Even if for oil, so what?

[spl_cadet]

Even if the US went into Iraq for oil, what exactly is the problem? Saddam was an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions, who deliberately withheld food from his people. Any US installed government afterwards would be far better. So I ask you, what's so bad about the change in Iraq's leadership? Are you opposed to the removal of an evil genocidal dictator, who routinely engages in rape, torture, and war crimes?

[Ryokan]

Because the oil and vague humanitarian ideas may not be worth the risk of repraisals against Americans, the loss of our international standing, and our the destabilizing effect it would have on the region, at least in the short term.

[spl_cadet]

So you don't support the removal of an evil genocidal dictator?:huh:

[Ryokan]

Sure I support it, if Americans aren't doing it. Our soldiers aren't responsible for cleaning up other people's messes.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

Sure I support it, if Americans aren't doing it. Our soldiers aren't responsible for cleaning up other people's messes. But isn't America responsible for Hussein? Didn't we support him, I mean didn't Reagan support him? Didn't Bush support him prior to Kuwait? Iraq is our mess.

[Pilgrim]

And so it begins..."well the reasons we gave intially may not have been right but could I interest you in this reason for war?..." Ala Max Smart. "Would you believe...."

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
spl_cadet:

Even if the US went into Iraq for oil, what exactly is the problem? Saddam was an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions, who deliberately withheld food from his people. You don't hide capitalistic motives behind humanitarian cloaks. Hussein should go, however, he isn't the only bad man leading a country. Africa is full of them, but they lack oil.

Any US installed government afterwards would be far better.This assumption is one that has been made since the early 1900's and completely disregards Middle Eastern culture and religion. It isn't as easy as popping in a democracy. Western Civilization thinks it knows what is best for the region. It is true ridding Iraq of a dictator is a good thing. However, replacing it with an American regime is not going to automatically make things better. And if the US really tries to exploit Iraqi oil, Iraqi sentiment for America will drop quicker than ratings for the Tom Arnold Show. This will cause a greater destablizing effect and support for small arms terrorism in the region will grow to oust the invaders, ie Americans. I still think America losing this battle is the best thing that can happen, because the deaths of 3000 Coalition soldiers in the beginning may end up being significantly less than what may happen if any united uprising occurs while our troops are there. The reprecussions of this invasion are not going to be as insignificant as the Bush Admin wants you to think. Just as the resistence to invasion was much greater than expected, so will be the problems after we have defeated "Hussein", who I still believe is in exile in Saudi Arabia right now.

So I ask you, what's so bad about the change in Iraq's leadership? Are you opposed to the removal of an evil genocidal dictator, who routinely engages in rape, torture, and war crimes? The US has supported many homicidal dictators, including Hussein, maybe our government should stop doing that.

[GrayPilgrim]

So did the USSR. Remember that we supported many jerks as an attempt to contain the spread of Communism. Notice they fire AKM or AK74s not M-16s, M14s or M-1s. They fire SCUDS or reverse engineered SCUDS not Tomahawks, Atlas or anyother US missile. The Drive T-72, T-60, T-55 tanks, not M-1s, M-60s or M-48s. They use Soviet style massed attacks, i.e. send in the infantry as cannon fodder and use other outdated Soviet era tactical movements. We obviulsy had a huge effect upon his weaponry :huh: His armaments:huh: and his tactical and strategic operations :huh:.

In fact there was an article in the Columbus Dispatch today about how the USSR was the second biggest looser back in 1991 and so that to prevent further disgrace two hardline generals (both supported abotive Soviet coups in 1991) attempted to train them even further.

BTW I was always taught that if you make a mess you are supposed to clean it up. So if we led to part of hte mess in Iraq shouldn't we be cleanign it up?:huh:

GP

[kiwimac]

Cadet,

The question is one of motive. When we do something for a particular reason, People Know It, no matter how we may try to kid them or ourselves as to our motivations, they are crystal clear to others.

Think of it as lying, just as being a habitual liar will result in you not being believed so it is with the US. We have, unfortunately, come to see that when the US says one thing, it most always means something entirely other.

As my old Sergeant-Major used to say " Where is the money in this situation?"

Kiwimac

[Woman]

Cadet,

I'm a little surprised at your question? Maybe I mis-understood it.

Do you believe that the Iraqi oil should be "spoils of war?"

Would it be OK to head to diamond rich areas of Africa, oust their dictators and take over their diamond mines? (as long as we set up a "democratic" government)

Does might make right?

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:I still think America losing this battle is the best thing that can happen, because the deaths of 3000 Coalition soldiers in the beginning may end up being significantly less than what may happen if any united uprising occurs while our troops are there. The trouble with rabid lefties, as Jimmy illustrates, it that they just hate people. He's happy to see thousands of his own countryment killed (and hundreds of mine) in the name of his pet leftist cause -- anything but admit that his country was right to remove the Butcher of Baghdad.

Jimmy must be seething with rage after commandos rescued Pvt. Jessica Lynch from her would-be torturers, because her life would have been a small price to pay for his leftie ends.

