Saddam's Arsenal

[Rude]

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.

[fffreeze220]

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

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

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

[Saurdaukar]

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."

[lazs2]

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

[-dead-]

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

[2stony]

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.