Opinion

[i3OSS]

Hey people,
Do you think President Bush is at war mainly because he wants to disarm Saddam or to get the moolah $$ off the iraq oil? or is there another reason.

i3oss

[avx]

Well, I dont think there has ever been a war that was fought for one single cause. We say we are fighting for freedom from terrorism, but of course that isnt the ONLY reason, if we wanted to stop terrorism we would just improve security and that would be it, but there are so many bonuses to disarming Iraq. Oil will be a major reason, but what you have to realize is, we also take an evil dictator out of power, oil prices go down, the american economy should rebound because we feel better knowing that the threat is no longer there.

Bottom line is, they are giving up fast, and the only tragedy was that unfortunate helicopter accident, but it looks like this will be a very low threat war to our boys over there. Which is all you can really ask for in any war.

Im guessing this thread will be closed very soon. I wish it wouldnt though, unless things got a little too hot...cause I love a good political conversation.

[skeeter]

There has been some speculation that Sadaam already has nuclear devises purchased from the Soviet Union when it was breaking up. Imagine one of these detonated in New York or DC.

[avx]

Did you guys see the headline over at msn.com?

They know when their beat

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by skeeter There has been some speculation that Sadaam already has nuclear devises purchased from the Soviet Union when it was breaking up. Imagine one of these detonated in New York or DC.

Realistically, nukes would do Saddam about as good as a cruise missile would do me. Without a means of launching it, it's not very effective. To launch a missile halfway across the world is not a trivial matter, and it would be impossible to build ICBMs and silos without it being very easy to see on spy satellites (not to mention it's not easy to build ICBMs in the first place).

Further, it's seriously doubtful Saddam would organize any kind of first strike on the US. Sure, he's a ruthless totalitarian ruler, but he also is selfish and rather cowardly. He won't stick his neck out unless he stands to gain a lot, and he wouldn't gain anything except a quick death if he did a first strike on any nation, especially with nukes.

[icallmedan]

I think it is to get Saddam, but I am sure the oil is a smaller factor...

[glc]

Here's my opinion on the oil issue, for what it's worth.

14% of the world's oil comes from Iraq. We are trying to preserve the flow while at the same time, allowing the Iraqis to make their money. We want to see the money benefit the Iraqi people, not just fill Saddam's coffers.

Disclaimer - my opinion is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PC Media, Inc.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Well, wars have always been waged for lust of gold, resources and territory. The rest of the reasons are merely futile.

Take the Crusades as an example. They told the ppl they were fighting to save the Sacred Places. Yeah, right. The real reason was to recover the commercial route to the Far East.

[TwoRails]

Originally posted by i3OSS Do you think President Bush is at war mainly because he wants to disarm Saddam or to get the moolah $$ off the iraq oil? or is there another reason.

Yes!

[Force Flow]

I hate it when people answer two different views with a yes or no.

[TwoRails]

I didn't.

Is it to:

disarm Saddam?: Yes
preserve the oil?: Yes
are there other reasons?: Yes

[Force Flow]

I see. My mistake, then.

In that case, I say yes to all three as well.

[drisley]

The oil is a factor in this, but not in the way protesters think. If we wanted to take their oil, we would have done it in 1991.

[not important]

Yes
Yes
Yes

[Boone]

I heard somewhere that people were talking about boycoting French companies and products because of their stance regarding the war. Is this true?

[glc]

Yes, there are lists of French-held companies being circulated over the Internet - I've received emails about it.

[Eaglefeather]

I believe that there are many different reasons why the President and his advisers have undertaken this action. It would be very nieve of me, or anyone else, to think they did it for moral reasons alone. Only history will know for sure.

Skeeter you have hit a point that has been worrying me since the first strike. I had expected Saddam would hit back right away with chemical or germ devices, but he didn't. I also expected that the hit would not be US troops but rather Isreal. Since he didn't I have to suspect he has something else up his sleeve. My very first thought was a small nuclear device powerful enough to take out Bagdad.

He knows he has lost and he knows he can not survive this war. So he just may decide to go out with a bang. And what a hell of a bang it would be.

He may be waiting for the Allied troops to move into positions around the perimiter of Bagdad before he acts. He could take out a good portion of the ground forces that way.

Paul as to your worry in a previous post that the US could suffer because of this war, well this is the one scenerio that could cause that. The US would indeed suffer greatly in world opinion if Bagdad were to be destroyed. Not only that, how would the US ever be able to prove to the sceptics that they did not hit the city with a nuclear device themselves? Saddam may just be counting on it.

