|
the Iraki war is inevitable... (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Az |
| my problem is there was no need to ask the question, u were trying to spin it. If you'd have bothered reading my post I said there should be action, yet you didn't bother, and looked at the post how you wanted to.... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Az
my problem is there was no need to ask the question, u were trying to spin it. If you'd have bothered reading my post I said there should be action, yet you didn't bother, and looked at the post how you wanted to.... |
no i read and understood your posts....i was just playing devils advocate... |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
no i read and understood your posts....i was just playing devils advocate... |
there was no need, you just made yourself look like a muppet.... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Az
there was no need, you just made yourself look like a muppet.... |
there you again....u can not resist calling names....how sad. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Vesa, about your previous post:
Again here, I have a problem with the first part of your post. The second part is basically logical consequences of the first one, but the first part is not on such firm ground.
First of all, I don't think Saddam and his followers have a very large problem killing other muslims because they did kill about 200000 or so kurds in the last few years. Also, not many other muslim countries got very worried about it. The only reason Saddam can't retake the northern Kurdish areas is the no-fly zone where american and british bombers keep attacking Saddams forces, so they're leaving them at bay. Right after the first gulf war, Saddam did succesfully quell the large Kurdish uprising in those areas.
Besides, Baath is a pretty much secular party, so there is a very slim chance anybody from it is associated with Al Quaeda. And even if someone was, purges in the party would not destabilize it much because Saddam has also done that in the past and with much success.
It also means that only the most loyal members are left. Most islamic groups coming from Iraq are coming from the parts Saddam doesn't control, and he doesn't control them because of the US forces which are patroling those areas. If the US forces were to leave those areas, he'd be back in there in a matter of days.
Really, if Al Quaeda was the primary concern, US should just leave Iraq alone to deal with it because it is their joint interest. However, it seems to me that the real reason for intervention in the area isn't and cannot be Al Quaeda and other islamic organizations, because the course US is taking is opposite of what it should be and it is doing islamists a favour. That is of course unless the US is set on a much larger scale war then it seems to us now, and this is just a first step towards it. But that can very likely turn into one too big pretzel for Bush to swallow.
Now, about what you said in your second post about Iranian forces, I think their involvement in the area doesn't have much to do with americans. They're in there most probably because they think if a war breaks out Iran could get involved and get something for itself while the others are fighting. It could likely take some of the land with shiite (or is it sunni? whichever are the Iranians) majority for itself during the confusion caused by the war on other fronts. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Anyone understands that neither Saddam nor any of his military officers is gonna give Iraq's WMD to Iran (unless they are Iranian agents). How could they explain such a crazy act to their own people? It would be the worst kind of treason to give your own WMD to your hostile neighbour country: it would make your country defenceless, and empower your enemy.
What do you think the people of the U.S. would do to Bush if he one day said "Sorry guys, I gave all our nukes and germs to Russia so that China can't get them." Of course, all 280.000.000 Americans would rip him apart in a fit of joint outrage. So Bush knows very well that the same fate would happen to Saddam if he gave his WMD to his neighbours.
So the question is: why is the U.S. Government publishing such utter bull?
|
The article doesn't say that Rumsfeld thinks they may be storing WMD in Iran. As a matter of fact they don't specify any nation at all. The article simply states Iraq may try to hide weapons in other countries much like they sent planes to Iran in the first gulf war so they wouldn't be bombed. Then the article states that Iran and Syria would likely stay out of any conflict in the region. So where are you getting your facts that the US government is publishing stories that Iraq is storing WMD in Iran?? |
|
|
| shlomo_hamalech |
i know that anything we talk about is at most 20% of whats really going on out there... I know what you don't know, and you know what I don't know. I know, that the arab dictators share a common goal. They don't want to lose power. They know WMD will stop anyone from ruining their dicatorships, so they are sharing/hiding/producing whatever bombs!
that includes much of the arab world, but I won't be a dick and say all cause its simply not true!!!! Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon is controlled by syria (http://www.fortruthssake.com for the proof) and more countries that I don't even know off hand all play parts in the terrorist game. Each country has its own means for producing, and each country has its own terrorist groups. They are working together closer everyday. It's just a matter of time before we have a world wide army of hidden suicide bombers ready to strike with even WMD anywhere they feel their dictatorships are threatened...
if no war happens, lets see where the world stands in 2 years...
I say ONLY 2 years lets see where it stands!!!
SHLOMO ELIYAHU BARON |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
See the Iran topic I just lifted. There are Iranian-trained Shiite guerillas in Iraq. They will inevitably end up fighting with the U.S. troops.
The only countries where Saddam could be hiding his WMD are Syria and Iran (unless Bush will claim that they were flown in an unmanned drone to FARC rebels in Colombia :p ).
