Saddam is america's friend

[Guest]

George Bush has started the advertising for Gulf War II (coming soon to PPV), and believe me like all sequels this one's going to suck. Like all sequels, it is being done for nothing more than cold hard cash. Gulf War II is illegal, ill-advised and immoral, on all counts its wrong and will end up damaging America.

 

To soften us up for their newest blockbuster the Republican Junta is spewing forth a number of "miss-truths" from its propaganda department. Some rang from honest mistakes and misassumptions to downright lies. I feel it my duty to stand and show up some of these miss-truths and why "regime change" in Iraq is not in American self-interest.

 

If there's one thing that Saddam is not is an ideologue he doesn't preach any sort of global revolution nor does he really care about Islam or Palestine, all he cares about is maintaining and increasing his power. The fact is Saddam has nothing to gain from any further aggression, he knows full well that if he attacks anyone (except maybe Iran) he's done for. Saddam is no martyr he wants to stay alive and in power. So as long as America keeps in force security guarantees for the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia then he will stay put. Saddam knows any attack on America will result in his toppling and he has much to loose (he is thought to be the sixth richest man in the world due to oil smuggling) and because of this it is safe to say he poses no threat to America AT ALL.

 

Let's not leave it there though, not only does Saddam not pose a threat to America his regime is actually beneficial for America. The most obvious one is that America gets a whole load of cheap oil for aid it would have to give anyway if Saddam is toppled as a bribe to the new regime. Also it is the threat of Iraqi aggression that allows it to keep bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and that resulting strangle hold on Arab oil.

 

However there is also what would happen if Saddam was toppled. What should be remembered is that Iraq is not a natural country but an artificial one drawn up by the British in the 1920's. It is one of those states that needs to be a police state to stay together, the alternative is to fragment. The Kurds in the north who have practically had autonomy since the Gulf War (and grown rich through oil smuggling) and would be non to keen for direct rule to be reimposed. They would almost certainly break away destabilising not only Iran but our most valuable (and in reality only) Muslim ally Turkey as both these countries have large Kurd populations and have part of the land that makes up Kurdistan. Even worse the Sh'ite Muslims in the south are aligned to Iran and may either break away and join Iran or gain a position of dominance (like the Indian/ Russian backed Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan) in Iraqi making it a puppet of Iran.

 

Also you have to think what would Saddam do if he knew his days were up. Although has no interest in Palestine he is not averse to using and it is a certainty that he would attack Israel, maybe with chemical/ biological weapons. And there is the grave possibility that Sharon would respond with Nuclear weapons sucking America into a wider war in the Middle East.  Lest us never forget that both WW1 and WW2 came from struggles between a superpower and a pathetic little country (indeed Poland and Germany were practically align bar Danzig).

 

You also have to consider its wider impact. An attack on Iraq rewrites the rules of engagement for America from "Hurt us and your dead" to "Look at us funny and your dead" such a rewrite would be dangerous. Even though the new rules are no more than 5 months old already India (against Pakistan), Russia (in Chechnya), China (in Xinjiang), Israel (against Palestine) have used America's language against Terror to justify their own actions and human rights violations. And the oppressive dictatorships in Indonesia, the Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan have used the fact that many of the dissidents are Muslims to claim they are Islamists and crush them.

 

Also you should realise that such a rewriting of the rules could very well lead America to be permanently mobilised and we have seen by the relatively small Afghan involvement the deals that had to be made with Russia (human rights abuses in Chechnya), China (invasion of Nepal) and Pakistan (Musharraf's dictatorship). American action could become more and more dependent on the approval of Russia and China, especially as these countries (and maybe India) become less dependent on American money.

 

Also you should realise the effect on the Europeans. The only thing keeping the European integrationist project together is a loathing of America and a fear of the American hegemony (this is why Britain (particularly the English) have always been reluctant "Europeans"). If America develops and increasingly realpolitik foreign policy going across the globe putting American puppets in charge will increase Europeans worry at their powerlessness in the face of American power. The push for a united Europe has already reached its endgame with the minting of the Euro coins will be far more liking to succeed with a unilateralist America running rampage and make it far more likely that Britain will be a part of it.

