• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL!!! SHOULD USA INVADE IRAQ????

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
etech - <<That's my way of saying that you are making an assumption that the US would attack unilaterally.>>

Let's take 'unilaterally' out of the equation. My question still stands.



etech - <<Gaard,
Yes, Iraq could have produced those weapons. Why is it so hard for them to release what they did with the materials that could have been used for making them? >>


I don't know. And neither do you. And neither does our president (IMO). That's the whole point.



PS- Me being a man of my word...Congratulations Dave!
 
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
 
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
OBVIOUSLY I did. Why are other countries sending and amassing troops and hardware "just in case"? Obviously one thing you're missing is something ELSE posted earlier, if Iraq has no WMD, please tell, where did the tons of chemical/biological weapons go which were scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98? They somehow failed to list them or mention them at all in their declaration. THAT is but one of the "discrepencies" Blix is referring to!

As far as wacky Qadhafi, whom referred to him as an "ally"? I simply pointed out that even another wacko whom not long ago was positioned with Saddam, now believe he is irrational, knows violations will be found, but stays for the same illogical reasons. Hell, almost all Iraqi experts and scientists agree it's only a matter of time before WMD's are found.

 
Originally posted by: EndGame
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
OBVIOUSLY I did. Why are other countries sending and amassing troops and hardware "just in case"? Obviously one thing you're missing is something ELSE posted earlier, if Iraq has no WMD, please tell, where did the tons of chemical/biological weapons go which were scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98? They somehow failed to list them or mention them at all in their declaration. THAT is but one of the "discrepencies" Blix is referring to!

As far as wacky Qadhafi, whom referred to him as an "ally"? I simply pointed out that even another wacko whom not long ago was positioned with Saddam, now believe he is irrational, knows violations will be found, but stays for the same illogical reasons. Hell, almost all Iraqi experts and scientists agree it's only a matter of time before WMD's are found.

And therein lies the problem. If they are found, we should go in with guns ablazin'. However, if none are found....?

 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: EndGame
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
OBVIOUSLY I did. Why are other countries sending and amassing troops and hardware "just in case"? Obviously one thing you're missing is something ELSE posted earlier, if Iraq has no WMD, please tell, where did the tons of chemical/biological weapons go which were scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98? They somehow failed to list them or mention them at all in their declaration. THAT is but one of the "discrepencies" Blix is referring to!

As far as wacky Qadhafi, whom referred to him as an "ally"? I simply pointed out that even another wacko whom not long ago was positioned with Saddam, now believe he is irrational, knows violations will be found, but stays for the same illogical reasons. Hell, almost all Iraqi experts and scientists agree it's only a matter of time before WMD's are found.

And therein lies the problem. If they are found, we should go in with guns ablazin'. However, if none are found....?

Exactly my point...
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: EndGame
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
OBVIOUSLY I did. Why are other countries sending and amassing troops and hardware "just in case"? Obviously one thing you're missing is something ELSE posted earlier, if Iraq has no WMD, please tell, where did the tons of chemical/biological weapons go which were scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98? They somehow failed to list them or mention them at all in their declaration. THAT is but one of the "discrepencies" Blix is referring to!

As far as wacky Qadhafi, whom referred to him as an "ally"? I simply pointed out that even another wacko whom not long ago was positioned with Saddam, now believe he is irrational, knows violations will be found, but stays for the same illogical reasons. Hell, almost all Iraqi experts and scientists agree it's only a matter of time before WMD's are found.

And therein lies the problem. If they are found, we should go in with guns ablazin'. However, if none are found....?
If none are found, then we have a real debacle! Why, as listed above, where did the tonnage which was amassed and set to be destroyed in 1998 go? If Saddam destroyed it, they would have gladly listed it as such in the declaration. I would also wager that given the extent of intelligence gathered by both Brittan and the US, some could definately be incorrect, but, not all and I believe that will become evident in the next few weeks.

The question really is not whether Saddam HAS WMD's, but, WHERE Saddam has the chemical/biological weapons hidden and if the inspectors can locate it.

