The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

Knee jerk reaction?

And I don't just jump into things I don't know about (well, most of the time). At least not now. I've produced at least one good reason why we should at least investigate thoroughly Iraq, and haven't seen any that negate it.

But maybe we're just different people with different opinions which wont change until something happens.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 19 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just do I know, would you all support the war IF the UN inspectors found WMDs in Iraq OR good evidence of Saddam exporting them?<span id='postcolor'>

I would be satisfied only if there was no alternative to war (pretty rare). If the U.N. makes some bad judgement or is pushed into conflict, I will disagree with it.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No becaue they probably wont get involved militarily.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sharon stated a few days ago that Israel would react accordingly if Israel was attacked in any way by Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but they're not against taking him out of power.

<span id='postcolor'>

You are missing a crucial point here. The rulers of middle eastern nations are opposed to US military action against Iraq because of their own unstable regimes. There are growing concerns and demands within those countries about lack of a democratic process. An Iraq-US war would only strengthen those organisations critical of their countries regimes. The very same regimes that you support and strengthen in order to save the oilmarket from too much fluctuation also happen to be VERY oppressive towards democratic movements. Do you realy believe it was purely accidental that so many of the WTC attackers were Saudi? So - what's US' answer to such a threat you may ask? Oh, make sure the rulers/tyrants are even more secured in their positions, because nothing is more dangorous for you than a democratic rule whom are not fancying USA.

You may say - hell, why don't the rulers of those nations just change their countries into working democracies (because we all know US just loves the "free world" )? Guess what - most of these nations can't afford it! The gap between the rich and the poor in the arab world is growing dramatically. The debt to the western world is reaching an all time high. The GBP of all the 56 countries in the "arab conference" is less than the GBP of France. The GBP of all the 22 countries of "arab league" is less than Spain's GBP. They just can't afford a democratization process - because they (tyrants supported by US) would loose all their wealth if wealth was supposed to be more evenly distributed among citizens of the middle eastern nations. I wonder why Colin Powel launched "deal for partnership" 12 dec. Could it possibly be that if the regimes stayed loyal to US they would receive "help" to protect them from external as well as internal enemies? No democracy then with " a little help from my friends".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unless we find weapons, or where he's been exporting them to.<span id='postcolor'>

No, even if you find weapons you would find it very hard to rally support for a war against Iraq. Most nations in the world want's a peacefull solution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would the US be in control of the oil? Iraq would be a seperate nation and in control of itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Gee, I didn't believe you were THAT naive!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ugh, you're ignoring my point completely. My point was that no matter what we do, there will always be some crazy stupid osama bin laden that gets pissed off and straps himself to a bomb.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, you sure are doing your best to make a mess of the situation by supporting tyrants without populare support as well as your soon to be glorious war against Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not a chemical weapons factory, it's a baby hospital. It's not a nuclear detonator, it's a kidney dialysis machine.

<span id='postcolor'>

There are no such thing as a hightech medical material/machines in Iraq because of the embargo. Just ask one of the thousands of kids dying every month because of that?

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yes and he wants money for the costs of his troop gathering from his "allies". Noone asked him for troops down there, so US should pay for their presidential marching not the countries that doubt his motives. Oh maybe he should raise a presidential war tax in the US. Donate for bombs !<span id='postcolor'>

Haven't heard anything about it, but I agree.  We should pay for our own troops.  But then again everyone else should pay for theirs.<span id='postcolor'>

sure, the US will pay for its own military. just as we've always done. if you want to make a point about not asking allies for money, then you can do so as soon as the United States is repaid all the money it gave Europe during both world wars. of course, nobody ever wants to actually REPAY the US for all the GOOD things we've done, do they? no, they just wan't to enjoy all our freedoms, take them for granted, and then bash our government, economy, and foreign policy.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America is hardly popular in that region. Dropping bombs will hardly make them like you more. The only one you might do some 'bonding' with is Israel, and you already have a good relation with them. The arab states are all against a war on Iraq. Even Iran, Iraq's nemesis is against a US led war.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but they're not against taking him out of power.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed they are and have said so repeatedly. For them a US dominated Iraq is a far greater threat then Saddam. I don't know why I bother discussing this with you since you obviously don't even know the rudimentary facts about that region.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would the US be in control of the oil? Iraq would be a seperate nation and in control of itself.

