Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sparks on May 18, 2005, 11:22:11 PM
-
I really am tired of all the hype and fiction about democracy in Iraq and "The War on Terror"
I think this collection about sums up where this is going:-
1. Iraq heading for civil war. (http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=article&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=872928&d=20050518&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252)
Noticing things turning nasty the administration starts to cozy up:-
Little published visit by Saudi Crown Prince (http://middle-east.news.designerz.com/saudi-crown-prince-to-meet-bush-in-texas.html)
Of course the Crown Prince is a stalwart of democracy and tolerance of non-islamic views ...........
The Crown Prince (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0900736.html)
How it all links together :-
"Sleeping with the Devil" - Robert Baer ISBN 1-4000-5268-8
The more I watch the news and look for the less publicised bits like the Saudi Crown Prince visit, the more it all fits
-
I'm getting the distinct impression that the darkest scenario, out of all the possible invasion result scenarios - including rose parades - is happening now.
Americans aren't getting killed because they invaded. They're getting killed because they are in the way.
Time to trade in the camo for ref jerseys.
-
I remember hearing somwhere that the estimated time for things to completely calm down in Iraq is around 12 years.
We've been there two.
This instant gratification society we have really cracks me up sometimes as though someone is supposed to wave a magic wand and overnight everything is supposed to be ok.
Sorry kid. dont work that way
-
Yes, you are, of course quite correct DREDIOCK.
I think anyone who looks at things in Iraq in a negative light obviously hasn't done the research. I mean, come on, history is repleat with examples of Western armies invading the Middle East.
Any bozo can plug the data into Excel and it always comes up: "12 years."
To the naysayers - learn at computers you haters!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yes, you are, of course quite correct DREDIOCK.
I think anyone who looks at things in Iraq in a negative light obviously hasn't done the research. I mean, come on, history is repleat with examples of Western armies invading the Middle East.
Any bozo can plug the data into Excel and it always comes up: "12 years."
To the naysayers - learn at computers you haters!
Agreed Nash and DRED.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yes, you are, of course quite correct DREDIOCK.
I think anyone who looks at things in Iraq in a negative light obviously hasn't done the research. I mean, come on, history is repleat with examples of Western armies invading the Middle East.
Any bozo can plug the data into Excel and it always comes up: "12 years."
To the naysayers - learn at computers you haters!
Actually I saw it on CNBC. Forget who said it but some expert or so he was called claimed that that was pretty much the average time it takes.
reguardless. As I said. its only been 2 years.
Everyone wants and expects that immediate gratification. And if it doesnt happen immediately or over night at the longest they deem something a failour.
It just dont work that way. Never has. Never will.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I saw it on CNBC. Forget who said it but some expert or so he was called claimed that that was pretty much the average time it takes.
The average time, eh? Based on past invasions of Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Nash
The average time, eh? Based on past invasions of Iraq?
Noo he was historically speaking, based on past wars where there was regime changes.
You and Airhead long lost twins or something?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I remember hearing somwhere that the estimated time for things to completely calm down in Iraq is around 12 years.
We've been there two.
Question is though how long is the US willing/able to wait for it to "calm down" politically,financially or both at the current rate. 12 years??? As it's proving to be far more costly in every regard then when first sold/duped to the US public.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Question is though how long is the US willing/able to wait for it to "calm down" politically,financially or both at the current rate. 12 years??? As it's proving to be far more costly in every regard then when first sold/duped to the US public.
...-Gixer
good question. Unfortunately only time holds the answer.
but nobody in their right mind could assume that things were just going to change overnight. Or in only a year or two.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Noo he was historically speaking, based on past wars where there was regime changes.
Oh, duh... My bad (waves to Lazs).
See, I got the 'Past Wars That Don't Look Like Current Wars and How They Relate to Current Wars That Don't Look Like Past Wars' data CD in the mail, but I forgot to subscribe before the demo timed out. I feel like such an idiot.
Had I subscribed... like, duh, totally... Twelve years!
-
Cept maybe Nash
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Cept maybe Nash
Well no, I didn't expect things to get better overnight.
Fact is - I didn't expect things to get better at all, one bit, as a result of the invasion. Not overnight, not in twelve years, not with a fork, not with a cork not in a box and not with socks.
So feh to you.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I remember hearing somwhere that the estimated time for things to completely calm down in Iraq is around 12 years.
This instant gratification society we have really cracks me up sometimes as though someone is supposed to wave a magic wand and overnight everything is supposed to be ok.
Another thing is whether rest of the americans are aware that it can take 10 years of commitment.
The adrenalin is finally evaporating from the people and they've realised the reality; it will drain money, americans will be dying there and it is not going end in two weeks.
For the USA's sake, it is very important that Iraq will become a truly democratic and peaceful nation in the middle east.
A truly free Iraq would be the most effective way to calm down things in the middle east.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
For the USA's sake, it is very important that Iraq will become a truly democratic and peaceful nation in the middle east.
A truly free Iraq would be the most effective way to calm down things in the middle east.
Yes but the question brought up numerous times before the war was whether a country like Iraq with it's many different factions ever able to be governed by a democracy?
