Why??

[Avatar]

A * BANG *! No one wants to end their political career on a quiet footing. Uneventful, just, peaceful, uncharismatic, ruler is not what you want.

Blair is at the end of his reign. I'll be damned if it's not Bush's end. Chirac is at an end too along with the German Chancellor.
These four air the strongest and stubbonest opinions in the growing debate over Iraq?

And why not? So would you! If you are the French, your oil companies have invested billion in the past years since 1991 to get as much legal oil as possible out of poverty stricken Iraq. If US forces erect a new government, all your deals are bye bye.

On the other hand, Bush is using this to fuel his election. Patriotic wars win votes, oil deals for the next 50 years in Iraq can justify any war. This will secure all future economy in the US. Oil supply form 1/5 of the world's reserves. It also splits the opposing Europeans right down the middle. With France and Germany loosing allies like Spain and Britain.

British: a mixture. Showing she is still a force and a master of Europe. Oil enterprises in the middle east. Iraq is historically her responcibility. Blair going out with a historical footing.

the rest of us:

How does this war REALLY AFFECT us?

Iraq will sure be unable to attack us, if they were able anyway. That's a good thing surely.
Iraqi people suffer less in the long run. A better gov. more wealth no more sanctions. A definite good!
UN reputation diminished. Bad!
US doing what it wants... not so good.

So this war comes down to the fact that we don't like cocky Americans doing what they want to do. The war is a pure sense is good.
Say if it was fought by the French and the Germans, will their be such an public outrage?

Don't let the fact that you dislike America or Bush illude you from the goodness for Iraq.

But we also must realise that modifications must be made to UN.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Avatar: So this war comes down to the fact that we don't like cocky Americans doing what they want to do. The war is a pure sense is good. Say if it was fought by the French and the Germans, will their be such an public outrage? Don't let the fact that you dislike America or Bush illude you from the goodness for Iraq.

Erm...? I don't think I'm really getting your point now... But are you saying that all those people who are protesting the upcoming war are just doing it because they don't like America or Bush?
Please tell me I'm drawing the wrong conclusion from your words, because in this way, they're rather simplistic and offensive...

btw - I can't speak for others of course, but if it was France and Germany fighting this war, I'd still be opposed to it as much as I am now. Heck, if it had been my own country taking the initiative to go to war, I'd probably be protesting 24/7, figuratively speaking. It's a pacifist-principle thing, not a petty grudge.

[ 03-20-2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ziroc]

Now, now... I don't want to see any Country bashing end up in this thread, or by the hand of [img]graemlins/choc.gif[/img] , I'll lay smackdown v4.0!

[Jorath Calar]

-Smackdown v.4.0-
Now with improved trollbashing
and special flame-exstinguisher

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Avatar: A * BANG *! No one wants to end their political career on a quiet footing. Uneventful, just, peaceful, uncharismatic, ruler is not what you want. Blair is at the end of his reign. I'll be damned if it's not Bush's end. Chirac is at an end too along with the German Chancellor. These four air the strongest and stubbonest opinions in the growing debate over Iraq? Blair will come out of this fine if this way doesn't become a protracted bloodbath, and you may think Bush is at the end of his rope, but the American people don't think so. To say they want to go out with a "bang" is not a substantive argument, it's rhetoric. I'm also not sure how Schroeder and Chirac will be adversely effected by supporting the views of their people. Yes the politics that caused their anti-action policy regarding Iraq may not be the same reasoning behind their public's opposition to such action, but in the end, their public's position was championed by them. And why not? So would you! If you are the French, your oil companies have invested billion in the past years since 1991 to get as much legal oil as possible out of poverty stricken Iraq. If US forces erect a new government, all your deals are bye bye. On the other hand, Bush is using this to fuel his election. Patriotic wars win votes, oil deals for the next 50 years in Iraq can justify any war. This will secure all future economy in the US. Oil supply form 1/5 of the world's reserves. It also splits the opposing Europeans right down the middle. With France and Germany loosing allies like Spain and Britain. This is so untrue. Bush is not using this to fuel his election. That is just to easy and excuse. Oppose him if you will, but please don't stoop to something as unreasonable as that to justify it. This is not about oil, you don't go to war for oil in a territory you don't intend to keep, if for no other reason than it is inefficient. It is much cheaper to buy oil. We bought it before, we buy it now, and we'll buy it in the future. The French and Russian oil contracts will be honored per international law. This is not about oil, this is about weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons will be found, and then people who said they didn't exist will say they could have been removed another way or that the US "planted" the stuff, but it will be found, and it will be destroyed. Don't let the fact that you dislike America or Bush illude you from the goodness for Iraq. I think you are saying Iraq will benefit and be better off in the long run, and on that point we agree. Hopefully people won't let their dislike of the Bush administration cloud their view of the good that will come to the Iraqi people.

