Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Stu

Should the U.S. invade Iraq?

Recommended Posts

Invading Iraq will only enourage it to undertake another world trade centre style attack on the US.

I strongly disagree with you on this issue.

You can't fight a war against terrorism by invading countries.

Not necessarily!

These people have no alleigence to countries or anyone but their cause.

Somewhat true. However I have too disagree.

Afghanistan was a possible exception as the training camps were open, and therefore easy targets.....

How do you know that they were easy targets? You make it sound like the U.S. just walked right in and cleaned up house in a matter of minutes which is somewhat true. However we are still fighting many small "cells" to this very day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to say "Thank you" to the Brits for getting the U.S. into this mess in the first place. To make a long story short, If the Brittish would not have carved up the counrty of Iraq like they did (i.e., kept her hands off of it) yet alone appoint a false leader/ruler (a Saudi Prince) who sold the Brits oil at "rock-bottom" prices (which really angered the muslims living in Iraq which led to roits and brutal killings) the world would probably be a much better place. Could the real reason as to why the Brittish people are protesting the U.S. led war in Iraq (and other parts of Middle East) be that they are jealous and envious that the U.S. about ready to go ahead and fix one of England's biggest failures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US attacks Iraq, they will face many more 9/11 style reprisals. If they take heed of international opinion and moderate their imperialist attitude, then that will remove part of the causes for terror. You can't fight terror with force only, you need to look at the root causes of it. Someday you'll learn this lesson, hopefully before the world has been destroyed by trigger happy warmongers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well where do I start? I have to say that I am not a supporter of Iraq or any nation other than my own or possibly the US. However, I have to look at this situation in the way that all the other nations, the UN and in particular the UN security council will.

Firstly, there seem to be a number of contraditions in the statement of Colin Powel, the chief of which is the undertaking by Al Qaida to cease actions against Iraq which supports my assertion that the Iraqi government and AQ are diametrically opposed (OK I think I confused my Sh'ites with my Sunis :lol: ).

"Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It's the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world."

But what about Pakistan's bomb? There's a country that has actually tested a bomb and only remains pro-western through the strength of the current adminstration. In the event of a pro-AQ coup de etat, their bomb will then fall into "you-know-who's" hands.

"Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s."

The PLF has no proven link to AQ. Iraq IS definitely behind the Intifada which could be grounds for war in any case? Moreover, doesn't the CIA have an assassination branch or have I been reading too many spy novels? If I'm wrong why haven't they? It would make perfect sense.

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants."

One person setting up an alleged training camp is hardly an "heavy infiltration by Al Qaida personel" as originally claimed. The camp is also located in a Kurdish area outside the direct control of Iraq and patrolled by US/UK fighters operating out of Incirlik. Moreover, just because one individual connected with the Iraqi government gives some people safe haven does not mean that this is sanctioned by Saddam himself or by any authorised member of his government, the fact that it is outside of Bagdad's jurisdiction makes it even less likely. This agent may have his own reasons for doing this, not least the maintenance of his cover. Note that this Zarqawi character was born in Jordan who have very publically refused sanctuary for anyone having any connections with AQ so he lives in a neighbouring country. If you lived in a region that had few medical facilities wouldn't you travel to the nearest city for treatment, note that there have been no allegations at this point that Zarqawi had met any official or government representative at this time nor did he personally conduct any business. We've had Moslim extremists operating in our capital for years particularly at the Finsbury Park mosque.

"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly."

It rather depends on what he meant. I know this is flippant, but he could have been commenting on the climate for all we know. He was probably commenting on the general anti-US sentiment and that it could be a fertile recruiting ground.

"We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development--we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October, a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder."

Being that Zarqawi is persona non grata in Jordan, IMHO perhaps this was an effort to try and distabalise Jordan's cordial relationship with the US hoping that the blame would lie with a Jordanian faction.

"After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier."

Iraq have made no secret of the connection with the PLF who must have cells operating in Jordan, this associate could have been anyone, a cousin, brother, school friend. Please note, that there is no assertion here that this "associate" was a member of the same cell. Colin Powell would surely have made that clear if he had been.

"We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins."

