Escalating potential conflict in Iraq

[Ronn_Bman]

Hierophant, I doubt anyone will disagree with you that war is a terrible thing. But to do nothing to remove/prevent Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction would be insane. He does have the capability, he has used chemical weapons against Iran and against HIS OWN people. Remember the Kurds?

Cheap oil? Are you kidding. We are on good terms with the Saudis, and they are sitting on top of one of the biggest oil supplies in the world. The Kuwaitis sell us all we want, and they have a much larger oil supply than Saddam; that's why he invaded them. Interesting that everyone says the West is oil hungry and will do anything to get it, when it was Saddam who invaded his richest neighbor and threatened all the others. Honestly, the Russians have more oil than Iraq.

The stability of the region is important to oil prices, but we aren't going to get it for free no matter what happens. Did we stay in Kuwait and take over their oil supply? Nope. Will we stay in Iraq if they don't abide by the UN sanctions and have to be forced to comply? Nope.

It never stops amazing me that, after the Gulf War, the inspectors found enough militarized botulism to destroy every person on the planet multiple times, then inspectors were refused access to locations they believed held more weapons of mass destruction. Yet people still say it's only about oil.

If they want to sell it, and we want to buy it, then that's fine, but no one makes them sell oil to the US or anyone else.

[ 09-14-2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Hierophant, I doubt anyone will disagree with you that war is a terrible thing. But to do nothing to remove/prevent Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction would be insane. He does have the capability, he has used chemical weapons against Iran and against HIS OWN people. Remember the Kurds? Cheap oil? Are you kidding. We are on good terms with the Saudis, and they are sitting on top of one of the biggest oil supplies in the world. The Kuwaitis sell us all we want, and they have a much larger oil supply than Saddam; that's why he invaded them. Interesting that everyone says the West is oil hungry and will do anything to get it, when it was Saddam who invaded his richest neighbor and threatened all the others. Honestly, the Russians have more oil than Iraq. The stability of the region is important to oil prices, but we aren't going to get it for free no matter what happens. Did we stay in Kuwait and take over their oil supply? Nope. Will we stay in Iraq if they don't abide by the UN sanctions and have to be forced to comply? Nope. It never stops amazing me that, after the Gulf War, the inspectors found enough militarized botulism to destroy every person on the planet multiple times, then inspectors were refused access to locations they believed held more weapons of mass destruction. Yet people still say it's only about oil. If they want to sell it, and we want to buy it, then that's fine, but no one makes them sell oil to the US or anyone else.

Hey, I agree totally. Preaching to the choir bud. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Alls I'm saying is that there is a whole debate going on as to whether this is a 'right', 'lawful' or 'just' course of action and essentially it's just empty hot air.
Saddam's making weapons of mass destruction? I don't really care. He's a media hotname right now and to be honest I'd like to just see him killed so I can get back to playing Icewind Dale 2. I love my consumer lifestyle, which is essentially a bastardized version of your consumer lifestyle. If we need to get together and kill a whole bunch of civilians to keep it all going nice and smoothly then hell, let's do it.
And sure, the Saudi's wanna sell us some oil, that's super. And they can keep selling us oil long after all hell has broken loose in their regional homeland too. And if they don't want to then we can always just roll in and kill them, or if that proves tricky then we can just turn to alternative markets like you said.
Anyways, let's just stop all this petty justification of expanding our spheres of influence and just get stuck in. Nationalism? That's like, TOTALLY LAST-century, oh my gawd! [img]smile.gif[/img] You don't have to be an American y'know, you can be a plain old human instead.
There's a whole bunch up for grabs.
"Let's roll!".

[Ronn_Bman]

I'm not quite as cavalier about the Iraqi situation.

For me, it's not about nationalism. I truly believe the nations of the world should work together towards a common threat, and honestly, I would rather see the Iraqi government comply totally with the UN than "rolling" on them. Unfortunately, using previous history as the measure, that is quite unlikely to happen.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I'm not quite as cavalier about the Iraqi situation. For me, it's not about nationalism. I truly believe the nations of the world should work together towards a common threat, and honestly, I would rather see the Iraqi government comply totally with the UN than "rolling" on them. Unfortunately, using previous history as the measure, that is quite unlikely to happen.

