TO MR BUSH: NO WAR!!!
I strongly object the United States of America attack Iraq because of OIL!!!

CXCPA,

Please, do not believe that it goes all about oil.

I'm also heavily agaisnt bush and against the war, but don't let you influence by the popular saying 'Bush just wants the oil'.

Oil plays a role (which is logic), but this is NOT the main reason for the attack.

/Frederic

Well that's good. So you won't mind the attack to disarm Iraq and to free Iraq from 25 years of suffering.

Sabena, We may disagree about a lot of issues, but I'm glad you haven't swallowed that load of tripe.

Charles

[Edited 2003-03-20 13:24:45]

Who cares that 60% of the Iraqi population is and has been starving. No War, No War, No War...  

Mr. Saddam. I am against your treatment of your people, and your actions past and present against neighboring countries as well as the potential threat of WMD attacks in the future. You want no war, then Saddam must go...

It was the US that sent all those weapons to Iraq in the 1980s...I just laugh at that photo of Rumsfeld & Saddam shaking hands.  

PS. If Bush would change his reason from 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' which has so far been not proven to 'Saddam has killed many of his own people', that will be more acceptable. I'd rather go after that Dear Leader who throws himself a birthday celebration when his men are out there starving.

Also, I'd rather the US try to assassinate Saddam then throwing in 300,000 troops into the conflict.

[Edited 2003-03-20 13:35:42]

Oh yes, the U.S. always likes to put its own troops in harms way in the pursuit of oil...Afterall, our SUVs are more important than 250,000 of our own people.

Please... 

Oil plays a role (which is logic), but this is NOT the main reason for the attack.

Logic indeed, but not acceptable. Oil SHOULD NOT be a reason, main or not, for a war. Can you imagine that, in this moment, while people are living under bombs, you have Oil industry CEOs planning some terrific contracts?

I am for this war for many reasons. All these anti-war protesters should realize one thing. Our nation is not perfect, but it does give them many rights, such as the right to protest the actions of their own government if they disagree with them. That right is enshrined in our Constitution.

But in Iraq, the people do not have that right. Saddam is one of the most vicious leaders of modern times. He crushes any and all dissent, often in sick and incredibly disgusting ways. We just want to rid the world of Hussein, and his WMDs (which I do believe he has). We will let the Iraqis decide their own fate, which they never have been able to do before. If the Iraqis do not choose to form a democratic government based on our ideals, so be it. But this time, it will be a government OF THEIR OWN DESIGN, where if the people ask for the right of protected free speech, they shall have it, and they too will then be able to stand up and voice their opinions about their government, their region, or what have you, without being scared of the repercussions that might come down on them from the government.

So if you are protesting, just remember, the Iraqis can't do that without fear for their own lives.

I just keep on laughing about this:

Conversation between George W. Bush and his National Security Advisor:

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great! Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China!
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone. (Condi picks up the phone.)
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?

I'm terribly sorry, but I cannot understand people who "are for a war"...

9V-SVE, the U.S. sent precious few weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 80's or any other time. The bulk of his weapons are Soviet/Russian, Chinese and French. So that argument doesn't hold, does it? You need to know a little more of what you talk about.

As for the author "objecting" to the war: your objection is noted. And again, if it were about oil, the U.S. would have militarily taken over the Gulf Region back in 1991 during that war. Oil plays a role, but nowhere near the role that the wide-eyed onces who are frantically against the war are saying it plays.

And OO-AOG, oil is a STRATEGIC commodity. It played a role in Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait in 1990, did it not? It was a strategic reason why the U.S. responded the next year. It is one of the most strategic commodities in the world, since the world depends on it to function to a great degree. That fact alone logically tells me that it's a legitimate thing to war over under the right circumstances.

Cfalk:
Well that's good. So you won't mind the attack to disarm Iraq and to free Iraq from 25 years of suffering.

KROC:
Who cares that 60% of the Iraqi population is and has been starving. No War, No War, No War...


And this guy (the last one) called me an hypocrite. HA HA !!
What did your country during the last 25 years (as said by Cfalk) ? First he gave weapons and help against Iran, gave Chemicals wich are now a reason for the war (!!). He agreed for the invasion of Kuweit. Then suddenly, the Evil face appears and Hussein is the devil incarnated. And then a first war, 12 years of useless sanctions and continuous bombings and then a second war. GREAT !
Why didn't your almighty country stopped Hussein 25 years ago instead of helping him ? Hmm ?
Because I'm an hypocrite probably, anyway that's the only argument of KROC.
And KROC, no, the behavior of France as bad as it can have been has nothing to do with your post and my answer. No no. I already know you will try to take this way, but it's only because you can only repeat like a parrot what Bush and Rumsfeld say.

Alpha-1 :

Once again because you forget fast:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

"It was the US that sent all those weapons to Iraq in the 1980s...I just laugh at that photo of Rumsfeld & Saddam shaking hands. "

Which means that the countries who supplied the weapons have a responsibility to correct the mistake. BTW hindsight is a wonderful thing, the fact is the deal was done, there's now a chance to put it right and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

And for the last time...if it was about oil, there are much cheaper and more effective ways of getting Iraq's oil. Appeasment costs nothing, war costs billions of dollars, lots of life and political credibility. I know Dubya has a reputation as being thick, but he's a business man, if he wanted control of oil, he would have done a deal, it's a no brainer! 

It played a role in Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait in 1990, did it not?

It did indeed Alpha1, and this was absolutely unacceptable. All countries agreed on this point back in 91, the issue is very different today.

That fact alone logically tells me that it's a legitimate thing to war over under the right circumstances

As long as you have a kind of worldwide acceptance that the war is necessary, but once again, a lot of countries (including France, Russia and China) are believing that this war was not the solution. You can now expect a major issue in the world "unity", thanks to Bush behavior (and to muppet Tony of course).

Sebolino,

What's funny is the fine-print at the bottom of the page you linked. The one that says that the 80 German companies that supplied WMD materials were not included. That's more than all the other nations combined!

By the way, did you catch the ARTE documentaries in the past few days about Saddam's WMD programs? The US certainly made some mistakes, but France and Germany made some very bad ones as well, and for much more mercenary reasons - money. At least the U.S. acted more or less for reasons of geopolitics. It was a pretty good series.

Charles

When the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ignoring of UN resolutions is a reason to attack, why is nobody attacking Israel? Just a thought...