 
Where is the "depends" choice? For humanitary reasons: NO, as well as for the presented "evidence" so far
 
Originally posted by: EndGame
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: EndGame
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: EndGame
So it seems that not even Blair is backing the US unless something more serious happens with the inspections...
Yep, nobody is backing us in amassing military personell and hardware around Iraq.
rolleye.gif


  • Huge aircraft carrier Ark Royal sails for Iraq
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Aircraft Carrier : Britain : Iraq
    Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal began sailing to Iraq on Saturday, in Britain's biggest fleet of naval ships for two decades.
    Region: Europe
    Read It At: CBBC Newsround

  • Australian warplanes head to Gulf
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Warplanes : Australia : Iraq
    A LARGE CONTINGENT of warplanes will leave Australia this week to join the huge arsenal ringing Iraq.
    Region: Asia-Pacific
    Read It At: Daily Telegraph

And even Qadhafi agrees Saddam is a loon!

  • Gadhafi: Saddam is not rational
    Date: 2003-01-11 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Muammar Qadhafi : Saddam Hussein : Iraq
    Saddam Hussein is not rational, he will remain in Iraq in the face of U.S. war preparations, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says.
    Region: Middle East
    Read It At: Highmark Funds (AP)

Obviously you didn't follow the discussion between me and Charrison, if you did, it would have been clear to you that we were talking about the US starting the war even if the UN resolution was not broken and which countries would back up the US if they did, obviously UK will not as they do not agree that the UN resolution has been broken yet...

Oh, you have Libya as an ally, you must be proud... and Gadhafis opinion matters? He's as big of a loon as Saddam... LOL
OBVIOUSLY I did. Why are other countries sending and amassing troops and hardware "just in case"? Obviously one thing you're missing is something ELSE posted earlier, if Iraq has no WMD, please tell, where did the tons of chemical/biological weapons go which were scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98? They somehow failed to list them or mention them at all in their declaration. THAT is but one of the "discrepencies" Blix is referring to!

As far as wacky Qadhafi, whom referred to him as an "ally"? I simply pointed out that even another wacko whom not long ago was positioned with Saddam, now believe he is irrational, knows violations will be found, but stays for the same illogical reasons. Hell, almost all Iraqi experts and scientists agree it's only a matter of time before WMD's are found.

And therein lies the problem. If they are found, we should go in with guns ablazin'. However, if none are found....?
If none are found, then we have a real debacle! Why, as listed above, where did the tonnage which was amassed and set to be destroyed in 1998 go? If Saddam destroyed it, they would have gladly listed it as such in the declaration. I would also wager that given the extent of intelligence gathered by both Brittan and the US, some could definately be incorrect, but, not all and I believe that will become evident in the next few weeks.

The question really is not whether Saddam HAS WMD's, but, WHERE Saddam has the chemical/biological weapons hidden and if the inspectors can locate it.

So if the inspectors find anything or not doesn't matter? If the US goes to war, even though the UN resolution has not been broken, what stops other countries from doing the same? Eventually such an action by the US will create a very dangerous situation...
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
SnapIT - <<And may i ask what the UN inspectors are even doing there if their work will not matter either way? >>

I asked this same question a while back when it became quite clear that we were going in no matter what they found. The Fry 'em! member(s) answered that they believed the inspectors were just giving the US time to amass it's troops. Once we're ready, we'll pull everyone out of Iraq and push the button.

Do you think iraq would be cooperating as well as they are without those troops massing. Right now it is just saber rattling.

Right now US is preparing to go to war, that is all that is happening... Reading what you have written before makes me surprised that you don't agree with that...

Yes we are getting ready, that does not mean it will happen. Some sort of conflict is likely.
There are 3 possible outcomes at this point in my mind:

1. The pressure being put on Iraq will cause a coup and the US will be around for the rebuilding.
No war, just occupation and rebuilding. War is averted.

2. The pressure causes iraq to completely surrender to arms inspections providing full documentation. All of his WMD's will be destroyed and he will be effectivly neutered politically. He will at this point cease to be a problem in the region. War is averted.

3. War is not averted and those troops that have been sent, will be used.

One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.

 
So if the inspectors find anything or not doesn't matter? If the US goes to war, even though the UN resolution has not been broken, what stops other countries from doing the same? Eventually such an action by the US will create a very dangerous situation...
You're making an awful lot of assumptions yourself now aren't you? HAS the US begun any military responses in Iraq over this? No. The most so far is some bombings over the NFZ which are a monthly occurance anyway, and to that you can add that the latest which was a bit more involved than most included 5 Brittish and 3 US aircraft according to A/P and other news sources. The US is amassing troops and hardware, as are other countries, let's wait and see before condeming anyone K/🙂
 
As it stands now, no. Show me PROOF that they have been selling chemical and biological weapons DIRECTLY to terrorist organizations or that they have the means to deliver one to US and I may be convinced otherwise.As for nuclear weapons, I don't believe a word of it.

