We're at war

Oh yes, I totally agree with you that there should come some sort of mandate in which is described what is going to happen to iraq after allied forces leave it.

And about sadam, sure! Everyone knows he's a ****ing asshole, but I still think there would have been other solutions to disarm him and to take his power away from him.

And yes, he has killed alot of people and that should come to a stop, but I don't think the right way is to kill even more people with bombings.

And of course he's a risk, but I personally believe, that he isn't the biggest risk at the moment. I think terrorist are a bigger risk, and the billions of dollars that this war is going to cost, should perhaps be used to help get rid of those people.

And do any of you guys believe Sadam has lot's of chemical weapons? I don't... and for the simple reason that all those soldiers, british and american soldiers, are sleeping in little tents. Who would put 150,000 men in tents without any protection at all? Perhaps he has chemical weapons, but not the big amounts that we are made to believe...

im SO much with NL on this one..

killing Saddam and the look-alikes wont hell ****, other than pissing the Iraqy people off even more than before..

Even thought nobodys admitting it, the real reason is the benefit.. The oil.. It might not be the only reason, but it sure as hell is one of em!

My two cents :P

actually our troops are equipped with chem suits. they were tested last week and a solidier wearing a suit was able to walk thru a test area containing exactly the weapons we think saddam may have and came out unblemished. does he have them? hard to say for sure, but considering he's already shot at us with one weapon he's not supposed to have...i'm betting he does.

zvansen, WHAT benefit exactly are we going to gain? i asked that in my last post, its not like we're just going to take anything.

chris

well, as i said the oil is one reason.. even though they won't admit it, they ARE gonna benefit of the oil.. one way or the other..

And im betting Bush is just pissed of at Saddam because he tried to kill his father once.. Of course i cant say exactly why, even Bush cant do that, im just saying whats on my mind..

im not on any side.. i think theyre both wrong..

hmm ok, but I still wonder if all the soldiers have a suit like that.
Anyway, about the benefits:

• strong position in europe
  
• oil
  
• less concern about the national politics
  
• bush will have the respect of the american people and perhaps will be re-elected
  
• oil
  
• contracts for rebuilding Iraq
  
• oil again
  

ok, i'm going to ask again...

WHAT benefit are we going to gain from the oil? are we just going to take it? HOW are we benefiting from the oil?

rebuilding iraq will most likely be done by the UN, so we won't be the only ones benefiting from it, just fyi. i'd actually say if anything its hurt our position in europe, we've got some relations with germany, france, and russia to rebuild...

chris

By Peter Freundlich as heard on NPR's All Things Considered (3/13/03)

*********************************************************

All right--let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly.

We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to
Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

We are going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.

The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously,
and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by
gum, we will.

Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend.

Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the
democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that,
too, because democracy as we define it is too important to be stopped by
a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot
afford dissension among ourselves; we must speak with one voice against
Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.

We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point
that might does not make right (as Saddam Hussein seems to think it
does) and we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to
let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.

We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people; and if
our people (and people elsewhere in the world) fail to understand that,
then we have no choice but to ignore them.

Listen, don't misunderstand, I think it is a good thing that the members
of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I
only wish someone had pointed out that Alice in Wonderland and Through
the Looking-Glass are meditations on paradox and puzzle, and illogic,
and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It
is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like "we must make war on
him because he is a threat to peace" but not amusing for someone who
actually commands an army to say that.

As a collector of laughable arguements, I'd be enjoying all this were it
not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be
lost in what amounts to a freak circular reasoning accident.

We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

We are going to ignore Saddam Hussein in order to make clear to him that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

feel free to continue to substitute words in the rest of the article and it works just fine. and this guy is complaining about circular logic?

NPR is known for being traditionally very liberally slanted fyi, if you're looking for an unbiased opinion i'd look elsewhere.

chris

lol @ spectra

Though I think it can't be seen that black and white, there is more to it.

@ fig, the benefits of oil? Cash. Large reserve. etc.
And sure the UN will be involved in rebuilding Iraq, with the help of foreign countries.

And of course the relations between those countries are damaged, but when america has control of Iraq they will have to deal with america, right? Just like you said, France has quite some interest in the Iraqi oil. They can't get passed America then.

hey I am mad with the french - well - not all the french - just their president and whoever else may be in it...
Tell you why....
I'm Romanian right - so Romania agreed to let american forces use two of our military bases and granted them free passage through our country....
Now Romania is up for election in the European Union. The French have a big say whether Romania gets to join the the union or not. So guess what that fornicator Chirac does - he threatens Romania that if we let americans use our military facilities we'll never get elected ..... Now I can undestand that they have a veto right and they can use it to hell for all I care - but do they expect to be phucked if they do ? NO!
Well then why do they try to phuck others for using their rights? That is low!!!! .... I mean we have a right to decide who gets free passage through OUR country right? The french were trying to take advantage of a stronger position to get us to do what they want. That is exactly what they are blaming the americans of doing. HA!
we told them to go smell some stinky french cheese:D and we let the american soldiers use the bases....