I think this is a very interesting article on this question.
http://www.globalengage.org/issues/2004/08/iraq.htm
...-Gixer
-
But can the US taxpayers handle 10 more years of this.. (http://costofwar.com/)
-
Why is this even a topic?
Major combat operations were ended over two years ago. Bush said so when adressing the world and his troops. The military really should refuse to accept any bullets and sue the iraqis for not holding up their end of it.
-
Bring 'Em On
-
Never cared whether the US installed a democratic society over there. Histroy has proven that even a stable govt. will be overthrown by religious extremists. I give stability 50 yrs at best over there before those backwards barbariens start doing the same stuff. They always have hated and any excuse they get will justify their actions.
-
LOL. Ya, 12 years. In 12 years the civil war will be over and everything settled down again. :rolleyes:
-
Just install a good dictator and most will be happy. Democracy is overrated.
-
We've been there roughly 800 days and spent about 300 billion dollars on the effort. At that rate (375 million/day), 10 more years of occupation puts the cost of the war to the US taxpayer at approximately $1.37 trillion dollars.
Currently, US debt stands at 7.5 trillion dollars, and is increasing at a rate of $2 billion/day. The Chinese and Japanese are loaning us 80% of this money, but I am convinced they'll want us to pay it back someday, with interest.
Given all the shortcomings in this country (lack of affordable healthcare for millions, poverty, second-tier educational system, looming deficit in Social Security, loss of high wage jobs to 3rd world countries, loss of manufacturing base, etc) and the fact that we are also committed to building democracy in Afghanistan and there is still North Korea and Iran to deal with, plus our military now seems to be consistently missing recruiting goals, I do wonder what the monetary benefit of a stable democracy in Iraq will be to the US taxpayer.
Might've been easier to answer had we found intercontinental missiles and nuclear warheads in Iraq. But apparently those are in North Korea.
-
Originally posted by Goth
Never cared whether the US installed a democratic society over there. Histroy has proven that even a stable govt. will be overthrown by religious extremists. I give stability 50 yrs at best over there before those backwards barbariens start doing the same stuff. They always have hated and any excuse they get will justify their actions.
yep, those western religious extremist have overthrow many a govn't in the middle-east, even stable democratic ones. they've also supported the most hideous dictators in the region with little regard for human rights.
-
btw Gixer, thanks for the link to the article on Democracy in Iraq. It was pretty interesting.
-
all of this as the real president of Iraq rots away in a prison cell writing his memoirs....:D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
all of this as the real president of Iraq rots away in a prison cell writing his memoirs....:D
What do you mean by "real president"?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
good question. Unfortunately only time holds the answer.
but nobody in their right mind could assume that things were just going to change overnight. Or in only a year or two.
Radical Right Wing Fanatic Bush and company said it was going to be a walk in the park...
:D
-
post a link you lefty commie cuz I dont believe you!
:rofl
-
look me up in 10 years...
I'll lend you a hanky for all that egg on your face
-
Originally posted by Eagler
look me up in 10 years...
I'll lend you a hanky for all that egg on your face
Wow that's pretty ballsy, only ten years eh? I'm sure we will are remember your post.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow that's pretty ballsy, only ten years eh? I'm sure we will are remember your post.
not as "ballsy" as many here whining about it after only two
-
Tell us what you think it will be like in 10 years, Eagler.
-
Important question is, how would've Iraq turned out without invasion in 10 years. I think the toppling of SH was a good move, just unfinished business from the GW1, but staying in there is waste of good money.
Let them kill eachothers as much as they like, as long as they dont distrupt much of our oilsupplies and dont acquire weapons that can bring devastation to the western nations (including Israel). If they wanna stay backwards, let them.
-
I'm just curious what the anti-war, anti-US folks actually want?
It's not like you can go back in time, not matter how much you
whine about it. Come up with a solution, then enlighten the rest
of us.
Of course maybe all you want is for someone to fail, and the
righteous indignation is just a smoke screen.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What do you mean by "real president"?
saddam got 99.9% of the vote, he is the "real president" of iraq.
(the .1% that voted against saddam disapeared)
-
the answer is obsidian, but no one dares.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam got 99.9% of the vote, he is the "real president" of iraq.
(the .1% that voted against saddam disapeared)
Ah, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
LOL. Ya, 12 years. In 12 years the civil war will be over and everything settled down again. :rolleyes:
Well it's pretty obvious their on to the real reason for the invasion of Iraq....We control Iraq, we control the oil. A little soft shoe and a two step... we take Kuwait, Much easier than Iraq did.
We now have Iraq's oil, and Kuwait's oil....The House Of Saud? I don't think so...A little jump across the border and we have total control of the oil in the middle east. If it where me I would strike quickly, a suprise attack . A simultainious attack on Karg Island. You could see the fire from Paris. While Israel takes out the Iranians Nuke sites.
-
Why all the discussion about democracy and 12 years ??? This was NEVER about some egalitarian crusade to rid the oppressed Iraqi people of a cruel dictator. This is about sercuring oil reserves under western freindly government.
