Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stu

Should the U.S. invade Iraq?

Recommended Posts

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.

Hurrah! No applause tho, sorry.

To me he is that pescky housefly that you can't get rid of. Very cool!

To be honest I think that goes a little against the "friendly discussion" rules of this board. Besides... the role of "fly" has to go to Hoverfly!

Please, don't share the bitching. It's not nice and I don't like to see it. Just be glad I'm not a moderator. If you want a fight, take it to George W Bush or your own private forum.

SH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear winter would solve the problem of global warming quite handily, thank you. And for the few who are left, radioactive oil burns just as well as the regular stuff. :)

Dr. shoe often reminds me of some green dragon toters I've known--"don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up".

The treaty where Eurasia (the remains of the defeated Ottoman Empire) was sliced up willy-nilly, mainly by the Brits, and where Germany, being the only viable opposition country still intact, was forced to bear the blame for WW-I, was signed in 1919, so Europe screwed the pooch some 84 years ago, not 50.

Whenever I want some factual news, I always type in www.reuters.com b4 going anywhere else.

Judging by what the reaction was when Jimmy Carter manipulated the US oil price market for the purpose of forcing the American consumers to use less oil (in keeping with a handshake deal he made with the Europeans, mainly W.Germany and GB, to cut back on our oil use)--the net effect being a spike in US prices from ~$0.60/gal to ~$1.85 at one point--it would be political (and quite possibly physical) SUICIDE for GWB to embark upon any course that could be shown to the gullible US consumers as being responsible for a hike to $5.00/gal. Even a person with an IQ of 75 can figure that one out!! :(

I think the MAIN reason that the US wants to deal with Iraq is to prevent the spread of Nuclear Weapons to any more unstable countries than have gotten them already in the last 50 or so years--hell, even the big bad USSR didn't share them with the other communist nations and insurrections it was supporting in other ways--they may have been megalomaniacs, but they weren't STUPID! It is just a bit, umm, dangerous to try to relieve a nation of nukes that already has a few--which is probably why we are leaving N.Korea alone, but there is still a possibility of keeping them out of Iraq's hands. As inimicable as they are to human as well as all other forms of life on this planet, can you imagine what the world would be like if EVERY SOVEREIGN NATION had a few?? Let's see, Republic of the Chad needs at least 20 to protect it's borders, but Tonga only needs 2 or 3.....Aline from The Peacemaker comes to mind: "I'm not worried about the man with 13 nukes--I'm worried about the man who only needs one!" :o

There's ALOT MORE AT STAKE HERE THAN JUST OIL, ladies and gents. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurrah! No applause tho, sorry.

To be honest I think that goes a little against the "friendly discussion" rules of this board. Besides... the role of "fly" has to go to Hoverfly!

Please, don't share the bitching. It's not nice and I don't like to see it. Just be glad I'm not a moderator. If you want a fight, take it to George W Bush or your own private forum.

SH

Actually would you please stop misquoting me! That is very annoying! The "fly" bit was meant in a friendly manner and we were not bitching! I don't know where you got this "bitching" idea from? Even if we were bitching - if you don't like it go somewhere else! Yes, it is that simple. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time just so there is no misquoting here: ALSO WHEN I USE THE PHRASE "TAKE A SHOT" I AM REFERING TO A DEBATE CONTEST NOT AN ACTUAL FIGHT!!! OK SquirrelHeels? I thought that this was clear from the beginning when I first posted the challenge. But evidently not. I hope that this makes you happy. :lol: No fights at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I find myself going to Reuters for information every now and then but even that should not be taken as "fact". The most important thing to do here is to do your homework and most importantly use some common sense. And every now and then ask yourself a logical question like, "Does the information that I read in these newspapers really make logical sense at all?" In other words, is $3 logical? No! Is $5! No! Of course not!

