War With Iraq?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
SuperJarrad	War With Iraq?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 633 (08/19/02 11:55 PM) COBRA Commander Psych WarOps Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Yes, no, maybe so? For some, it seems like its just a matter of time until we're back in Iraq trying to give Sadaam the boot. In an unrelated article, I noticed that a MSNBC executive mentioned a war in Iraq as a given this Fall. He mentioned that he expected ratings to go up this upcoming season because of election time, people returning from vacations, and the war in Iraq. Discussion on this matter is crucial. In Congress, neither major political party is of one voice on this issue. It's still up for debate so let's go. Here's a link to some opinions from around the world on the matter from people like you and me: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2158475.stm "It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow on my brain!" - Sealab Captain
1 SL Chris ZS	Re: War With Iraq?	#1	[-]
Posts: 3391 (08/20/02 1:31 AM) Board Leprechaun Governor Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The question is not whether bush wants it, but whether or not he gains the support of our nation (not all that hard in the post 9/11 rash of "patriotism"), and/or the surrounding middle eastern countries (very hard).
Nicholas	Re: War With Iraq?	#2	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/03/02 11:22 PM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You know what I don't get, and that many Democrats apparently don't get either? Why is the discussion of war strategy so public? The "Baghdad First" scenario? Are we to assume that Saddam's advisors no longer watch television, or that their specifically concentrated defenses will only manage to take out a dozen or more of our soldiers at most anyway?
1 SL Chris ZS	Re: War With Iraq?	#3	[-]
Posts: 3391 (09/04/02 9:06 PM) Board Leprechaun Governor Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It's called "complacency." "What should we do about the United States?" - Emil Salim, UN environmental policy representative
TheWatcherUatu	Re: War With Iraq?	#4	[-]
Posts: 21 (09/05/02 12:04 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Maybe we're all hoping that if we talk about war with Iraq enough, Saddam, watching tv, will star saying to himself, "Gee, they seem serious. Better start being nice."
Nicholas	Re: War With Iraq?	#5	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/05/02 1:17 AM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Do you think so really? There's this big burden of proof controversy that's swimming about right now -- how the Bush administration is adamant about links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I mean, they seem pretty intent on a war there. The only problem is that they haven't actually presented any evidence yet, and this is just starting to dawn on the American public (something that the Europeans pounced on months ago).
sdmcrg	From my thread that I had before I knew about this one...	#6	[-]
Posts: 361 (09/09/02 7:09 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* "Well, there's a lot of tension between Iraq and the United States (and England, Russia (I think) and a few other countries). Now, I don't know who Iraq has for allies, but I'm pretty sure Saudia Arabia and Iran are some, are they not? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Iraq won't let UN Inspectors in to see if he has weapons of mass destruction so there have been talks of destroying them by force. This isn't, I don't believe, going to include the bombings like the US did in '98. Destroying the weapons isn't all that's being planned. I know that there have been/will be great efforts to assassinate Hussein and set up their own ruler. 1)Would and invasion be smart? 2)Do you think this could create a war between US, Great Britain, their allies and Iraq and its allies? 3)If so, what do you think the results are? 4)Do you agree with the US setting up a ruler of their choice in Hussein's place if an assassination were ever to take place? Just any thoughts on this, please, and PLEASE, ANY CORRECTIONS ON FALSE INFORMATION!!! (I know you guys won't hesitate to do that, ) 1) First off, I don't know how smart an invasion would be. This is because Iraq isn't going to idly watch as the United States (I'll just call the whole alliance thing the United States) comes into their country. They WILL put up a resistance. And if Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction (Chem., Biochem., and POSSIBLY nukes), what would stop him from using such things if he has been so forcefully hiding them? I don't understand what the difference between the US having nukes and Iraq having nukes is... okay, I take that back, I DO, very much so, but maybe Iraq should be able to have such weapons, just under control. Taking away Saddam's weapons is going to provoke him to do something hostile. Although, George Bush said something that caught my attention. He doesn't want to wait to find out what Iraq has, considering America would be the prime target for attack. 2) I think this could create a LARGE war. Picture this... Two people (Person A and Person B)didn't like each other. They have an argument because Person A had something that Person B didn't want him to have because it would most likely be harmful to him. Well, Person B decides to rally all his friends together and attack Person A. Well, after finding out about this, all of Person A's friends come to help Person A. Meanwhile, the friends of the friends of Persons A and B are coming to assist their friends... understand where I'm going? To invade Iraq, which will fight, is to engage in battle with all of Iraq's allies. And also, perhaps Iraq's allies' allies. 