Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Bush 'disappointed' by NATO

Bush 'disappointed' by NATO (Page 2)
Thread Tools
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 11:56 AM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
Bush will not be the president of the USA forever, his life will not end right after his presidency. Go figure.
That's what the lecture circuit is for. Chi-chinggggg!
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 11:59 AM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
OK, if you actually believe that he no longer has interest in no oil businesses whatsoever, then I think i should stop right here. We simply have different point of view.
Again, PROVE to me that Bush has eyes for the oil. PROVE to me that the US will TAKE (not pay for, legitimately) the Iraqi oil. You can't. Because it's not going to happen. Oil isn't the motive.

Originally posted by sealobo:
Obviously you wouldn't make a very successful business person though. Bush will not be the president of the USA forever, his life will not end right after his presidency. Go figure.
What do my opinions have to do with my ability in business? I happen to be fairly successful. And I know many people who share my opinions who are very successful.

Oh, that's right, you have to resort to a personal insult because you have no facts.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:01 PM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
Bush will not be the president of the USA forever, his life will not end right after his presidency. Go figure.
Bush was wealthy well before he ever had an intent to run for President.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
noliv
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Why would a war in Iraq make terrorism grow?
Do you realy wonder why it would make terrorism grow?

War feeds anti-semitism. All that terrorists need is to recruit people, and war and anti-semitism makes that easier. Terrorists see that war as a relgion war declared by occident to muslims (yes I know that it is stupid but that's what they say to recruit people and it works: a french journalist infiltrated an extremist islamist group during 4 months... we learn LOTS OF things on terrorists from his book, their methods, what they think... VERY instructive. If you want more info about that: the journalist's name is "Mohamed Sifaoui", his book's title is "Mes fr�res assassins" Jan2003)

sorry for my bad grammar/spelling... i have difficulties to write in english and i took a long time to write this... (and it doesnt say all what i wanted to say )
-noliv
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:13 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Again, PROVE to me that Bush has eyes for the oil. PROVE to me that the US will TAKE (not pay for, legitimately) the Iraqi oil. You can't. Because it's not going to happen. Oil isn't the motive.
You don't actually need proof to tell that a person is after something before he actually gets it right?

Why wouldn't the US go and free the people in north korean? People in n. korean have a similar, if not an worser life as of those in Iraq.

Anyway, i said oil was part of the reason, not all. I am totally ok with it if somebody doesn't agree.


What do my opinions have to do with my ability in business? I happen to be fairly successful. And I know many people who share my opinions who are very successful.

Oh, that's right, you have to resort to a personal insult because you have no facts.
O... this time you couldn't get my implication?

No i wasn't trying to insult you. I wouldn't insult someone that i don't really know. It's a waste of energy.
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Bush was wealthy well before he ever had an intent to run for President.
That's true.

But given the choice and ability to have as little as $1 more, who the hell would say no?
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:21 PM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
You don't actually need proof to tell that a person is after something before he actually gets it right?
Then why do we need weapons inspectors to find out if Saddam is after weapons of mass distruction?

You are making accusations that Bush is after oil. I'm simply asking you to prove it. You can't because he's not.

Originally posted by sealobo:
Why wouldn't the US go and free the people in north korean? People in n. korean have a similar, if not an worser life as of those in Iraq.
We tried that. Korean "Conflict." Also, did you consider that the North Koreans are more likely to negotiate? Not every situation can be solved the same way. North Korea wants money. They don't want war. Also consider North Korea's big brother - China.

Originally posted by sealobo:
Anyway, i said oil was part of the reason, not all. I am totally ok with it if somebody doesn't agree.
You still have no proof that oil has anything to do with it. Seriously.

Originally posted by sealobo:
O... this time you couldn't get my implication?

No i wasn't trying to insult you. I wouldn't insult someone that i don't really know. It's a waste of energy.
Of course you were trying to insult me. The fact that I wasn't insulted by it doesn't mean that you didn't try.

