Anathema Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Chances are pretty big that Bush will attack Iraq- but will this really reduce the threat Sadam Hussein poses? Afterall, the US never managed to kill Bin Laden, what makes them think they can get Hussein? If Hussein is on the run, he won't have much to lose, he'll be desperate and thus more dangerous. After all, you don't need mass destruction weapons to do damage to your enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 we dont know if bin laden is alive or dead. I think maybe you dont realize that we bombed a HUGE area in Afghanistan. we dropped a ton of bombs on those caves he was in. Lets assume for a moment that he was killed by our bombing. WIth such a HUGE area, it would not be unreasonable that we would not find a body. Having said that, if your theory is correct, then he will resurface in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Hussein has nothing with bin Ladin. He is sunnit, Ladin's si'ite. I'm strictly against Iraq invasion. It will make a chaos in area, also they already have nuclear weapons and Russian protection. Bush is too influented by his oil supporters. It's pure materialistic war for huge Iraqi oil fields. What they did in Yugoslavia was good, when they've stopped terror between nations. But here? How much dictators were laid by USA? Musharaf, Pinochet, Tito... These were tolerated, because they were allies. Nothing give Americans morale right to attack Iraq. They just want to show their arsenal and take over Ahvaz. Disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 they already have nuclear weapons and Russian protection. Bush is too influented by his oil supporters. It's pure materialistic war for huge Iraqi oil fields. What they did in Yugoslavia was good, when they've stopped terror between nations. But here? How much dictators were laid by USA? Musharaf, Pinochet, Tito... These were tolerated, because they were allies. Nothing give Americans morale right to attack Iraq. They just want to show their arsenal and take over Ahvaz. Disgusting. Yes, the US' motives are far from noble.Just like the time they supported the Cuban facist dictator Batista but tried to dispose of its communist successor Castro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sadukar Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 does russia support Irag, the world isn't what it used to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Russia is prime trade partner of Iraq. Not military, but Russia will stay with every possible client for everything. Wars are made for money todays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Now my old view was can't we just get along? But here is my reasoning for toppling Saddam:1. Last week 33 pounds of weapons grade uranium was seized by Turkish soldiers. This uranium was en route to Iraq to aid in the creation of nuclear weaponry. (If ya haven't seen it on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, or anything else, where have you been!?)2. Oil. If Saddam is toppled, Iraq will be freed from the UN sanctions and will be able to trade the US a good amount of oil...3. The man uses nerve gas on his own people! How many Iraqi Kurds have been killed by his nerver gas? 4. Hmm...we attack Iraq, Iraq attacks Israel. The Israeli government isn't in as forgiving a mood as it was 11 years ago. Can you say tonight's feature presentation "Israel Retaliates"?5. Prime position to strike Iran if hostilities grow with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 well, bin laden has some kidney disease, so he will probably die sometime soon, but i have also heard that his son has begun to take over. >:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 What worries me is that the US would say they are helping preserve peace by launching an unprovoked attack against a country far weaker than them, yet one with a determined leader who has very dangerous weapons, and the only time he would need to use them would be when under serios attack by a force he cannot otherwise combat. Moreover, he need not launch them at the US, but against US-friendly Secondly, what'd really happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein? Some kind of westernised democratic system? Or are the US going to leave someone else to clean up the mess? Or send some oil company in, to make sure that the oil flows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjCiD Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 lets send them your Plan and see what they think... from over there with the oil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 The oil must flow.Personally, I think the day is comming when an arab leader will be in a position to say:If I am not obeyed, the oil will NOT flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usul Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I once entertained the idea of destroying all oil supplies without burning them (still stuck as to how though). I mean I'm not an Arab leader but if I can think of it and you can then I'm sure some middle eastern leader can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted October 3, 2002 Author Share Posted October 3, 2002 The world economy is far to dependant on oil to step over to something else in a few years time. Development of alternative energy sources is...discouraged.When the US disposes of Sadam, they'll probably install a pro-American dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 History will repeat. Like Karzai in Afghanistan, if Saddam will fall, they will "allow Iraqis to democratically elect their new leader", of course chosen by Bush's men. USA will rebuild the country devastated by civil war between pro-saddamers and pro-americaners and area across Ahvaz with rich oil fields will became "demilitarized zone under foreign protection". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 If I was given a nuclear device and a map of Iraq's oil fields, I could make sure oil would never be produced again in a hundred generations. Does that tell you how easy it is to tip a balance of power?Also, I don't see a big deal about bombing Iraq. Since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has been continually attacking British and American Air Forces enforcing the "No Fly" zone. So really the Iraqis are already attacking us, attacking back would not be a pre-emptive strike, it would be retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 Do you know how small the percentage is of how much oil we "depend" on from Iraq? Very small! We could do without easily! Take Alaska and Russia - plenty of oil! By the time we are out of oil(loooong time at that) we will have made/discovered an alternate energy source. Like the methane mobile on Son of the Beach, just fart and away you goooo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devastator_Mech Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 The world now is dominated by USA, even the United Nation is only a puppet. If Bin Laden and his comrades are terrorists, then the whole Allied force are the "LEGAL" terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted October 4, 2002 Author Share Posted October 4, 2002 Do you know how small the percentage is of how much oil we "depend" on from Iraq? Very small! We could do without easily! Take Alaska and Russia - plenty of oil!It's not just the oil in Iraq. If the US is said to commit atrocities (and Sadam will spread those accusitions- true or not) other islamic nations may discontinue oil deliveries to western countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devastator_Mech Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 C'mon, other countries aren't dumb, they need to make profit too. Also, ALL of the oil companies in islamic nations, Americans have their shares.If as you say, they discontinue to deliver oil to western countries, then the Allies(especially USA and Britain) would just make excuses from nowhere and conquer them, regardless of United Nation's words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethan Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 personally, i am scared. if sadam finds out that we're going to do something to him, a nuke will already be coming toward us....but i live in a small town.im really scared cause i live in the USA under republicans controlling us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devastator_Mech Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 What natonality are you? And who or what is Sadam?Regardless of who's in-charge, not until the situation is stretched to extreme, no country would dare to start the nuke war. If anyone does, prepare for World War 3(not in a game, in REALITY). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 Saddam bought his chemical weapons from America they have the bill of sale. Does anyone remember (or know about) the war that Iraq and Iran had during the 80's (Iran Contra sound familiar)? Well who do you think America supported to overthrow the Shah of Iran? The enemy of my enmey is my ally or whatever the saying is has back fired again and again. Why does America always support the 'villians' and then complain when they can not keep their dogs on a leash. Now do not get any ideas that I support any of these regimes that I just mentioned because I do not. America needs to stop sleeping with the enemy. If you lie down with dogs do not wonder why you have fleas later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devastator_Mech Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 Its very simply, because America is the founder and the chairman of the terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 No, not really but we are finding out that American foreign policy should be labeled American foreign fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted October 4, 2002 Author Share Posted October 4, 2002 Castro never had US support. The US supported the facist dictator Batista and Castro disposed of him in a rebellion. After that he became more and more communist and the US didn't like that too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.