To the Anti War crowd

[jegs2]

I thought Saddam and oil meant nothing to the US since they didn't get any major percentage of oil from them if any. Why not strike a deal anywa like France and Germany and Russia?

If the driving interest for the US was oil, they would cut such a deal (not to mention that drilling in that "protected" reserve in Alaska would likely eliminate any US need for Mid-East oil). But since the interest of the US is regional stability, which yes, leads to oil prices in the entire region becoming stable, that is why the US is uninterested in cutting any deal with Saddam. Now to be fair, Saddam is playing the UN and the entire world like a fiddle, and he has most of you dancing to his tune.

[Mr Bean]

It would force the government to stop appeasing the oil companies, and force them to massively invest in alternative fuel sources, such as Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Hydroelectricity, etc...

All in all, it would not just be good for the economy, but good for the environment.

Acutal no it won't, Middle Eastern Oil for the large part is handled by Frence and Britist Companys, Exxon is the only American player to hold any sort of major holdings over there, We buy our oil from lots of diffrent places, I'm point out that with anything greater than a 4% Drop, Our Economey would be sent to a screetching hault, The Number of Oil Driven Power plants in America is quite extesnive meaning whole sections of the Country could be without Power for years....


Its a big fucking bad thing in other words

[Frank Hipper]

I'm not convinced that the motivations behind a war on Iraq as stated are what's actually going on.
If Saddam is ousted, what excuse will we have to keep an overpowering military presence in the area? The way things stand, he is actually more useful to us than people are willing to admit.
Why, in '91, was Schwarzkopf told to stop the advance, the uprisings in Iraq were given no support and were annihilated because of it, and a treaty keeping Saddam in power was signed to the shock and consternation of all?
If this thing comes to war, and Saddam is taken out because of it, I will be shocked shitless. Saddam's our favorite bogey-man, we need him.

[Ted]

Acutal no it won't, Middle Eastern Oil for the large part is handled by Frence and Britist Companys, Exxon is the only American player to hold any sort of major holdings over there, We buy our oil from lots of diffrent places, I'm point out that with anything greater than a 4% Drop, Our Economey would be sent to a screetching hault, The Number of Oil Driven Power plants in America is quite extesnive meaning whole sections of the Country could be without Power for years....

Its a big fucking bad thing in other words

It would be bad for the first little while, but in the end, it would greatly benefit the world.

The Kyoto Protocol would be met, just through the fact that major plants shut down sue to lack of power.

But the lack of oil would force the government to invest heavily into alternative fuel sources, which is what they will have to do anyways.

The OPEC oil crisis in the long run did more good than harm.
It forced car companies to make more fuel efficent cars, and spurned the development of alternative fuel sources.

[jegs2]

I'm not convinced that the motivations behind a war on Iraq as stated are what's actually going on.
If Saddam is ousted, what excuse will we have to keep an overpowering military presence in the area? The way things stand, he is actually more useful to us than people are willing to admit.
Why, in '91, was Schwarzkopf told to stop the advance, the uprisings in Iraq were given no support and were annihilated because of it, and a treaty keeping Saddam in power was signed to the shock and consternation of all?
If this thing comes to war, and Saddam is taken out because of it, I will be shocked shitless. Saddam's our favorite bogey-man, we need him.

I think he has become unreliable. We never allied with Saddam, but we did send arms to fight a larger bogeyman of the time, Iran. As the old saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." He represented something that could hurt that which we hated at the time. All alliances are temporary. We were allied with the Soviet Union in WW2, because we were at war with their enemy and ours, Nazi Germany. As we all know, that alliance was only so good until our greater enemy of the time was vanquished, then commensed the long and costly Cold War against our former ally.

[theski]

Ted, Lets stay as far away from the Koyto Agreement as possible.. That is a flame war just wating to happen.

[Frank Hipper]

Uhm, I wasn't talking about the 80s.

[jegs2]

Uhm, I wasn't talking about the 80s.

Roger, understand, but realize that all events in Iraq stem from that time, when many allege we were staunch allies with Saddam.

[Mr Bean]

Ted, What happens when people loose eletrical power for six hours? Incovenience, mild panic,

What happen's when they loose it for six days? Rioting, Looting, generaly lots of bad things


What do you think would happen if 30% of the US population was plunged into Darkness, No Heat, No Refigeration, No AC, No Cars, No Computers

The Internet would be smashed for one thing

Pretty much a giant mess, Not fatel unless everyone decides to kill each other off but a BIG FUCKING MESS

[Next of Kin]

Now to be fair, Saddam is playing the UN and the entire world like a fiddle, and he has most of you dancing to his tune.

When Saddam is ousted from Iraq, which nation will be next to be tarred and feathered as unstable? What's to stop the U.S. from setting up puppet regimes in Iran, Algeria, Sudan, etc. so that those nations fall in line?

[jegs2]

Now to be fair, Saddam is playing the UN and the entire world like a fiddle, and he has most of you dancing to his tune.