The White House and for that matter the UK government couldn't care who or what controls the people of Iraq as long as it is stable enough to trade and pro-west. So seeing civil war looming we in the west need to make sure our main supplier stays on side. Now the pro-west King Fahd is basically dead but not quite and the Crown Prince who will take over is not exactly pro-west - he is ultra Islamic and the Wahhabis he aligns with run mosques in Saudi that trun out more militants than Heinz turn out baked beans.
So we now have the prospect of civil war in Iraq (fueled by Saudi and Syrian insurgents taught the Koran in Saudi mosques) which limits production and development, and Saudi been controlled by a conservative Islamic (who built the mosques the insurgents are being taught in) who could jack the prices or just poke the finger to the west and sell to the now booming China. This is not good ..... Time to get GWB involved and try to get the Crown Prince back on side. I think it would have been an "interesting" conversation.
Forget democracy and WMD and cruel dictators - read the book, watch the news, note the names, and wake up to reality that the outlook of $100 a barrel oil price can be a powerful driver in foreign affairs.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Why all the discussion about democracy and 12 years ??? This was NEVER about some egalitarian crusade to rid the oppressed Iraqi people of a cruel dictator. This is about sercuring oil reserves under western freindly government.
That's a very simplistic, tired view you have there, in my opinion.
-
There are a few people here with the ability to fully digest this combined with a willingness to give you an honest and intelligible accounting of it from their perspective.
But... they won't touch it. Can't blame them. [edit] shreckit yes I can.
-
This is about sercuring oil reserves under western freindly government.
Awesome. I bet you used your crystal ball to spy in on the oval office so you have hard facts that this was our prime motivation. Or did you use your ESP?
Blahaha!
-
I don't know which part you are refering too Nash, but to say the war in Iraq was about oil is a point I'd debate.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't know which part you are refering too Nash, but to say the war in Iraq was about oil is a point I'd debate.
Great open a new thread. :D
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by oboe
btw Gixer, thanks for the link to the article on Democracy in Iraq. It was pretty interesting.
No worries, nice to see someone on this board for once able to enjoy a balanced article.
...-Gixer
-
Steve, Nuke,
Go ahead and dismiss it as "tired and simplistic", take the piss.
But please tell me where in the past we have invaded a foreign country simply to install a democracy ? And please don't wheel out the "We saved France in the war blah blah ....." that was fighting an agressor who had clear aims. We have however taken military action many times to try to secure strategic assets - after the first world war the UK invaded Russia with the specific aim of securing the oil fields from the revolution. Look at the actions around the Ploesti oil fields in WW2.
The evidence is simply not there that the democratic crusade is the driver. What about Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, and all the others ?? Cuba is on your doorstep ........
I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy. Look at the connections, the history of the last 40 years in the Middle East, the money involved, the effect of oil price and supply on your economy, the key figures of power and influence.
I'm not saying the invasion was wrong but we should be honest why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done. Trying to work behind this veil of political correctness is costing lives.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
"...we should be honest why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done."
Oh?
-
Gixer - interesting article. Also interesting to place it in the context of the unrest starting in Eygpt where the government has banned certain candidates due to them campaigning on a religious basis. In an interview I saw on CNN an Eygptian minister said that there should be a separation of religion and politics - an intersting stand to take in an Islamic country if the article is to be belived and one which acoordingly could escalate the unrest.
-
But please tell me where in the past we have invaded a foreign country simply to install a democracy ?
so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before. No new idea is a good idea?
I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy.
No you're the one w/ the one faceted "it's all about oil" whine.
I think it's foolish for you to consider this what "it's all about"
Do you need a list of contries/entities that stated Iraq possessed WMD's? Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses? Or is it convenient, as it is for leftist whackos, for you to ignore so many countries/entities claims?
-
Originally posted by Sparks
I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy. Look at the connections, the history of the last 40 years in the Middle East, the money involved, the effect of oil price and supply on your economy, the key figures of power and influence.
They can look much closer to home then that. There's quite a long list of countries that have been interfered with so to speak since then end of WW2 all in the name of democracy and freedom. Iraq is just the latest FU.
...-Gixer
-
Sparks, I don't believe we invaded Iraq to install a democracy or for the oil.
I feel that there were many, many factors that all added up to almost no choice other than to invade.
First, we didn't simply invade a soveriegn country. Iraq was under a cease-fire agreement from the 1st gulf war. They were in breach of that agreement. Now, technically the agreement was with the UN, but we all know who does the fighting and who carries the load....and it isn't the UN.
911 plays a huge factor in the decision, and not because anyone thought Iraq had ties to 911, but rather the atmosphere in the US following 911 made it almost impossible for GWB to ignore the possible threat Iraq posed.
Up until the war beganm even the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others believed that Iraq had WMD unacounted for.
Coupled with Saddam's refusal to ever fully cooperate or account for tons of missing WMD, which to this day are not accounted for, and also the fact that the US had a huge force on the ground just to force Saddam to allow inspections again were big factors.
The US spent lots of time and money over 14 years trying to get Saddam in compliance. GWB placed a large force on the ground, and still Saddam was trying to play games.
