| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Did Bush make a case for war? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 13 ] |
| Will decide with evidence from Colin Powell |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
Finarfin
Baron of the Court
Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London |
FREE TIBET, thats what bush should be doing!
_________________
I didn't get where i am today by talking in clichés, i avoid clichés like the plague, a cliché to me is like a red rag to a bull..... |
Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:55 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
As for how the war will be executed? Well, I doubt they're going to send out a press release detailing their plans for attack. It looks like this time around nothing short of regime change will satisfy though.
They sort of published a press release.  According to the usual experts itīs quite simple. They need to do a ground invasion with with 150.000 - 350.000 soldiers. To prepare this invasion the complete country will be destroyed. Meaning every city with more than a few thousand inhabitants and of course every military or scientific facility will be bombed to ground level to avoid a scenario like in Black Hawk Down. Then heavily armed special forces invade a country defended the remainings of a destroyed army, civilists with guns and 15+ year old boys with guns (no joke!).
Iīve seen many estimated numbers in the last weeks, so sorry if Iīm 100k to high or low here. American casualties are expected between 5000 and 10.000 men. Iraqi losses will be between 500.000 and 1.500.000 (depending on whom you ask and where he lives), most of them civilists who donīt even know what happens to them.
Killing a million people for oil isnīt exactly my style.
quote:
Biggest campaign contributor? It was a bank. MBNA or something. They also contributed to the Democrates. Cheney's previous job was with Halliburton.
Biggest personal contributor was the former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay (sp?). Enron is/was in the energy business. Halliburton manufactures oil pipelines.
Isnīt it possible that George W. is just paying back his election depts??? Who do you think will rebuild the Iraqui oil infrastructure?
Israel will of course try to stay out of this war. If they donīt succeed they are in serious trouble because even the neighbor countries which try to keep their population under control in the Israel question will hardly be able to do so any longer.
Costs:
The white house estimates the costs for the war alone will be 40 to 200 billion $. After war phase comes extra.
Worst case scenario of the congressional budget office is 270 billion $ for a 3 month war and a 5 year stay.
William Nordhaus (Yale Univ.) sees a worst case of 1.900 billion $ in a publication by the AMACAD.
Itīs not clear who will pay for the rebuilding of the country. If the US want to maintain at least some control about the oil ressources they canīt just destroy the Iraq and leave because there is no guarantee where the next goverment will head.
UN participation in the costs is also not secured if the war is started without a UN mandate. And if they get a UN mandate remains to be seen. Saddamīs evaluation (by the UN) hasnīt significantly changed during the last 20 years.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:13 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
There is a distinction between fighting to keep oil flowing as a commodity and taking over another country in order to sieze it's oil.
Of course there is a difference. But you forgot that the Iraq is only allowed to produce so much oil. So the USA are not invading the Iraq to 'keep the oil flowing'.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:20 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
So, I have to answer all these questions before I start a discussion? I don't think so.
Of course not. I only wanted to point out that your initial post looked one-dimensional and uninformed to me. So I wanted to make sure you know about some of the possible problems.
quote:
I have to trust(or not trust, as you seem to) that our leaders have some of this worked this out.
a)Wrong. If you trust them ot not is your decision alone.
b)The last few generations of Germans donīt trust leaders. Maybe this is a lesson other countries still have to learn.
No, seriously. Bush oversimplifies a very, very complicated matter. All this 'war against terrorism' and 'Saddam is evil' bullshit is only propaganda. The world is not black and white, the world is grey. And depending on the perspective a country can shine in different shades of grey.
quote:
This will be complicated for sure
Even more complicated. The whole region will be destabilized.
quote:
, but letting Saddam continue to build power will not make things simpler later.
This is the question! Killing people is always the most simple solution. The dead will not complain later.
