How long to take baghdad?

  • News
  • Thread starter Viper
  • Start date
  • #51
BoulderHead
I'm not opposed to business, I'm opposed to killing for the sake of it.
 
  • #52
FZ+
1,561
3
You are discounting the possibility that the anti-war nations might have been successful.
Do you believe that? Is there any reason for them to? Even before France declared their veto, the US declared that a second resolution is not essential for a war. I don't think the France would risk the certainty of their loss for an uncertain gain.

Diplomatic loss of face? What can they lose now that according to you was not a factor in the first place? They only thing they can lose is the support of the public, but then you paradoxically believe that this support of the public did not influence their prior opinion to oppose the war. It seems you are ignoring half the facts to get your way.

You already accuse France of being two faced. Hell, the US already accuses france of being two faced. Nothing to be lost there. France's primary case was to extend the period of the weapons inspectors. They could easily have backed down from that position.

Let's get down to specifics. That veto. What did France hope to acheive by placing that veto? Chirac heard the speechs saying war with or without a second resolution. He could have backed down then. You, the world all expected him to back down so no loss of face there. By vetoing the resolution, France could only force the US outside the process, and permanently deny itself the results. The probabilities there were clearly that war would happen. So you accuse France of selective foolishness.

Another point: France in fact stands to gain economically MORE from supporting the war than from successfully opposing the war. The food for oil scheme is worth under 100 million dollars to the french. The reconstruction scheme is worth alone over 100 billion dollars.

Lemme see. You say that the oil was not a factor for the US, though the US is clearly going to benefit for the oil. You say the reconstruction contracts was not a factor, yet the US and UK are clearly intending to benefit from it. You say oil was a factor for France, but France is clearly not going to benefit from it. You say the opinions of the French nation was not a factor, but now the continued behaviour of the French is precisely to appease that public. You say the French didn't care about breaking up the UN etc, but now you say the French are doing whatever they do to save face abroad. You say the French are naive enough to think war was not inevitable, but then they are suddenly realists and hypocrites.
And not one point is proven with a shred of evidence.
 
  • #53
kyleb
Originally posted by Njorl


If I could figure out what this means I might argue with it.

Njorl
war was not certainty before the US gave up on the UN, but the reasons France opposed the ware are not certainties either. hopefully that gets though to you, and i hope you don't really want to argue it either.
 
  • #54
kyleb
Originally posted by russ_watters
Have you given up making rational arguements, Kyleb?
not at all, i was just calling it how i see it.

Originally posted by russ_watters
If there is something wrong with my reasoning, please do point out the flaw.
well i think you know damn well that it is not always our intent to grab oil, so i am not going to waist my time explaining such things.

Originally posted by russ_watters
I know we're the same age, Kyleb, but "...play with yourself..."? We're not in junior high anymore. Grow up.
i was not speaking in a sexual sense directly but rather that making up a bad argument and then trying to pin it on someone else it reminds me of something children do; like when they zone in on their toys and get lost in their own little world, so grow up yourself.
 
  • #55
BoulderHead
I hope you guys aren't trying to tell me you don't engage in that activity, haha. I'd have to stop believing everything else you say if that were the case.
 
  • #56
kyleb
well i should be going on my fourth or fifth time before nightfall, but that is not the point.

seriously though, we are all human; be we are not always obsessive and egotistical freaks. :wink:
 
  • #57
Alias
Can you people keep it down! I'm trying to concentrate!
 
  • #58
russ_watters
Mentor
19,784
6,191
Originally posted by kyleb
well i think you know damn well that it is not always our intent to grab oil, so i am not going to waist my time explaining such things.
Kyle, maybe you missed this from Zero:
And America supports the war to grab the oil...
Or are you saying that it is SOMETIMES our intent to grab the oil?
 
  • #59
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,191
1,212
Originally posted by Duncan
I would go for about three weeks. In the previous three weeks, things have gone well for the 'Coalition', now they have their hardest part.
In three weeks time I will look back to see how wrong I was.
Give that man a seegar! Now, double or nuthin' --- how long 'til the 4th Inf. enters Damascus?
 
  • #60
kyleb
Originally posted by russ_watters
Kyle, maybe you missed this from Zero:
Or are you saying that it is SOMETIMES our intent to grab the oil?
or rather part of the intent, sometimes.
 
  • #61
russ_watters
Mentor
19,784
6,191
Originally posted by kyleb
or rather part of the intent, sometimes.
OMG, can you get any more weasely (there is a better word, but I can't think of it right now)? It wasn't even your comment, you shouldn't feel the need to weasel out of it. Let it go.


Back to the thread title, I predict Baghdad will fall.........




........NOW!
 
  • #62
N_Quire
Zargawee, it didn't take very long for Baghdad to collapse, did it? The war was an easy one and Saddam's army was pretty feeble. And Saddam does not seem to be loved by the people there.
 
  • #63
kyleb
Originally posted by russ_watters
OMG, can you get any more weasely (there is a better word, but I can't think of it right now)? It wasn't even your comment, you shouldn't feel the need to weasel out of it. Let it go.
i was just calling it how i see it. there is no reason to be a prick.
 
  • #64
russ_watters
Mentor
19,784
6,191
Originally posted by N_Quire
Zargawee, it didn't take very long for Baghdad to collapse, did it? The war was an easy one and Saddam's army was pretty feeble. And Saddam does not seem to be loved by the people there.
Ya, good luck with that, N_Quire...
 
  • #65
Alias
Originally posted by kyleb
i was just calling it how i see it. there is no reason to be a prick.
HEY!! I'm the prick here! Let's get that straight!
 
  • #66
kyleb
well i am not handing out any awards Alias, but you do have some stiff competition. :wink:
 
  • #67
53
0
Wellbits almostover now isn`t it!!!
 

Related Threads on How long to take baghdad?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
13K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
643
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Top