For you, facts seem to be a waste of energy.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:25 PM
 
Just because Bush may have sold off his personal oil interests doesn't mean that he still has no interests in the oil industry. He would still have a lot of friends among oil execs and he would still have a lot of influence with them. If he does something good for the industry now, there's a good chance the industry will do something good for him when his term's up.

It seems to me that a lot of people have a view of the world that is vastly over simplified. There are many many ways in which Bush, or anyone else, could personally benefit from a war with Iraq. Just because he isn't benefitting from the immediately obvious and reported on ones, doesn't mean there's no benefit. It also doesn't mean there is, of course, but people seem to be taking a lot for granted without any real evidence.

I'm not going to claim that this whole Iraq venture is resultant of Bush's personal ambitions, but until I see proof to the contrary I'm not going to discount it either.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:28 PM
 
excellent smackdown skillz, dave

I don't think he's getting back up anytime soon.
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:35 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Then why do we need weapons inspectors to find out if Saddam is after weapons of mass distruction?

You are making accusations that Bush is after oil. I'm simply asking you to prove it. You can't because he's not.

You still have no proof that oil has anything to do with it. Seriously.
I can't prove it and it doesn't mean that my statement is invalid. Time will do the proof.

Can you disprove my statement now? you can't.


Of course you were trying to insult me. The fact that I wasn't insulted by it doesn't mean that you didn't try.

For you, facts seem to be a waste of energy.
Seriously i wasn't trying to insult you. By saying that you wouldn't have made a good busines person because you couldn't see that Bush, a highly successful political figure, is indeed a businessman. For whatever he does, he would have an instinct of a businessman. If he can't get anything for doing something, he simply wouldn't choose to do it.

By the way, I don't believe a businessperson who does fairly well would actually have time to keep posting here on a normal weekday in business hour.
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:37 PM
 
Originally posted by nonhuman:
Just because Bush may have sold off his personal oil interests doesn't mean that he still has no interests in the oil industry. He would still have a lot of friends among oil execs and he would still have a lot of influence with them. If he does something good for the industry now, there's a good chance the industry will do something good for him when his term's up.
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
excellent smackdown skillz, dave

I don't think he's getting back up anytime soon.
Excellent ass-kissing skillz.

I think you should go support your war on terrorism elsewhere. There will not be one in Iraq, what you're about to see is called invasion.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:44 PM
 
Originally posted by nonhuman:
Just because Bush may have sold off his personal oil interests doesn't mean that he still has no interests in the oil industry. He would still have a lot of friends among oil execs and he would still have a lot of influence with them. If he does something good for the industry now, there's a good chance the industry will do something good for him when his term's up.
Ah, and there were all those rumors about Bill Clinton getting a job in Hollywood. So he's got connections in the movie biz.

So then comes Somalia. Black Hawk Down. Then they made a MOVIE about it. AHA! Bill was simply creating a plot for his movie buddies!

Originally posted by nonhuman:
It seems to me that a lot of people have a view of the world that is vastly over simplified.
Yes, you are right. War for oil is simplified. War for liberation of a country from an oppressive regime that threatens it's neighbors is complex.

Originally posted by nonhuman:
There are many many ways in which Bush, or anyone else, could personally benefit from a war with Iraq. Just because he isn't benefitting from the immediately obvious and reported on ones, doesn't mean there's no benefit. It also doesn't mean there is, of course, but people seem to be taking a lot for granted without any real evidence.
Real evidence? One week ago today Powell proved the case to most reasonable people.

You say you don't like people taking things for granted with no real evidence, yet you say Bush wants oil but have no real evidence.

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm not going to claim that this whole Iraq venture is resultant of Bush's personal ambitions, but until I see proof to the contrary I'm not going to discount it either.
Well, by your standards - that Bush could make money off the oil industry sometime in the future - proof to the contrary would take until the end of Bush's lifetime to prove, wouldn't it?
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Sealobo  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:51 PM
 
I am going to sleep now.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
I can't prove it and it doesn't mean that my statement is invalid. Time will do the proof.
And when you are proven wrong after the US removes Saddam and his supporters and continues to actually PAY for the oil it imports, will you eat your words?

