[N8 v2.0]

Lemme see... invade Iraq for oil???

Consider for a moment that we have tens of thousands of front line troops in Kuwait and Saudi Araba have had so for 10 years.

Seems to me that if the US wanted the oil rich middle east, we would just take over these two piss-ant countries without risking war. No... Iraq is a threat to the countries around it and to the US.

Arguments that the US want a war with Iraq for oil are totally meritless...


...get a clue...

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by mdavid
Your assertion that the US government or policies regard white americans at a higher level of value than others is absurd. You are ignorant of history and facts.

Actually, while I don't believe rbx's assertion is entirely correct, the US government has blatantly valued white Americans higher than other races for long periods of its history. I don't know how you can claim otherwise, if you know the history and facts.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8

Seems to me that if the US wanted the oil rich middle east, we would just take over these two piss-ant countries without risking war.

...get a clue...

Are you actually making that claim? Do you really think it's that easy?

Ousting Saddam is an unbelievably simple and easy job compared to your hypothetical "taking over" of a country the the size and wealth of Saudi Arabia.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
yet all ive seen is evidence to the contrary.

That's because you skim right over anything youdon't agree with. There are mounds of legitimate factualarguments in these threads, which you choose to dismiss for no reason other than they don't agree with your gung-ho "yeah army" shoot-em-up doctrine. So you dismiss it as hippy and anti-conformist. Why do you have such a hard time believing that people might actually disagree with you for a good reason? It strikes me as and incredibly immature way to argue.

One can hardly call it non-conformist, when more than half the country believes oil has something to do with our motives in Iraq (I'll dig up the source for that one if you really want me to).

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio
Are you actually making that claim? Do you really think it's that easy?

Ousting Saddam is an unbelievably simple and easy job compared to your hypothetical "taking over" of a country the the size and wealth of Saudi Arabia.

Not to mention that Saudi is a fundamentalist Islamic state and would, unlike in the case of Iraq, garner the sympathy and support of other Islamic nations.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The goverment of Saudi Arabia is not a threat to the stability in the middle east ergo we are not involved in an effort to force a change..like Iraq.

And yes, the US could easily take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia just as simply (if not more so) than Iraq IF our intention is to 'conquer' oil rich nations...

Just think about the argument that the US want to invade Iraq for oil. Logically it doesn't make sense. We would have to occupy the country, rebuild the infrastructure and set up a government... too much time money and risk just for oil...

However, to stop Saddam from developing a nuke and giving it to terrorists who want to blow up some sports arena in the US... well then the cost is easily justified.

War with Iraq is not about the oil... we can always drill in the artic national parks for that....

It is about the security of the US. That is a deadly serious matter.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Damn True
Not to mention that Saudi is a fundamentalist Islamic state and would, unlike in the case of Iraq, garner the sympathy and support of other Islamic nations.

And with a ton of money, control over a huge portion of the worlds oil and last but certainly not least MECCA.

Think Vietnam in a desert with religious fanatics going after every single American on the face of the earth with a vegenence that we can't even imagine. Remember one of the reasons behind 9/11 was the simple presence of western troops in the same country.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
And yes, the US could easily take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia just as simply (if not more so) than Iraq IF our intention is to 'conquer' oil rich nations...

Explain how this would be easy, not Kuwait but Saudi Arabia. You must have some basis for a statement like this. Some experience level that would allow you to back this statement up.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by N8
The goverment of Saudi Arabia is not a threat to the stability in the middle east ergo we are not involved in an effort to force a change..like Iraq.

And yes, the US could easily take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia just as simply (if not more so) than Iraq IF our intention is to 'conquer' oil rich nations...

The problem with that is the world would be in a real uproar about that. Iraq has many enimies therefor it's easier to get support for invading them. The UN is boarder line about the Iraq issue, I really don't think that they would even remotely support an invasion of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

My question really is, is the U.S. going to be more safer after they conquer an Arab country (Iraq)? Don't you think this more fuel for the terrorists? This the real threat.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by SandMan
My question really is, is the US going to be more safer after they conquer an Arab country (Iraq)? Don't you think this more more fuel for the terrorists? This the real threat.

To be honest, no. I don't think that a military attack on Iraq is going to get any of the Arab Nations too bent out of shape. My firm belief is that we misread these same nations in 1991 by not taking Saddam out then. Now while some terrorists might try to use it for a rally call, the most part its pretty much a dead issue.

