IRAQ

alright, i know this isn't the most politically active forum of strategic thinkers, but i think we should kick this around for awhile...

...in washington they are

talking about iraq and s.hussein big time...

whether or not it should be next in the US's 'war' on terrorism..

but...alot of people are also saying that if the US

directs a military offensive at iraq, that the coalition will

crumble....

everyone's an expert, lets hear it....

all I want to say is look at how the gas prices have gone down.......

After Hitler was defeated in WW2, Churchcill said to Rousevelt that it was a great opourtunity to destroy the Bolsevics(russians).

They didnt start a campaign after all, probably because they wanted to avoid a comparison between the alliance and the nazi's acting the same way in the end.

The thing is that now there is not such a comparison to be made nor a second superpower to play a role.

It seems to me that the 'game' doesnt have rules anymore

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

"blast'em boys"

diplomaticly speaking, it would be a horrible idea. we would lose the support of the british, as well as the majority of the UN, and ALL of our muslim/arabic/middle eastern allies. if we invade iraq it would be a huge, HUGE mistake. they are not our concern any longer, and they are only as much of an enemy as we make them.

I agree with seeking n this one. Pakistan has agreed to help us. They are only letting us fly over their airspace and base troops there for humantarian and rescue missions. They aren't letting us base troops there for combat and still their are alot of Islamic countries and groups that strongly disapprove of this. They feel it is helping the US destroy and kill fellow Muslim brothers. If the US were to say they were going after Iraq it would definitley mess up this whole coalition. Many people through out the entire world would see this as an excuse to go after and finally get rid of Saddam rather than fight terrorism, right or wrong. Whether or or not Saddam should have been handled before, it would be very difficult to get people to back us to go back into that region and get him . Also it would be very difficult to get access to him. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to let us base troops or aircraft there to help the war in Afghanistan. A lot has changed since the Persian Gulf War. The Saudi King has been replaced by his son. While the former king was very friendly towards the west his son is not. His son is very worried that the people of Saudi Arabia will rise up against him if he lets the US back into his country.

Personally the US should have dealt with Saddam back then. Perhaps the slaughtering of the Kurds in NorthWest Iraq could have been prevented. If Saddam were out of power the US would be able to lift the santions and trade embargos placed upon Iraq, with out fear of Hussein making more Biological and Chemical weopons. But politically this would be the absolute wrong time. It would give terror leaders such as Osama bin Laden even more propaganda and fuel to the already burning hatred of America.

Originally posted by pacman

all I want to say is look at how the gas prices have gone down.......

that's becauase OPEC made a mistake...not because any war[/b]

please tell me you don't actually believe that... mistake, phht!

Due to the events of 9/11, the war in the mid-east, and our continuously strengthening ties with Russia, we are being provided with alternate sources of oil. Russia is pumping oil 24/7 to cover our asses. In a direct military strategy, Russia has joined the U.S. so as to mitigate Opec's influence over mid-east events. So there...

The gas prices went down because after the terrorist attacks president Bush and other foreign leaders asked OPEC to maintain or increase production of oil so as not to frighten consumers. They didn't want oil prices to sky rocket after 9/11. They agreed in part to appease the US and "get brownie points" for the future. But the OPEC countries met in Vienna recently and agreed to cut production again so they can raise the prices again. Expect gas to increase by Dec or early Jan.

Wow I'm impressed........................................................................................................................fuckin morons.

Originally posted by dirtysicks

Wow I'm impressed........................................................................................................................fuckin morons.

way to contribute dirtysicks.

i'll agree with most of what pistol and seeking said, but

i do have a problem with seeking's

'they are not our concern any longer, and they are only as much of an enemy as we

make them'....

that seems a tad naive. maybe in the past that could pass for an argument, but its not the past, unless you firmly believe you know more about the situation than iraqi defectors. in plain terms, he is a serious threat...biologically speaking now, and fully nuclear in probably 3 or 4 years. he also has training camps for terrorists,

so the big issue is do we go after him NOW...or wait and let the situation simmer while he plots...

lets not forget he's already used these weapons on populations in his own freakin' country..

who doubts that given the right circumstances(which for all we know he could be formulating right now) he would use these weapons against americans or its allies?

with the CIA now asked to 'take the gloves off', my professional opinion is that we'll see a covert assasination instead of the hassle and inherent problems of going at it through diplomatic footsies.