I think it is highly unlikely that Saddam has a nuclear device, but with a snake like him one can never know for sure. I am sure US and British strategists have taken such a scenerio into account. Damn but I wish I could be in the war room right about now.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by Eaglefeather Skeeter you have hit a point that has been worrying me since the first strike. I had expected Saddam would hit back right away with chemical or germ devices, but he didn't. I also expected that the hit would not be US troops but rather Isreal. Since he didn't I have to suspect he has something else up his sleeve. My very first thought was a small nuclear device powerful enough to take out Bagdad.

Yes, I am wondering as well. Could it be that he sees no point in striking back, he can't for some reason, or he could be just saving for something big.

I'm hoping something is just stopping him.

[TMAN]

I doubt Saddam even has a nuke. In fact I have little doubt that he or anyone cabable of of giving orders seriously (Aziz, Qasai, etc) are even alive or concious at the very least. So chemical and biological weapons probably won't be launched. Why do I think this? Besides the fact that communication lines are gone for the Iraqi military so no one would even hear the order, there are no preparations being made in Baghdad. Zilch. None. This is sinply something thats not done if you actually wanna pretend you can fight. I believe Saddam is doing this to completely discredit the US in the worst kind of way: make us look like an imperialistic tyrant with nothing to justify this war to the world but lies. That would be far easier to do than actually launching something at us because we would be doing all the work while he can sit back and hide in some hole. It's a scary scenario, so we better be right in every possible way.

[Force Flow]

Who said anything about a nuclear bomb? I was just talking about chemical and biological weapons, which the inspectors said he had.

Yeah, it may be that because the communication network has been knocked out that there hasn't been any bombing from their side.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, none of the inspections found any trace of biochem weapons, so there's no PROOF he has biochem weapons. We know he does NOT yet have nuclear weapons, and in fact, our evidence that he was trying to get them turned out to be forged documents, so there's no real evidence Saddam has any kind f nuclear program.

All the evidence for Iraq's nuclear capabilities were forged documents, and one Iraqi expatriate who claimed to be a nuclear engineer (he was actually a software programmer), and who testified before congress that Iraq was months away from having nuclear capabilities despite the fact he hasn't been in Iraq for 10 years.

So if Baghdad is nuked, it would have to be by us. If, however, Saddam still does have biochem weapons that weren't destroyed, those could be a threat to us.

[CMT]

My view is that Bush has been pushed so hard to find Osama that he views Saddam as the next best thing he needs someones head or he looks like he wasted American lives and Money I personally dont think Oil matters just my view though

[drisley]

Its coming over the wires now - coalition forces have found and captured a camouflouged chemical weapons manufacturing facility south of Baghdad.

[Force Flow]

Well, at least they found it so it can't produce anything more.

[TimPoet]

Our reasons for resuming the hostilities against Iraq are simple. He refused to honor his cease-fire agreements. So, we take it to him.
He poses a threat to us in that he is a rogue leader of a terrorist sponsoring nation in a post September 11 world. He HAS tried to get nuclear weapons and would probably have them today if Israeli F-16's hadn't bombed the weapons grade plutonium producing reactor built by Jacques Chirac 16 years ago.
Bush is an honorable man and Saddam is a despicable, dangerous man who will soon die. Our motives are pure (it's called self defense) and we shall prevail.

[HAL9000]

I think Bush is only doing the Iraq thing to take over where daddy left off before he gets booted from the White House like daddy did.

[not important]

Bush had to make some kind of move. He couldn't find Bin Laden to make good on his promises of justice to the American public for the 9-11 attacks. Saddam gets to be the scape goat.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by HAL9000 I think Bush is only doing the Iraq thing to take over where daddy left off before he gets booted from the White House like daddy did.

A lot of people seem to think that. I wonder if someone asked Bush if that were true (off the record), and if he would answer honestly, what would he say to it?

[davsl]

Sorry I think it is oil, you can talk all you like about the freedom of the Iraqi people. But goverments are killing their own people in other countries like Ethiopia, but the American's do not give a sh*t about them as there is no oil there. It happened in Bosnia too for years, mass genocide but nobody gave a sh*t too! Sadam is an evil man and does need removed but if there was no money involved it would not have happened. And if America continue to bully everybody they are paving the way for future September 11th type attacks as this is the only way these organisations can get back at them. Unfortunatley being English we have a leader who is Bush's wipping boy so we face similar problems. But there is nothing I can do to stop it, accept maybe vote for someone different next election , although the alternatives are no better either!

[Nuclear Krusader]

Pardon me, Mr. Tim, but I respectfully disagree.

Bush is anything but honorable. Where is the honor in taking on an enemy that poses small threat to you? Where is the honor in taking on a peasant armed with a pitchfork while you are clad in full plate and armed with a massive warhammer?

Where is the honor in threatening nations who oppose war (even when they are not Saddam supporters or muslim nations)?

This is all about the spoils, as all wars have ever been since men learned to mount stone spearheads onto wooden poles.