For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #426
View in linear mode

Subject: "Saddam wants a Duel" Previous topic | Next topic
doctormidnightFri Oct-04-02 06:16 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"Saddam wants a Duel"


  

          

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/index.html

Can I be on the team? I'll bring an M40A3. Hell, I'll only bring one round to make it fair

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 04th 2002
1
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 04th 2002
2
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 04th 2002
3
      RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 04th 2002
4
           RE: Saddam wants a Duel
May 22nd 2003
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
5
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
6
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
7
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
8
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
9
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
10
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
11
      RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
13
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
May 22nd 2003
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 05th 2002
12
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
May 22nd 2003
      RE: Saddam wants a Duel
May 22nd 2003
15
RE: Saddam wants a Duel
Oct 06th 2002
14

HETTATLONGUNFri Oct-04-02 06:28 AM
Member since Feb 09th 2002
1032 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#1. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 0)


          

Why We Have to Go to War

AMD Athlon64 3000+, MSI K8T Neo-FSR, Corsair CMX512-PC3200C2, Windows XP Pro, High-Speed AOL Plus!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

AlFri Oct-04-02 06:39 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#2. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 0)


  

          

I think that the team is being assembled, and the group that will represent Iraq is called the Republican Guard...

Bigger teams than Saddam thought...



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
doctormidnightFri Oct-04-02 06:46 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#3. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to Al (Reply # 2)


  

          

Put me in coach!!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
andrini2000Fri Oct-04-02 01:20 PM
Charter member
2001 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#4. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 3)


  

          

I don't understand. I think if there wasn't oil there, we probably wouldn't go. And now, Iraq said they will let the inspectors back in but the U.S. says noway?
Am I missing something?
Sure, Saddam is not a nice man, but, to go over and just start killing and bombing. There's gotta be a better way.



Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
waldogatorrThu May-22-03 01:51 AM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
20 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: Saddam wants a Duel"


  

          

IT AIN'T ABOUT THE OIL, DUDE! (respectfully) Sadaam has lied about anything and everything his whole despicable life, and he's lieing now about the observers. Not to mention he fires on our jets every day in the No-Fly Zone. That in itself has got to be some kind of act of war! We should have greased this pig in '91 but we gave the Iraqi people the opportunity to do it themselves and they have not been able to do it for whatever reasons. So it falls back to us, THE USA. Pucker up, Sadaam, we are coming for you.........

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

freespiritSat Oct-05-02 03:04 AM
Member since Mar 02nd 2002
1479 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 0)


          

This question is specifically for Al, but generally for all. I ask this of you, Al, because I have come to respect you during my time w/PC911. While I don't always agree with you, I know that your answers are not knee jerk reactions and are thoughtful.

Why should we go to war against Iraq, more than anyone else who is a threat? All over the world are dangerous regimes who treat their citizens horribly. When I lived in Los Angeles, I remember China telling the US to bug out of it's internal affairs (human rights) and they reminded us that they were quite capable of launching on Los Angeles. All the while, the US has kept up trade with China, often times selling them stuff that could lead to our destruction. Have they not benefited from our technology and is this not very dangerous? Why don't we go after China? Because we might not win, or start WWIII, or screw the multinationals out of all that good cheap labor? What are the reasons, as you see it? I am not advocating war with China but if Iraq is bad China is a nightmare waiting to happen.

I was under the impression that we created the monster, Saddam, to cause trouble for our enemy, Iran. Haven't we done this sort of stuff before? After a while, I begin to think we create monsters (selling them arms) and then we fight with them after they get out of control and the only ones who benefit are the defense contractors. They win when the US bulds up these regimes and then again when we knock them down. All the while, the American people pay the price of being hated for creating brutal dictators (example, Shah of Iran) and then hated some more for killing innocents when we bomb the shit out of them later.

Prior to the Gulf war, didn't Saddam ask the US about our opinion on his invaiding Kuwait? I can't recall the woman's name (April something?), with the Bush administration who said we would be okay with that. Somebody help me here if you can remember her name and position. What was that about? Then when it did happen, the chickenshit Kuwaities (the royal family) split for Europe and the comfort of fine hotels and villas while we fight their battles. It's a disgrace. Are not they a rich country? Why should we be their lackies? Then, after the war, American GI's go in and fix up their palaces, repairing the gold faucets so all is up to snuff for the return of the cowards!

