Taking Bets on Iraq Invasion Dates [Archive] - JetPhotos.Net Forums

View Full Version : Taking Bets on Iraq Invasion Dates

tommyalf

01-11-2003, 02:49 AM

So with Rumsfeld sending another 35,000 troops over to the Gulf today anyone want to take bets on what date we invade?

I say Feburary 21, just a guess.

TurkPHL

01-11-2003, 03:29 AM

I say Febuary 14, i mean its the perfect date, give some love to Saddam, dont forget the card! hehe

TurkPHL

hkgspotter1

01-11-2003, 04:07 AM

There should be no invasion.

MerchantVenturer

01-11-2003, 01:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TurkPHL:
I say Febuary 14, i mean its the perfect date, give some love to Saddam, dont forget the card! hehe

TurkPHL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not against an invasion if it has to be done.

However, I don't regard it as something that should be the subject of a bet as if it were some sporting event.

Don't forget, it won't just be Saddam. Thousands of his people, for the most part ordinary and in no position to influence internal events in Iraq, will be killed or injured, as will US and allied military members. Perhaps you would like to send their bereaved relatives cards as well.

Anyone who has been in a war situation would not be regarding the prospect light heartedly and making silly jokes. Please have more respect for the military personnel who will be putting their lives on the line - for us all.

[ January 11, 2003 08:22 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by MerchantVenturer ]

Aeronautics

01-11-2003, 01:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by hkgspotter1:
There should be no invasion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should or will are two different things.

I think they attack when CNN has put its camera's in Baghdad. images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Polaris

01-12-2003, 03:34 AM

If it does happen, I wonder if it will be live on CNN again?

When would be the best time to catch Iraq off guard? When is it a weekend or a holiday over there?

My date ...never. Or at least not in long while. The world has a very different opinion this time round.

CRASHGATE

01-12-2003, 11:30 AM

I've got to agree with you MerchantVenturer.Many people are going to suffer alot of heartache when it all kicks off.
Kirk,George Dubbya is an oil man.It will happen.
regards.
Geoff.

FlyingTexan

01-13-2003, 10:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom:
anyone want to take bets on what date we invade?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As soon as W figures out where Iraq is.

Robert

01-13-2003, 10:24 PM

For any of you who said they don't want an attack to happen, what would you be saying if Saddam was making threats against your country (as an example) and your pres had info that he is planning an attack, would you still say no go? I doubt it. Give me a break..

My brother is heading out to Kuwait in a week, then onto Iraq.

Maybe he'll get the hit on Saddam?
smilewink.gif

Chris Kilroy

01-13-2003, 10:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CRASHGATE:
Many people are going to suffer alot of heartache when it all kicks off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many people are already suffering a lot of heartache.

They are called the Iraqi citizens.

These people eat, sleep, and breathe under the rule of a cruel, malicious dictator. Their lives are at risk every day if they happen to utter the wrong syllable or make the wrong gesture.

Money to spend on medicine, food, etc. for the people of Iraq is being funneled into weapons programs, and the military. People are starving for the purposes of building weaponry.

Sure, in the short term, people will suffer. But the Iraqi people will be much better off in the long run once Saddam is removed from power.

PolishAir42

01-13-2003, 11:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CRASHGATE:
I've got to agree with you MerchantVenturer.Many people are going to suffer alot of heartache when it all kicks off.
Kirk,George Dubbya is an oil man.It will happen.
regards.
Geoff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its pretty ignorant of you to call Bush an oil man. Thats just a plain ignorant excuse by saying that we will take Iraq for oil. So we invaded other countries for oil too that were a threat to the US? Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Serbia...im sure we took all those for oil too.

Joey

01-14-2003, 07:51 AM

Oil, oil, oil. I keep hearing that over and over.

This table (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt) might be interesting to some of you. It shows where the USA gets most of its petroleum. The amount of crude oil we import from Saudi Arabia is roughly the same amount as we import from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela (surprise, surprise).

The USA isn't that dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Katamarino

01-14-2003, 01:41 PM

Wow - the americans are all for, everyone else is not so keen. Interesting split. Saddams been around a long time. Interesting that hes suddenly become a major threat right as Bush is trying to keep the US people amused post 11/9.