Originally posted by sealobo:
Can you disprove my statement now? you can't.
Of course I can't. I also can't prove that man actually landed on the moon to someone who refuses to believe it. Facts be damned.

Originally posted by sealobo:
Seriously i wasn't trying to insult you. By saying that you wouldn't have made a good busines person because you couldn't see that Bush, a highly successful political figure, is indeed a businessman. For whatever he does, he would have an instinct of a businessman. If he can't get anything for doing something, he simply wouldn't choose to do it.
I guess I'd rather have a businessman in office than an attorney.

But if you look back at your words, you WERE trying to insult me. You've called people with my beliefs dumb and brainwashed. Then you actually called ME brainwashed. Then you said I obviously am not good in business.

You weren't trying to prove a point about Bush as a businessman. You were insulting me. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean it didn't happen. Of course I can't PROVE your intent.

Originally posted by sealobo:
By the way, I don't believe a businessperson who does fairly well would actually have time to keep posting here on a normal weekday in business hour.


Just because I post on this board doesn't mean I don't do my job. I'd be willing to bet that my productivity is as high as most other peoples.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:56 PM
 
Originally posted by gadster:
The US will end up with egg on it's face before this thing is truly through. Afghanistan is still not over.
Maybe in the after war party. Those silly drunk egg handlers.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:59 PM
 
Originally posted by sealobo:
I am going to sleep now.

Smart move.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 01:02 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Real evidence? One week ago today Powell proved the case to most reasonable people.
With ARTISTS' CONCEPTIONS of those elusive mobile weapons laboratories? No satellite images? And no hint of what miniscule amounts of substances these labs could produce?

With references to a wonderful report put forth by Britain, which turned out to be largely based upon - and quoted from - a university student's thesis analysing documents supplied by Kurdish dissidents OVER TEN YEARS AGO?

Hm.

I think "evidence" needed to justify an offensive war (first strike, after all, remains first strike, even if declared "pre-emptive") should be somewhat more that that, no?

-s*
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 02:26 PM
 
Colin Powell proved nothing. He did the same thing the US has been doing since that one time those terrorists flew 2 planes into 2 buildings, e.g. saying we have proof, then claiming he'll present proof, then changing "presenting proof" to "stating case" because he has no real proof. Colin Powell is the last person in the Bush administration to have any kind of standing in the UN, and now he's losing that.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 02:40 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
Colin Powell proved nothing.
That's very subjective.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 02:46 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
Colin Powell proved nothing. He did the same thing the US has been doing since that one time those terrorists flew 2 planes into 2 buildings, e.g. saying we have proof, then claiming he'll present proof, then changing "presenting proof" to "stating case" because he has no real proof. Colin Powell is the last person in the Bush administration to have any kind of standing in the UN, and now he's losing that.
Just the opposite will be true in the end. The UN will have no standing.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 02:47 PM
 
Just because:

     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 02:50 PM
 
No manyaNo matter how many times you leftys say there isn't a reason, the reason will still be there. You can't FUD it away I am afriad.
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:07 PM
 
FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT



and FUD isn't a magical word you can use to dismiss anything.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:17 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT



and FUD isn't a magical word you can use to dismiss anything.
I know what it means, and that is what people are trying to do when they say "The US has no reason"

They are trying to put fear uncertainty and doubt in the minds of people.

We do have a valid reason. No matter what the proof is, there will always be FUD spreaders trying to say otherwise.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:19 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Why would a war in Iraq make terrorism grow? After all, Saddam has NOTHING to do with terrorism. There is NO LINK.

Yeah right.
By destabilizing the region. It has nothing to do with any possible link between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. There's no contradiction here, no need for yet another :rolleyes: smiley. :)

[Edit: And, I guess, what noliv wrote, or that sort of thing.]
( Last edited by tie; Feb 11, 2003 at 03:27 PM. )
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know what it means, and that is what people are trying to do when they say "The US has no reason"

They are trying to put fear uncertainty and doubt in the minds of people.