Has the Anti-War movement made a clear definitive case for not going to war? NO! Of course not! To this very day they have not! All they have done is spun a bunch of "Internet Conspiracy Theory" into shadow truth and the rest of us, I guess, are supposed to just believe this crap even though it doesn't make any logical sense at all. I don't know what kind of dope this crowd is smoking but, whatever it is I would like to have some.

Has the Pro-War made a clear definitive argument of going to war? NO! Of course not. Are they making sense? I don't know what these people are smoking either but all this war talk better be one hell of a bluff. If they are going to do something I wish that they would do it fast and get the damn thing over with. Quit dragging it out. "Well, the Germans, French, and Russians don't like this and that.......and........." Who cares! If you say that you are going to do something then just do it (kinda like the Nike slogan).

I hope all of you can see the point that I am trying to make here.

.........so Europe screwed the pooch some 84 years ago, not 50.

Actually...................I was referring to..................aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.................just never mind. I'll keep quiet. Damn!

There's ALOT MORE AT STAKE HERE THAN JUST OIL, ladies and gents.

How true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...even the big bad USSR didn't share them with the other communist nations and insurrections it was supporting in other ways--they may have been megalomaniacs, but they weren't STUPID!

During the height of the cold war, e.g. during the six-day war in 1966 or 67, and again during the Yom Kippur War in 1977(?) the main ally and weapons supplier of the Arab cause, particularly Iraq, was the Soviet Union. Was it the USSR that contracted to build a breeder reactor in Iraq? Not Hardly! I may be wrong (j-turbo or Dr.Shoe will undoubtedly correct me if I am), but I believe the French were also at least partly responsible for the initial reactor in N.Korea. One ocasionally pauses to wonder about the collective IQ of the French. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the height of the cold war, e.g. during the six-day war in 1966 or 67, and again during the Yom Kippur War in 1977(?) the main ally and weapons supplier of the Arab cause, particularly Iraq, was the Soviet Union. Was it the USSR that contracted to build a breeder reactor in Iraq? Not Hardly! I may be wrong (j-turbo or Dr.Shoe will undoubtedly correct me if I am), but I believe the French were also at least partly responsible for the initial reactor in N.Korea. One ocasionally pauses to wonder about the collective IQ of the French. :lol:

The French are also partly responsible for making Pakistan the Nuclear Power that it is today. At one time they had given the Pakistanis Plutonium which was obtained from fuel that had been reprocessed from nuclear power plants, and in October 1974 Pakistan signed a contract with France for the design of a reprocessing facility for the fuel from its power plant at Karachi and other planned facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of traffic (not surprisingly) on this subject, but, PJ, I'll briefly respond to your posting of only yesterday. I don't honestly know whether the no-fly zones were part of a UN resolution, so if you say they aren't, I'll believe you. However, the French and the Germans are now proposing that the no-fly zone be expanded to the entire nation of Iraq, so that tells me they are not opposed to the concept. In response to some of the postings involving Highluc and others on the subject of the news media, I often see people point to bias in the news media to explain why most people in a given population don't agree with their views. I don't buy it. In democracies like the US and Britain, there are more sources of news now than ever before, thanks to cable TV and the Internet, and people are bombarded with all kinds of information from liberal, moderate and conservative viewpoints. That's a good thing. The days when William Randolph Hearst could engage in yellow journalism to force the US into a war with Spain are long, long gone (105 years gone, to be exact). If Americans in general are feeling more pro-war than Europeans, it's because we're still angry and feeling vulnerable over 9/11. Dictators with weapons of mass destruction don't seem so far away and benign to us anymore. I don't wish another 9/11 on anyone, but if such a terrorist attack were to occur in Europe, I believe more Europeans would change their attitudes about the dirty business of war. This is not to say I've completely bought off on the need for an Iraq war. I still don't completely trust the Bush Administration and am not convinced that Iraq poses such a threat that we need to go to war. I also feel Bush has needlessly antagonized Europe and the rest of the world with his arrogant "America will go it alone if we need to" attitude. But, if Hussein does indeed pose a threat, then an invasion is probably the only solution. My mind is still open on how serious the threat really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History and responsability? Who started all this nuclear weapon stuff? Who ever used it? On the other hand I'm sure having a few on either side has prevented many bloody wars thanks to the powerfull deterent effect, as long as they are controlled by sensible people and not galopping cow-boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to our use of the A-bomb on Japan, I think you had to be there to understand why. I have no doubt that the Brits would have favored their use against Germany, had we still been at war at the time the first A-bomb was ready for testing in July, 1945. And I'd much prefer a "cowboy" in charge of the world's nukes than a camel jockey who has been known to lie before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to our use of the A-bomb on Japan, I think you had to be there to understand why

