Very Interesting

[cphilip]

well I would assume and I trust we will find a group of people that the countrymen want and they will form a government and proceed with thier own programs and we will provide them with food and clothing and aid to get them on thier feet. Assuming they have assets now that are mostly going to arms and military they should be in good shape. I know for a fact that Our military has enough food and clothing and medicine staged to get in there immediately and keep them in good shape for like 6 months. That is all a part of the plan too. We did that in Afganistan and we will do it agian. Its just our way. We know thats a very important part of the whole humanitarian process.

You know if Saddam had done what he was supposed to long ago his people would not be suffering at all. But had he done so France, Germany and Russia would not be making money off them either!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by The Frymarker
So will we take over that country? Will Iraq be essentially owned by the US? Or will they just find another Sadam to take over?

No, but the terrorist will make it seem so. I mean the US will gain economically from this, no one would go into a war without some gain.

I am afriad they will find someone worse then saddam.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


The first one is not to Iraq, but to answer heathers question of why can the US have something while the other countries can't.

Well others do have them... Iraq agreed not to have them...

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No, but the terrorist will make it seem so. I mean the US will gain economically from this, no one would go into a war without some gain.

I am afriad they will find someone worse then saddam.

I disagree. This is costing us BILLIONS!

I hope not and that sure would be hard to find!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip
well I would assume and I trust we will find a group of people that the countrymen want and they will form a government and proceed with thier own programs and we will provide them with food and clothing and aid to get them on thier feet. Assuming they have assets now that are mostly going to arms and military they should be in good shape. I know for a fact that Our military has enough food and clothing and medicine staged to get in there immediately and keep them in good shape for like 6 months. That is all a part of the plan too. We did that in Afganistan and we will do it agian. Its just our way. We know thats a very important part of the whole humanitarian process.

You know if Saddam had done what he was supposed to long ago his people would not be suffering at all. But had he done so France, Germany and Russia would not be making money off them either!

Germany is is a bad state of affairs, without world wide approval they can't send their troops outside their boarders. They are also finically broke thanks to military efforts in their country as off late. So Germany is not saying no for economic gains, but rather becasue they can't.

Now Russia, and France. Russia doesn't need Iraqi oil, they have more. The only thing that IMO is keeping Russia from putting its approval is that when the US goes in and takes over Iraq, the Iraqi government will give US favored nation status. Cheap oil. Now this will drive down the prices of oil, and cause Russia to lose more money. I am not sure about France.

But the problem is cphillip, any government that is helped to be set up by the US, even if in some break with precedence the US has no control over, the terrorist will make it seem like they do. And that can only lead to more problems.

[The Frymarker]

I'm just inquiring because it seems as though, and maybe I am horrible for saying this, that the people of Iraq don't seem that intelligent enough to elect a proper head of a country.

They seem accroding to the news to support Sadam and don't have any remorse for what he has done to his own country and people?

Which I find rather odd, he is a dictator.

I saw the IMAX version of the Fires In Iraq and Kuwait. He did so much damage to oil wells on his own that took us months to fix so the world would have oil. Our own best fireman were there trying to subdue these enormous fires.

So that is why I say will we put a politcal figure in there or will they just go blindly?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip


I disagree. This is costing us BILLIONS!

I hope not and that sure would be hard to find!

No country has ever gone into an engagement without some long term, or short term economic gains. So the US will make something off of this other then moral reasons.

Not really, Saddam while being a bad guy, is not as bad as say many of the fundamentalist that will take over. Iraq before the Iran and Iraq war and all the sanctions was actually a happy place, one of great prosperity. The woman could go to school, and could have many rights that the man has. I know this will sounds bad, but Saddam has gotten a bad rap in the news. I AM NOT SAYING HE ISN"T A BAD GUY, but the news makes him seem worse then he actually is. He is the new Stalin, the figure for all that is wrong in this world. But Stalin was actually that war, while Saddam IMO isn't.

[edweird]

Hey... what ever happened to the purpose of this thread??????????

I thought the original question was Why are we allowed to create this munition or some such thing?

/sigh and I thought for once My knowledge of AirMunition systems would be appreciated and quickly answer the questions

[The Frymarker]

Ed yes thank you for that but I had other questions as well.

Sorry for the confusion.

[cphilip]

...anyway Heather...I think it would be wrong not to be worried about going to war and not to reflect on all the options and not to be worried about the innocent children and want to care for them and make sure they have a better life. I just think in a lot of cases most of the trepidation that is going on now is the fear we have not done that. I think we have. I know I have. I am not real thrilled about it. But I am resigned to the fact that we are going to have to get it over with. In our life time so that its not left to our children to do. And for thier protection as well as those over there. Its a dirty job but someone has to do it. I am not willing to sit around and let someone like that get stronger and then have to do it and lose more lives on both sides. Some say we waited to long already. And it appears that was the game all along. Wait till they forget! And grow stronger while they do. We are at war and have been since Sept 11th. We woke up. That was the mistake of that attack. Not relating that to this directly but to the fact that if we have unfinished business we should finish it and go on to the next item. And we have those facing us now. A desperate world still exists out there that hates us for our prosperity and wants to blame us for thier lack there of. And we will be attacked again for it. Its our duty to hold our heads high and protect ourselves while attempting to share our prosperity with the others in peace. I think we can do it. But there will be some distastefull things to do accomplishing it.

It will take decades to undo hate that these people have for us. They have been taught it for generations. but we will have to break that cycle at some point and allow these people access to the truth. They will not believe it from us. They will have to have the freedom to learn it on thier own. So freedom is in our best interest in the long run. The truth shall set you free!!!! (flip Wilson?)

[bofh]

Re: Very Interesting

Originally posted by The Frymarker
Here is a link to an article on Military.com, regarding the situation in Iraq.

Maybe I am nieve, and above all, I do support Bush and our troops, but I am confused?

Why are we allowed to have bombs, and they are not? Or is it because of the number they have?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_bomb_022703

I don't think Iraq is restricted from owning or developing this type of bomb.

It's just a normal bomb, just really big. It's not a forbidden weapon, not nuclear, biological, or chemical.

Iraq is allowed to have have missles, bombs, tanks and planes. But they's signed treats restricting how those are deployed. Like the aren't allowed to have missles that go more than 93 miles. They can't develop or own nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

It's much like the disarment of Germany after WWI. Done just as badly, it seems in hindsight.

[shartley]

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

And how has this problem been dealt with in the 1000's of years?

(I know this isn't with the topic but it can't be left alone)

[The Frymarker]

Well I thank everyone for their answers, views and opinions.

I will take away from the a better knowledge and understanding of the topic.

Thanks...I needed that

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And how has this problem been dealt with in the 1000's of years?

(I know this isn't with the topic but it can't be left alone)