GDW had to make a decision based on what was known at the time. We could not afford to continue to play Saddam's game of cat and mouse. GWB did not have the benifit of 20/20 hindsight. GWB and the US congress were faced VERY difficult decision. The decision they made was the correct one IMO, knowing what they knew and taking into account the aftermath of 911....... no excuses for making a weak decision.
The worst case scenario could well have been to do nothing and just hope nothing came of the threats. Unfortunately, that kind of scenario was not an option. We erred in our favor and it turns out Iraq had no WMD, but that doesn't mean we did not prevent some future WMD aquisitions.
Once the invasion was approved, installing a democracy and stabilizing Iraq was and is a priority. It's only logical to do this after so much effort, money and blood was paid to get this job done.
It was not about the oil, the WMD, the people or democracy. It was ensuring we erred in OUR favor concerning an unknown threat, in my opinion.
I think Iraq will come through and be a testimate for freedom in the Middle East. That is my honest belief.
-
Originally posted by Steve
so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before. No new idea is a good idea?
Can you possibly sound any more like a 5 year-old?
Originally posted by Steve
Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses?
No Steve, these countries were all trying to play nice in order to get a shot at some prime Arizona real estate and 24/7 Phil. Jealousy makes people crazy ya know.
-
I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability. Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people. To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.
So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped. The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it. So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.
We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.
For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil. We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them. We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.
-
Originally posted by Steve
so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before. No new idea is a good idea?
No you're the one w/ the one faceted "it's all about oil" whine.
I think it's foolish for you to consider this what "it's all about"
Do you need a list of contries/entities that stated Iraq possessed WMD's? Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses? Or is it convenient, as it is for leftist whackos, for you to ignore so many countries/entities claims?
Do you care at all for the 10s of 1000s of iraqis that are dead and 100 000s of thousands injured and the 1000s or US service men and woman that have died in this invasion you love so much?
-
Originally posted by Sparks
I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability. Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people. To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.
So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped. The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it. So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.
We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.
For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil. We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them. We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.
First mistake.
What makes you think that the US or Britian prefer democracies in their oil supplying states. Present examples.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Once the invasion was approved, installing a democracy and stabilizing Iraq was and is a priority. It's only logical to do this after so much effort, money and blood was paid to get this job done.
Think is Nuke the invasion was never "approved" other then by Bush himself. That's why so many people around the world took exception to that action.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Pongo
First mistake.
What makes you think that the US or Britian prefer democracies in their oil supplying states. Present examples.
That's a great point. I was going to mention something similar.
For instance, Saddam ran Iraq for how long? We never invaded him or any other oil producing nation until Iraq invaded Kuwait.
I'm pretty sick of the simpleminded view that the Iraq war was about oil. Nothing that I have ever seen can justify that view.
Just look at all the Iraqi oil we got after the first gulf war.:rolleyes:
The fact is that Saddam played his cards and lost. All he had to do is cooperate fully and adhere to the cease-fire agreements. It was Saddam's war to prevent, and he decided to push it.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability. Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people. To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.
So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped. The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it. So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.
We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.
For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil. We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them. We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.
Okay what you're saying is "Lets face it folks, we needed the oil, and we went for it."
I find this to be, oh, about a million times more plausible than trying to convince a chicken farmer in Kentucky that his life was on the line if Iraq didn't get biotch-slapped right quick.
Everyone knows that nobody's life was in peril on acount of Iraq.
It's a joke.
So why didn't the admin say "Lets face it folks, we need the oil, and we're going for it?"
Unh-uh. Even THEY wouldn't say something like that. It's basically criminal.
Yes, it might be what's happening, but "[being] honest [about]why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done" is what? Okay?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Think is Nuke the invasion was never "approved" other then by Bush himself. That's why so many people around the world took exception to that action.
...-Gixer
I understand that Gixer. But Iraq could be considered a threat to the US itself at the time, and thus justified.
Like I said, we erred in our favor and GWB really didn't have a choice to wait and see how things might have been.
Turns out we were wrong, but at least we erred in our favor, and for that I'm not sorry. As a side benifit, maybe Iraq and the Middle East will be better off in the long term.
It's not a disaster in my opinion.
-
honesty is the new sin...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay what you're saying is "Lets face it folks, we needed the oil, and we went for it."
I find this to be, oh, about a million times more plausible than trying to convince a chicken farmer in Kentucky that his life was on the line if Iraq didn't get biotch-slapped right quick.
Everyone knows that nobody's life was in peril on acount of Iraq.
It's a joke.
So why didn't the admin say "Lets face it folks, we need the oil, and we're going for it?"
Unh-uh. Even THEY wouldn't say something like that. It's basically criminal.
Yes, it might be what's happening, but "[being] honest [about]why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done" is what? Okay?
Since when in Iraq's history did we ever decide we needed to take it's oil? Makes no sense. On the other hand is the obvious question of Iraq's WMD and refusal to cooperate with inspections, the MINOR detail that Iraq had to be removed from Kuwait and was under a cease-fire agreement from that MINOR little detail..