We do have a valid reason. No matter what the proof is, there will always be FUD spreaders trying to say otherwise.
Now that's all just FUD
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:22 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
Now that's all just FUD
Not at all.
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:31 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
Now that's all just FUD
Originally posted by rampant:


and FUD isn't a magical word you can use to dismiss anything.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
With ARTISTS' CONCEPTIONS of those elusive mobile weapons laboratories? No satellite images? And no hint of what miniscule amounts of substances these labs could produce?

With references to a wonderful report put forth by Britain, which turned out to be largely based upon - and quoted from - a university student's thesis analysing documents supplied by Kurdish dissidents OVER TEN YEARS AGO?

Hm.

I think "evidence" needed to justify an offensive war (first strike, after all, remains first strike, even if declared "pre-emptive") should be somewhat more that that, no?

-s*
This "presenting of evidence" has been very poor, to say the least. I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked out that the sketches that Powell produced were exactly that, sketches. I asked myself, "why is he showing drawings when the US has the world's most powerful military satellites which don't go the mosque on Fridays?". The one drawing he showed, of a mobile biolab reminded me of sketches for a mobile version of the Peacemaker ICBM in the late 70's. Iraq has railways, but definitely not very much of them and for the life of me I can't imagine them escaping US spy satellites.

Furthermore I was somewhat dissapointed when he showed the Photo of the ominous Chemical weapons compound, now dismantled. A lot of journalists decided to leg it up there and take a look for themselves at the sight. The BBC ran a series of images taken by some journos. Turns out the site is now a HQ for a group of islamic fundamentalist nutcases, but it looks incredibly run down and doesn't seem to have the type of structures one would consider need to work on those type of weapons (sealed, thick walled buildings etc). I thought it VERY convenient that the site was occupied by the fundamentalists, whom are being accused by the US and the UK of being both in league with Al-Qaida and Saddam.

Tony Blair's bogus dossier , based upon a uni students research of ten years ago was also poor to say the least. what was even more poor was his claim after this was discovered that the dossier was nonetheless "solid".

I don't how this war is going to happen, how long and how difficult, but I am going to make the following predictions about what will happen after the conflict is over:

1. Iraq is going to be a wasteland of burning oil wells after the war is over.
2. Many thousands of Iraqi civillians will have died, as well as many thousands of Iraqi soldiers.
3.Very soon after the conflict is over the "hidden WMD" will "unexpectedly" and conviently turn up after the area has been taken by US and UK soldiers. (The litte signs in English on the casings will take some explaining though)
4.Tony Blair is going to lose the next election.
5.Johnny boy Howard is going to lose the next election.
6.Jose-Maria Aznar of spain is going to lose the next election. A poll taken over the wekend in Spain shows that 91% of Spaniards are against a war under all circumstances.

Some of that was sarcastic and some of that will definitely happen. I actually think that saddam DOES have WMD, but I definitely don't think that is the reason for this war. He knows full well that any use of those things at any time means an atomic weapon on his head straight away.

I don't even think oil is the real reason or only reason for this war anymore, at least not Iraqi oil. I somehow suspect that the real reason for this war has to do with Iraq's geographic location, more than anything else. Whoever holds Iraq holds the most central of locations in the middle east and is in a position to dictate terms to many surrounding countries and react quickly to any crisis in the area. It's also right next door to Iran and can serve as notice to the Iranians that they'll be next unless they can get their nuclear weapons working first, in which case they'll be treated like North Korea gets treated. i.e. with respect.
weird wabbit
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
...<snip>....
Wow. I think I love you.

It should also be noted that Iraq has agreed to let U-2 spy planes oversee the Inspection process.

It should further be noted that the so-called "poison lab" and "Al-Queda" camp is conveniently located in the Kurdish region that has been outside of Saddam's control for 11 years and protected/patrolled by the US/UK no-fly zone.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:23 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
By destabilizing the region. It has nothing to do with any possible link between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. There's no contradiction here, no need for yet another smiley.
OK, seriously, in order for something to be destablized, it has to be stable in the first place.

The Middle East doesn't pass that test. There has been war in the region for decades (centuries).