In the Gulf War the U.S found storage vats for storing uranium... The only way you'll ever find proof is if you join the U.N weapons inspection team or see a massive mushroom cloud... Just because they wont deliver it to the U.S doesnt mean we should sit back and relax. We have our own allies in the Middle East and Europe.

Besides, why do we need to send OUR troops into a distant foreign nation that does not pose a threat to us?

We don't know if they do or dont... If the weapon inspectors find nothing, then thats good. If they do thats bad...

I've got nothing against saber rattling, but when you send troops off to die for a personal vendetta, I DO have a problem with that.

You honestly think the president just tells the Military to attack Iraq for his personall vendetta? You really think the U.S goverment is that frail?

Did it ever occur to you that the US makes the largest weapons of mass destruction in the world?
The US are using "World Police" excuse to colonize other countries.

So are you saying we should have left the taliban in Afganistan and let the populas in fear of being excuted publicy? Are you saying we should leave Somila entirely and lets 100's of innocent people starve and be killed each day? The U.S only WMDs are nuclear warheads produced to protect if absolutely neccisarry. We don't have any biological/chemical weapons programs, only programs to produce vaccines/medications incase of a chemical/biological attack.

Is this the Iraq that doesn't like terrorists in its land? Most of the Arab countries support terrorists, Iraq doesn't. Quite a few Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc) don't LIKE Irqa (Gulf War and stuff). If you are worrying about terrorists, that has nothing to do with Iraq, if you're worried about Saddam, then that's what should influence your decision on an attack on Iraq. Most of the other Arab countries wouldn't want Iraq having nuclear weapons, one reason why they are allowing the US to use their land for military bases, it's these countries who support terrorists.

You really belive what the Iraq news channels say? Even though they are controlled by the goverment?
Saddamn does support suicide bombings, which in my book is terrorism.

We have more problems in North Korea right now, and WE KNOW they have nuclear weapons, BUT they don't have oil

Incase you haven't noticed, North Korea doesn't have a insane dictator like Saddam Hussian. He might be somewhat crazy. North Korea, only has 1 or 2 Nuclear Weapons while Saddamn if he has any we don't honestly know.

Should the US/UK continue to spend Billions every year protecting the region from the mad man?
Are you saying we should let him slaughter his own rebelled people in South and North of his country?

Even if they did have WMD, I still don't think it give the US the right to act alone against Iraq. This has zip to do with WMD anyway.
Yea, its all about the about oil, we are just going to leave that several million gallon in ANWAR and not buy and from Russia anymore....Not to mention we should let Saddamn have WMDs.

One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.
Haven't you ever heard of Russia having oil wells? Oh, guess not...

My response for the poll is...


MAYBE!
 
Originally posted by: EndGame
So if the inspectors find anything or not doesn't matter? If the US goes to war, even though the UN resolution has not been broken, what stops other countries from doing the same? Eventually such an action by the US will create a very dangerous situation...
You're making an awful lot of assumptions yourself now aren't you? HAS the US begun any military responses in Iraq over this? No. The most so far is some bombings over the NFZ which are a monthly occurance anyway, and to that you can add that the latest which was a bit more involved than most included 5 Brittish and 3 US aircraft according to A/P and other news sources. The US is amassing troops and hardware, as are other countries, let's wait and see before condeming anyone K/🙂

Maybe that is why i wrote IF...
 
One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.
Really? Seems you convieniently left out the part of Powell's speech concerning Iraqi oil wells that stated the wells would be run and maintained by UN forces and this would only be an expanded "oil for food" program until a secure Iraqi Governement is installed throught the combined effort of the UN and all coalition menbers involved.😉
 
Originally posted by: EndGame
One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.
Really? Seems you convieniently left out the part of Powell's speech concerning Iraqi oil wells that stated the wells would be run and maintained by UN forces and this would only be an expanded "oil for food" program until a secure Iraqi Governement is installed throught the combined effort of the UN and all coalition menbers involved.😉

Damn, I missed that! Well, guess I was wrong then, my apologies. 😀😉
 
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
SnapIT - <<And may i ask what the UN inspectors are even doing there if their work will not matter either way? >>

I asked this same question a while back when it became quite clear that we were going in no matter what they found. The Fry 'em! member(s) answered that they believed the inspectors were just giving the US time to amass it's troops. Once we're ready, we'll pull everyone out of Iraq and push the button.