It's even worse that an Iraqi risked much to alert the Americans of her whereabouts, because it's shocking to find Iraqis who welcome the Americans as liberators rather than standing by Saddam to the death.

[spl_cadet]

Yesterday @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Cadet,

I'm a little surprised at your question? Maybe I mis-understood it.

Do you believe that the Iraqi oil should be "spoils of war?"

Not at all. What I'm saying is, even if we had gone in for oil, wouldn't this be awr that should be supported due to the fact that we are eliminating a genocidal dictator?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
spl_cadet:
Not at all. What I'm saying is, even if we had gone in for oil, wouldn't this be awr that should be supported due to the fact that we are eliminating a genocidal dictator? But they say its to rid the dictator, so if it were really for oil, that would be a lie. And do you think the Arabs would be so happy to see us exploiting their land for our gain and their loss? If we don't watch, we could be setting up for a united Arab front, which would be very very dangerous.

[spl_cadet]

Wouldn't be that dangerous. Look at the wars Israel has fought against them. We'll have an even easier time.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
spl_cadet:

Wouldn't be that dangerous. Look at the wars Israel has fought against them. We'll have an even easier time. Our army is no where as good as Israel's army. We have all the toys, but our soldiers are not the best. And besides, I'm talking a united Arab front. I'm talking Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia. All these players take on Israel, they lose. We'd win a war against an Arab front, but don't think for a second it will be easy. This Iraq thing won't be over for years. We'll have control, but snipers and bombs will be going off. We will have liberated Iraq into another Israel warzone. NEVER EVER, underestimate the enemy. The folks in charge did so with Iraq and the occupation has been alot harder than expected. We've won easily, so far, but remember, we weren't supposed to need to fight at all.

[$cirisme]

The folks in charge did so with Iraq and the occupation has been alot harder than expected. We've won easily, so far, but remember, we weren't supposed to need to fight at all.

:rofl: Where do you get this stuff?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 03:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jimmy Higgins:

Our army is no where as good as Israel's army.
We have all the toys, but our soldiers are not the best.

Mind backing that up?



And besides, I'm talking a united Arab front. I'm talking Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia.

Who lost horribly against an Israel with no army back in 1948, they'll lose even worse against a modern US Army.



We'd win a war against an Arab front, but don't think for a second it will be easy.

With air and naval superiority it will be rather easy. Control the skies and roll in the tanks. Arab armies are pitifully trained and equipped for the most part.



This Iraq thing won't be over for years. We'll have control, but snipers and bombs will be going off.

Perhaps. I think that the Iraqi people will be rather glad to help put an end to such things though. After all, the only people who would do such things would be Fedayeen.



We will have liberated Iraq into another Israel warzone. NEVER EVER, underestimate the enemy. The folks in charge did so with Iraq and the occupation has been alot harder than expected. We've won easily, so far, but remember, we weren't supposed to need to fight at all.

Tell me, which active duty commanding general said that this would be a cakewalk? Yes there has been heavier resistance than expected. So what? Historically militaries (with the exception of McClellan) have underestimated their opponents resistance.

[$cirisme]

Today @ 06:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins:I still think America losing this battle is the best thing that can happen, because the deaths of 3000 Coalition soldiers in the beginning may end up being significantly less than what may happen if any united uprising occurs while our troops are there. The trouble with rabid lefties, as Jimmy illustrates, it that they just hate people. He's happy to see thousands of his own countryment killed (and hundreds of mine) in the name of his pet leftist cause -- anything but admit that his country was right to remove the Butcher of Baghdad.

Jimmy must be seething with rage after commandos rescued Pvt. Jessica Lynch from her would-be torturers, because her life would have been a small price to pay for his leftie ends.

It's even worse that an Iraqi risked much to alert the Americans of her whereabouts, because it's shocking to find Iraqis who welcome the Americans as liberators rather than standing by Saddam to the death.

Way to go! :thumb: Excellent post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2793). :thumb: :thumb:

[Woman]

Gosh Jimmy,

The success of the last 48 hours must annoy you no end.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:And besides, I'm talking a united Arab front. I'm talking Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia.

SPL Cadet rightly responded:Who lost horribly against an Israel with no army back in 1948, they'll lose even worse against a modern US Army. ...

With air and naval superiority it will be rather easy. Control the skies and roll in the tanks. Arab armies are pitifully trained and equipped for the most part. Indeed, Israel's air superiority decimated them in the Six-Day War, a justified pre-emptive strike against massing Arab armies and fierce rhetoric from Nasser about how he was going to push Israel into the sea. And even when the Arabs caught the Israelis napping in the Yom Kippur War, they still lost horribly in the end.

In both cases, it was only UN squealing that saved the Arab bacon -- but of course the UN said nothing when the Arabs seemed to be on the verge of wiping Israel out!

[Alden]

Yesterday @ 03:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jimmy Higgins:

Our army is no where as good as Israel's army. We have all the toys, but our soldiers are not the best.

really? have you ever met someone who is part of the Special Forces? Someone like a Navy Seal perhaps?