Katamarino

01-14-2003, 01:44 PM

Neat table - wonder if its cooincidence that the numbers for oil imported from OPEC are 666 evil.gif

Jorge

01-14-2003, 08:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PolishAir42:
Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Serbia...im sure we took all those for oil too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see how you can lump in Panama with Serbia and Somalia. Panama was a disgrace, I was ashamed of what our elected officials did in Panama shake.gif

NWA_4_life

01-14-2003, 08:37 PM

As an American, I am prety sure that a war will happen. So I'm going to say March 23, 2003. Bush takes up forever to make up his mind, and there's all that paperwork...

cicadajet

01-14-2003, 11:28 PM

Iraq was *not* a US ally in Iran/Iraq War.

The semi-official stance on that was a stalemate was better than a victor on either side... (at least thats what came out of Henry Kissenger's mouth).

A "friendly" govt in Iraq is hardly a guarantee of avoiding massive attack on the USA mainland unfortunately...as we can see Egyptian and Saudi Arabian citizens carry much of the radical islamic fever. If, in the end, it puts the US closer to breaking up that fever (in Iran etc.) - somehow- it will be a good thing.

Joey

01-15-2003, 05:41 AM

Remember the US aided Iraq in their war against Iran (At the time our enemy).

Maybe we gave them things at that time we shouldn't have, oops. images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

ATLcenter

01-15-2003, 10:41 PM

Why go to war? Can't we discuss this like adults? Come on, gentlemen! instead of allowing the people to suffer, lets create a plan! It can work! WE can give it to Bish. It'll be perfect! They'll love it, and the entire thnig will be solved. Not a single Iraqi or American dead. After all, death is so sorrowful,.. images/smiles/icon_sad.gif

SURE!!!!

I'm guessing End of January- February. It can't be any other date. UN meets in late January; Bush makes his State of the Nion address the day after. I'm guessing he'll prepare us for war in the address, and we'll be off. I'm sorry, Iraq, for paying for what your leader did. Life really stinks. Gentlemen? One would rather threaten so many species and drill for oil in the only place in the country where no one has developed the whole thing, and the other makes statues of dead soldiers...working things out? Right, and Mother Teresa took a lift back home with Elvis. IMO, there'll be a war.

Who ever said it, you're right. There should be no war. BUt there will be.

glurb

01-17-2003, 12:05 PM

If he has no weapons we shouldn't go to war tbh. Bush makes me giggle images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Alexandre

01-17-2003, 02:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cicadajet:
Iraq was *not* a US ally in Iran/Iraq War.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,but USA was an Irak ally during Iran-Irak war

Aeronautics

01-17-2003, 03:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Kilroy:
Many people are already suffering a lot of heartache.

They are called the Iraqi citizens.

These people eat, sleep, and breathe under the rule of a cruel, malicious dictator. Their lives are at risk every day if they happen to utter the wrong syllable or make the wrong gesture.

Money to spend on medicine, food, etc. for the people of Iraq is being funneled into weapons programs, and the military. People are starving for the purposes of building weaponry.

Sure, in the short term, people will suffer. But the Iraqi people will be much better off in the long run once Saddam is removed from power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your now talking like media Chris. It's not going that worse with the Iraqi people as most foreigners think. In fact, Iraq has one of the strongest economics of the Middle-East.

Aeronautics

01-17-2003, 03:20 PM

glurb

01-22-2003, 09:18 PM

George W. Bush is lame clap.gif

Incidentally, George W. Bush seems obsessed with oil, and I'm not saying that hes going into Iraq for it. What I am saying, is that he finds it perfectly reasonable to investigate the possibility of wrecking millions of acres of land in Alaska to increase the petroleum he gets from that particular state.

Why not just cut down on fuel use? Saying that he wouldn't sign the Kyoto agreement shows me how dedicated he is to saving the planet.