3) The results of such an invasion would be a war, or maybe a conflict, but a war, just not technically. This would be something devastating to the world. If, indeed, it were to become such an escalated war, it would not mean a nuclear war, most likely. I think all the rulers in this world are smart enough not to nuke an enemy, I mean, there are a few countries with nukes that would just as easily nuke back. Nevertheless, the would involve ground invasions and bombings, thousands of innocent lives taken, plus the ones from the battle fields. It would turn Iraq upside down and possibly certain economic areas (or physical areas) of the United States and Europe. A war with Iraq and friends could lead to a weakness in the US military and it could be vulnerable to attack (except for the fact that right when someone would attack the US, the UN steps in... except if... well, let's not go there today). 4) The last point, there has been quite a bit of talk about the United States setting up a ruler in place of Hussein. First thing, that would cause a civil war in Iraq, no doubt... the people who might want to keep that ruler and those who oppose the ruler will be the ones involved. That would bring the United States right back into conflicts in Iraq. The US would be under obligation to protect this ruler, especially since the ones opposing him would most likely outnumber those NOT opposing the ruler. More terrorist attacks, whether from Iraq people or sympathizers, would occur. Protests even in the US would occur, on the note that people might think/realize (depending on what the US's whole purpose of actually putting the ruler in place would be) that the United States is simply trying to gain control of Iraq. In some aspects, they would be controlling Iraq. The assistance of the US military needed in Iraq would detract from protection that might otherwise be needed somewhere else... but then again, the military should be put to use somehow, sometime." Tis I, the Great Fladariagarblenockendorfgen
Nicholas	Re: From my thread that I had before I knew about this one..	#7	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/09/02 10:10 PM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	First off, it's awesome that you're trying to stir up discussion about this -- most people aren't talking enough. I think the implications of a possible war with Iraq (on what I still feel is extremely shaky evidence) are too important to ignore, e.g. What does it say about our country to fight a war just because we can at this point in time, even though we do not have the support of our allies? Secondly, I don't think we have to worry about a major war, and here's why: Iraq doesn't have any allies. At least not in the way you might be considering, which is military I think. Yes, many Middle Eastern countries are definitely against another American war with Iraq, but not necessarily because of some pan-Islamic, anti-American factors. Rather, there's a lot of fear about what would happen if Saddam is toppled -- who will replace him? A pro-American administration will be immediately rejected (I'm telling you, it won't even be allowed to exist for long, and this will be done through fierce diplomatic warfare), because no Arabic country in the region will allow the U.S. to install one. The Middle Eastern nations, like any other state, is mindful of their own autonomy -- having one of your largest neighbors become "American" will no doubt impinge on their sovereignty in very unsubtle ways that everyone can respect, e.g. The permanent presence of American military in the region (the Saudi Arabians merely invited our forces -- we are there only at their mercy, and even that is a flaky thing). On the same note, an pro-democratic Arab administration in Iraq could possibly destabilize the region. States like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon -- all are nations that roughly speaking, are ruled by a strong conservative, and at times, fundamentalist contingent (especially true for Iran). A true democracy's ramifications could tear the region apart in civil war and revolution. And Saudi Arabia and Iran are not traditional allies of Iraq. In fact, Iran and Iraq are actually bitter enemies, and have fought at least one insanely violent war with each other back in the '80s. See, all the Arab leaders -- moderate, conservative, or otherwise -- all agree that Saddam is dangerous, and that ideally, he should not be in power. But none of them dares to support an American initiative if only because America has always been viewed in an imperialistic light by most of the world (you see, Empire can be more subtle than colony and mother), and the last thing you'd want in a group of nations reaching back towards the great Ottomans' caliphate is Westernization. One last note. Oil. You have to consider oil in nearly all international policy dealing with the Middle East -- it is the most important commodity in the world. We do not have support from the Arabs not because they support Iraq, but because they don't want us to get control of their oil. OPEC's only hold on oil control is the fact that they do have a monopoly in terms of the sheer volume of their oil reserves. An American presence (and control) in that region would not do. And the Europeans do not support America because they are suspicious of our actual intentions. They fail to see the evidence of these alleged links that point towards an "imminent" Iraqi threat.
Nicholas	Question	#8	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/10/02 1:28 PM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay, informal poll. Is Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction? The Bush administration and Tony Blair think so. The rest of the world is "skeptical." What do you think?
