The Iraq Thread

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 25 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 25 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN needs the US.I think US is the only country to attack another country and give it back to the people.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN does indeed need the US. The UN loses much of its ability to function if the only existing superpower goes of rampaging on its own with complete disregard to international opinion. And yes, USA does make up a sort of a back bone for military intervention. This is however not an issue of military power, since the EU countries together have a larger military then the US, but it is more a question of political will and ability.<span id='postcolor'>

But how would the Eu do if france and germany wasn't helping ?

--edit

I mean how would EU military be if some countries don't wanna help ? Seems like no one in europe can agree on one thing.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 25 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 25 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 25 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN needs the US.I think US is the only country to attack another country and give it back to the people.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN does indeed need the US. The UN loses much of its ability to function if the only existing superpower goes of rampaging on its own with complete disregard to international opinion. And yes, USA does make up a sort of a back bone for military intervention. This is however not an issue of military power, since the EU countries together have a larger military then the US, but it is more a question of political will and ability.<span id='postcolor'>

But how would the Eu do if france and germany wasn't helping ?

--edit

I mean how would EU military be if some countries don't wanna help ? Seems like no one in europe can agree on one thing.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, that is our problem. This Iraq business has confirmed that. I hope however that we eventually will learn to agree on things.

The problem is that the European countries are all very different in language, culture and politics. It is nothing similar to the states in USA.

[FSPilot 0]

What are you talking about denoir? Haven't you ever heard of ebonics?

Saddam challenges Bush to debate

[Col. Kurtz 0]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 26 2003,014)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 24 2003,11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France really started the anti-war movement in the UN according to me, so imagine if they had not had their veto power to wave around. Russia and Germany made have relented to American demands.

Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, not only france is protesting against a war, a huge amount of people protest against a war.  But i guess they don't really matter....<span id='postcolor'>

There, are of course lots of other countries opposing it, but if I remember, the French government were the first to start rebelling in the UN security councill, then Germany and Russia linked up with France shortly after that. And then lots more countries starting to resist the Americans.

And they all matter.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam challenges Bush to debate<span id='postcolor'>

Ha!

That would be funny.

Problem is that Bush would get thrashed as it is very apparent he is terrible at speaking, and unless the interview was scripted he would be drifting all over the place, it would take him 30 seconds to say a string of a few words.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb....d=38645

Bush: You have them!!

Saddam: No I dont!!!

Bush: You have them!!!

Saddam: No I dont!!!

Bush: You have them!!!!

Saddam: No I dont!!!

Bush: No you dont!!

Saddam: Yes I do!!!

Bush: Ahh haaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Saddam: Shit<span id='postcolor'>

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 25 2003,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam challenges Bush to debate<span id='postcolor'>

It will only be good if it's on the Jerry Springer show. Otherwise it'd be a waste of time.

-=Die Alive=-

[OxPecker 0]

Why should the US be exempt from following UN regulations and paying their fees?

If the US think they should be exempt because they are the biggest and most powerful UN member, then maybe the should drop out of the UN.

The whole point of a body like the UN is diametrically opposed to the "might makes right" mentality of current US policy.

[brgnorway 0]

I have a fealing this will be regarded by B & B as irrelevant.

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

Iraq says it has destroyed banned weapons

The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says new disclosures by Iraq about its weapons of mass destruction are "positive".

He said Iraq had told inspectors about the discovery of handwritten documents concerning the disposal of weapons of mass destruction in 1991.

According to Mr Blix, Iraqi officials said they had found an R-400 bomb containing liquid at a site where Baghdad was known to have disposed of biological weapons in the past.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2798651.stm

[FSPilot 0]

Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes! There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat! I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See? He admitted it.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Feb. 25 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 25 2003,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam challenges Bush to debate<span id='postcolor'>

It will only be good if it's on the Jerry Springer show. Otherwise it'd be a waste of time.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

No no, I it would be a great gift to people blindly supporting the war, to realize just how much nonsense is behind Bush's thinking.