[ January 22, 2003 04:22 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by glurb ]

Russia_forever

01-24-2003, 11:01 PM

Robert, allow me to quote you once again: "For any of you who said they don't want an attack to happen, what would you be saying if Saddam was making threats against your country"

I do not think he would be making such threats because he is a religious/Islamic extremist or whatever or because he just does not like the way you look. There MUST have been a reason in the past that made him feel that way, right?
I strongly disaprove of US intervention in foreign countries affairs. And yes it is clear as day if you read newspapers (not just US published ones) that in the end US is attacking Iraq for oil. N. Korea has potential, faciliteis and as a matter of fact HAS ALREADY developed according to some sources two nuclear warheads. And talking about people suffering, how about invading some of those war-torn African countries then if you are so keen on defending human rights all over the world?

Regards,

Igor

PolishAir42

01-24-2003, 11:19 PM

I HATE whenever the US is accused for intervening just for OIL. This is stupid BS crap and euro propaganda.

Im sure if the Japanese government was creating illegal chemical weapons/WMD/Nuclear Weapons and terrorizing the population we would invade for the electronics images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Ok so did we invade/intervene in these countries recently for oil:

Grenada
Serbia/Kosovo
Somalia
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama

How about WW2 that was for oil too I bet? Yep blame the US for that laff.gif

Aeronautics

01-25-2003, 02:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PolishAir42:
I HATE whenever the US is accused for intervening just for OIL. This is stupid BS crap and euro propaganda.

Im sure if the Japanese government was creating illegal chemical weapons/WMD/Nuclear Weapons and terrorizing the population we would invade for the electronics images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Ok so did we invade/intervene in these countries recently for oil:

Grenada
Serbia/Kosovo
Somalia
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama

How about WW2 that was for oil too I bet? Yep blame the US for that laff.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And look it from the other side: If you want to intervene because of WMD, why not intervene in Pakistan, India and North-Korea. Those are much larger threats.

Russia_forever

01-25-2003, 07:28 PM

Hello,

I found this on a.net:

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq by John Robbins
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And
that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be there,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Isnt it funny? Couldnt be better said...

Regards,

Igor

Chris Kilroy

01-25-2003, 07:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aeronautics:
And look it from the other side: If you want to intervene because of WMD, why not intervene in Pakistan, India and North-Korea. Those are much larger threats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because those countries have not attempted to invade and conquer another country within the last 15 years, resulting in U.N. Resolutions which forbid the manufacture of such weapons.

Geez.. (and this is not directed only at you, Aeronautics) if you're going to try to debate, at least do a bit of research first. images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Chris Kilroy

01-25-2003, 08:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by glurb:
George W. Bush is lame clap.gif

Incidentally, George W. Bush seems obsessed with oil, and I'm not saying that hes going into Iraq for it. What I am saying, is that he finds it perfectly reasonable to investigate the possibility of wrecking millions of acres of land in Alaska to increase the petroleum he gets from that particular state.

Why not just cut down on fuel use? Saying that he wouldn't sign the Kyoto agreement shows me how dedicated he is to saving the planet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the most illogical, non-factual thing I have ever read in my entire life.

How does Bush seem obsessed with oil? That's all I can say on that point.. I'd like some clear examples.

Regarding ANWAR --

As I mentioned in my post above, if you're going to debate, do some research so you don't look totally clueless. It is widely known that any oil drilling in ANWAR would affect less than 1/10 of 1% of the total acreage of the reserve. The affected land would be affected only by virtue that it would have oil processing facilities built on it. To say that this is "risking millions of acres of pristine Alaska land" is akin to an outright lie, and it makes you look silly.

Regarding cutting fuel use and Kyoto --

How do you suggest we "cut fuel use?" That is a cute catchphrase, but it is obviously a million times easier said than done. Research is going on every day for newer, cleaner alternatives to burning fossil fuels for energy -- but these things don't happen overnight. And until I can buy an electric car which will operate for more than 20 minutes, and goes faster than 30mph, I'll be sticking with my evil gas-burning engine.

Regarding Kyoto, myself (and the majority of Americans who know anything about Kyoto) are damned glad that Bush wouldn't sign that piece of crap. It's becoming ever more popular, it seems, for the rest of the world to expect the U.S. to sign something that hurts only the U.S., while helping other countries, as Kyoto does by placing burdensome restrictions on only the U.S. -- restrictions to which the other members of the agreement are not subject. Sorry, but that's not fair, not right, and I don't care how the rest of the world spins it, it shouldn't happen.

