what if...

[karasz]

i jsut heard on MSNBC that United Arab Emirates and Kuwait along with teh Arab League have said that Saddam should step down to avert war... well my question is what would happen IF Saddam stepped down?

i see bush claiming victory and getting most saying 'YAY bush, we threatened and got what we wanted without war... yippie' so then off we go to Nor... Iran, then Syria... and then if there is time, north korea...

[Hatchet-Rider]

GW Bush would probably just say saddam is a backseat driver and bomb Iraq and any other country saddam set's foot in. There isn't a chance in hell GW is not going to want a war. And as you see from his past, whatever George wants George gets, cocaine, oil, a free ride through yale, draft protection, and someone else's white house

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/2/03 07:26 PM, JuggaloKilla wrote: GW Bush would probably just say saddam is a backseat driver and bomb Iraq and any other country saddam set's foot in. There isn't a chance in hell GW is not going to want a war. And as you see from his past, whatever George wants George gets, cocaine, oil, a free ride through yale, draft protection, and someone else's white house

Jeez, how ignorant can you be? Ladies and gentlemen, this post basically takes the most common arguments thrown out by the ignorant members of the anti-war movement. This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war. Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway? Exile would be a win-win-win situation--US wins, Iraq wins, world wins. The only loser is Saddam.

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is, I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

[Zio-Shirai]

i dont think saddam will give up, as soon as the us gets the required support from turkey, itll attack, and if the US wins, then north korea will be next....but there he wont win, i mean, north korea's got like a million soldiers, and with all the casualtiers from the war with iraq, the US will be devastated

[karasz]

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

[Fizzo]

If Saddam does surrender peacfully, the other countries will back down for little while since Saddam backed down, but Bush will, as said before, attack any country Saddam sets foot in, that is, if his own people don't get him first for backing out of the war. But, it would suck though, if Saddam didn't back down because drafting people is a waste of time, money, power, and lives. Bush, instead of trying to solve this peacfully, is going to throw the power of America around wherever he wants until he's gone.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/3/03 12:09 AM, karasz wrote:

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

I don't think destroying six al-Samouds counts as fully disarming as demanded by the UN. And just because they have large oil deposits, that makes it a war for oil? What proof can you offer that the main purpose of the war is to acquire Iraqi oil?

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

More ignorance. I never said I supported the war on drugs. In fact, I think marijuana should be legalized. The war is a separate issue.

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

I was referring to him going into exile. But that statement would also apply to disarmament. The bottom line is that he ain't disarming, and he ain't leaving. When is it time for you to say when?

[Grinwald]

First of all, Saddam won't surrender. He's pulled moves like this in the past; it's all a stalling tactic. Yes it would be great if he DID disarm and if he DID accept exile, but it's clear that he won't.

This is not a war for oil. If it were, we would have taken over Iraq back in the Gulf War, when we could have done it with ease. Oil is not the issue here, because, if we wanted oil from Iraq, we could buy it from them. Simple as that. Not to mention that our biggest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has precious little oil to speak of.

To the person who said we can't beat North Korea: ... yes we can. They have "like, a million soldiers" (actually, they have 1.082 million) whereas we have 1.368 million. We have a larger navy, a larger airforce, many more tanks, and much better funded and technologically superior armed forces. It wouldn't be a shoo-in, but it wouldn't be tough.

And as far as Iraq is concerned, if Saddam were to step down, I'm sure Bush would press the UN to set up a democratic government in Iraq. He isn't in this just to go to war, he's in it because 1) It's clear that Iraq harbors terrorists, 2) Saddam Hussein has violeted 16 UN sanctions and has committed multiple, documented war atrocities, 3) Saddam has been reported by multiple defectors to have a nuclear arms program in effect, and 4) Saddam has shown himself in the past to be an aggressive leader. He used nerve gas in combat and against civilians, and there is no doubt, according to former head of the Iraq nuclear arms program Khadir Hamza, that he would use nukes with little hesitation.

In short: it would be nice if Saddam would accept exile, but he won't. And we could beat Iraq and North Korea at the same time.

