Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LUPO on January 23, 2003, 03:46:16 PM
-
(http://lupoweb.supereva.it/iraq-explained.gif)
-
:)
-
Now theres a funny wop
-
does everyone think all the oil companies come from usa?,,usa doesnt own these big oil companies,,,,there own by all of the world,,,and all of the world uses them,,,so if your going to blame war on anyone,,better stick your fingers back at your own chest before you blame it all on the usa,,lol<~usa is not the only country pressing for war on iraq,,lol
-
Like England for instance, where gas is $8 a gallon.
-
That is so funny! It is so funny it even makes me forget how completley useless, pointless and insignificant Europe is in current world affairs....
-
if we kill him & dismantle his regime AND take his oil ... all the better
would even the playing field dealing with OPEC and those fine gentlemen .............
-
I'm not blaming Usa at all. I like Usa. And american people, of course.
I'm blaming USA gouvernment.
Everyone that speaks about countries or continents and not about people, everybody that is unable to be ironic is completley useless, pointless and insignificant...
;)
-
Lupo- the world has it's hands in those fuel companies just as much as the US...
So if the US government is guilty of "only going in for oil", they aren't alone, the rest of the world is keeping 'em company.
-SW
-
If we were in it for the oil, wouldn't we just lift the sanctions and take his oil at 1/2 market value?
Don't be so nieve.....
-
That makes no sense, he invaded kuwait cause they were producing too much oil lowering the price. In other words, if up to him he would reduce the supply raising the price. So he could build more weapons.
-
War is just a business, udie. And this war too. Belive me.
Perhaps you naive?
Ah, wulfe,
I dunno if the world has it's hands in those fuel companies just as much as the US...
...but I'm sure that mr Bush has its own hands in it! :D
-
I dunno if the world has it's hands in those fuel companies just as much as the US...
go look,,there world owned<~~your saying that canada,,,england,,germany,,china,,russia,, italy,,spain,,dont have there hand in the oil as much as usa? bullcrap,,all those goverments have there hands in it,,lol,,your own country italy depends on more outside oil than usa does,,,your monthly import is way higher
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/imports.html <~~go there and look for your self,,,usa is far down the list of monthly oil intake compared to italy,,lol
During 2001, about 48 percent of U.S. crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19 percent from South America, 15 percent from Mexico, and 14 percent from Canada), while 30 percent came from the Persian Gulf region (18 percent from Saudi Arabia, 9 percent from Iraq, and 3 percent from Kuwait).
-
Maybe I'm mistaken Lupo- but what country is featured in the following links?
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=it-it
http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Siteflow/Country/SF_CY_Italy.asp
http://www.bp.com/in_your_area/transition_page.asp?id=36
Unless you don't use any form of gas, petroleum or oil (and this is not limited only to vehicles), then your hands are clean.
The above companies are also jointly owned with European nations.
-SW
-
Lupo- the world has it's hands in those fuel companies just as much as the US...
Wrong.
Those oil companies have operations in nearly every European country on the continent, true. They market their products there. But your point is a red herring. They are not owned by Italians or Germans or Ukrainians or Poles. And the vast majority of profits don't go to share-holders in those countries.
You see, the real issue is where the profits go. Some of the biggest oil and petroleum companies in the world are primarily owned by interested parties in... the UK and US.
And the two countries that are most likely to attack Iraq are... the UK and US.
Fancy that!
Furthermore, this isn't an issue of who uses the oil, but who controls the oil. The end-users are just people to make money off of. If Iraqi oil starts to trickle, then flood into the market, world crude prices will plummet. That will reduce the profits of the oil companies - a large part of which finds its way back into the American economy. So we now have the US saying they will take care of the oil 'for the people of Iraq'. How kind and thoughtful!
-
France, Russia and even the Dutch have their hands in these big oil companies too Dowding.
And I am right. It doesn't matter how much of it you have your hands in, you still have your hands IN IT.
-SW
-
No no no!
It started as a joke, but if you take it seriously, at least think what we're speaking about.
