This may already have been covered, but my curiosity overwhelms my patience...

Why does America seem so desperate for a war? Britain too, for that matter. From what I've seen on the news (not a lot, admittedly) they seem to be searching really hard for a justifyable reason to make war, but why? Is it simply due to greed and knowing that in almost any event, the people actually organising this won't get directly hurt? (By this I mean, for example only, George Bush isn't likely to get killed in the event of a war and doesn't care as much for the ordinary grunts that will as he does for the oil.)

I think I'm confusing myself here, I just hope you understand me... Oh, and I didn't mean I belive that theory above, it was just a way of explaining what I'd said...

********************
And another thing... If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, surely the easiest way of getting him to use them is declaring war?

I apologise for any offence that may have been inadvertantly caused, and also for my own ignorance on the subject, which I admit is vast.

<font color=orange>I think that Bush doesn't want to have another 9/11 happen again in this country. He knows that Saddam has many contacts with terrorist organizations and he know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he doesn't want terrorists getting WoMDs from Saddam. So he is taking Saddam out.

At the same time, unlike what some democrats say (read Ted Kennedy, Allen Dean and Robert Byrd), Bush is also prosecuting a war against the terrorists.

That's my simplistic answer. You can take that and $1.50 and go buy a cup of coffee now. :D </font>

I'm getting tired of people assuming the american and uk want war because of greed.

What do you think? They'll go in Irak, kill off everybody, and anex the land, so that they can get all the oil for free?

Going to war won't get them any better deal than any other countries in the world will once/if Sadam get removed.

This is not targetted at you, don't take it personnal, I'm just tired of seing that kind of comments.

It's not a question of wanting war but a question of how long are US and UK forces are willing to keep patrolling Iraq from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf enforcing these "no-fly" zones and enforcing UN sanctions that hasn't worked these past 13 years.

Yes you could say it was for oil but that isn't the primary reason like it was in 1991.

IMHO, the sooner we resolve the Iraq crisis, the better. The longer the US stays in Saudi arabia, the more ammunition it gives Osama Bin Ladin and his cronies to wage war and to recruit individuals.

Saudi Arabia has already stated that as soon as the Iraq crisis is over, the US must leave Saudi Arabia.

[ 03-04-2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

It's just that some people (like me [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) don't see that attacking a country will solve the terrorist problem. I think it'll make people just more angry. And that's why we think there are other reasons behind it. Either economical, political, or, mmm, something else. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I think the whole 'let's fight terrorists' is really pointless, because terrorism is spread everywhere and not just stationed in one country. And by bombing a country, where civilians will die, you might get rid of a couple of terrorists, but you'll also make a couple of more. Just my oppinion. :D

But you have to keep in mind that Sadam is a dictator, and his people don't like him. He is making them sufer a lot. They'll be very happy once he is gone and they can get a real leader.

THANK YOU!

Yep. But they would probably prefer it if it was done without bombing. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I just think other options should be really thought through first. But to me it seems as if everything is being pushed forward, and nobody will listen to any other suggestions. Maybe if they would dedicate as much thought to try to solve this as peacefully as possible, and not pushing war forward as much as possible, maybe they would think of something. Or maybe not. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
I think people should understand that, for example in (now not anymore) Yugoslavia, people were happy they got rid of Milosevic, but nobody (or a majority) of them likes NATO and were, naturally, quite upset by bombing. Not to mention all the civilians that died, people who lost their jobs, their standard going down, infrastructure ruines, people traumatised, etc. So, people in Iraq would be happy to get rid of Saddam, but preferably in some other way. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But what other way? He is never going to surrender.

Do you have a suggestion?

Spelca - there really isn't a lot of alternatives left to remove Saddam. Coups, assassinations, uprisings were all tried or attempted and all were put down severely by Saddam.

The US isn't going to wait around for Saddam to die of old age and have his son take over. That would be just as bad.

BTW, I was reading a report on Iraqi generals after the Gulf War 1991, and it's amazing how many Iraqi generals died in "Helicopter" accidents. Several were very popular with the troops and very talented. Unfortunately, much too popular and talented for Saddam to have around (i.e. threat).