It's far more plausible to say we invaded Iraq because NOBODY was sure if Saddam had banned weapons and WMD.
But, if you take the sinister, "US is evil" view, then you are gonna say it's about the oil......even though absolutely nothing can be shown to back up that view. It' just something easy to say.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I understand that Gixer. But Iraq could be considered a threat to the US itself at the time, and thus justified.
With all respect Nuke, but.
That's absolute Bush propergander rubbish.
The Bush admin themselves (before 9/11) said that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anyone in the Middle East let alone the US. Nothing changed after 9/11 as far as Iraq being a threat.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Like I said, we erred in our favor and GWB really didn't have a choice to wait and see how things might have been.
BS Nuke....
I have very little tolerance for revisionism.
The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting. They went everywhere Powel told them to go (you know, those places he mentioned in his firey UN speech).
They didn't find squat.
But their deadline for lookin was far from over when Bush said "shreckit anyways, just go - we're comin' in."
"GWB really didn't have a choice to wait " <----- Yeah, like if he waited a second longer it would have meant Iraqi cruise missiles darting over the Atlantic.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
With all respect Nuke, but.
That's absolute Bush propergander rubbish.
The Bush admin themselves (before 9/11) said that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anyone in the Middle East let alone the US. Nothing changed after 9/11 as far as Iraq being a threat.
...-Gixer
With all due respect, I wanted Clinton to do the job for years. Iraq was never going to cooperate. I was glad to see Saddam finnaly shut down.
It was not propganda. Saddam easily could have supplied WMD to others in order to attack the US. He could have tried to kill GWB, like he tried to kill GB.
He needed to be delt with and I'm very glad we did what we did.
-
Originally posted by Nash
BS Nuke....
I have very little tolerance for revisionism.
The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting. They went everywhere Powel told them to go (you know, those places he mentioned in his firey UN speech).
They didn't find squat.
But their deadline for lookin was far from over when Bush said "shreckit anyways, just go - we're comin' in."
"GWB really didn't have a choice to wait " <----- Yeah, like if he waited a second longer it would have meant Iraqi cruise missiles darting over the Atlantic.
Nash, you go ahead and believe it was about oil, you simpleton.
Revisionism? Revisionism is looking back with 20/20 hindesight and saying the US was wrong. At the time, most assumed Iraq possessd WMD. To this day, tons of VX nerve gas are not accounted for.
Yeah, Bush didn't have a choice. Post 911, no second guessing, and Saddam was around long enough playing his games.
I suppose we should have kept a huge military force on Saddam's borders for 14 more years, just to make sure inspectors could be allowed.
The time was right for taking out Saddam, and it was a good decision.
Don't give me your "revisionist" BS, because that's what you are doing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you go ahead and believe it was about oil, you simpleton.
Revisionism? Revisionism is looking back with 20/20 hindesight and saying the US was wrong. At the time, most assumed Iraq possessd WMD. To this day, tons of VX nerve gas are not accounted for.
Yeah, Bush didn't have a choice. Post 911, no second guessing, and Saddam was around long enough playing his games.
I suppose we should have kept a huge military force on Saddam's borders for 14 more years, just to make sure inspectors could be allowed.
The time was right for taking out Saddam, and it was a good decision.
Don't give me your "revisionist" BS, because that's what you are doing.
And you call me a simpleton.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It was not propganda. Saddam easily could have supplied WMD to others in order to attack the US..
How could he supply WMD's when he didn't even have any himself???
That's all just scare mongering.
...-Gixer
-
I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
How could he supply WMD's when he didn't even have any himself???
That's all just scare mongering.
...-Gixer
That's part of my point. People want to use 20/20 hindsight and argue that point, but at the time the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others all said they believed Iraq had WMD.
It was a very real possibility that Iraq had WMD.
The President made a good decision based on the information at the time. We were not going to keep a large force in the area just to be playing games with Saddam.
Saddam could have ended it before it began. Saddam is the whole reason we were even there in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And you call me a simpleton.
Because you are. It was about oil, right? Let's hear your best argument to support that. Then we can compair whatever you come up with with FACTS.
Let's hear why you believe the US invaded Iraq to get the oil. If you can't explain why you believe that, then you are even more sad than I thought.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.
Heh.
You're calling people simpletons for thinking it's about oil.
It clearly wasn't about WMD (unless you think you are being run by a bunch of retards).
So if it's not about WMD, and it's not about oil, what is it about?
(say "democracy" and I will personally reach across the table and bean you).
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh.
You're calling people simpletons for thinking it's about oil.
It clearly wasn't about WMD (unless you think you are being run by a bunch of retards).
So if it's not about WMD, and it's not about oil, what is it about?
(say "democracy" and I will personally reach across the table and bean you).
Yes, I'm calling anyone who thinks it was about oil a simpleton.
I have explained why I thought we invaded. Why don't you present your reason for thinking it was about oil? I'd be willing to bet you cannot support that view by any stretch of the imagination.
You'd have to ignore known facts about being at war with Iraq in the first place, but let's hear it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You's have to ignore known facts about being at war with Iraq in the first place, but let's hear it.
