I hate to think that this being a ground war we will lose alot of good soldiers...too bad Saddam just won't let them in.

We will.

And I'm starting to think "fuck it...its going to happen, might as well go along with it. As unwilling as I may be."

But I still hate the idea.

I sure as hell hope if we do, it's alone.

The world community needs to make a stand someday, showing that it won't be bullied by the US anymore (name a policy, and the US has forced its way on some issue that no one else has agreed with).

The world community? Don't you mean Third World dictators and Left-wing hippies?

I think we'll go to war, and the other countries in the area will mostly support us like they did before. When it comes down to it, most of the anti-American talk in the Middle-East is just that- talk.


And I for one am glad we're going to be going into a ground war instead of more of this retarded bombing shit that's killed innocent people in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

We'll go to war and the U.K. will toddle behind the U.S. like the good little lapdogs we are...

As soon as we go to war however, Blair will loose his position in Parliament

Neon

I want him gone. So yay for war.

one way or the other we will go to war,

..i think its a bad idea though....

Oh, I don't doubt we WILL go to war. Those in charge have been trying to build support for it since late last year, mentioning vague possibilities of Iraq's hand in 9/11. They WANT war. They aren't in it for "American interests" or they'd have been honest from the beginning; I'm just asking what exactly they want.

Well there was a comment made in the New Yorker quite recently about someone speaking out against American interests in the gulf and the response was 'well he won't get any of the oil out of this.'

this strikes me on 2 counts.

1) they're going in for the oil and they seem pretty determnied about it.

2) they're allocating the oil as if it were already theirs.

Neon

I'm going to point out that a) Last time we went in, we didn't get any oil out of it, and b) When we saved Kuwait's ass, one of the richest oil countries in the World, we didn't get any oil out of that either.



So the theory that we're going in it for the oil seems largely based on assumption and not on actual fact, despite the comments of popular magazines.

I'd like to resrve my judgement on that.

The question is why now? Hussein's been doing this for years. why suddenly turn the guns on him. It seems too convenient that iraq has oil and the Bush fortune is made in oil.

Neon

Actually, Bush Jr. made his fortune in baseball.


And as for now, well, 9/11. Although the argument "We didn't do it before" is never really a valid reason to not do something. "Sure, women/blacks/people under 21 can't vote, but we didn't let them vote before! Why now?" and so on, as an example.

We are getting oil from Afghanistan; furthermore, we didn't get oil beforehand, but we did establish a presence in the Middle East; with Iraq, we might not GET oil, but my hypothesis (that's all, hypothesis) is that we are trying to establish a regime that is completely willing to allow US oil dealings to continue unperturbed.

The Middle East is based in oil; would we do the same if Madagascar had Saddam Hussein instead?

We've done the same in plenty of countries that gained us nothing in the short-term in the past.

OK, there are a number of reasons I don't want this country to go to war with Iraq.

1) I don't know if any of you heard this until recently, but supposedly Saddam tried to kill George Bush Sr. while he was in office. That in and of itself screams of a child trying to defend his father... Now that he's grown it hasn't seemed to have gone away. It all seems something to stupid to drag the entire country into. (I never heard about the attempt on former Pres. Bush's life before last week, any one who heard about it in the early nineties please let me know)

2) Our current President Bush's cabinate members are almost entirely made up of ex members of his father's staff. I don't perticularlly charish the idea of simply feeding these people's egos by sending our people out to die. I don't care what they did in the past, I think they did right then.

Who are we to decide who is evil? If we decide to go to war with Iraq based on the fact that we feel Saddam is evil, how are we better than Al Quida and the others that feel America is evil?

4) Control for whatever reason. We don't have any right to that land. The little oil that is there should stay for the people that live there. Sure they may not hate us as much as other middle eastern countries (the common people, not the government), but they should still have the right to do what they can to benifit their own culture without our medeling.

5) Iraq doesn't have nuclear technology right now. People are assuming the they will in five to twenty years from now. Is that an excuse to destroy them? What about Pakistan that currently has the technology? Or India? Why don't we take out Iran instead, they're a larger threat to our country.

6)Well, a recently married friend of Darkstorm's and mine is in one of the top ten tank units in the US. And tanks a pretty much death traps. He was just recently moved to a live unit which really sucks, he's on 48 hour notice now and he and his fiance had to push their wedding date up six months because of it. I don't want this to sound like a "Don't kill my friend even though he knew what he was getting into" sort of thing. I would just perfer he not have to sacrifice his life for something so stupid.

7) (this is the biggest reason for me) Saddam has done nothing this time. Yes, in the past he asked for it, but this time he did nothign wrong. He even agreed to allow the UN weapon inspectors back in. Now if he had done something recently to warrant an attack I would be all for it, but as of right now he did nothing. I say, next time he decides that it is necessary to try to take over an ally, beat his ass. But for the moment, leave him be.

Now, I'm not saying all war is wrong, I'm just saying that this perticular one is.

1) I did hear about this several years ago, and I got the impression it was well known of when it actually happened. I was seven years old at the time, though, so I can't be completely sure.

2) This doesn't sound like it relates. Most of Bush Sr.'s cabinet members were the same as Reagan's, and they're not related. It has more to do with those being the top-ranking members of the Republican party than with familial loyalty, I think.

We live in reality. Therefore, we either have to at some point decide what is or is not evil, or stand by doing nothing. And standing by doing nothing while evil happens is evil to many people's eyes. Nonetheless, it's fairly easy to conclude that harming others without provocation is evil, and that stopping that from happening is good.

4) First of all, it's not a "little" oil. Secondly, you're right, it should go to the people who live there. But it doesn't.

5) No, they don't, but you know what they do have? Biological and chemical weapons. And they have used those on us.

6) I'm sorry for your friend, but I'm assuming he enlisted and therefore reconciled himself to certain possibilities.

7) *shrug* Depends on your definition. He provoked the US to some extent, but that alone isn't reason for war. If it is proven that he was linked to 9/11, however...that would definitely be justifiable grounds for war.

Where did you get your information, DM? Because everything I heard or read said the opposite. At least about five and seven. There HAS been no provocation. The rest are my opinions. Debating them is futile, but the other two?

They MIGHT have biological and chemical weapons. We have no proof and no, they have not used any on use unless something has happened in the past two days. In which case I wouldn't know about it.

As for seven, he provocted us a couple years ago, but recently? No, he hasn't. All it is, to me, to reporters, to everyone I have talked to save a few people, is a ploy for popularity votes. It's the second year of his term. He needs to do something to be popular and that's bassically it.

I was under the impression that Iraq had very little oil. When I asked people about it they always shrugged and said that they didn't think they had as much as other countries in the area.

All I am saying is that I am not behind our country in this war until it is proven to me to be more than simple, childish ploys to get something that the government, whoever that may be, wants.

What the bleeding fuck do you mean we have no proof? What about our soldiers from the Gulf War who all have neurological damage from foreign bleeding chemicals? And he's provoked us by withholding permission for UN weapons-inspectors for years in violation of our peace treaty, not to mention insulting us and threatening to destroy us on an almost daily basis. And Iraq has huge amounts of oil up the whazoo. They have the second biggest oil reserves in the World. Obviously the people you're talking to are bleeding ignorant, and yes, I'm aware I'm not English and that I'm overusing the term "bleeding".

And before I'm willing to believe the bosh that people have been saying about this whole war being nothing more than a a ploy to get something, I'd like to see someone explain to me what the administration is gaining. Before they started this Iraq thing, Bush's approval rating was like 106% or something, and it's been dropping since. We haven't tried to entitle ourselves to Iraq's oil if we were to overthrow them tomorrow, and no look at past US engagements suggests that we would try to use this attack for monetary gain.

Btw, say hi to DarkStorm for me.