[J3Vr6]

Sorry, Stryke, and no offence, but I feel dumber after reading that post.

[Sandwich]

I think many people here are missing the point, especially those comparing Iraq to China, the US, France, GB, and Russia in terms of nuclear powers. Those nations, with the exception of Iraq, are democracies (or whatever China is this week). This imparts an inherent stability to those governments ass far as "going to war" goes. The US ain't gonna spontaneously invade Mexico (or Canada! ) just because they thought it would be to their benefit. France ain't gonna invade Spain, Russia ain't gonna invade Mongolia, and GB certainly ain't gonna invade the Chunnel!

But all kidding aside, Iraq doesn not have that kind of track record - the opposite is true. Add to that the fact that they are headed up by a dictator who cares not for the lives of his own fellow Iraquis, and you can go figure what he'd do with WMDs.

Bottom line is this: If the US attacks Iraq or not, won't make much of a difference in the end. Saddam will be ousted, one way or another. Israel's fully capable of doing with a couple of flights of F-15s what it's taking the US upwards of 200,000 soldiers so far. We've taken out strategic targets in that area before (nucear reactor, anyone?), and we can do it again. Heck, I'm almost hoping Saddam lobs a chemical warhead over here - have it land in the middle of the desert, but let it be chemical. We've already stated that NBC weaponry in our direction will bring about a singular response from our end - nuke 'em. That should make the US's job just a bit easier.

Still, you gotta admire Saddam - the man's a genius in the international politics arena. "Oh, look - he destroyed 2 missiles! HE'S COOPERATING!!!!!!!"

[Dan1]

Thank god for sensible people like you sandwich

[Stryke 9]

See, now I wouldn't have nearly so much of a problem with Israel doing the attack. Israel is actually being threatened by Saddam's regime (quite overtly in fact), and he could potentially pose a threat, and the Israelis would have to live with the consequences of potentially turning the Middle East into an anarchic swamp of warring nutjob groups and terrorist factions, so I'd trust the Israeli government a bit more than Bush to take the consequences seriously, and do the "right" thing, as opposed to the "politically expedient at the moment" thing.

[Bobboau]

I want to know is there more evedence for
Sadam haveing weapons of mass destruction
or
Bush doing this war specificly for makeing oil profit

and CP in the future we would rather you explain why we aren't doing this for the oil, not why that isn't a bad thing. you do agree Bush isn't realy doing this for the oil don't you?
it makes no sence to wage war when we could just bribe him

[Stryke 9]

There's no solid evidence, but it's pretty much an assumed by most parties. Even most of the peace protestors admit that it's a bit more than a likelihood he still has 'em.

It's whether that actually means anything that is the sticking point. After all, there are only maybe a couple dozen countries left in the world that don't have some form of MDW (****, it's not like it's hard to cook one up), and none of them are nearly on the scale of Iraq. It'd take not only a moron, but an insane moron to actually use them, particularly when the only viable target would return the favor a hundred times over if you did- and Saddam's neither insane nor a moron.

[Bobboau]

so it's more likely that Bush is right when he says that sadam has weapons of mass destruction than everyone else who says Bush is doing this war just for the oil

also

if you trust Isrial with Iraq, and they are one of only a.. hand... full.......  the only contry in the entire planet that realy fully suports us, does that mean that we might have some idea what we were doing?

[Bobboau]

Sadam, insain, moron

you know i would think massing the entire Iraqi army on the kuwait shore and leaveing the flank open like he did would be a sign of insain moronicy,
also torching the oil feilds and launching scuds at Isrial when we said we fould flaten him if he did, not exactly a omen of stability and sainity,
and the actions over the last twelve years, if he wasn't unbalencedly stupid woiuld not have taken place, he would have roled over and did what ever the world told him rather than inciteing the wrath of us and (potentualy) every one else again.

[Stryke 9]

Of course Israel supports the US. Otherwise, Bush might stop sending all those nice shiny helicopters and bombs.


And you're missing the point- it's not an argument about whether Saddam has MDWs or not, it's an argument about whether that's reason enough to pitch into an opportunistic war of aggression that threatens to utterly destroy several regimes, not just Saddam's, bring the terrorist thing to whole new heights, alienate the US from the entire rest of the planet (except Israel and Tony Blair- note I don't say Britain), and otherwise just **** us over nicely. Personally, I'm inclined to say that a few anthrax bombs don't come even close to being a reasonable reason to wage a war (****, the US has tons of them, and can't even keep tabs on the ones we have. The old Soviet states have stuff so nasty it makes smallpox sound like a trip to the circus. Korea and China are outright threats to the US, and have enough weaponry to kill millions of people.)- which would mean that Bush has other reasons, ones which he couldn't exactly admit to if he wanted support.

