Your Alternatives to War?

[Davidu]

Off topic:

Man! Too many quotes!

[Anathema]

Just because Saddam doesn't have a missile that can reach the US does not mean he can't attack the US. 9/11 is a prime example of this.

There is no link between Sadam and Al Quada, or at least none that is proven of. If Israel demanded a UN sanctioned war against Iraq that would be one thing. If you're saying that Sadam could do a similar thing, you may be right about that but I'm no expert on security. If he can do it, what makes you think he can't do it from exile?

Bin Laden and Sadam don't have sh1t to do with eachother. One is from an ultra-religious organisation, while the other is head of a secular state that has the nasty habit of depopulating entire mosques, wich don't mix too well.

[emprworm]

Just because Saddam doesn't have a missile that can reach the US does not mean he can't attack the US. 9/11 is a prime example of this.

There is no link between Sadam and Al Quada, or at least none that is proven of. If Israel demanded a UN sanctioned war against Iraq that would be one thing. If you're saying that Sadam could do a similar thing, you may be right about that but I'm no expert on security. If he can do it, what makes you think he can't do it from exile?

Bin Laden and Sadam don't have sh1t to do with eachother. One is from an ultra-religious organisation, while the other is head of a secular state that has the nasty habit of depopulating entire mosques, wich don't mix too well.

lol, earthnuker. You don't have to be in Al Quaeda to attack the US

[Anathema]

Neither do you have to be from Iraq. I could make explosives in my kitchen using only knowledge from internet and commonly available materials.

[emprworm]

Neither do you have to be from Iraq. I could make explosives in my kitchen using only knowledge from internet and commonly available materials.

lol! I'm sure if Hussein only had a few forks and knives this wouldn't even be an issue. But if you were making anthrax and VX bombs in your kitchen...AND you used them on others....AND you violated resolutions for 12 years....AND you invaded your neighbhors....then like ya!! its time to take you down.

[Gobalopper]

I don't remember saying Saddam and Osama had any ties. I'm saying that in todays world you don't need to have a missile to attack a country. Your reasoning was that it doesn't matter because Saddam's missiles can't reach the US. Well it does matter because they are a lot of other ways to attack in todays world.

If Saddam does run away or lives in exile he is likely to die since he won't have the protection of being able to hide away in his palaces anymore. Most dictators who give up have had unfortunate... or fortunate :) endings.

[Anathema]

Nice try, Emp, however that is not the point. Bush claims that Sadam is as of this moment a threat to the US but has no proof that Sadam had any part in any attack on the US ever since the Gulf War. Sadam is not crazy, psycho of course, but not crazy.

[emprworm]

I don't remember saying Saddam and Osama had any ties. I'm saying that in todays world you don't need to have a missile to attack a country. Your reasoning was that it doesn't matter because Saddam's missiles can't reach the US. Well it does matter because they are a lot of other ways to attack in todays world.

If Saddam does run away or lives in exile he is likely to die since he won't have the protection of being able to hide away in his palaces anymore. Most dictators who give up have had unfortunate... or fortunate :) endings.

to build on this point: saddam is in big trouble. he wont exactly find "refuge" in many places since so many ppl hate him. with a 25 million reward on his head, he will be turned in immediately (unlike Bin Laden who has a lot of regional support, Hussein is hated and probably would be killed by other arabs)

[Anathema]

And I don't recall putting those words in your mouth either, Gob. I already said that Sadam could attack the US if he wanted, but that would be suicide.

[Gobalopper]

Ok, it just seemed that way by your comment. And if Saddam was to attack its not like he is going to send in uniformed soldiers. He would most likely pay some group to do it, similar to what he did when trying to assassinate George Bush Sr.

[SurlyPIG]

Earthnuker, why don't you post something constructive about this topic instead of just swatting at the arguments of others? That's what this topic is supposed to be about, remember? Your alternatives to war...your ideas on what SHOULD be done.

[zamboe]

Your claim is laughable. Let's see the proof behind this ridiculous sweeping claim.

pfffffff

That's an unbased prediction. An unbased prediction from a single kid without any education about the oil industry or world trade. A prediction that is blatantly contradicted by history and common sense.

You started again taking this debate into personal flames. Ok.

