No Way Out Of Iraq

Ironhorse · 01-29-2003

Whatever your feelings are on it, after all this war drumming to pull out of the Iraq engagement now without at the very least Saddam's ending his 'term' can be very damaging internationally in terms of US credibility and 'might factor' for the coming generations, and catastrophic for the administration and US power in general.

It's not a question when we go to war but how? No doubt there are sorties sent to draw the enemy out of his hole, but will he bite? And how long can the international community take this stare down?

Almighty Colin · 01-29-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironhorse@Jan 29 2003, 01:57 PM
Whatever your feelings are on it

Well, I'm quite sure SOME feel that US credibility will increase if "weapons of mass destruction" are found in or used by Iraq either before, during or after an invasion.

For example, if the US invades Iraq and Saddam uses a chemical warhead on Israel, US would gain credibility, not lose it.

In the end, there are many possibilities for US credibility and many people have varying feelings about it.

Nickatilynx · 01-29-2003

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Shit,in the old days the CIA would just plant some

Ironhorse · 01-29-2003

My guess is they will not find what they are looking for. But I was saying US would lose credibility if NOT attacking or at least makind sure Saddam goes in early retirement

Last edited by Ironhorse at Jan 29 2003, 01:23 PM

PornoDoggy · 01-29-2003

Oh, I think they'll find some ... I personally belive he's got them, and if he doesn't see Mr. Nickatilynx's post above.

Mutt · 01-29-2003

i am crossing my fingers we find the smoking gun cuz i want to blow his
ass up reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal good! CIA should be able to get to these Iraqi scientists who know exactly what he's got and maybe where some shit is hidden.

I'm telling you Hussein is turning this into some Warner Brothers cartoon, like in an Elmer Fudd cartoon where you see Bugs disguising himself as a tree and the tree is moving all around behind Elmer's back to new positions.

voodooman · 01-29-2003

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iraq_65

Just how stupid does the US think Sadam is?
And how stupid is this plan?

01-29-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by voodooman@Jan 29 2003, 12:32 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iraq_65

Just how stupid does the US think Sadam is?
And how stupid is this plan?

You always offer a peacefull alternative to what's already not working. Don't take it and...

.. we get the chance to blow his ass off the face of the planet

Rolo · 01-30-2003

So, you really think that weapons of mass destruction is the true reason for war? I think the US goverment getting ride of Saddam because of alot of things and the weapons are not that important....

I think its all about Oil... The US and the world in general are using more and more oil, even with new technology, then we need more oil. Today the biggest supplier of oil is Saudi Arabia, however their goverment/kingdom is pressed by muslims, which could take power today, if Saudi Arabia did not have the US trops in their country. But someday the muslims will have grown in forces and it will not matter, and the Saudi Arabia goverment will be replaced by muslims... now if that happens, then 2/3 of all oil in the world will be in the hands of hardcore muslims - which will use this power to get US trops out of Saudi Arabia, and probably even worse things (ex. economic terror)... If there are no US trops, then Saddam will be able to do whatever he wants, and western economy will be sent into the dark ages.

Now, there could be a solution to Saudi Arabia muslims taking power, and that is getting rid of Saddam now, and also getting Iraq back in the oil game. Then US trops could be moved from Saudi Arabia, which will mean less terrorism with less chance of muslims taking power in Saudi Arabia, and when/if 2/3 of worlds oil fall into muslim hands, then there will be enough of other suppliers, with Iraq leading, to take most of Saudi oil production.

If they find mass destruction weapons or not - I really do not think it matters... most wars are started/tricked by some event... but when the war is over, then the story have changed to a matter of power - who will dominate who. There will also be weapons of mass destruction after the war, but the truth/history will be written by those who won on the battle field, and thats why the US have no choice but to get ride of Saddam...

Last edited by Rolo at Jan 30 2003, 05:17 PM

Ironhorse · 01-30-2003

Rolo I agree with your thinking, also don't forget the conventional weapons market, which Middle East was always juicy customer, a destabilized area would only increase weapons sales. By weapons of course I don't mean, 38 special but planes, tanks, rocket munitions, expensive items.

Divide and conquer is and always has been #1 strategy. It's a poor soldier that doesn't keep this handy in their folio.

Almighty Colin · 01-31-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolo@Jan 30 2003, 08:16 PM
I think its all about Oil

That's not thinking. That's repeating.

slavdogg · 01-31-2003

Rolo, you should stick to talking about iBill and credit cards...

Almighty Colin · 01-31-2003

Morning, Slav

Rolo · 01-31-2003

Well - I would, but it seams that IBill is alright, and credit cards are waiting to be verifed by visa in april... sometimes its all about waiting and repeating - just like the Bush goverment is doing now

Almighty Colin · 01-31-2003

Roll a Rolo to your pal

Rolo · 01-31-2003

it's chocolate covered caramel...

