do not want to see United States strike first. We have enough of a net over the country to ensure that any attacks will be met with retribution. But we cannot attack someone who has not thrown the first punch.

Otherwise, we become what we claim to fight.

-Ryan!

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
-- Ernest Benn

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
-- Moshe Dayan

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-- Albert Einstein

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
-- Albert Einstein

War is not nice.
-- Barbara Bush

and since I'm being a glutton with quotes anyways, I give you,

If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully through the entire catalogue.
-- Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Consumer's Guide, 1897

alius42 · September 2002

Well if you think of it this way. Saddam may be gathering nuclear weapons yes, he may be an #######. But does that mean he is absolutely going to use them? America has nuclear capibilites as do many or most of the NATO countries. Does that mean we use them? I can't see Saddam being stupid enough to launch the signle ICBM I'm guessing he has directly at the US or any NATO country. Just because of the retribution he and his country would receive. Let me just say it would be a big radioactive crater for a while. Any war America is going to send over to the middle east after afghanistan is going to inch us closer to world war III. Soon oil resources are going to start to dwindle and the water problem is getting worse and worse. Unless some of the more affluent countries step up to the plate and change their ways (*cough* america *cough*) the world is going to continue its downward spiral. Now this isn't really anti-american its more anti-american government. Bush in my opinion is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, and as Freemantle said. If he starts a war or a draft its over the border I go.

Sgt_X · September 2002

I saw an article a while ago (though it was probably biased) that said Mr. Presidant American is pushing for more oil drilling and buying it off the Middle Eastern countries rather than getting the U.S. economy switched to alternitive sources.

Tactician · September 2002

Unfortunately, the CIA dropped assassination from its agenda after its failures with Castro. At least, they say so.

Seems the rest of our special forces are busy spelunking in Afghanistan. So much for indirect means. Few countries can begin to match U.S. firepower in a straight out fight, as Iraq learned back in the 90's. Surely Saddam wouldn't try and start something with us unless he had some kind of dirty trick up his sleeve. If the dogs of war are unleashed, he'd better have a few hundred feet of concrete between himself and the sky.

CMEast · September 2002

He will have a lot of concrete, thats partly the point. They wont be able to get him, only the innocents. At the moment he wouldnt attack, hes got to much to lose. Starting a war just calls for retaliation and if we push him he will push back with whatever he has.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2002

One thing that starts to make me more and more upset is how all wars - or 'strategic operations' - of the last ten years, and I'm not only talking about those fought by the US here, seemed to become ineviteable as soon as the governement that would initiate it got into economic or similiar troubles.
Isn't it funny that Sadam has started to assemble weapons of mass destruction just when the most western countries are on the verge of an economic depression and their leaders in desperate need for a way to improve their image?

I've got big respect for the men and women who decided to stand in for their countries with their life. They don't deserve being put into danger for a PR gig.

CrystalSnake · September 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Merkaba @ Sep. 07 2002,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I won't pretend that I know the depths of the situation, such as why Bush is suddenly so keen to take on Iraq</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
<a href="http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/03/25/tomo/index.html" target="_blank">http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/03/25/tomo/index.html</a>

Legionnaired · September 2002

Saddam is a fool, and an oppressive tyrant fool at that.

I do believe he needs to be taken out of office. However, Open war, especially if you're walking right into his home town, never works well for us. Personally, a cruise missle through his window may well do him good.

However, I don't think this is how we should respond to the other middle-eastern coutries. Saddam has, time and time again, showed that he is amassing weapons of mass destruction. Now, Wars are horrible, but a city of 6 million people disappearing off the map? I'd fight to avoid that, and die trying too!

The thing is, that all the other arab nations have been ignored so long that the twisted islamic radicalists-

(Note: I'm not insulting the Islamic religion, Obviously, there are perfectly rational Muslims, just as there are perfectly insane, radicalist Chrisians [Pokemon Burining anyone? What about Majic Cards?] However, the people in power have been placed in a situation where the people below them do not know how to read, and in a climate where small-scale farming operations are next to impossible. This makes them do whatever they want, and the religious influence allows for a fear to those who disobey them, not only of death, but of eternal hellfire as well.)

