US - Iraq: what do you think? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-10-2003, 04:26 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
U2girl,

I agree that North Korea is going to try and build more Nuclear Weapons and that the explusion of the UN inspectors there is a problem. But the difference between Iraq and North Korea is not what they have done on their own soil or the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, BUT what they have done or how they have behaved when it comes to their foreign Policy. North Korea has not invaded or attacked anyone in 50 years while Iraq under Saddam has attacked and invaded 4 countries! Thats a massive difference in behavior.

Another point are the risk involved in any military invasion that are not involved in an invasion of Iraq. The risk of massive loss of life in Seoul South Korea which is close to the border with North Korea is a huge problem. Plus North Korea has Nuclear Weapons, Iraq does not. Iraq has Biological and Chemical weapons, but not Nuclear Weapons. The USA and allies do have the ability to defend against the effects of Chemical and Biological weapons given certain circumstances. There is no real defense against the effects of a detonation of a nuclear weapon.

The fact that North Korea's possession of Nuclear Weapons presents the USA with a number of problems when considering a military invasion of North Korea, proves that the need to prevent Iraq from having that capability is a must.

The Destruction of Chemical or Bio weapons will leave behind all kinds of evidence. All that metal that would inclose such weapons just does not disappear. There would be tons of metal left over from the destruction of many of these weapons, which would still have traces of the chemicals or other substances on them.

Oil prices do rise and fall from time to time, and oil prices may rise if the feeling is that a certain level of supply from the middle east will be temporarily cut off do to the conflict. After the conflict is successfully resolved, the price of oil will fall and with Iraqi Oil widely available in a way it has not been since Saddam invaded Kuwait, this will cause oil to fall to some of its lowest prices in decades. There was a similar spike in oil prices with the first Gulf War, but then most of the 1990s saw very low oil prices fueling the massive economic expansion of the 1990s and benefiting the consumer while the oil companies would fret.

"Refugees and damage repair?" A post Saddam Iraq can easily handle that with its vast supply of oil revenues that can now be spent on other things besides Saddam and his military.

"Will someone close to Saddam get power?" With nearly 70% of Iraq being Shia and Kurdish and all of Saddams supporters being Sunnie, this is virtually impossible. A better question to asked will be how many of Saddam's supporter will survive the wrath of the people?

"What will happen to the Ba'th Party and how long will troops be there to keep peace"? Hopefully the Ba'th Party will not be totally eliminated as I'm sure there are good people in that party who's hands are tied, but I'm not sure, it depends on how many true supporters of Saddam are in the party. It may survive it may fragment into other political parties.

Coalition troops will stay as long as necessary to prevent any foolish adventures by neighboring countries like Iran and Syria, plus to insure stability in the country itself. The chief criteria will be economic development which most likely will be rapid compared to other countries do to Iraq's enormous reserves of oil being correctly used for economic development rather than war and WMD weapons of the Saddam era. Once Iraq achieves a certain level of economic development and political stability, the coalition troops can leave.

"Who is to say this won't start up terrorist attacks?" Al Quada and others are already trying to do this regardless of the situation in Iraq. As far as those who are not terrorist but could be, look at what happened in the first Gulf War.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-10-2003, 04:29 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
The US has never said it would specifically use nuclear weapons against any country, but has always for nearly 60 years reserved the option of using nuclear weapons against any potential threat.
Thats standard deterence in practice and is nothing new.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 01:46 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Hmm...I hope you're right about how things will be handled in Iraq.

Did anyone see what North Korea said today? That economic sanctions by UN would be seen as "declaration of war".
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 02:17 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Yes I did see that. Thing is, North Korea threatens to turn Seoul into a sea of fire at least once a year.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 02:33 PM   #20
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

2. Many said the samething about the US invasion of Afghanistan, but again there was certainly disagreement, but not a radicalized situation where people start lining up to become terrorist. In addition, when the living conditions of Iraqi civilians are improved over what they were under Saddam, it will make this threat even less probable of happening.
That is in retaliation for conctrete actions against the US. Although many didn't agree they could see the point. This will be a preemtive attack and will not be seen the same.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

3. Rather than destabilizing the region, today disarmament of Iraq or regime change will make the region more stable. Israel will feel far less threatened from a more strategic point of view and may be a little more willing to make compromises. Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will have less to worry about with Saddam gone which could have a major positive impact on Iran's future. When these governments feel less threatened about their future with Saddam gone and Iraq developing economically, they will not feel the need to devote as many resources to defense as they have in the past. This will in turn benefit their economies. Of course this assumes that in a decade or two the conservative forces in Iran are forced out. Bottom line is, the countries in the region will benefit in the long term with Saddam gone or disarmed completely and permanently.
That is the line fed to Americans by the White House, Rumsfeld, and the media. Many experts feel that is simply untrue especially if we go in alone.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The USA has had an excellant history when it comes to regime change and economic development. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are just a few of the huge success stories that come to mind.
I can think of a few failures such as the Shah and Noriega.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

In the longterm, Iraq with its two large rivers and the worlds second largest reserves of Oil, especially relative to the size of its population, is well set up for prosperity in the future once Saddam is gone.
I don't really think you actually read the UN report about the effects of this war on the civilians or worse don't care. All this is reciting the war party line verbatim. I agree with U2girl, it is very likely that Sadaam will burn the fields. That also adds huge environmental costs to the war.
Are you Rumsfeld in disguise? lol
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 03:10 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Scarletwine,

You might have a point with people in the Arab world seeing this as a pre-emptive strike and there for being more willing to engage in terrorist activity than they were in 1991, but I doubt it.