 

The final and most terrifying thing is the change in the rogue states themselves. The attack on Iraq will be the final abolishment of national sovereignty leaving a world where the powerful will be free and secure while the weak are once more organised into spheres of influence between the superpowers. However the ability of rival superpowers to protect their satellites will for the foreseeable future be limited (for example both Iran and Iraq are allied to Russia) so these states will need another security guarantee.

 

There is no other security guarantee against America other than the Nuclear Bomb. True sovereignty will come from threats of using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against invading American troops. An attack on Iraq will not stop but increase proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as states like Iran desperately try and join the likes of Pakistan and India that are safeguarded by their nuclear weaponry despite not being superpowers.

 

An attack on Iraq in the short time will lead may lead to an Iraqi civil war sucking in at least Turkey and Iran and maybe the likes of Saudi Arabia fearful of growing Iranian power. It could very lead to America becoming embroiled in a Israeli/ Arab war which could destabilise as many as three nuclear superpowers (Russia, China and India) all with large Muslim population and could lead to riots in western cities with large Muslim minorities.

 

Maybe it won't. Maybe will go okay.

 

But even if it goes well it WILL halt Middle Eastern oil supply increasing America's dependence on Russia, it WILL increase European loathing of America, it WILL create millions of new martyrs, it WILL rewrite the rules of engagement, and it WILL herald Nuclear Sovereignty.

 

An attack on Iraq will be a disaster, and will change the world for the worst.

 

There's no maybe about it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

George Bush has started the advertising for Gulf War II (coming soon to PPV), and believe me like all sequels this one's going to suck. Like all sequels, it is being done for nothing more than cold hard cash. Gulf War II is illegal, ill-advised and immoral, on all counts its wrong and will end up damaging America.

 

Of course, if the U.S was interested in only cold hard cash, they'd have opened up oil trade with Iraq.

 

But, hey, don't let facts slow you down.

 

To soften us up for their newest blockbuster the Republican Junta is spewing forth a number of "miss-truths" from its propaganda department. Some rang from honest mistakes and misassumptions to downright lies. I feel it my duty to stand and show up some of these miss-truths and why "regime change" in Iraq is not in American self-interest. [\QUOTE]

 

Ah, this ought to be fun.

 

If there's one thing that Saddam is not is an ideologue he doesn't preach any sort of global revolution nor does he really care about Islam or Palestine, all he cares about is maintaining and increasing his power. The fact is Saddam has nothing to gain from any further aggression, he knows full well that if he attacks anyone (except maybe Iran) he's done for. Saddam is no martyr he wants to stay alive and in power. So as long as America keeps in force security guarantees for the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia then he will stay put. Saddam knows any attack on America will result in his toppling and he has much to loose (he is thought to be the sixth richest man in the world due to oil smuggling) and because of this it is safe to say he poses no threat to America AT ALL. [\QUOTE]

 

He finances terrorists. Intelligence ties him VERY closely to the 9/11 attacks. He wants to see Israel cease to exist.

 

Thus, he's not quite a friend.

 

Let's not leave it there though, not only does Saddam not pose a threat to America his regime is actually beneficial for America. The most obvious one is that America gets a whole load of cheap oil for aid it would have to give anyway if Saddam is toppled as a bribe to the new regime. Also it is the threat of Iraqi aggression that allows it to keep bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and that resulting strangle hold on Arab oil. [\QUOTE]

 

We should be out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Let those ungrateful little turds deal with Iraq without our aid.

 

And since we don't buy Iraqi oil, how does that help us presently?

