Massive anti-war demo in Italy.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Fez
You make absolutely no sense what-so-ever... like your beliefs... I provided the 25 page CIA source to back up my beliefs....

There are not only your beliefs Fez.
There are a lot of others.. and they all make sense.
try to be more open to other believes and you will gain a lot.

I can't open your pdf file... as I don't have Acrobat Reader.

But I trust you with that.

----------------
You cannot have war without people dying... that is sad, and I am not promoting war, but with a situation like this where the ignorant left cannot come up with one alternative war must occur!
-------------------

It all depend on the price you are willing to pay.
That's a too high price IMO.

Alternatives can be found... I already said what would be mine... it would be much harder to accomplich, very risky and can easily fail rather than just go there and bomb all Iraq... but at least it would save a lot of lives.
And why not tring it.. if that fail.. and every other alternative fail.. than it would be time for war... but only after every other alternative had been tryied and failed.

Saluti

(gotta go out with Razey and some friends now... see you)

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS
"Iraq's oil productivetuy will raise dramatcially in the event of US occupation."

Just run it through the cash flow analysis. I don't think even a doubling of production would alter the analysis one bit.

You and Germany already have.
The oil productiveity ofg Iraq will raise dramatcially (embargo lifted) and your cost will vanish in 1 year, precisely.

"I can only hope that your "allies" will not want to pay again."[/i]

Line up who paid last time and ask yourself whether or not these folks will pay this time.

Sure.

Germany. Will not do it unless offered heavy compensations this time


Saudi Arabia - will do it to have the kings stay in power


Japan - I am too uneductaed about Pacific Asia to asnwer this. maybe you can.

[Giancarlo]

Wouldn't increased oil productivity actually help the Iraqi people? Why is oil so evil? The fact that Iraq could become another United Arab Emirates where the GDP per capita is $20,000 per annum? Dubai is a nice place too.... and Iraq could be like that without Saddam Hussein and a more pro-western regime. The UAE model is probably one that will come up a lot in the future... maybe it should be applied to Iraq?

[Bereta_Eder]

Give it up DanS.


It IS financially sound for the US to have a war.

There are some pissble complications thoguh.... I wll not say them for there are too many.


Dont you just love the unqualified and undetermined constituity?

[Giancarlo]

GW, my source in HTML format:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

It all depend on the price you are willing to pay.
That's a too high price IMO.

Alternatives can be found... I already said what would be mine... it would be much harder to accomplich, very risky and can easily fail rather than just go there and bomb all Iraq... but at least it would save a lot of lives.
And why not tring it.. if that fail.. and every other alternative fail.. than it would be time for war... but only after every other alternative had been tryied and failed.

Okay I understand. But I have looked over this situation with a great deal of thinking. I do not propose going to war just because I don't like the person in power... I propose going to war because of what this man is about, and what he stands for. And what Saddam stands for is murder, torture and weapons of mass destruction. That is my base for my beliefs of military action.

I also would like to see precision military action rather than wide spread military action. I don't propose bombing Iraq so it would turn into a lake... rather I want precision yet highly damaging military strikes.

Every other alternative has been tried and it has failed. UN mandates have failed many times.

Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations.

Res. 707 (15 August 1991) Requires Iraq to allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. Demands Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests.

Res. 715 (11 October 1991) Requires Iraq to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCRs 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.

Res. 1051 (27 March 1996) Established the Iraqi export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items.

Res. 1060 (12 June 1996) and Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. Demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCR 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft.

Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.

Res. 1284 (17 December 1999) Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD program.

[ranskaldan]

I leave for an hour and this happens?! Where the heck is this thread going?!

Well, let me try to recollect my points:

1) Iraq is very dense-populated, being ancient Mesopotamia and all. This is not some stroll in the desert: we are talking about fighting through the streets of Baghdad, a city of two million people. Five, six-digit figures of civilians will die. I don't care if this is because "Saddam wants to use his people as shields". This is the moral cost of the war and must be taken into account.