<span id='postcolor'>

As it has always been done: A new government in Iraq would be more or less be forced to make deals with American corporations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Enter the realm of the sheep: I have no proof but I trust my government since they are good and would never have an agenda.<span id='postcolor'>

Enter the realm of the blind activist. What I said had nothing to do with my government. UN INSPECTORS, not US inspectors, but UN INSPECTORS found these weapons. If you think he got rid of them, I've got a bridge to sell you.<span id='postcolor'>

They never found any nuclear weapons. You've stated repeatedly in this thread that while there has been no proof presented to the public that your government must have that proof an have a good reason for not making it public. If you wish I can find numerous quotes from you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they're not selling any oil now, wouldn't it lower the oil price to have them on the market?<span id='postcolor'>

No. Why should it ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because when you flood the market with something it's prices go down. If there's one Babe Ruth baseball card in the world, it's going to cost about a million dollars. But if everyone has one, they're going to be worth about 10 cents each.<span id='postcolor'>

We are getting the oil for free now so it would become much more expensive. Iraqs oil is getting exported. Its just that we don't pay for it but exchange it for food.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes lets blast half of the planet next time...you will definately hit some military installations then. Again your logic and arrogance towards human life makes me sick.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't be a drama star, we saved lives by dropping those bombs. Even you should know that.<span id='postcolor'>

FSPilot, when I gave you a warning last time, I wasn't joking. This is the last warning that you'll get.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not impossible that FSpilot could get drafted soon, what with the world situation and his birthday coming up.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I've been eligible for the draft for several months now.

<span id='postcolor'>

How come you don't join the military then, if you think it is about defending your country?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure that his viewpoint concerning military action, and 'Military targets', would drastically change for the better.<span id='postcolor'>

Ohhh, so defending yourself is a bad reason to go to war?<span id='postcolor'>

Except that Iraq is the one defending itself, not the US. USA threatens the national security of Iraq and the safety of its citizens, not the other way around.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok. let's get a couple of things refreshed.

before UN inspectors found those used(or pre-owned ) warheads that could have been used in WMD(and biological weapons are Weapons of mass destruction too), most of the pro-peace groups stance was that US should not act as long as there is no evidence.

unfortunately, Iraq forgot to add some list of stuffs that was sent to UN. Even Hans Blix, whom US disliked due to his nonconformist stance with US, who is also labeled as 'objective' person that could lean UN team, is getting unhappy with what UN inspectors are facing.

i'm pretty sure that Iraq is so outdated that they forgot to add some *unimportant* things like warheads.

now that it seems like Iraq is not as innocent as they seem to be, i wonder why ppl are not showing some consistency. one of many criticisms that US recieved is that there exists no proof that Iraq is clean handed. well, with recent developement, it shows that(whether intentional or not) Iraq doesn't have its case solid too.

then why is US the only one getting criticized? I see no criticism of Iraq, when they are not holier than US. maybe it's the Bush gov't's initiative to block such info?

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 20 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, make sure the rulers/tyrants are even more secured in their positions, because nothing is more dangorous for you than a democratic rule whom are not fancying USA. <span id='postcolor'>

Please name a single democratic (by western standards) nation that is very anti-US. Germany? Norway? gimme a break.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, even if you find weapons you would find it very hard to rally support for a war against Iraq. Most nations in the world want's a peacefull solution.<span id='postcolor'>

Would it be? You're simply forgetting the fact that Iraq has agreed on UN resolutions to destroy/discontinue developement and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

UN inspectors are now finding out how Iraq has kept it's promise which it has betrayed so many times. We're talking about UN here and if weapons of mass destruction projects are actually found, opposition to war will certainly decrease as they violate UN decisions. Everybody wants a peaceful solution but it's pretty hard with a lying megalomanic dictator who refuses to disarm no matter what.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would the US be in control of the oil? Iraq would be a seperate nation and in control of itself.Gee, I didn't believe you were THAT naive!<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Who's being naive with these 'US want's to control entire world' theories. Is Kuwait a separate nation now or just US colony?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are no such thing as a hightech medical material/machines in Iraq because of the embargo. Just ask one of the thousands of kids dying every month because of that?<span id='postcolor'>

