Iraq strike 'would open hell's gates'

[Rhubarbman 0]

must have been the refinaries i heard about.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Russia's been churning out oils a lot recently. and has been blamed/creditted for unusually low prices in oil.

[Guest]

In the end, I think it is hard to guess what will happen with Iraq and if it will be successful. There are many factors that makes a failure probable. On the other hand, I thought that Afganistan would be a failure too. While the capture of bin Laden certainly has been a failure the US with its allies managed to kick out the Taliban with minimal casulties (NATO casulties that is).

On the other hand most of the work in Afganistan was done by the Afgans themselves and the Taliban were domestically in a much weaker position then Saddam Hussein is. There is also no real opposition in Iraq so mobilising locals against Hussein will be difficult.

On factor that is very important is the will of the Iraqi people to fight. If Saddams propaganda has been successful and many are willing to fight for him, things will become complicated. Combine that with the possibility that the US this time has to do the dirty work by itself this time, and things start to look bleak.

On the other hand the people who are in charge of the US military are not idiots - they are perfectly aware of these things. In the end, if the US really wants to then it can take Iraq - no question about it. The only question is at what cost, in terms of own and Iraqi civilian casulties.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,15:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only question is at what cost, in terms of own and Iraqi civilian casulties.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with your post Denoir, but I think there may be greater costs, maybe there will be Arab opposition, and maybe the international community will attempt to stop the US? I don't know, but this will be very interesting.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Dont froget that BushyBush worked in Texas in the oil-industry before. So you should not only wonder why he is convinced that global warming doesnt exist (like a Marlboro Manager insisting that smoking doesnt cause cancer) but also why he is so convinced of the necessity of occupying and restructuring (westernising) Iraq. A stable Iraq with western baoundaries would stabilise the oil prices for decades, the costly fluctuations (especially for the US) would be history. Thirdly he wouldnt have to allow oil-companies to explore oil-fields in Alaska in order to make the US independant from oil-price-threats. Voila, and so a few KIAs are the cost for the very american way of life: "dont allow any constraints to consumption, cause that is what keeps the economy runing!"

[zverushka 0]

I think we gotta attack Iraq.

He might be scheming some evil plans ro something, or he might be not.

Te important thing is, is that occupying Iraq will give US alot of oil, and a war would trigger the "defense" market therefore maybe jumpstarting the economy.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Sep. 08 2002,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think we gotta attack Iraq.

He might be scheming some evil plans ro something, or he might be not.

Te important thing is, is that occupying Iraq will give US alot of oil, and a war would trigger the "defense" market therefore maybe jumpstarting the economy.<span id='postcolor'>

What an inane comment.

The days of using a convenient conflict to jumpstart an economy, or making war on a country to secure a resource should be long over!

If the US can produce irrefutable evidence that Iraq not only posseses WMD, but is also has imminent plans to use them, then yes, they would be justified in military action.

If they cannot, and Iraq allows UN inspectors unrestrcted access, then the US has no basis for action.

[Rhubarbman 0]

the UN inspectors do jack shit and its to late even if they do go back, we got to clear up what we should have finished.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Sep. 08 2002,02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the UN inspectors do jack shit and its to late even if they do go back, we got to clear up what we should have finished.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe Canada should come clean up what we started in 1812.

Maybe Americans should stop deciding who is right and wrong in the world and start being resposible citizens. For you to assume that Iraq will do bad things to you so you should go take action against them is every bit as much terrorism as what happened last September.

Present irrefutable evidence and justify military action. Otherwise, stay home.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Sep. 08 2002,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Te important thing is, is that occupying Iraq will give US alot of oil, and a war would trigger the "defense" market therefore maybe jumpstarting the economy.<span id='postcolor'>

war, unless done in short time period, drains gov't money, i.e. increases spending, which leads to long run deficit. unless there is guarantee that US will win in short time frame, just a small jump in 'defense' industry won't help.

think why Bush sr. had the word 'it's the economy, stupid' thrown at him.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Ok, how about this. Everyone who is all for attacking Iraq, grab a rifle and hop into a plane. You will then be parachuted into Baghdad at night. You may know now that you will die for the glory of the American economy!

Does it look so good if you are the ones going to die?

[SirLoins 0]

I hate to sound like a broken record but, what will it take to show you guys that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to use WMD?

He has shown he has no hesitation in poisining his own people.

I'll take the chance. Thank God that President George W. Bush has the balls to stand up to this guy while a the spineless European countries stand by and do absolutely nothing but bitch and complain about American policy.

It's not about OIL!

It's not about George Senior!

It's not about KYOTO!

It's about saving the planet from fanatical Muslems!

Wake up and smell the roses while you still can.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 08 2002,07:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He has shown he has no hesitation in poisining his own people.

<snip>

It's not about OIL!

It's not about George Senior!

It's not about KYOTO!

It's about saving the planet from fanatical Muslems!

Wake up and smell the roses while you still can.<span id='postcolor'>

simply, put this way. it's easier to gas yor own ppl under iron fist. but once that gas is used on other countries, Saddam can say good bye to this world and have perpetual date with the Satan. no one gave a damn to what Hussein did within Iraq borders. as soon as he crossed, he got himself into one f!@#ing situation that got him get on his knees.

what does Kyoto treaties have to do with this?

and i really like to say that you are one biased person. there is no fanatical muslims. Osama and Omar has been dubbed as impostors of muslim longtime ago. thus they are not. although they cam claim that they are the 'true' muslims, it is no doubt that muslim do not condone them.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

He might use WMD if he thinks he has nothing to lose. Don't forget that Suddam has said that he will use WMD if America of Britain attacks Iraq again. He might not use them at first, but if he's backed into a corner with no escape and he knows he's going down, he might use them just as a last strike and to hit back.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Just watching the news and President Bush is saying that they have sattelite photos from the International Atomic Comitee showing that Iraq does have WMD. Do you think these photos do exist, or do you think he just pulled them out of thin air to silence people saying proof is needed? Im not going to go either way.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 08 2002,07:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's about saving the planet from fanatical Muslems!<span id='postcolor'>

I think we should deal with our fanatical christians first. I consider them being more dangerous to our civlization.

Iraq is not a theocracy. Saddam Hussain can be accused of many things, but calling him a fanatical muslim is ridiculous. The only time he is even mentioning Islam is when he is trying to rally support from the neighbour muslim countries.

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussain have nothing in common. Iraq has no religious ambitions. His political ambitions were killed off during the Gulf war. Now his only interest is to stay in power.

His ambition to have weapons of mass destruction is not equal to the wish of using them for terrorism. USA, England, France, Russia, India, Pakistan...etc have all weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we should invade them and remove whoever is in power? No.

Saddam is not picking this fight, Bush is. And by his side is his pet-dog Blair. We all know that Bush is a moron, that's nothing new. I feel sorry for Britain however that they got such a spineless man as Blair to lead their country.

[Guest]

Also one word on WMDI find it very sad how people are so misinformed. It is not enough that you have a nuke. Building a nuke is the easy part. The hard part is the delivery system. If you think that rocke science is Iraq's strong side then you are sadly mistaken.

Without any delivery system - what is he going to do? Walk to Washington and drop it from a car?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just watching the news and President Bush is saying that they have sattelite photos from the International Atomic Comitee showing that Iraq does have WMD. Do you think these photos do exist, or do you think he just pulled  them out of thin air to silence people saying proof is needed? Im not going to go either way.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is so sad when they are so deperate for finding evidence that is not there. Anyway IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), whose reports they used for 'evidence' denied that they indicate that Iraq is building WMD:

From CNN.com:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both leaders [bush, Blair] cited a report indicating possible nuclear construction by Iraq, although a spokesman for the international agency in charge of nuclear inspection said no conclusions could be drawn from the report.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Later in the day, officials confirmed the IAEA does have satellite photographs which the agency's scientists say show fresh construction and new buildings at weapons sites where U.N. weapons inspectors once visited.

But the IAEA said it has been reviewing these pictures for more than two years and that there are no new photos or evidence of Iraqi nuclear activity.

The New York Times wrote about the satellite pictures in an article published Friday.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"[bush and Blair] are going off of a New York Times article that really didn't get it right yesterday. In fact, we issued a press release last night saying there's no new information about any Iraqi nuclear activity, and until we get inspectors on the ground we can't draw any conclusion about whether they're in compliance with the Security Council resolutions with regard to nuclear activities." <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">address the Iraqi National Assembly Sunday and perhaps head off war, was critical of calls for a regime change in Iraq.

Ritter, who looked for weapons in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, when he was called back to the United States two days prior to a U.S. attack on Iraq, said an ultimatum from Bush would carry no weight with the Iraqis.

"One of the problems with President Bush issuing that kind of ultimatum is that he has no credibility," Ritter said. "Members of his administration have said inspections don't matter. Members of his administration have said that, even if they get back in Iraq and succeed in disarming Iraq, that they're still going to seek regime removal."