Do you think iraq would be cooperating as well as they are without those troops massing. Right now it is just saber rattling.

Right now US is preparing to go to war, that is all that is happening... Reading what you have written before makes me surprised that you don't agree with that...

Yes we are getting ready, that does not mean it will happen. Some sort of conflict is likely.
There are 3 possible outcomes at this point in my mind:

1. The pressure being put on Iraq will cause a coup and the US will be around for the rebuilding.
No war, just occupation and rebuilding. War is averted.

2. The pressure causes iraq to completely surrender to arms inspections providing full documentation. All of his WMD's will be destroyed and he will be effectivly neutered politically. He will at this point cease to be a problem in the region. War is averted.

3. War is not averted and those troops that have been sent, will be used.

One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.


Other than this is not going to happen. Look for the russians and french to get a big chunk of iraq oil. Granted I have little doubt part of the oil sales will go to pay for part of the war and reconstruction. I am sure the Iraqi people wont mind that small cost of being freed from this dictator.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
SnapIT - <<And may i ask what the UN inspectors are even doing there if their work will not matter either way? >>

I asked this same question a while back when it became quite clear that we were going in no matter what they found. The Fry 'em! member(s) answered that they believed the inspectors were just giving the US time to amass it's troops. Once we're ready, we'll pull everyone out of Iraq and push the button.

Do you think iraq would be cooperating as well as they are without those troops massing. Right now it is just saber rattling.

Right now US is preparing to go to war, that is all that is happening... Reading what you have written before makes me surprised that you don't agree with that...

Yes we are getting ready, that does not mean it will happen. Some sort of conflict is likely.
There are 3 possible outcomes at this point in my mind:

1. The pressure being put on Iraq will cause a coup and the US will be around for the rebuilding.
No war, just occupation and rebuilding. War is averted.

2. The pressure causes iraq to completely surrender to arms inspections providing full documentation. All of his WMD's will be destroyed and he will be effectivly neutered politically. He will at this point cease to be a problem in the region. War is averted.

3. War is not averted and those troops that have been sent, will be used.

One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.


Other than this is not going to happen. Look for the russians and french to get a big chunk of iraq oil.

Of course...they're not above taking a payoff. 'America's' friends will be well rewarded, always said that.

Granted I have little doubt part of the oil sales will go to pay for part of the war and reconstruction.

Like in Afghanistan? LOL.

I am sure the Iraqi people wont mind that small cost of being freed from this dictator.

I'm sure you can drum up a few people to wave the US flag as you're troops drive through Baghdad. You're invasion is going to be a huge recruiting poster for al Qu'ida and other freedo....I mean...terrorists.

I'm sitting here watching Mars Attacks!" and rooting for the Martians....they're great! 😉

 
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
SnapIT - <<And may i ask what the UN inspectors are even doing there if their work will not matter either way? >>

I asked this same question a while back when it became quite clear that we were going in no matter what they found. The Fry 'em! member(s) answered that they believed the inspectors were just giving the US time to amass it's troops. Once we're ready, we'll pull everyone out of Iraq and push the button.

Do you think iraq would be cooperating as well as they are without those troops massing. Right now it is just saber rattling.

Right now US is preparing to go to war, that is all that is happening... Reading what you have written before makes me surprised that you don't agree with that...

Yes we are getting ready, that does not mean it will happen. Some sort of conflict is likely.
There are 3 possible outcomes at this point in my mind:

1. The pressure being put on Iraq will cause a coup and the US will be around for the rebuilding.
No war, just occupation and rebuilding. War is averted.

2. The pressure causes iraq to completely surrender to arms inspections providing full documentation. All of his WMD's will be destroyed and he will be effectivly neutered politically. He will at this point cease to be a problem in the region. War is averted.

3. War is not averted and those troops that have been sent, will be used.

One outcome...the Police States of America occupies Iraq and controls the oil market (with all that entails) well into the future.