Fyi, my sources are way better than your only source a single middle managment level employee, who pretends to know everything about the oil industry. You are the very same that says " oil industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world ", that's in my list of top 10 ridiculous statments I've ever heard.

Basic fact of trade number one: The product goes to the person who will pay the highest.

Plain ridiculous. When it comes to commodities like oil there is no highest price, LMAO, there is only the "spot price" and the futures, do you know what are futures of oil, don't you ?.

I'm willing to bet you've never even heard of TFE before I'd mentioned it, no? But I'll bet that names like Conoco-Phillips, British Petrolium, and Husky Oil are more familiar, right?

I knew about TotalFinaElf, since a long time ago, when Total production didn't start it's aggresively process of take over.

You arrogance of pretending to know, what I knew or not makes me laugh.

Russia is too poor to buy Iraq's oil.

That whole oil argument is so, so stupid, and it's just an indicator of the level of competance of all these war protesters around the world. People are too quick to offer their opinion on things that they know nothing about. It is best to keep your mouth shut and SEEM like an idiot rather than open it and remove any doubt.

LMAO again and also again you take it personal.

Russia is a NET EXPORTER of oil and gas. It's no a matter of Russia being poor or not, it's that they DO NOT need to buy oil. Check the commercial surplus they have in the energy trade with the rest of the world.

You really need to learn about oil/energy industry. I believe persons such as Jeffrey Sachs (I bet you don't know who's him), well find out and compare him with your only source of information, then you'll keep your mouth shout.

Just because there's a large chunk of people that think this is a war for oil doesn't mean that they're right.

Just because there's a large chunk of people that think this is not a war for oil, doesn't mean that they are right.

I'll put more remarks on the "Arab Saudit" thread.

WTF are you talking about? I MADE this topic. And it's about ALL the issues I raised. You've posted your ideas about what to do about WMDs, why do refuse to post your ideas about how to best deal with Saddam? I mean, surely you must have some, the way you walk around saying that everyone else is full of BS.

Doing something about Saddam is YOUR PERSONAL CONCERN, since the situation of that person is not under UN SC consideration.

Deal with Saddam ?, why deal with him ?, who are you to decide who to deal with or not ?. You get my answer now ?, There is nothing to do about it.

Let me put another example for you,

What's the best way to deal with Hugo Chavez ?, that's a personal concern of mine, but it's not important since the international community at the UN has not made a resolution about him yet.

That's the kind of stuff the UN is supposed to stand for. They're basically saying, "No we won't help this unstable nation form a democratic government." I guess the US and the UK might have to do it themselves.

Of course they will do it themselves, THEY WONT ALLOW ANYONE ELSE DO IT, as a result a puppet government will stay protected under US and UK flag, those puppets will report to the white house rather than the Iraqi people. They'll wait commands from Washington and London.

Because they're not much better dude. In most of those nations, Blasphemy is punishible by DEATH. They repress women as much as Saddam, and some of them do similar things to their citizens. They've had summits to try and show unity, but have failed miserably as the leaders of these 'civilized countries' get into shouting matches and start throwing insults like children. Iraq is just the worst of them. It's their scapegoat. If Iraq is reformed, they might think they're next. Or their people might be motivated to revolution. Kuwait wants war. Look what happened to it in the Gulf War. Israel wants war, same thing. They KNOW saddam is a threat.

If the Iraq threat were so real, if Saddam had the so called dangerous WMDs in big cuantities, those Arab countries would give unconditional and full support to the invasion of Iraq, but They oppose to the WAR.

[zamboe]

zamboe Saddam does control about 11% of the oil reserves but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries. Just read this article, having Saddam in control of oil is a bad thing. His weapons, which he is unwilling to disarm are a big factor. The problem is twofold, one Saddam controls or could control a large portion of the middle east oil and two he has shown in the past he is willing to attack other countries to do that. The UN resolutions are a way of limiting his power, if he doesn't comply something has to be done. More sanctions don't work, we've had 12 years to prove that.

Gob, I'll quote some point of that article, I find it interesting.

*" The situation with Iraqi oil imports into the US is different. It is Iraq that refuses, in theory, to sell oil to the US, except to one Houston trader that it considers friendly"

That goes for acelethal that says that Iraq begs to sell it's oil to the US. This says it's not that way.

