GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:13 pm**

Which way is up?

It is getting so bad, that I can no longer tell the sarcastic spoof news articles from the real ones anymore.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:45 pm**

Originally posted by at99
I should have said (no spam).

I dont believe in this 'blood for oil' thing. It is a tired overdone arguement and I think it is a simplistic view of a complicated issue. No direct link can be made to 'only' do this for oil and it spits in face in all those suffering in Iraq.

The international community as a whole has not handled Iraq well and we are left now with a mess.
Also I believe the best chance for peace was for the UN to unite and threaten war on Iraq (call a bluff) and Iraq would have to comply but the anti-war movement did not see this and neither has the 'opportunists' France.

Thats just my 'two cents'.

Sorry about the extra piece on Huffington - it is just such a strange change.

Anyway, I think she makes a solid argument about the motives of **** Cheney in particular - it is precisely blood for oil.

American foreign policy is inconsistent. Saudi Arabia, known worldwide for its horrendous human rights record , is an ally of the United States. Iraq, also known worldwide for its horrendous human rights record, is an enemy. Saudi Arabians made up the vast majority of the September 11th hijackers. Is there a reason we're threatening to attack one country, but not the other?...
...Why yes, there is: the United States government has a policy of turning its head in the face of human rights violations until the very last minute (Bosnia, Rwanda) or until its own interests are threatened (Afghanistan). Bush cites Saddam Hussein's many flagrant human rights violations as justification for war, but did he care about Hussein's horrible human rights record a year ago? Two years ago? Bush's agenda goes something like this: ignore the horrible oppression of innocent people by a totalitarian regime until that regime blows up your buildings, kills your citizens, or threatens to monopolize your oil supply. Then take action, using the suffering of those people to justify your actions.

If you can find any great humanitarian concern for any third world people that George W. and Cheney held prior to holding office, I'd love to hear about it. As far as their "concern" for the suffering Iraqi's, I don't buy it at all. It's just another propaganda ploy to motivate Americans in supporting their war for oil.

For example, both GW Bush and **** Cheney essentially supported South African apartheid. (GW running unsuccessfully for Congress from Midland... they caught him on video saying he wouldn't support sanctions because South Africa "is a free country"... Good Gawd...) Cheney repeatedly voted against sanctions, and even *against a resolution condemning the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela*... OMG.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:41 pm**

Originally posted by VoodooDali
If you can find any great humanitarian concern for any third world people that George W. and Cheney held prior to holding office, I'd love to hear about it. As far as their "concern" for the suffering Iraqi's, I don't buy it at all. It's just another propaganda ploy to motivate Americans in supporting their war for oil.

What are you saying here Iraqis are not suffering?

Could I ask how should the world punish sadam ?
What do you think of the countries like china or russia ?

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:07 pm**

Every issue has more sides than anyone will ever know. You can not blindly label the war in iraq a war for oil. The oil in itself is a representation of power, which is what all war is for. Power. But in the path of gaining power we might remove an evil man from power and attempt to better a nation.

You may disagree, but your opinion is not solid grounds for reasoning against bush. Not to mention Bush and Cheny dont run the whole show, while they may have flaws... thier flaws do not compare to the flaws of those we seek out.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:10 pm**

Originally posted by at99
What are you saying here Iraqis are not suffering?

Could I ask how should the world punish sadam ?
What do you think of the countries like china or russia ?

I don't think I implied that at all. Just that Bush & Cheney's concern is inconsistent with their prior behavior towards Iraq and other dictatorships (such as China). I think they are using the Iraqi's suffering as a propaganda tool.

Look at the deal they are cutting with Turkey now. Both Turkey and Iran are in line to get the Kurdish piece of Iraq and solve their little Kurdish problem, and the US needs Turkey and Iran strategically, so they'll probably get what they ask for...so much for "concern" for the Kurds...Selling 'em out once again.

What should be done to punish Saddam? What about bringing him to court for war crimes? Oh, I forgot, Bush refused to sign the agreement for the US to be part of the international court. Oops.

I guess what really makes sense is to threaten war continuously, tell Saddam that war is imminent, and demand that he disarm his country (what logic). Then we'll bomb the hell out of the civilians in Baghdad. Then the news will report that Saddam is nowhere to be found. Probably hiding with Osama - who, by the way, Bush has not mentioned in a speech since August 2002!!! Saddam will be dropped as a topic of Bush's agenda, and Bush will move onto the next target - if he hasn't already (Phillipines?). Anything to keep the country from noticing the gazillion dollar deficit he's racking up.