Neither of us was there but I still understand and even approve what happened and how it shortened the war and certainly spared lots of people from even more attrocious death. On the other hand, I still doubt you had to throw a second one at them to reach that objective. I still think it was more of a kind of practical test of the second different type of bomb you designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiLuc wrote:

I still doubt you had to throw a second one at them to reach that objective.

Sometimes it takes more than one punch to finish a fiight.

Actually, if I remember my history correctly, it was the second one that made "believers" out of the Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither of us was there but I still understand and even approve what happened and how it shortened the war and certainly spared lots of people from even more attrocious death. On the other hand, I still doubt you had to throw a second one at them to reach that objective. I still think it was more of a kind of practical test of the second different type of bomb you designed.

Actually, there are still people dying from the effects even now. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a higher incidence of cancer than any other Japanese city, however, this is still low compared to Europe and US due to the Japanese propensity toward fish, vegetables and rice and a general lower consumption of red meats.

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

Hey, that might be fun! Mind you, we'd need a referee I think! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear winter would solve the problem of global warming quite handily, thank you. And for the few who are left, radioactive oil burns just as well as the regular stuff. :o

Dr. shoe often reminds me of some green dragon toters I've known--"don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up".

OK, you could say I have made my mind up. However, if the US came up with some credible "facts" then I will agree that a war is neccessary. Even Colin Powell's presentation to the UN the other day cited a few intercepted phone calls and the activities of one person and a possible cell in Bagdad. He could intercept the phone calls of any country in the world and arrive at the same conclusion. Hell, we have AQ cells operating in this country!

The treaty where Eurasia (the remains of the defeated Ottoman Empire) was sliced up willy-nilly, mainly by the Brits, and where Germany, being the only viable opposition country still intact, was forced to bear the blame for WW-I, was signed in 1919, so Europe screwed the pooch some 84 years ago, not 50.

This is very true, but 1919 was only 20 years before WWII not 50. I hate to split hairs.

BTW wasn't Roosevelt present at the the conference as well? Britain was given the Palestine Mandate because of the interests in Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus so the infrastructure was already in place and it was just an extension to British rule in the region. We can only say this was a mistake in hindsight.

Whenever I want some factual news, I always type in www.reuters.com b4 going anywhere else.

Judging by what the reaction was when Jimmy Carter manipulated the US oil price market for the purpose of forcing the American consumers to use less oil (in keeping with a handshake deal he made with the Europeans, mainly W.Germany and GB, to cut back on our oil use)--the net effect being a spike in US prices from ~$0.60/gal to ~$1.85 at one point--it would be political (and quite possibly physical) SUICIDE for GWB to embark upon any course that could be shown to the gullible US consumers as being responsible for a hike to $5.00/gal. Even a person with an IQ of 75 can figure that one out!! :(

Of course this is true, but only if GWB and his advisors are aware of the consequences of their actions. I know that there are much cleverer people than any of us working in the White House, but the artical I read made such a convincing case that it could happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure that it will but we cannot discount the possiblity that it could. Perhaps the guys in the White House think it's an acceptable gamble but they are not likely to tell the American car owning public that fuel prices could double.