Even now, its France and European nations, that are talking of diplomacy not his neighbors.

I do think that the elimination of Iraq's weapons program is important will make for one less potential source. However, I do not think that he is the greatest threat in regards to weapons of mass destruction.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by SandMan

My question really is, is the U.S. going to be more safer after they conquer an Arab country (Iraq)? Don't you think this more fuel for the terrorists? This the real threat.

You miss the point entirely... The US is not going to "conquer" Iraq... to think so is basically irresponsible.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by N8
You miss the point entirely... The US is not going to "conquer" Iraq... to think so is basically irresponsible.

Putting in a puppet government is conquering. Iraq does not have to become another state in order be conquered.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Do you honestly think so little of the US???



So how do you think the situation should be resolved (assuming that Canada was The SuperPower...)

...group hug?

...a vigorous, but not too aggressive, game of curling?

 

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by N8

...group hug?

...a vigorous, but not too aggressive, game curling?

hahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by DRB
Explain how this would be easy, not Kuwait but Saudi Arabia. You must have some basis for a statement like this. Some experience level that would allow you to back this statement up.

Ever been there?

They have no Navy to speak of.
Very little in the way of ground troops.
No medium or long range bombing capability.
They have a moderately effective anti aircraft capability but we can thwart that, we built it.
Beyond that they have a few shiny fighter jets with rich play-boy pilots.

They wouldn't last a week.

But that isn't the point. We aren't going after oil. We are going after Hussein. Iraqui oil is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what we get from other countries.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Not only that, the Saudi's have mercenaries defending their country for them... since no Saudi would EVER stoop to doing actual work of any kind...












Those mercenaries are the US military...

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
Putting in a puppet government is conquering. Iraq does not have to become another state in order be conquered.

Ok then, assume Canada had the inititive and ability (rather far-fetched but work with me) to do something about this. How would the benevolent great white north handle it.

Caveat: Remember, you have to do so WITH that dork Chretin [sp?] running the show.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Damn True
Ever been there?

They have no Navy to speak of.
Very little in the way of ground troops.
No medium or long range bombing capability.
They have a moderately effective anti aircraft capability but we can thwart that, we built it.
Beyond that they have a few shiny fighter jets with rich play-boy pilots.

They wouldn't last a week.

But that isn't the point. We aren't going after oil. We are going after Hussein. Iraqui oil is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what we get from other countries.

Yeah, I have been there. I hit the ground on August 10th, 1990 at 4:14 pm Saudi time and left on June 16th, 1991 at 9:18 am Saudi time. Was back for another 3 weeks in early 1993 before I went to East Africa. So I know the country and I know the fight in their troops. Fighting Iraqis was easy. Fighting Saudis would not be. They have more Stinger missiles then you can shake a stick at. So while their formalized air defenses wouldn't last 30 minutes, the Stinger would. Its the great equalizer. Ask the Soviets about man launched AA missiles.

AND on top of all of that you messed with MECCA.

As for Iraqi oil being a drop in the bucket. Do your research. Iraqi oil reserves are conservately rated only behind Saudi Arabia.

 

[gecko]

Originally posted by Damn True
Ok then, assume Canada had the inititive and ability (rather far-fetched but work with me) to do something about this. How would the benevolent great white north handle it.

Caveat: Remember, you have to do so WITH that dork Chretin [sp?] running the show.

lol ok, first of all, I don't think you can be calling Chretien a dork while you have Bush in power. The Canada bashing/stereotyping is getting tiresome (N8). You don't like being stereotyped, neither do we.

Secondly, obviously there is no simple solution to this problem or it would be over by now. I don't necessarily agree with Sandman here, but you can't hold someone responsible for a solution just because they don't like yours.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by gecko
lol ok, first of all, I don't think you can be calling Chretien a dork while you have Bush in power. The Canada bashing/stereotyping is getting tiresome (N8). You don't like being stereotyped, neither do we.

Secondly, obviously there is no simple solution to this problem or it would be over by now. I don't necessarily agree with Sandman here, but you can't hold someone responsible for a solution just because they don't like yours.

Sorry bro, I was being facetious. Shoulda put a few smileys in there to better express the tounge-in-cheek nature of my post.

BTW, I love The kids in the hall.

 

[gecko]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sorry bro, I was being facetious. Shoulda put a few smileys in there to better express the tounge-in-cheek nature of my post.

BTW, I love The kids in the hall.