A teacher of mine once described the conflict in the Middle East like this:

Me vs. My Brother

Me and My Brother vs. My Neighbor

My Neighborhood vs. Another Neighborhood

My Town vs. Another Town

My Country vs. Another Country

My Religion vs. Anyone Else

Basically, what this means is that the only thing that changes are the alliances and the enemy. There is a constant cycle of violence. If the US left the region alone entirely, the various countries would start fighting amongst themselves, just as they have for years.

It's similar to the theory that the only way that man will ever be united is if we are invaded by another planet.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:26 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It should also be noted that Iraq has agreed to let U-2 spy planes oversee the Inspection process.
Oh, well, if they allow spy planes then everything is ok.

Iraq doesn't have to AGREE to anything. The inspections, the flyovers, none of it. They don't have a choice in the matter. THEY have to comply.

I love how this gets turned into "Bush needs to prove..." when what it should be is "Saddam needs to prove his compliance with the conditions of his surrender in 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions." PERIOD.

Unless you all want to go ahead and agree that the UN is a worthless piece of crap.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:30 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
This "presenting of evidence" has been very poor, to say the least. I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked out that the sketches that Powell produced were exactly that, sketches. I asked myself, "why is he showing drawings when the US has the world's most powerful military satellites which don't go the mosque on Fridays?". The one drawing he showed, of a mobile biolab reminded me of sketches for a mobile version of the Peacemaker ICBM in the late 70's. Iraq has railways, but definitely not very much of them and for the life of me I can't imagine them escaping US spy satellites.

Furthermore I was somewhat dissapointed when he showed the Photo of the ominous Chemical weapons compound, now dismantled. A lot of journalists decided to leg it up there and take a look for themselves at the sight. The BBC ran a series of images taken by some journos. Turns out the site is now a HQ for a group of islamic fundamentalist nutcases, but it looks incredibly run down and doesn't seem to have the type of structures one would consider need to work on those type of weapons (sealed, thick walled buildings etc). I thought it VERY convenient that the site was occupied by the fundamentalists, whom are being accused by the US and the UK of being both in league with Al-Qaida and Saddam.

Tony Blair's bogus dossier , based upon a uni students research of ten years ago was also poor to say the least. what was even more poor was his claim after this was discovered that the dossier was nonetheless "solid".

I don't how this war is going to happen, how long and how difficult, but I am going to make the following predictions about what will happen after the conflict is over:

1. Iraq is going to be a wasteland of burning oil wells after the war is over.
2. Many thousands of Iraqi civillians will have died, as well as many thousands of Iraqi soldiers.
3.Very soon after the conflict is over the "hidden WMD" will "unexpectedly" and conviently turn up after the area has been taken by US and UK soldiers. (The litte signs in English on the casings will take some explaining though)
4.Tony Blair is going to lose the next election.
5.Johnny boy Howard is going to lose the next election.
6.Jose-Maria Aznar of spain is going to lose the next election. A poll taken over the wekend in Spain shows that 91% of Spaniards are against a war under all circumstances.

Some of that was sarcastic and some of that will definitely happen. I actually think that saddam DOES have WMD, but I definitely don't think that is the reason for this war. He knows full well that any use of those things at any time means an atomic weapon on his head straight away.

I don't even think oil is the real reason or only reason for this war anymore, at least not Iraqi oil. I somehow suspect that the real reason for this war has to do with Iraq's geographic location, more than anything else. Whoever holds Iraq holds the most central of locations in the middle east and is in a position to dictate terms to many surrounding countries and react quickly to any crisis in the area. It's also right next door to Iran and can serve as notice to the Iranians that they'll be next unless they can get their nuclear weapons working first, in which case they'll be treated like North Korea gets treated. i.e. with respect.
<3
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Oh, well, if they allow spy planes then everything is ok.

Iraq doesn't have to AGREE to anything. The inspections, the flyovers, none of it. They don't have a choice in the matter. THEY have to comply.

I love how this gets turned into "Bush needs to prove..." when what it should be is "Saddam needs to prove his compliance with the conditions of his surrender in 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions." PERIOD.

Unless you all want to go ahead and agree that the UN is a worthless piece of crap.
We can disarm Iraq without invading it. That is the point.