Ask Saddam where he is putting his food for oil money.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sharon stated a few days ago that Israel would react accordingly if Israel was attacked in any way by Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Which probably wont happen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, make sure the rulers/tyrants are even more secured in their positions, because nothing is more dangorous for you than a democratic rule whom are not fancying USA.<span id='postcolor'>

Can't do it, then we're setting up puppted governments and we'll get more activists at the white house.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, even if you find weapons you would find it very hard to rally support for a war against Iraq. Most nations in the world want's a peacefull solution.<span id='postcolor'>

Let me tell you something. He's not using WMDs as paperweights and doorstops. He plans on using them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gee, I didn't believe you were THAT naive!<span id='postcolor'>

You're the one who thinks Saddam voluntarilly disarmed after kicking out UN inspectors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, you sure are doing your best to make a mess of the situation by supporting tyrants without populare support as well as your soon to be glorious war against Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I'm not. You're not getting what I said. I said no matter what we do we're screwed because it will always end up pissing someone off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are no such thing as a hightech medical material/machines in Iraq because of the embargo. Just ask one of the thousands of kids dying every month because of that?<span id='postcolor'>

Look back in this thread, there's an article of a German company exporting a kidney something machine to Iraq. The problem was that it could also be used as a detonator for an atomic weapon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but they're not against taking him out of power.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed they are and have said so repeatedly. For them a US dominated Iraq is a far greater threat then Saddam. I don't know why I bother discussing this with you since you obviously don't even know the rudimentary facts about that region.<span id='postcolor'>

You're the one who needs to brush up on the region's facts. The governments around there are trying to get him out of power via a military coup, it's in the papers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As it has always been done: A new government in Iraq would be more or less be forced to make deals with American corporations.<span id='postcolor'>

Because they want to sell their product?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They never found any nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the UN team didn't find any nuclear weapons, but a nuclear physicist who escaped from Iraq confessed about his nuclear weapons program, it is there. Nuclear weapons aside, what about the BC of NBC weapons. There are thousands of tons of anthrax that the UN team didn't get to destroy. They said it themselves.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are getting the oil for free now so it would become much more expensive. Iraqs oil is getting exported. Its just that we don't pay for it but exchange it for food.<span id='postcolor'>

Then explain to me again how it would be beneficial for us to give Iraq control of their oil? Maybe I'm just tired but I don't get it. Right now we're getting oil for practically nothing. OK, I guess that makes sense. But what would we benefit for letting whoevers in control of Iraq raise the price?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot, when I gave you a warning last time, I wasn't joking. This is the last warning that you'll get.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How come you don't join the military then, if you think it is about defending your country?<span id='postcolor'>

To be a pilot in the USAF you have to be an officer, to be an officer you have to have a 4 year bachelor degree. I'm in my first year of college now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Except that Iraq is the one defending itself, not the US. USA threatens the national security of Iraq and the safety of its citizens, not the other way around.<span id='postcolor'>

Not if Iraq has WMDs, which we know they do.

[foxer 0]

This could already been posted,but i don't feel like going back....

Link

Here's some of what it says....

When the inspectors found documents they wanted copied -- which Al Basri said were mainly articles he had written and papers he considered inconsequential -- the scientist insisted on being present during the copying and refused to go to the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which he said was not neutral ground.

Eventually, copies were made at the hotel in Baghdad where the inspectors are staying, but Al Basri said the ordeal at the hotel took hours, with inspectors interrogating him until 6 a.m.

He said the documents were noted in the 12,000-page weapons declaration that Iraq sent to the United Nations, but Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the papers were not mentioned. The research they concern could have been applied to enriching uranium, ElBaradei said.

Link 2

This one mentions what it had on the pages....

The documents were being analyzed by U.N. experts Sunday.

"When we find material for chemical ammunition, we have to ask ourselves, "Is this just one find or are there more?'" Blix said. "When we find documents at a private house, we must ask ourselves, 'Are there more when they say there are no more documents?'"

I have a question though,Is iraq in OPEC (which controls the oil output market)? IF they are,doesn't that mean even if america does control the country they have to follow what they say and if they don't lots of middle-east countries would get piss.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 20 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a question though,Is iraq in OPEC (which controls the oil output market)? IF they are,doesn't that mean even if america does control the country they have to follow what they say and if they don't lots of middle-east countries would get piss.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it, as they're not allowed to export oil for money. But they might be if Hussein is ousted from power.