You know what... I just had an epiphany!
I love when that happens.
I'm scrolling up and down this thing, thinking I must be missing something. That I must be way out to lunch, because I am confused and nobody else seems to be.
Totally lost.
Then BOOM! It hit me.
We are here having an argument about the justification for a war. A war. And nobody's in agreement about the justification.
How can a country be in a war, and not be in agreement on why?
That's a recipe for suck.
Vietnam comes to mind.
WWII? You couldn't keep people away from volunteering. Iraq? You can't drag people into it.
That alone - that one thing.... should tell every one of us what we need to know about it. Obfuscation aside - if the cause is worthy, we'd know by our own commitment.
This? What we're doing here? smoke and mirrors. The validity of a war can probably be assuaged by standing outside a recruiting station for a day or two.
-
Fine that you disagree with the war Nash, but don't be an "it's about the oil" guy if you are not prepaired to answer why you feel that way. It's such an ignorant, baseless view.
-
Blarhhg.
I'm here -----
and you're here ----
Peace.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Blarhhg.
I'm here -----
and you're here ----
Peace.
Well chit, you state that it was about oil, then can't even say why you feel that way? Hopefully you will at least think about how dumb that is.
-
There's quite a long list of countries that have been interfered with so to speak since then end of WW2 all in the name of democracy and freedom.
Super power envy. We are capable of looking after our best interests, so we do. If your country was on the world stage and able to look after itself, no doubt it would too. It's not, so you do the best you can. You sit at your desk at home and whine about the US while we take care of ourselves along the way to helping others... wheeeeeeeeeee! Take it!
-
Do you care at all for the 10s of 1000s of iraqis that are dead and 100 000s of thousands injured and the 1000s or US service men and woman that have died in this invasion you love so much?
So, you think Hussein should still be in power then. Well ok. I just can't see leaving a genocidal murderer in power if there is something that can be done about it. Here, we differ.
Of course, you completely fail to consider how many Hussein would have murdered, what terrorists he would have aided, had he been left in power. Must be nice to be able to ignore that.
-
Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people.
I disagree here. I'm not saying that freeing the Iraqi people was the driving force behind getting rid of Hussein. I am saying that is was one of the considerations.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I have very little tolerance for revisionism.
The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting. They went everywhere Powel told them to go (you know, those places he mentioned in his firey UN speech).
They didn't find squat.
...
The mission of UNMOVIC inspectors was not to find anyting but to verify Iraq's cooperaton and compliance with UN Resolutions regarding '91 cease fire issues.
Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
Hanz Blix Jan 2003
-
We are here having an argument about the justification for a war. A war. And nobody's in agreement about the justification.
This is a cool topic in and of itself. :)
Can you name one war the US was involved in that everyone agreed we should get in to? My point is that there are always people here who disagree w/ the war du jour. Even our war for independence was opposed by many.
-
Nash, are you going to explain why you feel the Iraq war was about oil?
-
The funny thing is that I could probably give you a better argument that supports your position than you could ever think of.
But Iraq invasion was not about oil, and I welcome anyone to explain otherwise.
-
Oil is the number one strategic material on the planet.
The entire modern history of the middle east has been dominated by oil.
It was oil that drew the British there at the start of the twentieth century and which led Lord Curzon to claim that the "Allied cause has floated to victory upon a wave of oil" in WW1
The UK fought the Ottoman Empire for control of Iraq - 1914-1918. Interestingly, Lord Curzon, the post war foreign minister, vehemently denied that oil had played any part in the decision to invade. He was later proved to have been lying.
From 1918-1930 the British were engaged in almost continous fighting to hold onto the Iraqi oil fields until the nation was granted a nominal level of independance in 1932.
Britain again siezed the Iraqi oil fields in 1941 to keep them out of German and US hands.
It was the USA's extraction treaty with Saudi Arabia in the immediate post-WW2 period that led State Department Policy Director George Kennan to state that the US had just aquired "the greatest material prize in world history".
It was oil concerns in the 1950s that led to the otherthrow of the Iranian government and installation of the pro-US and authoritarian regime of the Shah.
It was concerns over keeping middle-eastern oil away from the influence of the USSR that formed the basis the "Carter Doctrine" that led directly to the US intervention in the Afghan civil war in the 1970's and '80s.
It was concerns about vast oil wealth falling under the influence of the Iranian Mullahs that prompted the Reagan administration to support Iraq in attacking Iran in 1980.
It was to keep Kuwaiti oil wealth out of the hands of Iraq that Desert Storm was launched in 1991.
In testimony to the senate Armed Services Committee, April 13, 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a “vital interest” of “long standing,” he said, and the United States “must have free access to the region’s resources"
Practically the first action of the US government of occupation was to redenominate Iraqi oil sales from the euro to the dollar.
Recent history is replete with examples of democracies invading or otherwise interferring with the running of resource rich countries under bogus pretexts created to assuage public opinion. The US is no exception, in fact it provides some of the best examples.
