"It's All About Oil"

[Jac de Molay]

So another 12 more years of soft diplomacy then DetroitDave?

There should be ten times the inspectors in country right now. There should be so many inspectors there that when Saddam takes a dump, there should be someone standing over him with a clipboard.

Think the Iraqis are decieving us? Send more inspectors. Are they intercepting phones and communiques? Gosh darn, looks like we'll have to send more inspectors to hand deliver those messages. Human rights abuses? Lightbulbs need changing?.....

But war should be the last resort. And no soft diplomacy either, but one that builds slowly, like a pressure cooker. Bush needs to take a few lessons from machiavelli.

[Solly]

This is the last resort!

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
But war should be the last resort. And no soft diplomacy either, but one that builds slowly, like a pressure cooker. Bush needs to take a few lessons from machiavelli.

I agree with you Dave. I don't think its about oil, but about Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld having a hardon for the Iraqis. But foreign policy can't be based on personal revenge. The US would also have a lot more credibility if we werent clamoring for war from Day 1. The US would be much better off if we were building diplomatic pressure now with the goal of resolving the Iraq issue next year, after we have nailed down more pressing issues, such as attacking terrorism and rebuilding Afghanistan. One problem with this approach, however, is that we had to drag the Euros kicking and screaming to get them this far. When we argued for war, they argued for sanctions. When we argued for sanctions, they proposed to do nothing. War is the wrong choice now, but ultimately we can't do nothing for another 12 years.

[Solly]

Remember, all the posters who against war in Iraq now were against war in Afghanistan, saying how many millions it would kill and how Americans would be sent back in body bags in their scores.

Shows how much they know.

[Dinner]

The chance for a peaceful resolution has always been small but even that slim chance was predicated upon Saddam being unnerved by a united front set against him. The French-German axis have now betrayed that united front and that means there is no longer any chance for a peaceful resolution.

[MRT144]

zing boddingtons! ZING! less absolutism next time.

[MikeH]

all the posters who against war in Iraq now were against war in Afghanistan

Not true. I actually couldn't see any alternative to the Afghanistan war. My reservations were what would happen after the Taliban were replaced.... well, well, well, what do you know, it's all going to **** there.

saying how many millions it would kill and how Americans would be sent back in body bags in their scores

Also factually deficient.

[Dinner]

Come on Mike; be honest. Boddington is sterio typing but there is a kernel of truth in what he's saying.

[MikeH]

Not really, from my perspective he's totally missing the point of what peoples objections to the war are.

I'd be happy for Saddam to be gone. I still have yet to be convinced that the war won't totally blow up the whole of the middle east into some huge nuclear escalation. (Iraq might not have nukes but Israel does).

Or have western troops stationed there permenantly. Like a giant Northern Ireland.

He's just focusing on the points that people focus on when they want to suggest that the people who disagree with them are cowards because it's easier than actually addressing the issues.

[Dinner]

I'd give the odds that Israel will nuke Baghdad as 1 in 5. Saddam supposedly has moved Scud launchers into western Iraq were they can hit Israel and he has, again supposedly, authorized the use of chemical & biological weapons.

If he uses nerve gas on a large Israeli city then I'd say Baghdad will start to glow.

[Dinner]

We are going to have a hard time getting out of Iraq just like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanastan before it. Heck or Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy...

[Sten Sture]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd give the odds that Israel will nuke Baghdad as 1 in 5. Saddam supposedly has moved Scud launchers into western Iraq were they can hit Israel and he has, again supposedly, authorized the use of chemical & biological weapons.

If he uses nerve gas on a large Israeli city then I'd say Baghdad will start to glow.

And this fact will not improve with time. I would be willing to bet that more than 50% of the timing of this escalation has to do with preventing Israel from preemptively striking Iraq, like they did 15 years ago, because this time a conventional airstrike probably won't be enough. The last thing that anybody in the world needs is a WMD exchange between two states with differing religious beliefs. Continuing support for Israel has been difficult in the States, a WMD strike by them would raise that difficulty a thousand fold. Either the US takes over Iraq and installs a new government, or the US withdraws support for Israel and allows a Samson option nuclear confrontation in the ME. In the end it couldn't be less about oil.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
There should be ten times the inspectors in country right now. There should be so many inspectors there that when Saddam takes a dump, there should be someone standing over him with a clipboard.

Bush proposed do just that last year and it got poo-pooed by the French. Face it DD just about everything has been tried over the last 12 years and none of it has succeeded.

[Az]

I cannot see any scenario under which Israel will use it's nukes in first strike, unless faced with total defeat in a conventional military conflict, or worse.

[Sten Sture]

What about Iraq fueling up nuke tipped Scuds aimed at Israel??

You have 90 minutes to track them all down conventionally, or do you airburst a nuke to fry the electronics?

Or what do you do?