|
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
 Posted - 11/18/2002 : 20:34:07
|
|
I understand the nessicty for war. I also understand the fundamental need for defiance of the government. What I dont understand is the lack of support for a war the people see as a "war for oil." Is it just me or do none of these people watch CNN and grasp what Iraq is really up to. If I am correct Iraq only produces about 8 percent of the worlds oil, and with recent finds of huge amounts of oil in the fallen USSR, Iraq is almost rendered useless. But here-in lays the problem, could it not be said that we are taking step toward in the interest of the people of Iraq, as well as the people of the United States? If you would have asked me if we could have witnessed a terrorist attack no less than 2 years ago, I would have told you you were crazy. I think personally think we should topple Sadam. Isnt clear the man is off his rocker? With the exception of a prevailing and dominant army, there is no difference between Sadam and Hitler. Granted Sadam has yet to kill millions, isnt fair to assertain that if given the chance he would? I feel horrible for the peoples of Iraq.I realize that our imposed trade embargo has basically ruined their way of life. I just think that if Iraq was led by a governing group of individuals or possibly a pseudo-democracy that they can start to rebuild thier lives. War is not just because it asks those few willing to give their lives to the cause. But sometimes war is a nessicity to preserve and restore life.
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2002 : 20:40:14 [Permalink]
|
| Just thought I would like to explain my grammar ablities. I am not the world's greatest speller when it comes to typing fast. And since I am not exactly looking for a grammar check I hope you guys can deal with me on that one. thanks |
 |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2002 : 04:51:09 [Permalink]
|
Hey, what's up Phalcon? Dude, da grammar ain't no problem.
I work in the oilfields, and you can bet most around here would give their eye teeth to eliminate this dependence on foriegn oil. Nonetheless, most in these parts are lined up so close behind the pres that if he scratches his...well, you know what I mean.
The big problem I have with this impending conflict is that I feel it is mostly political. I've gotten the distinct impression that GW, and cronies, discovered that foriegn war is the only way to keep the positive job ratings up, and the Congress passing laws strengthening the powers of the Fed. (Don't let the Republicans fool you. They're only for smaller gov't, and more state's rights when it meets their agenda). Let's face it. The economy, and other issues like health care and social security aren't exactly fodder for the administration's recent job performance bragging rights.
Then, I consider the fact the Mr. Bush's own CIA publicly stated that Iraq is not a major threat for state sponsored terrorism, unless we attack him first. Next, there is no link I know of between Saddam and the Al Queda, and we haven't even finished the Al Queda job, yet. Then, I may add that the Iraqi people probably aren't too excited about being used yet again as Saddam's cannon fodder. Let's not forget about the issue of further destabilazation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And, lets not forget fair play. North Korea has an atomic bomb, and probably other weapons of mass destruction, already. Isn't this a rather inconsistent foriegn policy?
Oh, and the big problem. Toppling saddam is not the cakewalk of Dessert Storm. Taking out Saddam would probably mean a long drawn out engagement in Bagdad, a city already preparing for seige, and a door to door small arms battle. The US people never did like high casualty rates, and me either. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2002 : 05:31:07 [Permalink]
|
Agree with Tim.
While I would love to read that Saddam's carcass had been found floating face-down in the Euphrates, I can't support attacking him virtually unprovoked (getting flipped off is not enough provacation). At least with Desert Storm, there was his conquest of an ally (of sorts) to deal with.
Perhaps I remember Vietnam all too well, but I think that an attack on Iraq would lead to a long and bitter conflict that would destroy the reagon.
f |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2002 : 07:35:53 [Permalink]
|
The U.S. has been attacking Iraq for years, there is no reason for that war, nor is there any reason to escalate that war. Genocide is the word that former UN Asst Sec'y General Denis Halliday uses for what's being done to Iraq by the U.S. and U.K.
Iraq is no threat to anyone. It couldn't even beat Iran without U.S. help. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2002 : 08:42:16 [Permalink]
|
I haven't seen anything to indicate Saddam is genocidal in the sense that Hitler was genocidal. Saddam may dislike the Kurds for one reason or another, but I don't think he intends a campaign to eliminate them for sheer "inferiority." It's unclear whether Saddam even possesses the ability to motivate his citizens as Hitler did.
What I don't understand is our apparent self-imposed ignorance of the situation in North Korea. To be fair, I'm sure we're maintaining whatever diplomatic relations we can but why is the focus seemingly on Iraq? Is it entirely the fault of the media? Do we have reason to believe Saddam is inherently more dangerous than Kim Jong-il, weapons of MD or not? Is there a heirarchy to the Axis of Evil™ that the citizens aren't privy to?
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2002 : 23:16:57 [Permalink]
|
I know the premise of this is that anyone against war in Iraq is a hippy and is in Portland but since that is far from the case I just have to bring that up. I guess this means hippies are in charge at the Pentagon as well since they were against a war there from square one. Ditto for the CIA. It's a great political ploy for the President though, eh? You go first, I'm just not into being the instrument of an idiot's whim.
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2002 : 03:21:25 [Permalink]
|
PhD did mention a very important consideration. We already knew that the North Koreans could sweep down into Seoul with conventional forces so quickly that it would make Dessert Storm seem like the Hundred Years War. The few US and So. Korean troops stationed at the 38th parrallel may have a technological advantage, but that's not going to stand against a miilion armed soldiers.
Now, they have the bomb, and we're too scared of what China might do in Kim's defense to raise more than a half hearted protest.
