I've said it already

Post #55,491 by Arkadiy 10/8/02 11:52:38 AM Reply	I've said it already I'll say it again. Hussein is the least dangerous of all those crasies that run around Middle East. He has a lot to lose, and nothing to gain. He wants to harm us, but he is very, very afraid of us. So all that talk about US being in mortal danger from Iraq is rubbish. You want mortal danger? Think islamic revolution in Pakistan, a la Iranian one. And if we go into Iraq, chances of that happenning grow a lot. Now, what really bothers me in the whole thing - we are about to commit exactly the crime that we nailed Saddam for in 1991. We are about to occupy a coutry for its oil reserves. If we do it, we become another Iraq, except we are much better armed. The Kennedy quote Bush cited applies to us. WE are producing "deliberate deception and offensive threats". WE are becoming the very thing we swore to fight. It scares the hell out of me. We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #55,495 by screamer 10/8/02 12:44:00 PM Reply	Again, slight difference of opinion... I understand your reservations but I do not think that your analogy holds true... We have no intention of "annexing" Iraq as Iraq did with Kuwait. The President has repeatedly stated, "regieme change" as our ultimate goal. He even issued terms for the Iraqi generals last night. Assuming this to be true, your analogy about "becoming the tyrant" does not hold. Additionally, I think if we "explain to the world community that this is a continuation/follow up to the '91 Gulf War" that most of the world community will be appeased - not that it really matters what the world community "thinks" at any given time, seeing as how they are merely a group of self-serving autonomous entities as well. And cutting through any politically correct crap, the reason Hussein wants to develop these weapons is to use them against Iran and /or Israel. Either of these targets would completely destablize the region and the world oil markets and lead to an even larger conflict. As per Pakistan, India will be more than happy to take care of any "problems" in that region. If you look at the history, the Muslim expanse stopped flat when it hit present day India to the east and China to the north. I don't think it would take too long for India to move it's troups up into Kashmir (first :-) ) and then into Pakistan given the opportunity of a "civil war". This is what is called a self correcting mechanism? Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #55,500 by Arkadiy 10/8/02 1:26:11 PM Reply	No tyranny? No, we don't intend to make Iraq a 51st state. But we (at least people who were talking at Senate hearings on the war) are awfully sure that new Iraqi governement will be friendlier to our oil companies than to French or Russian ones. Why would that be? As to world community, I do not particularly care what Quadaffi or Anand thinks about us. But I do care when 150,000 people show up in London to protest our behavior half a world away. This is a bad sign. We're only "leading" the world as long as the world percieves us as going in the right direction. Change that, and we'll have to pull rather than lead. About Pakistan. How long do you think it will take for bin Laden people in Pakistani intellegence service to fade into sunset with an A-bomb on a truck? I do not think that Indian troops will be there in time. And in any case, talk about destabilization. If we provoke India-Pakistan war, the world will curse us for the rest of the century. I am not quite sure why Hussein wants an A-bomb. I do not think he will dare to use it at all, not until he himself is on the deathbed. And by then he will be losing grip anyway. As long as he intends to live a few more years, he'll keep his weapons to himself. There will be no country left for him to govern if he uses any WMDs, and he knows it. We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #55,528 by jb4 10/8/02 4:45:37 PM Reply	Are you REALLY that naive? We have no intention of "annexing" Iraq as Iraq did with Kuwait. The President has repeatedly stated, "regieme change" as our ultimate goal. And what kind of regime do you expect it to be changed to? A regime "of the People, by the People, for the People" of Iraq? Who you crappin'! NO, it's to be a US puppet, a la the Shah, fully beholden to the US for its very existence, and..oh, yes, a very friendly "trading partner" for the vast Iraqi oil reserve. Believe anything else, and you're simply a damn fool! (And exactly the kind of damn fool Karl Rove is looking for, too...) jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #55,533 by Simon_Jester 10/8/02 5:17:51 PM Reply	jb...be polite. Certainly we won't annex Iraq. But on the flip side of the coin - the idea that we're going to liberate the Iraq people is a scary notion. The Sunnei and the Shiites (or so I've been told) don't exactly get along. Why do I suspect a major bloodletting (read civil war) the minute we remove the stablizing factor? (These people don't exactly believe in democracy.) So, we won't annex Iraq, but we will provide a "stablizing factor" -- you know, a peace keeping mission. Exactly the same thing Bush blasted Clinton for in the debates, if you will recall. (And what he promised he wouldn't do.)
Post #55,590 by mmoffitt 10/8/02 7:53:55 PM Reply	Um, you might want to look up "slant drilling". Kuwait did.

Welcome to IWETHEY!