I use oil and oil derivates, of course. Nobody has is hands clean.
But this is not the point.
And the point is not about USA or Europe or my poor country, Italy. The point is about a war wich is starting and I don't belive is in any way reasonnable.
Many people will die.
Like you and me.
People will lose their houses. Civilians, as usual, will suffer the whorse.
American people are going to die.
Iraq people.
I think its crazy.
I want to keep my hands clean about this.
And I'm happy to know that many american peoples think the same way.
"We believe that as people living
in the United States it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names
Not in our name
will you wage endless war
there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions
of blood for oil
Not in our name
will you invade countries
bomb civilians, kill more children
letting history take its course
over the graves of the nameless
Not in our name
will you erode the very freedoms
you have claimed to fight for
Not by our hands
will we supply weapons and funding
for the annihilation of families
on foreign soil
Not by our mouths
will we let fear silence us
Not by our hearts
will we allow whole peoples
or countries to be deemed evil
Not by our will
and Not in our name
We pledge resistance
We pledge alliance with those
who have come under attack
for voicing opposition to the war
or for their religion or ethnicity
We pledge to make common cause
with the people of the world
to bring about justice,
freedom and peace
Another world is possible
and we pledge to make it real."
http://www.notinourname.net/
The U.S. Congress failed to listen to the overwhelming number of people who expressed their opposition to a war on Iraq in a massive outpouring of calls, e-mails and faxes to their elected officials.
We believe that it is unconscionable to send young people in the U.S. armed forces into combat in an illegal war that serves only the interests of Big Oil.
Instead of spending $200 billion of taxpayers' money on another war in the Middle East, the funds should be used to create jobs and finance education, housing, heathcare and other vital human needs.
We join with the millions who want to take action to prevent a senseless war that is likely to lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. This path of the Bush Administration can only lead to an escalation of violence that endangers people everywhere.
The Congress votes for war. We Vote No War
http://www.votenowar.org/
-
Someone please explain to me how the interests of Big Oil would be helped by a Gulf war against Iraq.
ra
-
12 years. Saddam has had 12 years to cooperate with the UN. He has ducked and evaded them for 12 years. He failed to cooperate and follow the rules laid out by the UN- present them with all his bio/chem weapons and prove he destroyed them all.
He has failed on every front to obey the UN for 12 years.
Some people actually believe he's had a change of heart.
Buy into what you want Lupo- Saddam's had 12 years.
At this point, fuk him.
-SW
-
I'm quite agree. Fuk that criminal Saddam. Not kidding.
But unfortunatly I've the strange feeling that somone else wants to fuk us...
and fukin the mothers and sisters and wifes of the soldiers that will go there to fuk Saddam....
And, in the same time, fukin american contributors that are spending their money in order to fuk Saddam instead to invest in reserch, environment, healt and so on...
and is fukin the strong relations and alliances with links europe and usa
...and so on fukin...
So, at the and, I'm not so sure who is fukin who... :rolleyes:
Sorry for my poor english, btw. It's hard for me to express in english more complicated thoughts than: fuk somone ;)
-
yup,,UN inspectors check out everyone elses wepons of mass destuction,,why should saddam be aloud to go unchecked?,,what makes him so special that he doesnt have to threw the same checks that every othere country has to go threw?
-
UN (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5957&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=inspect)
Click on the link
UN report (http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect)
-
Sorry for my poor english - Lupo
No, don't apologize. In its own way, your post was really fukin' profound.
"So, at the and, I'm not so sure who is fukin who... "
-
Originally posted by LUPO
And, in the same time, fukin american contributors that are spending their money in order to fuk Saddam instead to invest in reserch, environment, healt and so on...
Name one other country that spends even close to what we do on R&D on the environment, and heath. You can't because there isn't. Piss poor argument there.
-
Some people are calling the US faciest these days, lately I find it hard to disagree.
Think about about the defention of facism, you might find it hard to argue, between the patriot act and this 'Oil' war.