Plus the other million variables no one can predict.
Iraqi War Game

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:10 pm**

Originally posted by at99
What are you saying here Iraqis are not suffering?

I don't get that at all in VoodooDali's statement. I think she's pointing out that cries for sympathy for the Iraqis from Dic! Cheney and Dubya should be seen in the context of their respective characters. Cheney has a long history of amoral behavior which is public--see the reprint of Huffington's comments, above. And Dubya has never shown an ounce of interest in the wellbeing of any non-Americans before. Under such circumstances, a grain of salt is the smallest common denominator, IMO, with which to take that pair's sympathy for Iraqis. A huge guffaw of laughter is probably more appropriate.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:28 pm**

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fable
I don't get that at all in VoodooDali's statement. I think she's pointing out that cries for sympathy for the Iraqis from Dic! Cheney and Dubya should be seen in the context of their respective characters. Cheney has a long history of amoral behavior which is public--see the reprint of Huffington's comments, above. And Dubya has never shown an ounce of interest in the wellbeing of any non-Americans before. Under such circumstances, a grain of salt is the smallest common denominator, IMO, with which to take that pair's sympathy for Iraqis. A huge guffaw of laughter is probably more appropriate. [/Q

I hardly think laughter is the most appropriate response to the problems of Iraq regardless of who said it. You are entitled to your opinion.

There are more countries than the US and Iraq involved in this and Tony Blair/ john Howard is pushing the moral case mostly (not US).
What is more laughable is the anti-war movement hijacked by the anti-west movement, or France/Germany so-called peace thing, or having sadam stay in power this long, or having china/russia and france on the security council or Frances stance on Mugabe, or Chinas attitude to North Korea or the UN as a decent world body ..and and .........that doesnt mean we should not keep trying.

I cant understand the views I see of blame US for absolutely everything because it is the only country that we know and if it is not ideal it is the worst place on earth. I find Britains reaction more interesting and globally more significant (IMO)

that is my other two cents worth. (If I dont stop now I will be out of 'cents')

So voododali

What are you saying here Iraqis are not suffering?

Could I ask how should the world punish sadam ?
What do you think of the countries like china or russia ?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:12 am**

Originally posted by at99
I hardly think laughter is the most appropriate response to the problems of Iraq regardless of who said it.

I'd have to agree, since I wasn't suggesting laughter in response to Iraq's situation. Let's reread what I wrote:

Under such circumstances, a grain of salt is the smallest common denominator, IMO, with which to take that pair's sympathy for Iraqis. A huge guffaw of laughter is probably more appropriate.

It appears perfectly clear to me. The subject in the first line is "that pair's sympathy for Iraqis," meaning Cheney and Dubya, who were the subject of my entire post. The laughter was aimed at them, same as the grain of salt. I honestly don't see how you arrived at your conclusion. Oh, well.

So voododali
What are you saying here Iraqis are not suffering?

Allow me to respond as I did before, since you didn't deal with my response--probably because it was misread. Perhaps you could, this time:

I don't get that at all in VoodooDali's statement. I think she's pointing out that cries for sympathy for the Iraqis from Dic! Cheney and Dubya should be seen in the context of their respective characters. Cheney has a long history of amoral behavior which is public--see the reprint of Huffington's comments, above. And Dubya has never shown an ounce of interest in the wellbeing of any non-Americans before. Under such circumstances, a grain of salt is the smallest common denominator, IMO, with which to take that pair's sympathy for Iraqis. A huge guffaw of laughter is probably more appropriate.

Back to you:

Could I ask how should the world punish sadam ?

First, it isn't "the world." It's the Bush administration, which suddenly decided to push the invade Iraq button after there was evidence oil supplies might dry up in Venezuela, fourth largest source of oil exports. You can bring up the UK, but neither Blair nor anybody else jumped on the bandwagon until months after Bush launched it. It was his administration's campaign. We both know that most of the very few nations that have jumped on that bandwagon are doing it for trade deals; some of them, like Turkey and Hungary, have been very forthright about their expectations in this regard, and even about their negotiations. There is precious little idealism behind those who have agreed to the US' threats and offers, save among an even smaller number of countries.