[karasz]

At 3/3/03 12:41 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/3/03 12:09 AM, karasz wrote:

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

I don't think destroying six al-Samouds counts as fully disarming as demanded by the UN. And just because they have large oil deposits, that makes it a war for oil? What proof can you offer that the main purpose of the war is to acquire Iraqi oil?

well im not an expert but doesnt it take like 4 or 5 hours to disable a missle? Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust... but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

More ignorance. I never said I supported the war on drugs. In fact, I think marijuana should be legalized. The war is a separate issue.

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

I was referring to him going into exile. But that statement would also apply to disarmament. The bottom line is that he ain't disarming, and he ain't leaving. When is it time for you to say when?

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start... personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

[karasz]

At 3/3/03 01:16 AM, Grinwald wrote: This is not a war for oil. If it were, we would have taken over Iraq back in the Gulf War, when we could have done it with ease. Oil is not the issue here, because, if we wanted oil from Iraq, we could buy it from them. Simple as that. Not to mention that our biggest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has precious little oil to speak of.

ah Israel our only friend in the mid-east... but before Israel we had no enemies in the mid-east... Actually the UN resolution was to get Saddam out of Kuwait not out of power... it would have broken UN resolutions the very thing we are going after Saddam for... also Israel, Turkey, Cyprus are in more violations of UN resolutions than Iraq... but away to Iraq we go...

To the person who said we can't beat North Korea: ... yes we can. They have "like, a million soldiers" (actually, they have 1.082 million) whereas we have 1.368 million. We have a larger navy, a larger airforce, many more tanks, and much better funded and technologically superior armed forces. It wouldn't be a shoo-in, but it wouldn't be tough.

define a win... because in Vietnam we won every major battle, but lost the war based on the public opinion at home, which is what saddam will be fighting to trigger, get the people at home annoyed with the war and he will win... also if NK nukes a city they win, because SK wont let the US nuke NK without huge protests and more anti-amereicanism then already seen...

And as far as Iraq is concerned, if Saddam were to step down, I'm sure Bush would press the UN to set up a democratic government in Iraq. He isn't in this just to go to war, he's in it because 1) It's clear that Iraq harbors terrorists,

so does saudi arabia, lets get those guys... pakistan is a cesspool of terrorism... tibet, and checnya harbor terrorists to the chinese and russian governments, and we get pissed when they do anything to their terrorsits...

2) Saddam Hussein has violeted 16 UN sanctions and has committed multiple, documented war atrocities,

Israel 25, Turkey 20, Cyprus 17(around) yet we do nothign with them

3) Saddam has been reported by multiple defectors to have a nuclear arms program in effect, and 4) Saddam has shown himself in the past to be an aggressive leader. He used nerve gas in combat and against civilians, and there is no doubt, according to former head of the Iraq nuclear arms program Khadir Hamza, that he would use nukes with little hesitation.

North Korea also has a nuclear arms program yet we do nothing... the nerve gas he used was from the US when he was fighting the iranians... against civilians i ask why did we take out the taliban? because A) they beat their women, B) they had osama bin laden? sadly the answer was B, besides turkey and israel kill the kurdish/palestinian citizens yet again we do NOTHING (see a pattern here)

In short: it would be nice if Saddam would accept exile, but he won't. And we could beat Iraq and North Korea at the same time.

bassed on what? north korea nukes seattle or LA and guess what they win by nuking us... because we could have avoided it, and SK wont let us nuke their countrymen, so we invade and have a bloody battle the way Japan was suppose to happen in '45...

[Ted-Easton]

There has also been some more opposition to his war-
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien expressed dismay upon hearing that Bush planned to cause a regime change even if Saddam disarmed, saying "if you start changing regimes, where do you stop?".

Also, Turkey has refused the use of military bases to America.

[JMHX]

Big report in the papers "Mexico Moving Toward Anti-War Stance". Oh, dearie dearie. Bush is going to have to do more "convincing".

saddam is enemy and bush is hero,and the people is story.So Bush and saddam friendly and he's will be married at next month and try to sign-up on
>http://PROTECTIONCLUB-F1.tk

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/3/03 02:05 AM, karasz wrote: Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust...

Whoop-de-doo. They have a background in the oil business. That is what irritates me. Anti-war people take the President's oil background, combine it with the fact that Iraq has oil, and then just assume that he just wants the oil, without giving it any more thought. Let me say this again: if we just wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying oil from the current regime.

but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

I'm tired of people saying stuff like "we're ignoring North Korea/Osama/the economy". Do you think that when the administration does one thing, that it neglects to do all other things? Yes, something should be done about North Korea. It's just that we have to be more careful with them, because they have already acquired nukes. I still don't think they have the balls to use them, though, and I think they will back down if we take a tough stand. I think that once we're through in Iraq, we'll do something about North Korea.

