07-09-2002 11:41									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I still don't see why I should give a **** if Saddam gets nukes.

	07-09-2002 11:42									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX maybe if we ask nicely saddam wont build WoMD.

We don't have to ask. He simply lacks the capacity to build them or deliver them if a non-existent deity somehow gifted them to him. What weapons he had were destroyed. His facilities to build them were destroyed. His plans to build them were destroyed. No one is selling him the chems in order to build them.

So, given all of the above, how is it possible that Iraq is building WomD. Remember, this is the report of the guy who was in charge of taking care of all of this and who was yanked out by Clinton.

Or maybe you don't care and just want a war.

	07-09-2002 11:44									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If Saddam gets nukes, it will destabalize the whole region. He will be able to attack other countries at will and America won't be able to do jack about it.

That wouldn't really matter much if Iraq was in Africa or some other worthless place, but since he controls the heart of the Middle East we have to deal with him to protect the world's oil supplies. If the world economy didn't depend on Middle East oil, I'd be all for leaving him alone. Unfortunately that isn't the case and America is the only one who can stop him.

	07-09-2002 11:47									#34
	Got spare money?

Because one must see the consequences of one's actions. the US is not merely taking out Saddam Hussein.

It is invading a peaceful nation made up of people that for the most part are not Saddam Hussein. Many of those people will die if we launch missiles, drop bombs, and deploy tanks.

But perhaps the worst part of this plan is what happens afterwards. I have no doubt in my mind that the United States military has the capability to kill Saddam. The question then is, what happens once the horrible dictator is gone?

A possible theory is that the US installs another dictator to rule the country, as has happened more than once before. This might not happen.

But whatever happens, Iraq will lose the power it had before. The destruction of Iraq's current government could throw the entire country into a civil war, so that its military is divided and weakened.

And then, things get worse. At this point Iraq is no longer a barrier to Iran. The fundamentalist government of Iran could very well take this opportunity to flex its muscles and do a bit of expansion. This way, the entire Mideast would be thrown into war, instead of merely pockets of the Middle East.

Btw, I'm pretty sure I sound massively inarticulate here. That's mostly due to a lack of sleep and far too much activity, so forgive the bad writing skills.

Oh and what caused World War II? A better solution to fascism and such would have been to prevent World War II. I do not know how this could be done, and many say hindsight is 20/20. But saying that hindsight is perfect is merely an excuse. If we can only see the right course of action in hindsight, then we must perfect our foresight.

	07-09-2002 11:48									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If I get nukes, I will be able to destablize all of South Florida. I must not be allowed to get nukes!

How the hell am I gonna get nukes?


How the hell is Iraq gonna get nukes without the materials, facilities, or plans?

	07-09-2002 11:48									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Remember, this is the report of the guy who was in charge of taking care of all of this and who was yanked out by Clinton.

I assume that you're talking about Scott Ritter. If so, you should know that Scott Ritter is full of **** and has been contradicted by his own boss on the UN inspection team. The leader of the inspectors (a Belgian I believe) testified before Congress that Iraq could be close to building a few nuclear weapons by this point in time. In addition to that, both the US and British governments claim to have intelligence about Saddam's NBC weapons programme. Maybe we should wait to see that evidence before we jump to conclusions...

	07-09-2002 11:52									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Lorizael

I agree that the US needs to articulate its plan for what happens in Iraq after the war. We will need to stay in the country and engage in some nation building to make sure that a stable and democratic government emerges there. We certainly must do a better job in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan; the consequences of a meltdown in Iraq are much worse.

	07-09-2002 11:55									#38
	Remove this text

But we cannot remove Saddam by invading a country of innocent civilians. Most people in the world really are innocent. Most people in the world don't really give a **** about international politics and foreign affairs.