Were they in fact colleagues or graduates from his training camp? It is a much rumoured idea particularly in the tabloid press that various camps are prepared to train any terrorist or freedom fighter provided he is prepaed to pay the fees. Much was made of the fact that many IRA people were trained in Libya

"Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."

A similar thing happened in Northern Ireland, it was called "the Good Friday agreement". Negotiating with a terror network to halt attacks against your country hardly puts you in bed with them.

"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization."

Supposing Iran nuked Bagdad and took Saddam out once and for all, wouldn't the US "become more interested" in them? And did Saddam personally order these experts to Afghanistan or were they offered much cash?

"Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction. "

And I suppose threatening to attack Iraq is going to make this prospect less likely is it?

IMHO the evidence offered by Colin Powell with regard to Iraq's links with Al Qaida seem to me to be somewhat weak and tenuous and could give the US grounds to bomb nearly every country in the western world, particularly the UK and France (didn't Osama Bin Laden live in Paris and met high ranking French officials in the 1980s or am I confusing him with someone else?) Aren't there active AQ cells here in the UK? Richard Reid(?) is a UK national, you can bet your boots that there are more people here with AQ connections than in Iraq!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey j-turbo2002 don't dis the British.

If you've got nothing nice to say about the Brits then say nothing at all!!

You seem to strongly disagree to alot of things but can't seem to come up with your own constructive answers.

love,

Becks xxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going on here? Oh for crying out loud! I was not trying to be mean at all! I was just trying to start some interesting discussion about a true historical event! Go pull out your history book!

You seem to strongly disagree to alot of things but can't seem to come up with your own constructive answers.

I have given many constructive answers at times when I feel like it. Besides I come here for fun because this is the internet. Where are all of your constructive answers?

I am sorry that I upset you but that wasn't the intent.

love,

j-turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becky, please do not insult other board members. I have had to edit your post and that of JTurbo to remove those references. You may not agree with JTurbo, as I don't, but please stick to arguments about the issues and not stoop to insults. Thx :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US attacks Iraq, they will face many more 9/11 style reprisals.

When or if the U.S. goes into Iraq it will send a wake up call to the rest of the Middle East. And the message that it will send is that the whole Middle East needs to change, somehow. Al Qaida is on the run. They are running low on financing and support for their dimwitted cause. The U.S. is truly going to track them down and kill them all. As one U.S. Senator said, "God might have simpathy for those people but the U.S. does not". They are running scared because they know that they are now the hunted and the U.S. is the hunter. It is only a matter of time until they are all eliminated from the earth.

If they take heed of international opinion and moderate their imperialist attitude, then that will remove part of the causes for terror.

Imperialist attitude? You know, to make a long story short, now that I think about it the Bush administration technically did not have to go to the U.N. for a resolution at all. But they did. Why? The U.S. with all of its power can demolish Iraq from the earth. What the U.S. cannot do is rebuild Iraq after it destroys it. We need Europe for help with this. This whole issue is about money and, I hate to say, a little envy that the U.S. is a superpower and the rest of the world is not. Please do not be offended by that statement.

You can't fight terror with force only, you need to look at the root causes of it.

Very true indeed! Millions of people here in the U.S. know all about this - including myself. Most of the research that most Americans have been doing is devoted to this issue. Also, most of the debate talk shows (on TV and Radio) here in the U.S. talk about this all the time and it is constantly debated over and over again.

Someday you'll learn this lesson, hopefully before the world has been destroyed by trigger happy warmongers.

Now this is nothing but B.S.! Someday you'll learn this lesson? What? We already know. Americans are well aware of this and they don't like people wasting their time in repeating it for them. America would not be getting into this mess if it didn't know the consequences. Trigger happy warmongers? Do I sense envy here? What kind of nonsense is this? Someone has to stand up to ruthless dictators and regimes. I know that it is a very dirty job but someone has to take the lead and do it. What would happen if Europe was left to deal with Iraq and North Korea? How would they handle it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, doesn't the CIA have an assassination branch or have I been reading too many spy novels? If I'm wrong why haven't they? It would make perfect sense.

