Tweet
Iraq is the subject leading to divides throughout the world. Scenarios are being tossed around, the mother of all wars or defeat in the sand? What do you think the effects will be? A democrat in the White House or sweeping Republicanism. What will happen. All opinions are welcome don't just view this reply! Remain polite
-
-
I think that America and Britain should just attack Iraq now, i am not just saying that because i am young and like the idea of war, because i dont, i am saying it because if we dont stop Iraq now they will use chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons givin time.
Thanks,
Joe
| My Photos | My Profile | -
Who on earth said that Iraq has such weapons!!!!!!
This is an unjustified pretext concocted by USA to gain control of the oil market in the middle east."The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
-- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'Comment
-
Actually, you're both victims of propoganda. First, as far as Iraq having any WMD, there has been no conclusive proof to that effect. The lack of conclusive proof has been given by the UN inspection team, which I would assume are well equipped and informed at such a task. Second, as far as the oil issue goes, the US has plenty of resources for oil without the need to conquer a less powerful country for its consumption.
The main reason for this (war) is from a strategic point of view. Once the US can gain a foothold in an area such as Iraq, it could be an enourmous advantage to help stabilize a volatile area. Unfortunately I think this is a bit underestimated and we could very well see history repeat itself from Iran in the late 70's.
It is a gamble the current government of the US is willing to take. The cost of this gamble has been estimated at $200 billion and up. I certainly hope that they are right, because God help us if they're not.Comment
-
If u had 10 million bucks, and someone offered u 10 million more, don't tell me u wouldn't take it!!Second, as far as the oil issue goes, the US has plenty of resources for oil without the need to conquer a less powerful country for its consumption."The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
-- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'Comment
-
Not if I had to violate the very principles my society was based upon, and sacrifice the lives of countless soldiers and civilians. Of course, I can easily say that since I am not even close to having 10 million. Money does seem to change the attitude.....Originally posted by indian airlinesComment
-
Dave,
I'm glad you know about America and the Shah of Iran. That is a topic that continually fascinates me and I know inside and out!
Yeah, that is one mistake we don't want to see happen in Iraq. Many saw the Shah as a puppet dictator. We can't make the new Iraqi government on similar lines or it too will founder.
Might I also add that America gets only about 12% of its oil from the Middle East nowadays. The vast majority of the oil exported out of there goes to Europe and Asia. Most of America's oil is from Alaska, Texas, Gulf of Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela.
I doubt that the persuit of oil is the driving force behind America's reluctance to attaq Iraq, I think it's more for a strategic advantage. Having an ally like Iraq with it's georgrapical location will be most beneficial to this war on terrorism and to act as a stabilizing factor in the middle east. Just as Israel is today and Iran was in the 60s and 70s.Comment
-
Iraq must have something to hide, what happened to the chemical weapons that were there 12 years ago? they cant have just dissapered into thin air can they thats why i think Iraq has something to hide.Originally posted by indian airlines| My Photos | My Profile |Comment
-
The people who would suffer because of a war would be:
1. Saddam(kinda obvious)
2. France(no more cheap oil)
3. Russia(same reason as France)
4. Terrorists(some Bin Laden homies are hanging there. It's like overturning a rock you see where the bugs are.)
And yes my source for the info is news media but it is non-U.S. media aka liberal European allies news media.(yes,I managed to find some of the stuff there)Comment
-
"Who on earth said that Iraq has such weapons!!!!!!
This is an unjustified pretext concocted by USA to gain control of the oil market in the middle east."
Indian Airlines are you that naive and stupid to believe that Saddam has NO Illegal weapons?
Yea thats why hes not allowing spy planes to fly over Iraq, thats why he kicked out the inspectors, thats why he had 12 years to hide his weapons, thats why he has moving chemical weapons facilities, thats why he has structures that are chemical and missle depots...
Yes, Im sure hes an angel. If you think the US is going in there for cheap oil you are a big hypocrite because its the French who have a good 45bn dollar contract via TotalFinaElf for Iraqi oil who dont want to lose it, just adding to the fact that its an illegal claim also.Legia Warszawa - Duma Stolicy Polski
Sail the Smooth Skies to ORD with the 767-300ER
Photos: http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=5
http://www.jetphotos.net/members/viewprofile.php?id=5Comment
-
Saddam hussein did not kick out the UN Inspectors. They were withdrawn by Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team before they could submit a report, in anticipation of a US attack on Iraq. This just proves that USA were prepared to attack Iraq before they got a report from the UN weapon inspectors. In that case, why pretend to attack Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction, when you are going to attack them anyway, irrespective of whether they have weapons or not.
Also, let me repeat myself, what the hell is USA's problem if Saddam is a gross guy. He isn't doing anything to them!! He isn't saying, "Oh look! USA has weapons of mass destruction, lets go attack them!"
As for your spy planes, would any country like to have spy planes fly over their land. Even USA's closest ally would not allow spy planes to fly over their land. Why would anyone allow spy planes to fly over their country???
USA themselves would have a big problem if Iraq sent spy planes to spy on them!
Even if Saddam has illegal weapons, who says he is going to use them? Of course, he will use them in retaliation, ut he can only retaliate if attacked. As long as he is not attacked, those weapons will not be used. I fail to understand USA's problem!
I never said Saddam was an angel. He may be the baddest, worst, cruelest, sickest guy ever to have existed. How does that bother USA? What right do they have to be moral policemen of the world????
Alright, so maybe USA isn't going there solely for oil, but don't tell me they will not benefit by ousting Saddam. USA has no valid reason for which to attack Iraq."The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
-- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'Comment
-
A lot of it seems paranoia based. America is afraid that Saddam may start giving some of his weapons to terrorists to get back at America. America fears Iraq in the sense that it may start to aid the terrorists.
Again, I see in part the double-standard of this entire situation. Germany, and France vehemently oppose war with Iraq. Why? Because they are drilling for oil there. They know that once Hussein has fallen, their dominance over Iraqi oil and consequently their cheaper oil will be eraticated.
Many Arab countries don't want a war because Iraq would subsequently be a vital and strategic western ally who could be a policeman in the region. Just as Iran was in the 1960s and 1970s prior to the revolution. Many arabs clandestinely support terrorism, and many arab government (or government officials for that matter) are doing a pretty good job of hiding that. With such a pro-western government next door most likely with a lot of anti-terrorism intelligence and counter-intelligence, these terrorists and terrorist backers are done for. They will be rounded up and tried. Not that this is a bad thing, only for the bad guys.
America, you once supported Iraq. You once turned a blind eye to the atrocities Hussein committed against his own people and his neighbor Iran. You covertly supplied Iraq with arms and chemical weapons secrets. Then you declared war on Iraq but never overthrew Hussein, a big mistake. Now you are faced with a leader who is much harder to defeat. At the moment, he is cooperating (though might I add now his cooperation is suspect).
Each country has its own agenda. Based on what I just said, I seems to augment the need to invade Iraq. We should proceed with caution if we do. Many Iraqis aren't particularly enthusiastic about western occupation albeit they want to see Hussein overthrown. If we ignore their wish, they could revolt and a fundamentalist government can be conceived.Comment
-
It seems that those politicians then were emulating Chamberlain.Comment
Comment