When Saddam is ousted from Iraq, which nation will be next to be tarred and feathered as unstable? What's to stop the U.S. from setting up puppet regimes in Iran, Algeria, Sudan, etc. so that those nations fall in line?

That's actually pretty easy to answer -- North Korea is making an ass of itself right now. Doing something about it is another matter entirely, since they have a large military on their own, any conflict would trigger the annihilation of Seoul, and China (while their no longer best buds with the Imnun Gun) likely wouldn't remain idle if the US attacked North Korea without North Korea first attacking to the South. There are those who do advocate the destruction of the dictatorships you mentioned in the Middle East IOT replace them with governments more friendly to the interests of the US, but I don't foresee it. If we can pull off in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan, Iraq could well become the first (Arab) stable democratic-republic in the Middle East. It would take the complete annihilation of the Iraqi infrastructure and system of government, as we did in Japan -- half-measures are no longer acceptable in war, and in my opinion they never have been...

[Alyeska]

I thought Saddam and oil meant nothing to the US since they didn't get any major percentage of oil from them if any. Why not strike a deal anywa like France and Germany and Russia?

If the driving interest for the US was oil, they would cut such a deal (not to mention that drilling in that "protected" reserve in Alaska would likely eliminate any US need for Mid-East oil). But since the interest of the US is regional stability, which yes, leads to oil prices in the entire region becoming stable, that is why the US is uninterested in cutting any deal with Saddam. Now to be fair, Saddam is playing the UN and the entire world like a fiddle, and he has most of you dancing to his tune.

ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is smaller then Saudi Arabia in terms of oil capacity. And your saying that if we drill in ANWR we won't need ANY oil from the mid east? I suggest you do a little more research on the subject.

[jegs2]

ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is smaller then Saudi Arabia in terms of oil capacity. And your saying that if we drill in ANWR we won't need ANY oil from the mid east? I suggest you do a little more research on the subject.

It may significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and any reduction on dependence from the Middle East is a good thing), and the environmentalists won't let folks who want the oil near that place, so how are we to know how much oil is really there -- because some environmentalists tell us so?

[Spyder]

Umm...not go war?

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Fuck you, it's as valid an answer as any. I don't know how it works where you come from but our reality is more then a binary decision tree.

[jegs2]

Umm...not go war?

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Fuck you, it's as valid an answer as any. I don't know how it works where you come from but our reality is more then a binary decision tree.

It means make a stand FOR SOMETHING instead of blithly saying, "I'm aginst it." Any eight-year-old can say, "I'm against war!", but unless he recommends a viable alternative, it is nothing more than USELESS RHETORIC (key word there is "useless"). Several members here posted what they believed to be alternatives. You didn't.

[Spyder]

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Fuck you, it's as valid an answer as any. I don't know how it works where you come from but our reality is more then a binary decision tree.

It means make a stand FOR SOMETHING instead of blithly saying, "I'm aginst it." Any eight-year-old can say, "I'm against war!", but unless he recommends a viable alternative, it is nothing more than USELESS RHETORIC (key word there is "useless"). Several members here posted what they believed to be alternatives. You didn't.

Ok, I've obviously been using words that have too many syllables for you to follow.

war not needed

[jegs2]

Ok, I've obviously been using words that have too many syllables for you to follow.

war not needed

Okay, simple for you too:

Post viable (that means that it will work) alternative (that means another way of achieving a desired objective ---> objective means someting we want to accomplish) to an invasion.

[Alyeska]

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Fuck you, it's as valid an answer as any. I don't know how it works where you come from but our reality is more then a binary decision tree.

It means make a stand FOR SOMETHING instead of blithly saying, "I'm aginst it." Any eight-year-old can say, "I'm against war!", but unless he recommends a viable alternative, it is nothing more than USELESS RHETORIC (key word there is "useless"). Several members here posted what they believed to be alternatives. You didn't.

You speak as if Iraq is a problem that must be fixed and you claim war is the only choice. We are stating Iraq is not a problem thus there is no point in war. Hell, Iraq could have Nukes, Chemicals, and Antrhax and I still don't think we should attack. Iraq has to directly threaten outside its own border. Sadam likes where he is. After his little mistake with Kuwait he understands that there are lines that can not be crossed. There is no point attackign Iraq.

Hell, I think North Korea is a bigger threat. Kim is rattling his sabre and it is frightening Soth Korea enough that the South would rather give concessions to the North then allow the US to deal with Kim. Send our forces to Korea and remove Kim before we deal with a little pissant dictator like Sadam.

[Ted]

The USA cannot attack Iraq without the UN's approval, otherwise they would be no different than Iraq invading Kuwait in '91.

Iraq is a UN member, the USA is a UN member, the UN Charter states that no nation may threaten or use force against any other member nation.
Only the UN can threaten or use force against a member nation.

[Spyder]

Ok, I've obviously been using words that have too many syllables for you to follow.

war not needed

Okay, simple for you too:

Post viable (that means that it will work) alternative (that means another way of achieving a desired objective ---> objective means someting we want to accomplish) to an invasion.

Modify your objectives.

