Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on September 19, 2003, 09:43:28 AM
-
I thought I would start a discussion on Iraq, in the hopes that only those who can step back and look at it unemotionally and rationally would reply.
Please, keep it civil.
I did, and still do, support the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow it's government. There were at least four good reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his cronies(in no particular order):
1. Refusal to comply with the United Nations
2. The possibility of the existence of WMD, and the chance they would find their way into the hands of terrorists who could then use them against citizens of any country, not just America.
3. Saddam's regime guaranteed an unstable middle east.
4. Saddam's oppression of the Iraq people's freedom and liberty.
That being said, I think the Bush administration made a huge faux pas by not being totally honest with the American public about the real reason we went in there. Personally, I would've have preferred if Bush had listed the four reasons above in public, and made it clear that there wasn't any one overriding reason.
By choosing to focus only on the WMD, the current administration set themselves up for failure, and consquently, sharp criticism.
I don't have a problem per se with the Bush administration going it alone vis-a-vis Iraq without the Unites Nations, because history has taught us(Rhineland 1936, Munich 1938) that such organizations(in this case the League of Nations) can become paralyzed when faced with a difficult decision that's needed for the good of the world. However, now that we have gone ahead and went it alone, it is cheeky of the U.S. to start asking for assistance from the UN now that the honeymoon with the Iraqi citizens had apparently ended.
In my opinion, we should finish what we started. If the UN comes to us and wants to help, then we should accept. But we should be prepared to see things through alone if we must, because we started it alone.
From a strictly human viewpoint, I am saddended that so many American servicemen and Iraqi people have been killed, especially after the war has been declared over. We should't forget the sacrifice the soldiers are making, every day. Neither should we forget or ignore the culture of the Iraqi people. We need to continue to show them respect, and to act like liberators, not conquerors.
It is unfortunate that some people on this BBS, who pretend to be freedom loving American patriots, continue to label anyone who questions the actions and motives of the Bush administration, as unpatriotic traitors. These so-called patriots must have forgotten all about the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution.
The right to question, criticize and scrutinize the government's policies and actions is one of the fundamental rights that this country was founded on. Some of us have seem to forgotten this.
The road ahead in Iraq is sure to be long, full of danger and uncertainty for all involved. My hope is that Iraq can rejoin the world as a peaceful, democratic nation with as few casualties as possible, as soon as possible.
Can't wait to see our troops headed back to their families.
-
I'm more concerned with a current battle going on in the South Pacific. The Japanese have been very quiet.
;)
-
Sorry Curv, will get to you this weekend.
-
Personally, I would've have preferred if Bush had listed the four reasons above in public, and made it clear that there wasn't any one overriding reason.
That's exactly what he did. The WMD parts of any speeches he gave got all the attention.
-
That's exactly what he did. The WMD parts of any speeches he gave got all the attention.
Aaah... that would be why he sent Powell to the UN claiming WMD and why 1441 was pushed for instead of a resolution calling Saddam 'A naughty man who does evil things'. Strange how there was no request in 1441 for Saddam to start being a nice guy to his own people...
WMD was numero uno on the agenda and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. No-one would have bought a war based on the fact that Saddam wasn't a nice chap - there are too many of his type to even begin down that road. Yet now that things are a little dodgy post-war and WMD is not as forth-coming as Bush et al would hope, the whole boat changes direction and sets a course with a humanitarian tack. Which is a pretty desperate act, if you ask me. The behaviour of the West towards tin-pot middle Eastern states has been less than exemplary in the past. It's as transparent as fine crystal.
-
So if the invasion of Iraq was sold to the US as a measure to enforce Reslolution 1441, why is GWB being persecuted as a liar?
Was'nt resolution 1441 composed by and ratified by the UN?
Simply put, if GWB lied or was duped into believing WMDs existed, the UN lied or was duped as well.
Is this logic flawed?:confused:
-
The emphasis was on WMD and disarmament. It pervaded all of the Coalition's diplomatic overtures and sabre-rattling before things went 'Live'. When Blair persuaded Bush to go the UN route to tackle Iraq, tell me, what was the angle pursued?
-
Your missing my point Dowding.
Of course, the main thrust of the argument to go to war was to enforce 1441 and to find and destroy WMDs.
This is also the most persuasive argument for war because it hits close to home. Here, according to the pitch, is a real, viable threat to our safety. (Sure, there are perks to doing this but the main reason for war is to protect ourselves).
My question is who why did the UN ratify 1441 if there was not an overwhelming belief that WMDs existed in Iraq?