I notice you are from the U.K. It's a commonly-known fact that U.S. environment regulations and policies far exceed those of the U.K. in both scope and effectiveness. I've seen this firsthand, as I watched car after car drive down the streets of London smoking like it was running on a primitive diesel engine.

So, before you go attacking the U.S. for everything you believe is so wrong with it, why don't you look in the mirror and see that your country might not be so perfect itself.

Chris Kilroy

01-25-2003, 08:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteI do not think he would be making such threats because he is a religious/Islamic extremist or whatever or because he just does not like the way you look. There MUST have been a reason in the past that made him feel that way, right?

Yeah, just like four airplanes weren't hijacked and crashed into structures full of civilians a year and a half ago because the people responsible were Islamic extremists. Get real. images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteI strongly disaprove of US intervention in foreign countries affairs.

Yet you're the first to come crying to the U.S. for help when something happens that you don't like, and you're the first to come crying to the U.S. for aide if it's needed. Make up your mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteAnd yes it is clear as day if you read newspapers (not just US published ones) that in the end US is attacking Iraq for oil.

Yeah, because a newspaper says it, it must be true. Can't you people make a decision without being told what to think? images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'd like some clear-cut, factual examples of how this war is about oil. You say it is, but provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Sounds like a cute catchphrase to me.

I'll tell you why it's not about oil, though.

First, the U.S. purchases more oil over a given time period from either Canada, Venezuela, or Mexico, than we do from the entire region known as the 'Middle East.'

Second, Iraqi oil prices are currently among the lowest in the world (ask France and Russia!) due to the fact that they are selling this oil illegally in violation of U.N. embargoes. Should a U.S.-led coalition attack Iraq, and put a pro-Western government in place, these sanctions would likely be lifted, allowing Iraq to sell its oil at comparable market prices as opposed to the drastically reduced prices it sells its oil at now.

In summation, an attack on Iraq would, no doubt, cause the price of Iraqi oil to increase. Tell me how this war is about oil again? images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteN. Korea has potential, faciliteis and as a matter of fact HAS ALREADY developed according to some sources two nuclear warheads.

You're absolutely right, and we can thank a man named Bill Clinton for this entire situations' occurance. Mr. Clinton during his presidency provided North Korea the very materials they have used to create these nuclear weapons, foolishly believing their claims that this technology would be used for humanitarian needs (ie power production) only.

You do make a good point, though.

The North Korean weapons program is, in almost all opinions, approximately 5-10 years ahead of Iraq's. The very same things which are now being said about Iraq were being said 10-15 years ago about North Korea. And, unfortunately, the rest of the world (again, foolishly) subscribed to the European spinless, pansy-ass "ignore the problem and hope it goes away" philosophy regarding North Korea. Now we're where we are today.

We cannot make that same mistake again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteAnd talking about people suffering, how about invading some of those war-torn African countries then if you are so keen on defending human rights all over the world?

We provide more humanitarian aide to these war-torn African countries than any other country in the world. Aside from that, it is none of our business.

The reason it is none of our business, as I wrote in a post above, is because these countries are not in clear violation of U.N. and International resolutions which forbid them from the very activities they are doing.

PolishAir42

01-25-2003, 08:54 PM

"And look it from the other side: If you want to intervene because of WMD, why not intervene in Pakistan, India and North-Korea. Those are much larger threats."

WHAT LOL? We are talking here about hostile nations. I dont see how Pakistan or India fall into this category right now. And N. Korea is being dealt with. Hello! by your thinking we should intervene in the UK and France also? They have nuclear weapons...it makes no sense. This regards terrorist support regimes that have genocide ideas on their mind.

Russia_forever

01-25-2003, 09:12 PM

"Yet you're the first to come crying to the U.S. for help when something happens that you don't like, and you're the first to come crying to the U.S. for aide if it's needed. Make up your mind."

Ehmmm... what exactly are you reffering to?
As in military actions? or you mean financial help? What exactly do you mean?