I don't know if OPEC controls the oil prices for their countries. Probably to some extent, but I'm not sure. Either way, the US would have little or no direct control over Iraqi oil prices.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,07:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot, when I gave you a warning last time, I wasn't joking. This is the last warning that you'll get.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about?<span id='postcolor'>

he is talking about Hiroshima.

it's already bad enough that this thread is getting a bit furious and possibly offtopic. i suggest that discussion about Abomb and Hiroshima to be left out.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 20 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he is talking about Hiroshima.

it's already bad enough that this thread is getting a bit furious and possibly offtopic. i suggest that discussion about Abomb and Hiroshima to be left out.<span id='postcolor'>

Well he started it.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know if OPEC controls the oil prices for their countries.  Probably to some extent, but I'm not sure.  Either way, the US would have little or no direct control over Iraqi oil prices.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh give me a brake! If you don't know what OPEC is - or how it works - how are you going to grasp the reality of middle eastern politics?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which probably wont happen.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it could very well happen. Saddam only has to lob a few scuds over to Israel. Actually, it would make sense because most arabs are not too fond of Israel and the support US could armtwist their arab "allies" to give could very well vanish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can't do it, then we're setting up puppted governments and we'll get more activists at the white house.

<span id='postcolor'>

I believe you misunderstood me - you are allready doing it! Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait etc.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me tell you something.  He's not using WMDs as paperweights and doorstops.  He plans on using them.

<span id='postcolor'>

So why do you think Schröder is asking for a UN resolution nr.2 - backed by France? My guess is that the Russians will jump the bandwagon too - especially after signing another new oilcontract with Iraq the other day.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're the one who thinks Saddam voluntarilly disarmed after kicking out UN inspectors.

<span id='postcolor'>

No I didn't! Remember where I said "it could very well be" (that he has such weapons) - but it's the weapons inspectors job to prove it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I'm not.  You're not getting what I said.  I said no matter what we do we're screwed because it will always end up pissing someone off.

<span id='postcolor'>

I do understand what you are saying: "do this or do that - someone allways complaints". What I said a few posts ago is something very different: You (US) are too pragmatic for your own good. No ethic or lack of morale tends to piss off the subjects of tyrants (as in most arabic countries you support). I'd say that's part of the reason why WTC happend in the first place. It certainly isn't because they envy you the position as the "defender of the free world" or your lifestyle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look back in this thread, there's an article of a German company exporting a kidney something machine to Iraq.  The problem was that it could also be used as a detonator for an atomic weapon.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, could be a problem. But the thousands of kids dying every month due to the lack of food AND high tech medicine equipment is also a problem.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they're not selling any oil now, wouldn't it lower the oil price to have them on the market?<span id='postcolor'>

No. Why should it ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because when you flood the market with something it's prices go down.  If there's one Babe Ruth baseball card in the world, it's going to cost about a million dollars.  But if everyone has one, they're going to be worth about 10 cents each.<span id='postcolor'>

There are allready plenty of oil that could be pumped up but OPEC sets the price and amount of oil that should be produced in the OPEC countries.

[Longinius 1]

"So you say follow the UN's lead, let the inspectors do their job. But when a UN official says something that you don't agree with (that the burden of proof is on Iraq), it is not a fair standard?"

Just because I think we should let the UN decide what is going to happen, and not the US, doesnt mean I agree with the way they are handling things.

"Courts have nothing to do with this."

Yes they do actually. We are setting up a double standard, and that will explode back in our face. We treat westeners one way, and arabs another. Only bad things will come from that.

"Also, I don't think the U.S. runs the U.N. otherwise Iraq would be invaded already right?"

No nation runs the UN, but a few nations control it. The US is one of them. With their veto power and huge political influence, they can basically make anyone else jump how high they want to.

"Let's look at history for example. We KNOW saddam has these weapons. The UN inspectors KNEW of them before they were kicked out. HE HAS THEM. It's a FACT. If you think this evil person has destroyed them you're more naive than everyone says I am."

Knowing is not the same as proving. You still have to prove that he has WMD's NOW and not back then.

"hahaha, you think we're doing this because he's trading with other countries?"

No, i dont think YOU are. But I think there are those that have that point marked down in their agendas. Especially since potentials for a new Iraqi government has been approached by US officials regarding just this: If a new government is installed in Iraq they should make a point of cancelling all existing contracts with foreign oilcompanies.