Sebolino with yet another strong argument. Sure.

Anyway chief, as listed, few weapons Saddam received, in the 1980's!!! no less were from America. And chances are, we did not give him said weapons to starve his people......

When the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ignoring of UN resolutions is a reason to attack, why is nobody attacking Israel? Just a thought...

When has the UN threatened military action or "most serious consequences" against Israel? Do you have a resolution number?

Charles

What's funny is the fine-print at the bottom of the page you linked. The one that says that the 80 German companies that supplied WMD materials were not included. That's more than all the other nations combined!

Sorry, I don't find weapon commerce especially funny. You are reponsible for your opinions.

The US certainly made some mistakes, but France and Germany made some very bad ones as well

I thought KROC would have done this, but it seems you are the one to try to divert attention.
Answer the post, and don't oppose countries like you love to do. We were talking about the US because that's the country which triggered a war.

Sebolino:

from your link.

Note: The 80 German companies named in the dossier were not included in this list.

There are 24 US companies listed there. If you add in the 50 foreign subsidaries doing business in the US that were not included, that brings us to 74, and then include the 4 government branches (I will not include the labs listed individually, because they are covered under the unbrella of the Dept. of Energy.), that comes to 78, still less than Germany. But the numbers are misleading. China only has three entries on there, but those companies have done booming business with Iraq in the past (far surpassing anything that the US gave or sold to Iraq).

This is not to show that China has done wrong, but to show that the numbers are misleading, and that EVERYONE has had their hand in the Iraqi cookie jar in the past. But now, the majority of those compaies have stopped doing business with Iraq, either by their own volition or by their respective governments banning trade with Iraq. Once we realized how much of a madman he truly is, his supply or arms dried up fast.

But these things are irrelevant. Saddam is a destablizing force. He brutally puts down any and all opposition. He has thumbed his nose at the world for long enough, and now he is getting his just desserts. He wanted to play tough and play Chicken with the US, along with his shell game of "Where are the WMDs?". We called, and now the chips are on the table. Goodnight, Saddam, it hasn't been a pleasure knowing you.



(edit)it took me so long to type this up, that CFalk already beat me to my point. Sorry, Charles!(/edit)



[Edited 2003-03-20 14:15:42]

Charles, fact is, that Israel is not complying with several UN resolutions.

Sebolino with yet another strong argument. Sure.

Much better argument than yours like : "They are bad, they gased their own people. We are good and we will take care of the world. And in addition this country is a threat to the US".
They gased their own people, but that's not new, and that was known, and that was in part with the weapons your country sold.
Many people killed their own people in the past, sadly.
Including yours which killed nearly all the Indians (also known as real Americans).

Sebolino, you are the one trying to divert attention away from Saddam's crimes by dragging up sh&t from 20 years ago.

By the way,

He agreed for the invasion of Kuwait.

That is a gross exaggeration, and you know it. Saddam asked the US ambassador about his problems with Kuwait, and the ambassador answered, in effect, "That problem is none of our business. You deal with it." This is hardly any sort of "approval" to invade and annex an neighboring, sovereign nation.

Charles

Considering it was THE reason for an attack, that's at least a BIG hypocrisy.

Sebolino, you are the one trying to divert attention away from Saddam's crimes

The crimes exist, no doubt.
Same in Noth Korea.
Same in China.
...
...
...

When the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ignoring of UN resolutions is a reason to attack, why is nobody attacking Israel

Probably because the US have enough guarantees that Israel has WMDs only to defend themselves. I agree that Israel is not a threat, but they should comply with UN resolutions on the Palestine issue without a doubt.

Charles, fact is, that Israel is not complying with several UN resolutions.

About that, there is no question. But has the UN ever tabled a resolution to threaten Israel with the use of force if they did not comply? Has Israel used WMDs against anyone? Does Jordan, Egypt, or any other neighbor fear an aggressive war or attack against them? Israel's military posture has always been defensive.

That said, I do agree that Israel must obey the resolutions, especially those regarding settlements and land occupation. But I don't think you can rationally compare a brutal megalomaniac like Saddam and a democratic country that only fought when attacked.

Charles

[Edited 2003-03-20 14:22:48]

"I thought KROC would have done this, but it seems you are the one to try to divert attention.
Answer the post, and don't oppose countries like you love to do. We were talking about the US because that's the country which triggered a war."

Wrong, Iraq triggered a war by ignoring the UN, then the US/UK. France stopped any chance of further debate by refusing to even consider another resolution (which may have at least bought the world at least another week or so of talking). Stop jumping on the US / UK, what happens to Iraq is the responsibility of Saddam, he could have averted war up until this morning, but his ego was too big, bigger than the welfare of his people. Now Saddam is firing Scuds which he said he didn't have at Kuwait?

We have to discuss, France, Germany, Russia, China they all have a hand in this.

I agree that Israel needs to comply to the UN as well, but that is a different issue requiring a different approach (not appeasment before you jump on my back) but let's deal with one thing at a time.

The UN didn't allow a war with 1441. A new resolution was necessary, and even Bush admitted it with his project.
The problem is under the UN "law", as I already said, and I posted the text, a war can only be triggered if there is a direct threat, which is not the case.
So, under the UN law, this war is an aggression.

I already said that, and that was denied by Cfalk.
It was confirmed this morning on France Info by a specialist of International Law problems.

They gased their own people, but that's not new, and that was known, and that was in part with the weapons your country sold.
Many people killed their own people in the past, sadly.
Including yours which killed nearly all the Indians (also known as real Americans).

- American never sold weapons to Saddam for the intent purpose to kill his own people.

- If you are looking for an argument on what happened to the Native American's, you won't get one, because simply they got a raw deal, but guess what.....People from all over Europe...that became America were responsible for that as well. A poor example. What next, you going to bring up Australia and their treatment of the aboriginies?

I guess in your all worldly knowledge, you have it all figured out. I mean you are more worried about the reasons of AMerica's attack, or in your view, lack there of, than the millions of innocent people suffering at the hands of Saddam's rule.

guess in your all worldly knowledge, you have it all figured out. I mean you are more worried about the reasons of AMerica's attack, or in your view, lack there of, than the millions of innocent people suffering at the hands of Saddam's rule.

But that was already the case when Rumsfeld shook hand with Hussein !!
And once again, I'm not defending any country here. Not France. Not Germany. Not Russia. Not China. Not UK. Not the USA.
Do you get it, or should I insist a little more ?

