Just My Opinion...

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
Oh yes, Shadow, since we can't help everybody, we shouldn't help anyone. Excellent logic. You should run for office

Did you even read what he said? If so, you really need some help on reading comprehension, or should just stop making up bull****.


I think what Shadow was trying to say is why start with Iraq? Why not go against stronger countries that post more of a threat?

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by sdtPikachu



US has also seen oil prices rise sharply recently, as has the rest of the world. Why? It's getting more expensive. Iraq practically floats on the stuff. France doesn't want a war because they have been friendly with Iraq for centuries, and planned to buy their oil and other produce cheaply in return for investment once trade embargoes and been dropped.

France is strongly against this war because of oil. I have a feeling that they have made illegal deals with Iraq for their oil. thats why they strongly refused to go to war. Once the government is destroyed, it's going to be uncovered.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Did you even read what he said? If so, you really need some help on reading comprehension, or should just stop making up bull****.

I think what Shadow was trying to say is why start with Iraq? Why not go against stronger countries that post more of a threat?

Did you read what I wrote, even though you quoted it? I said, do what you CAN do. War with China or North Korea would not ony endanger millions of lives of both China/North Korea and the US, but the fact that they are both Nuclear powers would endanger the entire continent. War with them is not in the cards. I know this, you know this, and thats why you bring it up. Iraq is a regime that we CAN unseat, and thats why we shoulkd act now before we CAN'T unseat them.

One of the big reasons why we are involved in Iraq is to PREVENT them from becoming another North Korea. All they need is time. We are now forced to deal with them diplomatically, because dealing with them in any other way could lead to a nuclear armageddon. Government estimates are that an estimated 3-5 million would die in a war to unseat the leaders of North Korea. God knows what those numbers would be for China. Once the Nuclear pandora's box is open, everything changes.

[TheGame]

Ok, you guys don't want to listen... due to the fact that this is a good thread, I won't close it. But If I see a post with even one flame in it from this point on it (the post) will be deleted w/o hesitation.

[Shadow_Link]

Thanks Joeiss, and that was a nice post Strangler (your second one). That does actually make sense.

But just a question (not trying to be smart or anything), but America have said time and time again that Iraq has Bio/chemical weapons. Wouldn't it be just as dangerous to go to war with a country that has supposedly a full arsenal of these dangerous weapons, as it is with a Nuclear Power such as China?

I mean, just like Strangler said, pushing China too far could reek havoc in a nuclear sense. But wouldn't pushing Iraq too far pose a similar threat in the chemical/biological sense?
Could this war against Saddam not actually backfire against America and Britain?

I know there have been reports of large factories being found in isolated areas, but what if at the end of this war, Iraq never actually used any of it's ('supposed'?) weapons against America. Wouldn't it make you wonder if they had any in the first place to use? (Maybe they are in the process of building them, and haven't actually got any ready, but I don't know).

Remember, I'm only trying to stimulate some good responses, and this is in no way or form a bash against America.

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
I know there have been reports of large factories being found in isolated areas

I heard on the news that the suspected chemical plant building they found hadn't been used in a long time if it even was used to produce chemicals in the first place... *shrugs*

[Bond]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

I mean, just like Strangler said, pushing China too far could reek havoc in a nuclear sense. But wouldn't pushing Iraq too far pose a similar threat in the chemical/biological sense?
Could this war against Saddam not actually backfire against America and Britain?

I don't really understand your reasoning here Shadow Link.

Where did you ever get the sense China is a threat to the United States, and may use their unclear weapons against the United States? Remember those images showing chemical weapons factories in Iraq Colin Powell presented to the U.N.? Those were provided by China.

China will also most likely help solve the North Korean problem, considering they don't want a nuclear Korean peninsula. China has never wanted Imperialism, they have enough problems in their own country. They will also eventually convert into democracy, several large countries within China are already doing so.

Before you start saying that China is a threat, I would look at Russia.

I get the sense I am missing your point here. Could you restate it?

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Bond, in that quote, from what i can get out of it, i think he is saying, if you won't push a force with a KNOWN nuclear arsenal why would you push a country that is thought to have WMD and Chemical Weapons ready?

I hope i got that right.

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by Bond
I don't really understand your reasoning here Shadow Link.

Where did you ever get the sense China is a threat to the United States, and may use their unclear weapons against the United States? Remember those images showing chemical weapons factories in Iraq Colin Powell presented to the U.N.? Those were provided by China.

China will also most likely help solve the North Korean problem, considering they don't want a nuclear Korean peninsula. China has never wanted Imperialism, they have enough problems in their own country. They will also eventually convert into democracy, several large countries within China are already doing so.