- have been able to gain control of the people so much, that they only know what they're government tells them.

SO, why not just send them, say, farming equipment, complete with instructions printed in their language, and on tape? What about <i>real copies of the koran</i> For Christ's sake!? There's so much we can do to help these people, and yet we chose on focusing on their leaders. A Government is <span style='color:red'><b><i>NOTHING</span></b></i> without the people it governs!

Win back the people, you win back the countries.

Evil_Sonic_Death_Monkey · September 2002

1. i forgot if some1 mentioned this already... ok... neways... here it is, u ppl notice that bush is fighting 1 war after another, and completely useless ones too? ok, they get attacked on 11/9, then they go to some country and start causing chaos and blasting everything to bits. then they "capture all the ppl who were involved wit the Al Qaeda". they probablty spent some few billion dollars on bombs target practicing in the middle of the desert blowing up rockets... and millions of bullets, but the only target hit is either neutral, or friendly. ok now the "war against terrorism" is over, and they pulled out. the soldiers go back home. the week after, bush is like hinting to other countries to go fight another useless (maybe <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>) war against saddam and waste another few billion dollars. instead of wasting that money on ammunition, they could use those billion dollars from the "war on terrorism" and the war going to b fought wt saddam and promote the Kyoto Protocol or help the ppl in
Africa, or the stuff they talked about at the Earth summit.
2. there is actually a good side of war, but a lot less compared to the bad side.the good side of war, is controlling over population. even tho its brutal and nasty, it still controls the population. but this point is nothing compared to emotional lost, economic disaster, and world choas.
3. war is a very natural thing. not 1 species on Earth hasn't had a war. if u think about it, everything has wars. u c ants running around in big groups, and u see alot of dead ants lying everywhere, that's a war no? also, u've seen like goat or somethin trying to bash each other, that's war. our wars may not b as destructive if it was reduced to the size of an ant.we just think our wars are REALLY big and they can cause massive destruction, sure they can now, but not b4.
<b>Quote</b> (Don't know from who)
"War ain't like it used to be."

Battousaix · September 2002

People, they dont spend money, they earn more money, if you check usa, you can see that its falling in a depression, people and more people is getting fired, and they cant get a job.... Now, the question is, what can they do?. The answer is simple, we find a good place to take over, that would give us money if we control it. Then we make up weird stuff about nukes and dirty plans against usa, then we´ll see if they attack, if they dont then we place a nuke in an embassy and then we can attack. Once the war begans, the army needs a lot of stuff, and the ammo factories need ppl to work in them, so the economy reactivates. Also, after they take control of iraq they are gonna place a fake govment that serves usa, and they are going to get cheap oil and they can use that precious cheap fuel to make energy.
Sidenote: If you didnt knew, the energy in usa is gettin more and more expensive because everyday theres more and more demand, think about this: USA probably is consumin 1/3 of the total energy of the planet, and they need a cheap way of getting it, oil is perfect for it, and iraq has it.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2002

Economically, wars are <i>always</i> losses; billions of dollars that are literally blown up.

Today it's nearly impossible to make profit with a war by reparation or enforced trade contracts.

Tactician · September 2002

Dollars and cents can be replaced. People can't. The only people that worry about the economic effects of war are the ones that live through it.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2002

I don't doubt that, it's only that <i>everyone</i> propagating a war acts as if it would help the economy, although the opposite is true.

alius42 · September 2002

During Bush's time in office he has already went through the billions and billions of dollars we had in surplus. All on "defense" and the "war on terrorism", does anyone actually know what the governement is doing with it? No. Does anyone care? Not really, accept for a small amount of the population that is really paying attention to what he is doing. The american government has long been out of the hands of the people and it really is time we take it back. How? I don't know. When? No clue. But its definately something to think about. But I obviously don't like him very much, and may sound a little radical and one sided.

(About the oil. America has a gigantic supply of oil in Alaska. Its protected by the national forests for now. But I think its really being saved until we actually need it. When the middle east runs out. The amount under those forests rivals or equals that which is in the middle east. Another thing to think about I guess.)

