Do you think this cartoon is correct?

Oerdin · September 7, 2002, 16:58

Let's hear what people think of the message in this cartoon.

Carver · September 7, 2002, 17:01

Its arse backwords. Saddam would never use nukes offensively.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 17:01

I like that the 'ally" is so obviously French...

Bereta_Eder · September 7, 2002, 17:03

Apart from the expected resemblance of the allied guy to a french bagget bread eater

I think it is only mediocre because it is not very subtle...

Hobbes · September 7, 2002, 17:41

Why should the US need to attack Iraq first? Well all know that if Saddam attacks the US with nukes, Bush's ingenius "Missile Defence Shield" will save us all.

red_jon · September 7, 2002, 17:44

Even if Iraq managed to nuclear missiles there's no way they'd be able to reach the US. It's not like he's capable of building ICBMs.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 17:50

Jesus, doesn't anyone here understand what Iraqi nukes would do to the security situation in the Middle East? American concern about Saddam's WOMD programme has nothing to do with an illogical fear of Iraqi ICBM's raining down on US cities...

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 17:54

No Bush his businessfriends are worried about their oil prices.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 17:57

Quote:

NO they're worried about their oil prices.

That's certainly part of it. It surely isn't just about American oil prices though; you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are and the Japanese are even worse. Anyone with half a brain can see how a nuclear Iraq could wreak havoc on the world economy.

Gatekeeper · September 7, 2002, 18:00

The editorial cartoon is hilarious — and, yes, I'm sure the "allies" character was deliberately drawn to be a cariacuture (sp) of France.

[rambling "stream-of-conscious" thoughts]

What's ironic is the fact that the sanctions were supposed to be a non-violent way of getting Iraq to swear off WMD. They apparently didn't work because there were too many loopholes — most infamously, the incidents where UN inspectors had to give advance notice that they were coming, or were forbidden from accessing certain sites (such as Saddam's palaces) due to national sovereignty issues. Then you have Scott Ritter who swears upon every holy book in existence (it seems) that Iraq has *no* WMD, yet a number of his former co-workers claim otherwise or, at the very least, aren't as sure about it as Ritter is. About the only consensus among them is that Iraq wouldn't use whatever its got left directly against America (gee, I wonder why) and the quantity of what he's got.

[/rambling "stream-of-conscious" thoughts]

Gatekeeper

red_jon · September 7, 2002, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

NO they're worried about their oil prices.

That's certainly part of it. It surely isn't just about American oil prices though; you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are and the Japanese are even worse. Anyone with half a brain can see how a nuclear Iraq could wreak havoc on the world economy.

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:05

Quote:

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

How is that relevant? Europe still depends on Middle East oil more than the US, especially France and Germany. Britain isn't nearly as dependent, as the North Sea oil fields give them a large amount of domestic production.

In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 18:10

Quote:

you Euros are more dependent on Mid East oil than we are

Really? That sucks.

I thought we were switching to Russian oil over the years.

Anyway, even in the unlikely situation Iraq could build nukes, do you really think it would be in a sufficient enough quantity to nuke entire Arabia/Kuwait and destroy a large percentage of the oil's reserves? If one bomb would be dropped, there would a small economic recession like the one of 11/9 but after six months, when the panic response is over, stock exchanges and economies would be back to normal.

You probably think I'm talking to nonsense here, but I predicted 11/9/2001 that the economic effect of the WTC attack wouldn't last longer than a year, with many people declaring me nuts as a result. But I am correct no? 11/9 isn't a deciding factor anymore; only to some lunatic president who wants to attract votes.

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

Gee. Thanks!

Actually more expensive oil wouldn't be too bad on the long run. It might encourage more research into renewable and clean energy sources, like the hydrogen engine for cars.

red_jon · September 7, 2002, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

How is that relevant? Europe still depends on Middle East oil more than the US, especially France and Germany. Britain isn't nearly as dependent, as the North Sea oil fields give them a large amount of domestic production.

In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

The oil is polluting the planet and the current administration is hindering research into alternate fuels. Why the hell should I show gratitude for that?

Paul Hanson · September 7, 2002, 18:17

I'm always slightly confused as to who or what I'm supposed to be thanking when I'm told to be grateful to America. And then I'm confused as to how I should demonstrate this gratitude.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:18

Quote:

Anyway, even in the unlikely situation Iraq could build nukes, do you really think it would be in a sufficient enough quantity to nuke entire Arabia/Kuwait and destroy a large percentage of the oil's reserves?