Whatever that is, I think US should stop trying to dictate to countries all over the world what type of government it wants them to have.

And about the airplanes... first of all, even if Sadam HAD ANYTHING to do with IT (which has not yet been proven) he would not do it just because he did not like u...

Regards!

Igor

Chris Kilroy

01-25-2003, 09:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ehmmm... what exactly are you reffering to?
As in military actions? or you mean financial help? What exactly do you mean?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean both.

I mean, when a natural disaster or the like occurs, everyone immediately looks to the U.S. to provide money, food, etc. to help those affected cope with the disaster.

I mean, also, that when a country oversteps its bounds (Iraq in 1990, for example), every country in the world looks to the U.S. to lead the coalition against the country in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteWhatever that is, I think US should stop trying to dictate to countries all over the world what type of government it wants them to have.

So it's okay to allow a government which continually oppresses and slaughters its own people to continue to rule unmolested? I see... images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quoteAnd about the airplanes... first of all, even if Sadam HAD ANYTHING to do with IT (which has not yet been proven) he would not do it just because he did not like u...

I never said Hussein had anything to do with that. What I said is that both 9/11, and the situation now with Iraq, are products of Islamic fundamentalism, and nothing else.

Since you are so convinced he "has a reason," why don't you tell us all what that reason could possibly be? That he's upset we wouldn't allow him to take over Kuwait in 1990? images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Katamarino

01-26-2003, 03:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Kilroy:
Yeah, just like four airplanes weren't hijacked and crashed into structures full of civilians a year and a half ago because the people responsible were Islamic extremists. Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they woke up and thought 'Hey, we're islamic extremists, lets kill Americans' did they? That would only be the case if Islamic extremists were SOLELY in existence to attack the US. And even so, there would have to be a reason for an attack. People dont kill thousands, including themselves, just on a 'Hohum, i've had it with sitting round in the cave'.

Chris Kilroy

01-26-2003, 05:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Katamarino:
So they woke up and thought 'Hey, we're islamic extremists, lets kill Americans' did they? That would only be the case if Islamic extremists were SOLELY in existence to attack the US. And even so, there would have to be a reason for an attack. People dont kill thousands, including themselves, just on a 'Hohum, i've had it with sitting round in the cave'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is their sole purpose of existance. They are bred, raised, educated, trained, and shipped off to blow themselves and others up for reasons which only they know.

Care to respond to any of the other points I made above?

Aeronautics

01-26-2003, 12:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Kilroy:
Because those countries have not attempted to invade and conquer another country within the last 15 years, resulting in U.N. Resolutions which forbid the manufacture of such weapons.

Geez.. (and this is not directed only at you, Aeronautics) if you're going to try to debate, at least do a bit of research first. images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you could do also some research images/smiles/icon_wink.gif. May I remember you that North-Korea is officially still in war with the South?

CRASHGATE

01-26-2003, 09:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PolishAir42:
I think its pretty ignorant of you to call Bush an oil man. Thats just a plain ignorant excuse by saying that we will take Iraq for oil. So we invaded other countries for oil too that were a threat to the US? Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Serbia...im sure we took all those for oil too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excuse MY IGNORANCE.
Didn't Bush make his millions from oil? nod.gif
That in my book makes him an oil man.(I understand there are a few others in his government that have also made the odd buck or two from oil) skeptical.gif
I stand by my original post,agreeing with the comments of MerchantVenturer.
Nobody mentioned Grenada,Serbia,etc... offtopic1.gif

JoeJoe440

02-01-2003, 07:52 PM

i'm just picking a date - 26th Febuary

Joe

Katamarino

02-02-2003, 01:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Kilroy:
How do you suggest we "cut fuel use?" That is a cute catchphrase, but it is obviously a million times easier said than done. Research is going on every day for newer, cleaner alternatives to burning fossil fuels for energy -- but these things don't happen overnight. And until I can buy an electric car which will operate for more than 20 minutes, and goes faster than 30mph, I'll be sticking with my evil gas-burning engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heres an idea - make do with a 2 litre engine rather than a 6 litre one. It'll get you there just as quick images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif