The REAL meat an potato's of this war.

blade · Post by **blade** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:10 pm

I'm gonna tell yo momma!

It is because of the WMD's, these reasons and because we need more cat litter.

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:53 pm

Let's look ahead of the war, shale we? what will happen after the war? I government wants money, money is power, and if they want moolah, they're gonna turn to whomever they choose they want the money from. after the war, it's gonna be our government dipping it's hands in all the goings-on with oil in iraq, this will be "helping them get back on their feet" and we will accept it till, forever. but our government can't just do this on their own, oh no. they need help! guess what, tax is gonna go up. and we will accept it too. this will continue in a well planned, elaboate plan. but this is only one story, of many like it.

like all of you said, with a few exceptions, this war isn't on anything but oil, and oil is money, money is power.

You know what, everyone is gonna just sit back, and let the US dictate us more and more. consider that this is all true for a moment, then consider why not to belive this.

Now, give me the fruity version that you're suppose to belive. and tell me, what sounds more like our government?

-Money, is what it's allways been about.

Post by **sbp** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:00 pm

Originally posted by Shadow250
i agree with fp on this one, why else would we want to invade iraq? as sombody said about africa they broke treaties and starved their own people. we did not intervene. but iraq has the oil wealth. what else is important enough to fight over there? the sand?:jedi

Why Iraq? Consider the causes

Look, say some of the critics of this war in Iraq, other countries possess weapons of mass destruction, other regimes have committed genocide, other countries harbor terrorists, and so why is it that the United States is going after Saddam Hussein?

Mightn't it be the case, some further ask in tones suggesting a psychological insight denied most mortals, that this is a personal matter with George W. Bush because Saddam tried to have his father assassinated?

Excuse the exasperation, but such questions betray an obstinate obtuseness. The simplest reply: It's the combination, stupid.

What makes Iraq a singularly important target in the war against terrorism is that it is run by a genocidal maniac with links to terrorists, that this vile dictator is hostile to the United States, that his regime is viciously oppressive, that he has a record of invading neighboring countries, that he has devoted endless energy to developing weapons of mass destruction - and that he can be expeditiously defeated.

Some African nations have been equally or more genocidal, some of the critics point out, but what these nations don't have are weapons of mass murder. Saddam's genocidal history tells us something hugely important, namely that he would not have a moment's moral hesitation in employing those weapons. The African nations may deserve U.S. attention, but they are no particular threat to the United States.

The same is true of Saudi Arabia. It has had links with terrorists. And the regime is corrupt. But it is not nearly so brutal as Saddam in the treatment of its population. The Saudi family is not hostile to the United States, and this is not a regime with a nuclear weapons project.

But what about Pakistan? It already has nuclear weapons, and America-haters are rampant in the land. Someday, the United States may in fact have to confront a Pakistani government eager to abet terrorists with catastrophic ambitions. The government of the moment is our ally, however. It helped in the fighting in Afghanistan, and it has helped in the search for al Qaeda terrorists.

Iran may seem a threat that puts together many of the same elements found in Iraq, such as a nightmarish group of leaders, ties with terrorists and the potential for developing nuclear weaponry. A significant difference is a very real protest movement that may topple the regime, and sooner rather than later.

Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East expert at Princeton, has written that Saddam's collapse could push the Iranian theocracy to collapse as well. Iran has not lately shown itself particularly determined that the United States meet the prayed-for fate of all infidels, and unlike Iraq, there was not a war 12 years ago that never concluded. Iran is not in violation of 18 U.N. resolutions.

Ah, but then there's North Korea. Doesn't North Korea pose risks to America as great or greater than those posed by Iraq?

Yes. But North Korea, by most estimates, already possesses at least one and maybe two nuclear weapons. Even without them, it could probably destroy Seoul in South Korea, and with them it also threatens Japan and - conceivably someday if not now - the West Coast of the United States. Part of the objective in Iraq is to keep that country from obtaining nuclear weapons with which it could blackmail the United States, as North Korea seems to be trying to do now. Also, obviously, a war against North Korea would be enormously difficult, many, many times more difficult than a war against Iraq, and it makes sense for the time being, at any rate, for North Korea's neighbors to carry the burden of diplomatic negotiations.

What about that other question from the critics - the one suggesting George W. Bush is obsessed with Iraq because of the attempt on his father's life? There is a deep, anti-Bush prejudice at work in that suggestion, and it is at odds with all we know about the fact that a number of his most trusted and highly capable advisers have pushed the policies Bush is following. These advisers were not motivated by daddy-love.

The assassination effort, though, does show Saddam is a berserker. He will risk everything for the sake of getting revenge. If he had succeeded in killing a former U.S. president, the United States might well have gone to war with Iraq then, it has been suggested. A man who would risk so much to satisfy his bloodlust would also happily provide a suitcase nuke to a terrorist on the way to New York City. It's something the critics ought to think about.