So if you're an Iraqi general, try to stay away from helicopters. helicopters are bad :)

[ 03-04-2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

Well the simplest and least costly way, in the way of civilian casualties, would have been to continue the '91 campaign into Baghdad right down the "highway of death", but no one had the stomach for it. The world thought that approach wouldn't be right, especially those in the Middle East. The UN thought a peaceful solution could be forced on Saddam Hussein, so Iraq agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Terms which they have not, even today, submitted to. Remember, Saddam told his people after the Gulf War that Iraq had WON! ;)

The world community thought it would try the kinder, gentler approach which has failed regularly in the face of dictators over the centuries, which has cause immeasurable suffering amongst the Iraqi people (only in part due to sanctions), which has NOT resulted in disarmament, and which has not deterred Saddam from pursuing illegal weapons.

Sometimes the kindler gentler approach only let's the bad guy drag out and increase the death and destruction everyone is so worried about preventing. If Saddam intended to cooperate with the UN, he's had 12 years to do it.

If we'd continued the march to Baghdad in '91, or if Saddam had completely cooperated 12 years ago, none of this would have been an issue because it would be history. Will we learn from our history with Iraq or will we continue to re-live that history with unending inspections that are only possible because of an enormous military buildup?

Saddam has NOTHING to lose by cooperating just enough to keep those who oppose action happy because if he can't fool the world, his power is gone, but as long as he can lead the UN by the nose with any little sniff of cooperation, he stays in power.

PS. This is not about America getting Iraq's oil! You don't get oil buy spending billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars to go to war unless you plan on claiming the oil rich territory as your own, and even that is an inefficent method. You get oil by buying it as the US has done, does, and will continue to do.

Now, you do go to war to ensure the free flow of something as vital as oil, but even that isn't the case here. Everyone in the Middle East who hates America is still more than happy to fill those barrels and send them to us for some American $$$. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thank you Ronn, The easiest, Cheapest and Most COST effective way to get Iraqi OIL is to lift the sactions. Allow the free flow of Iraqi oil on the world markets. No expense of moving troops calling up reserves, traveling around the world on diplomatic missions, no having to buy weapons to replace the ones that were used in a war, just a simple nod of OK and you have lots of cheap oil! That's what a greedy country would do call for the lifting of sactions.

<font color="#ffccff"> I can't believe that no one yet has answered the title question of this thread......it is a simple and easily grasped answer and no one has pointed it out.....

You asked "Why?"
I answer "Because!"

How easy is that? sheesh.

now for the rest of this discussion
waiting 12 or 13 years is not sudden.
It is easy to say keep enforcing sanctions when you don't have to pay that bill.
It is easy to say, keep patrolling the area, when you don't have to supply the ships and men...and don't have to explain the deaths that happen each and every day to men and women of the armed forces while deployed to patrol this region.

All this is quite adaquately addressed in other threads, increase your patience and read some...after all you say the US and UK are impatient after waiting 12 years.....</font>

He said in that interview he gave that Iraq has never lost because the war had never ended. Because of all the bombings that have been going on since then. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Magik - I meant pushing for the war to start in March. Some say it's all because of the heat. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
But if you look at it in a different way, this debate started not long ago. The whole WoMD thing. In that way it is quick. At least in the scale that it is now. [img]smile.gif[/img] And to me it seems it's all because of terrorism, and as I expressed before, I'm not convinced this would help. And I also think it's weird that we are accusing Saddam that he has WoMD and then we want to go at him with WoMD. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="#ffccff">Spelca, it costs a FORTUNE to keep an army in the field even when they are not doing anything, the heat is another issue, Only a fool attacks Moscow in the winter and the same fool would try to wage war in a desert in the summer.</font>

So then it is about money? [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

And I also think it's weird that we are accusing Saddam that he has WoMD and then we want to go at him with WoMD. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't? </font>

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?

He said in that interview he gave that Iraq has never lost because the war had never ended. Because of all the bombings that have been going on since then. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

</font>[/QUOTE]Or perhaps, in the Dan Rather interview, he meant the war never ended because he never complied to the terms of the ceasefire. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

And actually, I was talking about what Saddam said to the Iraqi public in '91. ;)

[ 03-05-2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ffccff">If you use the right logic you can trace any human activity in the world back to "money" [img]smile.gif[/img] It is also aobut the troops having to fight in the heat and or cold..did you not see the other 2/3rds of my post? </font>

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man. </font>

[ 03-05-2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man. </font></font>[/QUOTE]I remember reading an unsubstantiated report that upwards of 30,000 Taliban were killed because of bombs in the U.S. air campaign in Afganistan.