 

However there is also what would happen if Saddam was toppled. What should be remembered is that Iraq is not a natural country but an artificial one drawn up by the British in the 1920's. It is one of those states that needs to be a police state to stay together, the alternative is to fragment. The Kurds in the north who have practically had autonomy since the Gulf War (and grown rich through oil smuggling) and would be non to keen for direct rule to be reimposed. They would almost certainly break away destabilising not only Iran but our most valuable (and in reality only) Muslim ally Turkey as both these countries have large Kurd populations and have part of the land that makes up Kurdistan. Even worse the Sh'ite Muslims in the south are aligned to Iran and may either break away and join Iran or gain a position of dominance (like the Indian/ Russian backed Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan) in Iraqi making it a puppet of Iran. [\QUOTE]

 

And this affects us in what way, exactly? Turkey won't be destabilized as they've already put down Kurdish uprisings and have a secular government to take care of the problems. And Iran is having trouble maintaining control of its population, so Iraqis joining them will only make the already moderately unstable Iranian regime even MORE unstable and that is always a benefit to us.

 

Also you have to think what would Saddam do if he knew his days were up. Although has no interest in Palestine he is not averse to using and it is a certainty that he would attack Israel, maybe with chemical/ biological weapons. And there is the grave possibility that Sharon would respond with Nuclear weapons sucking America into a wider war in the Middle East.  Lest us never forget that both WW1 and WW2 came from struggles between a superpower and a pathetic little country (indeed Poland and Germany were practically align bar Danzig).

 

The mere fact that Saddam has such weaponry is justification enough to annihilate him.

 

You also have to consider its wider impact. An attack on Iraq rewrites the rules of engagement for America from "Hurt us and your dead" to "Look at us funny and your dead" such a rewrite would be dangerous. Even though the new rules are no more than 5 months old already India (against Pakistan), Russia (in Chechnya), China (in Xinjiang), Israel (against Palestine) have used America's language against Terror to justify their own actions and human rights violations. And the oppressive dictatorships in Indonesia, the Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan have used the fact that many of the dissidents are Muslims to claim they are Islamists and crush them. [\QUOTE]

 

What the rest of the world does is not our problem. We have been quite good about minimizing civilian casualties. And, since intelligence says that Saddam gave the 9/11 terrorists intelligence and financial support, he has hurt us.

 

Also you should realise that such a rewriting of the rules could very well lead America to be permanently mobilised and we have seen by the relatively small Afghan involvement the deals that had to be made with Russia (human rights abuses in Chechnya), China (invasion of Nepal) and Pakistan (Musharraf's dictatorship). American action could become more and more dependent on the approval of Russia and China, especially as these countries (and maybe India) become less dependent on American money. [\QUOTE]

 

You seem to vastly overstate the importance of Russia and China.

 

Let's say they hate what we do. What will they do? Embargo us?

 

That'd hurt them jus as much---if not more---than it would hurt us.

 

Also you should realise the effect on the Europeans. The only thing keeping the European integrationist project together is a loathing of America and a fear of the American hegemony (this is why Britain (particularly the English) have always been reluctant "Europeans"). If America develops and increasingly realpolitik foreign policy going across the globe putting American puppets in charge will increase Europeans worry at their powerlessness in the face of American power. The push for a united Europe has already reached its endgame with the minting of the Euro coins will be far more liking to succeed with a unilateralist America running rampage and make it far more likely that Britain will be a part of it. [\QUOTE]

 

Europe has been pushing for his regardless. It's easy for them to hate us when we bailed their collective butts out of the fire for the better part of 50 years.

 

The final and most terrifying thing is the change in the rogue states themselves. The attack on Iraq will be the final abolishment of national sovereignty leaving a world where the powerful will be free and secure while the weak are once more organised into spheres of influence between the superpowers. However the ability of rival superpowers to protect their satellites will for the foreseeable future be limited (for example both Iran and Iraq are allied to Russia) so these states will need another security guarantee. [\QUOTE]

 

Yup, it might lead to that. Again, until the U.S starts doing what you fear, you have no point. If we attack Iraq, we will have jusification.