"Because if Saddam starts to lose power he'll use WMDs again."

And so will the US, you admitted to it yourself, that WMD's would be used to retaliate. What gives the US the right to use them and not Saddam?

"How would the US be in control of the oil? Iraq would be a seperate nation and in control of itself."

You mean like Afghanistan? You want to know how the oil would be controlled? By privatly owned companies, where Bush just happens to be a major shareholder.

"i'm pretty sure that Iraq is so outdated that they forgot to add some *unimportant* things like warheads."

I promise you that any nation in Iraqs situation, that has had WMD's in the past and the been bombed to shits, would have a hard time keeping track of all material. Iraq doesnt really strike me as the most organised and well documented nation in the world. I am also quite sure that not even the US has 100% control of all their military material.

"then why is US the only one getting criticized? I see no criticism of Iraq, when they are not holier than US. maybe it's the Bush gov't's initiative to block such info?"

The US is critizised because they claim to be acting on behalf of the world. And they are the ones preparing for a war, not Iraq. Its hard to critizise Iraq for trying to defend itself.

"Ask Saddam where he is putting his food for oil money."

He is probably trying to rebuild the infrastructure that was bombed to shits in the last war... And its not like he is getting any large sums of cash for that oil.

"Then explain to me again how it would be beneficial for us to give Iraq control of their oil? Maybe I'm just tired but I don't get it. Right now we're getting oil for practically nothing. OK, I guess that makes sense. But what would we benefit for letting whoevers in control of Iraq raise the price?"

We wouldnt benefit. But it is not right to keep sanctions on an entire nation just so we can get cheaper oil. Or atleast most people outside of the US dont think so.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 20 2003,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they're not selling any oil now, wouldn't it lower the oil price to have them on the market?<span id='postcolor'>

No. Why should it ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because when you flood the market with something it's prices go down.  If there's one Babe Ruth baseball card in the world, it's going to cost about a million dollars.  But if everyone has one, they're going to be worth about 10 cents each.<span id='postcolor'>

There are allready plenty of oil that could be pumped up but OPEC sets the price and amount of oil that should be produced in the OPEC countries.<span id='postcolor'>

You are right - I don't disagree with you, but it has wider consequenses. The non-members also tend to follow opecs production quotas because it's in their interest to maintain high prices on crude oil. As long as the price of crude oil is far higher than refining the crude it is good business. Problems occur when participating in other alliences such as security (Nato) and trade (EFTA and EU) and there is a clash of interests. There is a reason why the saudi foreign minister and a certain US-citizen Bill Richardson visit Norway every now and then to discuss prices. OPEC and Saudi Arabi want's high prices and US hates it because high prices are of hinder to economic growth. It is far more complicated than this simple outline, but lets keep it simple since this forum is not a lecture at London School of Economics  

To Fspilot:

I've explained this so many times in this thread before, so this will be the last time:

Low price on crude is good for US economy. High price means no domestic (and global) growth and economic stagnation - low price ensures economic growth. Opec decides how much crude oil is to be pumped up and sold or sometimes stored - to ensure a high price on barrels of crude. However, US has something to say. Even though the ties with US support is of importance they do not affect the price per se - only that the oil producing countries makes sure the oil price stays stable. Too large fluctuations is bad business.

So what's the point of invading for oil? If US controls the Iraqi oilproduction they will be able to:

1. Flood the market with extremly cheap oil (iraqi oil is four times cheaper to pump up than the saudi oil).

2. Forever brake OPEC's hegemony on deciding prices globaly.

3. Earn lots of money for the oilimporting companies of US - even though they will lose money in the start.

4. Make sure the same oilimporting companies receive contracts on producing AND refining the Iraqi oil.

5. Give contracts to the same companies concerning restructuring and mending the run down iraqi oil-instalations.

6. Make US less dependent on the Saudis politically.

7. Secure a steady uninterupted flow of cheap energy to US mainland.

Quite a few good reasons wouldn't you say?

[Guest]

The whole concept of a 'pre-emptive war' is so fundamentally flawed that I really question the sanity of the people that suggested it in the first place. Or perhaps that was just the point.