	07-09-2002 11:57									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I assume that you're talking about Scott Ritter. If so, you should know that Scott Ritter is full of **** and has been contradicted by his own boss on the UN inspection team. The leader of the inspectors (a Belgian I believe) testified before Congress that Iraq could be close to building a few nuclear weapons by this point in time. In addition to that, both the US and British governments claim to have intelligence about Saddam's NBC weapons programme. Maybe we should wait to see that evidence before we jump to conclusions...

Ritter has a hell of a lot more credibility, given he was actually in Iraq, and not pushing papers in NYC like his boss.

Also, given the track record of American intel, why should we believe anything they say? Not having seen any evidence, despite years of accusations, I'd have to say it's just American propaganda.

	07-09-2002 12:03									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Not having seen any evidence, despite years of accusations, I'd have to say it's just American propaganda.

Very open-minded of you. I'm sure your analysis of the situation is completely objective.

	07-09-2002 12:14									#41
	Suffering from ads?

Richard Butler was the guy I was talking about and he was in Iraq as well. He has a vastly different view from Ritter.

quote: Richard Butler refuted statements by Iraq that it has no weapons of mass destruction or the means to make such chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. "Everyone, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to," said the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations. Iraq forced his team of inspectors -- charged with certifying that Iraq had no such weapons -- to leave the country in late 1998.

I don't see why Ritter would be considered more credible than Butler.

	07-09-2002 17:09									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten If you can't see how World War II worked, then I don't know if I can explain it to you. In fact, if war had been pursued sooner in the 1930's, millions of people probably wouldn't have died. If France had rolled into Germany when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, WWII would probably have been avoided. The reluctance of France and Britain to go to war allowed Europe to be engulfed in the worst war of all time. With that in mind, why shouldn't we take out Saddam Hussein now when we have the chance to do it relatively easily? Why should we wait until he gets nukes or invades one of his neighbors again? There's a thin line between pursuing a peaceful sentiment and being hopelessly naive, with Neville Chamberlain being the de facto example of the latter.

Armchair generals with 20/20 historical hindsight...

Stop Saddam before he invades half the world with his antique army! He'll do it, Hitler did it too! Only, he was leading the biggest country in Europe, with a huge modern army that was the only one to have grasped the importance of proper armoured warfare.

	07-09-2002 22:32									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Who the hell cares? I'm gonna grab some some munchies, some mushrooms, some reefer and a big huge bong; chill out on my bean bag chair, and watch the fireworks on CNN.

They'd better have lots of night-vision **** and tanks and dark skinned people blowing up or I'm gonna be pissed. Or actually I'll just be stoned and tripping balls.

At this point, it's time we all just accept that we don't live in a democracy and try to make the best of it.

	07-09-2002 22:37									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: "We cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons"

I thought that was a Saddam quote 'til I re-read it.

	07-09-2002 23:01									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko Stop Saddam before he invades half the world with his antique army! He'll do it, Hitler did it too! Only, he was leading the biggest country in Europe, with a huge modern army that was the only one to have grasped the importance of proper armoured warfare.

I never claimed that Saddam was as dangerous as Hitler or would invade half the world. I don't really expect Saddam to go on an invasion spree like Hitler did, but I think that it is likely that Saddam would, at the very least, attempt to recapture Kuwait once he obtains nukes. An invasion of Saudi Arabia would not be out of the question, either. Since neither country has much of a military, I don't think it would be too difficult for Iraq, even with their "antique" army. I hope you understand why it would be a disaster for the world economy if Iraq conquered Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The only reason I used Germany as an example is that it is the most glaring example in history of ignoring a problem until it is too late. Will Iraq pose as great a threat to the world as Germany? Of course, not. It would be absurd to think so and I certainly never said it. The real question is, will Iraq pose a great enough threat to the region to justify a pre-emptive attack? I certainly think so...

	07-09-2002 23:02									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just because Iraq poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it any of our business. Remember, it isn't our oil over there, we just buy it, and we can buy it from Saddam too.