Charles,
..and a democratic country that only fought when attacked.

That doesn't sound anything like what I've read. When the UN agreed to the resolution that divided Palestine, Israel went into action in order to get rid of the Palestines that were living in Israels territories, something that ended with quite a number of massacres. Especially the one against Kafr Qasem.

So you are not defending any country, just the condeming the attack? Saying it is not justified. Should these people continue to suffer and starve? What happenes when Saddam decised he wants to move on Saudi Arabia again? Who gets the call? Who do you think? That is all I am trying to say. I'm not pro war. But I understand the reasons we are now attacking.

CPH-R,

I am not an authority on Israeli history. But my recollection is that the day after the UN created Israel, the surrounding Arab countries declared war and told all Palestinians to flee from Israel, in order to allow Arab armies to wipe out Israel and then allow the Palestinians to return.

And while the Israelis were hardly saints and there was violence on both sides, I don't believe there were any systematic effort at exterminating the Palestinians.

Charles

CFalk, because of your well thought out points of view, you are now a member of my respected users list. Im not sure if its worth anything, but you have earned my respect.

What Palestine? There's never been any nation in the entire history of the world named Palestine, nor any Palestinians. It's just the name for any Arab who wants to be anti-Israel. If you live in the Middle East and you're a Muslim you can be a Palestinian.

I was referring to the area in the middle east that's referred to as Palestine.

There's never been any nation in the entire history of the world named Palestine, nor any Palestinians.

These territory was named like that by ancient greeks.
What are you trying to invent now ?

As far as I know Palestine was a country or perhaps better put, region or province, until 1948. The name comes from the Philistines who joined forces with the Canaanites to fight the Israelites in 1100BC. The country was invaded and raided continually for hundreds of years culminating in a removal of most of the Hebrew ( who's ancestors were originally from Ur in Iraq funnily enough) population to Babylonia (modern day Iraq), then after their return the Roman occupation.

Palestine in recent history was part of the British mandate in 1917 after being given up by the Turks. It was suggested in 1937 to divide it into Jewish and Arab sections, which was rejected. To cut a long story short by 1948 the UK handed "the problem" over to the UN as they were suffering terrorist attacks from Jewish radicals (not an anti-semitic statement a historical fact) and opposition from the Arabs. The UN agreed borders and at midnight on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was announced and several Arab nations declared war, as they saw Palestine as a wholly Arab territory and refused to recognise the Jewish State. And the rest is history.

The nations, if you're interested were, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq and Egypt.

Pleases feel free to correct and add to that as I'm no expert, but that's the history I know

I mean you are more worried about the reasons of AMerica's attack, or in your view, lack there of, than the millions of innocent people suffering at the hands of Saddam's rule.

KROC, they don't give a rat's turd about Iraqis. They are not noble nor humanitarians. They simply resent America's/UK's power and now that it will bring a decisive victory to the US and UK, they can't STAND it. Nevermind the sanctions that they've been pissing and moaning about as long as I've been on this forum will disappear and Iraqis will have food and lives. Nevermind that Bush is potentially saving scores of lives in the long run. Nevermind that he is actually trying to prevent the next 9/11 tenfold instead of waiting around to react to it. Its all about resentment, pure and simple.

Very funny is that they start the war against Iraq, but that they want to 'negotiate' with N-Korea (which is a real threat, not Iraq).

Can America explain this? I thought they would start with a pre-emptive war against every nation with mass destruction weapons that can reach the US while they only want to 'negotiate' with N-Korea? Did they take out Iraq as a victim?

I will tell you: there are SCARED! They don't know what to do with N-Korea! I am eager to see how the relation between those two will developpe...

@Cfalk: I always try to base myself on facts and on insights in the international politics if I give my opinion here. Well, if you have a closer look to those facts etc, you will see that this is not a war about oil. It sounds of course popular, but I do not misuse this to gain popularity.

@OO-AOG: Indeed, oil should not play a role. But as in every conflict, every one (I know, it's sad) his own hidden agenda. And economical reasons will mostly be part of this agenda.

/Frederic

To the ones who have forgotten... The UN was actually working to disarm Iraq, in a peaceful way.

The UN was actually working to disarm Iraq, in a peaceful way.

Yes, for 12 years with no results. It's time for war.

There was no result at all?

Although i disagree with the war in Iraq, i fail to see the point of these threads and mass protests in cities around the world. Bush has the backing of Congress and Blair has the backing of Parliament, there's nothing that's gonna stop the war now.

Staffan, even Blix expressed his regrets to the SC that the inspections didn't produce the evidence to prove Saddam had disarmed. Now he's lobbing SCUDs. Doesn't look real good for inspections.

Jetservice, I agree they weren't as successfull as previously was hoped, but to say that the UN made no progress at all is all wrong. I know there are really good reasons for removing a dictator like Saddam, but when democracy is broken in order to spread democracy, something isn't right. Neither French or US leaders seemed to want a compromise on the matter, and today we see the result, and I think both of these countries have lost a lot of respect in this world by doing what they have done.

Staffan

There is one thing that I believe the anti-war demonstrators don't understand about Iraq and other despots of Saddam's kind around the world: they don't care if you oppose the war!

What do I mean by that? Well, allow me to elaborate:

They (Saddam and other terrorists) don't care if you oppose the war.
They don't care if you drive a Prius.
They don't care if you want American soldiers out of Afghanistan.
They don't care if you voted for Gore.
They don't care if you voted for Nader.
Indeed, they don't care if you're a Democrat, Green, Republican, Labour, Libertarian, Tory or Communist.
They don't care if you are Canadian, Singaporean, American, British, French, German, Russian, Chinese or Australian.

My point is this: by virtue of being a non-Muslim extremist Westerner, you are the enemy of them, and they would joyously slit your throat and ship your head to your dear mother or gas your children in a crowded mall at Christmas-time irregardless of your political viewpoint.

Do you honestly think that the protests you are hearing around the world today are in support of Saddam?

Yes, for 12 years with no results. It's time for war.

These 12 years have been fucked up in great part by US and British bombings, nearly everyday. That was not the good behavior to have Hussein cooperate.

Neither was it to say that a war would never be supported

I agree with the war and I think anyone trying to stop it are just wasting their time and disrupting other peoples lives just as much as the war does (Aimed at all the plonkers in the peace protests in town centres in the UK). What would YOU preffer, Saddam stopped now so he cannot make his empire stronger by producing his weapons of mass destruction once the UN Inspectors have gone. Or would you like to wait until he has produced even more dangerous weapons of mass destruction than he has now and use it on us without any notice at all?

