[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Cyrien]

Look at it like this. He had to know he was going to lose if he stood there by himself. He needs the support of the world on his side. If he uses WMD he doesn't get that at all. Would using WMDs affect the outcome? No. It wouldn't. The coalition forces wouldn't be destroyed by them and wouldn't stop attacking because he used them. Everyone would be against him all at once though. It doesn't make sense for him to use WMDs against the coaltition forces. It does make sense to hide them and hope that no one can find them if you do have them and not use them.

If you do that then even if you lose you may be able to take down your enemy with you by world opinion. Which is exactly what is happening.

[ April 25, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[rextorres]

I know we can get into hypothetical - but all I can go by is what actually happened. He didn't use them in their worst case scenario so I would rather infer he wouldn't have used them when things were better.

I suppose he might care about world opinion posthumously, but I won't try to get into his head.

[Cyrien]

Errr... he did use them when things were better.
It's called the Iran Iraq war and lets not forget the Kurds revolting. *edit*Used them there when they could affect the outcome. There is a pattern here. When he thinks he can get an advantage he does. The man is evil and an egomaniac. But I don't think he is stupid. And I'm not getting in his head. I am basing all this on his past actions.*edit*

On a side note that is actually what ended the oil embargo as well. They both needed money and both had oil. So they broke the embargo and sold oil. When they broke it there wasn't much reason for other nations to keep on to it either and lose potential profit when it wasn't hurting the target anymore.

[ April 25, 2003, 22:03: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[Narrew]

WMD? Even the UN said Iraq had WMD's. What will we have to find (it wont take a week to find things, it will take months, so all the anti war people just hush and wait and see) to prove that they had WMDs? Is there a sliding scale for weapons? If Iraq has radioactive materials that can make a dirty bomb, how much material will make the nay-sayers happy? Is Bio weapons enough to be WMDs? Well if its Small Pox and similar items, maybe that wont be enough since people can still get small pox. Anthrax? Probably not since it was developed by the US (and Russia?). My point, no matter what is found, it will never be enough for the nay-sayers, they will say..."oh BUT you didnt find XXX" (and I don't mean porn, hehe).

Nation Building? My opinion of nation building would be making Iraq another state of the US, and that will never happen. BUT, if nation building is getting rid of a guy that kills millions of his OWN people, jails children ect... then I am for it. We do have to pick our fights though, and force is not always the way to go. I still contend that Saddam didn't give us any choice, after 12 years we finally drew the line and then backed up the consequence. I am sure Saddam felt that he could keep dragging his heels and never thought that Bush and the Coalition would follow through. They did, and now other nations are thinking, "Uh ohh...". That is also a positive, though the nay-sayers don't see it that way. Some people will only respond/respect strength. In some cases we (the US) stopped carrying the "Big Stick", I don't think we need to use it all the time, but if we do once and a while it does make an impression. I remember when my father gave me a spanking, he only did it once, and that is all he ever needed to do, I got the idea.

I have thought of Cuba and Castro during this time, the only reason we wouldn't do to Castro that we did to Saddam, is that Castro sat back and never was a threat to the US (other than the missile crisis). Arguably you can say that Cuba don't have oil, true, but Castro didn't go out of his way to support terrorism (well, like Saddam did).

NK? I think China will become involved to the point of stifling NK. The Last thing China wants is the surrounding free countries to start Nuking-up to counter the NK blustering.

Just my thought so far...

[Alpha Kodiak]

Time for my daily fix.

Originally posted by rextorres:
As far as Republicanism?

If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish then it is a fish. A Libertarian for instance is just a Republican without Religion.

That is certainly an interesting generalization. Those who know my Posts from other threads know that I strongly believe in Christianity and yes, I am a registered Republican.

Oddly, though, I know many people who are more fervently Republican than I am, who want nothing to do with Christianity. I also know many Democrats who are as strong or stronger than I in their Christian beliefs. And certainly Fyron, whom you accuse of Republican views would reject the idea of religion (I don't mean to speak for you Fyron, but I think I am safe in this statement ). I know Republicans who are opposed to the war and Democrats that would have rather nuked Iraq than invade.

Generalizing people and their beliefs, and putting them in categories is dangerous business. You will quickly find that people do not fit well into categories. Trying to put them there is demeaning to them. If you would truly be informed, as you say you wish to be, listen to what all people say, and do not mock them if you don't agree with them. They may be wrong, or they may be right, let time sort it out.

Nor do I disagree with all of your concerns, especially about the Shi'ites in Iraq, and North Korea's nukes. Where we disagree is in our evaluation of the administration's ability to handle those difficult concerns. Only time will tell who is right.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
If you do that then even if you lose you may be able to take down your enemy with you by world opinion. Which is exactly what is happening.

World opinion my ***. Who cares about world opinion?
He didn't use them because he already gave them to Al Qaeda...
He knows very well that killing soldiers doesn't win wars, only battles. So I expect Al Qaeda to start a rampage on civilian targets with WMD. Why do you think I never go to Tel Aviv? That, is a WMD terrorist attack waiting to happen. Good thing all my family lives in Haifa (second obvious target ) I joke about it because there is nothing that can be done about it, other than waging war on terrorism instead of wasting time waging war for oil and rebuilding contracts.

Funny thing though, how so many people thing that this war was waged for Israel when in Israel few people wanted this war. The frigging Chicken-Hawk brigade is making Israel look as the benificiary of this war, not openly, but they are doing it. I wonder when are they planning to begin their persecution of Jews.

[rextorres]

Powell showed us pictures at the UN of where the WMD were being produced - and this was the evidence used to invade. Why don't they just go there? I don't see why it will take a few days much less a few months.

[ April 25, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Cyrien]

Heh. I certainly don't feel the war was fought for Israel. As for the rest of it. I am undecided. I was using those as points in an argument to make a point.

And quite a few people care about world opinion. It was one of the things some people use to justify their terrorism. Not that they would need it, but they use it never the less.

[ April 25, 2003, 23:21: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[DavidG]

Shrub = Bush. We get it. haha. Personaly I find it hard to take someone seriously when they have to resort to petty name calling every other post.

[rextorres]

Molly Ivins wrote "Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" - interesting reading and a clever title.

You can get it on Amazon.