 

There is no other security guarantee against America other than the Nuclear Bomb. True sovereignty will come from threats of using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against invading American troops. An attack on Iraq will not stop but increase proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as states like Iran desperately try and join the likes of Pakistan and India that are safeguarded by their nuclear weaponry despite not being superpowers.

 

By our own intelligence, most rogue states are working overtime to get the nuke as is. We have the fortunate benefit of them not being terribly good at delivering the bomb.

 

It also becomes more imperative that we fund SDI research more fully.

 

An attack on Iraq in the short time will lead may lead to an Iraqi civil war sucking in at least Turkey and Iran and maybe the likes of Saudi Arabia fearful of growing Iranian power. It could very lead to America becoming embroiled in a Israeli/ Arab war which could destabilise as many as three nuclear superpowers (Russia, China and India) all with large Muslim population and could lead to riots in western cities with large Muslim minorities. [\QUOTE]

 

Or, and this happened last time, Iraq would be handidly defeated in about a month and, God willing, we finish the job this time.

 

Maybe it won't. Maybe will go okay.

 

But even if it goes well it WILL halt Middle Eastern oil supply increasing America's dependence on Russia, it WILL increase European loathing of America, it WILL create millions of new martyrs, it WILL rewrite the rules of engagement, and it WILL herald Nuclear Sovereignty.

 

The Middle East can't stop selling oil to us as they'd be completely bankrupt. The sheiks love their money too much.

 

Europeans loathe us no matter what we do. Spending a lot of time worrying about that is not productive.

 

Our rules of engagement say that if you attack us, we attack back. Saddam, by numerous intelligence reports, was a major force behind the 9/11 attacks---thus, he attacked us.

 

And, rogue states always attempt to get nuclear weaponry. It's delivering them that tends to be the stumbling block.

 

An attack on Iraq will be a disaster, and will change the world for the worst.

 

There's no maybe about it. [\QUOTE]

 

There's a definite maybe about it.

                   -=Mike

[Guest]

Tip: plagiarising from The Onion isn't a good way to write a supposedly factual column, Will.

[Guest]

What the fuck is the "The Onion"?

 

 

 

Of course, if the U.S was interested in only cold hard cash, they'd have opened up oil trade with Iraq.

 

But, hey, don't let facts slow you down.

 

 

America has opened up oil trade with Iraq under the Aid for Oil regime, which swaps essential supplies for oil.

 

Also the fisical benifit for America is that they could upgrade Iraq's oil infrastructre as they have done with Russia leading to it being only 0.1 millon barrels behind Saudi Arabia in output.

 

 

He finances terrorists. Intelligence ties him VERY closely to the 9/11 attacks.

 

American Intelligence has one shady meeting that the Britsin intelligence services have dismissed (in a document preparing us to go to war with Iraq). So there is no proof of Iraqi involement.

 

He wants to see Israel cease to exist.

 

He claims he does to appeal to Arab man in the street, really he doesn't give a fuck.

 

 

We should be out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Let those ungrateful little turds deal with Iraq without our aid.

 

But then you would have to pay the going rate wouldn't you?

 

And since we don't buy Iraqi oil, how does that help us presently?

 

Oh yes you do, it's Iranian oil you don't buy.

 

And this affects us in what way, exactly? Turkey won't be destabilized as they've already put down Kurdish uprisings and have a secular government to take care of the problems.

 

Turkey will be affected if their is a seprate Kurdish state, don't ask me ask their government who's worried about the Iraqi idea.

 

 

And Iran is having trouble maintaining control of its population, so Iraqis joining them will only make the already moderately unstable Iranian regime even MORE unstable and that is always a benefit to us

 

Instablity is always a bad thing in such a sensitive area. And besides Iran sn't that bad, it was them who worked with the Tailban (despite loathing them) to encourage Afghan farmers to grow normal crops instead of Opuim and it was they who would have invaded Afghanistan in 1999 if America hadn't of stop them.