Thats the focal point to me. If 1441 was ratified by the UN, and GWB and the US was merely enforcing a UN resolution, would'nt it stand to reason that Both the UN and GWB were wither duped or duplicitous?
-
Originally posted by banana
I did, and still do, support the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow it's government.
As I am at work, and have customers coming in, I don't have a lot of time to respond to this overlly logically. If I rabble or don't make any sense, please forgive me ;). I'll just go sit in the corner and finish my popcorn left over from the double dare ya post in the other forum :D
Your statement about supporting the overthrow of another country's government bothers me. I read all of your statements and totally agree that Sadam was a raving lunatic. I agree with all of your statements.
However, the U.S does not have the right to overthrow governments. Whats to stop us from going into other countries?IMO, the right to overthrow a countries government belongs strictly to the people living in said country. People appreciate things more when they have to earn it versus having it given to them.
Can the U.S help the revolt once it has been started? Hell yes, just like France helped us when we revolted against England.
The reasons for going into Iraq as stated by Bush were: WMD, 9/11 connection; Al-Queda; Free the people of Irad from a lunatic.
Well, the first three reasons are circumstantial at best at this point. Freeing the people? Well that's nice, but if we do it for them, why not everyone else, cuz there are a lot of other countries out there just a oppressed by thier leaders as Iraq. Are we gonna free them? If not, why?
If later on, we find WMD, concrete proof of 9/11 connection, etc, great, it will help Bush dig himself out of the hole I think he is in. It will also help more clearly justify us going in there. But... until then, using the reason of "freeing the people of Iraq" is not a valid on IMO.
That is all....
Oh, one more thing, I DO support the troops over there. They go where they are told to, and do a hell of a job, irregardless of the reason or politics. to them.
-
To look at it another way, is it possible there was no second gulf war?
Gulf War 2 is really just a continuation of Gulf War I, as Gulf War I was ended by the 1991 adoption of Resolution 687, which granted Iraq a Cease Fire if as long as it compied with Resolution 687.
I could be wrong, but from what I'm reading, technically speaking, Gulf War II was brought about by the violation of the cease fire by Iraq adopted in 687, so in reality, we were simply finishing up the liberation of Kuwait.:D
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
To look at it another way, is it possible there was no second gulf war?
Gulf War 2 is really just a continuation of Gulf War I, as Gulf War I was ended by the 1991 adoption of Resolution 687, which granted Iraq a Cease Fire if as long as it compied with Resolution 687.
I could be wrong, but from what I'm reading, technically speaking, Gulf War II was brought about by the violation of the cease fire by Iraq adopted in 687, so in reality, we were simply finishing up the liberation of Kuwait.:D
Pretty much the way I see it.
-
Someone said before the attack that going to Iraq would prove to be a historical error.
His words are becoming reality, unfortunately.
-
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Someone said before the attack that going to Iraq would prove to be a historical error.
His words are becoming reality, unfortunately.
I would tend to believe that the people of Iraq, by in large, would disagree with this statement.
How is Paris this time of year, anyway?
-
"Oh, one more thing, I DO support the troops over there. They go where they are told to, and do a hell of a job, irregardless of the reason or politics.
to them."
Well, hell, I doubt anyone here DOESNT support them. They're only doing their jobs out there. Big boss points and you move.
On a personal level, any casualty is one too many be it Iraqi or American. Often when I see news from there I can't help but think the grief and sorrow of the families of the young men and women dying out there. Damn shame.
Why can't people just be civil?
-
Muckmaw you're quite right, removing Saddam was probably the only positive side effect in this tragedy. Things are not good in Iraq, however. The country is still in a state of chaos and from the looks of it seems that it'll be a long time before people can actually continue their normal lives down there.
-
But is it better in Iraq now, or worse?
That's the real question we have to ask ourselves.
My opinion is I'd rather live in abject poverty, devoid of creature comforts, than to wonder when an agent of the government was going to knock on my door and pluck my daughter's eye out for my behavior.
That's just my opinion, offered 10,000 miles away from Iraq,
-
Siaf__csf, stop listening to al jeezera, the country is not in chaos.
-
Most true historians wait more than four months before making such declarative statements.
You know, that "historical perspective" thing.
Now, how big a "rolleyes" smilie can one find on the net?
CNN says
"Since the war in Iraq began in March, 301 U.S. forces have died -- 192 from hostile fire, 109 from non-hostile circumstances."
So, we've been disasterously defeated right?
Debate the reasons for going; fine. I'm still needing the proof of the WMD myself.
