Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gyro/T69 on February 26, 2003, 03:29:42 AM
-
Anyone see this show on the history channel last night? There is some real upsetting toejam here.
After watching it, I've come to the conclusion, that I'd have to be a damn fool, if I believed Hussein doesn't have any WMD's stashed away. I also believe they will be used on US/UK forces. Having said that, it got me thinking about the German, French position.
Let's try to forget for a moment that they appear to be motivated by their own self-greed or desire to hide something and look at it from another point of view.
What if they know without a doubt that Hussein has WMD's and are concerned with what will happen if he uses them on our troops? Or, what if a biological Scud hits Israel and a blinding white light vaporizes Baghdad is answered in return? Could the extra time and additional inspectors be in the vane hope, that his WMD may yet be found and destroyed before they can be used against us?
I also don't believe for a moment, the roadkill about this being over oil. Think of the anguish Kennedy when through during the Cuban missile crisis. Where only one American was killed. Put yourself in Bush's place, 3000+ people killed in the continental US and he goes to the National Security Council and says, "Lets grab the oil" Please!!! Folks, you do realize this information will become public knowledge in the future, don't you? They don't operated in a vacuum.
-
Quote:
"I also don't believe for a moment, the roadkill about this being over oil."
Oh yes it is. For the French............
C.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"I also don't believe for a moment, the roadkill about this being over oil."
Oh yes it is. For the French............
C.
Whilst the Yanks and Brits want it for themselves. You hit the nail on the head Cabby, probably unwittingly though. :D
-
Of course the oil is a factor in the equation. Do you really think we'd be bothered with the Middle East, nevermind Iraq it wasn't for the huge oil reserves?
There are many tin-pot dictatorships around the world. Saddam would be one of many if he didn't have the oil-fields.
-
well.... not sure but I think that sadman is not only a despot of the worst kind but... unlike some other animal/african warlord... he actualy has the resources to become dangerous... I think that squashing him would be a good thing.
Why? well... the example is allways good. I recall when that kadalfi nutjob was a real menace on about the same order.
There is plenty of injustice and plenty of despost to go around in this world but... I would love to see us flatten this obvious threat. I believe that the example set would be a good one. I also hope that someone is crossing out the pictures in the, 'big book of known terrorists and terrorist funders'....
I think that if those rich bastards that support terrorists see a few of their number have accidents like... oh, say... falling into their tree shredder... it would take the fun and zeal out it for em.
lazs
-
I like that imagery, Laz.
The idea that you can't do something about one genocidal maniac unless you deal with all of the others at the same time......
needs no comment from me.
-
I agree Laz. Those American bastards that gave money to the IRA would be added to the mix.
The idea that you can't do something about one genocidal maniac unless you deal with all of the others at the same time......
But if you claim action is based on a moral footing then you have to explain why this particular genocidal maniac and not one of his contemporaries.
This whole issue reeks of oil. Saddam is essentially a world issue because of it and Western economic interests are founded on a stable oil supply. I'm not sure Saudi will provide that for much longer, so this may be insurance.
Oil is not the only reason, obviously. But it does factor in there.
-
As laz pointed out, this one actually has the weapons that pose a huge threat to his own, people, his neighboring countries and other nations around the globe.
Not many of them have those. And you have to start somewhere.
There will always be disagreement over "primary reasons" but this ability is key for me.
-
I could of sworn it was cuz of his open defiance of the UN for the past 12 years... but I could be wrong.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, "No war for oil" makes a nice anti-war poster... but it holds just as much water as a paper bag.
-SW
-
"ITS ALL ABOUT OIL!!"
Ive heard this war cry on the news and seen it on protestor signs.
Why do people try and spin this as the "evil reason" we are going into Iraq?
If it was the worlds largest supply of drinking water we'd be doing the same thing. You dont want a maniac in control of something that the rest of the world depends on - really simple, huh?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But if you claim action is based on a moral footing then you have to explain why this particular genocidal maniac and not one of his contemporaries.
Sorta reminds me of the story I heard about a guy that complained to the cop writing him a ticket for speeding. He asked the cop how come he didn't stop all the other people speeding with him. The cop asked him if he ever went fishing. The guy replied yes. The cop asked him if he ever caught all the fish in the lake.
-
I agree - it's not the primary reason. But it is a contributory factor.
Sadly, UN resolutions mean very little. If we went to war with every country that ignored the resolutions against it, Israel would be in deep doo-doo right about now. Moreover, Bush was going to bypass the UN altogether until Blair persuaded him there was a better route.
-
Unfortunately, the UN route is apparently a dead end.
Doesn't seem like that's going to stop anything though.
-
We should bypass the UN altogether... how can you take something seriously that will honor it's rules and regulations by allowing certain countries to lead certain talks and boards, while in the same vein they will NOT pursue violations of their own resolutions.
It's a double sided sword, and both sides are blunt as hell.
You are right UN resolutions mean very little, and therefore so does the UN. Iraq and Saddam are the US's puppet, atleast that's what a lot of you (yes, you included Dowding) keep parading around the O'Club... so why the hell can we (the US) not deal with our own problem?