You can justify just about anything with it since the thing you are 'trying to prevent' hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen then your pre-emptive strike was working. If it happens then you can point out that you were right. It doesn't end there however. This is not just a simple circular argument but it also has a feedback component - your actions may very well trigger the event you are saying you want to prevent.

Example scenario:

1) USA thinks that Iraq will attack it with WMDs.

2) USA launches a 'pre-emptive' war

3) Cornered, Iraq launches his WMDs on US forces

4) USA feels that it has proved its point. Iraq did indeed attack the US with WMDs

The problem of such a situation is that Iraq would have probably not used his WMDs unless he was attacked.

Now this may seem nice and convenient, but remember, it goes both ways. By the standards now set by Bush, Iraq is well within its rights to pre-emptivly attack the US. His country is in clear and present danger from a US attack. To prevent it he must attack the US before the US attacks him. The Bush doctrine also advocates the use of tactical nuclear weapons if faced with other WDMs such as chemical and biological weapons. This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle. You see if Saddam uses his WMDs then USA will use its WMDs. So he has to use them pre-emptivly before the US can utlize its weapons.

Hell, you can just about attack any country in the world and have a 'pre-emptive' policy as an excuse. If the country you attack fights back, then cleary they are hostile and you were right in attacking them in the first place. If they don't fight back then clearly your pre-emptive attack has succeeded.

Wonderful logic don't you think?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole concept of a 'pre-emptive war' is so fundamentally flawed that I really question the sanity of the people that suggested it in the first place. Or perhaps that was just the point.

You can justify just about anything with it since the thing you are 'trying to prevent' hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen then your pre-emptive strike was working. If it happens then you can point out that you were right. It doesn't end there however. This is not just a simple circular argument but it also has a feedback component - your actions may very well trigger the event you are saying you want to prevent.

Example scenario:

1) USA thinks that Iraq will attack it with WMDs.

2) USA launches a 'pre-emptive' war

3) Cornered, Iraq launches his WMDs on US forces

4) USA feels that it has proved its point. Iraq did indeed attack the US with WMDs

The problem of such a situation is that Iraq would have probably not used his WMDs unless he was attacked.

Now this may seem nice and convenient, but remember, it goes both ways. By the standards now set by Bush, Iraq is well within its rights to pre-emptivly attack the US. His country is in clear and present danger from a US attack. To prevent it he must attack the US before the US attacks him. The Bush doctrine also advocates the use of tactical nuclear weapons if faced with other WDMs such as chemical and biological weapons. This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle. You see if Saddam uses his WMDs then USA will use its WMDs. So he has to use them pre-emptivly before the US can utlize its weapons.

Hell, you can just about attack any country in the world and have a 'pre-emptive' policy as an excuse. If the country you attack fights back, then cleary they are hostile and you were right in attacking them in the first place. If they don't fight back then clearly your pre-emptive attack has succeeded.

Wonderful logic don't you think?<span id='postcolor'>

Good points Denoir! I saw a BBC documentary a few weeks ago where among others a former advisor to Bill Clinton was asked about what she thought about "pre-emptive measures" against Iraq. She said something similar - that US actions against Saddam could lead to the very thing US tried to avoid: Saddam siding with terrorists in order to hit back!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">brgnorway said:

6. Make US less dependent on the Saudis politically.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Can't do it, then we're setting up puppted governments and we'll get more activists at the white house.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">brgnorway said:

I believe you misunderstood me - you are allready doing it! Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait etc.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

If Saudi Arabia is a puppet governement of the US, why would they need to worry about becoming less dependent on the Saudis politically?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 20 2003,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">brgnorway said:

6. Make US less dependent on the Saudis politically.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Can't do it, then we're setting up puppted governments and we'll get more activists at the white house.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">brgnorway said:

I believe you misunderstood me - you are allready doing it! Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait etc.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

If Saudi Arabia is a puppet governement of the US, why would they need to worry about becoming less dependent on the Saudis politically?<span id='postcolor'>

Fspilot said "puppetregime". I used the words supporting tyrants or something. They are not the same. Dictators and tyrants are mostly quite autonomous. A puppet regime is more like a "fake" government without it's own ruling power. The Warzawa-pact countries in former eastern europe were much more like a puppet regime. Moscow said "jump" and so they did. Other comparisons could be all of the so called governments of occupied europe or the english "customary rule" in the colonies.