I'm sorry, Al, but I don't think these wars are fought for the good of the American people. I'm inclined to think that goverments are bought and paid for by powerfull multinational corporations, who have no alliegence to the US, then the goverments use the military to secure the interests of these multinationals, feed the citizenry full of propaganda so we'll be brainwashed into supporting private, corporate interests with our tax dollars (and blood).

Saddam is dangerous, no doubt. But so is China, and Pakistan and N Korea and who knows who else. I believe we have to find ways to move beyond war and to rein in these elite moneyed interests that the wars are, more often than not, fought for. That said, if I were a hawk, I'd be thinking about what to do about China and it's HUGE supply of fighting age men. We could knock out Iraq in no time, but China is a serious threat.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ukmitchSat Oct-05-02 03:33 AM
Member since Jul 15th 2002
4314 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to freespirit (Reply # 5)


  

          

Well said, Freespirit.

Don't agree with a lot of what you say, but very well put!!




Mitch

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
sophie tuckerSat Oct-05-02 03:40 AM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#7. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to freespirit (Reply # 5)


          

freespirit,

You go, girl!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
ShellySat Oct-05-02 04:44 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 7)


  

          

No one hates war more than any sane person who has experienced it. The sad thing is that we are now responsible for Saddam. We made one of the worst military blunders of all time when we left him in power after the Gulf war. We allowed a situation to fester when we could have finished the job. We had the forces, munitions, allies and momentum in place.

We as a nation will have to share some of the responsibility for whatever this madman wreaks upon his neighbors, and his own people. Whatever it costs us in treasure and lives to now correct that mistake will dwarf what it would have cost us then. Saddam is a cancer we half excised, and then walked away to allow it to grow back.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
AlSat Oct-05-02 04:56 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#9. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to freespirit (Reply # 5)


  

          

One point at a time.

Haven't seen any evidence of China actually using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Have you? Also haven't heard of the leadership of China pledging to destroy us. Have you?

The difference is staggering. A psychological profile done on Saddam Hussein states that he sees himself as the next Nebachanezzer, and that he has no regard for the fate of his populous or country.

The use of chemical and biological weapons (which Saddam has shown a willingness to use) do not require elaborate delivery means. They can be delivered effectively in very low-tech manners. Saddam's willingness to use those weapons, and his efforts to gain nukes as a way to shield his actions are the reasons that he must be dealt with and dealt with effectively.

Regarding diplomacy, etc. I've always found that story suspect. One, we are to believe that Saddam stated that he intended to invade (he did not, he stated something to the effect of wishing to regain the oil fields that were once Iraq's...a comment that could be taken as suggesting negotiation). Two, we are to believe that an Arab spoke to and took as representing the US, the answer he received from a woman (from a cultural point of view, I find this extremely hard to believe). Three, her answer (something along the line of "I don't belive so") is her opinion, not that of the US, and is non-committal.

We were allies with Josef Stalin during WWII. Does that mean we weren't justified in the Cold War? That the Cuban Missile crisis was an overreaction?

Just as there was more information available to our leadership in 1962 than was available to the public (and which could be not made public), I have reason to believe that there is more information available to our leadership today that shows that Saddam is a clear danger to the United States.

I for one am not interested in waiting until there are thousands, or even millions of dead in an American or European city, or until the exchange of nuclear weapons in the Middle-East (I am in the fallout path of any such exchange) before taking action.

Attacking Iraq takes the risk of destabilizing the middle-east, a region that has gone through its share of changes (Sadat's assassination, Khomeini's death, etc.). The risk of not dealing with Saddam is destabilizing the world.

Btw, the oil company stuff doesn't fly. If the boycotts come off as a result of a regime change, Iraq returns to 100% production and the price of oil plummets. Not good for ExxonMobil and the other oil companies, not good at all (not to mention that a war in that region puts the bulk of their supply at risk). Politically, that might be useful in dealing with Saudi and the other OPEC nations, but that is a political issue, not an industry issue.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
andrini2000Sat Oct-05-02 05:18 AM
Charter member
2001 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to Al (Reply # 9)


  

          

No. Haven't heard too much about the china thing. However, I did hear that by the year 2010 or something like that, the commies will have over 100 missiles pointing directly at us, the U.S. Now that's a scary thought. The chinese commies are yes people. They say and nod yes, but do *no*. You know, they twice signed an agreement to make their human rights better, but haven't done a frickin' thing. They 'still' have 3 or so priests locked up for no reason. They haven't even been to trial yet. And they've been locked up for over 3 or 4 years now.
But, I have heard that the commies do like to trade and/or sell technology to Irag, Iran and a few other places. I'm thankful that Russia is now on board NATO.
That really hurt the commies over on this side.



Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
agbSat Oct-05-02 05:25 AM
Member since Dec 12th 2001
534 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#11. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to Al (Reply # 9)


          


>
>Btw, the oil company stuff doesn't fly. If the boycotts come
>off as a result of a regime change, Iraq returns to 100%
>production and the price of oil plummets. Not good for
>ExxonMobil and the other oil companies, not good at all (not
>to mention that a war in that region puts the bulk of their
>supply at risk). Politically, that might be useful in
>dealing with Saudi and the other OPEC nations, but that is a
>political issue, not an industry issue.

Macleans weekly in CANADA has a slight different take on that as below.
AGB

World
October 7, 2002

NOT FOR JUSTICE, BUT OIL

Installing a friendly regime in Baghdad could provide the U.S. with cheap fuel

TOM FENNELL with WILLIAM LOWTHER in Washington

LIKE AN AGGRESSIVE prosecutor, Prime Minister Tony Blair stood in the British House of Commons last week and laid out the case for toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Citing a 50-page British intelligence dossier, he warned that Iraqi forces have the capability of firing weapons carrying anthrax and nerve gas within 45 minutes of receiving an order from Saddam. The Iraqis, said Blair, also have mobile germ warfare laboratories and are trying to buy uranium for their nuclear weapons program from an African country. But many MPs and foreign leaders remained unconvinced, claiming the report contained nothing new. Labour MP Alan Simpson also questioned the motives behind the push to bring down Saddam. "President Bush needs to do this to satisfy his thirst," he said. "But his thirst is not for justice but for oil." Photo: Hussein Malla/CPp Archive
View Full Size Photo
Refineries like this one northwest of Baghdad could again be operating flat out

In the list of reasons given by Washington for ousting Saddam in recent months, oil is rarely mentioned. But American foreign policy in the Middle East is still deeply influenced by the 1973 Arab embargo, which drove the price of oil from US$3 a barrel to $12, triggering galloping inflation and pushing the U.S., Canada and Europe into a deep recession. America now depends on the Middle East for 27.5 per cent of its oil, and that figure is expected to climb dramatically in the coming years. By installing a regime friendly to the United States in Iraq, which controls 11 per cent of the world's oil supply and has massive untapped reserves, George W. Bush would ensure the U.S. has cheap crude for years. "Oil is at the centre of our Middle East policy," said Charles V. Pena, a former U.S. Defense Department adviser. "Everything we do in the region is ostensibly to ensure ourselves a cheap supply."
Talk of war has already pushed the price of oil from $19 a barrel earlier this year to a 19-month-high of $31. There is little relief in sight. At a meeting in Osaka on Sept. 20, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which includes Iraq, said it would not boost production to bring down the price. The high cost, OPEC officials claimed, amounted to a "war premium" triggered by the threat of an invasion of Iraq. "I think they are political prices, not market prices," said Qatari oil minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah.

The price could become even more political. The U.S. is struggling to stay out of recession, the European economy is slowing and Japan is trying to avoid falling back into recession. A prolonged spike in oil prices to even higher levels would put a brake on already sputtering economic growth in the West, possibly triggering a global recession. Ironically, when prices soared to nearly $40 a barrel during the Gulf War in 1991, it helped push the U.S. into recession and cost Bush's father the White House.

Now Bush the younger risks falling prey to the same scenario. According to Vincent Lauerman, global energy strategist at the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, how high oil prices go will depend on how quickly Saddam is toppled once war breaks out. If the regime is easily defeated, Lauerman says, prices will spike to $35 a barrel and then quickly drop to the $22 range with little negative impact. But if the battle is prolonged inside Iraq, he predicts the price will jump to $40 and, if fighting spreads to neighbouring countries, it could hit $50 before eventually settling back somewhere into the mid-$20s.

If the war goes badly, OPEC could help rescue consumers by flooding the market to drive the price down. But OPEC's decision will be tempered by Arab reaction to the fighting, says Matthew Janisch, an oil expert and managing director of BMO Nesbitt Burns in Calgary. If there is widespread unrest in Arab capitals it will be difficult for OPEC to raise production. And non-OPEC countries, including Russia and Canada, won't be able to help, adds Lauerman, because they're already pumping at full capacity and have no excess supplies.