I think the MAIN reason that the US wants to deal with Iraq is to prevent the spread of Nuclear Weapons to any more unstable countries than have gotten them already in the last 50 or so years--hell, even the big bad USSR didn't share them with the other communist nations and insurrections it was supporting in other ways--they may have been megalomaniacs, but they weren't STUPID!

This is true but in most countries where the USSR were supporting communist regimes, they were there by force. These countries were very quick to align themselves with the west as soon as the Berlin wall came down. Which is why there are several squadrons of MiG29s in NATO!

It is just a bit, umm, dangerous to try to relieve a nation of nukes that already has a few--which is probably why we are leaving N.Korea alone, but there is still a possibility of keeping them out of Iraq's hands. As inimicable as they are to human as well as all other forms of life on this planet, can you imagine what the world would be like if EVERY SOVEREIGN NATION had a few??

N Korea doesn't yet have nukes. They have only just reactivated their fast breeder reactor. You can bet your boots that if they were making a serious effort to acquire them, there would be a massive build-up in South Korea just like in Kuwait. I think it would be good if every country had a proportional number of them, that would certainly level the playing field. Would Iraq have attacked Kuwait if they knew they could have responded with their single nuke? It is a deterrent no matter who's got them, the only difference is that all the countries that have them have exercised restraint and responsibility. A nation like Iraq with ambitions of becoming a superpower would be dangerous with them. A nation in dispute with another nuclear neighbour over a region that in itself wants autonomy is also dangerous, Pakistan couldn't hope to win a conventional war against India.

There's ALOT MORE AT STAKE HERE THAN JUST OIL, ladies and gents. :lol:

Of course there is, there's votes too! :) (just kidding)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick comment on the sidebar conversation about the A-bombing of Japan during WWII: The firebombing of German cities in 1945 by Britain and the U.S. was just as deadly as the A-bombs dropped on Japan a few months later. More people died in the firebombings than died as a result of the atomic bombs. One set of attacks carried a nuclear stigma that has been seized upon by later generations, while the other set of attacks did not. It is wrong to look upon the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation from the rest of WWII, even though people today commonly do just that. Rightly or wrongly, the bombing of civilian populations, from London to Cologne, Dresden, Munich, Tokyo and lastly Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was a central part of WWII. I disagree with those who focus on the U.S. a-bombing as something that was fundamentally different than all of the other bombings of cities during that war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is true, but only if GWB and his advisors are aware of the consequences of their actions. I know that there are much cleverer people than any of us working in the White House, but the artical I read made such a convincing case that it could happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure that it will but we cannot discount the possiblity that it could. Perhaps the guys in the White House think it's an acceptable gamble but they are not likely to tell the American car owning public that fuel prices could double.

Oh, I think that "George baby" and his advisors are well aware of the consequences of their actions. Actually, to be honest with you, I think that the people in The White House are looking at what happened to oil prices during the first Gulf War. The article that I had read based its findings off of what had happened to oil prices during the first Gulf War also. To make a long story short (and I am leaving out the numbers on purpose), during the first war, oil prices were pretty steady and not too high (similar to the prices we that have today). Then there was a dramaitc spike in prices that did not last very long at all. Then, all of a sudden, there was dramatic "drop off" in prices and the oil prices fell to a staggering low point.

About this 50 years issue......................

Actually, I screwed up. I don't know what I was thinking at the time that I wrote that. I should have written that it was 60+ years ago. Now the point that I was trying to make: What was Europe's first inital reaction (that is a key phrase) to what was going on in Germany prior to the start of the second world war. Do not give me a story about the Munich Pact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very true, but 1919 was only 20 years before WWII not 50. I hate to split hairs.

BTW wasn't Roosevelt present at the the conference as well? Britain was given the Palestine Mandate because of the interests in Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus so the infrastructure was already in place and it was just an extension to British rule in the region. We can only say this was a mistake in hindsight.