The UN is what we make it.

James Carroll in the Boston Globe:
DON'T BE FOOLED by Colin Powell. With testimony before the UN Security Council last week, the secretary of state brought many formerly ambivalent politicians and pundits into the war party. But that is a measure of how callow the entire American debate over war against Iraq has been. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein is up to no good. Powell's indictment confirmed the Iraqi's malfeasance, although with no surprises and no demonstration of immediate threat. The question, rather, is what to do about Saddam's malevolence.

Don't be fooled by Donald Rumsfeld, either. The secretary of defense said in Munich on Saturday, ''The risks of war need to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing while Iraq pursues weapons of mass destruction.'' Just as Powell fudged on what the question is, Rumsfeld fudged on there being no alternative to war. Ongoing and ever more robust inspections, like those proposed by France and Germany, are an alternative to war. Containment is an alternative to war. And an aggressive application of the principles of international law is an alternative to war.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
1. Iraq is going to be a wasteland of burning oil wells after the war is over.
Probably, Saddam is likely to burn oil wells like he did before. How is this Bush/Blair's fault?

Originally posted by theolein:
2. Many thousands of Iraqi civillians will have died, as well as many thousands of Iraqi soldiers.
More likely, very few civilians will die, unless used as human shields. As far as dead soldiers, they are more likely to surrender to CNN cameras than to die in battle.


Originally posted by theolein:
3.Very soon after the conflict is over the "hidden WMD" will "unexpectedly" and conviently turn up after the area has been taken by US and UK soldiers. (The litte signs in English on the casings will take some explaining though)
Or, more shockingly, the bombs have French and German writings on them. Then someone would have some 'splaining to do!


Originally posted by theolein:
4.Tony Blair is going to lose the next election.
I know nothing about British politics, exept to say that isn't Blair from the Labour party? So then someone more conservative is likely to get elected in his place?

Originally posted by theolein:
5.Johnny boy Howard is going to lose the next election.
6.Jose-Maria Aznar of spain is going to lose the next election. A poll taken over the wekend in Spain shows that 91% of Spaniards are against a war under all circumstances.
Hmmm... any bets on Chirac and Schr�der's chances if the war is successful and their true motives behind their lack of support for the allies are revealed?
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:59 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
We can disarm Iraq without invading it. That is the point.

The UN is what we make it.
How do we do that? Is Iraq just gonna give up the goods by themselves?

If so, why hasn't it happened in the past 10+ years?

Not being a smartass, I am honestly curious as to what the plan is.
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:00 PM
 
US: Give us the weapons.
Iraq: We don't have them.
US: Ok, then give them to us, or we invade!
Iraq: WE DON'T HAVE THEM!
US: NOW I CUT YOU!




A briliant synopsis.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:02 PM
 
So what is happening the past 10 years? Denial? That game is getting old.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:06 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Probably, Saddam is likely to burn oil wells like he did before. How is this Bush/Blair's fault?

You like seeing the environment poisoned?


More likely, very few civilians will die, unless used as human shields. As far as dead soldiers, they are more likely to surrender to CNN cameras than to die in battle.
Mmmm... Around 45000 of them died in the last one. Strange how the human shields tend to sometimes be very far from anything actually resembling a target, isn't it?



Or, more shockingly, the bombs have French and German writings on them. Then someone would have some 'splaining to do!
Be kind of funny. It was meant as satire but since France sold Mirage F1's and Excocet missiles to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, the US delivered the know-how and opened the channels for deliveries of lab and industrial equipment during the same period, and a number of German (and Swiss) businessmen have been caught exporting proscribed machinery to Iraq, I think there'll be a lot of red faces all around.


I know nothing about British politics, exept to say that isn't Blair from the Labour party? So then someone more conservative is likely to get elected in his place?
Probably, the tories would get elected. There is also a chance that labour will simply elect someone else to lead them in the next elections, but I doubt it. The conservatives aren't exactly full of ideas at the moment though, and there is very little they would do apart from isolating the UK from Europe which would only serve to damage the UK economy, that Blair hasn't done already.