 

The mere fact that Saddam has such weaponry is justification enough to annihilate him.

 

Can't wait for you to say the same thing to Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel. All unstable countries and (with the exception of Israel and India) dictatorships.

Plus you have no proof that Saddam has these weapons. When you pulled the Inspectors (after some were found out to be spies) there was 92% COMPLIANCE on Iraq's part. The head US spy said that Iraq did not possess the potential to develop these weapons.

But don't let the facts get in your way.

 

What the rest of the world does is not our problem. We have been quite good about minimizing civilian casualties. And, since intelligence says that Saddam gave the 9/11 terrorists intelligence and financial support, he has hurt us.

 

What intelligence? You'll this evidence is just innuedo that  FOX NEWS is spewing. The fact is no-one and I mean no-one is basing a future attack on Iraq that he did assit Al'Queada but that he may do in the future (which is entirely hypothetical).

 

You seem to vastly overstate the importance of Russia and China.

 

Let's say they hate what we do. What will they do? Embargo us?

 

That'd hurt them jus as much---if not more---than it would hurt us.

 

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was state called (insert Roman, British or other) and this state was the most powerful state in the world. But guess what happened? Rivials came in to the frame and defeated and upsurped this hergemony.

 

The fact is that sooner or later America will have rivials. China and Russia are likely ones due to their large population and nuclear power. Yes at the moment any embargo would hurt them just as much as you but sooner or later this will change (just as Germany stop being allied with the British in the early 1900s). Russia is now the second largest oil supplier America has and may soon upsurp Saudi Arabia.

 

Europe has been pushing for his regardless. It's easy for them to hate us when we bailed their collective butts out of the fire for the better part of 50 years.

 

Yes that's true but that was being fueled by a fear of another European war. Now that memories of WW2 are subsiding a new patrotism is emerging derailing the European project. Now only a fear of being powerless in face of American power is keeping it together.

Also although America has been "saving our butts" for 50 years it has been intialing due to the Americans desire to keep Europe under the thumb and on side. The Marshall plan was a big bribe to make sure the large communist parties in France and Italy didn't take over.

 

Yup, it might lead to that. Again, until the U.S starts doing what you fear, you have no point.

 

Start? You've been doing t for years using a variety of method. The differance will be this will be in a world were there won't be any other superpower covering the  other states meaning they will have to get waepons of mass descurtion.

 

If we attack Iraq, we will have jusification

 

Oh no you won't

 

I won't go through the last bit I'm pretty sure I've covered all the points.

 

Lots of Love

Will

xxxx

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What the fuck is the "The Onion"?>>>

 

 

The funniest site on the net, IMHO. www.theonion.com. Definitely worth a look.

 

 

<<<Quote  

Of course, if the U.S was interested in only cold hard cash, they'd have opened up oil trade with Iraq.

 

But, hey, don't let facts slow you down.

 

 

America has opened up oil trade with Iraq under the Aid for Oil regime, which swaps essential supplies for oil.>>>

 

 

True---and I do apologize for my tone. I was in a bad mood when I wrote the initial reply and I recognize that I come across as a total ass.

 

Yes, we have opened up oil for aid wih Iraq---and I, sadly, doubt that any of the money is actually going to aid.

 

<<<Also the fisical benifit for America is that they could upgrade Iraq's oil infrastructre as they have done with Russia leading to it being only 0.1 millon barrels behind Saudi Arabia in output.>>>

 

 

I see no reason for any Western country to spend a lot of money on infrastructure in the Middle East when, odds are, they'll end up nationalizing it, anyway. And Saddam is still a dangerous, dangerous person.

 

 

He finances terrorists. Intelligence ties him VERY closely to the 9/11 attacks.