[Axis Kast]

The USA cannot attack Iraq without the UN's approval, otherwise they would be no different than Iraq invading Kuwait in '91.

So? Who’s going to stop us? It’s that simple. Not that we really need a “legitimizing acknowledgement” from the United Nations considering that our security is at stake and not their own.

Iraq is a UN member, the USA is a UN member, the UN Charter states that no nation may threaten or use force against any other member nation.
Only the UN can threaten or use force against a member nation.

So Kosovo – retroactively approved – damns all participants.

And remember that the world is hardly a place in which rules are followed. This idealistic bullshit. But if you want to get technical, Iraq does threaten the United States and is therefore in violation of the very codes by which you wish to see it vindicated.

When Saddam is ousted from Iraq, which nation will be next to be tarred and feathered as unstable? What's to stop the U.S. from setting up puppet regimes in Iran, Algeria, Sudan, etc. so that those nations fall in line?

After Hussein, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan are next in line – though none of them will be approached in any sort of militaristic fashion. The first will fall to revolution on its own within the decade and is therefore not to be trifled with out of concern that doing so would not endear us to the new government. The second is to be contained via a series of subtle negotiations by which we prop up their ailing economy for information but do nothing to halt the obvious regression that will hopefully become the bane of the Syrian Ba’ath Party. North Korea is best handled, as Jegs2 suggested, via “silent containment” for the time being – constant observation, support for Japanese defense against missile attack, and subtle intimation that any threat of violence isn’t going to work. This in tune with a coordinated multilateral discussion – not a propaganda coup for Kim in the form of worthless and ultimately costly engagement on a bilateral level that can end only in a false silence without true security. Pakistan? Well, they’re best handled from the inside via cooperation with Musharrif.

Algeria and Tunisia? Unlikely we’ll do more than nod and throw some dollars the way of whatever party we most like. We do that anyway. Sudan? We won’t touch that sort of tribal warfare with a ten foot pole. Even Afghanistan was too close to Somalia to suit our tastes and the Sudan makes that look like a cake walk. No, after Iraq, military preemption will be shunted to the back burner for quite a while. Not that it won’t have produced fruits in the form of a new government in the Middle East conducive to democratic practice and far less a threat to the free world – and especially the United States, Israel, and Turkey.

[Stuart Mackey]

Umm...not go war?

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Screw you jegs, who gave you the fucking right to dictate who can say what and when?

[0.1]

I put this up on the other thread, but basically it's an answer for why the U.S. shouldn't go to war. It's based on logic, resources, and fundamental want of profit. So here it is again:

The anti-war group actually has a really good point. Not well pronounced, but consider the calculus from the following presepctive:

The world is limited in terms of resources.
The consumers for those resources are increasing.

The war expends resources needlessly. In fact, nothing works better than lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq, make it clear to him that America's interest is in the oil and make a deal. I'm sure he'd be happy to have support from a super power. As long as the U.S. make a deal that ensures dominance of U.S. corporation (a nod to Wong's favorite line) and make sure Israel continues to exist. What difference does it make if he kills some people. After all, who are we to judge him.

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens. The U.S. is under no obligation to feed the NKs, if they need food, their neighbors could surely provide it. It would remove the expense of having troops stationed there, and with luck lower my tax dollars.

I admit, this is a change from my previous position on the subject of war, but from a pure resources point of view. It would work for the best, America doesn't need to spend resources. If a few wars break out, the second part of the equation (the consumers of resources) above gets reduced, and that's not a bad thing for Americans.

Bottom line, it is still a statistical improbability that your ordinary American would ever get gassed by a terrorist from the Middle East. At least it's far less likely that getting run over by a car. So, the anti-war guys have it right, although they haven't clarified that position exactly. (Note, i haven't read through this entire thread yet as I put this up)

[jegs2]

Screw you jegs, who gave you the fucking right to dictate who can say what and when?

Do you not get tired of people saying they are against something without offering a feasible alternative for that which they say they are against? If you do not, then it speaks volumes, for you obviously do not care to be part of the solution, but rather the problem. In your way of thinking, all problems would be solved by simply opposing recommended courses of action. For example, I can say, "I oppose poverty!", yet if I make no suggestions for a solution to poverty, how is that statement of any value other than blowing hot air up someone's fourth point of contact? Why is it so difficult for you people to understand that complaining about something without offering viable alternatives is absolutely worthless? If you oppose an invasion of Iraq, fine! Recommend a feasible alternative course of action that will meet the same or similar objective.

[jegs2]

Modify your objectives.

What is your proposal for the modification of the objective? As it now stands, Saddam must be removed from power. If that is not to remain the objective, what is your recommendation for a new objective (you are looking from a US viewpoint here)? Would you leave Saddam in power indefinitely, trusting that he has revealed any stockpile of illegal weapons? If so, upon what would you base that trust -- that the inspectors (who can be in only one place at one time) have uncovered all pertinent evidence?

Or should Saddam be removed from power in another manner not involving overt warfare -- perhaps a massive subversive campaign involving the black-ops community and a shadow government? Could such a plan work? Has it already been attempted?