As for Iran, they were included in the Axis based on hostility that they have shown us in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some terror cells in Iran. But why bring up Iran? You said it yourself: Iran isn't doing anything, and no one is talking about war with Iran.

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

Are you saying that Bush is putting a spin on the situation by saying we're goin there to do other things when we're actually going there for oil? I think that the facts speak for themselves--Iraq has yet to fully comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441. I personally think you're putting a spin on it by using two facts that seem to be related but actually aren't and using them to show that it's a war for oil. Perhaps we should declare this board a No Spin Zone™.

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

UN Resolution 1441 places the burden of proof on Iraq, not the United States. And if the UN fails to act on its own resolutions, then yes, it is irrelavent.

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start...

It's a start, but I won't be satisfied until I see a finish.

personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I know Bush has made the "ties with al-Qaeda" argument, which may or may not be true, but is in my opinion irrelavent--the weapons are the only justification we need. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather piss off the world than see more of my countrymen die.

[karasz]

At 3/3/03 10:53 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/3/03 02:05 AM, karasz wrote: Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust...

Whoop-de-doo. They have a background in the oil business. That is what irritates me. Anti-war people take the President's oil background, combine it with the fact that Iraq has oil, and then just assume that he just wants the oil, without giving it any more thought. Let me say this again: if we just wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying oil from the current regime.

i am not saying that this war is for oil... i just explained why people say the war is for oil... i dont think bush would be to willing to give money to a guy that tried to kill his dad in 1998...

but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

I'm tired of people saying stuff like "we're ignoring North Korea/Osama/the economy". Do you think that when the administration does one thing, that it neglects to do all other things? Yes, something should be done about North Korea. It's just that we have to be more careful with them, because they have already acquired nukes. I still don't think they have the balls to use them, though, and I think they will back down if we take a tough stand. I think that once we're through in Iraq, we'll do something about North Korea.

well the economy has been bad (according to those taht know) the whole time Bush has been in office the economy has not been good, granted at different times its better than other times but overall it sucks... what would north korea have to lose if they use their weapon on the US? especially if Kim Jong IL feels his power is threatened...

As for Iran, they were included in the Axis based on hostility that they have shown us in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some terror cells in Iran. But why bring up Iran? You said it yourself: Iran isn't doing anything, and no one is talking about war with Iran.

But France has as much anti-americanism as Iran does, Pakistan has more anti-americanism than both and we are doing nothing against them... but since they are doing nothing they should not be part of the axis of evil...

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

Are you saying that Bush is putting a spin on the situation by saying we're goin there to do other things when we're actually going there for oil? I think that the facts speak for themselves--Iraq has yet to fully comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441. I personally think you're putting a spin on it by using two facts that seem to be related but actually aren't and using them to show that it's a war for oil. Perhaps we should declare this board a No Spin Zone™.

no this spin comment was in regards to the war on marijuania the administration has started, even though for every commercial the same could be said about alcohol... and the spin comment at teh beginning of the thread was about how people can make the statement that the war on terror is actually a war for oil...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

UN Resolution 1441 places the burden of proof on Iraq, not the United States. And if the UN fails to act on its own resolutions, then yes, it is irrelavent.

so then by making the UN irrelevant why should anyone listen to any resolutions that are passed by the UN if the US is claiming it will be irrelevant if the UN doesnt do what the US wants...

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start...

It's a start, but I won't be satisfied until I see a finish.

well that just means u have to wait... i suppose

personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I know Bush has made the "ties with al-Qaeda" argument, which may or may not be true, but is in my opinion irrelavent--the weapons are the only justification we need. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather piss off the world than see more of my countrymen die.

well no u didnt say anything about 9-11, but if u re-read what i wrote i said 'oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable ' because most of the time i say we should be the way we were on 9-10-01 people say then fine lets wait for another 9-11... it was a pre-emptive comment to stop u from saying that... if we piss off the world, then wont more countrymen die from when we invade the next terrorist nation since we will have no help in a war...