-
France, Russia and even the Dutch have their hands in these big oil companies too Dowding.
You're seriously suggesting BP Amocco has any significant Russian ownership? Go on any financial site and check out who has the controlling interests in the Shell, BP, Exxon etc. I think you'll be surprised.
He has failed on every front to obey the UN for 12 years.
And? Israel has failed to obey UN resolutions for 40 years, but I don't see anybody clammoring to go to war over it...
-
It is so funny it even makes me forget how completley useless, pointless and insignificant Europe is in current world affairs....
We can not, however, forget how self centered, narrow minded and ignorant YOU are. And foolish too.
Tell me again, which state was France again? I know you had a hard time looking it up on the American map. :D
-
Now Now Dowding...Dont pick on Israel. They are allies so they are allowed to ignore every UN resolution against them. Just as Pakistan is allowed to aid in NKoreas nuclear development and play with State sponsered Terrorism. You are either with us or against us. And if You are with us the Perks are great.
Ra if you look through these threads you will read an article I linked that points out that The US needs more stable allies and sources for Oil because there is a real fear that they could lose Saudi Arabia, There is your next coup from Islamic extremists waiting to happen.
-
so bp isnt owned by the british, hmmm interesting.....oh dowding exactly how much time have you spent in the oil patch?
-
It is a US/UK multinational, with its HQ in the UK. I stated as much above.
Ping - UN resolutions are only held to be important if it's in the national interest of the parties concerned. Blair and Bush talk about UN credibility, when it's the UK and US who have been undermining its authority for years.
-
so I am guessing by your non answer that its no time in the "oil bidness"?
Do you also believe oil is in big pools or lakes underground to?
-
Non-answer? It's a US/UK multinational - BP merged with Amoco several years ago. It's certainly not wholely British owned. I can read, you see - you don't need to be working in the oil industry to read the newspapers. Amazing, eh?
I've a Masters degree in Applied Physics which included some geo-physics. Oil extraction is not completely alien to me, but I'm no expert. You, on the other hand, might have difficulty explaining the finer points of relativistic quantum mechanics. But that's pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand... like your point of argument!
Besides, yet again, I must remind you that people watch TV these days and quite often read as well. I should think basic facts about the structure of the earth are well-known.
What is this 'bidness'? Unfortunately, I only speak English and a little French, and even less German and Spanish - I don't recognise that word. Perhaps, you could use one of those useful web translation tools. When you do, hurry back and let me know what you are exactly trying to say. I can't wait. No, really.
-
you are talking about the oil business their skippy. So your background on it is important. If you have no experience in it please refrain from posting your drivel.
way to go personal, we know what that means.
bidness in quotes was a joke bro, but having no clue on the oil business I guess you didn't get it.
If it was a discussion on what you took then I would refrain, understand?
-
Personal? You're oversensitive fella. It would have been personal if I'd called you a 'f*cking communist studmuffingot', for instance. I've been called that - that was fairly personal. But I didn't.
My point stands. I was demonstrating that you don't need to be working the oil fields to know about the ownership of oil exploitation companies. It's kind of like not needing to be an expert in software engineering to know that Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft. Call it common knowledge. That is all.
Sorry if I didn't get your little joke. Clearly it went well over my head - afterall I haven't worked in the oil industry, have I?
-
What seems to be emerging in the conciousness of some people on this board and elsewhere is:
The war on Iraq is inevitable, even though every British cabinet member keeps saying it is not.
The inevitability is implicit, not explicit.
The war is about oil. Not in the "GWB is starting this war to personally profit through his oil connections" sense, because that really is irrational conspiracy theory. No, the war is about ensuring a controlling interest in middle east oil production on behalf of the industrialized nations whose economies depend on stable oil prices.
And a lot of us are uncomfortable about our taxes being spent on a military action in a 'far off land' for economic purposes. There's no doubt that the flow, price and availability of oil affect us all in our daily lives, and much as we might like to be free of it's influence, our futures are intimately intwined with the future of oil production and refinement. Some people think that this is reason enough to start a conflict. I for one do not.