But paint the occupation, removal of the regime and the ongoing process of rebuilding an Iraq that will eventually be governed by an ELECTED leadership rather than a family-run dictatorship as a failure after less than six months because we lost 192 Americans to hostile fire? You're blinded by either hatred or envy or maybe both.
The true message? CNN again:
"Also on Thursday, a U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division soldier was electrocuted as he hung power lines across a highway northwest of Baghdad, south of Ad Dujal, according to the Coalition Press Information Center."
For the Biblical crowd: "Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends."
To me, the message is Americans died, are dying and are willing to die to help another people live free and better lives.
And there's others who will do so as well. British, Aussies, Poles, Ukrainians, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Latvians, Slovakians and Lithuanians all were there at the beginning, have come since the end or are on the way. I probably missed a few, too. Apologies.
So a salute to them. And a pointed ignoring of those that just want to sit on their rears, complain and snipe at the "doers".
For the Zen crowd: Who will do the hard things? Those who can.
Be pretty interesting to have an accurate count on those the Hussein regime murdered on a monthly average basis and compare it to the number of Iraqis dying since the "end of hostilities" while in Coalition custody or accidentally when still hostile Iraqis attack Coalition forces.
-
Well said Toad.
-
And from ABC News:
Across Iraq, that's been the story of rebuilding so far, small steps often overshadowed here by what still needs to be done.
Water is dirtier and less reliable than before the war in 12 of Iraq's 27 major cities, including Baghdad, Najaf and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.
Power production is now 72 percent of the prewar peak. Some cities in the south, including Basra and Nasiriyah, have more power now, but Baghdad, where a third of the Iraqi population lives, still suffers regular outages. Before the war, Saddam's regime would often take power from the Shiite-dominated south to fuel the capital's power needs.
Oil exports are now up to 55 percent of the prewar production, but today, the pipeline to Turkey, a key foreign market for Iraqi crude, was set ablaze for the second time this month. U.S. officials believe Saddam loyalists or foreign terrorists are behind the attacks.
The U.S. civilian authority here says part of the challenge is restoring services and infrastructure damaged not just by war and looting, but by years of disrepair and neglect under Saddam.
The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority says the health-care budget for the final six months of this year is $210 million, compared to $16 million in the final six months of Saddam's regime.
The CPA announced this week that, partly due to U.S. spending, all 240 Iraqi hospitals have reopened. Still, many women here are so worried about crime that they're afraid to leave their homes to see their doctors. A recent U.N. report found many women have been cut off from health care.
This is datelined August 27th. End of hostilities about 4 months prior.
Yes, still much to be done. But an AMAZING amount has been done in four months and the very painful 87 Billion the US people are going to pay is going to accomplish even more.
Argue that the money should be spent in other ways. Argue that WMD hasn't been proven yet. I'd agree with some or all.
But argue that this is, has been and will be a failure in improving the life of the Iraqi people?
Sorry. I'm not convinced and it's CERTAINLY way to early to make that call.
-
Toad, you ever think about running for office.
Nicely said.
-
Originally posted by Monk
Toad, you ever think about running for office.
Nicely said.
Nah. Unfortunately my parents were married when they had their children, so I'm ineligible.
;)
-
Originally posted by Monk
Toad, you ever think about running for office.
Nicely said.
Never happen.
He makes too much sense, and if his backround check will reveal he was part of the 13th TAS.;)
-
John9001: Interesting statement. How did you gather that in Florida?
Not watching the news maybe?
Just a hint: Al-Jazeera doesn't show down where I live. Well, unless you want to see it on satellite.
To Toad: You can try to rationalise it all you like. If you'd be in the dead soldiers place or it would be your son dying there, would you still think the same?
Time will tell what were the true reasons for going there, and the price your country will have to pay for doing so.
The tricky thing is, it's not only Iraq. The conflict created instability and more hatred in the mid-east area.
-
By choosing to focus only on the WMD, the current administration set themselves up for failure, and consquently, sharp criticism.
Thats not true at all, there were many stated reasons for the invasion - I wont argue wirh you any more in this thread as your absolute refusal to acknowlege the other stated war issues to support your weak biased argument makes it pointless.
-
All this is getting really old.
Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal insane dictators the world has seen, given time and resources he would have been a new Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler or whatever.
He is now removed from power.
This fact ALONE makes the war against Iraq worth it.
WMDs? Everyone knows they were there. Even the rabid anti-US euros. Deep down they KNOW that those WMD's existed. What happened to them? I dunno, nor do I really care as long as they are outside the reach of terrorists and dictators.