	07-09-2002 23:11									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Just because Iraq poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it any of our business. Remember, it isn't our oil over there, we just buy it, and we can buy it from Saddam too.

I agree with you in principle, but the reality of the situation makes our intervention necessary. I really wish we would find a replacement for oil so that we could just abandon the whole Middle East and let the region implode in isolation, but that just isn't the case right now.

	08-09-2002 05:15									#48
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Richard Butler refuted statements by Iraq that it has no weapons of mass destruction or the means to make such chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. "Everyone, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to," said the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations. Iraq forced his team of inspectors -- charged with certifying that Iraq had no such weapons -- to leave the country in late 1998. I don't see why Ritter would be considered more credible than Butler.

Your quote is interesting, as it contains the massive error that Iraq forced the inspectors to leave, when it was actually President Clinton who pulled the inspectors out. Butler doesn't have any cred with me.

	08-09-2002 05:19									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Your quote is interesting, as it contains the massive error that Iraq forced the inspectors to leave, when it was actually President Clinton who pulled the inspectors out. Butler doesn't have any cred with me.

I guess I'll have to go out on a limb and trust CNN and the US Congress, even though I know it must all be propaganda...

	08-09-2002 05:22									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Bush said on tv today that when the inspectors pulled out that Saddam was within 6 months of being able to build a prototype nuke.

	08-09-2002 05:25									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Bush and Blair, talking to reporters before opening about three hours of talks at Bush's presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains, both mentioned an International Atomic Energy Agency report from 1998 that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said.

Blair said he had been reading the report. "A policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6-2002Sep7.html

	08-09-2002 05:36									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

So if that report is accurate, Saddam should have had a bomb 3 years ago. Not that there's just the slightest, teensy-weensy bit of hype there or anything...

Update:
Iraq and IAEA Inspections

Last edited by uh Clem on 08-09-2002 at 05:56

	08-09-2002 05:56									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

A nuclear Iraq is no more likely to invade nations that are of importance to the west than the Soviet Union was.

Even if he did, why does anyone think that the UN couldnt liberate Kuwait or Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis without sparking a nuclear exchange. They did it with Korea (well, the southern part)

	08-09-2002 06:01									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Even if he did, why does anyone think that the UN couldnt liberate Kuwait or Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis without sparking a nuclear exchange. They did it with Korea (well, the southern part)

North Korea didn't have nukes. Neither did China. The USSR did, but they weren't an acknowledged belligerent in the Korean War.

quote: A nuclear Iraq is no more likely to invade nations that are of importance to the west than the Soviet Union was.

Of course, you are right! Iraq has never tried to invade any of its neighbors.

	08-09-2002 06:10									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What ever happened to nailing OBL and to what ever it takes?? And the rest of the Axis of Evil?

	08-09-2002 06:13									#56
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

We're still looking for OBL. It is possible to do two things at the same time.

	08-09-2002 06:16									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Oh it is? Like walking and chewing gum? You must be kidding me! .

I'm saying the big talk about him is slowly turning down and big talk about Iraq is going on.. looks like OBL is hiding pretty well and someone is embarrased to admit, that is incompetent for finding a person.

	08-09-2002 06:17									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

But of course I do agree that it's not like the man walks on the streets and is easy to find. I just think he should be dealt with first that's all... first OBL, then Saddam.

	08-09-2002 06:20									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: looks like OBL is hiding pretty well and someone is embarrased to admit, that is incompetent for finding a person.

I agree with you on that. No one wants to admit that they let Public Enemy #1 get away.

quote: I just think he should be dealt with first that's all... first OBL, then Saddam.

I'll have to differ with you on this, however. OBL got away and we'll have to wait for him to make a mistake in order to find him again. In the meantime, we might as well deal with Saddam. Both of them need to be dealt with and I don't really care which order we do it in.

	08-09-2002 06:22									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok.. I was just thinking why I want OBL first and then Saddam. I can't remember any good reason.. damn you brainwashers!