War with Iraq?

[Louis XV]

Originally posted by Epinephrine
The anti-war people are not Pro Saddam persay, but they give no solutions. Their only solution is no war. But then what? It's the same as the anti-globalization people. They say no globalization. But then they don't produce an alternative plan.

Larger-scale inspections and a peacekeeping force. Step up covert operations to remove saddam from power. Oh wait. Those won't work. They don't put enough money into the pockets of US defense contractors. Back to the drawing board.

Originally posted by Epinephrine

But it's also obvious that Saddam funds many terrorist groups. Maybe not al Queda but Saddam certain gives a ton of money to other terrorists in the middle east, and I doubt he'll have trouble finding ones willing to smuggle in a nuclear bomb into the US a la the movie "The Sum of All Fears".

It's not obvious to me. They are groups whose main purpose is to resist the Israeli occupation, aren't they?

K, movies don't count.

Originally posted by Epinephrine
after the Americans get bored and leave (like Afghanistan) the world can help Iraq get back on it's feet. That and with the world involved America can't simply just take all of Iraq's oil and so on.

Just because it's not on the news every day, that doesn't mean that our forces have left Afghanistan. We're still guarding the oil pipeline there. Wonder if the soldiers are sampling the opium that the new regime is allowing to be grown.

[Seven by seven]

Originally posted by Webbb Llama v1.5

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought America created Israel? They're our ally at least, maybe not during election times, because the voters don't favor America but they're our allies.

Wrong. Britain set about creating Israel in the first world war. read about the The Balfour Declaration, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0

[Fit of Rage]

I'm surprised Andy Rooney hasn't posted on this topic yet.

[Mayo Inc.]

Originally posted by Webbb Llama v1.5
North Korea already has the bomb, attacking them would be suicide.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought America created Israel? They're our ally at least, maybe not during election times, because the voters don't favor America but they're our allies.



I don't agree with you when you say Bush has a vendetta against Saddam, but the oil may definitely be one thing propelling America towards war. Another issue is the economy. If Bush takes our eyes off the economy much longer maybe we won't think so badly of him. The economy makes or breaks an election, just look at Bush Sr...

According to Bush Inc. Saddam's got maaad bombs up in his piece.

Yes they created Israel, but the point I was trying to make was that some of the reasons people have provided me to justify the war such as UN Resolutions and WMD's are also present in Israel

Oil is DEFINETLY THE REASON FOR THE WAR. If this war is prolonged it could be pretty catastrophic to our economy. I hope Bush doesn;t get re-elected, and I'll do everything in my power and within the boundaries of the law to see that he doesnt.

[ZeUs!!]

I'm not a big fan of being shot.

[Epinephrine]

Okay I was in a weird mood when I wrote this thread originally... I take it back. I still believe the war is for the reasons why I said so, but there are so many things that can go wrong if a war is fought that it's not worth it.

The best way for the world is to pressure Saddam multilaterally to disarm. That's the only way it's going to work.

If there's a war in Iraq, it'll become the next Yugoslavia and break apart. If the US actually follows through there like they did in Japan and Germany after WWII (doubtful given the fact that Bush has an attention span of nothing) the US will be the subject of massive terror attacks guaranteed.

So no war, but yes to peaceful solutions.

-Epi

[Dystrophy]

Fuck me in the goat ass.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dystrophy
Fuck me in the goat ass.

Common Logic.

Bravo.

[Andy Rooney]

I am so sick of politics on subspace, because no one ever knows what they are talking about. It is a damned shame too, because I really enjoy talking politics. I will never forget the genius shear "Bush is moving our economy to a more socialist state." This is precisely the reason why I am choosing not to participate.

[Andy Rooney]

Originally posted by Epinephrine


Why not North Korea? Because:
1) North Korea has one of the world's largest standing armies.
2) North Korea has a ton of missles and artillery aimed at Seoul, South Korea, which is only 80 miles from the demilitarized zone. In any suggestion of conflict, they'll launch a full scale attack and destroy the city and surrounding area of 10 million people.
3) North Korea doesn't have any proven ties with terrorist networks.

Ok I will just say one thing. Everyone thinks North Korea is this huge aggressor and that South Korea is this poor lamb that would be demolished in an instant. First of all if any of you have done any research whatsoever, you would have found out that South Korea A)has a larger army, and B)has a MUCH larger defense budget. Same thing goes for Iraq and Iran. Iran would punk those silly bitches if they ever tried shit.

[Mayo Inc.]

There were three scenarios presented to Bush by his advisors:

Best Case Scenario was something like a quick 6 week war with minal AMERICAN casualties, and immediate distribution of new oil reserves. Cost was around 30-60 billion

Intermediate was a longer war 6 months I believe with many casualties and a more difficult situation to balance out in post-saddam iraq. Cost was around 80-100 billion.

Worst case Scenario included massive casualties, repeated attack on America by terrorist organizations, and destruction of the prized iraqi oil reserves. Cost was about 300 billion.

how could he accept any of these?

[Epinephrine]

Originally posted by Andy Rooney
Ok I will just say one thing. Everyone thinks North Korea is this huge aggressor and that South Korea is this poor lamb that would be demolished in an instant. First of all if any of you have done any research whatsoever, you would have found out that South Korea A)has a larger army, and B)has a MUCH larger defense budget. Same thing goes for Iraq and Iran. Iran would punk those silly bitches if they ever tried shit.

Yes you know so much about world politics but yet you say something stupid like this LOL.

South Korea will likely win in any conflict yes, but if you read what I said carefully you'd see I was talking about something else. The fact is if there was a war with North Korea, millions of South Koreans would be instantly killed before any retaliation could be possible. When North Korea is shooting thousands of missles and artillery shells, there's nothing you can do to stop the shells already in the air. That's why North Korea is different than Iraq.

-Epi

[Astro]

We should just make a huge Tv show out of this, We should get Iraq, and Iran, and Middle East VS. N. Korea and the Chinese Nations, and See whos comes out, and once a month we will give them both 1 nuclear missile even though china has many, well make them start out with super huge armys and once a month we will open a little whole and let them both KAMIKAZE each other

[Bigwig]

Originally posted by Andy Rooney
Ok I will just say one thing. Everyone thinks North Korea is this huge aggressor and that South Korea is this poor lamb that would be demolished in an instant. First of all if any of you have done any research whatsoever, you would have found out that South Korea A)has a larger army, and B)has a MUCH larger defense budget. Same thing goes for Iraq and Iran. Iran would punk those silly bitches if they ever tried shit.

south korea doesn't have a larger army.
north korea has the 3rd largest standing army in the world.
south korea probably has a more sophisticated and technologically superior army, but is by no means larger.

as for your comments about iran, who would they punk? iraq? iraq and iran have been at war before and no clear winner ever appeared.

[Dystrophy]

fuck me in the goat ass, again.