2) People love to pull out examples of Nazi Germany! Germany was appeased... and then WW2 happened. Germany was crushed, then reborn with American help! How nice! (Same for Japan, of course.)
Note, however, that Germany and Japan have many things in common:
* Before the Americans entered, they were already full of well-educated, highly-skilled workers who are experienced and able to sustain a powerful economy.
* They were easily brought back into the fold with a tangled web of alliances, intended at countering a common, terrible enemy - the Reds.
* Most importantly, Germany ended up being Nazi in the first place because its people were defeated, burdened, and burning mad - and saw their government as a crony of their enemy. Hence, usher in the Nazis.

Note that neither point 1 nor point 2 would apply to Iraq, but if the Americans rush in and start shooting in all directions, point 3 most definitely would.

What happens? The Americans will need to occupy Iraq for a VERY LONG time till the rage dies down and the economy gains a semblance of operating. And how would the Christian occupation of the historically richest part of Arab Middle East go down with the Arabs?

3) Taking the above two into account, any war against Iraq should be carefully planned and executed, with minimum loss of civilian life or effect on the Iraqi economy. Anything less would be pointless and repugnant, and would serve neither leftist nor rightist interests.

Hence, my final point: anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

[Ming]

Uhhh... paiktis22... aren't you forgetting that the war will probably cripple oil production in Iraq for years to come. We saw Saddam torch the Kuwait oil fields as he retreated. If his back is to the wall, he will do the same to his own oil fields.

But that aside, the "numbers" indicate that the US can't make a "profit" with this war. And your assertion that we are only doing this for the oil is just your opinion, with no basis of fact. You are just a one trick pony here, and the pony has come up lame

[Giancarlo]

anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

You have failed to make any points. I have posted my evidence and you choose to ignore it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... paiktis22... aren't you forgetting that the war will probably cripple oil production in Iraq for years to come.

It WILL NOT Ming. At least accordning to your own assessments.

Within one year the fields will be up and running and oil production will increase dramatically and with very nice prices for US companies...

But that aside, the "numbers" indicate that the US can't make a "profit" with this war.

You will make huge profits from it in 10 years., Nopt in 2004 but the next years sure.

And your assertion that we are only doing this for the oil is just your opinion, with no basis of fact. You are just a one trick pony here, and the pony has come up lame

Not at all Ming, at least with this one.

[ranskaldan]

Fez: try to read my posts... at least try.

I said, "anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about." This unfortunately is the naivete that many rightists indulge in. Let's attack Iraq, and then all those nasty problems will go away!! Saddam would be gone! The Iraqi people will rejoice in freedom and prosperity!

You have posted all the problems we have with Iraq. I told you why your way of solving it would make the matter worse. But you have ignored that.

Wars should be done carefully. Wars have objectives, they have costs: economic, diplomatic, moral. They aren't the catch-all problem solver.

Hence, naive rightists who think that war is the only solution to all problems and will solve all problems should be kept away from governments.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW, Your war will propably start around 2003. But there are many unstable paramteres.

If you dont lioke what I say take it with your own state departnment and some european assesssment risk firms.


Well all is poublished, there is nothing to hol;d back is it?


funny it is all published in greece and not in the US is it?

I bet ther eare these info in the US too...

[Giancarlo]

ranskaldan: Oh.... well... I see your point... it will solve most of the problems IMO. War is an option and IMO the best option at this point in time. But the US must be there for the Iraqi people afterwards or the US would of failed in its task.

[ranskaldan]

Well yeah... and that's where I'd say that unless war is done carefully, it will certainly create a lot more problems than it solves. Not to mention that thousands will die in a absolutely futile exercise.

[Ming]

paiktis22... a lot can happen in ten years.

Plus, we buy oil like everybody else does... at market prices. The short term loss of the Iraq oil fields would jack up oil prices, evening out the some of the long term costs when prices start to drop again. You seem to think that we will be getting oil far below market prices if we defeat Iraq. That isn't going to happen. So again, your WHOLE argument that this is about oil is just a troll and you know it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well yeah... and that's where I'd say that unless war is done carefully, it will certainly create a lot more problems than it solves. Not to mention that thousands will die in a absolutely futile exercise.

If the US Army has read the Art of War, by Sun Tzu and every other military strategy book... it will be set. Lets hope the strategists in the Defense Department understand what the situation is...