Propaganda:

[Pathfinder]

The propaganda you will hear from the Administration about why over throwing Sadam is a necessary thing, has, and will have, very little to do with the real reason/reasons.

Put some thought into it people and make your list of what the most important reasons are.

[minimouse]

FREE OIL!

[BabeHunter]

OIL

the mass destraction weapons aren't a big threat...since we (israe) can take care of that in a matter of days

[Rocky]

longer hot showers

[Pathfinder]

Oil is a reason, but there are many other important reasons. Think about it.

[BabeHunter]

Originally posted by Pathfinder
Oil is a reason, but there are many other important reasons. Think about it.

i'm sure there are more reasons...but as long as it has to do with "deleting" an Islamic Terrorist supporting country...i don't really need reasons

[Rocky]

because Sadam beat Bush the last time they played golf together

[Brown Bear]

Because war is part of America's culture and since the "War on Terrorism" seems to be losing steam, America needs to make sure it has a new battle to fight.

[Pathfinder]

Not very productive people. Can't think of reasons? I am disappointed.

[Hooterdog]

well, I guess it would be that "weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a lunatic" thing . . .

[Kat - Fast]

Originally posted by Pathfinder
Not very productive people. Can't think of reasons? I am disappointed.

Got an economic depression looming have you?

[Dildozer]

World domination

[Pathfinder]

So far we have the following:

Oil
US culture is Warlike
War as a means to boost US Economy
World Domination

Aymore?

[ElvisManson]

Finishing Daddies unfinished business

[jas1552]

Saddam tried to have Bush sr. assassinated.

[Rocky]

Originally posted by Pathfinder
So far we have the following:

Oil
US culture is Warlike
War as a means to boost US Economy
World Domination
Sadam beat Bush at golf
longer hot showers

Aymore?

[Frank W]

My guess is that this warmongering is all part of a strategy to get GW reelected despite the sagging and uncertain economy. This strategy keeps in mind two trends: presidents do not get reelected during weak economic times and presidents enjoy a surge in popularity during the successful conclusion of a war. George Bush senior experienced high rankings after the Gulf War but the economy sagged and his popularity ranking sank...leading to his defeat in 1992. The War was not timed right, it was too far in advance of the election cycle. The distance allowed his popularity to get sapped by the recession of 1991.

If GW plays his cards right he may avoid his father's fate by simply pushing any anti-Saddam military offensive closer to the election cycle. Assuming that the economy remains sluggish or worsens and starts to contract again, his reelection campaign can live off the fumes of a recently concluded war to negate voters' economic concerns.

[cold_ice]

Well dudes it could be because BUSH is a fucking dumb ass and he thinks people wont notice if we are at war.

[cold_ice]

Its about power also. Its seems sadaam is untouchable so maybe if we wack him Bush can feel like he is the shit and do as he pleases.

[cold_ice]

If the US controls that country it would make it a lot easier to go after other countries from that location.

[PornoDoggy]

Don't blame me - I voted for the other guy.

I think Bush & Company have a lot of reasons for going after Saddam, and I'm not sure how high on the list oil is. I think there is genuine concern about weapons of mass destruction, and I think he is right in feeling the need to finish what Daddy didn't. I also think they will use the "war" to further their conservative agenda in all areas of American life.

I wonder, however, if the American people are ready for what this war will mean. I don't mean that we have anything to fear from the Iraqi military. It's a question of "we won - now what do we do with it." We'd have to be there, nation-building, for years, and we've already got a nasty rehab job on our hands in Afghanistan.

It would probably also be a question of "who next." The reason I say that is simple. An American attack on Iraq WILL BE the greatest recruiting tool for the al Qaida-types.

Frank, if GW uses the war to win this fall's elections, it will cost him the White House in '04, because of the after affects of the war. Just mho.

[Minte]

War toy manufacturing is good for the economy..Dow Chemical did quite well during Vietnam..as well as many other fortune 100 companies..plus the idea of "getting rid of Saddam" is sounding a lot like the rhetoric of the 60's...get rid of "Castro"

[Frank W]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
Don't blame me - I voted for the other guy.

...
It would probably also be a question of "who next." The reason I say that is simple. An American attack on Iraq WILL BE the greatest recruiting tool for the al Qaida-types.

Frank, if GW uses the war to win this fall's elections, it will cost him the White House in '04, because of the after affects of the war. Just mho.

It would be unwise of GW to try to win this fall's election with a war, cuz you're right, it will blow back come '04. Especially if the economy remains weak. Like I stated in my post, it would probably be wise of him to postpone any attacks until '03 so he can live off the fumes of post-war popularity surge. This should counteract his otherwise crappy ratings due to the weak economy.

I agree also with your post re "unintended consequences". The 9/11 attacks were the unintended effects of the Gulf War. When US troops stayed on Saudi soil, this really riled Bin Laden and friends. The Taliban were the unintended effects of the US proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I would not be surprised if we get a massive jolt 10 years from now due to GW's reelection ploys.