TheWatcherUatu	Re: Question	#9	[-]
Posts: 21 (09/10/02 6:17 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I was actually joking in my previous response, or being fascetious in any case. No, I think that W. and Rumsfeld are completely serious when they say that they intend to do everything in their power to oust Saddam. Bush has actually made it the "goal of his presidency" if I'm not mistaken. In the court of world opinion, the United States's popularity is severly flagging, because the catchword, or at least the result of, the Bush administration thus far has been "unilateralism". They're intent on dragging us down into another exhausting war that, in the case of Iraq, probably, in truth, has more to do with oil than anything else. The only one who seems to have a clue in the Bush administration is Colin Powell, and I don't envy him his role trying to spin the actions of patent hawks in a positive light to world leaders whom we want on our side. Do I think Saddam has or is developing weapons of mass destruction? It's possible. Do I think we should go to war with Iraq? Not really. I think we should make a stronger attempt to work with the U.N. on getting inspectors in there backed by military guard and find out for sure. *Quote:* 1) First off, I don't know how smart an invasion would be. This is because Iraq isn't going to idly watch as the United States (I'll just call the whole alliance thing the United States) comes into their country. If it does come to war, it has been pretty much said that the US will be footing the bill and, basically, going it alone. Maybe the U.K. will be behind us to an extent, but it will be a largely US show. *Quote:* 4) The last point, there has been quite a bit of talk about the United States setting up a ruler in place of Hussein. First thing, that would cause a civil war in Iraq, no doubt... the people who might want to keep that ruler and those who oppose the ruler will be the ones involved. I was listening to something on the news in the car today that suggested Iraq would not stand up to a war right now. That if they were to engage in one and lose, it would, essentially, be the end of Iraq as we know it. Any sort of post war stability would be impossible. I wish I had been paying better attention so I could tell you exactly why it was said. JG Blum 1000 Ships Board Admin. Proprietor: The Prettiest Women in the Popular World
TheWatcherUatu	Re: Question	#10	[-]
Posts: 21 (09/12/02 3:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There's a pretty hilarious thread going on over at this board I sometimes frequent: pub34.ezboard.com/fhedgeh...D=18.topic It's either hilarious or seriously scary, but since most people on this board tend to be fairly liberal and, dare I say, intelligent, it might help you understand the other side if you check out that link. Actually, as far as that thread goes, I'd say that everything that needs to be said has been said, but it's still worth checking out for the comedic value of people trying to defend genocide, or at the very least, attrocity. JG Blum 1000 Ships Board Admin. Proprietor: The Prettiest Women in the Popular World
Nicholas	Re: Question	#11	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/13/02 1:01 AM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yeah. Scary. Scary scary. The "1 standard week" phrase had me cracking up. This is opposed to the "1 un-standard week" of science fiction lore, as everybody knows. At a Sept. 11th symposium my psych. honors class had us attend yesterday, one of the professors was introducing some research theory on the effect of something they called "psychological distance between groups" and how it relates to our conceptualization of the target group. A lot of the ideas were pretty straightforward and common sense (like most of psychology). The "further" away you are from a group, the more concrete and less detail-oriented your perception of that group will be. This goes both ways of course. The idea is that the further apart your cultures or realities may be, the more likely you are to implicitly believe that their actions are reflections of their character, in an almost deterministic fashion, e.g. They do this because they're evil, and they will always do this because that's who they are. This is as opposed to a group that you're "close" to, in which case, their actions will more often be considered more nuanced, with circumstancial factors relieving much of the responsiblity burden. I can see the short-term military advantages of some of their ideas (in that thread you linked), but I've never known History to be particularly forgiving. I said this before, and I'm sticking by it: Unilaterism will spell the loss of America's unique role as sole superpower.
Nicholas	Re: Question	#12	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/14/02 1:51 PM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thought you might all enjoy this: From This Modern World -- One Year Later: What the President Has Learned Since 9-11. www.salon.com/comics/tomo...index.html
SuperJarrad	Re: Question	#13	[-]
Posts: 633 (09/16/02 8:40 PM) COBRA Commander Psych WarOps Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Iraq is going to let U.N. inspectors return unconditionally. Sounds good. And yet at the same time, Rumsfeld heats things up by striking at anti-aircraft guns. It's obvious that someone wants a war. "It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow on my brain!" - Sealab Captain
TheWatcherUatu	Re: Question	#14	[-]
Posts: 21 (09/16/02 9:57 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As much as I hate to credit Bush with anything, his speach to the U.N. General Assembly last week seemed to have done the trick. It looked like, in the event of a war, nations were starting to get in line with us--Saudi Arabia most notably, I'd say. I'd love to read that 22 page document he presented detailing Iraq's incessant intractability over the past 11 years. Will the Bush administration still jump at the first chance to go to war with Iraq and oust Saddam? Probably, but this move on Iraq's part is at least somewhat auspicious as far as peace goes. JG Blum 1000 Ships Board Admin. Proprietor: The Prettiest Women in the Popular World