Before you start saying that China is a threat, I would look at Russia.

I get the sense I am missing your point here. Could you restate it?

What reasoning? Firstly, I wasn't the one who mentioned that China were a threat to America. I was just asking why America chose to free the Iraqi people of a dictator over freeing the Chinese people of theirs. And Strangler gave me an answer. I just asked based on Strangler's answer whether it would be a wise move to go against a country with these dangerous weapons, if the outcome of going against a nuclear power would be so grim? I'm not looking for an argument or anything, I just want people's views on the matter.

Oh, and Marc, you got it right.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
What reasoning? Firstly, I wasn't the one who mentioned that China were a threat to America. I was just asking why America chose to free the Iraqi people of a dictator over freeing the Chinese people of theirs. And Strangler gave me an answer. I just asked based on Strangler's answer whether it would be a wise move to go against a country with these dangerous weapons, if the outcome of going against a nuclear power would be so grim? I'm not looking for an argument or anything, I just want people's views on the matter.

Erm... right...

I didn't mean to start an argument, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say. Now I barely get it.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Well shadow you have a point, i mean, one minute they were after Bin Laden, and all of a sudden they target saddam with alligations that he has WMD and Chemical weapons, altho, North Korea goes on National Television and proclaims they are re-starting reactors :S.

It doesn't make much sense but meh, them's the breaks.

[Professor S]

My response was to the argument of "Well if you go against Iraq because they have a tyrannical dictator, why not China and North Korea?" It was in that context that I answered.

China has improved a lot in terms of human rights, but that doesn't mean that they are without reproach. Their history speaks for itself in terms of horrors committed on their own people. But then again, long term diplomatic pressure and western influence has also made them very near a capitalistic society, and I think that after the current dictator dies there is a very good chance it will be a democratic society as well.

North Korea is another matter, but once again I think they really don't care about who they nuke, but I also think they just want some more monetary support. They are like the whiny baby who wants more candy (except this whiny baby has a .357 magnum with the safety on). Plus they have not shown any tendency towards expansion or hawkishness, unlike Iraq.

Iraq has a long history under Saddam of trying to rule the entirety of the Gulf region. Saddam has spent the better part of his dictatorship at war with his brothers and sisters, and even tried to develop nuclear weapons before during their 10 year conflict with Iran (thank god for Isreal bombing their reactor back in 1981). Only 2 years after the war with Iran ended, Saddam attacked Kuwait. Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons. There is not reason to believe that Saddam WON'T try and conquer the Middle East again. All of these reasons are why I believe that Iraq has garnered so much attention compared to other oppressed nations.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by The Strangler
My response was to the argument of "Well if you go against Iraq because they have a tyrannical dictator, why not China and North Korea?" It was in that context that I answered.

China has improved a lot in terms of human rights, but that doesn't mean that they are without reproach. Their history speaks for itself in terms of horrors committed on their own people. But then again, long term diplomatic pressure and western influence has also made them very near a capitalistic society, and I think that after the current dictator dies there is a very good chance it will be a democratic society as well.

North Korea is another matter, but once again I think they really don't care about who they nuke, but I also think they just want some more monetary support. They are like the whiny baby who wants more candy (except this whiny baby has a .357 magnum with the safety on). Plus they have not shown any tendency towards expansion or hawkishness, unlike Iraq.

Iraq has a long history under Saddam of trying to rule the entirety of the Gulf region. Saddam has spent the better part of his dictatorship at war with his brothers and sisters, and even tried to develop nuclear weapons before during their 10 year conflict with Iran (thank god for Isreal bombing their reactor back in 1981). Only 2 years after the war with Iran ended, Saddam attacked Kuwait. Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons. There is not reason to believe that Saddam WON'T try and conquer the Middle East again. All of these reasons are why I believe that Iraq has garnered so much attention compared to other oppressed nations.

Excellent post, but with one addition perhaps, you say Korea really might not care who they nuke, that's the only thing i disagree with, i don't think they really have the minerals to attack, if they do, China cuts them off cold .... wouldn't be good for there economy

[Professor S]

Yes, but if they are facing the end of their regime through allied efforts, I don't think they'll hesitate to nuke indiscriminately. What would they have to lose? Their people? North Korea has already shown they don't care about them. My worry is that if North Korea has their back to the wall, they'll nuke Japan or even South Korea to show that they have the cajones to do it.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons.

I think this is the main reason why some people are confused about this war. I mean, why is America just all of a suddenly enforcing the UN's ruling on Iraq? Why didn't they start as soon as Iraq defied it 12 years ago?