The problem is that the anti-US euros think this is a good opportunity to make fun of/bash/critizise/whatever the US. "So were are the wmds". Same with the anti-US americans (you know who you are). They see this as an excellent opportunity to take a stab at the president.
Focus gentlemen. Step up from the trenchlines and hold the flames for just one second.
Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal insane dictators the world has seen, given time and resources he would have been a new Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler or whatever.
He is now removed from power.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And from ABC News:
The U.S. civilian authority here says part of the challenge is restoring services and infrastructure damaged not just by war and looting, but by years of disrepair and neglect under Saddam.
The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority says the health-care budget for the final six months of this year is $210 million, compared to $16 million in the final six months of Saddam's regime.
Yes, still much to be done. But an AMAZING amount has been done in four months and the very painful 87 Billion the US people are going to pay is going to accomplish even more.
Argue that the money should be spent in other ways. Argue that WMD hasn't been proven yet. I'd agree with some or all.
But argue that this is, has been and will be a failure in improving the life of the Iraqi people?
Sorry. I'm not convinced and it's CERTAINLY way to early to make that call.
Aww come on that's fairly sad and obvious propaganda at best "damaged ... by years of disrepair and neglect under Saddam" yeah right - that would have nothing to do with the US led UN sanctions, it would all be because Hussein was neglecting it because he was a bad man.
(Question: who built the infrastructure stuff in the first place? Was it a. Hussein or b. the US - answers on a postcard please).
And "compared to $16 million in the final six months of Saddam's regime" yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with sanctions either of course. Just because Iraq was only allowed money enough under the food-for-oil program for $25 per Iraqi per year doesn't mean the health budget should go down. :rolleyes:
To be fair - it is a start - but not much of a start. Maybe not having the sanctions in the first place might have been a better start - but that assumes that this was about the Iraqi people and not about the oil. And I don't buy that for a minute. If it was about the Iraqi people - why not do it back in the 1980s?
-
It's amazing how -dead- blames the poor living standards of the Iraqi people on the USA and not on Saddam Husseins disasterous international policies and willful cruelty against his people.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It's amazing how -dead- blames the poor living standards of the Iraqi people on the USA and not on Saddam Husseins disasterous international policies and willful cruelty against his people.
The fact that the US wanted the sanctions dropped after the war but some security council members said no kinda voids his "US led UN sanctions" statement
-
John Stuart Mill:
"War is an ugly thing...but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight...nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety...is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Siaf, let me clear something up for you.
I volunteered during the VietNam war. Young, idealistic to a fault, I believed the US would stick with the the South Vietnamese until they, too, could freely elect their own government and not have Communism imposed upon them by force of arms.
And it was not the soldiers of the United States that failed. It was clearly the politicians. There was nothing wrong with the goal or the ideal. There was something rotten in the elected leadership.
I have two sons of military age. One has graduated from University and entered the job market. He is registered for the draft, should it be reinstated. The other is in college now and is also registered for the draft. Both have clearly expressed a willingness to serve if called.
How would I feel if they were among the US dead in Iraq? Sad beyond measure; no parent should outlive their child/children. They are my greatest treasure.
Would I blame Bush, even if no WMD were ever found?
Yeah, a bit. I don't think he lied, but if he got bad information and made the wrong decision, he's still the man responsible and accountable for sending US troops to war.
But I'll tell you where I'd really lay the blame. I'd lay the blame on a UN Security Council that failed to enforce it's own resolutions for 12 years. I'd blame an International community that sat by and let Iraq get away with flaunting UN resolutions for 12 years. I'd blame countries that aided and abetted Iraq in flaunting those resolutions.
I'd blame people that are made and kept free by the exertions of better men than themselves.
I would know my son wasn't one of those. At least that would console me to some degree. I'd know he'd died for something greater than himself, for a simple idea that transcends all others.
An idea that is probably becoming more and more clear to the Iraqi people day by day.
An idea that isn't worth discussing with you.
The cost in lives is already high. It will get higher. The cost in dollars is astronomical; it, too, will get higher. The intelligent people knew that would be the case long before this war started.
The "reason" for going there was WMD; that, as yet has been neither validated nor invalidated.
Yet it is undeniable that there were OTHER reasons for going there that to intelligent, decent men were/are just as compelling. You don't have to look far to find them and you have to be totally insensitive to ignore them.
We didn't declare war against Germany to liberate Auschwitz but the liberation of Auschwitz served to underline the justification for going to war with Germany.