Originally posted by BROWNer

 

with the CIA now asked to 'take the gloves off', my professional opinion is that we'll see a covert assasination instead of the hassle and inherent problems of going at it through diplomatic footsies.

yeah, that's what they want you to believe, you just go on believing it. the sad reality is we won't have any northern alliance to fight the ground war for us in this one. and more bombs will be dropped, more money will be thrown away, and more enemies will be created. a vicious cycle. and what is the CIA suggesting doing 'taking the gloves off' i'm taking this to mean like the hockey expression for starting a fight. what i think this means is going the assassination route 'the gloves' being that treaty or whatever where we signed away this option. to them i say, keep dreaming, no one's got keys to the palace. i say fuck them, haven't we done enough damage there, both to the citizens who hate us for sanctions which have killed a million of their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and to our reputation around the globe, especially in the middle east and europe where the majority of our vested intrests lie. by now we should realize there are some things that we cannot do. we can't make everything couzy couzy in the world because a lot of it we've already fucked up with our financing of the genocidal maniacs, the murders, and rogue nations, and industrial pollutants. can't you understand this. there are things we can't do, because we've fucked up that option. can't this nation rise above the petty tactical devices and institutions (war) which we glorify as good and just, because it's bringing these people the chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we're coasting on this ideal, and we need to step back and let them find there own way out. we're not special, we have a great constitution and some good ideas sure, but there people who twist the meanings, and we're supposed to go along with it because they're elected officials. didn't we have half the country owning slaves just a hundred and fifty years ago. we punish those who think differently. oh, no? look at all of what has happened to our own citizens who try to go against money and government. hippies, wobblies, imf protesters. they get beat down. something's been lost, or maybe, as i suspect the foundinf fathers thought, something's yet to be gained. whatever it is it's in us, or at least the idea's there. shouldn't we also allow the rest of the world some space to handle their own shit? a leader must provide the example or set a benchmark for others to beat, not drag the world into their problems. i was talking to a coworker the other day about a problem he had with someone who has fucked over other people and now is talking about him behind his back, he said that he wouldn't act on rumors, but when it's his ass on the line, you better believe that he's gonna do what he thinks is right. there are lots and lots of people who think this way in this country. are they going to sit back and let someone come in here and take away our bush? hell nah. i'm pretty sure most people think similarly the world over, and the post ww2 us isn't squeeky clean like we'd like to believe. there are things we can't do anything about anymore without pushing people over the line (terrorism?) and countries as well.

whoa buddy...its just a half opinion..its not a fact that an assasination will happen, nor am i saying that this should be the climatic conclusion of washington's strategic maneuvering ..what do you suggest?.... you seem to be overlooking the fact that saddam hussein is hated by a large percentage of iraqi's and has had numerous assasination attempts on his life by iraqi dissendents..oh wait.....thats all propaganda i've been spoon fed...i don't think bombing the shit out of iraq and iraqi citizens is a good thing by any means..the CIA didn't say 'we're takin' the gloves off '....essentially bush asked them to engage in the largest covert operation in its history, and he's given them billions to do it..they've had the gloves off for years...yes its a vicious cycle...so is it then pointless to do anything?..you're sayin' i'm believing some government propaganda that you've seen right through, and they want me to believe thats what they are going to do, but in reality they aren't or shouldn't do anything? you're solution is that we should just let everything alone and chill, be pacifists... okay...i agree to some extent. but you can't sit here and put all the blame exclusively on america....and even if you could, so what? does that mean that we should sit back and just let the chips fall where they may?...thats what happened sept 11. you want a repeat, possibly worse in the future? if you think saddam declaring america an enemy and the extent he went to hiding his weaponry is something to sit back and casually contemplate...i don't know man, that seems like such elementary logic........

My Badd

Awww crap! Sorry Dry Bones, I meant to quote your post and I must have clicked on "Edit" instead.

I'm sorry man.

all i was trying to say really boils down to this: all the 'covert' operations always reflect badly on us. when were up front about saying 'assassinate' well that's alot to take for someone who's leader is the object of such talk, and we can't fucking save people who aren't willing to save themselves or at least attempt to. i think that we're making more enemies than friends, and i'm not believing that we're doing the right thing by going to rout out alleged criminals who have lots of money in a place where money buys EVERYTHING. and i'm sick of being told that we have to do something, and it's 'covert' this, and 'assassinate' that, when in fact that's not what's going on. we bomb shit. we're pushing buttons and watching shit explode. it's not right, we're not taking over, so why are we doing it. we're definately being deluded by the rhetoric into thinking that we're doing something positive, when, in fact, everything that i see and hear is about bombing. we're supposed to believe all this stuff is going on behind the scenes and they can't talk about it, well, that's a little hard to swallow. i'm not saying i'm seeing through any propaganda, it's just that i'm cynical, and they've done it before. we shouldn't always trust people to do the right thing. i mean we're a nation that's been through some emotional shit, it's not much of a step to think WAR. that i do see through. i do not think IRAQ in particular is the place for us to prove anything next, if, in fact, we accomplish anything with this afganistan cluster-fuck. that's about it.

i'm a cynical fuck too..i understand..

Arguing about political facts is soooooo usless.

Originally posted by pacman

all I want to say is look at how the gas prices have gone down.......

hell yea, the price of gas is down to around a dollar a gallon....for mid grade!

dam, oh well, i knew it must have been to good to be true...

well, at least to last for a while.

i just think its kinda sick that bush's wife is trying to be the feminist of the year. saying that they are liberating muslim women and that is bullshit. who are we to say what is sexist in another culture.

i wonder where we'd be if women in some of the muslim nations were allowed to enter politics.