Other than this is not going to happen. Look for the russians and french to get a big chunk of iraq oil.

Of course...they're not above taking a payoff. 'America's' friends will be well rewarded, always said that.
Actually the russians have a very large deal with iraqi oil right now. They do not want to be shut out of it.
If they do get shutout, they will cast a descending vote at the UN. The Russians rightfully deserve a cut after it is over, the french just want a cut.




Granted I have little doubt part of the oil sales will go to pay for part of the war and reconstruction.

Like in Afghanistan? LOL.


There is no oil in afganistan and the pipeline deal that was finalized in decemeber had zero US companies involved. So,
rolleye.gif
.


I am sure the Iraqi people wont mind that small cost of being freed from this dictator.

I'm sure you can drum up a few people to wave the US flag as you're troops drive through Baghdad. You're invasion is going to be a huge recruiting poster for al Qu'ida and other freedo....I mean...terrorists.

I'm sitting here watching Mars Attacks!" and rooting for the Martians....they're great! 😉

And in my opinion it will be a first step to bringing peace the middle east, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree there.

 
First of all, those of you that have said that if you were drafted you wouldn't fight need to suck a big one. No matter if I was oppesed to the war or not, if my country calls on me to serve, I will. I see it as an obligation to my country to do so. And yes, I am of draft age.

Second, I personally support this war. Let me outline my reasonings.
1. As part of the cease-fire agreement, Iraq agreed to disarm. It's been more than 10 years, and here we are, still fighing through all the BS to get them to do so.
2. Some may argue that maybe he has disarmed. We are not the ones who need to show this. The burden of proof is on them. Thus far, they are letting inspectors in the country, but are not showing us anything, instead telling us to look for it ourselves. This does not seem like somebody that has done their part.
3. There was talk by one poster of how Johnson stated that Vietnam fired on our planes to get the country involved over there. Well yes, that is true. In Iraq however, I've seen the video of SAM sites firing on our planes repeatidly. Thus we have to do one of two things. Withdraw all troops from the region, thus allowing Saddam to do whatever he pleases or take him out. It is not an option of using the military over there. We already are. We have to almost every day bomb some site firing upon our planes. So thus it is either an option of stepping up our military involvement or withdrawing completely.
4. The arguement of this being used as a distraction by Bush to take away from the sluggish economy, is weak at best. Bush stated from the beginning that something needed to be done about Iraq. Couple that with the fact that Bush has been on the forfront of news lately talking about the economy, proposing tax cuts, etc. (Not saying I approve of his policy, just stating that he has done it) This is not the actions of a man trying to put the economy on the back burner. Bush also knows from his father's experience that war cannot distract voters from how the economy back home is doing.

I've got more, but I getting tired of typing already. I can see both viewpoints on this subject but for me the choice is to invade. It's prety funny that just over two years ago, I thought Bush was a horrible choice for President and here I am supporting him.
 
Originally posted by: uibd
First of all, those of you that have said that if you were drafted you wouldn't fight need to suck a big one. No matter if I was oppesed to the war or not, if my country calls on me to serve, I will. I see it as an obligation to my country to do so. And yes, I am of draft age.

Second, I personally support this war. Let me outline my reasonings.
1. As part of the cease-fire agreement, Iraq agreed to disarm. It's been more than 10 years, and here we are, still fighing through all the BS to get them to do so.
2. Some may argue that maybe he has disarmed. We are not the ones who need to show this. The burden of proof is on them. Thus far, they are letting inspectors in the country, but are not showing us anything, instead telling us to look for it ourselves. This does not seem like somebody that has done their part.
3. There was talk by one poster of how Johnson stated that Vietnam fired on our planes to get the country involved over there. Well yes, that is true. In Iraq however, I've seen the video of SAM sites firing on our planes repeatidly. Thus we have to do one of two things. Withdraw all troops from the region, thus allowing Saddam to do whatever he pleases or take him out. It is not an option of using the military over there. We already are. We have to almost every day bomb some site firing upon our planes. So thus it is either an option of stepping up our military involvement or withdrawing completely.
4. The arguement of this being used as a distraction by Bush to take away from the sluggish economy, is weak at best. Bush stated from the beginning that something needed to be done about Iraq. Couple that with the fact that Bush has been on the forfront of news lately talking about the economy, proposing tax cuts, etc. (Not saying I approve of his policy, just stating that he has done it) This is not the actions of a man trying to put the economy on the back burner. Bush also knows from his father's experience that war cannot distract voters from how the economy back home is doing.