Personally id like to live alittle longer than all you peace protestors trying to stop the war. Has this war got me worried on traveling to the US in April? NOPE, I would actually feel safter traveling to the USA than to a European country.

To the anti-war lot.
So....you guys are against war? So that mean, you would like to see the suffering of the good people of Iraq to continue I take it? Same goes to the leaders of countries who are opposed.

Seb-Saddam AGREED to the no-fly zones in 1991, and knew the consequences of violating it. So who fucked up? I'd say he did.

You always put the cart before the horse, it seems.

Alpha-1,

One doesn't bomb planes.
The no-fly zone as it says is a zone where planes are forbidden.
Continuing to bomb the country was a mistake. Hussein jumped on that to stop cooperating with the UN.

Palestine has nothing to do with Philistines.

And furthermore, Herodotus (the father of history) in his book aptly titled Histories makes no mention of Palestinians. However, in my translation by Aubrey de Selincourt (something like that), he uses the terms Palestine a few times, but Herodotus himself never meant or used that term. And trust me, Herodotus wrote about pretty much the entire known world at that time. Greece, Troy, Sparta, Egypt, Asia, the Persian Empire, etc.

MD90. My info was from an encyclopedia that I had to hand (albeit an old one) but you may be right about the reason for the name being dubious. However Herodotus was around in 440BC, before the Roman Occupation when Israel was still the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel (split into North and South Kingdoms) and not the Roman province of Palestine. So I'm not surprised that he didn't mention it!

Jetservice, I agree they weren't as successfull as previously was hoped, but to say that the UN made no progress at all is all wrong. I know there are really good reasons for removing a dictator like Saddam, but when democracy is broken in order to spread democracy, something isn't right. Neither French or US leaders seemed to want a compromise on the matter, and today we see the result, and I think both of these countries have lost a lot of respect in this world by doing what they have done.

Staffan, I really didn't have a problem with more time, but not because it would've solved things peaceful (it wouldn't have), but only because it would've made the inevitable strike more supported without compromising our safety. While further inspections wouldn't have produced results, at least Hussein couldn't possibly do anything while inspectors are there. Unfortuntely, you can't keep the inspectors in Iraq forever. I would've liked to seen a UNSC compromise for a little more time with a defined deadline for force, but France made their intentions clear that they wouldn't even bother looking at ANYTHING using force. This is impractical, because it seems force is the only obvious route with this scumbag.

I think it was the abrupness from Bush's side, saying almost from one day to another that they wanted to attack as soon as possible, that killed off much of the support. Maybe getting the UN to set an ultimatum with a longer timeframe would have had more effect, both in terms of getting Saddam moving, and getting more support for the military action. The swift response from France, and the unwillingness to even work for a compromise probably didn't help either. As I said, I think both France and the US has lost a lot on this.

Staffan

First of all, it must be made clear that it is only thanks to the presence of the American troops that the weapon inspections started (otherwise they would not have got the same results as they do now). Unfortunately, they did not have time to finnish their work.

Aerlingus wrote:
My point is this: by virtue of being a non-Muslim extremist Westerner, you are the enemy of them, and they would joyously slit your throat and ship your head to your dear mother or gas your children in a crowded mall at Christmas-time irregardless of your political viewpoint.

You seem to forget the reason of this extremism! As I always say, the presence is not new, it is just the same as what happened already in history. A saying goes: 'the only lesson taken out of history, is that out of history no lessons are taken'.

The extremism we see today is not new! We saw the same at the end of the 19th century! There you had also a lot of people with the feeling they had 'missed the train'. The result is that those people are not happy, and feel excluded from the Western world. Instead of trying to integrate those people (which was the solution of the problem than, the extremism and the terroristic attacks immediately stopped!), Bush now declares the war to those Islamists! The result is only more extremism!

It is breathtaking to see how the pro-war people do not take into consideration which bad influences the unilateral way of handling of the US and GB will have, as well in this extremism as in the international politics!

I really do not understand how you can actually be PRO this war...  

Amazing how naïve it is to think that this war will solve the problem.

GKirk wrote:
To the anti-war lot.
So....you guys are against war? So that mean, you would like to see the suffering of the good people of Iraq to continue I take it? Same goes to the leaders of countries who are opposed.

Comme on Graham, you know better! Maybe this 'dictatorship' sounds strange to the Western world, but in those countries, it is part of their culture and how they think! Ok, Saddam made cruel mistakes, but are you really so naïve that this war will solve it?
Don't make the mistake that the people in the Middle-East are only unhappy. Bush gives this impression, but the only thing that Bush tries to do is get the public opinion on his side (he also sees that a lot of people are against the war), and this goes only via his speeches (which he tries to make as nice as possible).

I copy paste what I wrote about the situation of the 'democracy' in Iraq in another thread:

Plann of the US: first put an American general over there which can introduce the democracy (people over there will certainly like an American general   ), and than give some more power to someone out of the Iraqi opposition.
But you have to know that the Iraqi opposition is highly divided. Several different groups with several different interests.

The result will be a clash between those groups, which will maybe be followed by a big civil war.

To those naïve people thinking that everything will be just finished after the war of America: forget it.

You may be convinced that America rules, and that everyone just have to agree with your country. But forget it, people in Europe are feeling disgusted, even hatred towards the arrogance of the US. I hope that Germany and Franc will take responsability to make a new Europe, with these two countries as leaders, and with a democratic point of view between the several countries. America now played very smart with Europe to make it even more divided than it already was. I hope that, due to the circumstances of today, a new and stronger Europe will be founded. And that we can talk again in a good way with the US, but this will only be possible if America uses it's brains in 2004 and does not re-elect such a stupid monkey as Bush.

Regards
Frederic

Frederic: Its obvious that the Iraqi people are being murdered and tortured by their own "leader", thats why its necessary to get rid of Saddam. Then hopefully, we can help the Iraqi people to build themselves a better life and be happier for it. Hopefully, there wont be too many civilian casualties....
No, the war will not solve it immediatly, nothing will, but its a step in the right direction.

Graham, do not think that America is the 'good' country which brings peace all over the world.

Bush thinks he is sent by God to bring peace, but actually, I don't see much of it.