So 2 + 2 = 4. The fact of Iranian-trained guerillas in Iraq + the strange propaganda that an unspecified country may have Saddam's WMD = Saddam's EMD may be in Iran. At least according to my calculations ;)
But this will be easy to verify. We'll see within a couple months, whether the U.S. takes up these allegations again. If they do (by saying that "Iraqi WMD remain unaccounted for despite searching through all Iraq), we'll know that some other country will "be disarmed of WMD" quite soon :nervous: |
I looked up the IRan thread but I didn't see any article about Iranina trained guerillas in Iraq. However an unspecified country can be anywhere. It's not like Iraq is confined to using a truck or a train to transport WMDs. No middle east country is going to come under the limelight by storing WMDs for Iraq. If any place, Africa would be the most likely area. |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
israel also goes round stealing land and bombing people, doesnt mean its right, arse. |
Israel didn't go around stealing land, the Arabs came around, got beaten back, lost, and Israel gained some ground in the process, much of which was returned, but not all.
Israel does bomb people, but so do Palastinians, neither is on higher moral footing. The terrorist groups who's aim is the destruction of Israel complicate the matter much. |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Skaya
Obviously he was good enough for us to leave him in control of Iraq...... |
:haha: LMAO so true, so true. I mean, if he was such a bad a$$ threat during the Gulf War when we knew for certain that he had chemical weapons cause he gased the Kurds in the late 80's, why the hell didn't we just take him out then. It would have saved us a lot of trouble and we wouldn't have had to impose sanctions, and run through all that inspections bollocks during the Clinton era.
We knew we had WMD all along, the inspection process in the 90's was a joke, and now WMD is being used as a pretext to remove Saddam. He had WMD during the Gulf War, it could have been used as a pretext then.
The second war will cost a lot more money $100 billion or more, as opposed to the $30 billion of the Gulf War.
And as an American, I'm wondering what the hell we are going to get out of this mess. $100 billion & countless people killed better damn well be for something more than WMD & regrime change in Iraq, even a load of oil isn't going to cover $100 million dollar expenses...
And a note to Bush, quit cutting taxes, you've got a $300 billion dollar deficit, it's time you put some of that fiscal conservatism to work, and bring forth a balanced budget. Ah, the dreams of a republican actually putting forth a balanced budget, perhaps one day, 50 years from now after we filed for Chapter 11. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Verona^My
And a note to Bush, quit cutting taxes, you've got a $300 billion dollar deficit, it's time you put some of that fiscal conservatism to work, and bring forth a balanced budget. Ah, the dreams of a republican actually putting forth a balanced budget, perhaps one day, 50 years from now after we filed for Chapter 11. |
I've said it before I'll say it again. A balanced budget at a time like this would be severely detrimental to our economy. If you're a student of economics one of the first things you understand is the role of the business cycle and efforts to combat it. After the stock market crash of 1929 Hoover strived to maintain a balanced budget which was a collosal mistake that resulted in the stagflation extending far into the 30's. During times of deep economic depression it is far more advantageous to enact stimulus packages that jump start the economy. World War 2 accomplished this in the 30's and 40's with the massive demand of production and labor. Anyway, back to the issue at hand, the current, sound economic mindset is to replace consumer demand, during low ebbs of the business cylce, with government sacntioned programs. This will compensate for the lack of consumer demand and as such stimilate the economy for when it peaks at the end of the business cycle. At sucha time, governement spending is curtailed to make up the losses compiled during the recession. Theefore there will be a surplus to compensate for the previous deficet Thus if I were bush i would pump MORE money into the economy rather than less. |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Thus if I were bush i would pump MORE money into the economy rather than less. |
The great depression wasn't solved through tax cuts, it was solved through rigorous government spending through new deal programs & ultimately military spending because of World War II.
Hence government pumping money into the economy through new deal programs, tax cuts do not necessarily pump money into the economy, as government is still apart of the economy, government spending will. This was the solution to the great depression.
Tax cuts aren't the end all & be all of government policy, sometimes new deal style programs are better suited to stimulate the economy. In fact the economy is so complex, that figuring out which will work better in any given situation is important. My beef with Republicans is that their solution is always tax cuts, they never think of any other way to stimulate an economy, and they are extremely one dimensional in their policies. Even when Alan Greenspan said in the past few weeks that further tax cuts would be pointless, Bush ignored him & wants him removed for that remark. I'll listen to Alan Greenspan on economic issues before any Republican, cause listening to republicans is like hearing an automated message... tax cuts... tax cuts... tax cuts... tax cuts... tax cuts...
About deficits & the debt, the debt is huge, monumental, I dont know what it was like back in 1929, maybe it was worse then, but the US government literally owes out trillions of dollars of money, and the interest takes up some 15-20% of our federal budget. Ultimately this has to be paid off eventually, through some really hard times. But now Bush is rapidly accelarating the debt, something that should be stopped forthwidth.
Hoover had some bad times in 1929, he wanted to maintain a balanced budget, but he later lost to Roosevelt, who promised the new deal programs to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts weren't really thought of as a way to stimulate an economy back then as much, social programs were. |
|
|
|
|