No one thinks that Iraq is going to nuke the oil fields; why would they do that, when they can invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and have the majority of the world's oil to themselves? The effect Iraqi nukes would have is to make Iraq invulnerable to American or other international intervention. If Iraq invades Kuwait after it obtains nukes, no one is going to go fight Gulf War II to save Kuwait again. Nuclear powers don't fight wars against each other; the risks of a nuclear exchange are too great. Even a couple nukes would be enough for Iraq. Would America risk having their army attacked with a nuclear equipped Scud? I seriously doubt it...

So, with nukes Iraq can take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then dictate oil prices to the rest of the world. That sounds great doesn't it?

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

I'm always slightly confused as to who or what I'm supposed to be thanking when I'm told to be grateful to America. And then I'm confused as to how I should demonstrate this gratitude.

I wasn't really targeting that comment at you Brits, but more towards your EU buddies. Britain has always seemed to be a little more intelligent about international affairs that their continental neighbors. Tony Blair is proving this right now.

I actually should have said that "America and Britain are doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil". You guys do what you can and I'm one American who certainly appreciates the help.

Capt Dizle · September 7, 2002, 18:24

That is a good cartoon. Very on point. Without America to defend world stability chaos would ensue. Russia and China would love to see more terrorist attacks on America, most Euros are too cowardly to take a stand, and Blair will probably be the last Brittish PM to have any guts.

red_jon · September 7, 2002, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
That is a good cartoon. Very on point. Without America to defend world stability chaos would ensue. Russia and China would love to see more terrorist attacks on America, most Euros are too cowardly to take a stand, and Blair will probably be the last Brittish PM to have any guts.

0.001/10

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:25

Quote:

The oil is polluting the planet and the current administration is hindering research into alternate fuels. Why the hell should I show gratitude for that?

You have no idea how important oil is to the global economy, do you? Your standard of living would be nowhere near what it is now if there was not a supply of affordable oil.

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 18:26

Iraq won't use nukes either if they have them, because as you say yourself the chance for retaliation is too big. Certainly because the US do have ICBMs... So personally I think the western powers would send an army. And if they wouldn't send an army of their own, they would pay and supply Iran, Israel and the likes to go and defeat Iraq, let them do the hard work, just like US and SU/China supported Korea etcetera in the cold wars.

Bereta_Eder · September 7, 2002, 18:26

oh **** off yankees

red_jon · September 7, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

The oil is polluting the planet and the current administration is hindering research into alternate fuels. Why the hell should I show gratitude for that?

You have no idea how important oil is to the global economy, do you? Your standard of living would be nowhere near what it is now if there was not a supply of affordable oil.

Yes, it is important, but we need to wean ourselves off it and put more research into alternative fuels. The oil won't be there forever, even if you ignore other issues such as global warming.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:28

Quote:

Iraq won't use nukes either if they have them, because as you say yourself the chance for retaliation is too big. Certainly because the US do have ICBMs... So personally I think the western powers would send an army.

Name one war that has occured between nuclear equipped powers.

KrazyHorse · September 7, 2002, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Yes, but our cars use a helluva lot less oil than the American counterparts.

How is that relevant? Europe still depends on Middle East oil more than the US, especially France and Germany. Britain isn't nearly as dependent, as the North Sea oil fields give them a large amount of domestic production.

In the end, America is doing all the hard work in maintaining the world's supply of affordable oil. It would be nice to see some gratitude now and again...

Hah. If the French couldn't get oil from the ME then they'd get it from Venezuela or Mexico. Everyone would pay higher prices. And as someone else has pointed out already, the US is a much heavier petro-consumer than Europe...

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:31

Quote:

Yes, it is important, but we need to wean ourselves off it and put more research into alternative fuels. The oil won't be there forever, even if you ignore other issues such as global warming.

I completely agree with this statement. However, until we wean ourselves off oil (which I hope happens soon) someone is going to have to make sure that the oil supply is secure. For better or worse, that responsibility has fallen on America. It annoys me when people say that the US is doing thing "for oil" like it is some sort of insult. The whole world needs oil and America is making sure that we have it. Is that really something we should be abused for?

KrazyHorse · September 7, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Name one war that has occured between nuclear equipped powers.

Sino-Soviet border war, 1969.

Bereta_Eder · September 7, 2002, 18:33

Europe already has lucrative oil deals with Iraq. US is screwing it up.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Hah. If the French couldn't get oil from the ME then they'd get it from Venezuela or Mexico. Everyone would pay higher prices. And as someone else has pointed out already, the US is a much heavier petro-consumer than Europe...

My point was that everyone depends on Middle East oil, not just Americans. American efforts to maintain the flow of Middle East oil benefits everyone, not just America.