[Fetty]

ive seen high res sat pictures where u allmost could make out a pimple on somebodys nose (okok not that detailed but still very detailed)
i mean all those multi million dollar sats should be able to find out something
and why not train an iraqi ?
im 100% sure that not all iraqis love him ....

and 1 or 10 whers the diffrence
still better than 10.000 or 100.000 or a million people just to get rid of him and his guys isnt it ?

[Stryke 9]

Clearly those sattelites, like so many wonderful pieces of military gadgetry, aren't all they're cut out to be. After all, they didn't do much for us in Afghanistan, either.

And I think I answered your second question. Nobody gets to see him except his personal guard-types and staff, and they're hardcore. No buying them out- ****, no contacting them in the first place.

I suppose during one of those speeches someone could make a try with a rifle- and I'm sure they have- but one of the things dictatorships are known for is their excellent security.

[Fetty]

horay for russian 2km+ high percision sniper rifles
ok its a tad bit bigger than a "rifle"
or drop a bomb on his palaces n bunkers untill you get him
sry for the lack of realy good ideas but im not getting payd and i dont serve in the army u know
but my point is removal of him and the "evil doers" is much better than going to war with iraq just to get to him
and shouldnt it be in all our interests to save lifes ?

[Stryke 9]

Yeah, except for that assassinations don't occupy as much headline time as war, and thus Bush isn't interested. It may or may not be marginally feasible as an alternative, and I'd certainly say if there was a chance go for it, but I'm not the one trying to get reelected despite having done nothing quantifiably good while in office.

[Fetty]

humm possible yes
besides making war with afganistan and going to make war with iraq real soon what has he done for the us people ?

[Stryke 9]

Two words: "Patriot Act".


Oh, you said for. I thought you meant against.

[Kamikaze]

He says he's killing taxes on dividends (I think he was lowering other taxes too)... guess who that's good for, yep all those rich white peeps. He's working on that "trickle-down economy" which doesn't work 'cause it doesn't account for greed, big miss eh? Of course it could be that trickle down economy was made specifically not to work.. hmm (yeah, who cares about plebians, just feed the rich)

[CP5670]

man I love this thread.

Well, yeah, but you seem to miss the fact that demonstrating this will only incur the wrath of the rest of the world. 300 million vs. 6 billion. And opposition to the US is only getting stronger.

People are not the only thing that matters; tech level, production capability and economic power/influence are possibly more important. The main idea here is to make guys like North Korea stay low by threatening to go after them next. Still, the US does still have a considerable percentage of its own population following them, which is really what matters on the propaganda front.

No serriously dude, do you really belive that it would be that way? US wins over UN? One nation against all the other nations of the world. Hey you are a math genious you do the math and tell me the odds.

Sure, I will tell you everything; don't worry, you do not need to know any math for this. First of all, the UN most certainly does not represent all the other nations, or even any majority of nations; its permanent members comprise of the WW2 winners alone, and it has been that way ever since it was formed, which already is a possible indication of how outdated it is. And it is not just a matter of these small technical issues either; the entire concept of the UN is flawed at its very core. This is because the existence of an institution acting in the interests of all of the nations indefinitely is simply impossible, because they all have different objectives, and the temporary "alliances" change every couple of decades based on the need to face new problems. Even its title, "United Nations" is a contradiction in terms; you can only have a "United Nation." Now back to the present situation, the UN is facing the same problem that the US faced in the days of the Articles: it has no power to enforce anything it demands. Laws are practically nonexistent unless there is a penalty for disobeying them, which is why I said earlier that the UN talks but does not act.

Anyone living near DC read George Will's column in the washington post today? As he put it, the UN is not just a good idea with a bad implemetation, but simply a bad idea to begin with.

And keep in mind that when the government starts overtly acting regardless of what its populace wants, the masses get shooty, mobby, and stabby.

how about Iraq? I don't think everyone exactly likes Saddam there, and he has been around for a while.

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

Exactly, and this is after waiting for so many months first. The entire world (including the EU, no doubt) can see that all he is trying to do is delay things and buy himself more time to build up his forces, but that will cause trouble for the US, so it is a good thing from their point of view.

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

lol, I'm just pointing out that the oil argument is flawed either way, which is about the worst thing that can happen to an argument; not only is it probably not true, but even if it was, it would still be ridiculous. Anyway, I am not completely familiar with the details of the economics involved, and on that particular point I am just regurgitating what I have heard; it seems that in the long run, any benefits they get from the oil prices would be far outweighed by the recessive effects caused by the psychological uncertainty of war. My dad was giving me some very long explanations about the economics of this whole thing a few days ago (he is some IMF advisor bigwig), but it was rather boring and I cannot remember much of what he said; maybe I should get him to post here.

[Stryke 9]

CP- I think you're missing the point. A skilled politician can do whatever he likes, so long as he makes it LOOK LIKE that's what everyone wants- such as rationalizing everything to the Iraqis because it will, among other things, kill the Jews and Americans. Bush hasn't bothered to do that in his big grandiose speeches, so it's pretty clear to people that this isn't what they want, and they'll act on that.