Actually, I don't ever recall this as being the reason. Roosevelt? Hmmmmm. As far as I know I think that Warren Harding (if memory serves me correctly) was the first President to sign the Joint Congressional Resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate supporting the establishment in Palestine of a national Jewish home for the Jewish people. And yes I think that the resolution was signed on September 22, 1922 in London. I can't remember if an American President was there or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly, the bombing of civilian populations, from London to Cologne, Dresden, Munich, Tokyo and lastly Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was a central part of WWII. I disagree with those who focus on the U.S. a-bombing as something that was fundamentally different than all of the other bombings of cities during that war.

You are right, during the second world war every country at war adopted the horrible "counter city" doctrine that caused millions of civilian casualities. The fact this doctrine was felt acceptable (by the ones safely in their protected bunkers) still does not justify jubilating because the A bomb made less casualities as the fire bombs to get the ennemy on his knees. In that respect the modern wars with their surgical precision strikes on carefully selected targets with well defined rules of engagement is a "great progress". This was possible in the last Gulf War because the scope was limited and the weather suitable for guidance of these air delivered smart bombs. Now instead of driving an invading enemy back home the target is to get Saddam out of his fortified middle of the town locations which will be a completely different ballgame, especially if the Iraqis set their oil wells on fire obscuring most targets for effective air attacks. In that case pursuing the (difficult) objective will either cost lots of friendly casualities in street fights against a whole anti american population, or cause the US to slowly abandon the objective of killing or removing Saddam from his presidency, replace his forces by European "peace keepers" and seek an easier country and leader to get results worth a ticker parade in New York. Some forget this is exactly what happened in Former Yougoslavia and the unsuccessfull hunt after Bin Laden which had been Bushes priority one goal untill he found out he couldn't get him. Good luck on this one, but hopefully not involving me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... especially if the Iraqis set their oil wells on fire obscuring most targets for effective air attacks...

Frankly I hope Saddam does exactly that. In such an event, good luck getting them put out as nearly all the people that are experienced at putting out oil well fires (e.g. good at it) come from the USA, and I know what their response is going to be unless Saddam's regime is no longer in power when the request comes to put them out. :x

Just watching Saddam's wealth evaporate in clouds of smoke...what a wonderful sight indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pollution this fires would make doesn't justify such an ego trip, does it? But that's only my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those fires will be much more difficult to put out as well because the pressure of the wells is much higher as in Kuwait and they are spread all over the country on different kind of terrain and getting the equipment there will be much more difficult. In Kuwait some teams were able to blow out 4 fires per day, in Iraq it might take them 4 days per well. Let's forget about the economic and selfish implications and think about the ecological disaster this might cause. Let's keep our fingers crossed everybody thinks about the grave implications of some overzealuous acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think that "George baby" and his advisors are well aware of the consequences of their actions. Actually, to be honest with you, I think that the people in The White House are looking at what happened to oil prices during the first Gulf War. The article that I had read based its findings off of what had happened to oil prices during the first Gulf War also. To make a long story short (and I am leaving out the numbers on purpose), during the first war, oil prices were pretty steady and not too high (similar to the prices we that have today). Then there was a dramaitc spike in prices that did not last very long at all. Then, all of a sudden, there was dramatic "drop off" in prices and the oil prices fell to a staggering low point.

This again is broadly true. However, there are different variables in place here. Firstly, we had the full support of both the UN and the "Arab League" as well as OPEC etc.etc. On this occassion, the Arab league has voiced opposition to a full scale invasion of Iraq despite Kuwait and Saudi(?) allowing UK/US forces on their (sandy) soil.

Secondly, at the time of the Gulf War the infrastructure was not running at capacity until the Iraqis set the Kuwaiti fields alight and that was what caused the price spike. At the moment, the world oil infrastructure is working at near capacity and any loss of facility would put unbearable pressure on supply and as a consequence price. I note that many oil companies are starting to stockpile and we (in the UK) have been warned to expect up to 15p on a gallon of fuel by the end of next week. (source: most of today's papers).

About this 50 years issue......................