Are you sure there is no other way? Why donīt they assassinate Saddam? Or bomb his palace while heīs in there? This would also lead to a new government. And please donīt tell me they canīt locate him.
quote:
Saddam has weapons(we know because he's used them), and he is supposed to be showing them to inspectors, not forcing inspectors to search. So, it's not like US is making baseless alegations that Iraq is hiding weapons. If weapons inspectors don't find the weapons he is hiding, does that mean he is innocent?
And what if, how small the probability may be, Saddam no longer has such weapons in useable condition? What if he is, for whatever reason, unable to provide the proof he had them destroyed?
99% sure isnīt enough. You need 100% in a case. 99% still means 'not guilty'!
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:36 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
There is a distinction between fighting to keep oil flowing as a commodity and taking over another country in order to sieze it's oil.
Of course there is a difference. But you forgot that the Iraq is only allowed to produce so much oil. So the USA are not invading the Iraq to 'keep the oil flowing'.
The possible war with Iraq is about many things. Oil is one of them, but not Iraq's oil specifically. To cut right to it; we don't want Iraq to gain control of more oil in the region by attacking its neighbors. This might not seem like a noble reason for war, but it is a fact of life that the US, and everyone else needs oil. Keeping the balance of power is necessary. Although "No War for oil" grossly oversimplifies the motives for this conflict, the need to maintain the the oil flow from that region is not simply a greedy desire.
Of course, starting a conflic in Iraq could result in the scenario that we are trying to prevent. It is my opinion that it is a risk that we are going to have to take because we will have to deal with Iraq sooner or later. If we do it sooner on our own terms, we have a better chance of containing the conflic. If we wait for Iraq to do something, it makes justifying a military response much easier, but that "something" might be horrific when we are talking about nuclear and chemical weapons. I am glad that I don't have to make these decisions. 
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:59 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
...Of course, starting a conflic in Iraq could result in the scenario that we are trying to prevent. It is my opinion that it is a risk that we are going to have to take because we will have to deal with Iraq sooner or later. If we do it sooner on our own terms, we have a better chance of containing the conflic. If we wait for Iraq to do something, it makes justifying a military response much easier, but that "something" might be horrific when we are talking about nuclear and chemical weapons. I am glad that I don't have to make these decisions.
I agree. I am very happy I don't have to make the choice, and even more happy that I am way past draft age.
.
.
.
Something that bothers me though. *If* Iraq nuked something ... say Tel Aviv ... would international opinion about a war change? Then everyone would be worried that if they did something, they'd be next .... or worse yet .... "What if he nukes the oil fields next, then what would we do?"
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 6:09 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Gorath, I don't know why we don't assasinate Saddam, maybe we will. I thought that was illegal somehow. War hasn't been declared yet, so there is still a chance something else could happen.
I don't have all the intel. or military advisors etc at my disposal like the President does, so I can't make as informed a decision. For this reason, I will trust him at this point.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 6:14 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
There is a Presidential Ordinance that says that foreign rulers may not be executed. This was put in place shortly after the CIA and Mafia failed in their attempt to kill Castro.
Does President Bush have the power to override that Ordinance? Yes, but it is a very bad pressident (sp?), and there is great concern that should Saddam, or any other foreign rules, be assassinated that certain people would then actively attempt to assassinate our own leaders and the leaders of all our allies.
And the problems with bombing Saddams Presidential Palaces is that he has 90+ of them, and worse in 91 he filled them with civilians whether he was in them at the time or not. So doing so could result in a hundred civilian with no guaranty that we would get Saddam, and contrary to what the US is often accused of by detractors, we do not want to hurt civilians!
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
and even more happy that I am way past draft age...
Im not, but neither am I bothered by it. I firmly believe this would be a just war that would greatly help the Iraqi people; if it means that there is the risk of me being put in a kill or be killed situation then so be it. |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:06 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
I don't see why we should impressed by President Bush's State of the Union speech. It's just a well written speech by Bush's assistant (the president personal writer?) with usual blend of rhetoric.
It seem Bush avoiding the Israel-Palestine issue. Arabs will still think American lean too much to toward Israel in this neverending conflict. Plus Zionism, anti-Christian, anti-American, etc, and at the end the angers toward America will be still there. America won't see the end of terrorism any sooner even after Saddam got thrown down.