[Frank W]

Originally posted by Minte
War toy manufacturing is good for the economy..Dow Chemical did quite well during Vietnam..as well as many other fortune 100 companies..plus the idea of "getting rid of Saddam" is sounding a lot like the rhetoric of the 60's...get rid of "Castro"

Minte,

Good points. The military industrial complex is a formidable lobby in Washington. Post cold war, its not as potent, but its still alive.

Speaking of Cuba, if Dick Armey's recent pronouncements are any guide, the Cuban embargo may be lifted within 3 years. Kinda makes sense in my book, we deal with Communist China and Vietnam, why not Cuba? As for dictatorships, we deal with Musharaff and Mubarak, why not Castro? Indeed, of all Latin America, ONLY CUBA is able to give basic healthcare free of charge to its citizens. Indeed, many Europeans concede that Cuba, despite its many flaws, is an example to developing countries in terms of social spending and priorities. There are other richer developing countries but their people starve and die from the lack of medical care at higher rates than Cuba.......but the US doesn't embargo those regimes.

[Dildozer]

Going after Saddam right now isn't a wise choice for the americans. Anti-americanism is way too high, even after the 9/11 events. People don't see these war actions as justified and it will only increase their hate for America.

[oscer]

Oil is Bad we need eTHANOL

[RogerV]

Its all about big buisiness

The rich get richer from it.

Someone needs to make money on bullets,guns,etc.
contracts need to be filled and they need to spend our money on something.... so it goes into the deep pockets of america. Not ours


We have enough Oil in the states to last us a lifetime not counting Alaska

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by RogerV
Its all about big buisiness

The rich get richer from it.

Someone needs to make money on bullets,guns,etc.
contracts need to be filled and they need to spend our money on something.... so it goes into the deep pockets of america. Not ours


We have enough Oil in the states to last us a lifetime not counting Alaska

A lifetime isn't very long, since more people will come along after we are dead, no?

[RogerV]

Sorry MANY Lifetimes

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by cold_ice
If the US controls that country it would make it a lot easier to go after other countries from that location.

This is the most important of all of the reasons. You win the prize.

Speaking from a military point of view it is a strategic piece of realestate.

It opens many doors for us militarily, if we need to use them, and down the road, we will feel the need to use them.

We are looking 20-40 years ahead, as the worlds oil reserves begin to dwindle.

Bottom line to invade and control Iraq is a foward thinking, major strategic move for the USA.

[Pathfinder]

Everything else that comes from taking control of Iraq is just gravy.

[PornMeister]

maybe he just needs it for his ego ...

[Deb]

Hey PornMeister! Haven't seen you in ages. Hope all is well.

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by PornMeister
maybe he just needs it for his ego ...

Presidents do not invade countries for an ego trip.

Presidents do not invade countries to get re-elected.

Presidents do not make uniformed unilateral decisions.

Presidents do not invade countries to make some oil company richer.

Presidents and their advisors do what they "think" is in the best interests of the Nation.

I repeat:

Speaking from a military point of view it is a strategic piece of realestate.

It opens many doors for us militarily, if we need to use them, and down the road, we will feel the need to use them.

We are looking 20-40 years ahead, as the worlds oil reserves begin to dwindle.

Bottom line to invade and control Iraq is a foward thinking, major strategic move for the USA.

Everything else that comes from taking control of Iraq is just gravy.

It is the first step towards taking control of the Middle East, its oil fields, and to control a culture (by military force if need be) that is by its existence an enemy of the Western World and always has been.

[Joe Sixpack]

I hear quoting yourself is one of the first signs of insanity.

You're a fruitcake.

[m00d]

We 'shouldn't' try to overthrow Sadam because we
can't without loosing shitloads of american lives, and whats the
point. I say let the sum bitch shoot his load at whoever he wants
in the middle east and lets just sit back and watch it play out..
Phuck um all...If we feel he has ICBM's then thats another story, but come on, he doesn't...He will be lucky to sling shot a dirty nuke to Isreal....I say we let him and the rest of um go and fight it out, then go in and sweep up the shit piles left over...
Do any of you really give a shit if gas prices rise? I sure as hell
don't...And even if they do rise,it will only be temporary...Once they all kick the shit out of each other the prices will fall again because they will need to buy more arms....

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack
I hear quoting yourself is one of the first signs of insanity.

You're a fruitcake.

A FUS is insignificant and brainless. Go play with the other 14 year olds.

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by m00d
We 'shouldn't' try to overthrow Sadam because we
can't without loosing shitloads of american lives, and whats the
point. I say let the sum bitch shoot his load at whoever he wants
in the middle east and lets just sit back and watch it play out..
Phuck um all...If we feel he has ICBM's then thats another story, but come on, he doesn't...He will be lucky to sling shot a dirty nuke to Isreal....I say we let him and the rest of um go and fight it out, then go in and sweep up the shit piles left over...
Do any of you really give a shit if gas prices rise? I sure as hell
don't...And even if they do rise,it will only be temporary...Once they all kick the shit out of each other the prices will fall again because they will need to buy more arms....