It would not be Jerry Springer, and it would not look like what Pilot just posted. It's not about Bush being bad at speaking, because if Bush has any kind of reasonable intelligence he would have no problem making his point. Now after all that he has been thinking about this for so many months...

Deep down, you know Saddam is smarter than Bush, you know who you are.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 25 2003,22:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes! There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat! I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See? He admitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't be foolsih, don't you remember what you asked for? What the resolutions are meant for? Reveal, disarm? Remember that?

[brgnorway 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,040)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes!  There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat!  I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See?  He admitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

So why send the inspectors to Iraq in the first place then!

I'd say that the inspection-regime actually works. Proof is that Iraq dug up some records of what they did with some of the material.

......or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.

This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did. US then tried to find another reason for going to war. "Iraq has to produce evidence of it's weapons programe" - Iraq responds: "we have no such thing"

US: Oh yes you do - we know you do - because you used to do! - Iraq scratches it's head "but we haven't got any! ? "

US: so, what did you do to all your weapons then you lying bastards? Iraq then comes up with some notes on what they did!

US: Oh no, that's not good enough - you just proved you were not complying to the resolution and we will wage war on you very soon!

Oh, one more thing! I bet there never was a gun in the backseat of that car - and if Saddam or any other person with coloured skin was in the front seat, his fright of the police would be justified. We all know how the police in US treats people they stop at the highway - especially if they are coloured (Rodney King). Who knows - maybe there is an analogy here - bush and the US police doing great things for the safety of us all!

[SGTKOPP 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes!  There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat!  I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See?  He admitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

So why send the inspectors to Iraq in the first place then!

I'd say that the inspection-regime actually works. Proof is that Iraq dug up some records of what they did with some of the material.

......or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.

This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did. US then tried to find another reason for going to war. "Iraq has to produce evidence of it's weapons programe" - Iraq responds: "we have no such thing"

US: Oh yes you do - we know you do - because you used to do! - Iraq scratches it's head "but we haven't got any! ? "

US: so, what did you do to all your weapons then you lying bastards? Iraq then comes up with some notes on what they did!

US: Oh no, that's not good enough - you just proved you were not complying to the resolution and we will wage war on you very soon!

Oh, one more thing! I bet there never was a gun in the backseat of that car - and if Saddam or any other person with coloured skin was in the front seat, his fright of the police would be justified. We all know how the police in US treats people they stop at the highway - especially if they are coloured (Rodney King). Who knows - maybe there is an analogy here - bush and the US police doing great things for the safety of us all!<span id='postcolor'>

your an idiot you know that right  where are you from in the world  ill call the president and have him bomb it cause thats what us AMERICANS live to do BOMB PEOPLE  Jack@$$

[brgnorway 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 26 2003,060)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes!  There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat!  I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See?  He admitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

So why send the inspectors to Iraq in the first place then!

I'd say that the inspection-regime actually works. Proof is that Iraq dug up some records of what they did with some of the material.

......or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.

This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did. US then tried to find another reason for going to war. "Iraq has to produce evidence of it's weapons programe" - Iraq responds: "we have no such thing"

US: Oh yes you do - we know you do - because you used to do! - Iraq scratches it's head "but we haven't got any! ? "

US: so, what did you do to all your weapons then you lying bastards? Iraq then comes up with some notes on what they did!

US: Oh no, that's not good enough - you just proved you were not complying to the resolution and we will wage war on you very soon!

Oh, one more thing! I bet there never was a gun in the backseat of that car - and if Saddam or any other person with coloured skin was in the front seat, his fright of the police would be justified. We all know how the police in US treats people they stop at the highway - especially if they are coloured (Rodney King). Who knows - maybe there is an analogy here - bush and the US police doing great things for the safety of us all!<span id='postcolor'>

your an idiot you know that right  where are you from in the world  ill call the president and have him bomb it cause thats what us AMERICANS live to do BOMB PEOPLE  Jack@$$<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, what I said was perhaps a bit unfair.... of course, not all police officers are bad - far from it. But police officers -like politicians have their rotten eggs. However, you seem to be up to the job though? Have you ever considered running for presidency or joining LAPD?