Second, what do you want to punish Hussein for? Kuwait? Been punished for that. Crimes against the Kurds? The US supplied Iraq with the biological weaponry to do that, when the US decided to use Iraq as its surrogate in the last Iraqi-Iran War. For being a murdering dictator? There are others as bad, and some with far worse records, who are trading partners of the US, and others who are recipients of US aid. For having weapons of mass destruction? N Korea has far worse, has never agreed to sign a document ending its war with S Korea, and has treated its own people with a far heavier hand than Hussein. Yet we're going after Iraq.

Somehow, any good reason for going after Hussein, as opposed to other dictators, escapes me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:11 am**

Originally posted by fable
I'd have to agree, since I wasn't suggesting laughter in response to Iraq's situation. Let's reread what I wrote:

Just quickly

Well I was actually asking you questions but voodoodali (and still am) but thanks anyway. The US might have started the push but their are other countries involved and are quite significant. I dont agree to leave Hussain alone , why not he , doesnt he deserve it?

Why do Iraq. Iraq is a perceived threat and thats the whole thing. This is the problem. Some say 'he is not' and some say he is? I dont trust the guy personally but thats me. He has a cash flow of oil and a good smuggling operation into Turkey, and a bad history. N Koreas is also a threat but I would say Iraq is the 'must do now' IMO.French oil interests happen to be quite large in Iraq.

I was mostly taken back by the amount of 'opposition' to this Iraq thing given the reasons and motives of groups put forward. Their exists an anti-west feeling which I dont agree with and seems large and to be fair probably a large extremist right (although silent for now). IMO these 'groups' people have got the US and UN mixed up.

I guess maybe some people (extreme lefties) might be happier living outside the western world.

I did not intend to change peoples opinions over some forum over the internet but I wanted to see peoples logic behind their views.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:41 am**

Originally posted by at99
Why do Iraq. Iraq is a perceived threat and thats the whole thing. This is the problem. Some say 'he is not' and some say he is? I dont trust the guy personally but thats me. He has a cash flow of oil and a good smuggling operation into Turkey, and a bad history. N Koreas is also a threat but I would say Iraq is the 'must do now' IMO.French oil interests happen to be quite large in Iraq.

As I mentioned before, N Korea has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We know Hussein doesn't have the first, easily the one that can cause the most widespread horror. N Korea has been virulently anti-West. Hussein hasn't. N Korea never signed a peace treaty with the neighbor it invaded. Hussein did. N Korea has one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in the world. Hussein, for all his crimes, doesn't. N Korea's government is a cult like one. Hussein is a pragmatist. N Korea has restarted its nuclear processing plant. Hussein doesn't have one.

In addition, N Korea has made statements about launching a preemptive strike against the West if it suspects an attack is imminent. The last time it felt that way was before it invaded S Korea.

These are pretty much the reasons given by all those who make a case for dealing with N Korea before Iraq. What are yours, for the reverse?

I guess maybe some people (extreme lefties) might be happier living outside the western world.

I'm not sure I follow you, here. I haven't heard any "anti-West" feeling from a variety of non-US media. I have heard a great deal of anti-Bush and anti-Blair rhetoric, and to a much lesser extent, anti-US and anti-UK. But since much of that opposition to an Iraqi war is coming from the US (50%, unconvinced), the UK (70%, unconvinced), France, Germany, the Scandanavian nations, etc, these people could hardly be happier outside "the western world" because of their opinions on a single issue. I also strongly doubt that so many people could simply be called "extreme lefties." Or are you referring to some other group? And if so, how do you define "extreme lefties?"

I did not intend to change peoples opinions over some forum over the internet but I wanted to see peoples logic behind their views.

Then perhaps you could give us your logic for believing that Iraq is a "must do now," meaning, must invade, conquer, remove its leader, and install a different government?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:11 am**

Originally posted by fable
I guess maybe some people (extreme lefties) might be happier living outside the western world.

I'm not sure I follow you, here. I haven't heard any "anti-West" feeling from a variety of non-US media. I have heard a great deal of anti-Bush and anti-Blair rhetoric, and to a much lesser extent, anti-US and anti-UK. But since much of that opposition to an Iraqi war is coming from the US (50%, unconvinced), the UK (70%, unconvinced), France, Germany, the Scandanavian nations, etc, these people could hardly be happier outside "the western world" because of their opinions on a single issue. I also strongly doubt that so many people could simply be called "extreme lefties." Or are you referring to some other group? And if so, how do you define "extreme lefties?"

I did not intend to change peoples opinions over some forum over the internet but I wanted to see peoples logic behind their views.