I've got more, but I getting tired of typing already. I can see both viewpoints on this subject but for me the choice is to invade. It's prety funny that just over two years ago, I thought Bush was a horrible choice for President and here I am supporting him.

Hey man, didn't u get the email? 😉
 
First of all, those of you that have said that if you were drafted you wouldn't fight need to suck a big one. No matter if I was oppesed to the war or not, if my country calls on me to serve, I will. I see it as an obligation to my country to do so. And yes, I am of draft age.

Well if you're just fighting for the sake of fighting, you are no different than Taliban who are simply fighting for their 'country'. Although I'm a proponant of the United States, that doesn't mean that everything the US does is moral or justified.


On a slight side note. I'm 19, gonna be 20 tomorrow... and although I can vote, tried in the courts as an adult, and even give my life for this country, I'm not allowed to drink alcohol. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

1. As part of the cease-fire agreement, Iraq agreed to disarm. It's been more than 10 years, and here we are, still fighing through all the BS to get them to do so.

Have they found WMD? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no.

2. Some may argue that maybe he has disarmed. We are not the ones who need to show this. The burden of proof is on them. Thus far, they are letting inspectors in the country, but are not showing us anything, instead telling us to look for it ourselves. This does not seem like somebody that has done their part.

No, the burden of proof is on us. WE have to prove that they have WDM. As of now, nothing leads us to that conclusion. Morevoer, they have been there for 5 weeks, visited more than 230 sites and have yet to gather a shred of evidence.

3. There was talk by one poster of how Johnson stated that Vietnam fired on our planes to get the country involved over there. Well yes, that is true. In Iraq however, I've seen the video of SAM sites firing on our planes repeatidly. Thus we have to do one of two things. Withdraw all troops from the region, thus allowing Saddam to do whatever he pleases or take him out. It is not an option of using the military over there. We already are. We have to almost every day bomb some site firing upon our planes. So thus it is either an option of stepping up our military involvement or withdrawing completely.

The post about Johnson was by me. The fact is that whenever Iraq has tried to extend the borders of the no fly zone where the USA planes patrol, we have taken them out by strategic missile attacks on those facilities. That is not a war, it has been going on for years. Moreover, yes, they have shot at our planes but that's b/c OUR planes are in THEIR no fly zone.

4. The arguement of this being used as a distraction by Bush to take away from the sluggish economy, is weak at best. Bush stated from the beginning that something needed to be done about Iraq. Couple that with the fact that Bush has been on the forfront of news lately talking about the economy, proposing tax cuts, etc. (Not saying I approve of his policy, just stating that he has done it) This is not the actions of a man trying to put the economy on the back burner. Bush also knows from his father's experience that war cannot distract voters from how the economy back home is doing.

Your last point does not tell us why you are a proponant of attacking Iraq, it's an observation at best.
 
Well if you're just fighting for the sake of fighting, you are no different than Taliban who are simply fighting for their 'country'. Although I'm a proponant of the United States, that doesn't mean that everything the US does is moral or justified.


On a slight side note. I'm 19, gonna be 20 tomorrow... and although I can vote, tried in the courts as an adult, and even give my life for this country, I'm not allowed to drink alcohol. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

You can drink on base.
 
Question: If I asked you two years ago whether Afghanistan (or Al Qaeda / Taliban / etc) posed a threat to us, would you have honestly answered in the affirmative? Would you after they killed 3000 people?

I felt pretty threatened when two skyscrapers fell over a block away from me...

Originally posted by: nick1985
Besides, why do we need to send OUR troops into a distant foreign nation that does not pose a threat to us?

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Well if you're just fighting for the sake of fighting, you are no different than Taliban who are simply fighting for their 'country'. Although I'm a proponant of the United States, that doesn't mean that everything the US does is moral or justified.


On a slight side note. I'm 19, gonna be 20 tomorrow... and although I can vote, tried in the courts as an adult, and even give my life for this country, I'm not allowed to drink alcohol. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

You can drink on base.

Not everywhere. All the bases I've been stationed at use the local laws to regulate on-base drinking. The only exception to that was San Diego where they wanted the Sailor to stay on base rather than go to Tijuana.

 
Back
Top