Almost every post-war US president has followed a security doctrine of preserving, protecting and extending US oil interests in the persian gulf region. Now you tell me why I should suspend my disbelief and imagine that the Bush II regime is any different in the face of a hundred years of historical precedent.
-
Very nice Momus - though I wish you had footnoted some of the references so I could look at them. Very interesting modern history of the ME.
-
sparks is spot on and it should be obvious to even the most casual observer. futhermore I don't believe there is anything wrong with the western power's policy to secure resources for ourselves. recall that the 1991 gulf war was fought over oil. the iraqis invaded kuwait in order to secure kuwaiti oil reserves and threaten saudi arabia. the western power's hand was forced. the current situation in the middle east is merely a continuation to that conflict. the good news is that it isn't over with iraq, this is just the beginning and i don't expect it will be fully played out in my lifetime. i just read your excellent and accurate synopsis momus.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.
Ok this Simpleton first. :)
(http://www.asponews.org/HTML/Newsletter48_files/Image003.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Are you saying we invaded so we could drive the price up by $20 a barrel?
-
sparks you are undoubtably right that we did it to secure a friendly country in the region so that some progress in the region could be made toward stablizing it.
I think you are wrong tho that we never cared about the people... we cared about em like we cared about the sunmaumi victims... the average person never thinks about either till they are made aware of the plight of those people. Once we know about it tho... it is another story. I also don;t think that the sadmans arrogant attitude while he was torturing his people and attacking his neighbors and supporting terrorists helped him with the American people (I have no idea why more countries werent as appalled and pissed as we were).
I believe the sadman was working on nukes and WMD's in the past and I believe that he probly was up untill he fled the palace. I believe he supported terrorists. I believe he did not live up to the inspections and sanctions. I believe that so long as he was in power the research and construction of WMD and the torturing and murder and tyranny would continue.
I also believe that the world is much better off without him and that what we are doing is a necessary step in human rights for the region.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Are you saying we invaded so we could drive the price up by $20 a barrel?
hehehe
as I have stated before:
Iraq
The right move - could be said the ONLY next move
at the right time
in the right place
history will bare this out, not a bunch of hand wringin internet libs
and yes, securing oil was ONE of the reasons as it had a direct bearing on America's economy and which direction it would head in the years to come.
how many of those whining about the US in Iraq wouldn't have minded if the DJ dropped another 8000 points? uh? I think more of the whiners would have like to have seen that happen than not for several reasons
-
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2005/05/20/ixd20big.jpg)
-
Nuke - Of course the WMD was a consideration but I think events have shown that the level of risk we were facing was less than we were given to believe. I would be interested in any sources you have where intelligence gathered by other than the UK or US shows the same level of risk that was presented to the UN. I believe that post 9-11 the WMD issue became politically convenient and the administrations of the UK and US took advantage of it.
Pongo - read my post - I never said they prefered it - just they thought it was possible. Consider you are having to make the decision about war and after - the choices are (1) you install some puppet leaders in a semi military supported dictatorship or (2) you take the assurances of exiled Iraqis that the people want democracy and run elections. As a western leader up for re-election in a few years the you must be seen to be politically correct - the democracy is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, as we are finding out, the Iraqi people have different ideas on democracy.
Steve - I'm a simpleton then ? Read Momus excellent post, read some history and read some current affairs that don't originate in the US and get back to us.I disagree here. I'm not saying that freeing the Iraqi people was the driving force behind getting rid of Hussein. I am saying that is was one of the considerations.
So if a free Iraqi people was an aim then why are we still there now they have their freedom ?? Why aren't we inviting Islamic freindly forces like Eygpt, Moroco, Jordan etc to take over the role we have there at the moment ? And if Iraq was such a bulwark of terrorist support where are all the insurgent Saudi's, Syrians etc getting there support from now ?? Pakistan is on our side, Afghanistan is under western supervision with friendly government so where ??
Lazs - you are absolutely right about the Sadman regime and it's atrocities so why then do we stand on the sidelines of so many other countries and say "it's internal and we can't get involved" ? Rwanda ? Sudan? Burma?
McGroin - no we invaded to stop it going over $100 a barrel. The rising price is a very good reason to invite Mr Crown Prince to dinner at the ranch ???
Nash - the courage to install or accept whatever kind of regime it takes to stabilize the country and cozy up to it and support it exactly as we have with Saudi Arabia. The key is finding the right people. In Saudi it happenned naturally but may get upset when the new King gets in - hence the get-together in Texas. The democracy experiment looks like failing and civil war is a real probability in my mind. I wonder what the great and the good leaders have in mind then ??
Mine is not a liberal point of view - it's probably more right wing than many of you on here.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.
Well thats all they defended after the invasion, not the police stations not the hospitals not the water plants not any thing at all expept the oil infastructure.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Are you saying we invaded so we could drive the price up by $20 a barrel?
sigh.
No, demand out stripping supply has been on the rise for a long time. So what do you do? Secure your very own supply.
You know during the oil for food scam that Bush and co keep on going about at the UN but look where most (about 80%) of that oil wen't and how much do you think they actually paid for?
...-Gixer
-
There were no WMD
There were no relevent links to terror.
