Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Dinner]

Let's hear what people think of the message in this cartoon.

[Carver]

Its arse backwords. Saddam would never use nukes offensively.

[Drake Tungsten]

I like that the 'ally" is so obviously French...

[Bereta_Eder]

Apart from the expected resemblance of the allied guy to a french bagget bread eater I think it is only mediocre because it is not very subtle...

[Hobbes]

Why should the US need to attack Iraq first? Well all know that if Saddam attacks the US with nukes, Bush's ingenius "Missile Defence Shield" will save us all.

[red_jon]

Even if Iraq managed to nuclear missiles there's no way they'd be able to reach the US. It's not like he's capable of building ICBMs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, doesn't anyone here understand what Iraqi nukes would do to the security situation in the Middle East? American concern about Saddam's WOMD programme has nothing to do with an illogical fear of Iraqi ICBM's raining down on US cities...

[Maniac]

No Bush his businessfriends are worried about their oil prices.

[Drake Tungsten]

NO they're worried about their oil prices.

That's certainly part of it. It surely isn't just about American oil prices though; you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are and the Japanese are even worse. Anyone with half a brain can see how a nuclear Iraq could wreak havoc on the world economy.

[Gatekeeper]

The editorial cartoon is hilarious — and, yes, I'm sure the "allies" character was deliberately drawn to be a cariacuture (sp) of France.

[rambling "stream-of-conscious" thoughts]

What's ironic is the fact that the sanctions were supposed to be a non-violent way of getting Iraq to swear off WMD. They apparently didn't work because there were too many loopholes — most infamously, the incidents where UN inspectors had to give advance notice that they were coming, or were forbidden from accessing certain sites (such as Saddam's palaces) due to national sovereignty issues. Then you have Scott Ritter who swears upon every holy book in existence (it seems) that Iraq has *no* WMD, yet a number of his former co-workers claim otherwise or, at the very least, aren't as sure about it as Ritter is. About the only consensus among them is that Iraq wouldn't use whatever its got left directly against America (gee, I wonder why) and the quantity of what he's got.

[/rambling "stream-of-conscious" thoughts]

Gatekeeper

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

NO they're worried about their oil prices.

That's certainly part of it. It surely isn't just about American oil prices though; you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are and the Japanese are even worse. Anyone with half a brain can see how a nuclear Iraq could wreak havoc on the world economy.

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

How is that relevant? Europe still depends on Middle East oil more than the US, especially France and Germany. Britain isn't nearly as dependent, as the North Sea oil fields give them a large amount of domestic production.

In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

[Maniac]

you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are

Really? That sucks. I thought we were switching to Russian oil over the years.

Anyway, even in the unlikely situation Iraq could build nukes, do you really think it would be in a sufficient enough quantity to nuke entire Arabia/Kuwait and destroy a large percentage of the oil's reserves? If one bomb would be dropped, there would a small economic recession like the one of 11/9 but after six months, when the panic response is over, stock exchanges and economies would be back to normal.

You probably think I'm talking to nonsense here, but I predicted 11/9/2001 that the economic effect of the WTC attack wouldn't last longer than a year, with many people declaring me nuts as a result. But I am correct no? 11/9 isn't a deciding factor anymore; only to some lunatic president who wants to attract votes.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

Gee. Thanks! Actually more expensive oil wouldn't be too bad on the long run. It might encourage more research into renewable and clean energy sources, like the hydrogen engine for cars.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

How is that relevant? Europe still depends on Middle East oil more than the US, especially France and Germany. Britain isn't nearly as dependent, as the North Sea oil fields give them a large amount of domestic production.

In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

The oil is polluting the planet and the current administration is hindering research into alternate fuels. Why the hell should I show gratitude for that?