The impact of war upon US current state of economy also unclear, with
US economy isn't very healthy either.
Lets see some politician and jurnalist comments on Bush's speech:
-------------------------------------
-"He did not make a convincing case that the use of force now is the only way to disarm Iraq, or that removing Saddam from power would guarantee that a new regime would not pursue the same policies. The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism, and the president did not explain how a war with Iraq would not compromise our efforts against terrorists." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from www.usatoday.com
-"Will you go all the way in Iraq as with the Marshall Plan or will you leave Iraq a messy place and let the Saudis and Iran deal with it?" -editor, Bambang Harymurti., from www.nytimes.com
-"The president continues to threaten war without making a case for war; he promises to stimulate the economy yet runs the federal budget deep into debt; and he proposes no serious health care reform." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean., from www.usatoday.com
-"The President just doesn't get it. Giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans should not take priority over the real economic, health care and security concerns facing regular people." Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. from www.usatoday.com
-------------------------------------- |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:14 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
You are distorting my statement. There is a distinction between fighting to keep oil flowing as a commodity and taking over another country in order to sieze it's oil.
That wasn't my intention - I read your post in the way implied by my response, so my apologies.
@Lintra, the conflict avoidance argument is a reasonable one, although I don't think the parallels between Hitler's Germany and Iraq are very strong. Had the US been ambivalent about Kuwait in the same way it was about Iran a decade earlier I don't believe we would be having this discussion; perhaps I am wrong on this but that is my understanding.
Certainly I accept that Iraq lost the previous war and agreed to disarm but I'm not convinced that this alone without some further trigger is worth additional war.
I honestly believe there are greater threats than Iraq. For one example India/Pakistan are both confirmed nuclear powers and any escalation there will see increased islamic extremist terrorism in support of Pakistan which could spread and trigger conflict with Israel or others. As I mentioned previously, I am concerned about extremist government-funded madrasas in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere - but I don't see anything being done, presumably because they're "allies".
I will (potentially) change my position based on the "new" evidence that apparently will be presented Feb 5 and following a full UNSCOM report, which I believe needs to be allowed to run to completion. |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:01 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."
Last edited by Jung on Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:34 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
@Finarfin: One evil dictator at a time please.
The threat of terrorism is minimal? Tell that to the families of the 3000 people who died on September 11th.
As for his little brother "rigging" the election, there is no proof of that.
And freeing Tibet is what China should be doing.
@Gorath: Killing a million people for oil isn't my style. Killing worthless dictators to free an opressed people however is.
As for Bush starting this war to pay back his contributors, I find that laughable. If Bush paid back his contributors in the way you imply then when Enron called up the White House to beg Bush to bail them out of the problems they had dug themselves into, they wouldn't have been told "NO".
Who will end up paying for the rebuilding? Probably the US taxpayer. Just like we're paying a great deal for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
As for there being no other way, well, it's been 12 years of diplomacy and inspectors. Have there been any results? Not really. Thus the current method should be changed for one that will work.
99% is enough to convince me. Murderers have been convicted with less evidence.
Also, please watch your language.
@Remus: Those comments are pretty much what I'd expect from an opposing political party that's trying desperately to distance themselves from the President as they gear up for their campaign in 2004. I've also never been impressed by the New York Times.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 12:33 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
@Gorath: Killing a million people for oil isn't my style. Killing worthless dictators to free an opressed people however is.
They didnīt ask to be freed. And the question remains, is the price for his removal too high?
btw., I didnīt suggest taking out Saddam. I only asked why this isnīt done. The reasons sound convincing to me.
quote:
As for Bush starting this war to pay back his contributors, I find that laughable. If Bush paid back his contributors in the way you imply then when Enron called up the White House to beg Bush to bail them out of the problems they had dug themselves into, they wouldn't have been told "NO".
