Opinion on war?

[oracle]

Does the US realise that the sort of action he is talking about may lead to more terror attacks, and possibly a coalition against America? I pray it doesn't come to this.

[pr0gger]

I think there's always been groups of countries that oppose America no-matter-what already...

[oracle]

But now you'll get Germany, France etc in that list. Here is another example of US bribery: Australia, our big neighbour to the west, is commiting troups to the gulf, and in return they are in negotiation with the US for a free trade agreement, while because NZ refuses to commit anything to the gulf without UN approval we are getting the big boot.

[Agamemnus]

Oh. Too bad you're not filming Xena anymore.

:evil:

[wizardlife]

But now you'll get Germany, France etc in that list. Here is another example of US bribery: Australia, our big neighbour to the west, is commiting troups to the gulf, and in return they are in negotiation with the US for a free trade agreement, while because NZ refuses to commit anything to the gulf without UN approval we are getting the big boot.

But my point was that countries like NZ that are apparently upholding the decision of a consensus body and really just using it as an excuse to cop of the discussion of the real issue of Saddam and nuclear weapons in the hands of third world dictators.

In short, they're screwing their future relationships with the states. Welcome to the world of tariffs and border guards.

[Agamemnus]

NZ should at least donate 10000 free randomly-chosen "tourism tickets" to Marines!!! It's really the only thing they have to offer.

I saw the PM of NZ on the Travel Channel showing around the fat dude who ran the show.. it was cool. He kept saying the "Prime Minister" this, the "Prime Minister" that... and I had no idea what he was talking about, until I figured out it was a show about NZ.

[oracle]

Tourism!!! How dare you!!! We have many sheep to offer the marines for throat-cutting practice!! :rotfl:

But my point was that countries like NZ that are apparently upholding the decision of a consensus body and really just using it as an excuse to cop of the discussion of the real issue of Saddam and nuclear weapons in the hands of third world dictators.

I only offered this as an example of a bribe... But Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons and you know it. Time and time again the US have shown dodgy and even downright slanderous evidence that Saddam has anything more that panadol (Americans: read something with paracetomol 500mG in a pack of 20 etc) to fire at anyone. Quite frankly, the evidence is not there and the US have committed the greatest war crime of all by invading a foreign nation (look at my earlier post).

[someone42]

How about I start another discussion here:

How long is this war going to last?

Methinks 2 - 6 months
However, even when Saddam falls his troops are going to think it's just American propoganda so we will probably see cells of resistance (and terrorists) popping up many months or even years after the war has "ended".

[wizardlife]

But Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons and you know it.

Apparently I don't. And that's really where the debate on the justification of the war lies.

I believe that whether Saddam was wmds or not, he wants them... so it's act now or act later, I guess.

[oracle]

If Saddam had nukes Washington or LA would not exist, c'mon. We all know this war has a secondary undertone - oil. Who are GB's backers? The second topic we should be discussing is not how long the war will last, but what will GB do with the oil? Is he investing in hydrogen powered cars as much as he should, or even if he is, is he going about it the right way? He could be a great president if he gave the world hydrogen power, but he is as power hungry as any of his predecessors, so this isn't going to change...