Oil is addictive. The more we use it for fuel, plastics etc, the more we become dependent upon it. This has been going on for nearly 100 years. Perhaps we should be directing our efforts and resources to breaking the dependency rather than reinforcing it. That doesn't just mean investing heavily in renewable energy, but also into alternatives for oil derived products. No, it won't be easy, more difficult than war even, although I'm not suggesting one is an alternative to the other, merely that if we start now, maybe our policy makers won't feel compelled to start another war when for example China decides it wants exclusive dominion over the Spratley islands or something.
What shocks me is the transparency of the pretexts used to justify this impending conflict. Firstly it's about WMD, then it's about regime change, then it's about terrorism.
Each of these reasons has been tried out on the public, and seeing that many people (in the UK at least) do not accept these reasons individually as casus belli, the policy makers of Europe and the US have decided to roll all of them together in the hope that public opinion will tip in favour of at least supporting a deployment of troops.
Of course the UK and the US have been dropping munitions on Iraq on an almost monthly basis for the last 10 years, so in point of fact the conflict never ended anyway.
Saddam Hussein has to go. And if he has to go, is not right that we should measure the other dictators in the world with the same yardstick? There's no shortage of genocidal dictators past and present, but something tells me we aren't about to try and depose Jiang Zemin and install a democractic government in the PRoC.
In fact, what's so special about Hussein? He's just another name in a list of 20 or more dictators around the world, installed or endorsed by us, then deposed or killed by us or their opressed populations, when they have:
a) served their purpose
b)decided that getting in to bed with us was a bad idea.
c)abused human rights on TV
d)dared to have economic ideas above their station.
e)tortured enough people
f)generally behaved towards us in an uppity way
Iraq is a mess of our own making. If we do invade and depose, then we better make sure we leave the placein a better way than we found it. I can't say I'm hopeful that will be the outcome.
-
bounder steps down ...
goes to his bicycle and pedals back to his grass hut :)
the anti -oil man :)
-
lol eagler. :)
I may be a card carrying member of the Worldwide fraternity of no good hippie communist treehugging peacenik liberal hand wringing appeasers but:
I'm not anti-oil, any more than you are anti-trees for example.
I am, however, anti-violent death.
Judging by your previous posts, you seem to be very much in favour of the 'life is sacrosanct' school of thought.
Would this be an accurate assumption? Does pro-life extend to the born as well as the unborn child?
I have lofty ideals, like one day we (the human species) may be able to all stop killing people for money, power influence, land, water, religion, revenge, convenience, and yes, even oil.
I don't expect it to happen, ever. Why?
Because we are animals, and we behave like animals. Lions will never get peace in their time, because they are as hard wired as we are. As long as there are lions, there will be violent death for lions of all ages.
Culture and Civilization are a thin veneer over the ugly truth - we fight for dominance and resources just like our beastly brethren - but instead of beating our chests or roaring across the Serengeti, our Alpha males sit at home and play their dominance games by proxy.
I for one would like to see a leader lead. Not sit at the back eating popcorn and pontificating on the evils of everyone else, but take their troops into battle themselves.
And I don't live in a grass house. If I did, I would've smoked it by now anyway. :p
-
nice post, bounder :)
-
bounder
yes, all life is precious - born and unborn
I too would like all of us to live in peace, but unlike you, I think it will happen one day - when man's conciousness is raised enough to see we are truly brothers BUT until then I say kick thier arse first and hard :)
Seriously, if I went off into my beliefs concerning man's conciousness, spiritual evolution, our quest for enlightenment & how all of us are tied together, creating a universal level of conciousness which is the baseline of the world's divinity - u'd think me nuts :)
======================================
so far we haven't fired a single shot and have gotten more results out of Saddam in the last 12 months than the entire world got out of him for the last 10 years. I don't think he is a nice guy. I don't think left alone, he would leave us alone. I think the gov knows much more about him and his croonies and are taking steps to head off a disaster. I think once it starts we should finish - once and for all. He, Saddam has the power in his hands to prevent anything from happening to his country and his ppl. All he has to do is bend over backwards and produce what he says he doesn't have (me thinks he is lying :)). Taking that course of action would set the US up to be the aggressor if they tried anything. But not coming clean he gives the US carte blanche to wipe his arse off the face of the earth and with his arse, too many innocents.