Actually, I screwed up. I don't know what I was thinking at the time that I wrote that. I should have written that it was 60+ years ago.

What 1943??? :lol:

Now the point that I was trying to make: What was Europe's first inital reaction (that is a key phrase) to what was going on in Germany prior to the start of the second world war. Do not give me a story about the Munich Pact.

What happened was that Germany was totally bankrupt and so Hitler set about revitalising the economy and part of that was modernising the steel, heavy engineering and arms industries. Much of the arms developments were carried out in secret (which you could say parallels to Iraq) until the start of the Spanish Civil War in which Germany fought with the support of the UK and US. In fact many of the German bombers had British engines! and Germany used this as an excuse to disregard the Yalta(?) agreement and help protect Europe from the encroachment of Communism. Moreover, this war allowed German scientists and engineers to develop new weapons and aircraft and for tacticians to look at new strategies such as total mechanisation allowing Blitzkreig strategies.

The differences are as follows:

1. There was no UN. The "League Of Nations" was politically weak and in disarray as most countries were still rebuilding from the Great War.

2. Most countries disregarded or ignored the LON anyway.

3. There were no nuclear weapons.

4. There was no Al Qaida for the governments of the day to try to frighten their voters with.

5. True there were crude chemical weapons but they were hardly "weapons of mass destruction".

6. The restrictions imposed on Germany at Armistice were sufficiently vague or outdated for them to circumvent. i.e. pocket battleships, 88mm guns and submarines were actually permissable.

7. Militarily, Germany was far more powerful in comparison to the Allies than Iraq is. Moreover, Germany had Independant Allies such as Italy and Japan.

Even after Germany invaded the Sudettenland in 1938 (?) and overran Austria no-one acted to stop Hitler until he invaded Poland, and this didn't have anything to do with Munich. However, should Saddam try anything similar we would be on his case within minutes. Also contrary to popular belief, at the time Hitler was no madman nor is Saddam come to think of it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. True there were crude chemical weapons but they were hardly "weapons of mass destruction".

How, precisely, does the Mustard Agent that the US, GB, Russia, etc., have in their stockpiled arsenals differ from the same agent used in WW-I? I am sure that the ghosts of the thousands of soldiers on both sides that died at Yrpes, the Marne, etc., MIGHT disagree with you, Dr.Shoe, regarding the effectiveness of the stuff. Essentially, the only chemical weapons that did not exist in 1936 that are now in use is the so-called nerve agents, which were invented by German scientists, B4 or during WW-II.

I also differ on your characterization of "madness". Who is to say that Hitler wasn't "mad" back then, or even Neville Chamberlain when he said that he had "secured peace for our time!" in, was it 1938, with the parceling off (to Hitler) of 1/3 of the land mass of Czechoslovakia, commonly known as the Sudettenland. I'd be willing to bet that the Britts would have been calling him mad had the land mass in question that he gave away to Germany was Scottland or Wales. Since the Germanic tribes were more Celtic than England after William's invasion in 1066, it could have been as plausibly arguable by Hitler that Scottland or Wales ought to be under German rule, just as he argued for the Sudettenland.

One could, in hindsight, accuse Harry Truman of being "mad" for firing Douglas MacArthur for trying to drum up support in Congress for the invasion of Red China in 1952 (behind the President's back).

I dare say that the Britts, even as much as they detest the IRA, would probably be calling their PM "mad" had he started using nerve agent or even Mustard Gas on suspected IRA strongholds, neighborhoods, etc. The Iraqis hold the Kurds within their borders in a somewhat similar disfavour.

So tell me again how Saddam isn't a madman??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, at the time of the Gulf War the infrastructure was not running at capacity until the Iraqis set the Kuwaiti fields alight and that was what caused the price spike.

Iraqis set the Kuwaiti fields alight? Hmmm......close........but not really! You could tell this to the experts right about now, I am sure that they would really enjoy a good laugh. It was indeed running at full capacity but.........