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, if people could get away with what saddam was doing right now.

Picture a highway police stop

Officer 2 - Uh, captain, I found a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat.

Saddam - Oh yes!  There is a .50 caliber smith & wesson in the back seat!  I must of... misplaced it.

Captain - See?  He admitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

So why send the inspectors to Iraq in the first place then!

I'd say that the inspection-regime actually works. Proof is that Iraq dug up some records of what they did with some of the material.

......or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.

This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did. US then tried to find another reason for going to war. "Iraq has to produce evidence of it's weapons programe" - Iraq responds: "we have no such thing"

US: Oh yes you do - we know you do - because you used to do! - Iraq scratches it's head "but we haven't got any! ? "

US: so, what did you do to all your weapons then you lying bastards? Iraq then comes up with some notes on what they did!

US: Oh no, that's not good enough - you just proved you were not complying to the resolution and we will wage war on you very soon!

Oh, one more thing! I bet there never was a gun in the backseat of that car - and if Saddam or any other person with coloured skin was in the front seat, his fright of the police would be justified. We all know how the police in US treats people they stop at the highway - especially if they are coloured (Rodney King). Who knows - maybe there is an analogy here - bush and the US police doing great things for the safety of us all!<span id='postcolor'>

I have to say it.You just said it.I feel the same way also.Here's what i agree with.Which is the truth.

US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did.

So what happens when there is no war,The US soldiers go home.Does iraq do the same crap they did before ? I mean i think the US spent a little too many billions to do the war build up again.

But if i was president and didn't get my way i would tell those countries that veto it ,that when iraq steps outta line again they pay the money ,they pay with the lives.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 26 2003,06:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">your an idiot you know that right  where are you from in the world  ill call the president and have him bomb it cause thats what us AMERICANS live to do BOMB PEOPLE  Jack@$$<span id='postcolor'>

Flaming other members is not acceptable. You are in violation of the board rules §1.1.

Consider yourself post-restricted for the next 24h.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 26 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have to say it.You just said it.I feel the same way also.Here's what i agree with.Which is the truth.

US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did.

So what happens when there is no war,The US soldiers go home.Does iraq do the same crap they did before ? I mean i think the US spent a little too many billions to do the war build up again.

But if i was president and didn't get my way i would tell those countries that veto it ,that when iraq steps outta line again they pay the money ,they pay with the lives.<span id='postcolor'>

As far as I can see, all possible ways from here (well actually from last summer) leads to big problems (except for alternative 1, I'm sorry for coming up with new conclusions as I write).

1. USA goes home, taking credit for scaring Saddam to cooperate with the UN. I am personally quite sure that the UN have the possibility to continue 'working' with Saddam's Iraq; maybe even to start working on a human rights program. Its all a matter of doing it the right way (and no, I cannot tell you what is the right way, but pay me fulltime for 2 years research and I might come up with some good alternatives ), there are certainly ways to gain even Saddams goodwill.

In this case its all a matter of how much credit the USA is able to take. If the US goes away as the 'heroes' again, I cant see much problems for any part actually (yes, I changed my mind as I wrote this). The opposing nations will take credit, the UN will take credit, the US will take credit - it will be remembered as a 'diplomatic masterpiece'. The only problem is the future Iraq - but as I said I believe there is big potential for the better here too; if we just can earn Saddams respect and cooperation (possible through a wide range of 'soft ways' ).

And one Ãœber-success that will come from it: Muslim fundamental terrorists will gain much less support in crushing the 'evil west'. This whole conflict is a clash of civilizations, and if we bring them closer together, well, we will be able to live in peace forever

And as I write I come up with one negative thing for the USA though (if we bring the cultures closer eachother): the USA cannot keep the Muslims as a 'uniting external enemy' - and if there are no new to be found, its something comletely new for the USA in its history. The question is how well the USA will do without any 'external enemy', it might be too deeply rooted in US culture for the USA to be able to be the same (as in 'not very good' for US future development) without one.