if the global community, of which i think most believes saddam is hiding the truth, put as much pressure on him as they are now the US and their buildup - if they's had applied like pressure from the get go ('92) with saddam, this buildup and possible future military action would never have had to happen.
-
Grünherz wrote:
completley useless, pointless and insignificant Europe is in current world affairs....
Now yer emotions are in control of your mind again. Remember, we dinnae start the war on the Balkans. Europe just dinnae stop it.
If Europe wa insignificant and pointless, the invasion would have taken place already. While the US doesn't need Europe to strike, an already stumbling US economy would be hit hard if the European market was nullified.
It's called economical interdependence. For a thriving economy to take place, you need markets. The US is lucrative to Europeans, and Europe is lucrative to Americans.
The US cannot be a sole cowboy in the world today. It is, like every other country and more so than most, dependent on other countries for future growth and prosperity. Much like the European countries.
-
Europe cant afford to cut itself from American markets. We are co-depedent. If the US invaded Iraq tomorrow Europe would ring its hands and moan and groan but sit back and take it like the little squeak it has become.
Europe didnt start the war in the balkans, it could not stop it. What makes you think it could stop or even effect the invasion of Iraq.
The reason the US doesnt just go ahead and do it isnt because of European Economic pressure. Hell even folks in America dont wholy support it. The impact that an unilateral invasion of Iraq on America World Prestige would be great. This impact would be real. No can possibly believe Europe will cut its markets to the US.
Oil alone has the greatest impact on the world economy. France and Russia benefit more from the current situation. So ofcourse they are against anything that would disrupt that.
The war for oil roadkill is the same thing you lefties cried during the Gulf War. The US didnt take over the oil in Kuwait and we certainly didnt take the Iraqi oil fields. Its also assinine to think that the US citizenry would turn a blind eye if the president went in and turned over the Iraqi oil fields to American Companies. Just roadkill. Whether you like Bush or not is irrelevant. You should atleast try to argue if you think Suddam is a threat to the region and the world or not.
But the war for oil bs aint going nowhere. If we wanted that oil we would took it during the last war.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
yup,,UN inspectors check out everyone elses wepons of mass destuction,,why should saddam be aloud to go unchecked?,,what makes him so special that he doesnt have to threw the same checks that every othere country has to go threw?
United States of America does not allow the UN weapons inspectors to check otu the US weapons of mass destruction.
Likewise USA has dodged several other UN proceedings about keeping eye on nuclear and bio weapons.
You remember that USA refused to pay their debs to UN for years and years, until suddenly after 911 affair they finally noticed, that help of UN might actually be useful.
So if USA dodges UN weapons inspectors - why the hell should Iraq allow them?
Oh, because US can be the big bully and just force them.
-
Thing is Eagler, the US hasn't got anything on him. or rather, they lack the hard evidence against him. So he can argue that he has come clean and the US is the agressor.
Not that I care. He's a murderer, tyrant etc, opressing his people. So, we get cheap oil prices, or so that's the reason. if the secondary effect is Saddam dead and at least a slim possibility of democracy, it's worth it. IMHO.
I just feel sorry for the poor Iraqi soldiers who'll die by US weapons. Poor sods won't have a chance.
-
Wotan, heh, you wonder why there's this expression 'ugly American'?
If the US invaded Iraq tomorrow Europe would ring its hands and moan and groan but sit back and take it like the little squeak it has become.
This may have something to do with it. The US is the only superpower in the world. It can basically do as it wants. Does that mean that all other countries are squeakes? The economic 'wars' with tolls etc between the US and Europe seem to indicate that the US cannot do what it wants when it wants how it wants with everything without suffering consequences.