Interestingly enough, most of the UN resolutions on Iraq were forced though by the US, while it vetoed as many ones directed at Israel as it could.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I'm not quite as cavalier about the Iraqi situation. For me, it's not about nationalism. I truly believe the nations of the world should work together towards a common threat, and honestly, I would rather see the Iraqi government comply totally with the UN than "rolling" on them. Unfortunately, using previous history as the measure, that is quite unlikely to happen.

Of course it's not. So lets just kill them. Either that or walk away entirely. But no one's ever going to walk away from this because there is simply too much to lose and gain for all involved.
There can't be any permanent solutions here, there's too much history involved in this (although we COULD always try erasing history, it ALMOST worked for Pol Pot). We can't make up some lovely little treaty and all hold hands and make the world a better place. But we CAN move in there and mix it up enough to come out with a profitable situation. Ie: secured access to middle eastern trade routes, oil supplies, strategic military locations, a bolstered defensive bastion for dear little Israel (such an adorable little US pet project), and a greater sense of 'international security' (that's what they're calling it these days right?) with all of Saddams' 'weapons of mass destruction' swept under the rug.
Nice.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Interestingly enough, most of the UN resolutions on Iraq were forced though by the US, while it vetoed as many ones directed at Israel as it could.

Forced through? Doesn't anyone else have veto power in the UN?

Why should they need to be forced through? Is there any doubt that Iraq has failed to comply with the terms for ending the Gulf War? Does the passage of time exonerate Saddam's actions. Is the US really wrong for expecting him to comply? Should everyone expect it?

[ 09-14-2002, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Hierophant, I doubt anyone will disagree with you that war is a terrible thing. But to do nothing to remove/prevent Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction would be insane. He does have the capability, he has used chemical weapons against Iran and against HIS OWN people. Remember the Kurds? Cheap oil? Are you kidding. We are on good terms with the Saudis, and they are sitting on top of one of the biggest oil supplies in the world. The Kuwaitis sell us all we want, and they have a much larger oil supply than Saddam; that's why he invaded them. Interesting that everyone says the West is oil hungry and will do anything to get it, when it was Saddam who invaded his richest neighbor and threatened all the others. Honestly, the Russians have more oil than Iraq. The stability of the region is important to oil prices, but we aren't going to get it for free no matter what happens. Did we stay in Kuwait and take over their oil supply? Nope. Will we stay in Iraq if they don't abide by the UN sanctions and have to be forced to comply? Nope. It never stops amazing me that, after the Gulf War, the inspectors found enough militarized botulism to destroy every person on the planet multiple times, then inspectors were refused access to locations they believed held more weapons of mass destruction. Yet people still say it's only about oil. If they want to sell it, and we want to buy it, then that's fine, but no one makes them sell oil to the US or anyone else.

Think about it logically,

The American government has toppled democratically elected governments (e.g Chile 1973 and has waged wars of aggression and bombed many countries (e.g laos), and It has nuclear weapons (ICBMs, 155mm Shells etc) and poison gas (VX nerve gas?) and has resisted many attempts to try and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

I think perhaps we also need a regime change in America;
We must topple Bush and arrest Henry Kissenger and try him for crimes against humanity, and get rid of America’s weapons of mass destruction!

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Interestingly enough, most of the UN resolutions on Iraq were forced though by the US, while it vetoed as many ones directed at Israel as it could.

Forced through? Doesn't anyone else have veto power in the UN?

Why should they need to be forced through? Is there any doubt that Iraq has failed to comply with the terms for ending the Gulf War? Does the passage of time exonerate Saddam's actions. Is the US really wrong for expecting him to comply? Should everyone expect it?[/QUOTE]No nation on earth is in violation of more UN resolutions than is Israel.
Why does the US not move against isreal then?

It' seems reather hypocrictical of them to move against iraq, but not isreal no?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: I think perhaps we also need a regime change in America; We must topple Bush and arrest Henry Kissenger and try him for crimes against humanity, and get rid of America’s weapons of mass destruction!

It's much quicker to wait for the next election than go through the UN. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: No nation on earth is in violation of more UN resolutions than is Israel. Why does the US not move against isreal then? It' seems reather hypocrictical of them to move against iraq, but not isreal no?

Why doesn't the rest of the world do something about it?

We pick our battles, you pick yours....fair enough? [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 09-14-2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]