In the long run, the picture is better if the U.S. is able to install a friendly regime. Officially, Iraq, currently under an embargo, is exporting almost one million barrels a day under a UN aid-for-oil program that allows the country to sell oil and use the proceeds for the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. Analysts believe a pro-U.S. regime would likely turn the oil fields over to American firms to develop. Once producing fully (between five and seven million barrels a day), Iraq would boost world supplies by almost six per cent and bring down the price. "The increased production would have a very, very significant effect on world oil prices," says Kyle Cooper, an oil analyst with Solomon Smith Barney in New York City. "You're probably looking at prices in the upper teens."

American control of Iraqi oil would also produce two other changes the White House would welcome. A dramatic increase in supplies could weaken, or even lead to the collapse of OPEC as member nations attempt to maintain market share by stepping up production. "You'd get an oil war as the Saudis pump more to protect their share," says Cooper. "That would push prices down even more."

Bringing massive amounts of Iraqi oil to market could also free the U.S. from its dependence on Saudi Arabia, which now accounts for almost 15.25 per cent of U.S. oil needs. For Washington, that dependency is problematic: some U.S. national security planners believe the Saudi royal family may be destabilized by Islamic militants in the near future, or the country may disintegrate in a civil war as rival factions in the ruling family battle to replace King Fahd, who is 81 and dying. But the availability of Iraqi oil would all but eliminate the U.S. need for Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. energy sector, an industry that Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have close ties to, would quickly move into Iraq. (Bush once owned an oil company, Cheney ran one, and Rice is a former director of Chevron Corp. and has an oil tanker named after her.) And oil companies from a number of other countries, including France, China and Russia, have interests in Iraq. Nervous that they might be excluded by a pro-American government, their representatives have met with exiled Iraqi opposition leaders in Washington in an attempt to ensure their position in the country in the post-Saddam era. But those opposition leaders, Pena says, made it clear they won't be bound by any agreements Saddam made with foreign oil companies.

Bush's drive to launch an offensive against Saddam seemed to gain ground in Washington as Congress, at week's end, discussed a resolution to authorize the President to use ground forces in Iraq. British and U.S. officials also drafted a UN Security Council resolution that would give Saddam two months to fully co-operate with arms inspectors or face military retaliation. But foreign leaders continued to express doubts about an invasion. In Ottawa, Jean Chretien said there is still not enough evidence to warrant an attack, while French President Jacques Chirac and Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji voiced similar concerns. But it is unlikely that Saddam will give inspectors full access to Iraqi installations. And that will mean that the drumbeats of what some are calling a war for oil will only increase in the days ahead.


Copyright by Rogers Media Inc.




  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
AlSat Oct-05-02 08:02 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#13. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to agb (Reply # 11)


  

          

Political, not industry. The oil industry doesn't want anything that disrupts or potentially disrupts their supply. Nor do they want the price of oil too low. They can always blame high prices on OPEC.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
waldogatorrThu May-22-03 01:51 AM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
20 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: Saddam wants a Duel"


  

          

Is this what you are saying, Freespirit?

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

SonnySat Oct-05-02 06:31 AM
Charter member
12005 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#12. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 0)


  

          

Good idea. After all, GWB is a cowboy ain't he. I doubt Saddam is anywhere near a "Quick Draw Magraw".

Al, Saddam also wants to be the next Salidin. Takrit is his home town. so that makes him a ...?

OK guys, back at it. Ya'll a bit much for me on a Friday night. Damn, where's that Budweiser I was sucking on?

Support PCQandA


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
waldogatorrThu May-22-03 01:51 AM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
20 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: Saddam wants a Duel"


  

          

We have a long way to go to get to 100! http://www.bushcartoon.com/zilla/bushzilla.html

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
andrini2000Thu May-22-03 01:51 AM
Charter member
2001 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#15. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to waldogatorr (Reply # 0)


  

          

That link is a good one Waldo!!
Here's a funny from the Clinton days. (attached).
(hope this isn't too 'r' rated and get me in trouble).



Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

cascaSun Oct-06-02 07:58 AM
Charter member
5759 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#14. "RE: Saddam wants a Duel"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 0)


  

          

I not so sure I would want to walk on that soil, as sloppy as they as they are about sanitary, much less hazmat, added to their propensity to use it. Stir in one insane (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Phot, point made?) egomanical, meglomanic whose religon promotes killing in the name of god.

Nape, nape, nape, nape, nape. Nothing sterilize potentially contaminated soil than fire. We just start a 24 four a day sorties, use everything from cropdusters to Airforce 2.

With all the oil in Kuwait we should run out of nape is about 500 years or so.

No, I pray for those brave souls who go to fight what must be fought. IT's clear he will use CBT and nuke without qualms.


Under Construction

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #426 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.