Regardless, I think you are SERIOUSLY downplaying the devestation of bombs. As I recall one stray bomb during the gulf war killed hundreds of Iraqi as they hid in a shelter.

Also clusterbombs have a long lasting residual effects on population, although the EU and UN have called for a moritorum on these weapons, the U.S. still uses them.

Bombs don't just kill a few people, especially when hundreds of bombs are falling day in and day out.

I think you may benifit from some perspective as well.

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?</font>[/QUOTE]We will not use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against Iraq. Those are the weapons of mass destruction we hear so much about, and those are the weapons Iraq is not allowed to have, and they are also not allowed to have delivery devices for WoMD, so to answer your question, "no we will not bomb Iraq with the kind of weapons they are not allowed to have."

Now if you are talking about the Al-Samoud missiles, our missiles do far exceed the distance of the Al-Samoud II's. Iraq is not allowed to have missiles whose range exceeds 150K because of their history of attacking and invading their neighbors, and their history of using chemical and biological while attacking. This was a term of the ceasefire the Iraqis agreed to.

We will also use the NO-Fly Zone which Iraq isn't allowed to use, too. That zone was set up post-Gulf War in the North after Iraq began killing the Kurds... again. The southern No-Fly Zone was set up to protect the Shiites who were being massacred. The Iraqis submit to this because when they don't, their pilots die and their planes are destroyed.

We will also use some weapons the Iraqis never showed interest in.... weapons designed to minimize civilian casualities. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-05-2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Good Points Ronn. I like bombs. We're sending bombers to N.K. I like that a LOT better than sending troops. While there may be more residual collateral damage, we are less likely to loose troops.

Except where combined arms are concerned. Though the "soldier spotter/ airplane shooter/bomber" combo developed as "combined arms" warfare in Vietnam certainly has come a long way, there are still too many deaths caused by "friendly fire." The term "friendly fire," BTW, goes up there with Military Intelligence on the list of oxymorons.

Um, I was replying to this in case you didnt notice.

anyway, continuing off-topic...I am continually suprised that any person who considers themselves "of conscience" would support using clusterbombs after surmising the historical and imperical facts about them. Here is site that is related to a documentry that aired on PBS a while back. They clearly have a long-lasting and devestating impact in any Nation they are used.

http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html
Warning-grim scenes of children who found the baseball sized "bombies"!

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".

With a 10-30% dud rate (assuming its accurate), I will agree that cluster bombs should not be used. But, you should also agree that in combat there should be a way to attack soft targets. If not cluster bombs, how else to ferret the enemy out of rugged terrain and/or vegetative cover?

I'm sure the US must have a stash of Agent Orange left over from Vietnam. That stuff worked real well, just ask some Vietnam vets. Only problem is, it couldn't tell the difference between vegetation and skin. Actually, it's starting to sound a lot like a chemical weapon, but the US would never use a weapon like that. :D

While I am no expert on military topics, (unless fairly avid wargaming counts),
Fuel air bombs will kill alot of people over a large area, and while still technically causing mass destruction, the only residual effects are fire and ash.

Also what about *gasp* ground forces.

While I am no expert on military topics, (unless fairly avid wargaming counts),
Fuel air bombs will kill alot of people over a large area, and while still technically causing mass destruction, the only residual effects are fire and ash.

Also what about *gasp* ground forces.</font>[/QUOTE]You don't want to send in ground forces, since your non-WoMD's might kill too many allied troops.

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".</font>[/QUOTE]They had years to make their decision about associating with terrorists. The Taliban leadership had weeks to surrender Osama and agree to dismantle the terrorist network in Afghanistan before the bombs started dropping.

So having a conscripted army is a reason to avoid conflict? If a nation has the draft they can't be attacked? Come on now? Let's get real... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bombing that kills without recourse or defense? Um... bombs are dropped for a reason. The recourse AND defense to US bombing is not to be the target. Giving up is the best recourse because there is little to no defense. ;)

How would you have saved those innocent soldiers and gotten the job done? By not doing the job? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".</font>[/QUOTE]They had years to make their decision about associating with terrorists. The Taliban leadership had weeks to surrender Osama and agree to dismantle the terrorist network in Afghanistan before the bombs started dropping.

