Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[Urban Ranger]

It is entirely clear that the US isn't interested in petty "leaders" with their hands on NBC weapons. There are a whole bunch of them and Dubya aren't targeting most of them.

Second point is only nuclear weapons can be considered weapons of "mass destruction." I hardly think chemical and biological agents cause structural damage.

[Capt Dizle]

Ok, you're right . We just want the oil and we are willing 100 billion USD for it. Despite the fact that we could just buy it for a fraction of that.

Actually, the whole thing is just an election ploy. Want to get Georgie's numbers up. Despite the fact that his Daddy lost his reelction bid after a sucessful war versus Iraq.

Come to think of it we are going in to avenge Daddy Bush. Saddam tried to have him killed so there.

It was all a ploy to get Al Gore to declare early for 2004. We have him now.

The real reason that we are going to destroy Iraq is because of a freak scientific discovery made as a by product of Iraqi biological weapons research. Saddam is planning to market a wonder drug that both cures cancer and prevents the onset of aging. Worldwide distribution is to begin in January at a retail cost of only one nickel per monthly dose per person. This of course would destabilize the world economy, ravage US drug makers, and cripple the US Social Security system.

We can't have that.

[SlowwHand]

You eat a meal one bite at a time, UrbanRanger.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Another thing I get tired of is "The USA did this and that and used to be friendly with so-and-so".
Big damned deal.

I'd be willing to bet that there's not 1 person here that has had an individual friendship in the past, and helped that past friend out, only to later not be friends, and perhaps even regret the favor.

Surely you're not comparing doing a favor for a friend to shipping components for chemical and biological weapons to a Middle East dictator we knew had a penchant for mass-murder, for the purpose of keeping him in a bloody war against a neighbor whom we happened to object to (never mind that we were indirectly responsible for Iran's objectional regime in the first place)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You eat a meal one bite at a time, UrbanRanger.

That might have applied, if we weren't currently "close allies" with several of those places.

[Urban Ranger]

I hope you are going to be happy with your $200B bill, jimmytrick.

[SpencerH]

Boris, they were not "components of chemical and biological weapons". All the bugs, probably the anthrax too at that time, were available from ATCC. You can now access them from the web, they supply pure organisms and cells for biological research.

The quoted reports include comments by laymen that would fit well along side of reports that Elvis was an alien.

[Capt Dizle]

What is the point of bringing up the fact that we gave this or that assistance to Iraq in the past? That is the most lame argument. We gave everything but the shirt off our backs to Stalin and it worked out.

You can't apply personal morality or ethics to the conduct of nations. Well, you can if you are a fool.

[Capt Dizle]

The US economy and the underlying military-industrial complex need a good war every now and then. I do not expect the fighting in Iraq to deteriorate into urban warfare unless this current downturn in the markets persists.

If necessary the US can easily broaden the war into Iran or even a strike at aggressive Arab regimes.

(this one was added to tweak the nose of those who on the one hand say the war will cost the US too much after saying earlier that we are just trying to jump start the economy)

[chequita guevara]

However, Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said the dossier "does not produce any convincing evidence, or any killer fact, that says that Saddam Hussein has to be taken out straight away."

He said, "What it does do is produce very convincing evidence that the weapons inspectors have to be pushed back into Iraq very quickly."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The US economy and the underlying military-industrial complex need a good war every now and then. I do not expect the fighting in Iraq to deteriorate into urban warfare unless this current downturn in the markets persists.

Because the US is on a permanent war footing, any economic benefits from ramping up production of war materials and increased government spending were realized long ago. Now wars are a drain on the American economy, diverting resources from other areas of needed government spending. Uncertainty in the oil markets will likely lead to a spike in oil prices (some of which will be caused by price gouging by oil companies, just like in the First Bush-Hussein War). By calling up reservists, there will be a contraction in productivity and spending, and while soldiers are away from their American bases they won't be spending money in their local communities.

[Capt Dizle]

LMAO!

[chequita guevara]

Care to share your amusement?

[Capt Dizle]

Che, I find your posts entertaining. Please do go on.

[chequita guevara]

What part or parts do you disagree with?

The Permanent war footing? Eisenhower discussed this in his farwell speech.

That reservists who are called up can no longer contribute to the economy? That soldiers who are shipped out can no longer spend money in the communities near their bases? Are you suggesting that people who are shipped of to the Gulf will somehow be able to work and spend in the US at the same time?

That there will be a spike in oil prices? Do you eny this happened last time?