Heh, you complain about US-bashing. Wotans post and many like them explain why that happens. Hell, if you piss off your friends like this, imagine how you piss off those that DON'T like you. It seems the 'ugly American' thing is founded in truth.
Europe didnt start the war in the balkans, it could not stop it. What makes you think it could stop or even effect the invasion of Iraq
Heh, we already have. You see, some Americans are worried about world opinion. It's sort of like going to a party where you're the biggest meanest mofo there. You could tear the place apart and be a general amazinhunk. No one at the party would like you though and you'd be isolated and thought poorly of. Or you could behave rationally, arguing for what music should be played and using body language (flexing your muscles) to help get your choice played.
I repeat again. No nation has hold power for more than a few thousand years. Right now posts such as Wotans make me hope that the US fall from grace will come sooner rather than later. I'm beginning to understand how one can grow enough hatred towards the US to fly stuff into buildings. Not that I'd ever condone it; it's just that I find the bile rising in ME, and I'm a supporter of the US. I can imagine what opponents might feel.
Yes, the US is a big bad bullie. Yes, you can flex your muscles and strut around. But arrogance breeds contempt and hatred.
I hate to say this, but it is attitudes and expressions like Wotans and those alike that help foster hatred amongst fundamentalists. There's a reason why they chose the US, not Britain, for their most spectacular attack.
You don't live in a vacuum. Get over yourselves. You're powerful, but right now, some of your citizens are just pure amazinhunks drunk on their nations power.
Am not saying Europe will cut off the US market - that's just ridiculous. I am saying that Europe, being a wealthy part of the world, is important to the US and vice versa. 'World opinion' is really the opinion of the countries that matter - usually the rich ones. The US administrations policies reflect on the US people, since it's a democracy. Same as here.
This is directed at those arrogant nincopoops who haven't enough brain or patience to grasp more than a white and black childish world. it doesn't apply to the more educated Americans, be they pro war Iraw, anti-Europe or whatever. And Wotan, I sincerely hope your post was made in a macho Tom Clancy patriotism kind of mood, which temporarily disenganged your otherwise well functioning mind.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You're seriously suggesting BP Amocco has any significant Russian ownership? Go on any financial site and check out who has the controlling interests in the Shell, BP, Exxon etc. I think you'll be surprised.
And? Israel has failed to obey UN resolutions for 40 years, but I don't see anybody clammoring to go to war over it...
Ahhh...why am I not suprised Dowding has a problem with Isreal?
Your true colors are showing.
-
It's started like a joke, but became a very interesting feedback about different points of wiew of the whole Iraqui story. More, became a very interesting poll about people here in the community. I really want to thanks everybody expressing theirs opoinion here. It is argument of reflexion for me.
BTW, my position about the question is very near to the one expressed by StSanta. Thanks to him by espressing in a so clear and polite way something that was becoming clear to me. I strongly believe in the possibility of dialog also when positions seems to be very far each other.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
bounder
yes, all life is precious - born and unborn
I too would like all of us to live in peace, but unlike you, I think it will happen one day - when man's conciousness is raised enough to see we are truly brothers BUT until then I say kick thier arse first and hard :)
Seriously, if I went off into my beliefs concerning man's conciousness, spiritual evolution, our quest for enlightenment & how all of us are tied together, creating a universal level of conciousness which is the baseline of the world's divinity - u'd think me nuts :)
======================================
[/B]
You mean I don't already? :p
Seriously though, I wouldn't think you were nuts at all, optimistic perhaps, but certainly not nuts. I think we probably differ quite a lot on our core beliefs about consiousness, spirituality and enlightenment, but I am pleased that we both agree on the ideal outcome of our repective efforts: where all humanity recognises the importance of loving ones neighbour.