[Charean]

Oddly enough, I don't think Bush will make a second term - and the reason isn't the war. It is what the war is doing to our economy. We are skewered here - and on top of the war he wants tax cuts.

What will happen, though, by next election, is anyone's guess.

Oddly enough, barring domestic issues, I think the UK will do well. Why? Because Saddam will prove he was lying all along in this war. Blair will come out the wise one.

As far as the American Government (I hope you didn't mean the people!) is concerned, thier arrogance may be a product of how the Republicans do diplomacy. They tend to be rather blunt and forceful, and believe it is their job to get things done. They would very much prefer diplomacy, but they don't have patience for lying. Consider that we have Republicans running the House, Senate, and the Presidency - and you know why it comes off arrogant.

I am not aware of how it is when Democrats are in charge - they sometimes are ineffectual, but diplomacy is their forte.

That is just what I see, I could easily be wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[khazadman]

Charean, diplomacy is not what thw Dems are good at.In fact they are terrible at it. Just look at the fiasco with North Korea. They failed miserably in their dealings with them. And what's wrong with being blunt in your dealings with other nations? I prefer it over the hip deep BS that passes as diplomacy.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Charean: Oddly enough, I don't think Bush will make a second term - and the reason isn't the war. It is what the war is doing to our economy. We are skewered here - and on top of the war he wants tax cuts. What will happen, though, by next election, is anyone's guess.

True, we don't know what will happen, but I don't think Bush will suffer his father's fate unless something goes horribly wrong in Iraq.

The uncertainty about the war was as a big a problem for the US economy as the war itself will be. Now that things are moving forward, the market will begin to recover. Also, the US won't be left alone to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. The UN will come together again for this cause, and Iraq will be able to contribute in a great way due to their oil wealth. For once, the Iraqi people will be able to use the cash from their own oil wells to benefit themselves.

For our non-American friends, the stock market is on an upswing since military action has begun, but NOT because the market prefers war. The market has suffered greatly in the face of uncertainty, and action removes that uncertainty.

[Animal]

My take on this. Many will disagree, I doubt anyone will agree, but the way I see it...

The War on Terrorism that Bush declared after 9/11 was stale, he needed some results fast, but the hunt for Bin Laden was getting him no where so his attention turned to Dad's old buddy, Saddam.

At the very end of the original Gulf War, the UN stepped in and stopped things before they got to Baghdad, and before they got to Saddam. As a side note, the French were the closest to Baghdad, basically knocking on their front door. Bush Sr. was a little upset at the UN by stopping him before he could get to Saddam.

Fast forward to 2003. Bush Sr. talks his son into an attack on Iraq, to depose Saddam, which was a mistake the UN made originaly by allowing him to remain in power. This is all in the name of defending the US homeland against potential terrorist activities and attacks. Saddam has commited enough crimes during the past 12 years to make this a viable option, so it's brought before the UN, but more as a symbolic gesture than anything else. Bush made his mind up from day one, irregardless of UN decisions. That much is obvious.

History has shown us that the victor always writes the history books, and this will be no different. Whether Saddam is telling the truth about having no WoMD or not we'll never know. It is guaranteed that WoMD will be found, when all is said and done, as 'proof' that war was necessary. They may or may not be Saddam's weapons, but they will be blamed on Saddam. Again, we'll never know the truth.

Both Blair and Bush will be hailed as heroes for their stand against a world wide criminal. The US will pour millions and millions of US taxpayer money into Iraq to rebuild it, installing a government, sympathetic to the US. The Iraqi people will be liberated and free, with no idea what to do with this freedom or how to live, since they have always been dictated to. They will be no better off. Skirmishes will break out within Iraq, as different factions attempt to gain control of the nation.

Bush will be re-elected as the poor state of the economy will be blamed upon the tension of possible terrorism. Iraq will be no better off, the US will be further in debt because of the money spent to rebuild Iraq and the current tension accross the globe will have risen dramatically, with the collapse of the UN and NATO.

Again, just my take on this situation.

[Ronn_Bman]

Animal, none of that is legit in my eyes, and none of it is legit based on the the facts and/or history. I'm not a rabid pro-Republican who craves war at every chance, but I have followed these issues over the past dozen years, and nothing you've said regarding this action in Iraq "washes".