 

<<<American Intelligence has one shady meeting that the Britsin intelligence services have dismissed (in a document preparing us to go to war with Iraq). So there is no proof of Iraqi involement.>>>

 

 

Israeli intelligence (and, yes, I know you don't consider them a terribly good source---but they tend to be dead-on with these things) have said that Saddam bankrolled them.

 

Logically, the amount of money and intelligence that the attacks required are beyond what Al Qaeda could hope to pull off.

 

 

<<<Quote  

He wants to see Israel cease to exist.

 

He claims he does to appeal to Arab man in the street, really he doesn't give a fuck.>>>

 

 

I honestly think he does want it. He doesn't attack them because he's not the most popular guy in the region, but if given a chance, he'd attack them. He's not a Muslim extremist (he doesn't seem to show ANY religious tendencies), but a disdain of Jews seems like a fairly consistent belief in that region.

 

 

<<<We should be out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Let those ungrateful little turds deal with Iraq without our aid.

 

But then you would have to pay the going rate wouldn't you?>>>

 

 

I've said for a while now that we need to both drill for our own oil (Hello, ANWR) and worry about buying oil from other sources---such as Russia.

 

People need to realize that as much as we need their oil---they need us to BUY their oil even more. Most of these countries have NO other industries outside of oil and have shown no desire, whatsoever, to develop new ones. Take away oil and the Middle East exports about as much as Greenland.

 

<<<Quote  

And since we don't buy Iraqi oil, how does that help us presently?

 

Oh yes you do, it's Iranian oil you don't buy.>>>

 

 

We buy little Iraqi oil. Heck, it's illegal to buy Iraqi oil---which is one of the things Marc Rich was nailed for back in the 1990's.

 

 

<<<And this affects us in what way, exactly? Turkey won't be destabilized as they've already put down Kurdish uprisings and have a secular government to take care of the problems.

 

Turkey will be affected if their is a seprate Kurdish state, don't ask me ask their government who's worried about the Iraqi idea.>>>

 

 

Turkey has shown an ability to handle the problems up to this point. The country is quite stable.

 

 

<<<

And Iran is having trouble maintaining control of its population, so Iraqis joining them will only make the already moderately unstable Iranian regime even MORE unstable and that is always a benefit to us

 

Instablity is always a bad thing in such a sensitive area. And besides Iran sn't that bad, it was them who worked with the Tailban (despite loathing them) to encourage Afghan farmers to grow normal crops instead of Opuim and it was they who would have invaded Afghanistan in 1999 if America hadn't of stop them.>>>

 

 

If Iran had invaded Afghanistan, they would have failed miserably. We abhor instability, admittedly, but the Middle East, flat out, is just unstable. We can't make it stable, much as we'd like to try.

 

 

<<<Quote  

The mere fact that Saddam has such weaponry is justification enough to annihilate him.

 

Can't wait for you to say the same thing to Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel. All unstable countries and (with the exception of Israel and India) dictatorships.>>>

 

 

Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, so he has shown a willingness to use horrible weaponry for personal gain. And, I hate that India, Pakistan, et al have the bomb. We should have found a way to financially support Russian scientists after the fall of the Soviet Union, but we failed to act.

 

 

<<<Plus you have no proof that Saddam has these weapons. When you pulled the Inspectors (after some were found out to be spies) there was 92% COMPLIANCE on Iraq's part. The head US spy said that Iraq did not possess the potential to develop these weapons.>>>

 

 

Read "Germs" by Judith Miller and two others (names escape me)---Iraq's biological weaponry (which they denied fervently) is not even in question as to whether it existed (it definitely did and likely is even bigger) and their pursuit of nuclear technology definitely leads one to believe that they have plans.

 

 

But don't let the facts get in your way.>>>

 

 

I guess I deserved that. I was an ass with the reply for the most part---but I still think you're wrong.

 

 

<<<What the rest of the world does is not our problem. We have been quite good about minimizing civilian casualties. And, since intelligence says that Saddam gave the 9/11 terrorists intelligence and financial support, he has hurt us.