I'll agree that it's not the primary goal of the war, but the gains to be had from free access to Iraqi oil aren't exactly negligible either.

Problem is, everyone seems to be thinking of oil in terms of the stuff you put in your car. That's only one use- it's a political and economic pawn unparalleled in modern times. It's much like gold was back in the day- the universally prized barter item. With indirect control of such a good oil reserve, the US could exert influence on the world by getting a membership on OPEC by proxy, controlling a big part of the European fuel market (if the US plays it right- it can't do this right now, obviously, because the US needs most of the oil it produces, and because it'd be too obvious a takeover if done with American oil- the EU nations wouldn't go along with it) and thus largely regaining control of Europe, and making gobs of cash besides.

[Fetty]

comment on oil part :
lets just put it this way oil is one of the reasons
how important we will prolly know in 20 years

[CP5670]

CP- I think you're missing the point. A skilled politician can do whatever he likes, so long as he makes it LOOK LIKE that's what everyone wants- such as rationalizing everything to the Iraqis because it will, among other things, kill the Jews and Americans. Bush hasn't bothered to do that in his big grandiose speeches, so it's pretty clear to people that this isn't what they want, and they'll act on that.

Hussein is not exactly a skilled politician either, you know. He has been saying that he is representing the Arab world, which is excellent popular stuff, but his history with the common people there is so bad that most of the population is not going to believe him there simply because of their previous experience with him (bin Laden they will certainly go for, but not this guy). I think Kym is far superior at some of these political tactics; Saddam should learn from him.

I'll agree that it's not the primary goal of the war, but the gains to be had from free access to Iraqi oil aren't exactly negligible either.

Tell you what; I will get back to you on this oil thing when I learn more about it. You are completely right that oil can be used to control the world economically, just like any other resource that has become necessary, but I still don't see why it must be Iraqi oil; for example, why not Saudi oil instead, since they have much weaker military forces and ten times the amount of oil.

comment on oil part :
lets just put it this way oil is one of the reasons
how important we will prolly know in 20 years

Then again, testing newly developed technology (e.g. the sea lions ) and equipment is also one of the reasons; a very minor one certainly, but still a reason.

[Stryke 9]

Saddam's a bit blustery, and tends to sound pretty bad to us, but I think the fact that he's still alive in spite of how un-neighborly he's been is a testament to his rabble-rousing abilities. It certainly has nothing to do with any tactical advantage.

And after all, the approach he has is in a way quite similar to the thing that's made Bush so popular, and it certainly worked for him. Look at all the crap he's crammed down Americans' throats in the past few years, with not a complaint. It's proletarian to be a cowboy, whether you've got spurs or a turban.

[Turnsky]

who has the largest oil reserves? i always thought it was saudi arabia and kuwait, not iraq

[Stryke 9]

I think the Saudis come way ahead, followed by Iraq and then Kuwait. I could be wrong, but it'd be a close one either way, and a not inconsiderable reserve.

[CP5670]

yeah, actually Saudi Arabia has several times the amount of oil that Iraq does. Norway also has a lot underwater.

Saddam's a bit blustery, and tends to sound pretty bad to us, but I think the fact that he's still alive in spite of how un-neighborly he's been is a testament to his rabble-rousing abilities. It certainly has nothing to do with any tactical advantage.

No, it is more of a testament to the effectiveness of his domestic police force. There have been many attempts at rebellions and overthrows, but all of which have failed.

And after all, the approach he has is in a way quite similar to the thing that's made Bush so popular, and it certainly worked for him. Look at all the crap he's crammed down Americans' throats in the past few years, with not a complaint. It's proletarian to be a cowboy, whether you've got spurs or a turban.

uh, you just said that Bush is not a good liar/politician, right? So then how does he make people think that his "crap" is good?

[Turnsky]

[ot]You seen the MOAB? whoever gave it that name has a twisted sense of humour although it isn't without merit, it's more or less stating the obvious. [/ot]

[Stryke 9]

I said he's terrible abroad. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. People seem to be drinking it up and begging for more here, but nobody outside of the country is fooled. It's likely much the same with Saddam, seeing as his technique of strident nationalism and doing whatever the **** he likes very noisily is almost identical.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by CP5670

uh, you just said that Bush is not a good liar/politician, right? So then how does he make people think that his "crap" is good?

well, don't ALL politians nefarious or otherwise lie about something at one point or another? it's all a matter whether or not the general populace believes it or not.

[CP5670]

I said he's terrible abroad. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. People seem to be drinking it up and begging for more here, but nobody outside of the country is fooled. It's likely much the same with Saddam, seeing as his technique of strident nationalism and doing whatever the **** he likes very noisily is almost identical.

That's not so important though; he only needs steadfast support from within the nation, since that is primarily where he gets his resources to fight. But like I said, I seriously doubt that the average Iraqi is as supportive of Hussein as the average American is of Bush, seeing as how many rebellions the police there have put down in the last several years.

well, don't ALL politians nefarious or otherwise lie about something at one point or another? it's all a matter whether or not the general populace believes it or not.

Of course, but that implies that it is dependent on whether or not the lies are good ones, so it depends on how good a liar the politician is.

[Turnsky]

precisely..