Should USA attack to Iraq?

[Sami_Tervo]

It's seems inevitable that US is going to launch attack againts Iraq sooner or later, what do you think about this. And what country is next on the list of 'back to the stoneage'?

[mr-t]

I think it is George Bush being a dumbass; Hamas and every other group of martyrs will have a reason to bombard the USA and Israel, etc. which does noone any good.

Saddam is more of a dumbass, but opening the gates of hell is not a good idea.

[Nailhead]

Well I believe if the public knew what Bush and US intelligence knew about Iraq, we'd all want to attack too. But I fear that we won't truly know what this is all about until after the war.

[Kon-Tiki]

Attacking Iraq because they have nuclear weapons or mass destruction weapons is just finding a reason for the public. Iraq can't make those weapons, and the USA knows that very well. I think the name of the guy who's checking if Iraq is able to make those weapons is John Ritter. This's all around economy. USA wants oil, Iraq has oil. Because USA is harassing Iraq for selfish reasons, it's understandable (which doesn't mean acceptable) that Iraq isn't cooperative towards the USA.
I think USA should stop bothering Iraq. That'll solve lots of problems (although not the oil-problem, but there are alternatives for oil.)

-Kon-Tiki-

[rwfromxenon]

name at least one, except electricity

[Kon-Tiki]

Charcoal, gas, solar, wind, water. There're many more, but not as known as those. It wouldn't hurt to do a little research to new resources too. If the USA has enough money for a war, they have enough money for that too.

-Kon-Tiki-

[rwfromxenon]

Charcoal pollutes, gas is mainly found in the Middle East and both are in short supply.

As for solar wind and water, think about it, how are you gonna drive at night with a 'solar' powered car?

[Kon-Tiki]

It has a little battery where it stores energy for those cases. Didn't expect anybody wouldn't know that... Charcoal, processed chemically, is an efficient powersource that doesn't pollute that much. Also, USA has on-ground coal-mines. They have to scrape it off the ground, instead of digging holes and buying canaries. It has to be processed, but so does oil.
Anyway, there're plenty of other possibilities, but for now, they'll ask some effort. If that effort can prevent a war, then it's worth it.

-Kon-Tiki-

[sonneveld]

I can't believe oil is actually an issue when it comes to something as serious as war. It's like playground politics.. you have something we want, so we'll bash you up for it.

If they actually have weapons and are threatening to use them.. then sure.. but not if it's some madeup links to other terrorist groups or if they *may* have nuclear weapons.

- Nick

[sonneveld]

The Onion

- Nick

[K.J.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq still isn't allowing US weapon inspectors in right?

K.J.

[mr-t]

I don't think they are.

[Grover]

Personally, I think we have bigger fish to fry than Iraq...People were flying for free, and there were only a handful of cars on the 11th. I think the longer the terrorists with whom we're on a first name basis are around, the longer the public lives in fear. I think that we should forget about Iraq for now, tell the UN to get on board or stuff it, and really stop dicking around and go to war with countries that harbor terrorists. It may seem like a crude technique, but nobody wants war, and therefore if the US doesn't initiate one, nobody else will either. I think rather than having to stick around and wait for another attack, we should try to snuff it out.

[K.J.]

Only a handful of cars? Where I live, there were the normal number on the roads.

I kinda think that Iraq has been a problem that Clinton should have put his foot down about with the UN to take care of. But he didn't. Still, if Iraq has nothing to hide, then why not let our weapon inspectors in? Because they do have something to hide.

K.J.

[mr-t]

I disagree, Grover. Punishing an entire country for the actions of a few extremists is, well, extreme.