You have indeed have been reading too many spy novels! The CIA has nothing of the sort! The limitation (ban) was imposed by former President Gerald Ford in 1976!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaida has not been definitively proven, but it would be naive to assume it does not exist. It was the Arabs, I believe, who coined the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. is the enemy of both Iraq and Al-Qaida and, whether they are Sunni or Shiite, they are both stronger if they act together. The information cited by Powell and reprinted on this forum indicates that both Iraq and Al-Qaida understand this. Firefox is right in saying that terrorism cannot be defeated through the invasion of foreign countries. What will ultimately defeat terrorism is the development of stable democracies in the Middle East that give their people constructive outlets for their frustrations and energies besides declaring jihad against countries that are more affluent and powerful than theirs. The overthrow of Hussein, either by the U.S. or by elements in Iraq, would represent an important first step on the long journey of democratizing the Arab world. That fact alone does not justify a U.S. invasion. But if Hussein does indeed threaten the peace and stability of the region and the world, an invasion can be fully justified provided that there is an effort by the international community to develop democracy rather than simply support some other dictator or sheik. Nobody is saying such a thing would be easy, but the world would have to try. Invading Iraq does indeed raise the risk of increased terrorist attacks in the short run, but like I said before, Al-Qaida has shown it doesn't really need provocation to attack the U.S. and other countries. They'll try to attack us again whether we attack Iraq or not. The Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy is valid in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is an interesting word that seems to mean nothing when it come to the crunch. We are supposed to be a democratic country yet we as the people, and who in the majority do not want this war, do not get a say as to whether we go to war or not. How the hell then can we go into another country preaching the wonderful ways of democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu,

thanks for responding to my last post. Now I would like to reply to your replies.

....I'd like to take a shot at answering PJ's questions:

1. By whose authority are the US and Great Britain flying armed combat planes over a country we are not at war with? That's simple: The UN's authority. The Persian Gulf War never truly ended; The UN alliance agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that Iraq would comply with various UN resolutions. Whatever you think of Bush, he is absolutely right when he argues Iraq has violated all these resolutions. Part of the conditions under which the US, Britain and the other allies ended hositilities in 1991 was that they would patrol the no-fly zones. Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait. If Iraq truly wants to end that war once and for all, it needs to comply with the UN resolutions. It's that simple. Iraq is not the innocent party here.

I agree with you that Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions that have been passed. All I'm arguing is that I believe that the US and Britain were not specifically authorized by a UN resolution to create and maintain no fly zones. Go to the United Nations web site at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm to see a listing of all the resolutions passed in 1991. The no fly zones began in April, 1991. If you can find even one of these resolutions addressing no-fly zones, then I will admit I was wrong.

2. If we go to war, how can we be assured that we can overthrow Hussein while minimizing injury and death to innocent civilians? Nobody can give absolute assurances. However, all the smart bombs and other high-tech weaponry can hit military targets and avoid "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent civilians) better than anything that could have been conceived 20 years ago. Of course, even this technology is not perfect, and Hussein doesn't make things easier for his citizens by putting important military equipment in schools and mosques in civilian neighborhoods. If and when civilians die, Hussein shoulders at least part of the responsibility.

In each of the combat actions that America was involved in beginning with World War 2 and ending with Vietnam, US casualties due to friendly fire accidents never rose above 3%. Yet, during the Gulf War in 1991, there were 17% US combat casualties attributed to friendly fire accidents. Why is this number increasing when, as you say, the bombs are smarter and the weaponry more high-tech? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/KAC.htm is my source for these figures.

3. If war begins in Iraq, how prepared are we to deal with terrorists attacking targets in the US and other countries? The sobering answer may be: not much. After 9/11 (and Bali), however, why do we think terrorists will only strike at us and our allies if we attack Iraq? Whether you are for or against a war with Iraq, it seems pointless to me to worry that we may do something that would provoke Al-Qaida. We have the memories of 3,000 dead people in NYC, Virginia and Pennsylvania to tell us that Al-Qaida doesn't need provocation to kill Americans. The plot to release poison gas in the London Underground should drive the same point home with Britons.