The same promisses were made with the war in Afghanistan (and the people also believed Bush). What we see now is that NOTHING of the promisses that were made (besides that there is not one wall left) became true. Was Afghanistan bombed? Yes! Has the paradise and the democracy been made there? NO!

Bush is a man of his word  

/Frederic

Saddam said to the un that he had no scuds. Stupidly the anti war protestors belived him. What has happened today, iraq has used scud weapons which it says he doesnt have!

I guess I can only say: Who cares what the "reasons" for the war are? I'm more interested in the ends: Free Iraqi people not subjected to torture, gassing, and other forms of murder. Much like in Kosovo (which ALSO did not have UN approval), the end result will be a humanitarian benefit.

So, whether we are doing it for oil (which I doubt), trying to prevent Iraq from becoming another North Korea (which I believe), or simply finishing up what we started in '91, I don't CARE. In this case, the ends justify the means. We've waited 12 years for a legalistic solution, all the while various Iraqi ethnic groups have been cleansed. Yes, we could wait another 5 or 10 or 15 years for disarmament. How many Iraqis will be killed in the meantime? Will anti-war people be happy if Saddam is disarmed "peacefully" in another 12 years at a cost of an additional thousands of lives?

It's time to take Saddam out.

Was Afghanistan bombed? Yes! Has the paradise and the democracy been made there? NO!

The US liberated the Afghans from the Taliban, and have pumped US$M into the local economy. You can't turn a 3rd world country into a modern nation overnight.

Incidently, the Saudis are sitting on billions of $ of oil wealth......have they offered to help rebuild Afghanistan? If not, why not?

LOL a lot of people here seem to forget that the world in 1980 was in a very different situation to it is today.It was like a giant game across the world with US vs Russia competing everywhere-from arming opposing African dictators to the Mid East.
People seem to criticse the US a lot for following up their interests but not too much noise is made about exactly the same things that the USSR did.Sure,the US made have armed Saddam(the fact is that France and Russia did this/have done so more recently than the 1980s AFAIK)but Russia and France have just as much as interest in maintaining the Iraq status quo as the US has in changing it.

Yes! Has the paradise and the democracy been made there? NO!
Actually,things have improved greatly in Afghanistan or bascially Kabul!Outside Kabul war lords still rule powerfully but that's most likely due to the rest of Afghanistan outside of Kabul having SFA infrastucture.You can't think a country like Afghanistan will change overnight because it is not rich in natural resources and infastructure -both things that Iraq have in abundance in comparison!

really do not understand how you can actually be PRO this war...
A lot of people who are supporting this war aren't 'gun-ho' cowboy carictures.Currently,UN sanctions on Iraq lead to 100,000 deaths a year.As soon as Saddam has gone these sanctions will be restricted and investment will flow into Iraq's oil industry whose infastructure is in a horrible state.This will in turn boost oil output levels ,leading to higher Iraqi revenues and the old multiplier is off.Plus other government revenues won't be spent on profligate and dangerous WMD programs.


Bush gives this impression, but the only thing that Bush tries to do is get the public opinion on his side
I don't think that you really now Bush too well.Bush ,especially compared to Clinton,is the type of man who sees something wrong and tries to do something about it whether it will boost his opinions polls or not.

"It was the US that sent all those weapons to Iraq in the 1980s...I just laugh at that photo of Rumsfeld & Saddam shaking hands. "


It was the French and the Germans that sent all those chemicals, Mirages, technolgy, nuclear plant equipment to Iraq in the 1960-1990s...I just laugh at that photo of Chirac & Saddam shaking hands..... 

To those support war,

Perhaps you forget UN ban its member to trade with Iraq. This cause the Iraqi people in poor.

Perhaps you don't know the Iraqi people strongly support Saddam, just like the situation in North Korea because their media is controlled by government. They will not say "thanky you" to US after US kill Saddam.

Perhaps you don't know which country has the greatest amount of mass destruction weapon and has already used it. The answer is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! But at least Iraq has not used any mass destruction weapon yet!

Perhaps you don't know USA do not try to stop Israel to bully Palestinians.

Perhaps you don't know how difficult a foreigner to obtain visa to USA. If a country is really freedom, going to that country should not be difficult.

Again, BUSH SHOULD STOP ATTACK IRAQ!!

Perhaps you don't know the Iraqi people strongly support Saddam

Actually, CXCPA, I think you're going to find what most intelligent people have felt all along-that the people of Iraq hate this murderer. He's imprisoned thousands simply because they might oppose him; he's gassed thousands of his own people, for the same reason. He's responsible for ove a million deaths in two wars that he started.

It's pretty hard for a people to tell you how much they hate someone when the tyrant has his thugs intimidating them in every part of their country.

They hate him more than you hate Mr. Bush.

But at least Iraq has not used any mass destruction weapon yet!

Again, there's where you're wrong. Saddam gassed an entire city-men, women and children, back in 1988, I believe. So much for that.

Perhaps you don't know how difficult a foreigner to obtain visa to USA. If a country is really freedom, going to that country should not be difficult.

Well, CXCPA, it became a little more difficult to enter the country after 18 muslims did so with the greatest of ease, then murdered 3000 people on September 11, 2001. If you think we should just freely let any Tom, Dick or Harry into the country without PROPER control, then you're insane.

Perhaps you forget UN ban its member to trade with Iraq. This cause the Iraqi people in poor.

Grammer aside, the trade embargo was caused by Saddam acting like the mugger he is and taking over Kuwait. The Embargo would have been lifted many years ago if Saddam would simply obey the UN and give up his heavy weapons.

Perhaps you don't know the Iraqi people strongly support Saddam, just like the situation in North Korea because their media is controlled by government. They will not say "thanky you" to US after US kill Saddam.

A friend of mine spent 10 years working in Jordan and Iraq as manual labor (he's Filipino). As he is not some rich foreigner, Iraqis talked with him quite frankly, and he lived with them for several years after the Gulf War. He told me that nearly all the people hate Saddam, but are resigned to the fact that they cannot get rid of him. Any hint of dissent or lake of enthusiasm for Saddam during government-organized rallies can result in a bullet in the head, so you can hardly blame them.

But at least Iraq has not used any mass destruction weapon yet!

Excuse me!?! How about Iran? How about the Kurds? He may not have used them yet because as soon as he does many of the anti-war protests around the world might shut up. We'll see what happens.

