(WAR) What happens to the weapons
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. He isn't a magician. Solving the conflict is beyong his powers, and he should focus on doable things - like saving the Iraqi people. Kant wrote: But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. The european attitude is what stops peace. Their support for terror by Arafat strengtens him, and prevents new leaders. Until Hamas/Jihad/Tanzim crushed, no palestinian leader will give peace. Where moderate leaders today? London, Paris, Abu-Dabi. They afraid to act. Europe should support them, not Arafat. Only Europe can bring peace, not Bush.
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
One clean clear solution. GWB will start a WMD for food program. :-D
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: ...he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. But that is impossible. They don;t want it solved. Each wants the other out of the way so they can move in.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict Sod that, before they even try and mess up another country they need to sort out the last one they, er, liberated. What was it called again? Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, I can remember all the colourful maps on CNN. Sadly I don't have an irony or a sarcasm rating in my sig.
David Wulff
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
I think we're going to build an enormous oil moat around the country.:rolleyes: BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict Sod that, before they even try and mess up another country they need to sort out the last one they, er, liberated. What was it called again? Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, I can remember all the colourful maps on CNN. Sadly I don't have an irony or a sarcasm rating in my sig.
David Wulff
David Wulff wrote: Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, Africa ?? Andaman ?? Oh..may be Antartica... ;P One thing I really give hats off to GWB is, the way he turned people attention from Bin Laden to Saddam. That's a classic PR act. It should be for the books. :suss: Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
-
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. He isn't a magician. Solving the conflict is beyong his powers, and he should focus on doable things - like saving the Iraqi people. Kant wrote: But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. The european attitude is what stops peace. Their support for terror by Arafat strengtens him, and prevents new leaders. Until Hamas/Jihad/Tanzim crushed, no palestinian leader will give peace. Where moderate leaders today? London, Paris, Abu-Dabi. They afraid to act. Europe should support them, not Arafat. Only Europe can bring peace, not Bush.
But, Felix, if EU acts to try and solve the Palestine-Israel conflict, people can't point the finger back at the US for screwing it up.. :rolleyes: BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Kant wrote: What the United States wants is Iraq's oil woo hoo!!! cheaper gas!!! I can't wait. Prices are up to 1.75USD :wtf: Let's get in there and get our oil! :-D Kant wrote: Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire :omg: At least the SUV's in the US have catalytic converters! We'll burn it for them! Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
:laugh: Regards, Alvaro
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
-
David Wulff wrote: Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, Africa ?? Andaman ?? Oh..may be Antartica... ;P One thing I really give hats off to GWB is, the way he turned people attention from Bin Laden to Saddam. That's a classic PR act. It should be for the books. :suss: Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: That's a classic PR act. Well, I really do not think that is a true assessment. What I am about to write is just some thought I have had over the last few days, so they may not be well aligned but I am going to share them. What happened last summer fall that made Iraq more important? I do believe that Saddam was not compliant with UN resolutions over the past 10 years. But it had never been enough to start a path towards war. With 9/11 the American public has become less secure and there are now some stronger reactions to events from before but how much influence is that? My personal feeling is not that much. If the US has solid evidence it should have either been willing to share it (at least confidentially with other nations leadership) or have made the decision to sit on it and wait. Now for my train of thought: With the events of the last few weeks my news media has published some items I had not paid any attention to before (If it had been presented.) The critical item for me was 38 billion dollars of contracts with Iraq for oil development by France, Russia, and China reported by Deutchbanc(sp?) last fall. These contracts require sanctions to be lifted from Iraq. This effort changes the balance of attention to Iraq and is it enough to then cause the events over the past 6 months? Since the US does not believe sanctions should be lifted it now requires more attention to what is and is not, being done with respect to the UN resolutions from the first Gulf War. Now I do not believe it was the intention of any party to have this effect it appears plausible to me. Again just some thoughts. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Kant wrote: What the United States wants is Iraq's oil woo hoo!!! cheaper gas!!! I can't wait. Prices are up to 1.75USD :wtf: Let's get in there and get our oil! :-D Kant wrote: Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire :omg: At least the SUV's in the US have catalytic converters! We'll burn it for them! Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron said it a bit too bluntly, but it is a good thing to protect the oil fields. In order to safe guard the world economy, oil needs to be protected. It's not about greed. It's about jobs. Like it or not, oil moves the machinery of the world economy. Unless that oil is protected, the world --- not just America would suffer economic loss.
-
Kant wrote: What the United States wants is Iraq's oil woo hoo!!! cheaper gas!!! I can't wait. Prices are up to 1.75USD :wtf: Let's get in there and get our oil! :-D Kant wrote: Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire :omg: At least the SUV's in the US have catalytic converters! We'll burn it for them! Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. Even with that I suspect you have been taken seriously X| Elaine The tigress is here :-D