The embargo was going to come off.
And oil was going to start being sold in Euros.
-
And $ has lost over 30% of its value in 3-4 years compared to €.
-
sparks... I am saying that if we were bombarded with media coverage of the sudan every night then we would probly get involved there too. I will concede that because black africa is so unimportant as to how it (or it's resources) affect the planet and.... because it is even more primitive (if that is possible) than the muslim oil bearing countries (no threat to anyone)... I will concede that it would take a hell of a lot more propoganda..
But... I admit that I thought it was a good idea to go after the warlords and was very dissapointed in klinton when he pulled out.
Maybe helping both/either peoples is beyond us but... it seems that there is an opening in the whole muslim dominated oil producing region. To do nothing would probly be worse.
but then... doing nothing is the philosophy of gixer and some others whos countries really couldn't do anything even if they wanted to. No small amount of jealousy enters into the posts of our little scooter riding sheep lover me thinks.
lazs
-
No small amount of jealousy enters into the posts of our little scooter riding sheep lover me thinks.
Yes, it's called: Super Power envy.
-
momus, surprised you left out the coups of 63/68, in the context of all things mentioned.
the rhetoric about the crimes committed by saddam upon the iraqi people and their current welfare is amusing, reads as disingenuous absolution, i'd probably do the same considering the history.
seems obvious sparks, western powers engage in imperialism by proxy, it's cost effective and plays to the masses well. the first casualty of this method is always the right of choice for the indigenous people involved.
china is slumbering gaint on the scale never seen before, with few natural resource other than a few 100 million people to throw at whatever they covet. now was the time for the major parties concerned to take a proactive stance on securing essential resources, water is next in line.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes, it's called: Super Power envy.
Probably why you guys are starting to get so pi**ed off at China lately and blame all your economical problems on them. LOL
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Probably why you guys are starting to get so pi**ed off at China lately and blame all your economical problems on them. LOL
...-Gixer
Can you name one person on this bbs that has complained about China?
I can list several who have complained about the US, including you Gixer.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Can you name one person on this bbs that has complained about China?
I can list several who have complained about the US, including you Gixer.
LOL
Ok I can start with you first, and work my way down the list of usuals.
..-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LOL
Ok I can start with you first, and work my way down the list of usuals.
..-Gixer
Yeah, tell everyone here how I have complained about China. Just quote me for easy reference, then list all the others.
I'll wait.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, tell everyone here how I have complained about China. Just quote me for easy reference, then list all the others.
I'll wait.
C'mon Nuke I don't think you have the time for this one. You should be concentrating on your debate about Iraq and Oil and how that's not one of the US's interests.. LOL
...-Gixer
-
you have no interest in oil gixer?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you have no interest in oil gixer?
Not in this thread I don't.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Not in this thread I don't.
...-Gixer
Why not point out how I have complained about China?
-
I hate the chinese.
Unless it's shrimp and lobster sauce.
Then I hate the chinese afterwards.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why not point out how I have complained about China?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113468
-
I didn't ask to point out were I have discussed China, I asked to point out were I have ever complained about China.
I don't complain.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I didn't ask to point out were I have discussed China, I asked to point out were I have ever complained about China.
I don't complain.
Well I certainly invite everyone else to click the link and make their own decisions on whether or not you are complaining about China in that thead. In my opinion you certainly were.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't complain.
[expletive deleted]
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well I certainly invite everyone else to click the link and make their own decisions on whether or not you are complaining about China in that thead. In my opinion you certainly were.
Well, no wonder why you never get involved in any debates. You are not mentally equiped.
-
Why not point out how I have complained about China?
Last time NUKE played that game with personal attacks. He claimed with full avatard innocense that he didn't commit any such thing.
Took me 1 minute to search up a post from NUKE that contained discrimination of origin and a personal attack all in one sentence.
Anyone care to do the same with China comments? I doubt it. You see, NUKE, you're not worth the trouble.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Last time NUKE played that game with personal attacks. He claimed with full avatard innocense that he didn't commit any such thing.
Took me 1 minute to search up a post from NUKE that contained discrimination of origin and a personal attack all in one sentence.
Anyone care to do the same with China comments? I doubt it. You see, NUKE, you're not worth the trouble.
LOL, no you did not. I made fun of a post and said it sounded like two Eurotards bantering in watermelon English. I did not bash any country or country of origin.
Of all my posts since I have been around, I have really tried to be careful and not bash anyone's country or people themselves. I don't know of any time when I have bashed anyone's country.
I have slipped and called people names on a couple of occasions, but overall I do not do that.
I was calling people simpletons the other day though, because I think that people who believe that Iraq war was only about oil are simpletons.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Of all my posts since I have been around, I have really tried to be careful and not bash anyone's country or people themselves.
What about your posts when you weren't around? Bet some those were pretty insulting.
-
You never fail to make me smile, Holden.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Of all my posts since I have been around, I have really tried to be careful and not bash anyone's country or people themselves. I don't know of any time when I have bashed anyone's country.
:rofl :rofl
...-Gixer
-
(http://www.dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/iraqi.jpg)