I am not a Christian, or even religious in any way, but I would be the first person to espouse the doctrine of Jesus on conflict. Divine or not, he was a true philosopher (changing the world, not analysing it). But I recognise the political difficulty of adhering to a policy of 'turning the other cheek'
so far we haven't fired a single shot and have gotten more results out of Saddam in the last 12 months than the entire world got out of him for the last 10 years.
[/B]
You are right there, although I might rephrase that (if I may) as:
so far we have bombed Iraq at least once every couple of months for the last 10 years,and we have gotten more results out of him in the last 12 months than we ever did before.
I don't think he is a nice guy. I don't think left alone, he would leave us alone. I think the gov knows much more about him and his croonies and are taking steps to head off a disaster. I think once it starts we should finish - once and for all. He, Saddam has the power in his hands to prevent anything from happening to his country and his ppl. All he has to do is bend over backwards and produce what he says he doesn't have (me thinks he is lying :)). Taking that course of action would set the US up to be the aggressor if they tried anything. But not coming clean he gives the US carte blanche to wipe his arse off the face of the earth and with his arse, too many innocents.
if the global community, of which i think most believes saddam is hiding the truth, put as much pressure on him as they are now the US and their buildup - if they's had applied like pressure from the get go ('92) with saddam, this buildup and possible future military action would never have had to happen. [/B]
Well, I do agree with a lot of that, but I am of the mind that the unilateral action by the US and the UK should not be an option. Such an action would merely further radicalise pan Arab opinion against us, with a concomitant increase in in terrorist actions against us. If there is going to be an invasion of Iraq, it must be under the auspices of the UN.
That is not to say that I would support the UN in it's actions either. I just think that we are being presented with a false dichotomy of Military Action vs Doing Nothing. I have yet to see any attempt to provide more creative solutions to the problem.
I'm not going to suggest any alternatives because I don't have the facts, I just hear and read the pro and anti propaganda streams like the rest of us.
But I expect my elected representatives to be able to do better than simply spouting propaganda either for or against. There is a paucity of information in the public arena regarding the real reasons for this possible war IMO.
Saddam Hussein is the problem, not Iraq. I simply do not believe that the combined forces of the world can't come up with a better way of ushering in a new regime in Iraq than mounting a multi-billion dollar military campaign that can only result in the deaths of innocents as well as the guilty.
What troubles me most is the clear evidence of ulterior agendas at work. Unfortunately I have to go now, I will try and continue in this thread later today.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Thing is Eagler, the US hasn't got anything on him. or rather, they lack the hard evidence against him. So he can argue that he has come clean and the US is the agressor.
not being able to see everyones hand, you as everyone else but those at the very top in both countries, are relying on what the media spoon feeds us and they on what is spoon fed to them ....
in the end I think it'll be clear who is/was holding what
-
No my post was true. Bush is more restricted in his actions here by American popular opinion then by European opinion. The truth is theres very little Europe could do if the US decided to invade.
As for the ugly American thingy that only comes when I read Euros making assumptions and accusations about my country thats unfounded. War for oil for instance, and Bush is like Hitler and a warmonger.
I didnt vote for Bush and I am not a "conservative". Europe has been totally ineffective is solving anything on its own. When you look at the Balkans its completely clear and demonstrates how ineffective Europe was in dealing with situation there. Europe has a history of appeasement. Why should we expect any more from Europeans in the Future? Especially when some of the larger economies in Europe have an economic relationship with folks like Hussein.
If you want to argue against, or for that matter, for action against Iraq put up a credible arguement. The "Evil American Imperialist's are out to steal your wealth and exploit you" arguement is the same bs being spewed, particularly by left wing Euro types, since the end of world war 2.
If you think other wise then put up something shows that. Pulling the "you ugly mean American" card carries no weight at all.
-
I have little doubt that the US govt has evidence and/or knowledge of Iraq's secret WMD program. It would be foolish to reveal this knowledge too early. If we did and we were not yet ready to invade we'd simply be giving him more time to evade or prepare for our advance.
Timing is very important and I think it likely we'll drop bombshells, both metaphorical and not so metaphorical when we're ready.