01-31-2003

Rolo / Colin --

Oil is a factor. However, the war is about gaining credibility:
1.) Against terror
2.) Against rouge nation states--specifically we go to a "quick war" against Iraq to avoid a real prolonged potentially nuclear war against N. Korea.
3.) Domestic popularity

If we defeat Iraq and remove Saddam, then the U.S. has a new base of military operations inside Iraq. That base of operations would be a strategic location, far better than afghanistan. It would also allow us to control the production of oil in Iraq, essentially breaking a lot of OPEC cartel power as we institute a "Marshall Plan" in the middle east. The risk is angering the Saudis; however, with a Marshall Plan in Iraq, the Saudis would be forced to act differently.

In addition, we would have a greater ability to put more strategic pressure on Israel to help stabilize that situation.

In the very short term, threatening war against Iraq and deploying troops is a KEY signal to N. Korea that the Bush administration is serious about commiting forces. Also, it buys some time.

N. Korea would inflict huge military and civilian casualities in N. Korea, S. Korea and U.S. soldiers. Now that the fools have made N. Korean nuclear development an issue, they have to find a way to deal with that situation effectively.

=====>
In a lot of ways the Iraqi issue is key to reorganizing the long-term prospects in the Middle East. The more I think about it, the less it has to do with weapons of mass destruction, oil, or terrorism. It is long-term strategic policy for that region. U.S. needs complete political control of a vast stretch of terrority.

Long term
1.) Political stability
2.) Increased pressure on Israel
3.) Oil

Short term
1.) Domestic Popularity
2.) Pressure on N. Korea (buys time for help from China on the N. Korea issue)
3.) A win in terms of shifting the blame from osama to saddam for 9/11 (which has surprising worked so far. How much do you hear about Osama?)

Rolo · 01-31-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by IMX@Jan 31 2003, 12:17 PM

1.) Against terror
2.) Against rouge nation states--specifically we go to a "quick war" against Iraq to avoid a real prolonged potentially nuclear war against N. Korea.
3.) Domestic popularity

IMX - Good post

Must agree that getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing both short term and long term.

Made me wonder if we are just at the beginning of a long period with major conflicts in key regions. This could mean that overall stock markets will continue to suffer.

The dollar have already lost 20% value to the Euro in just 1 year - which isn´t that bad for the US export. However if people around the world are going to spend less money on bigger products/investments, then the US will suffer, and the tax cuts could have less effect.

Interest rate is very low at the momment, however people will not lend/spend big money as long as the future look uncertain, so national banks around the world are having tons of money in their vaults...

Its so bad in Japan that the interest rate went below 0% a few days ago (-0.01%),
meaning a bank that borrowed money would have to pay back less the next day! (Japan have alot of other problems beside people not wanting to loan, but asian countries/markets are usual those who will see growth first, then the rest of the world follows).

N. Korea is very close to all of key countries in Asia, and a war with N. Korea would be extreamly bad, since N. Korea could attack any country in that region with nuclear weapons (ex. they have been testing missiles able to carry nuclear warheads near Japan).

I also think that the Bush goverment is thinking long term (or atlest I hope so), and that they have made plans for both the mideast and asia. Bush will probably be in power for the next 5 years, so time will tell...

Last edited by Rolo at Jan 31 2003, 08:33 PM

Ironhorse · 02-01-2003

I think you are right about being at the beginning of a long conflict or turbulent Middle-East. I think after some time, the markets will adjust to the new changes and the culture clash will soften as we have a chance to exchange ideas and arts, all with the aid of the internet of course.

I predict that by 2010 modern arabic music will have top billing in western music circles.

01-29-2003	#4
Ironhorse Members Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 282	My guess is they will not find what they are looking for. But I was saying US would lose credibility if NOT attacking or at least makind sure Saddam goes in early retirement Last edited by Ironhorse at Jan 29 2003, 01:23 PM __________________ Tib ICQ: 790728

01-29-2003	#5
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Oh, I think they'll find some ... I personally belive he's got them, and if he doesn't see Mr. Nickatilynx's post above. __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