Oh Dear Oh Dear, Fable your poor chappy

Now heres the whole problem. You Americans are completely naive about world outsilde your own country. This will be my last post to you personally since I see the gap in perception between us.

The anti-west /anti-amercian feeling here is HUGE and I cant say it enough. People dont care if your 'democrat' 'republican' or against the war but if your American then guess what 'we have a problem'. The lefties groups are very vocal here in Australia and Britain and they are aggresively opposed to all things 'yanky' no matter how reasonable you are and really I cant say in words how violent (hateful) this can be and I am sick of hearing it from here and Britain. Big mistake not to acknowledge this !

The anti-war marches are organized here by people who think North Korea is a great place and we have no right to interfere, and Iraq , well whats wrong with them and china (now thats a fantastic government).........but US must die! Have I said it enough yet....and constant anti-US slants are in the media ....and ...and.... Ever heard of the australian ABC !

Now Tony Blair is the important player here , he has the persuasive influence (problably over Europe) not Bush and I dont know what you are taught about America but in Australia and Britain (the US is well ....shall we say 'not ideal').

I doubt if many people in Aus/Britain knows much about US politics or even cares but the US have a problem with Iraq and so does Blair (who is labor and is supporting the US Bush (republican) and thats what gets peoples attrention. DO you know how weird this for a labor man to want to goto war with a american republican ! The Blair support has got people thinking here that maybe there is a point to this, not Bush who just has the 'guns'.

People outside the US will listen to Blair and he is the 'key' to US support outside the US IMO and powell to a lesser extent. Other countries like France are just being 'french' when they are trying to obstruct Britain (the UK might have something to gain over the french and ruin our oil and that is bad news for them)

Even Nelson Mandela hates the US!

Scandinavian countries, now theres another typical of case ....

And I think I cant say it enough about how agressive the anti-US feeling here is in Australia and the UK among the left groups who do exist.

Although I am proud to admit I dont buy into the anti-US feeling and I think English speaking countries have a lot to offer world (especially labor party sometimes) which is why I cant understand the anti-war movement in the US (if these people only knew....)

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:46 am**

Originally posted by at99
You Americans

Oh that's a classic, ranked up there with you women...fable is a little more intellectual than the average American and too be honest with such a large and diverse country I don't think there really is an average American.

The anti-war marches are organized here by people who think North Korea is a great place and we have no right to interfere, and Iraq , well whats wrong with them and china (now thats a fantastic government).........but US must die! Have I said it enough yet....and constant anti-US slants are in the media ....and ...and.... Ever heard of the australian ABC !

It isn't the same in the UK media, they are mostly very much behind Blair which means they are very much behind Bush's current campaign, they pander to whichever government is in power, even down to making the weather features more Scotland orientated

I have quite conflicting views from people I know, probably a 60/40 slant anti to pro war. What do you mean by anti-US slants? Could you give some examples?

Now Tony Blair is the important player here , he has the persuasive influence (problably over Europe) not Bush and I dont know what you are taught about America but in Australia and Britain (the US is well ....shall we say 'not ideal').

Blair, persuasive influence lol! The interesting thing is that Americans like Anne Coulter (hock and spit) think Blair is wonderful and doing a really great job at uniting people, most of us fringe British people don't rate him very highly. He did get Silvio Berlisconi to support things which doesn't surprise me all that much, Berlisconi is really in a tight spot, with every pro-war statement matching the name Saddam with Hitler it's no surprise that a country like Italy would feel the need to get behind the war effort, well that's my spin on it anyway.

I doubt if many people in Aus/Britain knows much about US politics or even cares but the US have a problem with Iraq and so does Blair (who is labor and is supporting the US Bush (republican) and thats what gets peoples attrention. DO you know how weird this for a labor man to want to goto war with a american republican ! The Blair support has got people thinking here that maybe there is a point to this, not Bush who just has the 'guns'.

It's quite incredible the way that Blair has marketed himself to the world but not his own country, everyone around the world doesn't see the day to day of Blair and Brown's Britain, but they see this supposedly charasmatic bloke wander the globe like some kind of diplomat, I think Bush has been a lot more respectable on this point, okay his country might be hitting one of it's worst dephicits ever but at least he isn't swanning off to other countries while it happens. I am always weary of someone who will go out of their way to improve the world (in his own eyes) but not his own country. For instance, waiting lists in this country are down so say the government...that's only because they have created supplementary waiting lists up the yin yang to get the figures down

I know what lets build something which costs 750'000'000 and can only possibly last 25 years but we can't give the fireman a fairly meagre wage increase. The list does go on.