-
If we invade Iraq and learn that they in fact had gotten rid of their WMD and given up their development plans then I will be among those calling for the resignation of the current administration.
-
Wotan, I'm not calling the US a squeak. I ain't saying all Americans or America are/is gutless potatos who have no brains.
Not saying they're toejamless cracksluts.
YOU start namecallingwhen someone make a point (an innocent one) YOU disagree with. And that is the ugly bit of the American equation - this needless name calling. It was uncalled for and is a show of either great ignorance, intolerance or just an amazinhunk-like attitude.
War for oil - it's plausible, or at the least possible. There's nothing insulting to America in it. All countries do stuff outta self interest, and it is quite obvious what the benefits of removing Saddam could be. If you equal that with 'Europe is a squeak', then I think your thought process is somewhat biased by nationalism.
'Ugly American' card is used when someone uses profane language to assert dominance over a person referred to as a foreigner. It's ignorance compared with childishness with and added spoonful of stupidity. Interestingly enough, it's a descriptive term I use for non Americans as well.
Maybe it's the group mentality effect taking place. But you're better than that Wotan.
I didn't really intend to make a point pro or against a war with Iraq. I've made it clear before - no matter if the war primarily is for oil and the side effect is Saddam dead, I'm for it. Still, I think NK is more pressing.
My problem is with your pointless name calling. If you want to sling dirt, check your own back yard. Where Europe has been incompetent, the US has been too. The CIA has been involved in some things that make European 'incompetence' look pretty tame.
I mean, you're capable of putting your point there eloquently and precisely, so why the need for calling Europe a squeak? What warranted that? If Lupo or someone else had called the US a diddlyed up crack potato, I'd understand. But all that's been done is the questioning of the US administrations motives. Something that is done but a lot of Americans too.
-
If Lupo or someone else had called the US a diddlyed up crack potato, I'd understand.
And actually I didn't...
-
I was referring to the European political class. It was a generalization based on history. You can include or exclude yourself as you wish but to infer that I called you a "squeak" or any individual European would be wrong.
I am not the Flag waving patriot like others on the board. I dont think Bush has made a clear case for an invasion of Iraq. But I surely dont give European objections much thought given their history of inaction and "buisness" dealings with Iraq. They will support the US in the end either way.
However, the idea that America would embark on a war of conquest to capture the raw materials of another is ridiculous and flies in the face of our history.
We dont have a dictator.
-
Your choice of words could have been better. I mean, they annoyed me and I'm not particularly squeamish. As I said our political system reflects on the citizen so an overly broad characterization (European) reflects directly on every European country.
If you mean Europe will squeak and moan if the US goes ahead yet are powerless to stop it, you're right. That doesn't make Europe a subservient part of the world to the US. Military dominance is one thing. All other countries as a squeak is another. For example, despite all its power, the Israelis have yet to make squeakes out of poorly armed Palestinians. It's a combination of political and military reasons for why this hasn't happened. Russia haven't managed to make squeakes out of the Chechens yet - despite huge atrocities committed against the civilian population.
I just find the term a bit derogatory - especially when its coming from one ally to another.
Thanks for clarifying though.
-
Ahhh...why am I not suprised Dowding has a problem with Isreal?
Your true colors are showing.
Not really. I have a problem with people justifying action over Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel has been ignoring the UN resolutions against it for decades. It's called hypocrisy, Rude. Go look it up. Go look up 'smokescreen', 'transparency' and 'excuse'. 'Piss poor' isn't in there but can be attached to those other words to form a useful phrase.
I don't have a problem with Israel. I have a problem with an Israeli leadership led by a biggoted war criminal.
-
But I surely dont give European objections much thought given their history of inaction and "buisness" dealings with Iraq...
Oh dear. Trying to place the US on a moral high horse as regards 'business' dealings is a little laughable. Old Donny Rumsfeld was involved in the US's supply of Anthrax to Hussein. The US sold them weapons, trained their troops etc etc.
The US' hands are as dirty as Europe's.