Tactician · September 2002

Do you vote?

alius42 · September 2002

I can't vote yet, I'm not eighteen.

Spooge · September 2002

Wow. I've really tried putting off replying to this nonsense. I've never seen a larger pile of mis-information in my life. Ever. You guys really need to start paying more attention instead of reading bold print headlines and listening to television reporters with a sparkle in their eyes while they spew bullet-point catch phrases.

1. U.S. is not in a recession. In fact the economy has been growing over past few quarters and is expected to continue. Doom and Gloom reporters are jumping on the day to day rise and fall of the stock market and using that fluctuation to make you think we're in trouble. The fact is, we're still feeling the effects of the market "bubble" of the last 10 years. This "bubble" is also, no doubt, the reason some corporate heads thought they could get away with murder. They won't.
2. The surplus you so hunger for was not only a farce, it was also (in my opinion) a criminal act against tax payers. They have been collecting more money than they had budgeted for a certain amount of time. Fortunately, President Bush recognized this and tried to give some back. Now, so many social programs have been implemented that the surplus has disappeared. The Democrats are lying when they tell you that the tax cut has reduced the "surplus". You need to remember that money is power. Democrats thrive on power. More money in the federal government means a larger more powerful government. They have successfully fooled all of you by telling you that you need more government. Why do you think it is that welfare has INCREASED instead of decreased over the last 70 years. It was meant to get people back on their feet after the Great Depression. Now the Democrats are using it to keep us down and them up.
3. President Bush does not need a war with Iraq to improve his approval ratings. It's amusing how President Clinton had lower approval ratings and if you watched the news you'd think he was king of the world.
4. The U.S. does not need to lower oil prices. Ask around. Gasoline prices haven't moved. Besides that, we're building a partnership with Russia which means more oil.
5. I am concerned about moving into Iraq. True Conservative thought is too isolationist to create a first strike scenario. However, if intelligence shows that Saddam is moving to strike, he's toast. Don't worry. You sweaty palmed, spineless jellyfish won't have to get off your futons. If Saddam goes down, it will be quick. Hehe, in the Gulf War most of his "soldiers" were giving themselves up as fast as they could. Saddam is a dictator. In the worst sense of the word. Just ask the Iraq citizens he sprayed with his bio-weapons. Those people don't want him any more than we do. The only difference is that they'll be killed if they say so.
6. As far as Kyoto or whatever that useless waste of pulp is called, there is no incentive for the U.S. to sign on. It won't change anything. Except that the U.S. will have to give MORE money to smaller nations who can't control they're own pollution.

Bah, I'm tired of wasting my time on this. Believe or don't believe. But I strongly suggest you start paying closer attention to the places where you get your information. Question all of them.

Merkaba · September 2002

I find it rather amusing that Bush and Blair are so dead set on taking out Saddam, yet they completely dodge about the fact that they PUT HIM THERE in the first place, and supplied him with weapons of all sorts back in the 80s. They didn't seem to have any trouble with him using bio-weapons against (Iran?). Now, suddenly, they are turning on him and looking to take him out for no good reason as far as I can make out. (Has anyone HEARD from Saddam in the past decade? Why is he suddenly back in the limelight?)

Has anyone ever seen the movie Trainspotting? Remember that one scene where the two guys are in a park with an airrifle, and they shoot a dog, on the other side of the park, up the arse? And then the dog goes mental and starts mauling the guy who is sitting next to him. This is exactly how I see the US governments reaction to the 9/11 tragedy.

The US has caused far more tragedies in its destructive path, although they are not as blatent and are hidden amongst statistics and PR. The whole of the western world mourns the loss of those lives. And then we retaliate and do the [i]exact same thing[i/] to other countries, only because the governments wrap up their actions all their bull[b][/b]#### stories and claims, it's not seen as a crime.

