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 ]