Let's face it. All GW can really do in North Korea is call them some bad names and hope that they go away. Maybe, the people will eventually get hungry enough to rise up in rebellion. Unfortunately, I wouldn't place any bets on that. Unlike the break up of the old Soviet Union, the people of North Korea have absolutely no contact with the outside world, and we have no intellegence as to what is going on inside.
Baby Bush can only see catastrophy in any action aimed at N.K., but Iraq! Now, that's a different story. That's one place he can talk big, and not have to worry about any serious repurcussions. No one really likes Saddam, anyhow.
Iraq is the best place for our president to prove his strength, and not start a global conflict. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
CapelDodger
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2002 : 04:11:19 [Permalink]
|
| I suspect that N Korea, and its weaponry, are needed to justify the Star Wars / Notional Missile Defence policy, so sorting it out with conventional military means is not what's desired in the White House. Policy on Iraq seems aimed towards some fantasy about future control of the world's oil (and money) supplies, so a completely different form of analysis is required to justify a completely different response. |
What you see is what you get. It's what you don't see that'll get you. |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2002 : 10:05:23 [Permalink]
|
| As much as I would like to be swayed to believe that thi war is purely political, I cannot. I served several months in the gulf and I have seen first hand the problems of not imposing some sort of democratic will upon the people or the leadership of Iraq. Foriegn policy is a strange beast. North Korea is a whole different ball of wax. I am well aware of the fact N. Korea hold weapons of mass destruction. My intention was not to dismiss N. Korea but rather expand some of the talks about Iraq. Phdreamer has brought up a good point about Sadams clear lack to motivate his people in the same way that Hitler did. I may have jumped the gun on that analogy. However I do believe if given the chance Iraq, or Sadam would gladly expand his proliferation of nuclear arms. There are several questions as to whether or not he could actually do so. But one thing is for certain, Sadam has tried many times to attain said weapons but to our current knowledge has failed. I just find it hard to believe that some people still have faith in the CIA or other such government intellegent agencies. The fact of the matter is, the service of intellegence agencies is totally screwed, for lack of a better term. I would like to point out I am not a war monger but rather I am tryin to give a different point of view. I do not have a Phd (working on it) but I have real world experience in such matters as implementing foriegn diplomacy or lack their of. I would like to thank you guys for responding in an intellegent and curdious manner. It is nice to have some sort of intellegent communication on the net. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2002 : 12:51:04 [Permalink]
|
| While I do understand that Saddam wouldn't turn down a nuke if it appeared on his doorstep, it doesn't appear to be the case at all that he's a first-strike kind of guy. If there's anything he's made clear in the past decade, it's that he wants to stay alive. I suspect he's clever enough to realize that threatening basically anyone at this point with nukes or chemical/biological weapons or whatever is to invite the explosive creation of large holes in the soil quite near his location. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2002 : 12:59:22 [Permalink]
|
My feeling is that Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is a danger to his neighbors and they are not into a war so let them deal with it. The only effect on the USA is oil supplies which we can get elsewhere. I am smart enough to commute in a fuel efficient car so any effect on me is minimal. I am not willing to send Americans to die so my gas is cheaper. Hand up anyone who is...
I am not a hippie, nor do I live in Portland but I have yet to see anything but a smoke screen to rationalize that war with Iraq is not about oil supplies. His weapons of mass destruction could only effect American troops based in the region. These very American troops are what caused Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaida so in a sense protectiong the oil led to an attack on American soil. I say screw the oil and everyone over there. They don't want to oust Saddam so let them deal with it and we bring our soldiers home.
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
CapelDodger
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2002 : 06:13:23 [Permalink]
|
"...imposing some sort of democratic will upon the people..." ?? - a rather unhappy phrase.
Saddam Hussein's attention is, and has always been, Arab-centric. (From what I've read he's only been out of the country twice, once as a junior member of a delegation to Paris, and later to a Kuwait which at that point was effectively part of Iraq anyway. I gather he didn't enjoy the Paris trip.) If you consider the history of the post-Ottoman Arab world you see a succession of would-be Pan-Arabist heroes, such as Nasser, Qadaffi, Assad and, latterly, Saddam. Once they gain power in their own "countries" they look to the wider Arab world - that's the Arab, not Muslim, world. Pan-Arabism is as populist in the Arab world as apple-pie and the flag in the US, but it has no practical application - after all, there's not much in common between Yemen and Syria or Egypt and the UAE. When Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran he wasn't just sucking-up to the US, he was making his play for domination of the Arab world. The invasion of Kuwait wasn't just about the money but about facing down the US in order to gain status in the Arab world. (It seems that, like others who have observed the US from inside a different culture, he saw a fat-assed populist nation that would shut up rather than put up.) The threat he poses to his neighbours should be seen in that context - he doesn't need to invade or harm them, he just needs to be able to. He then gains leadership of the Arab world. Thus the weapons of mass destruction. Without them he could well lose the game; with them, he's the defender of the Arab world against external enemies, such as the Iranians, the Russians - or the US.
The current Republican leadership's attention is, and has always been, oil-industry centred. They don't have a clue how someone like Saddam Hussein thinks, but assume they do. They think that control of oil supplies will always be the source of wealth that it's recently been, and thet the cost of maintaining that control devolves on the US taxpayer (a group that they're not really part of) while the profits are theirs. They still think like the European Great Powers of the 19th century - that military might is the be-all and end-all of national status and should be exploited to the full. There's no real ideology there, apart from "no taxes on the rich". It's this ignorance, and ignorance of that ignorance, that is the greatest danger for everyone involved (which I guess means everybody). Whatever happens in the medium term won't be what the White House expects. |
What you see is what you get. It's what you don't see that'll get you. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
