Behind the Invasion of Iraq

[ClubMed]

A very interesting collection of articles about the socio-economic and strategic aspects of an invasion of Iraq, although these articles are all against a war, if you are adult enough to look past that fact then you will be bombarded with loads of details and background history that will help you understand why so many are against this and other wars.

It is a good source of 'opposing force' knowledge.

You might not agree with the stance, but it does contain facts.

Behind the Invasion of Iraq

For those of you, who like a recent example cannot, or do not accept differing views I suggest you don’t go any further since you will just be wasting your and others time when all you have to say are derogatory remarks or silly mockery.

After seeing the recent CBS Dan Rather interview, I think, judging by Ari Fleischer's (WH Press Secretary) outbursts, the Administration is pretty rattled. Saddam appeared cool, calm and determined and was firm on repelling any foreign invasion.

I have always felt the war is inevitable given the huge amount of soldiers and equipment already sent there.

But now I sense the Administration is thinking that it may be starting a huge mess.

Time will tell.

[ClubMed]

I would like to agree with you shahani, but the Bush administration has money an so...

Well, CM, Bush may be bribing countries but remember the country that accepts this sort of coercion is equally guilty.

In war all is fair as I have always said to those that complain that chemical/biological weapons will be used against US soldiers.

Aren't bombs/missiles chemical weapons?

Won't they kill Iraqi people?

I don't see any difference in the two.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by shahani
...the Administration is pretty rattled.

Yeah, they sure gave the US what for during the last conflict!! Bush should be very worried, very worried.

[Epidemic]

The Current Strategic Agenda of the United States

Speculations and enuendo I saw few facts twisted in and perhaps a few politicians personal opinions (which are definitely flawed in that they make no sense and directly go agains stated and logical goal). We come back to it is a grab for oil and soil. This argument is completely illogical and contrary to all the evidence.

I also like the mention of the tactical nuke killing 20,000. Actually unless they are extending possible water contamination into that the basic logic is flawed once again. The bunker buster nuke is designed to detonate under ground the distruption of life on the surface would be limited. No one on the surface would be maimed burned . I do find the use of the tactical nuke wrong and would not suggest it as the ground polution from it seems to be the main problem. However the facts stated by that moron are flawed and completely incorrect.

I am not going to waste my time reading all of it but what I have read is full of tripe. I am not saying it is all false but there is so much speculation and twisting of facts in evidence I find the facts too impossible to rend from it.

People can interpret anything as tripe if it don't soot them. That doesn't make it tripe. Just means the peep who says its tripe thinks its tripe.

Its an opinion and should be respected but is not something written in stone or anything. Lots of peeple think Bush and his way of working is tripe. That don't meen its necessarily trew. Its just an opinion.

In fact I found the series of articles informative, balanced and well written (not like some of the Right Wing Hard Nosed Banter/Tripe we've seen here) and analytical. Presents a perspective different from the one the Administration would have everyone swallow.

[Epidemic]

It is not presented as opinion. As such lack of factual basis for most it an invalid piece.

As far as informative from the perspective of opinion then great. However as a teaching document much of it is conspiracy theory, twisting, turning, undulating tripe. It is written well and is a great insight into a mindset but it does neither prove nore deny anything at the moment.

I go back to some logical thoughts. Speculation on my part however based on observation and history and political environment.

If we want oil we need only befriend saddam.

If we wanted to normalize ties with the middle east we would only need to abandon israel.

America would not suffer long with out middle eastern oil. The middle east would suffer with out american money for that oil.
America has a fair amount of oil capable of providing for the needs of the US at current inflated future rates for at least 20 years.
Beyond that 20 years there are alternatives which will be worked out well prior to reserve exhaustion. Wind, bio, tidal, geothermal, Dam, Nuclear, and coming Fussion perhaps (need is the mother of invention).

The USA is not planning to use bio weapons on iraq.

Bunker buster nukes are possible but highly unlikely to be used.

...

With Iraq agreeing to destroy its missiles, GWB's in a spot. It's gonna be very difficult for him to justify a war now both to the American peeple and the world.

With domestic agenda in total disarray (economy in mess) and this war issue still pending, his political credibility as well as his chances in 2004 will start going southwards.

Unless, he walks the talk and starts the war immediately.

Like this weekend.

[Epidemic]

Saddam is well known for complying in increments in order to stem the tide of war.

If you look at my earlier threads and posts I described in detail that he would do this kind of stuff. Those missiles are the tip of the iceberg. he may or may not destroy them but that is just political wrangling to raise dissent in the UN and arab world.

It really works pretty well IMO. It is one of the reasons I thought the UN was a bad Idea in the first place.

Saddam is pretty good at trying to convince people that he is complying. He did it all through the first round of inspections.


Push push push push push give a little, hell it seems like he is giving birth when ever asked to comply.