Just A Thought about post-war

Nick Seng

peterchen wrote: If they don't find any, the US will conclude the wapons have already been given to Iranian (or French, or German terrorists), and have to defend their homeland again. Won't that just make Bush turn his head to whoever has the WMD then and attack them? Notorious SMC

The difference between the almost-right word & the right word is a really large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the Lightning Mark Twain
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please Mark Twain

Nick Seng

But don't you see how bad it will look if they go in and find no WMDs. I mean I might not support Bush's actions but if he does find and reveal concrete evidence than Saddam is has and is planning to use/sell/give WMDs away, I would be the first to admit that I was wrong about him(well, mostly). But if he goes in and finds nothing, then gives another reason for attacking... I shudder to think of the US-International relations of days to come. Notorious SMC

The difference between the almost-right word & the right word is a really large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the Lightning Mark Twain
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please Mark Twain

Matt Gullett

What would you consider to be evidence of WMD? Chemical alaysis of a debris field? Documents showing plans on how to make them? Missle/rocket warheads with holes drilled in them for dropping them? It's entirely possible that they will not find a jar clearly labeled as chemical/biological weapons. We will probably bomb into oblivion any facility that we know of which produces or stores this stuff to protect our troops. And even if we do find hard evidence (whatever that is), I don't think it will change anyones mind. Our enemies will say that the US fabricated the evidence and the anti-war, anti-anything people will say that we could have done the job without military force. Personally, I have no doubt in my mind. I can't believe that anyone actually thinks Sadamm does not have these things. From what I can tell, the real reason for opposing the attack on IRAQ is a desire in the world community to minimize the power of the US. I can understand this perspective, but it has little to do with IRAQ. So far, I have not heard any reasonable arguments to wait any longer. Oh. Anyone who says that this war is about oil, give me a break. If what the US wanted was cheaper gas, we would either open the oil fields in Alaska, support the Arabs against Israel, or we would have kept Kuwait. It's just not a logical argument.

KaRl

Iran is between Afghanistan and Iraq. Guess who's next target?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Losinger

Matt Gullett wrote: If what the US wanted was cheaper gas, we would either open the oil fields in Alaska Iraqi oil is cheaper than alaskan oil could ever be. it's easier to find, easier to extract, cleaner and easier to refine. we already use a lot of it, but we buy it through middlemen. soon it will be even cheaper. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

yaname

That's not an option. They will find them even if they don't find them.

brianwelsch

We'll be too busy rebuilding to worry about it. effectively a moot point anymore. 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

Russell Morris

How could we? Even if Iraq does have WMD, they don't (which you have already clearly decided). -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

Brit

Notorious SMC wrote: But don't you see how bad it will look if they go in and find no WMDs. Yes. I wonder what people will think if Saddam does use WMD against the US (thus proving that he has them). Would it look just as bad for the inspectors and diplomacy route? In an interview with Dominique de Villepin (Minister of Foreign Affairs, France) a few weeks ago, George Stephanopolous asked him this question: "What if the US gets to Baghdad and discovered thousands of tons of chemical and bilogical weapons. What would you say?" He said that it is proof that inspections should continue, which is a good way to mitigate France's problems if that does happen. I think that idea is not really maintainable though. ( However, I did notice that France said that they will back the US if Iraq uses chemical weapons: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1084093,00.html[^] ) ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

yaname

Russell Morris wrote: which you have already clearly decided Actually, I believe Iraq has WMD, chemical and probably some bio. I'm only saying that GWB can't possibly go to war and come back without the goods. If they search high and low and find absolutely nothing (very unlikely) they will have to fake it. A more interesting case will be if they find only a little produced by a Mickey-Mouse operation. Then they'll have to decide if it's enough for show and tell.