Here we both agree. Americans have not had to fight organized combat troops on home territory since the Civil War 140 years ago. I'm not sure if Americans realize just how it is to fight an enemy who uses unconventional means and does not wear uniforms. America dealt with an enemy like this in Vietnam and could not defeat them in spite of their strength and technology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My hope is that if war does break out, the Iraqi military will fail to carry out orders to resist and join in with the civilian population to surrender quickly. It's also possible that once the Iraqi people realize there is no chance for revenge, they might turn on Saddam Hussein like the Italians did with their dictator Mussolini during World War 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! I finally found a credible source where all of the jealous and envious anti-American war protestors get all of their credible information as to why the U.S. should not attack Iraq! :lol:

Click Here:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

The information that is in the link above should be taken as truth and as a reason why the U.S. should not attack Iraq! :(

j-turbo;

In Chicago, they sell a newspaper called The Onion. The first time I read it, I was shocked. Then when I realized all of it was all farcical, I breathed a sigh of relief.

Check out http://www.theonion.com/onion3307/clintondropsdabomb.html. Although it's somewhat dated, it still is funny.

And here is a one that is more current http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to strongly disagree to alot of things but can't seem to come up with your own constructive answers.

Actually Becky, I lied to you. I hate constructive answers. I hate them whith a passion because they are nothing more than a bunch of lame opinions. I am going to add something to a statement that azraelle had made in another topic. "Opinions are like ass holes! Everybody has got one and about 100% of the time they really stink!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is an interesting word that seems to mean nothing when it come to the crunch. We are supposed to be a democratic country yet we as the people, and who in the majority do not want this war, do not get a say as to whether we go to war or not. How the hell then can we go into another country preaching the wonderful ways of democracy?

Well I don't know where you live but the overwhelming majority of people here in the U.S. support the war. This is the power of democracy. I have been on one side of this country to the other and I must admit that the people here are very complex about the Iraq situation. When you first ask someone here about the war in Iraq the first thing that they do is immediately oppose it. Then they start raising all these interesting questions about the situation, which in turn leads to a good very debate about the facts. By the time they are finished everyone largely supports the war. It is indeed very strange. I know that there are people in this country that outright oppose the war but I have not met (face-to-face) anyone of this nature yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j-turbo;

In Chicago, they sell a newspaper called The Onion. The first time I read it, I was shocked. Then when I realized all of it was all farcical, I breathed a sigh of relief.

Yes I thought that would be some good comic relief. Did you know that there was a protest a while back because someone thought that the information in The Onion was true? To be honest with you I expected some members of this board who are posting in this topic to pick up the information that is posted in The Onion and start debating it as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you first ask someone here about the war in Iraq the first thing that they do is immediately oppose it. Then they start raising all these interesting questions about the situation, which in turn leads to a good very debate about the facts. By the time they are finished everyone largely supports the war

That shows exactly how people without solid background can easily be manipulated by propaganda. Having all your television stations in hands of the industry (If my memory is good I thought NBC is owned by General Electric, the big defence supplier of missiles and components), and the industry needs turnover and oil, you can imagine how "neutral" the jounalists, on which the general public build their opinions from, are. All this diverts the attention pretty well from the increadible budget deficit (even without the war) the Usa is facing. This for the USA patriotic war will serve George into polishing his image for the next elections, because he didn't do well at all for the economy, education or welfare. Without 9-11 he would have lost all popularity, he tried to get some by going after Osama Bin Laden but when that failed he needed something else. Korea being too dangerous Irak was HIS perfect solution. I can support that, as long as he doesn't drag the rest of the world into a War nobody els REALLY wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That shows exactly how people without solid background can easily be manipulated by propaganda. Having all your television stations in hands of the industry (If my memory is good I thought NBC is owned by General Electric, the big defence supplier of missiles and components), and the industry needs turnover and oil, you can imagine how "neutral" the jounalists, on which the general public build their opinions from, are. All this diverts the attention pretty well from the increadible budget deficit (even without the war) the Usa is facing. This for the USA patriotic war will serve George into polishing his image for the next elections, because he didn't do well at all for the economy, education or welfare. Without 9-11 he would have lost all popularity, he tried to get some by going after Osama Bin Laden but when that failed he needed something else. Korea being too dangerous Irak was HIS perfect solution. I can support that, as long as he doesn't drag the rest of the world into a War nobody els REALLY wants.