Hmmm... any bets on Chirac and Schr�der's chances if the war is successful and their true motives behind their lack of support for the allies are revealed?
Ah, now I get it. You think that I'm "rooting" for Schr�der or Chirac. No, no way. Schr�der is a slimy, incompetent fool and he deserves to lose the next election soundly and in all likelyhood will. The CDU, on the other hand is better at managing the economy but fairly corrupt and their leaders at the moment, apart from that Bavarian buffoon, are as bad if not worse in levels of incompetency than the SPD. The only politician in Germany, rightly or wrongly who seems to have genuinely strong feelings about the war and a touch of integrity is Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister, the leader of the green party. The greens, in fact seem to be the only ones who are not tripping over their own feet at the moment. Fischer is also the most popular politician in Germany by far.

Chirac is a corrupt, powergrabbing, two faced scum, but he has a very keen sense of public opinion and is popular in France because he is seen to be taking the concerns of the population seriously, so he might very well win another election (although this is already his second term and I don't know if there is a statute of limitations in France).

As for the allies bit, let me give you an analogy (as if there aren't enough in the Mac/Car infested board): You have a close, life long friend whom you feel very strongly about. Your friend is having problems with his wife, who's been screwing the milkman, and finally starts talking about killing her and buys a gun. What do you do? Encourage him because he's your best buddy, or try to talk him out of it and finally, when nothing else works, even stand in front of front door to block his entry?

The situation is not the same, but you would claim the right to make up your own mind, wouldn't you? Perhaps, just perhaps, others have that right too.
( Last edited by theolein; Feb 11, 2003 at 06:16 PM. )
weird wabbit
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
So what is happening the past 10 years? Denial? That game is getting old.
Well, lets see. Maybe they used up all the chemical and biological weapons the US gave them during the 80's?
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
So what is happening the past 10 years? Denial? That game is getting old.
Again we see this myth propogated...

It's only been 3-4 years at most. The previous inspection regime was quite successful at crippling Iraq's WMD program until things got politicized.

If only the US supported the World Court. We could demand Saddam stand trial for his crimes. That would liberate Iraq without humiliated and devasting innocent civilians. (EU might try this approach, but they would still need US support to make it forceful enough to work.)

I think Iraqis would gladly trade Saddam's ass for lifting the sanctions.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:45 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Again we see this myth propogated...

It's only been 3-4 years at most. The previous inspection regime was quite successful at crippling Iraq's WMD program until things got politicized.
I believe Desert Storm Crippled them. You know forceful tactics. Iraq has been going against sanctions far longer than 3-4 years I am afraid.

If only the US supported the World Court. We could demand Saddam stand trial for his crimes. That would liberate Iraq without humiliated and devasting innocent civilians. (EU might try this approach, but they would still need US support to make it forceful enough to work.)
Now lets get back to reality. Saddam wont give up the goods unless forcably taken from him. Do you actually think he will willingly go to trial for his crimes?

Bush gave him the option of taking off, getting out of Iraq. No war would happen. He choose not to.

I think Iraqis would gladly trade Saddam's ass for lifting the sanctions.
I am sure they would. But they don't have the ability to do such a thing. Saddam has all the power. His people don't have anything.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:50 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Again, PROVE to me that Bush has eyes for the oil. PROVE to me that the US will TAKE (not pay for, legitimately) the Iraqi oil. You can't. Because it's not going to happen. Oil isn't the motive.
No, but it makes a snappy slogan to rally around. You see, the idea of defending freedom and prosecuting tyrants regardless of cost and risk is just not understandable to those who can't imagine doing it. Defending liberty is a vague concept to many, obviously.



What do my opinions have to do with my ability in business? I happen to be fairly successful. And I know many people who share my opinions who are very successful.

Me, too, lots of folks. In fact, I don't know ANYONE who is successful who doesn't hold similar values. Go figure.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:50 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If only the US supported the World Court. We could demand Saddam stand trial for his crimes. That would liberate Iraq without humiliated and devasting innocent civilians. (EU might try this approach, but they would still need US support to make it forceful enough to work.)