Perhaps you don't know how difficult a foreigner to obtain visa to USA. If a country is really freedom, going to that country should not be difficult.

Yes it's tough, but there are valid reasons. 9/11 is a good one for starters.

Charles

More information:
It is also difficult to obtain US visa before 11 September 2001.

Few years is enough for government, like Iraq and North Korea, use its media to change people's mind, except the well-educated people!!

Dear American, don't think that your government is "World Police". Do you know why many people worldwide hate America? You should think about it.

Dear American, don't think that your government is "World Police". Do you know why many people worldwide hate America?

Perhaps for the same reason that criminals hate policemen?

I'm just being facetious guys  

Charles

Why do YOU hate America, CXCPA?

And just maybe if we had toughened up our immigration, we wouldn't be talking about this nonsense you're bringing up, perhaps?

Alpha 1, its a new psychological condition called Power-Envy. I sense in posts, a lot of people would rather the war go sour with thousands killed (especially American soldiers and Iraqi civilians) rather than America succeed in removing a murderous dictator for the sake of millions and come out in a positive light with few deaths. It is sad, sad, sad.

The anti-war crowd has a tough argument, because in the long run, a free Iraq will spare hundreds of thousands of lives. This is what they are lobbying against.

Jetservice,

I sense in posts, a lot of people would rather the war go sour with thousands killed (especially American soldiers and Iraqi civilians) rather than America succeed in removing a murderous dictator for the sake of millions and come out in a positive light with few deaths.

What scares me, is that many Americans want to declare the war to France, want to remove the Jews in America etc etc

If those pro-war people are so concerned about the lives of the people in Iraq, what do they have against the jews than, and why want they the people of a country like France, that comes up for it's opinion, to be dead?

And you are again dead wrong about the anti-war protestors: we are not only against Bush, but also against Saddam. Apparently it's too difficult to understand that you could maybe try to remove Saddam without a war?  

The anti-war crowd has a tough argument, because in the long run, a free Iraq will spare hundreds of thousands of lives. This is what they are lobbying against.

The problem is that you will never hear on the news "450 people are alive today that would have died today if Saddm were still in power. Here are their names..."

What scares me, is that many Americans want to declare the war to France, want to remove the Jews in America etc etc

WTF??? Where did you get this idea, Sabena?

Charles

[Edited 2003-03-21 16:34:12]

What scares me, is that many Americans want to declare the war to France, want to remove the Jews in America etc etc

I've never heard anything of the liking. I hope you really don't believe that.

If those pro-war people are so concerned about the lives of the people in Iraq, what do they have against the jews than, and why want they the people of a country like France, that comes up for it's opinion, to be dead?

Don't change the subject, and try to deflect the criticism. It just shows you can't address the charge.

And you are again dead wrong about the anti-war protestors: we are not only against Bush, but also against Saddam. Apparently it's too difficult to understand that you could maybe try to remove Saddam without a war?

Then argue that point. Don't say Americans and Bush are blood-thirsty warmongers. If they were, you'd be watching a 21st Century holocaust unfold on TV right now. Your mistake in thinking that Saddam will respond to diplomacy and that inspections will work flew right out the window on the tail of a SCUD. I'm sorry that you have to watch the arrogant Americans flex their military muscle. Try focusing on the children of Iraqi growing up in a real society to take the edge off your envy.

What scares me, is that many Americans want to declare the war to France, want to remove the Jews in America etc etc.

Where do you get such bullshit like that, Sabena. I know France has been the brunt of some jokes, and some infantile actions by some idiotic Republican Congressmen and women, but declare war on them? Hardly. The invective from both sides is evidence of great emotion over this issue, nothing more. I don't agree with the actions of neither the U.S. nor France vis-a-vis each other in the last two months-childish is the best word.

As for the Jews, sure, you have some of the KKK-type nuts who still want to remove Jewish people, but most Americans don't share this view, and it's a bit far-fetched for you to raise such a thought, in my view.

And you are again dead wrong about the anti-war protestors: we are not only against Bush, but also against Saddam.

Maybe you are, but when you, and others, immediately jump on ANY information that says Iraq has been less-than-honest during the inspection phase-automatically rejecting US evidence in the UN; berating anyone who believes Saddam still has WMD's, then it's a little hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're remotely against getting rid of Saddam.

Yes, we could wait another 5 or 10 or 15 years for disarmament. How many Iraqis will be killed in the meantime? Will anti-war people be happy if Saddam is disarmed "peacefully" in another 12 years at a cost of an additional thousands of lives?

TM, you've hit the nail right on the head. The question that these anti-war protesters can't/won't answer is the very one you asked. Or breaking it down even further, if we waited another 30 days, how many people would die in the meantime? Would these anti-war protesters exchange their lives for diplomacy - which has been shown to not work with Saddam in the past?

Bush ,especially compared to Clinton,is the type of man who sees something wrong and tries to do something about it whether it will boost his opinions polls or not.

At the very least, you have to give him credit for this. It would be all too easy to sit back and play diplomat for the rest of his term, with no potential negative impact on his poll numbers. Clinton did this. But Bush (and Blair) is going against the easy solution for his political career - because the case is clear as to what needs to be done. That, in my opinion, is the responsibility that comes along with being the leader of a country.

Where I got this from? From people where you are discussing with, here on this forum. (I of course do not generalise this to the whole American population, but this idea seems to be popular here with some members).

the Jewish lobby is like herpes, they never go away. I honestly wish that every single one of them would just move to Israel, the nation they so adore. These bastards shouldn't even be called Americans. They put Israeli interests over American interests, yet they claim to be patriotic American citizens.

The Jewish lobby needs to go, and we need to stop supporting Israel. Those bastards in the Jewish lobby cannot claim to be Americans if they continue to put Israeli interests ahead of American interests. If they love Israel so much, they can go live there, but stop sacrificing American tax dollars for Israeli interests. How many more Americans have to die before people start asking questions. I gaurantee that 9/11 would not have happened if the U.S. did not support Israel over the years.

I would like to see nothing more than a war on France..., kill the arrogant bastards

The faithless, betrayal-laden attitudes of our "friends" is the attitude that pisses off most Americans. Get over yourselves. We (America) are stronger than your respective countries. Frankly, it doesnt matter that you dont like our nation. Be thankful that, as the lone superpower, we are as benevolent as we are...

This is only a small search, I'm running out of time...