2. The USA draws back in shame without taking credit for the 'peaceful solution' (I'm not sure how if could happen, but in case it is possible..). The opposing nations together with UN take all the credit, and USA + in some extent the UK take all the shame. Probably good for the EU and UN, at least in the shot run, but really bad for the USA. I dont think I am able to speculate really good of what will happen with the USA here, but is for sure nothing to the better. Maybe the nation will 'explode' of frustration - and that would not be good for our small planet....

3. The Security Council approves an attack on Iraq since Iraq later clearly violates UN directives. Probably no big problems in the short term, but long term effects could lead to a nasty conflict. The opposing nations and the UN will not be very happy (as it probably won't be considered as really neccessary with a war, but US influence made it happen), but no big problems on short term either. For the USA it will probably be very positive (growing economy), even in longterm - since the USA will have 'uniting enemies' for generations to come. To conclude: nasty conflict, but USA will not be considered the 'big satan' alone, but the western world in general will + USA will continue having a good time in the closest decades (with occasional terror attacks, but they are only for the better, since they amplify the evilness of the enemy).

4. USA goes into Iraq alone; probably without UK since its not aproved by the Security Council (and the parlament will not vote for a war in that case). Well, what will happen? I cant see anything good for anyone here. Not for the opposing nations, definitely not for the UN; and not for the USA either. US home opinion fails, terrorism grows to 'not so positive proportions', really nasty conflict in the entire middle-east that will later possibly spread to WW3, and... well you name it.....  

AND so for the foxer's quote (and the 'not so well followed reason to post this' ):

If point 1 comes true, USA will probably be happy to deploy any troops - as long as there is any 'tasty enemy' around in future conflicts.

If point 2 comes true, the USA will not in any case make much of an effort to help others anymore - but will probably have some wars on its own; maybe even to meet the in this case 'quickly developing united European military force'.

If point 3 comes true, things will go on 'as usual' when it comes to US military involvement.

If point 4 comes true, well who knows? There will probably not be much of a united opinion of what is to be done in conflict resolving. USA goes its own way like everyone else in the very likely WW3........

Any comments?

EDIT: some corrections

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually the US opposed the renewed inspections from the start. They agreed to them after it was obvious that the security council and public opinion wouldn't allow for this. Let's face it - they can't go on that war all alone (military speaking they can, but not economically). They already have a deficit and just now Bush is about to beg the congress for 90 billon dollars more (not including any postwar costs).

Not to speak about public opinion in the US - much easier to convince them you're doing 'the right thing' if you can make them believe you really tried hard for a peacefull solution. Glory to the knight in the shiny armour!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Feb. 26 2003,16:12)</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">Let's face it - they can't go on that war all alone (military speaking they can, but not economically). They already have a deficit and just now Bush is about to beg the congress for 90 billon dollars more (not including any postwar costs).

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, they can! The problem with the record budget deficit is not the cost of war - it's tax reductions etc.

Many economists suggest the cost of war will not be a burden for US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US will finance any war against Iraq by borrowing the money, adding to the $300bn (Å200bn) budget deficit.

Most experts believe that the initial costs of a short war - estimated at $50bn to $100bn - could easily be financed without a major economic impact.

More problematic would be the long-term costs of rebuilding Iraq, and a possible military occupation.

<span id='postcolor'>

-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A war with Iraq would cost the US and its allies considerably less than the 1991 Gulf War, a leading international think tank has said.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies put the cost of a war with Iraq for the US at roughly half the cost of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2737057.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2746759.stm

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many economists suggest the cost of war will not be a burden for US.<span id='postcolor'>

This is questioned as noone really knows:

- how long this war will take

- things happening during the war that can make it more expensive

You know the bill can only be made when the whole thing is over and by now we are far from that point. Who knows what will happen during this possible war. It wouldn´t be the first time that US estimations are far from correct. Check Vietnam or Grenada. They all thought it would be over in a week, but unfortunately this was not true.