 

What intelligence? You'll this evidence is just innuedo that  FOX NEWS is spewing. The fact is no-one and I mean no-one is basing a future attack on Iraq that he did assit Al'Queada but that he may do in the future (which is entirely hypothetical).>>>

 

 

The stories of Israeli intelligence statements came out less than a month after the bombings and in places other than Fox News.

 

 

<<<You seem to vastly overstate the importance of Russia and China.

 

Let's say they hate what we do. What will they do? Embargo us?

 

That'd hurt them jus as much---if not more---than it would hurt us.

 

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was state called (insert Roman, British or other) and this state was the most powerful state in the world. But guess what happened? Rivials came in to the frame and defeated and upsurped this hergemony.>>>

 

 

Most of these empires had problems that we don't have. We aren't a country that is easily attacked. We're close to two countries and neither one of them would ever consider attacking us, so we don't have the problem Rome had (and Rome was defeated by the Germans many, many times before Rome was first sacked---so it wasn't a huge shock). Also, we have far more resources than Britain did and far fewer possessions (I suppose you could call Puerto Rico a possession), so we can afford to be spread more thin than Britain was, but we aren't spread thin at all.

 

 

<<<The fact is that sooner or later America will have rivials. China and Russia are likely ones due to their large population and nuclear power. Yes at the moment any embargo would hurt them just as much as you but sooner or later this will change (just as Germany stop being allied with the British in the early 1900s). Russia is now the second largest oil supplier America has and may soon upsurp Saudi Arabia.>>>

 

 

Yes. However, both of those countries have serious problems that will end up hurting them. The Chinese government will, eventually, be overthrown or forced to take back some of the freedom they "gave" their people---neither situation helps them. And Russia is still economically a disaster area.

 

<<<Quote  

Europe has been pushing for his regardless. It's easy for them to hate us when we bailed their collective butts out of the fire for the better part of 50 years.

 

Yes that's true but that was being fueled by a fear of another European war. Now that memories of WW2 are subsiding a new patrotism is emerging derailing the European project. Now only a fear of being powerless in face of American power is keeping it together.>>>

 

 

True. However, Europeans have never shown much ability to get along and many of the states will eventually break away---tiring of either one another or the meddling of the EU.

 

<<<Also although America has been "saving our butts" for 50 years it has been intialing due to the Americans desire to keep Europe under the thumb and on side. The Marshall plan was a big bribe to make sure the large communist parties in France and Italy didn't take over.>>>

 

 

Yes, but we've done other things. Heck, France nearly had a total economic collapse in the 1950's and we stepped in and bailed them out. We have given and given money to them, we have protected them from the U.S.S.R, and they still wish to complain?

 

I don't expect slavish devotion, but the outright hostility that some countries, especially France, shows to us is just mind-boggling.

 

<<<

Yup, it might lead to that. Again, until the U.S starts doing what you fear, you have no point.

 

Start? You've been doing t for years using a variety of method. The differance will be this will be in a world were there won't be any other superpower covering the  other states meaning they will have to get waepons of mass descurtion.>>>

 

 

They've been pursuing those weapons for years regardless.

 

And, in the end, I trust us with the nuke FAR more than I trust any Middle East state with it.

 

 

<<<If we attack Iraq, we will have jusification

 

Oh no you won't

 

I won't go through the last bit I'm pretty sure I've covered all the points.>>>

 

 

Let's keep in mind that we have no idea how much our government knows about the 9/11 attacks presently (have to make sure that the people under investigation don't know what we know).

                  -=Mike

[Guest]

We do know that Saddam pays $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. What would you call that, other than "sponsoring terrorism?" We don't even need a 9/11 link to go after him.

As for no biological weapons? Tell that to the Kurds.

 

Here is the Onion article I referred to, Will. I'm sure you've seen it before, but since you asked...