Alrighty then, you're excused lol

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by gecko
lol ok, first of all, I don't think you can be calling Chretien a dork while you have Bush in power. The Canada bashing/stereotyping is getting tiresome (N8). You don't like being stereotyped, neither do we.

I think there is a WHOLE lot more US bashing/stereotyping on this issue on here than vice-versa... but I too will take the defense... LOL! But I get really tired of Canadians bashing MY PRESIDENT.

OK... now

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
That's because you skim right over anything youdon't agree with. There are mounds of legitimate factualarguments in these threads, which you choose to dismiss for no reason other than they don't agree with your gung-ho "yeah army" shoot-em-up doctrine. So you dismiss it as hippy and anti-conformist. Why do you have such a hard time believing that people might actually disagree with you for a good reason? It strikes me as and incredibly immature way to argue.

One can hardly call it non-conformist, when more than half the country believes oil has something to do with our motives in Iraq (I'll dig up the source for that one if you really want me to).

Not true Brah!

Ive seen material breachings all over the place. Ive seen inspectors say that iraq isnt cooperating. Ive heard of Hussein gassing people in his own country.

I have yet to see anything substancial that backs up an oil argument. Its all the same hippie jargon as usual, and i will continue to dismiss it a such until someone offers proof showing otherwise.

Immature or not, i cannot argue with facts over jargon.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I have yet to see anything substancial that backs up an oil argument. Its all the same hippie jargon as usual, and i will continue to dismiss it a such until someone offers proof showing otherwise.

This is probably the third time I've posted the link, but I don't know if anybody's read it yet. This is the best oil argument I've seen. The first half tries to refute the administrations public motives for attacking Iraq, and then moves on to the oil theory, starting with this:

"I believe that the answer is a combination of three factors, all related to the pursuit of oil and the preservation of America's status as the paramount world power. Ever since the end of the cold war, American policymakers (whether Democratic or Republican) have sought to preserve America's "sole superpower" status and to prevent the rise of a "peer competitor" that could challenge U.S. paramountcy on anything approaching equal terms. At the same time, American leaders have become increasingly concerned over the country's growing dependence on imported oil, especially oil from the Persian Gulf. The United States now relies on imported oil for 55% of its requirements, and this percentage is expected to rise to 65% in 2020 and keep growing thereafter. This dependency is the "Achilles heel" for American power: unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question............"
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html

 

[Bikecrasher]

Hippies? Man, there haven't been no stinkin Hippies since the 60s. Freaks is freaks. I'm glad you have some "links" to fall back on when all you have is emipirical rhetoric. Holy 5hit...I've found "links" that say the Govt. control the weather and that Elvis is alive and working at freakn Walmart. Put the application for Evergreen down and get out and visit somewhere other than the WWW.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
Ok then, assume Canada had the inititive and ability (rather far-fetched but work with me) to do something about this. How would the benevolent great white north handle it.

Caveat: Remember, you have to do so WITH that dork Chretin [sp?] running the show.

Canada would not handle it, the UN would do it, not just the US. But you did not answer anything about conquering Iraq, a US controlled government in Iraq amounts to conquering a country, so what do you think about this?

 

[gecko]

Originally posted by N8
I think there is a WHOLE lot more US bashing/stereotyping on this issue on here than vice-versa... but I too will take the defense... LOL! But I get really tired of Canadians bashing MY PRESIDENT.

OK... now

Oh come on now, everybody bashes your president

Perhaps even you?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
Canada would not handle it, the UN would do it, not just the US. But you did not answer anything about conquering Iraq, a US controlled government in Iraq amounts to conquering a country, so what do you think about this?

The U.N. is utterly impotent w/o the U.S. What are they going to do, ask Hussein to disarm....again? Send in troops from Italy? Ooooh that'll straighten Hussein right out.

The U.S. is simply enforcing that which the UN mandated 12 years ago. Because NOBODY else has the means or the might to do so.

As for "conquering Iraq..........So what?

If the end result is a country that does not have the ability to produce deploy and/or distribute NBC weapons then I am all for it.

I 100% guarantee that when the Hussein regime falls our troops will be met by a grateful Iraqi populace.
Hussein is the reason that country has been beset by UN mandated sanctions for 12 years.
Hussein is the reason their economy is in the toilet.
Hussein is the reason food and medicine are in short supply. Hussein is the reason chemical weapons have been used on citizens of Iraq.
Hussein is the reason why families of defectors have been slein. Hussein is the reason why this entire thing is happening.
Hussein has the power to stop it as well. He has failed to excercise that power by following the UN dissarmament agrement.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8

Just think about the argument that the US want to invade Iraq for oil. Logically it doesn't make sense. We would have to occupy the country, rebuild the infrastructure and set up a government... too much time money and risk just for oil...