They had massive problems in another country (India? Iīm not sure.). I saw this in a lengthy documentary. Kenneth Lay wrote some letters to the 'Dear George' and gave him some hints. The papers were shown in the film. To make it short: the White House used a lot of ressources to support Enrons negotiation position.
I donīt find the idea laughable. Even if it is only one of the minor reasons for an invasion.
quote:
Who will end up paying for the rebuilding? Probably the US taxpayer. Just like we're paying a great deal for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Mmh. Usually youīre better informed. Hereīs a quote: "Will the United States actually undertake the massive effort required to rebuild and democratize Iraq? In virtually every country where the United States intervened militarily over the last four decades, it has displayed a 'hit and run' philosophy, where bombing runs have seldom been followed by construction crews. The latest war in Afghanistan is a signal example. In the year ending September 2002, the United States spent $13 billion on the war effort. By contrast, the total Pentagon effort has committed only $10 million to civil works and humanitarian aid."
And the source: AMACAD. Page 73.
quote:
Thus the current method should be changed for one that will work.
Of course. And does this inevitably mean war? The old plan didnīt work, now letīs start an invasion and kill Saddam. The XXX.XXX casualties donīt matter?
This is too easy, IMO.
quote:
99% is enough to convince me. Murderers have been convicted with less evidence.
That doesnīt excuse it. Constitutional states have strict rules. If strong suspicion is enough to be found guilty then one can only pray never to stand in front of a court in such a banana republic.
quote:
Also, please watch your language.
Please explain. I donīt think I said any inappropriate things.
quote:
@Remus: Those comments are pretty much what I'd expect from an opposing political party that's trying desperately to distance themselves from the President as they gear up for their campaign in 2004. [...]
Val, please donīt react in a polemic way when somebody disagrees with you.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:25 am |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
Gorath, I don't know why we don't assasinate Saddam, maybe we will. I thought that was illegal somehow.
Congress has outlawed US assassination of foreign leaders, and the law was passed by a former President. Last time we had a debate on Iraq, I argued that this simpler solution could be better than a war. (Yes, I understand the policy arguments against it and why it was made illegal. I will not repeat my argument in detail here.)
quote:
Originally posted by Remus
It seem Bush avoiding the Israel-Palestine issue. Arabs will still think American lean too much to toward Israel in this neverending conflict. Plus Zionism, anti-Christian, anti-American, etc, and at the end the angers toward America will be still there. America won't see the end of terrorism any sooner even after Saddam got thrown down.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have anything to do with the US attacking Iraq. The only direct connection between Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fact that Iraq funds the Palestinian militia groups directly and pays for death benefits to the family of the homicide bombers. However, this has never been used as a justification for the US going to war with Iraq. So long as Israel stays out of the initial coalition attacking Iraq, the other Arab states cannot use Israel as an excuse. And if Iraq were to launch missiles at Israel and Israel responded, even Syria would find it impossible to use this as a basis to attack Israel.
@Kayla - I agree with you 100%. And of course Dhruin disagrees with us 100%. Dhruin & I were on opposite sides of the argument last time, and we still are.
@xSamhainx - Any time there is talk of war in the Middle East, there are always protests, "Hell, no! We won't go! We won't die for Texaco!" A local political commentator who was also around during the 60s noticed that the slogan hasn't changed in over 30 years, and it just doesn't apply to the current case.
@All who talk about regional destabilization - First, Bush has not said he plans to care Iraq into 3 separate countries, as some other political types have suggested as a solution. This "solution" would surely cause more problems than it solved. Secondly, it may not take a massive war to depose Saddam; 1991 Gulf War was supposed to last a lot longer than it actually did, and Saddam has less control than he did then. With a quick victory leading to a quick revolution, there may be no power vacuum. Third, with the exception of the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq with ties to Kurds in Turkey, there is no pressure for the war to spread outside of Iraq; the bigger question is that if there is a power vacuum, what countries will consider carving up parts of Iraq for themselves?
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:25 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