Don't say Americans and Bush are blood-thirsty warmongers. If they were, you'd be watching a 21st Century holocaust unfold on TV right now.

Umm... if they would do this, I guarantee you that the anti-war people go mad. They don't dear to do this.

The liberation of the Iraqi people has begun!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20030321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_conquered_town_2&printer=1

It is really shameful for the whole humanity that some mad and selfish creatures dare to commit atrocities for a number of dirty barrels.

I believe so much in the importance of oil for all of us but not to the point that it could lead us to loose our senses and responsibilities towards ourselves and towards the others.

Man discovered oil and,in the normal way of things,he should not let it influence his thoughts and temperament,at least not to that extant.

Now,as far as the U..S.-Iraq war is concerned,and do not think that oil is the only reason for that.To my belief,and this remains subjective,three other main reasons could have been boosting this attack.

Having an allie government able to give military support in the case of an un - appreciated decision from Iran,and i mean here,a development in the already existing Irani nuclear power.

Protecting Israel from a determined leader such Saddam.

And maybe,liberating Iraq from Saddam and his regime,and spreading the American valors,but what valors come with war and destruction ???

Ts-ior you have passed Sabena690 for some of the most off the wall comments about this war.

TechRep

TechRep, that every anti-war post for you is crap is well known, but I do not think that you can correct me somewhere with not using facts etc etc.

I comment based on the background of international politics, not with what I read in a newspaper or see on TV.

We will see within some months who is right...

/Frederic

Of course you are properly informed and I am not. I am well read and you would be surprised my grasp of history and international politics. I also gather wisdom from my years of military service to my country.

Have you ever been in the Military?

TechRep

Techrep, he's a polysci student who's in school and doesn't know much about the real world. To top it all off, he's from Belgium. What do they know about modern warfare? You can never win an argument with a polysci if they're liberal. They refuse to acknowledge that they might actually ever be wrong about anything.

he's a polysci student who's in school and doesn't know much about the real world.

MD-90, I think I know more about real world than you do. This is actually what I study for, and not only the stupid american propaganda you see on your stupid tv when you lie in it with your lazy a##, but also the deeper meaning of the international politics, and the things behind the scenes.

To top it all off, he's from Belgium.

Again this fucking discriminating arrogant attitude. Do you really think that we will keep on bearing this???? You really wonder why so much people start hating the US (not that I do it, I can still make the distinction between the average American, and the sad exceptions like you you have everywhere).

What do they know about modern warfare?

Apparently we know when a war is justified and when not. The Americans seem to have problems with this? They know how to fight, apparently not under whicn conditions.

You can never win an argument with a polysci if they're liberal. They refuse to acknowledge that they might actually ever be wrong about anything.

I'm not really a liberal. And it is funny to see how dead wrong you are.

Let this kind of childish behaviour go on...  

"(also known as real Americans)."

Take a history class. Hate to break it to you, but the indians got here somehow to, they weren't just put in America. So your saying I am not a real American?

Quite frankly we can do without you french. As a quote goes "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion" --Norman Schwartzkopf
We are doing this to live in a safer place.

Overall, a couple of comments.

Why protecting natural resources that are important to the entire world is so controversial kind of boggles me. I mean, who wants Saddam to be able to take over Kuwait and Saudi (or at least threaten to turn their countries into glass with A-bombs.)

Some of Sabena's comments are retarded. Please don't tell me you would apply radical comments made by some kooks in this forum regarding Jews and French people as a majority opinion! That is insane dude. Perhaps fewer than .5% of people share these views. Americans like France and realize that a dirty rat like Saddam cannot undo a 225+ year history of friendship and cooperation.
Ever go to Paris in August? There are more Americans there than French.

How about Jewish people? There are more in NYC than in TelAviv. We are huge supporters of Isreal. Your comments make no sense.

Lasting Peace is acheived through strength. Weak people/countries never acheive lasting peace. I don't think many people here are Pro war- but they recognize when a war is better than the alternative of uncertainty and fear.

Petazulu, of course I do not generalise this  

What for a world would it be if the majority of the Americans would think like this...

I'd just like to remind everyone here, we're already at war. It's not like Bush is going to wake up one day and be like hmm, "I think im gonna pull out", because of those morons in SFO. Also Sebelino your arguments still hold no water as Alpha1 and KROC have been so nice to waste their time and point out to you.

Saying this is war is for oil is outrageous. We are in this war to protect the world from an evil tyrant. Does anyone anyway now think that protesting is going to stop this war. Though our military is in Iraq we should support them even if we don't agree what they are fighting for. I wish them the best and Saddam had several choices to make this peaceful.

Dear American,
I don't hate American, I just hate American governments' policy. I should clarify this. You may think that your country is freedom, but go to this link to have a look
http://www.info.gov.hk/immd/english/topical/e/1.htm

Then you will understand how other region treat foreigners. Many countries residents can go to Hong Kong without Visa. But how about USA? You can see the immigration policy is completely different! I think now Hong Kong is still much more freedom than USA!

It is really shameful for the whole humanity that some mad and selfish creatures dare to commit atrocities for a number of dirty barrels.

What "atrocities", Ts-Ior? The "atrocity" of accepting the surrender of a whole division, and caring for their wounded, or giving them water to drink?

The "atrocity" of taking the weapons of captured Iraqi's, then telling them simply to go home?

The "atrocity" of enjoying the smiles and joy of people liberated from 24 years under the boot of a murdering dictator?

The "atrocity" of giving instructions to civilians and soldiers alike in an attempt to spare their lives.

Show me your list of "atrocities".

MD-90, I think I know more about real world than you do.

You don't know a hill of beans, Sabena. You know, by your own admission, what a radical left-wing, anti-US professor has taught you, and, apparently, he's taught you well.  

Dear CXCPA:

Stop making a damn fool of yourself, ok?

Many countries residents can go to Hong Kong without Visa. But how about USA? You can see the immigration policy is completely different! I think now Hong Kong is still much more freedom than USA!

You're whining about the USA immigration policy? The USA has let in thousands of Chinese/HK immigrants....how many non-Chinese (eg. black, Muslim, etc) immigrants have China or HK let in?

Saying this is war is for oil is outrageous.