-SW
-
Saudaurkar - you're the one making the judgement over whether going to war over oil is evil, not I. I'm saying it is a contributory factor, which in itself is not a judgement - really simple, huh?
Tell me, why haven't the resolutions held against Israel for 40 years been upheld? Maybe the UN is irrelevant (to coin a Bushism). But it became so, long before Saddam arrived on the scene.
Iraq and Saddam are the US's puppet, atleast that's what a lot of you (yes, you included Dowding)
I think you'll find that generally, I refer to UK/Western world as well as the US in these matters. There was little between their policies towards Iraq during the 80s.
...so why the hell can we (the US) not deal with our own problem?
That would be fine if the consequences were solely confined to US interests and US territory. But we know that is not the case. An increase in instability in that region is the last thing we need, a sudden rise in militant Islam in a post-War Iraq is the last thing we need.
When the Shi'ites rose up in Basra after the last Gulf War, they weren't shouting 'Praise the US! Well done Brits!'. It was 'Praise be to Allah!'. That scared the Western world toejamless.
Iraq consists of 3 ethnic groups - the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shi'ites. Currently, it is ruled by the Sunni minority, with 60% of the country made up of more hard-line Shi'ites. There's going to be one awfully big back-lash against the moderate Sunni after Saddam is gone. A huge blood-letting that will rival some of the scenes from the Former Yugoslavia. Who will take power? Shi'ites of the fundamentalist flavour. This would be so, even in a democratic society, given the demographics. The place will be prime ground for Al Queda recruitment. I'm not sure a Western friendly society could be created there.
The question is this: are Americans willing to see American blood spilt in the attempt to prevent civil war from breaking out in Iraq? Because that's what I believe it will come to in the end. Or will the US simply disengage and leave it to UN peace-keepers?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Of course the oil is a factor in the equation. Do you really think we'd be bothered with the Middle East, nevermind Iraq it wasn't for the huge oil reserves?
There are many tin-pot dictatorships around the world. Saddam would be one of many if he didn't have the oil-fields.
While what you say is correct, it is so due to the issue of stability, not US imperialism....just as the motive to remove WMD's to make it more difficult for terrorists to acuire them is just as correct of a statement.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Of course the oil is a factor in the equation. Do you really think we'd be bothered with the Middle East, nevermind Iraq it wasn't for the huge oil reserves?
There are many tin-pot dictatorships around the world. Saddam would be one of many if he didn't have the oil-fields.
So true So true
-
Then maybe I am mistaking you for someone else that shares your viewpoint in regards to Iraq's current array of weapons and Saddam being in power as the result of the US.
Obviously there is no clear-cut answer, and neither you nor I are at the top rung of either of our nations. Therefore we aren't privy to the information they have and/or the decisions they will make in post-war Iraq *IF* war happens.
Either way, the region is unstable as is. Saddam not disarming and openly stating he won't disarm, and also openly defying the UN in regards to disarmament is creating an even more unstable future and bleak outlook in the Middle East.
If he were to disarm and keep only the weapons he's allowed to keep, the whole thing would be moot.
He won't, and isn't, and never will... leaving him in power will leave a cloud of uncertainty and questionable stability in that region for years to come.
One thing is for certain though, US personnel have remained in that region since the end of the Gulf War, why would you question what the US would do at the end of this increasingly potential conflict?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Saudaurkar - you're the one making the judgement over whether going to war over oil is evil, not I. I'm saying it is a contributory factor, which in itself is not a judgement - really simple, huh?
Tell me, why haven't the resolutions held against Israel for 40 years been upheld? Maybe the UN is irrelevant (to coin a Bushism). But it became so, long before Saddam arrived on the scene.
Dowding - Where did I implicate you an any of what I said? Im not passing judgement, mearly making an observation. The observation is this: Oil is a contributing factor, but the way that protestors shout it as their anti-war message points to a minsunderstanding of the situation. Even more simple, huh?
Perhaps you could be more detailed about the resolutions "against" Israel you are refering to, and Ill give you my opinion on each one, respectively. In any event, the short answer is this: The UN does not enforce its own resolutions - I would have thought that to be self-evident.
Irrelevant is not a Bushism - its a word - and his observation in the context you used it is "spot on" to use a "Britism."
-
dowding... I think you are "morally" justified in taking out the person or persons who pose the greatest threat to the greatest amount of people.
I can't see some african warlord being much of a threat past about a tankful of gas for his 50 caliber equipped toyota flatbed. I also can't see the IRA dropping a nuke or chemical/bio weapon on London. but.... if some fat assed American richie rich IRA backer falls into his tree shredder if wouldn't bother me.
lazs
-
Saddam's Arsenal - what nonsense!
Arsene Wenger is manager, Keith Edelman is Managing Director and Peter Hill Wood is Chairman. Hussein's not even a shareholder! And with some good reason (http://www.iht.com/IHT/MONEY/092698/my092698a.html) :D
-
Have any of you read my post on "who needs oil"? Without oil, Saddam and the rest of the oil producing nations would have nothing but a big sandbox.
:D