I think Iraqis would gladly trade Saddam's ass for lifting the sanctions.
I don't know how serious you are, but this scenario is not very credible. Putting a warrant out for SH would not all of a sudden compel his people, or his generals, to overthrow him.

Anyway, davesimondotcom, you seem to be saying that the US only needs to worry about those consequences of the war that are its fault. If Iraq's oil fields are burned, if civilians are killed because they were used as human shields, if the war on Iraq ends up increasing terrorism -- well, it wasn't the US's fault. But it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, if bad things are going to happen, we need to take them into account in the cost/benefit analysis of the war.

For instance, one cost of this drive towards war is the fracture in NATO. I don't know who's fault it is -- Germany and France because of unrealistic, US-baiting foreign policy, or the Bush administration's for failing to convince their publics or governments -- but there has been a cost. This kind of political cost is not insignificant with North Korea acting up.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I believe Desert Storm Crippled them. You know forceful tactics. Iraq has been going against sanctions far longer than 3-4 years I am afraid.
The war had almost no effect on WMD programs. That's why the inspection regime was initiated in 91. Why start an inspection regime if they were all wiped out?

Seriously. A ton of good work was done by the UNSCUM team until 98. It got politicized and compromised after that and things fell apart.

It's interesting that the Bush administration has had nothing good to say about the inspections but almost their entire "dossier" on Iraq is taken from UNSCUM documents.


Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now lets get back to reality. Saddam wont give up the goods unless forcably taken from him. Do you actually think he will willingly go to trial for his crimes?

Bush gave him the option of taking off, getting out of Iraq. No war would happen. He choose not to.


I am sure they would. But they don't have the ability to do such a thing. Saddam has all the power. His people don't have anything.
It has nothing to do with Saddam's willingness. He's just a fat old man with a beret. The key to taking down dictators is to separate them from the means of their control (police, military).

The administration tells us he is widely unpopular with the public. They tell us he has limited support even in the military. We know the Kurds and Shi'ites will oust him in a second (and would have if we hadn't sold them out in 91). By their account, he's hanging by a thread.

Once the remaining police and military realize that Saddam's time is up, they won't protect him any more. Pinochet, Milosevic, Ceausescu, etc. It happens.

By threatening war, we rally everyone to Saddam's defense rather than eroding his support.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:00 PM
 
Hey if Iraq can get rid of the loser all by themselves why aren't they doing it? I'd be ALL FOR THAT.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey if Iraq can get rid of the loser all by themselves why aren't they doing it? I'd be ALL FOR THAT.
Give them a reason to and they will.

Looking at the potential costs of the war, occupation and reconstruction projected by the Pentagon, it might be cheaper to offer $10,000 to every citizen of Iraq and a total lift of the sanctions for Saddam's head.

I'm being creative about this, obviously. The point is that we are a long way off from "last resorts" like full scale invasion. There is a lot of room to work here.

That is all our Allies are saying. We don't need to panic and resort to invasion. There is a lot of room to work. Meanwhile, we continue to keep Saddam boxed in and watch him like a hawk.

Time is on our side.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:41 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Give them a reason to and they will.
Oh they have plenty of reasons. Give me a break.

Looking at the potential costs of the war, occupation and reconstruction projected by the Pentagon, it might be cheaper to offer $10,000 to every citizen of Iraq and a total lift of the sanctions for Saddam's head.

I'm being creative about this, obviously. The point is that we are a long way off from "last resorts" like full scale invasion. There is a lot of room to work here.
It's been over 10 years. We do not have A LONG WAY. The longer it gets drawn out the sooner Saddam will have even MORE weapons. Come on people.. think. He is stalling for a REASON.

That is all our Allies are saying. We don't need to panic and resort to invasion. There is a lot of room to work. Meanwhile, we continue to keep Saddam boxed in and watch him like a hawk.

Time is on our side.
Time isn't on our side. I'd love to be optimistic. But you just can't with Saddam.
     
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:44 PM
 
What motive would Saddam have to attack us? What could he hope to accomplish?

     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum 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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,