I agree....the following analysis proves that the USA has little to gain from Iraqi oil:

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=882F1C1D-614F-4058-A777-7C008E5C79E2

Goal is not oil

David Rennie
The Daily Telegraph

WASHINGTON - From Europe to the Middle East, you can hear the same charge: a war with Iraq is about America's plans to seize control of Baghdad's oil. Iraq, the argument runs, holds the second-largest oil reserves in the world -- a pool that America, with its insatiable greed for oil, dreams of tapping.

Today, Iraqi oil only trickles out because of punitive UN sanctions. What's more, Saddam Hussein prefers to do business with friends, so has assigned provisional oil rights to Russian, French and Chinese firms.

It seems obvious to placard-waving protesters that America needs a war to grab Iraqi oil. With a U.S. military governor or Iraqi puppet installed in Baghdad, they predict, America will tear up Russian and French contracts, handing the oil fields to ExxonMobil, Chevron and its chums.

There is one final twist to the charge: once Iraqi oil is in American hands, they say, world oil prices will plunge. That will break the Islamic stranglehold on America's oil imports, allowing Bush administration hawks to tell Saudi Arabia where to go.

The trouble is that this scenario is deeply flawed. It is based on misunderstandings of the world oil market, and several factual mistakes.

The Bush administration would go further, of course, and say it is deeply unfair. Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently promised that oil fields will be held "in trust" for the Iraqi people, with proceeds going toward the country's reconstruction.

At the Azores summit, George W. Bush, the U.S. President, yielded to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for Iraqi oil revenues to be held by the United Nations as an "interim" measure after the war.

Many in Europe, of course, do not set much store on American promises. Put trust to one side then, and stick to facts.

Since 1999, UN sanctions have placed no limit on how much oil Iraq can export. The UN only controls the use of Iraqi oil revenues. Under the oil-for-food scheme, proceeds from oil sales must be spent on humanitarian goods, war reparations to Kuwait and UN activities in Iraq. That angers Saddam, which is why he smuggles oil to neighbours and tries to collect illegal surcharges on the oil he exports.

The United States already buys lots of Iraqi oil. Last year, America bought an average of 449,000 barrels a day, or about a quarter of Iraq's production. The Arab world's stranglehold over America is exaggerated. Last year, Gulf nations accounted for 11% of America's daily consumption of 19.9 million barrels.

Oil is perhaps the most freely traded commodity on Earth, with oil flowing regardless of political enmities. Venezuela, run by a populist strongman who loathes Mr. Bush, is America's fourth-largest source of oil.

To quote Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior analyst at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston: "If the U.S. were to start buying oil only from people we like, we'd have to change our lifestyles."

The White House's position is that if it wanted Iraq's oil, it would simply lift sanctions and let the oil flow freely.

American analysts also reject talk of Big Oil dictating U.S. foreign policy. U.S. oil companies own several giant oilfields in Libya, but are barred from exploiting them by American sanctions, Ms. Jaffe noted.

"The UN has lifted sanctions on Libya, but we have not. If all President Bush was concerned about was American access to oil, he could wave his hand and lift U.S. sanctions, and you would get another million barrels of Libyan oil a day."

If rapid access to Iraqi oil drove American policy, Ms. Jaffe added, Washington would do better to lift sanctions.

"Ironically, for the 'no blood for oil' crowd, regime change might delay the day Iraqi oil floods on to the market, compared to ending sanctions. A war might cause much more damage to the fields."

Nobody is getting their hands on Iraq's reserves in the near future. Two decades of neglect and periodic war have left Saddam's oilfields badly damaged. According to most oil analysts, it will take years, and tens of billions of dollars in investment, to bring Iraqi production back to pre-war levels.

If there is an Iraqi bonanza for Western firms, it is likely to be for oil-service companies and engineers, not refiners.

Finally, private oil analysts and U.S. government advisors are far from agreed that oil prices will plunge after an Iraqi war.

War with Iraq, the experts agree, will have a huge effect on world oil prices. The hard part is getting them to agree what that effect will be.

There is near consensus that prices will soar sharply upwards on the day war breaks out.

"There is no question. If there is a war, prices will rocket. It's a gut reaction," said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York.

"There's already a war premium at work -- prices are at US$32 a barrel; that's very high. It could go to almost anything for a few days."

Many analysts hope the American, Japanese and European governments will counter any price surge by releasing some of the 1.2 billion barrels of oil in state-owned reserves worldwide.

Dr. Philip Verleger, a U.S. government advisor on oil and foreign affairs, goes further, urging a massive release of reserves.

"You want to put a lot of oil on the market," he said. "If governments are reluctant, they're going to get themselves an economic catastrophe. They're going to get themselves US$50 oil."

State-held reserves are brim full, partly because war with Iraq has loomed for so long. America alone holds 600 million barrels in underground salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas.

"Under almost any circumstances, unless Iraq manages to take out some Saudi production for a long time, these stocks will last two or three years," said Dr. Verleger. "There is no reason to be at all cautious."

Analysts are confident Mr. Bush will heed such calls -- they point to the fate of his father, who saw oil prices rise to US$40 a barrel during the 1991 Gulf War, triggering a recession that some say cost him his presidency.

Yet an equally plausible scenario has oil prices crashing to historic lows before the end of this year.

So, curiously, though Iraq is at the centre of the crisis, its oil -- actual physical oil flowing from wells -- is a relatively minor factor, at least in the short term.

Iraqi oil production has slumped from 3.5 million barrels a day before 1990 to some two million barrels now.

The world consumes 77 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia alone produces eight million barrels and has plenty of spare capacity.

Mr. Lichtblau said: "If we had to, the world could do without Iraqi oil for years. Iraqi exports on their own are not a major factor."

The oil industry is nervous for other reasons. One fear is that a cornered Saddam Hussein will fight on for months, or attack his neighbours.

"If disruption goes beyond Iraq, then we are in trouble," said Mr. Lichtblau. "If Saudi production is blocked, or damaged, that's the nightmare of nightmares."

Even barring such disasters, the Iraq crisis comes at a bad time. Venezuela has spent months locked in a bitter general strike. Commercial oil stocks are also at near-record lows, for various complex reasons.

It could, of course, go the other way. The war in Iraq could be short, and America's victory crushing. If Venezuela returns to normal at the same time, the oil industry fears a price crash.

"If Iraqi oil becomes fully available by the second half of 2003, and Venezuela comes back, you could have US$20 oil," Mr. Lichtblau added.

"Everyone is in a state of suspended animation," Dr. Verleger said. "We hope it all turns out right, but it might not. We just don't know what might happen."