Iraq is just the next country in the US's sights, and how many innocents will suffer over there because of it? There is NO difference between anyone who dies in this possible war and anyone who died last year in the WTC. No difference whatsoever. Except no one over here will know anyone over there. And we won't have to live with it, as it simply ends up as statistics and empty reports; we won't have to walk past the death and destruction to get to work, like people had to in NY city. But it's still there, and this time the US is to blame and there's no excuse. At least, no excuse which I am willing to hear.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I strongly suggest you start paying closer attention to the places where you get your information. Question all of them.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

OK. I'll start with yours.

1.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. is not in a recession.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Noone said that. All I told was that it is on the verge to a recession, and every independent economist will agree on that. It's simple - we've had a very long phase of growth, which will always result in a phase of economical reduction. Absolutely normal, but not nice for the president currently in office.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> This "bubble" is also, no doubt, the reason some corporate heads thought they could get away with murder. They won't.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I know of at least <i>two</i> corporate heads that <i>will</i>. Which? I'll give you a hint: They're currently the two mightiest men in your country.

2. I can't really comment on the surplus - I'm troubled enough to get hold on my countries finiancial lies.

Let me say, however, that the equation money = power = corruption is horribly shortened.

Also, I don't remember Clinton establishing whole new bureaucratic agencies - Bush, however, did. If there's someone creating more government and less public rights at rapid speed, it's your President and Mr. "Let's arrest thousands of people without of any prove" Ashcroft.

3. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's amusing how President Clinton had lower approval ratings and if you watched the news you'd think he was king of the world.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

It's amusing how you forget how Bush lost 20% of his rating in mere months. Clinton had a stable, high approval; people were content with his work.
Bush was the man who stood at Americas side during the first foreign attack on their land for more than fifty years. If Clinton had still been President during this situation, he would've had ratings around 110%, if you allow me the exaggeration.

4.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. does not need to lower oil prices.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The US, like any other sane country, will always use any opportunity to get lower prices on the product that keeps their industry going.

5.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You sweaty palmed, spineless jellyfish won't have to get off your futons.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Since when do jellyfishs have palms?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those people don't want him any more than we do.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I'd really be happy if you were right. Unfortunately, Saddam is <i>really</i> a true dictator - he knows how to use propaganda. The sanctions hit the Iraqi hard, and his propganada machine allowed him to blame it all on the US - he's profiting from his peoples suffering, while they almost love them, because they think he saves them from the American devils. It's a strange world we live in, isn't it?

6. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as Kyoto or whatever that useless waste of pulp is called, there is no incentive for the U.S. to sign on. It won't change anything. Except that the U.S. will have to give MORE money to smaller nations who can't control they're own pollution.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

What the friggin hell are you talking about? Kyoto was an agreement between the industrialized states - those states that <i>don't</i> need money, thank you - to reduce CO2 exhaustion. Yes, there are programs to help smaller countries to industrialize themselves without of doing our mistakes, but that doesn't touch Kyoto, which was really just an agreement on the amount of CO2 reduction.

the_stalker · September 2002

bah, not another stupid war, whats it about this time? <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':angry:'>

Merkaba · September 2002

Well, try reading the entire thread and you might find out. Or be able to take a guess.

There's a difference between what they SAY the war is for, and what their real intentions are.

CMEast · September 2002

Spooge, have you been watching subliminal message TV again?

<b>You</b><i>really need to start paying more attention instead of reading bold print headlines and listening to television reporters with a sparkle in their eyes while they spew bullet-point catch phrases.</i>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Except that the U.S. will have to give MORE money to smaller nations who can't control they're own pollution.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

You mean like America and all the other large countries did when they were trying to become modern and industrialised? I think youll find that we made far worse mistakes, we cant just force them to stay in mud huts, they need to catch up and they need help to do it. Or do you not believe in the idea of a global community?

Ginger · September 2002

if we did have a war US will easy win.. so if i was leader or iraq i would just give up lol:)

Merkaba · September 2002

It's a little more complex than that, Ginger. If war does take place, then the US will probably win it yes. But it'll also be hated even more than it is now (And the US government IS hated.), possibly (probably?) leading to even more attacks on america and uprisings in the east.