Judg3 · Post by **Judg3** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:22 pm

I'm gonna have to go with Blade on this one. There is a huge kitty litter epidemic in the USA, and by defeating the evil regime of Saddam we will have more access to this valuable goods.

I don't know if any of you have cats here, but I do.
3 months ago 25 pounds of cat litter was 99 cents. Now though, it has skyrocketed to 1.07! Saddam MUST be defeated so that we can ALL have the right to purchase kitty litter at a fair price.

(Ok, so I'm bored of debating the war and am trying to go for some humor instead.)

honz · Post by **honz** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:01 am

well, i got totally nothing out of that post FP, LOL. it must be politician talk, because none of it really stuck out to me, but hey not the biggest bean in the kettle.

I still believe that this war is based on saddam and his WMD threat. Oil may be a side burner, as well as other factors, but nothing more. The cons just outway the pros for oil to me.

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:39 am

well honz you've got a damn cute dog, but what if it used kitty litter? I'll bet you'de change your possition REAL fast. the point is still present that the government has been doing this time and time again before, and we've proven it. what makes this any different? it's aperent to me that what will happen, will happen. and oh well.

BUT still, I do like that sadam is gonna get a holy hand grenade up were the sun don't shine.

and as all of you know, I'm going to start my own country, so when we get tired of the US, and it's crap. We can all live on LANTOPIA and have potato chips and beer all day, complete with a standard issue up-chuck tube, issued to all LANTOPIA 's citisens (forgive the spellage). your all invited, bring your computer and bladder buster cup!

But look here! we, and several other contries are supplying the iraqi people with food and water. using the oil reserve funds that iraq has put away. well who is getting the money in the end? us or some other trading country, and what's good for them, is good for us. this isn't bad, no. just a small thing to think about.

rogue · Post by **rogue** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:52 pm

I bet when we dont find any WMD or even Saddam, some will say that this war was pointless, much like Vietnam. Oh well, at least our gas prices will go down =-/ I'll change my tune if they do actually find something that was a threat to us and our allies, but for now I'm sticking to FP's suggestion that oil played a major factor in this war.

MK888 · Post by **MK888** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:12 pm

Iraq is an enemy, and an enemy must be defeated...... it is as simple as that.

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:35 pm

your correct MK888.

so who's going to LANTOPIA?

honz · Post by **honz** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:57 pm

rogue, true we may be totally wrong about the whole WMD thing. How about him kicking out inspectors? By law, they had a right to be in there...

ya, our country has and will always look for the benefit of something. If you had the chance to get < insert your dream here > or get < ctrl-c ctrl-v > with a side dish, which would you take =) It's only natural to try to find the good in a bad situation. Oil has prolly played a part in the decision, but it's not the main reason.

reasons we go after iraq before North Korea? China and its neighbors are already putting pressue on that situation for now. Africa's mess also, is on the back burner because even if we had global support, it would still take the good part of a few decades to sort all that out.

IMO it just makes sense. almost as much sense as LANTOPIA. Will there be hot chicks as well? hehe

Post by **sbp** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:06 pm

People actually believe Hussein doesn't have WMD?

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
Hmmm... just speculating out loud, if I was a suspicious bastard and had little regard for the morals of politicians and big business....

Fueling fears of oil appears (mid-east instabilities & Argentina social turmoil)... Administration uses that as an excuse to (rather easily) remove all restrictions on drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge (nice payback for GW's oil buddies).... Present situation (threat of war) has substantially raised the price of oil & gas here (possibly more money for GW's oil buddies since we really have no idea how much of a profit margin they're making).... Perhaps the oil companies hope that after the war is over the American people will be used to paying over $2 a gallon for gas (in some places in the west it's been over $3) and with any luck (for them) prices will settle down a bit higher after the war is over (same as during the so-called oil crisis of the 70's when they got us used to seeing prices over $1 a gallon)...

Again I'm not saying it's ALL about oil, but it's a large part of the equation.

You mean Venezuela.

I seriously believe the purpose of the modern day environmentalist movement is to make people feel bad and hurt the US for being too successful {in their view

}.

Its a damn shame environmentalists have scared people with fear mongering.
I support drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge asap-all it would be is the size of an airport.

Bet those environmentalist twits out there will get their panties in a bunch when they hear about Natural Gas Line Proposed in Alaska.

Ok so these environmentalists don't like oil and whatnot. But when these peeps are asked about nuclear power, they don't want that either. Guess its too much to figure out that if we don't make our own energy, we need it from somewhere. After all energy doesn't produce itself.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:19 pm

What i find funny is most of those asshole environmentalist cry about the tree's the polution from cars the dams killing salmon etc etc... but yet they live in a wood fucking house with electricity and drive cars around... nothing like the pot calling the kettle black... Up here in the WA St the last 3 years the Salmon runs have been bigger than they ever have. This on the mid to lower Columbia river but does it sound like the salmon are going to be extinct anytime soon... not to me and i fish the hell out of them when they are running... /me looks in his freezer to see the 80lbs of salmon still in it