Propaganda? Hmmmm....? So you think that a state run (socialist/communist) TV station would give better information? Get real. They immediately oppose the war because that is what the liberal newspaper tells them to do. The media in this country sometimes makes it sound like if you support the war you are a biggot or something. And no one wants to be outcast as such. But somewhere they know that opposing the war is the wrong response. It is something that they believe in or that they think will make the world a better place. I cannot explain why most people do this is. And without any leading on they just start asking logical questions like, "If we don't make the world a free place who will?" Europe? I don't think so. They had their chance 50 years ago before WWII and they screwed it up. As a result, a second WW started and millions lost their lives. General Electric manufacturers jet engines and various other consumer products. A pilot would have known this (?). Have you looked at your country's buget deficit lately? I don't believe this bullshit about how Bush would have lost popularity without 9-11. What do you base this on? You know that his public support was very high before 9-11 - right? You know-it-all wannabe euros must have a very good crystal ball somewhere that we Americans don't know about? About this oil buisness - to make a long story short, most oil experts agree that it theoretically if the U.S. took over the Iraqi oil fields (something that will not happen) the prices wouldn't be that much different than what they are today. OPEC controls the oil situation - not the U.S. It will be up to the new Iraqi gonvernment to decide what happens to that oil. Besides, I hear all of this bullshit talk about the U.S. attacking Iraq for oil and I ask myself why? The U.S. has so much oil in its reserves to last for decades. If we need oil lets just keep buying it from the Russians at cheap prices. The equipment in Russia is so old (I have seen it) that if they turn it off they won't be able to get it turned back on. So as long as they keep pumping we will keep buying. Also this bullshit about how Bush is doing this just to get re-elected is just incredible. Where do you people dream up this stuff? I would be very surprised if Bush ran again even after a very victorious war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, if those are the only comments you can give about a different opinion, go fight your war but do it yourself, don't get us involved and talk to us afterwards, if you still can, when you have been in and saw the misery it brings to ALL involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meow. Is it just me, or does this seem to be turning into some sort of slanging match, j-turbo vs. everybody else? I thought the idea was to debate and discuss, not bitch and bite... Just my two cents' worth on this little war... thank God it's contained within this topic... SH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, if those are the only comments you can give about a different opinion, go fight your war but do it yourself, don't get us involved and talk to us afterwards, if you still can, when you have been in and saw the misery it brings to ALL involved.

Bullshit yes! That is what I think! Hang on there hotshot! No one is forcing you to to come along and fight. Stay at home! See what I care. Did I mention that I think that the U.S. is not going to attack. Why are you getting all upset? Get a grip on yourself man. If you are going to be offended by everything I write then get lost and don't talk to us. I came here for a debate. What I did not come here for is to some little unsecure person to get upset everytime I stress my bullshit opinion. That is flat out wrong. And if we fight a war I will be here reguardless of the outcome. Now go and grab a tissue, cry and grow up. I think that you are a good debater and I would really like to see you here again. I really like you! Honestly, I do!

JT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meow. Is it just me, or does this seem to be turning into some sort of slanging match, j-turbo vs. everybody else? I thought the idea was to debate and discuss, not bitch and bite...

Just my two cents' worth on this little war... thank God it's contained within this topic...

SH

I agree.

j-turbo v. the rest of the world? Hmmmmm..............????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They immediately oppose the war because that is what the liberal newspaper tells them to do.

I for one have made up my own mind. Here in the UK we have several different sides. The BBC is supposed to be famously unbiased (but isn't) and the tabloid press sensationalise their own points of view. I have been reading Rueters just lately that seem to be the middle ground.

The media in this country sometimes makes it sound like if you support the war you are a biggot or something. And no one wants to be outcast as such. But somewhere they know that opposing the war is the wrong response. It is something that they believe in or that they think will make the world a better place. I cannot explain why most people do this is. And without any leading on they just start asking logical questions like, "If we don't make the world a free place who will?"

But will a war with Iraq make the world a free place? off-chance that Al Qaida is hiding out there (something I doubt) they will just run elsewhere, we can't just bomb every country in the world, we simply don't have the resources or the man-power.

Europe? I don't think so. They had their chance 50 years ago before WWII and they screwed it up.

When was that then?