In other words, it's like a cop shooting somebody for a parking violation. When everyone's feeling kind of edgy about that particular cop, can't drive for ****, and is very heavily armed.


And tactics are the job of generals, Bob, not the President. He doesn't bother with things like covering flanks or securing cities. Which will be fortunate if we get into a war, because I can guarantee from the evidence that Bush has all the strategic savvy of a rubber duck. Same for the scorched-earth policy, though that was neither stupid nor insane- it severely demoralized the UN forces, symbolically gave the old Bush the finger, and made sure that Kuwait would be sorry it made a noise about being invaded. The SCUD was largely a political gesture, and at the time a relatively safe one, since Israel couldn't have gotten away with nuking Iraq at that point.

Your equating US-bashing in a notoriously anti-American region with stupidity or insanity calls into question your understanding of the fact that not every place is like Illinois, or that there may be other concerns for a Middle Eastern dictator than appeasing the US. I don't think I'll bother explain how politics works to you, but I will note that without his constant vilification of the US, Saddam would almost certainly have died a long time ago at the hand of one insurgent/general or another.

[Bobboau]

but wouldn't you like to see America sink into the sea?

any way

yes I think it is reason enough.

I think there are other things at play, for instance, terrorism and Israel, Sadam suports terrorism, ever hear of the Arab Liberation Front, there one of the key distributers of Iraqi cash to suicide bombers, Iraq is funding terrorism in Israel and thus, there will be no peace in Israel as long as Sadam if funding it, and we will not win the much clichéd war on terrorism as long as Israel an Palistine are trying to kill each other
that alone is a perfictly good reason to go after Iraq next,
in my humble opinion

[Stryke 9]

Uh huh. Tell me, do you get the news off of gum wrappers?

FYI, the "terrorist support" Saddam gives is to send the families of suicide bombers a pittance after their working young men blow themselves to bits, so they don't starve to death. It usually isn't much, it doesn't go to every family, and it's poor compensation for a member of the family exploding (and not exactly inducement to do so in and of itself). It's more of a politically motivated charity, and even Bush is smart enough not to say that that in itself is evil- he makes up pipe dreams about al Qaeda which have effectively been disproven time and time again.

Until you actually know what you're talking about, don't bother me, all right? Well-informed, thought-out opinions are one thing, regurgiating what you heard from Fox News or your parents is another. No offense, but it annoys the **** out of me and isn't exactly doing you any good.

[Bobboau]

And no I am equating a man making stupid decisions that are quite likely going to get him killed in an unbelievably embarrassing defeat, with stupidity and insanity, he was told by his generals that we were going to attack through the desert he ignored them, not even Bush is stupid enough to do that
And seeing as you don't agree with me you obviously have no grasp on the situation, so please stop arguing with me

[Bobboau]

there famelies get $10,000 to $20,000 in a land that most people are thought of a rich if they make $1000 in a year, do you think that maybe that would help these people chose to blow themselves up and become martyrs,
and you know just becase you can resite NPR talking points does _not_ make you God

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Bobboau
And seeing as you don't agree with me you obviously have no grasp on the situation, so please stop arguing with me

Classic sig material. "You don't agree with me, so you're just plain stupid!"


Just so you know, anyone who disagrees with me is a dogrimming mutant byproduct of twenty generations of incest, with a grotsquely shrunken forebrain and damaged logic centers that render them essentially a walking vegetable. Also, they all have incredibly small manhoods. Just thought you'd like to know that.

[Bobboau]

glad we've cleared that up
you do take great pride in you're ocupation

[Stryke 9]

My boss says if I took pride in my occupation I'd show up for work on time. I'm inclined to agree.

[Bobboau]

[removed]

[Fetty]

why dont assasinate him and his generals ?
i mean america has done that plenty times before whats stopping em now ?

*blam* story over happy ending not extensive prolonged blodshed

[Bobboau]

no, then one of his sons will sease power

[Stryke 9]

You have no idea how hard the US government has TRIED to do that. The thing is, it's very nearly impossible. I'm sure you've heard of how he never sleeps in the same bed on two consecutive nights, and how nobody ever really knows exactly where he is at any given time... well, that's only part of it. Suffice it to say he's suitably paranoid.

And an American agent would never even get close. The government's tried it with his generals and staff, too, but no dice- even they don'r really get to see him much.