01-30-2003	#9
Rolo Members Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Six Feet Under Posts: 2,150	So, you really think that weapons of mass destruction is the true reason for war? I think the US goverment getting ride of Saddam because of alot of things and the weapons are not that important.... I think its all about Oil... The US and the world in general are using more and more oil, even with new technology, then we need more oil. Today the biggest supplier of oil is Saudi Arabia, however their goverment/kingdom is pressed by muslims, which could take power today, if Saudi Arabia did not have the US trops in their country. But someday the muslims will have grown in forces and it will not matter, and the Saudi Arabia goverment will be replaced by muslims... now if that happens, then 2/3 of all oil in the world will be in the hands of hardcore muslims - which will use this power to get US trops out of Saudi Arabia, and probably even worse things (ex. economic terror)... If there are no US trops, then Saddam will be able to do whatever he wants, and western economy will be sent into the dark ages. Now, there could be a solution to Saudi Arabia muslims taking power, and that is getting rid of Saddam now, and also getting Iraq back in the oil game. Then US trops could be moved from Saudi Arabia, which will mean less terrorism with less chance of muslims taking power in Saudi Arabia, and when/if 2/3 of worlds oil fall into muslim hands, then there will be enough of other suppliers, with Iraq leading, to take most of Saudi oil production. If they find mass destruction weapons or not - I really do not think it matters... most wars are started/tricked by some event... but when the war is over, then the story have changed to a matter of power - who will dominate who. There will also be weapons of mass destruction after the war, but the truth/history will be written by those who won on the battle field, and thats why the US have no choice but to get ride of Saddam... Last edited by Rolo at Jan 30 2003, 05:17 PM __________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man." ~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918

01-30-2003	#10
Ironhorse Members Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 282	Rolo I agree with your thinking, also don't forget the conventional weapons market, which Middle East was always juicy customer, a destabilized area would only increase weapons sales. By weapons of course I don't mean, 38 special but planes, tanks, rocket munitions, expensive items. Divide and conquer is and always has been #1 strategy. It's a poor soldier that doesn't keep this handy in their folio. __________________ Tib ICQ: 790728

01-31-2003	#13
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	Morning, Slav __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

01-29-2003	#3
Nickatilynx Banned Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 15,115	Weapons of Mass Destruction? Shit,in the old days the CIA would just plant some

01-29-2003	#6
Mutt Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,087	i am crossing my fingers we find the smoking gun cuz i want to blow his ass up reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal good! CIA should be able to get to these Iraqi scientists who know exactly what he's got and maybe where some shit is hidden. I'm telling you Hussein is turning this into some Warner Brothers cartoon, like in an Elmer Fudd cartoon where you see Bugs disguising himself as a tree and the tree is moving all around behind Elmer's back to new positions.

01-29-2003	#7
voodooman Members Respin bullshit press Your Comments Are Welcomed Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,695	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iraq_65 Just how stupid does the US think Sadam is? And how stupid is this plan?

01-31-2003	#15
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	Roll a Rolo to your pal __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

01-31-2003	#16
Rolo Members Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Six Feet Under Posts: 2,150	it's chocolate covered caramel... __________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man." ~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918

01-31-2003	#17
<IMX> Guest Posts: n/a	Rolo / Colin -- Oil is a factor. However, the war is about gaining credibility: 1.) Against terror 2.) Against rouge nation states--specifically we go to a "quick war" against Iraq to avoid a real prolonged potentially nuclear war against N. Korea. 3.) Domestic popularity If we defeat Iraq and remove Saddam, then the U.S. has a new base of military operations inside Iraq. That base of operations would be a strategic location, far better than afghanistan. It would also allow us to control the production of oil in Iraq, essentially breaking a lot of OPEC cartel power as we institute a "Marshall Plan" in the middle east. The risk is angering the Saudis; however, with a Marshall Plan in Iraq, the Saudis would be forced to act differently. In addition, we would have a greater ability to put more strategic pressure on Israel to help stabilize that situation. In the very short term, threatening war against Iraq and deploying troops is a KEY signal to N. Korea that the Bush administration is serious about commiting forces. Also, it buys some time. N. Korea would inflict huge military and civilian casualities in N. Korea, S. Korea and U.S. soldiers. Now that the fools have made N. Korean nuclear development an issue, they have to find a way to deal with that situation effectively. =====> In a lot of ways the Iraqi issue is key to reorganizing the long-term prospects in the Middle East. The more I think about it, the less it has to do with weapons of mass destruction, oil, or terrorism. It is long-term strategic policy for that region. U.S. needs complete political control of a vast stretch of terrority. Long term 1.) Political stability 2.) Increased pressure on Israel 3.) Oil Short term 1.) Domestic Popularity 2.) Pressure on N. Korea (buys time for help from China on the N. Korea issue) 3.) A win in terms of shifting the blame from osama to saddam for 9/11 (which has surprising worked so far. How much do you hear about Osama?)

02-01-2003	#19
Ironhorse Members Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 282	I think you are right about being at the beginning of a long conflict or turbulent Middle-East. I think after some time, the markets will adjust to the new changes and the culture clash will soften as we have a chance to exchange ideas and arts, all with the aid of the internet of course. I predict that by 2010 modern arabic music will have top billing in western music circles. __________________ Tib ICQ: 790728