There, of course will be some loss of American lives, but it will basically be a cakewalk, as it was before. He, his Generals, and his troops are not warriors.

[cold_ice]

Originally posted by Pathfinder


You win the prize.

Hey dude what did I win.

[bagel]

Originally posted by Pathfinder


This is the most important of all of the reasons. You win the prize.

Speaking from a military point of view it is a strategic piece of realestate.

It opens many doors for us militarily, if we need to use them, and down the road, we will feel the need to use them.

We are looking 20-40 years ahead, as the worlds oil reserves begin to dwindle.

Bottom line to invade and control Iraq is a foward thinking, major strategic move for the USA.

yeah i guess, not to mention a war gets countries out of recessions, happens every time..
but i kinda dont feel safe with bush taking our country to war, maybe its that dumbfounded look that he always has on his face.

[Minte]

You forget the resolve of their population..we had "control" and strategic location in IRAN..remember the Shah? And it could easily be stated we have control in Israel.And then there was Turkey,prior to the Cuban missile crisis.So the concept of strategic location has little merit.
If Bush pushes congress to invade,it will be for more than one issue.And he still does need congressional approval to move forward,so you are correct..the president does NOT invade.

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by Minte
You forget the resolve of their population..we had "control" and strategic location in IRAN..remember the Shah? And it could easily be stated we have control in Israel.And then there was Turkey,prior to the Cuban missile crisis.So the concept of strategic location has little merit.
If Bush pushes congress to invade,it will be for more than one issue.And he still does need congressional approval to move forward,so you are correct..the president does NOT invade.

Well...actually I haven't forgotten Iran, and I am not sure what you mean in the case of Turkey. Turkey is still a member of NATO. Maybe you will educate me.

As I recall, Kennedy agreed to take missles out of Turkey as part of an arrangement with the Soviets, to remove their missiles from Cuba.

I have not forgotten the resolve of their population. The US is counting on the Iraqi people to welcome the overthrow of Sadam. If this is not the case then we will never have long term control in Iraq. The stated goal is to democratize Iraq. If this can be accomplished or something close to it, then we will have long term success.

Strategic location does have merit. In the case of Iran the Shaw was a puppet of the US for twenty or more years (as I recall).

War is always a crap shoot, in the sense that unpredicted consequences can occur.

I have already stated that I am not in favor of an invasion of Iraq, but I am in favor of containment. More than 700 targets have been identified, as possible assets for the production of weapons of mass destruction. We can take these targets out by air power in a few weeks time, thus Sadam is contained.

If we do invade and take control of Iraq and the poulation welcomes us, and we are able to set up a democratic government (or something close to it), then I will applaud the action.

[Honeyslut]

Originally posted by m00d
We 'shouldn't' try to overthrow Sadam because we
can't without loosing shitloads of american lives, and whats the
point. I say let the sum bitch shoot his load at whoever he wants
in the middle east and lets just sit back and watch it play out..
Phuck um all...If we feel he has ICBM's then thats another story, but come on, he doesn't...He will be lucky to sling shot a dirty nuke to Isreal....I say we let him and the rest of um go and fight it out, then go in and sweep up the shit piles left over...
Do any of you really give a shit if gas prices rise? I sure as hell
don't...And even if they do rise,it will only be temporary...Once they all kick the shit out of each other the prices will fall again because they will need to buy more arms....

Oh but who has the missing suitcase nukes from Russia's inventory..

[RogerV]

The president is just a puppet.
Big business owns him, they got him elected with their money.
and who wins from war? Big business always has always will.
everytime a republican is President we have a war.

No ones gonna drop a nuke.

But then again thats just my

[Scootermuze]

Originally posted by Minte
...........And he still does need congressional approval to move forward,so you are correct..the president does NOT invade.

He doesn't need approval

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by Scootermuze



He doesn't need approval

True he doesn't NEED it. But he should seek it.

If only to show solidarity.

[Scootermuze]

Originally posted by ChrisH



True he doesn't NEED it. But he should seek it.

If only to show solidarity.

Tis true..

He said we was going to consult with Congress about it all..

[cold_ice]

Hey dudes I for one really dont give a rats ass if we invade Iraq, what gets me is leaving shit half done. If the US does invade they should not stop untill sadaam is in a body bag and we have total control of the country. Plus why start something when our last war is not done lets finish the first war and then move on.

[Scootermuze]

Originally posted by cold_ice
Hey dudes I for one really dont give a rats ass if we invade Iraq, what gets me is leaving shit half done. If the US does invade they should not stop untill sadaam is in a body bag and we have total control of the country. Plus why start something when our last war is not done lets finish the first war and then move on.

If you're referring to Desert Storm.. it wasn't really a war, and it wasn't half done.. The objective was to free Kuwait and that was accomplished... Job complete...

But yes.. they should have said.. "Well we've gone this far.. let's keep going." which is what Schwarzkopf said they should do, then he had to apologize for saying it..