sdmcrg	A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#15	[-]
Posts: 361 (09/18/02 11:31 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay, Iraq said (I think Monday or something) that they would allow UN inspections. I believe they are still keeping their word. Is Bush up to go to war still? Bush said it wasn't about the UN inspections, but about a disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. Heh, it sounds like an excuse to attack if you ask me. Whether it be because of hurt pride or whether it be because Bush has something much greater in mind is beyond me. Bush, right now, has no reason to attack Iraq, now that they have accepted the UN resolutions. Bush still wants to attack. Bush admitted that he did NOT expect Iraq to agree with the resolution but they did. Could he want to attack now because of pride? On another note, Bush Sr. talked about something he considers a "New World Order"... perhaps Bush Jr. is finishing what daddy started, whatever it may be. Am I paranoid? I'm VERY paranoid, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Anyway, it's just speculation. Bush apparently wants something out of Iraq, maybe just power over it, but I think that he's looking for some control in the Middle East. I'm suspecting this goes a little deeper than a couple weapons of mass destruction. (Yes, I'm aware that weapons of md are a big issue, and there are more than a couple if there are any at all.) Tis I, the Great Fladariagarblenockendorfgen
Nicholas	Re: A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#16	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/19/02 12:19 AM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Oil. `In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S. Eliot`
sdmcrg	Re: A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#17	[-]
Posts: 361 (09/19/02 11:00 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Perhaps that, maybe influence. Who knows for sure? Well, I smell a fish, more rotten than the scum on my feet... er, you weren't supposed to know about that. No, I'm totally serious. US is pushing for war. Bush is pushing for war. He SAYS he wants peace, yet he says the only way to obtain it is to go to war, thus disrupting the whole world. It kind of humors me, has anyone ever listened to "Don't Tread On Me"? It's a Metallica song... well, this is Bush's whole way of thinking. Or so it might seem, it's more like his excuse for attacking. At first, I thought Bush had a reasonable argument for attack, now though, I think he's looking for a way to make it reasonable. I can't believe Congress is supporting him. Heh, fear, such a powerful thing. It's only man, I guess they don't realize that too well. There's a quote to go along with that... I think it was made by some Lord Someone... "Let them hate, so long as they fear." Well, I'm sure a lot of people who otherwise might not support Bush, fear that by not attacking Iraq, the US might find out after a "smoking gun". They're afraid of being wrong by not attacking, afraid that Iraq will attack the US with Weapons of MD... I'll stop for now, I'ma take a shower. I have a lot more rambling to do, but I'm too tired, so I'll see you later. By the way, oil had crossed my mind several times. That brings up the point about how the US will have control lots of oil and so that will be VERY bad for the Middle East... well, see ya'. Tis I, the Great Fladariagarblenockendorfgen
1 SL Chris ZS	Re: A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#18	[-]
Posts: 3391 (09/20/02 12:32 AM) Board Leprechaun Governor Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I heard something on NPR. Apparently even though Iraq's export of oil has been regulated, they apparently have massive reserves. The estimate I heard was that about half of OPEC's yearly oil production could be released in a year. If the US somehow controlled that, and opened up OUR national reserves we could sidestep almost any conflict in the middle east. With this conjecture in hand, I ALMOST support a war in Iraq. [edit]Oh, BTW, agreeing is a shrewd move on Hussein's part, it does exactly what you say. Gives us almost no reason to justify attacking. He probably knows how our citizenry will interpret that, not to mention the UN. Anyone who thinks Saddam doesn't have access to CNN is a fool. Go to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.
TheWatcherUatu	Re: A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#19	[-]
Posts: 21 (09/20/02 8:44 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Bush really wants to get rid of Saddam. Regime change is his stated goal. Of course, the reason he wants to get rid of Saddam probably has less to do with the potential terrorist threat and more to do with oil, but in any case, it has been made fairly clear, I think, that the Bush administration won't be happy until Saddam is gone. JG Blum 1000 Ships Board Admin. Proprietor: The Prettiest Women in the Popular World
Nicholas	Re: A twist of events... now I'm in the hazy side...	#20	[-]
Posts: 6698 (09/20/02 10:51 AM) SARS Incubator Dictator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In case you haven't seen this yet, Congress has just promised a quick vote on Bush's proposal, in a "show of unity" to the President. There must be a lot of stuff going on in the background, considering how as recently as a couple of weeks ago, many Democrats were second-guessing the administration and Colin Powell was still on the fritz. story.news.yahoo.com/news...s_iraq_341 What I find extremely baffling in all of this is the sudden change in OPEC's stance, or in the very least, Saudi Arabia, which has said that it'll allow American use of their bases if an invasion is required by UN resolution. I cannot, will not believe that they'll just allow this to happen -- that is, simply let Iraqi oil fields fall into American hands. Or maybe they feel that a coalition force is exactly the thing to keep us at bay and they're just trying to cut losses. `In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S. Eliot`

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

War With Iraq?

War With Iraq?

Quick Reply