The "line" about throwing out Saddam making the region more stable is not simply a "line" from the White House and Rumsfeld, but one that has been looked at and study by a wide number of experts over the past 10 years. If the USA is willing to put forth the intitial military forces and provide for the initial economic and development needs, Iraq has a bright long term future after any move that takes Saddam from power and the region will benefit from that. We know what the cost of Saddam in power has meant for the region over the past 23 years. It would be rather difficult for any expert to argue that things would be worse with Saddam gone, given a strong US commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq.

Well, I think you could say Panama is in better shape than it was under Noriaga and the USA never invaded and replaced the government in Iran, so thats not really a good example for this subject. The action the USA would take in any move to change the regime in Iraq would be more comparable to what was done in Germany and Japan. Already the plans for a post Saddam Iraq are similar in scale to the German and Japan models.

You know the fact that Iraq should be the most prosperous country in the middle east and will be in the longterm once Saddam is removed and a democratic government and free market economy is developed, is simply a fact based on the vast valuable resources the countries has comparitive to its population.

You seem to forget that everything in the UN report is based on a PROTRACTED WAR, which it will not be. Certainly Saddam will try to destroy his oil wells just as he did to Kuwaits in the last war. But this will be fixed and the country and environment will survive.

I'm not Rumsfeld in disguise. He is not the only one who feels military action is necessary if Saddam does not disarm peacefully.

Please don't tell I or anyone else, who is for military action if Saddam does not disarm peacefully, that we don't care about the potential cost to civilians in Iraq. I could easily say that you don't care about the millions of lives that could be lost if Saddam is not disarmed or removed. Both statements are untrue.

We all want what is best for the region and the world community, but have different Ideas and theory's on how to best achieve that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 09:52 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


(oil prices are going up as we speak - good for the oil companies)

Gasoline prices will be going up in the US because of the crisis in Venezuela, where we get a sizable portion (%?) of our oil.

I read another very interesting article about the oil connection...i'll try to find it and post a bit later.

and your're right, U2girl, about the interest of the US in the middle east having to do with Israel (and by feud, Palestinians). That goes back to the Holocaust.
__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 11:43 AM   #23
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:54 PM
what do i think?

it seems odd to me that a u2 message board there arent even a few pacifists. it would appear as though im really the only one.

maybe im wrong, hopefully.

sting can post all his information and use it to justify war, but i have no use for war. there is no need. especially in this situation. remember how this whole war was to thwart terror? i guess dropping bombs on weddings isnt terror. i guess killing innocent victims that arent in the us isnt terror. i guess only terror happens in pro-western countries. i guess, thats fair to some of you.

the stubborn on this board will never understand.

on a final note, i think the us has never looked more foolish. we have iraq who is allowing inspectors everywhere, but theyve found nothing. america insists they do. THEN WHERE ARE THEY?

all the while, north korea comes along and kicks out inspectors and threatens the us. i guess theyre not a terror threat. the us administration still doesnt call the situation a crises. i suppose we can all count on sting to explain that one for us, but any fine printed explanation does not hide the fact that the us is only getting themselves in trouble.

you may not see it now, and maybe not even in the near future, but america will not always be the worlds super power. times change, as does the power. id be afraid if i were american, as there are many people in the world who would love to see them collapse completely.

i didn't say i was one of them, but i would like to see the us sharpen their foreign affairs ethics instead of pumping billions of more taxdollars into their millitairy.
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 11:47 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Oil prices go up, because the commodity market goes up. Nothing more, nothing less.

Want a solution? Regulate it so that anyone who buys oil in the commodity market has to actually receive the oil; in other words, it stops the speculators. As it stands, one can "buy" oil in the commodity market and sell without actually having oil, much like the stock market.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 04:15 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Cow,

U2 are not pacifist since they did in fact support military action in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

The USA and coalition partners NEVER targets innocent civilians! Accidents do happen from time to time, just as they do in everyday life, but no works harder to avoid or reduce the probability that these accidents will happen than the US military.

I hope that you understand this.

It is not incumbent on the UN to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait and loss in the Gulf War was found guilty of having weapons of mass destruction and signed and agreed to give up all such weapons. It is up to Iraq to prove to the world that they have done so. So far they have failed to account for thousands of such weapons that they still had 5 years ago. If they in fact destroyed these weapons, then they have to show the evidence of this destruction!

I said this before, I'll say it again. These are the key differences between Iraq and North Korea.

#1 Iraq has invaded and attacked four countries in the past 20 years. North Korea has not invaded any country in 50 years.