The first gulf war is no good comparison. It was not about invading Iraq. It stopped right where it became difficult. Now the US will have to start with the difficult part and there will be no easy one if they want to achieve their goal. So any comparison between GW1 and the possibly upcoming war this time is nonsense and BIG speculation.

Anyway Rumsfeld will not tell the congress the real figures he has right now. This would not fit the current US policy line on the war on iraq.

In the end the bill will be a huge one that doesnt even guarantee to have a good result for the iraqi people or the whole middle east region. Follow up costs are not included in the US bill but they will be there and they will be very high.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

bn880 -"Deep down, you know Saddam is smarter than Bush, you know who you are."

This may well be true, lots of psychopaths are quite intelligent and more that a few western leaders in the past have been mostly party figureheads.

Not to sound cliched but im sure Hitler could outmaneuvre president bush in a debate. So what?

The Iraqi regime is not worthy of any kind of praise ore respite no matter how many debates they could win with the president of the USA.

brgnorway- As joltan says the US was not at all enthusiastic about UN inspectors going in at first.

It was only thanks to less hawkish republicans, British persuasion (arguably) and changing public opinion in the US that the Bush administration really began to see the UN as a necessary 'step' to go through.

The UN inspectors get in the way if the US wants to act unilaterally. To their credit they have not so far done that but instead engaged in a UN process however slow and clumsy they believed the UN to be.

If people are so willing to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt and assume the best as opposed to the worst, to draw attention and praise to any tiny concession the Iraqi dictorship make, maybe they should be a little willing to do the same for the US.

There are plenty of -constructive- criticisms that could be levelled at the US (many more than for undemocratic Iraq) so theres no need to resort to the usual idiotic accusations of stupidity and arrogance. That doesnt inform anyones opinion of the situation-much less american voters who could actually change the US governments behaviour.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 26 2003,20:10)</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">Many economists suggest the cost of war will not be a burden for US.<span id='postcolor'>

This is questioned as noone really knows:

- how long this war will take

- things happening during the war that can make it more expensive

You know the bill can only be made when the whole thing is over and by now we are far from that point. Who knows what will happen during this possible war. It wouldn´t be the first time that US estimations are far from correct. Check Vietnam or Grenada. They all thought it would be over in a week, but unfortunately this was not true.

The first gulf war is no good comparison. It was not about invading Iraq. It stopped right where it became difficult. Now the US will have to start with the difficult part and there will be no easy one if they want to achieve their goal. So any comparison between GW1 and the possibly upcoming war this time is nonsense and BIG speculation.

Anyway Rumsfeld will not tell the congress the real figures he has right now. This would not fit the current US policy line on the war on iraq.

In the end the bill will be a huge one that doesnt even guarantee to have a good result for the iraqi people or the whole middle east region. Follow up costs are not included in the US bill but they will be there and they will be very high.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't disagree with you but:

1. The war overthrowing Saddam could be/is likely to be over

in a relatively short time.

2. Occupation is a different matter though. That will be very

costly indeed, but should be seen separately from the actual attack on Iraq.

3. The effect a war has on oilprices is not a budget matter.

It is consequenses and will affect the whole world economy

[foxer 0]

The iraqi war could be short or long,depends how many civilians the US kills.

I'm not pro-war,i think we should wait another year.However though i think that would probably cost billions.I bet turkey would ask for more money next year ,if we wait.Plus all the money moving the stuff back home and then back to iraq in another year.So really ,I'm still on the fence and don't know which way to jump war or peace.But i rather root for the hometeam(USA) than iraq,or be a hippie.:)

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 26 2003,20:25)</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">brgnorway- As joltan says the US was not at all enthusiastic about UN inspectors going in at first.

<span id='postcolor'>

I never claimed the opposite:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

<span id='postcolor'>

Now - did I say US actually wanted inspections (other than an excuse to trick Saddam into deny inspection teams entry? -thus claiming a good reason to go to war on Iraq)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so theres no need to resort to the usual idiotic accusations of stupidity and arrogance. <span id='postcolor'>

?