kmcguffee 0 #151 March 4, 2003 Quote I hear that at French DZ's they say to students over radio "surrender!.....now throw your rifle down" instead of "hands up.......FLARE". I thought it was funny. Maybe I just have a simple mind. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phlip 0 #152 March 4, 2003 Most of those jokes are funny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #153 March 4, 2003 QuoteIt should be purely to remove SH from power. And then what happens? Anything that results in the removal of that paranoid thug will result in serious instability in the region. Who takes over? He's "purged" anybody who comes close to leadership capability at that level. There are some exiles, but they can't agree so there's potential for civil war or some other thug just as bad as SH. And what kind of grudge does Iran possibly hold? Both side were using chemical weapons on each other 20 years ago. Careful what you ask for. Peter (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #154 March 4, 2003 Quote Quote I think by the same light, it's interesting that the US, who has a greater interest in cheap gasoline that probably any other country in the world, is looking to "liberate" a country with a huge oil reserve. I'll just bet that in payment, we'll allow the lucky folks to sell us low-priced oil. Or am I the only person who thinks that could happen. no but if it was about oil we could take over Kuwait. We already control 65% the area with our military (CNN aka Clinton news network numbers not mine). It would be a small mop up operation instead of a war..... Right on bodypilot. If the current U.S. objective in Iraq was about oil, why not just take over Kuwait? Or how about just make deals with Iraq and buy it from them? Or hey, Venezuela is a really weak target for getting cheap oil, and it's closer too! Let's invade them! I think the "War for Oil" camp ignores a lot of stuff. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #155 March 4, 2003 >no but if it was about oil we could take over Kuwait. The rest of the world would not stand for it. We might just see UN sanctions against _us_. Sure, they couldn't take us over, or even hurt us badly, but they could sure nosedive our economy - and our president knows he would not survive the next election if that happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #156 March 4, 2003 Quote Quote Quote I think by the same light, it's interesting that the US, who has a greater interest in cheap gasoline that probably any other country in the world, is looking to "liberate" a country with a huge oil reserve. I'll just bet that in payment, we'll allow the lucky folks to sell us low-priced oil. Or am I the only person who thinks that could happen. no but if it was about oil we could take over Kuwait. We already control 65% the area with our military (CNN aka Clinton news network numbers not mine). It would be a small mop up operation instead of a war..... Right on bodypilot. If the current U.S. objective in Iraq was about oil, why not just take over Kuwait? Or how about just make deals with Iraq and buy it from them? Or hey, Venezuela is a really weak target for getting cheap oil, and it's closer too! Let's invade them! I think the "War for Oil" camp ignores a lot of stuff. Could be that you are missing a lot of stuff - about reserve currencies and petrodollars and Euros.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #157 March 4, 2003 Quote about reserve currencies well, my reserve isn't current, but hell, $45 will fix that without going all the way to Iraq! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #158 March 4, 2003 See, I think we are all missing the bigger point. Clinton was ok with allowing the UN to keep tabs on Iraq, but when they were kicked out in 98, he felt it was something the next president could deal with. THe thing is it does need to be done, whether we do it or his own people do it. The fact is, Iraq's want to be out of SH rule. Sure, there are some who like SH and are sympathetic, but the vast majority would like to see a regime change. Also, about the oil thing, here is my thoughts. If the world agreed and came to war with the US, then the "cost" of war would be shared. Also, the rewards would be shared. One of the major reasons for war is to get a US stronghold in the Middle East. This is nessesary for the war on terror. We can then build an airbase in Iraq, and stop "NEEDING" Saudi Arabia. Then we can start taking a much better look at how friendly the Saudi's are to us. I think it will bring stability to the region, because places like Qatar and Bahrain admit feeling threatend by SH. THe oil is just a perk, it is not a "reason" for war, but it does make he rewards tast better. Think of this way... The war will caost 100 Billion $$$$ right, well the oil is the repayment from Iraq to us for their liberation. We will not take over all their oil, because it is the countries main income. If we were to take over their oil completely another SH would be in power within a year. This guy needs to go, and according to the AP, North Korea is willing to give SH assylum...yeah that's a great idea!!! Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #159 March 4, 2003 Dude, I so agree with you on invading Venezuela. The climate is much better, the babes are great and they have decent alcohol. Plus it's real green. I am only affraid that after we invade them we are going to have hyperinflation in the US within 25 days jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #160 March 4, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuote no but if it was about oil we could take over Kuwait. We already control 65% the area with our military (CNN aka Clinton news network numbers not mine). It would be a small mop up operation instead of a war..... Right on bodypilot. If the current U.S. objective in Iraq was about oil, why not just take over Kuwait? Or how about just make deals with Iraq and buy it from them? It's about control and economic stability, the US doesn't want to steal the oil, they want to be able to control it and they want a piece of the action. Back in the 70's when OPEC turned off the tap there were huge problems in the western world, gas rationing etc. It damaged the western economies. Sadam is messing with things by selling his oil in Euro's instead of Dollars, creating general instability in the area (which makes oil more expensive). The idea is to stop all that. We have the Saudis and Kuwaitis friendly with us and giving a reliable supply of oil, if we get rid of Saddam we can put in a new "Western friendly" leader who will do the same. Plus we will break all those oil contracts that would have gone to french oil companies and give them to US and UK ones. Once this is over the US will have troops stationed in the two largest oil producing contries in the world, with friendly governments in those countries supporting them. That will guarentee a reliable cheap supply of oil to the US for many years to come, they will have effectively broken the OPEN cartel and countries like Venezuala won't be a factor, so if they go on strike again the gas prices will not jump. Take over Kuwait, well we already have, do you think the Kuwait leaders will screw with us after we a) liberated them from Saddam abd b) have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in their country. The same applies to Saudi Arabia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