People outside the US will listen to Blair

They certainly didn't listen to him during all the "moving over the Euro" crap, with England posturing and making no definitive choices.

Even Nelson Mandela hates the US!

He has a contrary opinoin that does not mean he hates the US, I quite often have contrary opinoins to my family members that doesn't mean I hate them.

(if these people only knew....)

If these people only new what? That their "savages"( © Ann Coulter), that Bush is so righteous and just, that Blair isn't a moron "Oh look I'll play some guitar with some kids while the world is getting more and more unstable, that will endear me to everyone"

what is your point? What don't people know? Educate us

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:01 am**

well Sleep we get here our large media of course and the BBC world service channel (hardly behind Blair) and my opinion is based on my Australian life and I see Britain (in some matters) as a similar place.

Maybe you and Fable should talk more. I have said enough.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:10 am**

Originally posted by at99
I see Britain (in some matters) as a similar place.

Britain is a complex place, as is any country, we are generally cynical people, it's no surprise that London had one of the biggest turn outs at the anti-war march. I think this Kinks line sums it up (

) "Tea and toasted, buttered currant buns
Can't compensate for lack of sun,
Because the summer's all gone." It's like that always, about 3 days of proper sun a year tends to make us crabby.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:26 am**

@at99

I haven't noticed any particular "anti-American" feelings being expressed here, either in the media, by people in general or even at the anti-war demonstrations.

Our anti-war demo was attended by 100,000 people, and the most evident anti feelings expressed were against war, Howard and Bush in that order. It is making too braod a generalisation to characterise these as anti-American (if anything, given their attack on John "Dubyah" Howard they would have been anti-Australian).

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 10:01 am**

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Oh that's a classic, ranked up there with you women...fable is a little more intellectual than the average American and too be honest with such a large and diverse country I don't think there really is an average American.

Thanks, @Sleep. It is difficult, after all, to deal with an opponent's arguments; far easier to simply use an ad hominem attack:

Fable is an American;
Americans are politically naive;
therefore...
Fable is politically naive.

Nevermind that at99 has offered no evidence of his second proposition--because he can't. Nevermind that I've made an intensive hobby for thirty years of studying cultural history in the various cultures of Western and Central Europe (and economic history for then). Nevermind that I'm longwinded, in the process.

I am politically naive; and by inference, he is not.

Of course, this forum presents hard copy indicating who goes back to source texts and quotes, and who doesn't. I stand by what I've written up here. Whether wrong or right, I think it's fair to say that it's detailed, and supported by some material evidence, however much it can be disputed through other POVs.

@At99, next time you want to brush a person by tarring their entire nationality, you really should do your research more thoroughly. You'll come out with far less of it sticking to you.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:17 pm**

Originally posted by at99
Oh Dear Oh Dear, Fable your poor chappy

Now heres the whole problem. You Americans are completely naive about world outsilde your own country. This will be my last post to you personally since I see the gap in perception between us.

Euphemism: "Since I've acting so condescending to you and your entire nation in this post, I'm going to whistle loudly while walking away and make believe I've emerged the victor in...well, whatever I was suppoed to be the victor in, and wouldn't discuss through the rational exchange of ideas." I"m sure you know this is a red herring, and a particularly bad smelling one, since it appeals to blatant prejudice. I already told you your posts that use bigotry would be pulled, but this one reflects so poorly upon you that I'm going to let it stand. You deserve that, for using such self-ridiculing tactics in an attempt to discourage honest conversation. Note, I have a copy in my files, and if you attempt to improve it by removing the embarassing details, I'll change it back.

The anti-west /anti-amercian feeling here is HUGE and I cant say it enough. People dont care if your 'democrat' 'republican' or against the war but if your American then guess what 'we have a problem'. The lefties groups are very vocal here in Australia and Britain...

If we're to take a world history lesson from you, it would do well for you to realize a basic fact about Australia and the UK: they aren't the same. Blair is not Howard; the respective geopolitics of their nations are vastly different. You might want to check out the ICM survey, conducted towards the end of last year, which showed that British support among Labor supporters for an Iraq war stood at 35%, a figure which has since deteriorated, causing Blair to moderate his position at least in public, and temporize. Meanwhile, Newspoll in Australia shows an even split in opinions about an Iraqi war among your fellow Australians. This is by the most respected Australian polling service. The same polls in both nations, however, show a much higher percentage of people, a very high percentage rating, supporting America's "war on terrorism" and showing great sympathy for Americans in general. Should I suppose that we are not to pay attention to any of this, and just abide by your word on the matter?