#2 Iraq is in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules plus it is in violation of the UN ceacefire agreement that stopped the 1991 Gulf War. North Korea is not in violation of any resolutions passed under chapter VII rules and is not in violation of a ceacefire agreement.

#3 North Korea has thousands of conventional artillery pieces positioned in the mountains 20 miles from Seoul South Korea in such a way, that at the outbreak of hostilities it could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul and there would be nothing the USA could do to prevent this for several days. North Korea now has nuclear weapons as an option and wide number of ballistic missiles they could use them with. Iraq does not have a comparable capability currently, but it could in the future.

So, the key differences between the two are BEHAVIOR on the international scene, and North Korea's much greater capacity to inflict civilian loss of life with just conventional weapons let alone the nuclear weapons they have. We want to prevent Iraq from obtaining a similar capability and the best way to do that is to make sure it is disarmed and prevent it from possessing such weapons. This may require military force and regime change.


"you may not see it now, and maybe not even in the near future, but america will not always be the worlds super power. times change, as does the power. id be afraid if i were american, as there are many people in the world who would love to see them collapse completely."

The vast majority of the planet would not benefit from an American collapse. Plus the first world is way to interdependent for there to be an American collapse. Any such collapse would destroy the entire global economy. This will not benefit anyone. Times have change and the normal course of history does not apply to American Super Power status because the nature of power and nationhood has change considerably. That certainly does not mean that America or anyone else is invulnarable, but today, do to global interdependence, collapse of the worlds largest economy would not benefit anyone except anarchist and rogue countries.

My best friends are in the military and I want them to have the best equipment, the best maintainence for such equipment, lots of training, and good pay considering the daily sacrifices they make, so they can safely and successfully execute any military operations they are called on to do. I'm happy the Bush administration has increased defense spending to accomplish many of these goals.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 04:29 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 02:54 AM
C o' S, (LOL)

you may not see it now, and maybe not even in the near future, but america will not always be the worlds super power. times change, as does the power. id be afraid if i were american, as there are many people in the world who would love to see them collapse completely.

we're getting that idea

don't think we're stupid, even though we don't know where Caracas is.

terrorism is violent, or threatening, acts that are used to try to force capitulation. accidentally (though very rash) dropping bombs on innocent victims is not the same thing. we don't want anyone dead, either way, but at least we've avoided things like the catastrophe at the Russian movie theater. our hostages sat in an iranian embassy for one year while we tried for a safe rescue.
__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 05:50 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 09:54 PM
I guess my problem is that I think this is about oil, and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise. Yes, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and yes, their behaviour has been aggressive in recent history, to say the least. But many other countries have the same weapons, even bigger weapons, and actions cannot be determined a priori, even when based on assumptions of past behaviour. Human psychology does not work like that.

I find this war to be unwarranted, and I certainly hope my government has the balls to respect the wishes and beliefs of its people, rather than the oil pumping magnate currently in the White House.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-13-2003, 06:31 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Antruim,

"I guess my problem is that I think this is about oil, and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise."

If thats the case, why come to a forum called Free Your Mind to discuss it?

Behavior + Weapons of Mass destruction are a good guide when deciding whether military force is necessary to resolve a threat to international security. Saddam's behavior in the past is a well known FACT not an assumption!

Iraq signed a ceacefire agreement in 1991 and has signed 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules which it has failed to comply with. Its been 12 years and its time for Saddam to comply with the resolutions he signed on to. If he does not, the UN, coaltion, or USA is obligated to use military force if necessary to disarm him.

There are few countries that have invested as much money as Saddam has in trying to build and obtain weapons of mass destruction. What makes Saddam an immediate threat that must be stopped that is unique from the few others is his behavior in the past and failure to comply with the UN 1991 ceacefire agreement, which legally means that the 1991 Gulf War has started again.

Oil is important to the global economy for sure, but its not the chief reason for action this time around. Oil companies will not benefit longterm from more Iraqi oil flooding the market. That only benefits consumers like you and me.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 07:45 PM   #29
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:54 PM
"I guess my problem is that I think this is about oil, and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise."

"If thats the case, why come to a forum called Free Your Mind to discuss it?"

I could ask the same of you Sting2.

I've only been in FYM for a few months and I have changed my mind on some issues based on intelligent and or persuasive aurguments of others.

Nevermind - I'll shut up now.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 08:05 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"I guess my problem is that I think this is about oil, and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise."

If thats the case, why come to a forum called Free Your Mind to discuss it?
Because the point of critical thinking is to educate yourself about a topic, and reach a conclusion based on that education and your own personal beliefs. I feel I have done so, and reached a conclusion of my own, which I am quite happy with. You have not discussed anything other than your rigid POV wrt Iraq; clearly your mind is made up. That's fine - you have informed yourself, and this is the end result. Those of us who disagree are no different.

Why is anybody here? People have their opinions, and won't be swayed all the time. The point is to have a civilized, intelligent discussion on matters of politics and religion. Free your mind, then make a decision. Seems simple to me.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com