Not really. As of yet, we have no intention of rebuilding... we will let them set up their own governement (a.k.a. decades of civil war) under the auspices of "self-determination." While that is occuring, US oil interests will set up lucrative oil contracts (under the gun from "peacekeepers" as it will be their only hope for an income source in an occupied Iraq) with the aristocracy and elite that will have maintained their power, wealth, and oil properties.

Any money that goes into Iraq comes from US taxpayers. Any that comes out belongs to Haliburton, etc. Sounds like a pretty safe way to make money to me: invest fractions of a penny of your own money for every dollar in, collect every cent of the exponential return.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True
The U.N. is utterly impotent w/o the U.S. What are they going to do, ask Hussein to disarm....again? Send in troops from Italy? Ooooh that'll straighten Hussein right out.

The U.S. is simply enforcing that which the UN mandated 12 years ago. Because NOBODY else has the means or the might to do so.

As for "conquering Iraq..........So what?

If the end result is a country that does not have the ability to produce deploy and/or distribute NBC weapons then I am all for it.

I 100% guarantee that when the Hussein regime falls our troops will be met by a grateful Iraqi populace.
Hussein is the reason that country has been beset by UN mandated sanctions for 12 years.
Hussein is the reason their economy is in the toilet.
Hussein is the reason food and medicine are in short supply. Hussein is the reason chemical weapons have been used on citizens of Iraq.
Hussein is the reason why families of defectors have been slein. Hussein is the reason why this entire thing is happening.
Hussein has the power to stop it as well. He has failed to excercise that power by following the UN dissarmament agrement.

I think the member states of the UN would be able to take care of the Iraq problem without the US, but there's no denying the US is large 'n in charge. To say that the US is enforcing a UN resolution because nobody else is able to--- If the UN actually felt that way, wouldn't they just ask the US to take care of this? Why is there such hullabaloo with the UN, why does the US keep saying "we'll do it with or without you"? I think it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.


I agree with all of your "Hussein is the reason......" statements, but he's not the only reason for all those problems.

Related to their ability to produce/deploy/distribute WMD, here's another analysis of the state of the union address, from http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/06/we_270_01.html


"Along the way, Bush asks a question and neglects a plausible answer: 'Year after year,' he said, 'Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.' Deterrence is the other, most plausible answer. How quickly they forget the theory of deterrence when it is somebody else doing the deterring! Messianism wants to short-circuit deterrence. Messianism makes right."

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True

If the end result is a country that does not have the ability to produce deploy and/or distribute NBC weapons then I am all for it.

Then why don't we just nuke the crap out of Iraq, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and France (I'll skip China because they could launch ICBMs back at us)...

The ends do not always justify the means, Machiavelli. Sometimes even the ends don't justify the ends.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by patconnole
I think the member states of the UN would be able to take care of the Iraq problem without the US, but there's no denying the US is large 'n in charge. To say that the US is enforcing a UN resolution because nobody else is able to--- If the UN actually felt that way, wouldn't they just ask the US to take care of this? Why is there such hullabaloo with the UN, why does the US keep saying "we'll do it with or without you"? I think it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.

Then why for the last TWELVE YEARS has the grand and glorious (yet utterly impotent) UN not been able to solve this problem?

I'll tell you.

Because they have been doing it their way. Their way dosen't work. We have been supporting their way at a cost of billions to taxpayers for TWELVE YEARS and NOTHING has happend. Nor will it ever happen if "we" as a group continue to do it their way.

If the member states of the UN possesed the inclination, might, and fortitude to do anything about this situation w/o the U.S. they would have done so. The fact is that they do not. Nor will they.

It's time to do things differently. It's time for us to solve the UN's problem.....again.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Keeping Bin Laden and others like him from gaining possesion of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons is part of the reason for the necessity of ousting Hussein.

There are much easier ways of procurring those weapons than waiting for Iraq to develop them.

If we'd had an ounce of intelligence we would have helped the Soviet Union disarm the way they begged us to, instead of prancing baout like a bunch of ninnies celebrating our victory... now we're paying the price. We can't close off the black market, so we hope that if we continually flex our guns and wave our dicks around, everyone will be afraid to mess with us. Unfortunately, we still haven't learned that THAT is precisely the behavior that makes folks WANT to mess with us.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Then why for the last TWELVE YEARS has the grand and glorious (yet utterly impotent) UN not been able to solve this problem?