If not, I can provide you with confirmation of these figures, and also state secondary polling data; just let me know. I've been following the development of these issues from multiple sources in the UK, Australia, and a variety of European and Asian over the last year, and it makes fascinating research.

The anti-war marches are organized here by people who think North Korea is a great place and we have no right to interfere, and Iraq , well whats wrong with them and china (now thats a fantastic government).........but US must die!

Do you even realize how you sound when you write like this? The straw man fallacy is not only a poor way to make an argument in an intelligent group, it is a terrible reflection upon the person who uses it. You're in effect telling us, "Please, ignore all the perfectly serious arguments you've been receiving from one side and the other. Ignore even the fact that the leaders and more than 75% of the population of Germany and France oppose this war. Ignore the fact that the large numbers of people who are opposed to an Iraqi war were supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan; pay no attention to the background of the issues at hand. Just believe me when I tell you that all these people, billions of them throughout the civilized world, can be divided easily into those with knowledge on their side, and those who are ranting leftists that think N Korea is a great place to live (despite believing it to be a greater threat to world security than Iraq)."

Who's ranting in these remarks? Can anybody else make sense out of all this?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:56 pm**

Originally posted by fable
Who's ranting in these remarks? Can anybody else make sense out of all this?

I must admit I find it all quite bizaare, you have pretty much summed up all my problems with at99's last few responses, one can't make such generalisations in intellectual situations and then back away from them completely, I mean the last statement "Maybe you and Fable should talk more. I have said enough." is particularly strange, I am not actually sure that we have divided opinions fable, from what I have read we are mostly in agreement so I don't think we have much to discuss or inform each other of that hasn't already been covered in the previous Iraq threads...the only thing to discuss now is the strange activity of at99 in relation to this thread and I think you've covered all the bases.

Although saying all that I do have one question fable, do you think that the US are going to be economically viable after all this war effort, I read an article stating the country was going to end up in billions of dollars worth of debt. Would that be a reasonable estimation?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:05 pm**

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Although saying all that I do have one question fable, do you think that the US are going to be economically viable after all this war effort, I read an article stating the country was going to end up in billions of dollars worth of debt. Would that be a reasonable estimation?

Yes, it is: no question. Dubya was very careful to leave the war out of his last budget to Congress, a shrewd move since no one wants to be seen opposing such a "patriotic" war, yet no one wants to be seen spending money we haven't got.

Estimates range from $3-4 billion dollars to more than $12 billion, depending upon how much reconstruction is necessary to give Iraq a stable government over the next couple of years. If as some expect, the Kurds will go all out for a Kurdish nation in the north, and the suspiciously quiet Sh'ias in the south try to carve out a territory for themselves with Iranian help, that cost could escalate dramatically. I heard a quote last night from one "think tank" expert on guerilla war who believes $100 billion over 10 years is not improbable, since we'd be fighting the kind of wars you can't really win in some of the most hostile countryside known to humanity, against gun-honor cultures that have existed there for hundreds of years.

Yes, it will be expensive. The hardware costs are unbelievably high, and the fact that they don't require the retailoring of all American industry to serve a war effort means there won't be growth in the economy, as a result. If anything, the added borrowing from other nations and banks by the government to secure the loans necessary to fund the war will mean a horrible drag on the economy through ballooning interest payments.

Bottom line: Sucks to be us.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:45 pm**

Originally posted by fable
Estimates range from $3-4 billion dollars to more than $12 billion, depending upon how much reconstruction is necessary to give Iraq a stable government over the next couple of years.

Assuming the intention is to occupy the country, has there been any indication by the Bush administration that occupying is their intention?

Yes, it will be expensive. The hardware costs are unbelievably high, and the fact that they don't require the retailoring of all American industry to serve a war effort means there won't be growth in the economy, as a result. If anything, the added borrowing from other nations and banks by the government to secure the loans necessary to fund the war will mean a horrible drag on the economy through ballooning interest payments.

There is also food and water supply issues, just the transportation alone would be incredibly expensive. Just out of interest do you think that there is a chance they might use special forces to remove Saddam, I can't recall this being covered, if so just point me to the right place.

Perhaps this will the perfect time for the Canada and Alaska to mount an invasion of the US

GameBanshee Forums

This Iraq debate thing !