The Bush administration appears to be using the issue of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war, Ritter said.

"This is about President Bush's own domestic political agenda in which he and his administration have invested so much political capital behind the concept of getting rid of the Iraqi president that they boxed themselves in to a rhetorical corner and are desperate to advance this situation. So they're using weapons inspections as such an excuse."

<span id='postcolor'>

All the quiotes above are taken from CNN article.

Frankly I am starting to doubt how much support for an invasion of Iraq Bush has at home in the States. CNN is usually loyal to the administration, especially in questions of war an national security. It is not often that you read things like this from them.

[Kep Kelagin 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 08 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also one word on WMDI find it very sad how people are so misinformed. It is not enough that you have a nuke. Building a nuke is the easy part. The hard part is the delivery system. If you think that rocke science is Iraq's strong side then you are sadly mistaken.

Without any delivery system - what is he going to do? Walk to Washington and drop it from a car?<span id='postcolor'>

If i got it correct, i saw somewhere on the news that the Chineze got rockets capable of carrying nukes, and could deliver to Iraq, so shooting nukes won't be the difficult part for Saddam ...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kip Kilagan™ @ Sep. 08 2002,11:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If i got it correct, i saw somewhere on the news that the Chineze got rockets capable of carrying  nukes, and could deliver to Iraq, so shooting nukes won't be the difficult part for Saddam ...<span id='postcolor'>

lolol. Let's take one step back to the real world shall we? USA has also got ICBMs, does that mean that USA would give them to Iraq ?

1) China has today about 5-10 ICBMs. Their priority is to build up their own weapons arsenal, not giving away the weapons to some two bit mid east dictator punk.

2) China does not care in any way about Iraq.

3) Anybody giving weapons to Saddam would have to be extremely stupid today. Bush has shown that he is even willing to attack when there is no evidence at all.

4) Rockets are not small things. Actually land based ICBMs are very very large things. You don't put them in your personal luggage on an airplane. The only (and I doubt this too) possible way would be on a supertanker - and those are all inspected by the US Navy.

5) Chinese rockets use liquid propellant. This is not something you get form your nearst gas station.

6...10000) Too much to list. The concept is just so ridiculous.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 08 2002,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is not picking this fight, Bush is. And by his side is his pet-dog Blair.<span id='postcolor'>

*Cough* *Cough* John Howard *Cough* *Cough*

If Blair does what Bush says when it suits, then Howard does everything Bush wants wiether it suits or not.

And your right about delivery system, but do Iraq have any SCUDS left over from the Gulf War? If so, then theres you delivery platform... ...That is for attacks within the country againt an invading Americna force or agaisnt Israel. No Scud is going to fly to America.......

[Paratrooper 0]

I agree with you Col. Kurtz he will only use them (WMD) when he is in a corner, and then against Israel which is within scud range.

BUT it is not what Saddam would do with them that bothers me, it is who he could give them to and then deny responsibility. Saddam can't win a war but he could be the best freind al-Queda ever had in a phoney peace.

[DarkLight 0]

Why does Bush always think that attacking a country is the best solution? I really don't understand this man, if a country would attack the US because they don't agree with them it'd be war within days....

Don't get me wrong, i don't hate the US, actually i think it's a nice country, i like countries with different cultures. I just don't understand Bush very well.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 08 2002,11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And your right about delivery system, but do Iraq have any SCUDS left over from the Gulf War? If so, then theres you delivery platform... ...<span id='postcolor'>

Heh Do you know what range a SCUD has? The Iraqi R-17 SCUDs has a range of about 300 km. Not really a threat

Scuds are short range tactical missiles.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

But wait! One thing we shouldnt forget is that those uncontrollable states try to get atomic-weapons. What do we do if one day Iraq actually has them functioning. What do you do then? Any army approaching Hussein would be blown to dust. You got to think forward. Either now or never. But of course we have to try out any option before the military one.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 08 2002,15:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But wait! One thing we shouldnt forget is that those uncontrollable states try to get atomic-weapons. What do we do if one day Iraq actually has them functioning. What do you do then? Any army approaching Hussein would be blown to dust. You got to think forward. Either now or never.<span id='postcolor'>

Was this irony? If yes, never mind the rest of my post.

As long as he is kept under UN observation there is no problem. Even if he got nukes we would have more. The possibility of some action in the future hardly justifies a military operation that will kill at leat thousands of civilians.