What happened was that Germany was totally bankrupt and so Hitler set about revitalising the economy and part of that was modernising the steel, heavy engineering and arms industries. Much of the arms developments were carried out in secret (which you could say parallels to Iraq) until the start of the Spanish Civil War in which Germany fought with the support of the UK and US. In fact many of the German bombers had British engines! and Germany used this as an excuse to disregard the Yalta(?) agreement and help protect Europe from the encroachment of Communism. Moreover, this war allowed German scientists and engineers to develop new weapons and aircraft and for tacticians to look at new strategies such as total mechanisation allowing Blitzkreig strategies.

The differences are as follows:

1. There was no UN. The "League Of Nations" was politically weak and in disarray as most countries were still rebuilding from the Great War.

2. Most countries disregarded or ignored the LON anyway.

3. There were no nuclear weapons.

4. There was no Al Qaida for the governments of the day to try to frighten their voters with.

5. True there were crude chemical weapons but they were hardly "weapons of mass destruction".

6. The restrictions imposed on Germany at Armistice were sufficiently vague or outdated for them to circumvent. i.e. pocket battleships, 88mm guns and submarines were actually permissable.

7. Militarily, Germany was far more powerful in comparison to the Allies than Iraq is. Moreover, Germany had Independant Allies such as Italy and Japan.

Even after Germany invaded the Sudettenland in 1938 (?) and overran Austria no-one acted to stop Hitler until he invaded Poland, and this didn't have anything to do with Munich. However, should Saddam try anything similar we would be on his case within minutes. Also contrary to popular belief, at the time Hitler was no madman nor is Saddam come to think of it.

Well, what can I say, you have done what you really do best - instead of answering my simple question you just fed me some very true facts that were mixed in with a bunch of B.S.. As usual.

Hitler no madman? Saddam no madman? What are you talking about? You really have flipped out on me have you? Europe knew straight out that Hitler was up to no good and they did nothing whatsoever to stop him. They didn't even pressure the man. They had this false mentality that if they ignored him he would just go away. I totally agree that the whole economic infastructure of Europe was smashed and that the people were sick of war but that is really no excuse. You usually don't wait until someone overruns a few countries and then decide to go to war.

On this occassion, the Arab league has voiced opposition to a full scale invasion of Iraq despite Kuwait and Saudi(?) allowing UK/US forces on their (sandy) soil.

This is somewhat untrue. To this very day the Arab League has been totally neutral during this crisis. It has been only recently that when pressured by the French and Germans that a few of the members spoke out against the invasion. My point being that just because a few members speak out against the invasion that does not at all imply that the entire Arab League is in total opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has it all wrong. It's a plot by the Martians to take over the world. Rather than expend their own resources against us, they have secretly turned us against one another. Am I the only one who sees the real picture ? For the sake of mankind people, wake up and open your eyes before it's too late. :drinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has it all wrong.

It's a plot by the Martians to take over the world. Rather than expend their own resources against us, they have secretly turned us against one another.

Am I the only one who sees the real picture ? For the sake of mankind people, wake up and open your eyes before it's too late.

:drinking:

Are these the little green martians or the grey skinny ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraqis set the Kuwaiti fields alight? Hmmm......close........but not really! You could tell this to the experts right about now, I am sure that they would really enjoy a good laugh. It was indeed running at full capacity but.........

Actually, I never mentioned when the spike happened on purpose. The spike happened at the very beginning of the war, long before the Iraqis set the Kuwaiti oil fields alight.

Iraqis setting the Kuwaiti oil fields alight had nothing to do with the spike whatsoever. Thanks to proper planning, everyone on both sides had a very good preemption as to what Saddam would do to the Kuwaiti oil fields upon retreat and they were very prepared to cope with the matter in terms of oil production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these the little green martians or the grey skinny ones?

As seen on television during the buildup phase I would say definitely the fat green ones (courtesy of McDonald an Burger King).

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.