As a result, a second WW started and millions lost their lives. General Electric manufacturers jet engines and various other consumer products. A pilot would have known this (?). Have you looked at your country's buget deficit lately? I don't believe this bullshit about how Bush would have lost popularity without 9-11. What do you base this on? You know that his public support was very high before 9-11 - right?

He had only been in office a few months, EVERY new administration has a honeymonn period. Even Tony B Liar was the most popular PM this century after he got elected in 97 !!!! How things have changed now. The problem is, GWB relies far to heavily on industrial lobby hence the 20% tariff on imported steel, the withdrawal from the Kyoto accord and the reduction of dues to the UN.

About this oil buisness - to make a long story short, most oil experts agree that it theoretically if the U.S. took over the Iraqi oil fields (something that will not happen) the prices wouldn't be that much different than what they are today. OPEC controls the oil situation - not the U.S. It will be up to the new Iraqi gonvernment (installed by the US) to decide what happens to that oil. Besides, I hear all of this bullshit talk about the U.S. attacking Iraq for oil and I ask myself why? The U.S. has so much oil in its reserves to last for decades. If we need oil lets just keep buying it from the Russians at cheap prices. The equipment in Russia is so old (I have seen it) that if they turn it off they won't be able to get it turned back on. So as long as they keep pumping we will keep buying. Also this bullshit about how Bush is doing this just to get re-elected is just incredible. Where do you people dream up this stuff? I would be very surprised if Bush ran again even after a very victorious war in Iraq.

Actually, a protracted war with Iraq will send prices soaring and the average American could be paying in excess of $5.00 per gallon for gas (Michael Jarvis, Reuters 7-2-03), it seems that this is because the market will get jittery and a lot of oil companies will start stockpiling as a hedge against shortages created should the war destroy the Iraqi oil infrastructure. As production is at an all time high and close to capacity, this can only mean shortages which will push the prices up.

As JT quite rightly says, the Russian oil infrastructure is old and decrepit and should there be a major breakdown there it will put even further pressure on oil prices.

The whole oil theory arises out of the fact that the Venezuelans went on strike in august (I think) and the US started to threaten Iraq in september. It could be coincidence but you cannot blame the cynics for wondering.

In actual fact, the US oil reserves are dwarfed by the reserves in the Middle East. Iraq has 115 million barrels, Saudi has 200million barrels. When voting at OPEC, the most that the US/UK/Venezuelan bloc can muster is roughly the same as Saudi. Throw in Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain (who always vote with Saudi) then you don't need to be Einstein to work out which way the vote's going to go. The only time that the western world gets its own way is when Russia can be bothered to vote! Will a "free" Iraqi government vote for the US or against? You never know with Arab mentality :lol: ! A pet government in Iraq will change the balance of power at OPEC. As far as Bush's re-election campaign, we will have to wait for that one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But will a war with Iraq make the world a free place? off-chance that Al Qaida is hiding out there (something I doubt) they will just run elsewhere, we can't just bomb every country in the world, we simply don't have the resources or the man-power.

No! The U.S. will not be bombing every country in the world because I believe that Al Qaida is dissolving into nothing very slowly.

The problem is, GWB relies far to heavily on industrial lobby hence the 20% tariff on imported steel, the withdrawal from the Kyoto accord and the reduction of dues to the UN.

The withdrawal from the Kyoto accord? Bush is getting popular off a treaty that would never in its wildest dreams solve the problem of Global Warming? An Industrial lobby hence the 20% tariff on imported steel? This is a "Conspiracy Theory" that I have seen floating around on the internet but I don't know if it is true or not - therefore I cannot debate you here.

Actually, a protracted war with Iraq will send prices soaring and the average American could be paying in excess of $5.00 per gallon for gas (Michael Jarvis, Reuters 7-2-03), it seems that this is because the market will get jittery and a lot of oil companies will start stockpiling as a hedge against shortages created should the war destroy the Iraqi oil infrastructure. As production is at an all time high and close to capacity, this can only mean shortages which will push the prices up.

True. But $5.00? Where on earth did they get this outrageous figure. According to an issue of The Wall Street Journal (in a December issue? I can't remember) the absolute maximum that it could rise is to $2.50 maybe $3.00. And then over the long term period it would gradually come back down to what we have today - mabe a little less. I would really like to see how they came up with $5.00.