No Sahba family/clan (ruling family of Saudi Arabia) is not a "puppet regime" of US. They sort of accept eachother despite the embarasment. The sahba family do need US support to stay in power but they also have to play along with US policy. They are not exactly thrilled about the US military presence. US are not very fond of the cartell opec represents but are (for now) also interested in status quo and some influence on the stability of crude oil price. Secondly, they sorely need saudi oil to keep US economy running. Iraq is important strategically and economically because of geografical aspects and the value of it's oil. That's politics.

I can't think more right now cause I'm tired and hav e to sleep!

See you all later  

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole concept of a 'pre-emptive war' is so fundamentally flawed that I really question the sanity of the people that suggested it in the first place. Or perhaps that was just the point.

You can justify just about anything with it since the thing you are 'trying to prevent' hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen then your pre-emptive strike was working. If it happens then you can point out that you were right. It doesn't end there however. This is not just a simple circular argument but it also has a feedback component - your actions may very well trigger the event you are saying you want to prevent.

Example scenario:

1) USA thinks that Iraq will attack it with WMDs.

2) USA launches a 'pre-emptive' war

3) Cornered, Iraq launches his WMDs on US forces

4) USA feels that it has proved its point. Iraq did indeed attack the US with WMDs

The problem of such a situation is that Iraq would have probably not used his WMDs unless he was attacked.

Now this may seem nice and convenient, but remember, it goes both ways. By the standards now set by Bush, Iraq is well within its rights to pre-emptivly attack the US. His country is in clear and present danger from a US attack. To prevent it he must attack the US before the US attacks him. The Bush doctrine also advocates the use of tactical nuclear weapons if faced with other WDMs such as chemical and biological weapons. This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle. You see if Saddam uses his WMDs then USA will use its WMDs. So he has to use them pre-emptivly before the US can utlize its weapons.

Hell, you can just about attack any country in the world and have a 'pre-emptive' policy as an excuse. If the country you attack fights back, then cleary they are hostile and you were right in attacking them in the first place. If they don't fight back then clearly your pre-emptive attack has succeeded.

Wonderful logic don't you think?<span id='postcolor'>

Its pretty scarey logic if you think about it. With logic like that, any country could get away with murder quite litterally.

You make an extreme valid point! I mean if Iraq refuses to lie down when the U.S attacks, then that makes them "hostile" in the eyes of America.

Honestly, does anyone expect Saddam not to fight back? I mean he is only doing what ANY country would do if a foreign country attacks, and that is to fight back! And that makes him hostile for defending his own country???

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Pre-empting...

I've posted that before in a similar thread, seems particularly relevant at this point though.  

You don't really need to be the brightest of buttons to work out that it is a darned foolish idea.

[DarkLight 0]

Why is it that no one every replies to any of my arguments? Are they just too damn good, or do you think that my arguments aren't worth a reply!

Reply something damnit! I want a discussion too!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now this may seem nice and convenient, but remember, it goes both ways. By the standards now set by Bush, Iraq is well within its rights to pre-emptivly attack the US. His country is in clear and present danger from a US attack. To prevent it he must attack the US before the US attacks him. The Bush doctrine also advocates the use of tactical nuclear weapons if faced with other WDMs such as chemical and biological weapons. This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle. You see if Saddam uses his WMDs then USA will use its WMDs. So he has to use them pre-emptivly before the US can utlize its weapons.

Hell, you can just about attack any country in the world and have a 'pre-emptive' policy as an excuse. If the country you attack fights back, then cleary they are hostile and you were right in attacking them in the first place. If they don't fight back then clearly your pre-emptive attack has succeeded.

Wonderful logic don't you think?<span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunately, this is the logic some members here are trying to justify. It is so sad that in 2003, the world is on the brink of a major conflict because of such illogical concepts being pushed down American and British citizens throats. I can believe it though, from every day experience, it is clear how many people are just waiting for conflict and can't think logically.

[Jinef 2]

Can't think logically?

Yesterday there was a major anti war march in town (Cardiff) and soon there will be another one in London.

70% of the cabinet is opposed to a war as is 60% of the population of the UK.

6000 British troops are going to be sent to the Gulf in the next few days.

The HMS Ark Royal is steaming towards Iraq as we type and we call this a democracy!

This is Bush's own little wet dream war and Blair's chance to get the steel tariffs reversed.