*"Part of the reason for this contortion is that Iraqi oil is popular with US refiners on grounds of quality and price. The US, which is both the world's largest consumer and importer of oil, has an interest in high quality and low price. "

Then, US wants the best, then goes to Iraq to take it.

*"Removal of sanctions would lead to a scramble by foreign oil companies for licences to start developing new fields. In theory, the companies (notably Lukoil of Russia and China National Petroleum Corporation) that have signed, although not implemented, contracts, and the companies (notably TotalFinaElf of France) that have just conducted preliminary negotiations, would be in pole position to get such licences. But the Iraqi opposition has said that it may nullify all contracts made with the Saddam regime. "

That's precisely what the next pro-US puppet gov of Iraq will do, they will not consider the former contracts. US and UK need to get in to too.

*"BP, for instance, is now the largest oil and gas producer in the US, and its CE, John Browne, has made clear his company should be included in any distribution of Iraqi spoils. Underlining, again, that the US game is as much political as it is commercial. "

I couldn't have said it better myself. No comments.

Gob, when you say "but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries.", it really doesn't make much sense given that all (but Kuwait) arab countries have expressed their opposition to a war against Iraq in two summits that took place recently. If they were under such a threat they would support it, but they don't.

Another point is that how the markets react to this whole possible war, you notice that the oil prices are very high and will increase more depending how war develops, this is an indicator that war is the concern. Take another commodities for example, such as cooper or soybeans, those are traded within normal parameters because the war does not implicate them. This is a war for oil and the markets react to it.

[Gobalopper]

Then, US wants the best, then goes to Iraq to take it.

"That interest means that it wants to reduce the power of Opec, the Middle East- dominated producers' cartel that has Iraq as one of its 11 members." In my opinion the US is would want to lessen the power of the middle east oil, if they can get a democractic Iraq then it will weaken the power of OPEC.

That's precisely what the next pro-US puppet gov of Iraq will do, they will not consider the former contracts. US and UK need to get in to too.

There will be a new regime so of course they are going to rethink their contracts. You would hope that no matter the result of the war that the Iraqi people would choose the best company be it one of their own or an outside country. As too who gets it that is only speculation at this point.

Notice the last line again zamboe, "Underlining, again, that the US game is as much political as it is commercial."

I'm not saying this war doesn't involve the US wanting to protect its oil interests, I am just refuting your claim that the war is just about oil. But this is getting offtopic for this thread, so I will stop arguing the point here.

[zamboe]

Gob, fair enough, I'll copy and reply in the correct thread.

[Navaros]

Alternatives to war. To those opposed to it; what do YOU suggest?

What do you suggest to be done about terrorism?

How do you suggest the world deals with Saddam?

All I've heard is a lot of bleeding hearts and whining in all the threads, sure some people like Nyar address important issues like civillian casualties, but to me it seems most just go off on a tanjent because of prejudicial feelings and compare the US to Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Well, lets hear your brilliant ideas then.

Name some strategies the UN could undertake that would actually WORK, and have not been tried and are not being tried right now. (diplomacy has been tried, nothing. sanctions have been tried and suddenly we're accused of starving the innocent)

Let's hear them, people. Put yourself in the spotlight. Stop complaining and post your brilliant alternatives. I sure havn't heard any. Zamboe, Edric, Earthnuker, everyone who thinks the US is after oil - this means YOU! No more dodgy sinicism. Out with it, out with it!

Failure to respond with an idea for a viable alternative will be interpreted as lack of real knowledge or care for the subject.

hello? knock on wood? Saddam is bending over and doing EVERYTHING the USA and UN tells him to

Bush wants Oil, most likely because the Big Oil Companies have "supplemented" his income to the tune of billions in order to bribe him into stealing Iraq's Oil for the Big Oil Companies in the USA

Saddam is scared out of his mind because he knows he's over. He never used to afraid of the USA, but since he saw how easily they wiped out Afghanistan, he realizes he has no chance to stay in power unless they back off.

Saddam is complying, but Bush doesn't wanna ask for the Oil because that wouldn't be PC, so instead he fabricates absurd stories about Saddam as PR for an unneeded War.

The alternative would be to ban Oil. No oil = no fighting. Or get rid of Bush since he's a slave to the Big Oil Companies as his whole Party.