In actual fact, the US oil reserves are dwarfed by the reserves in the Middle East.

Actually no! According to the American Petroleum Institute this is not the case. According to them it has shortened by a very small figure (I can't remember the % offhand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being you should get your head out of your backsides and agree to disagree, otherwise this will end up being the longest, most pointless topic of the entire forum. It's starting to get ridiculous, this forum is meant for friendly debate, not pointless bitching at each other. And don't play innocent, j-turbo, like you did with my last two posts... Just quit it. SH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! The U.S. will not be bombing every country in the world because I believe that Al Qaida is dissolving into nothing very slowly.

I would love it if this was true, but we are in the middle of a very delicate situation. You have a lot of people sympathetic to AQ but disagree with their methods. Any attrocities committed by the US in Iraq could give these people a reason to become full fledged AQ members which is why (IMHO) an attack can only go ahead with full UN backing.

The withdrawal from the Kyoto accord? Bush is getting popular off a treaty that would never in its wildest dreams solve the problem of Global Warming? An Industrial lobby hence the 20% tariff on imported steel? This is a "Conspiracy Theory" that I have seen on the internet but I don't know if it is true.

It was never meant to, it was a gesture by the industrialised nations to undertake to tackle so called green issues leading to research into alternative power sources to reduce the problem. The factors that are causing global warming have been in the atmosphere for decades, it take approximately 10 years for carbon monoxide to turn into CO2 which is why the process cannot be repeated in a laboratory. What we do now will only affect our children or even our grandchildren. Industry only produces around 10% of carbon monoxide and to reduce THAT by 5% (?) is only a 0.5% reduction, but like I said, it was a gesture.

The US steel industry is in steep decline. Old inefficient plants that mostly predate the 1950s. Overmanning and underfunding combine to make US produced steel expensive compared to imports from Europe and the Pacific Rim. A 20% tariff makes US steel cheaper than imported steel. It's not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. Many countries employ protectionist strategies like this, for example if you export bicycles to Japan, they have to be tested by a Japanese Olympic Gold Medal cyclist- japan has no gold medal cyclists.

True. But $5.00? Where on earth did they get this outrageous figure. According to an issue of The Wall Street Journal (in a December issue? I can't remember) the absolute maximum that it could rise is to $2.50 maybe $3.00. And then over the long term period it would gradually come back down to what we have today - mabe a little less. I would really like to see how they came up with $5.00.

Actually no! According to the American Petroleum Institute this is not the case. According to them it has shortened by a very small figure (I can't remember the % offhand).

The $5.00 figure was based on a $45 per barrel crude price. Destroying the Iraqi oil infrastructure (some of the most modern in the world believe it or not) would cut capacity by 20%. As I said it is running flat out at the moment so this would put pressure on prices. Combine this with the possibility of SCUD attacks on Saudi, Kuwaiti or other olifields and you could see a 33% drop in production hence a 50% increase in price. Also, there was never as much oil in texas in the middle-east to start with, don't get me wrong, there is A LOT in Texas etc but I think in the US as a whole it amounts to around 100million Barrels. Compare this to Iraq's 115 Million and Saudi's 200 million. Kuwait has around 65 million but considering its size that is an ENORMOUS amount which is why no one pays tax in Kuwait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it ever end? Well with Dr. Shoe apparantly NO! Dr. Shoe is a true "Conspiracy Theorist!" I am very impressed with him indeed. To me he is that pescky housefly that you can't get rid of. Very cool! Did I just use the word cool? Actually I hate to say it but I am finished because I could argue with Mr. Shoe untill the end of time and still get nowhere! Yes it is true j-turbo is finished finally. Do I hear clapping and cheering in the background? Come on guys. But I guarantee you this. When I come to England this summer (hopefully in August or September) I would like to have a debate with you, Dr. Shoe, face-to-face. Just you, me and whomever else wants to take a shot at the master (the master being myself - of course!). ALSO WHEN I USE THE PHRASE "TAKE A SHOT" I AM REFERING TO A DEBATE CONTEST NOT AN ACTUAL FIGHT!!! OK SH? NO! Well, what do you say? Myself, you and your wife (?), some pub, a few beers on me - of course? JT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.