I'll tell you.

Because they have been doing it their way. Their way dosen't work. We have been supporting their way at a cost of billions to taxpayers for TWELVE YEARS and NOTHING has happend.

Billions that could have been spent rebuilding Southern Iraq, providing aid to Kurds, building schools and hospitals. Then today, there might be an Iraqi populace large, healthy, educated, and grateful enough to the US, that they'd be able to get rid of Saddam themselves.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio
Billions that could have been spent rebuilding Southern Iraq, providing aid to Kurds, building schools and hospitals. Then today, there might be an Iraqi populace large, healthy, educated, and grateful enough to the US, that they'd be able to get rid of Saddam themselves.

We spent the money enforcing the sanctions against Hussein at the behest of the UN. They (The UN member states) didn't ask us to pour money into schools, they asked us to do their dirty work for them. But to do so "their way".
Their way has yet to work.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True

Their way has yet to work.

Agreed.

 

[patconnole]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Damn True
Then why for the last TWELVE YEARS has the grand and glorious (yet utterly impotent) UN not been able to solve this problem?

I'll tell you...........

Because they have been doing it their way. Their way dosen't work.[/QUOTE]


Your reasoning (this argument) is based on a different interpretation of the word "problem". The member states that oppose this milatary action may view saddam as a problem, but not a threat-- a problem yes, but nothing imminent, and so far, for 12 years, their solution has worked!

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by patconnole
QUOTE]Originally posted by Damn True
Then why for the last TWELVE YEARS has the grand and glorious (yet utterly impotent) UN not been able to solve this problem?

I'll tell you...........

Because they have been doing it their way. Their way dosen't work.

Your reasoning (this argument) is based on a different interpretation of the word "problem". The member states that oppose this milatary action may view saddam as a problem, but not a threat-- a problem yes, but nothing imminent, and so far, for 12 years, their solution has worked! [/QUOTE]

Wrong.
They (the member states) mandated that if Hussein got rid of his NBC weapons the sanctions would end. We at the behest of the UN enforced those sanctions for the last 12 years (you are welcome). Their sanctions and empassioned plea's have had no effect. Hussein has not gotten rid of his NBC weapons and is basicly laughing at the UN member states.

They oppose the action because they lack the might and fortitude to actually do something about this rather than sit around and ask again, for Hussein to dissarm.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
There are much easier ways of procurring those weapons than waiting for Iraq to develop them.

If we'd had an ounce of intelligence we would have helped the Soviet Union disarm the way they begged us to, instead of prancing baout like a bunch of ninnies celebrating our victory... now we're paying the price. We can't close off the black market, so we hope that if we continually flex our guns and wave our dicks around, everyone will be afraid to mess with us. Unfortunately, we still haven't learned that THAT is precisely the behavior that makes folks WANT to mess with us.

Do ya'll just say stuff and hope that its true?

Have you ever heard of the Nunn-Lugar Act signed in Nov. of 1991? A MONTH before the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time the US congress passed this act that provided funding for the identification, destruction and disposal of nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union.

As of March 2002 the money from that program was responsible for the deactivation or destruction of 443 ballistic missiles, 427 ballistic missile launchers, 92 bombers, 483 long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles, 368 submarine ballistic missile launchers, 286 submarine launched ballistic missiles, 21 strategic missile submarines, 194 nuclear test tunnels, and 5,809 nuclear warheads The figures for the bulk chemical weapons are more difficult to determine as much of it is classified at the behest of the Russians and our own government. I do know that the funding for the coming year includes at least one facility to allow faster disposal of chemical warheads. In addition monies from this were also used to provide for weapons scientists and upgrade security at the various locations.

Funding for this has been paired down for the coming year but then again the Russians are becoming able to pick up a bigger portion of the bill now. The Act has also been modified to allow for funding to be spent in places other than the former Soviet Union. It would be (or would've been) the type of funding for Iraq if the dumbass had just come clean.

All of that being said, I still worry that easiest way for terrorists to get WMD would be to steal them.

But to make the statement you did is just plain wrong.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by DRB
Do ya'll just say stuff and hope that its true?

Thats an Ohio tactic that is sometimes effective until he gets busted.

See his post about the rockets found in Iraq that he swore were imported from the US.