So having a conscripted army is a reason to avoid conflict? If a nation has the draft they can't be attacked? Come on now? Let's get real... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bombing that kills without recourse or defense? Um... bombs are dropped for a reason. The recourse AND defense to US bombing is not to be the target. Giving up is the best recourse because there is little to no defense. ;)

How would you have saved those innocent soldiers and gotten the job done? By not doing the job? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]The bombing of Afghanistan was pretty much futile. They never got their hands on Osama, which was the whole point, right? I'm sure if the tables were reversed and a foreign power was threatining US soil, you wouldn't want to surrender, either.

Sure they dethroned the Taliban, but Afghanistan is no better off now then when they were under the rule of the Taliban. If you look back in history, the US where the ones who put the Taliban in power in the first place! They supplied weapons to the Taliban in an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

As far as I can see the whole bombing of Afghanistan was useless and accomplished nothing. Sooner or later the entire Middle East is going to fly apart at the seams. I say get the hell out now, stand back, let them kill each other and let God sort them out. :D

No WoMD can't tell a difference between cow crap and caviar. Seems to me you'd want to be against their modern day usage for just that reason.

Now historically, the Europeans were more than happy to use Mustard Gas and anything else they could get their hands on in WWI, and the US used Agent Orange as recently as 30 years ago, but what EXACTLY does that have to do with today? What does that have to do with Iraq? Surely you aren't suggesting we did it then, so let them do it now?

Are we talking about the historical use of Agent Orange or Mustard Gas? No we aren't, but if you want to talk about the historical use maybe you could enlighten us on the world-wide usage of chemical/biological weapons throughout world history.

Then you could move on to tell us about the British, French, and Chinese stockpiles because I'm sure you wouldn't mention the 30 year old US usage JUST to be... sensational.

Surely you had a point related to Iraq and weren't just disparaging the good ole U.S. of A., or is disparaging the US a point in and of itself these days? ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-05-2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

No WoMD can't tell a difference between cow crap and caviar. Seems to me you'd want to be against their modern day usage for just that reason.

Now historically, the Europeans were more than happy to use Mustard Gas and anything else they could get their hands on in WWI, and the US used Agent Orange as recently as 30 years ago, but what EXACTLY does that have to do with today? What does that have to do with Iraq? Surely you aren't suggesting we did it then, so let them do it now?

Are we talking about the historical use of Agent Orange or Mustard Gas? No we aren't, but if you want to talk about the historical use maybe you could enlighten us on the world-wide usage of chemical/biological weapons throughout world history.

Then you could move on to tell us about the British, French, and Chinese stockpiles because I'm sure you wouldn't mention the 30 year old US usage JUST to be... sensational.

Surely you had a point related to Iraq and weren't just disparaging the good ole U.S. of A., or is disparaging the US a point in and of itself these days? ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I neither have the knowledge nor the time to discuss the complete historical usage of chemical/biological weapons, yet I find it odd that the US is admonishing Iraq for something that they themselves have done in the past. I suppose it's a case of those living in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

Are you suggesting sending in ground troops for the enemy to kill? Would that make it more.. fair?

It's bizarre to me that you think a reasonable answer to civilian deaths caused by war is to send in ground troops earlier when they are sure to take MORE causalities.

Do lives count if they are wearing uniforms?

Can you provide a link that proves (hell, one that even says) sending in **gasp** ground troops would cause less civilian casualties during a military action? I'd be amazed if you could. [img]smile.gif[/img]

</font>[/QUOTE]I oppose what "you" do because it was unnecessary. If the US hadn't been involved in Middle Eastern affairs from day one, where they had no business being, then this wouldn't be an issue right now. Ask yourself why the terrorist acts against the US, over the last dozen years, took place.

I'm sure you would fight to the death to defend your country as most would, but to say you'd give up anyone not associated with your country is a very broad generalisation. It's not that simple.

I was mistaken, by saying that the US supported the Taliban. I was under the impression that the Taliban were a derivitive of the Northern Alliance after the Soviets pulled out.

[ 03-05-2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

Perhaps those European nations who oppose military actions should be called to answer for their position based on their history. Can your "throwing stones" example be used for any time frame or is it only good for 30 years?

That's why your remark isn't a reasonable one. We aren't talking about 1973, and if you can't speak to all the other nations and all the other incidents then it's nothing more than sensationalism.

I don't mind debating the issues, but the US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is a wrong from the history files and has NOTHING to do with Iraq's non-compliance. Sure it sounds good, but it says nothing about the issue. :(