And it has created instability. Over the past ~ 5 months. You're willing to judge based on that historically insignificant timeline. To me, that's laughable. And it makes you, at this time, unworthy of any serious effort to discuss things rationally.
So, let's talk in 10 years. If Iraq is an extremely prosperous, well-fed, medically advanced country with a democratically elected progressive government by then... you tell me how that made the Mid-East more unstable.
It could happen; it's what the intelligent part of the world community is working towards.
While others sit on their derrières and complain, carp and try to obstruct the attempt to make Iraq a better place to live and better part of the world community.
A real reason for pride, eh? Vive la Siaf!
Ta-ta.
-
Dead, How those palaces get built? And the people live in mud huts?
Ya, Saddam what a philanthropist he was.:rolleyes:
-
Insurgents flock across the border to Iraq. That is currently the "problem".
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It's amazing how -dead- blames the poor living standards of the Iraqi people on the USA and not on Saddam Husseins disasterous international policies and willful cruelty against his people.
There is 2 sides on a coin ...
Blah :p !
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Aaah... that would be why he sent Powell to the UN claiming WMD and why 1441 was pushed for instead of a resolution calling Saddam 'A naughty man who does evil things'. Strange how there was no request in 1441 for Saddam to start being a nice guy to his own people...
WMD was numero uno on the agenda and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. No-one would have bought a war based on the fact that Saddam wasn't a nice chap - there are too many of his type to even begin down that road. Yet now that things are a little dodgy post-war and WMD is not as forth-coming as Bush et al would hope, the whole boat changes direction and sets a course with a humanitarian tack. Which is a pretty desperate act, if you ask me. The behaviour of the West towards tin-pot middle Eastern states has been less than exemplary in the past. It's as transparent as fine crystal.
Powell said a lot of things at the UN. He pointed out (1) that Hussein had violated the inspection terms he had agreed upon with the UN. He pointed out (2) that Hussein was a destablizing force in the area. He pointed out (3) that Hussein was a sweetheartbag. And, he showed (4) that there was evidence Hussein was hiding WMD. No one disagreed with 1, 2, and 3. But the WMD part was rightly seen as the most controversial and questionable. Nevertheless, the case against Hussein was always laid out in the 4 terms described in the original post.
ra
-
And just for dead:
Oh, yes, clearly the magnanimous humanitarian, Saddam Hussein would have done far more for his country's infrastructure and health services if only it wasn't for the evil US and it's handmaiden, the UN.
Jeez... I've been off these boards a while and haven't missed it because of this kind of... well... less than intelligent commentary.
Think I'll take another break as it doesn't seem like much has changed.
Saddam Stole Billions From U.N. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/saddam_bribery030520.html)
U.N. Officials Admit They Were Powerless to Stop Iraqi Leader's Skimming
By Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz
L O N D O N, May 20— United Nations officials looked the other way as Saddam Hussein's regime skimmed $2 billion to $3 billion in bribes and kickbacks from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, said U.N. officials who told ABCNEWS they were powerless to stop the massive graft.
And let's not forget the oil smuggling. The U.S. GAO Office estimated in 2002 that Iraq dleared 4.3 billion from oil smuggling since 1997. How? Where? 75,000 to 110,000 barrels of oil per day went through Jordan, 180,000 to 250,000 per day went through Syria, and went 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day through Turkey.
Clearly, Saddam was down to his last Dinar and could not help his people.
Saddam Hussein has approved the design for what he calls the world's largest mosque, a domed hall capable of holding 30,000 worshipers alongside a huge artificial lake shaped like a map of the Arab world...
Iraqi newspapers carried a picture today of the Iraqi leader and his Cabinet examining plans for the Baghdad mosque to be called the Saddam Grand Mosque....
Plans for Saddam's mosque call for building a large dome for the main area of prayer enough for 30,000 worshipers decorated with four minarets and an artificial lake, said al-Thawra, newspaper of the ruling Baath party...
Besides the Saddam Grand Mosque, the Iraqi leader has decreed that a grand mosque bearing his name be built in each of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Whale, Hale Yah! The mean old UN kept him from building hospitals!
Saddam's Palaces (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_palaces.html)
Justin Thompson, CBC News Online | April 7, 2003
According to the intelligence Web site Global Security.org, Iraq was home to 78 presidential palaces by early 2003. A great many were less than 10 years old, having been rebuilt by Saddam Hussein in the wake of military air strikes that came during and after the Gulf War.
The palaces are noted for being massive in scale and some are said to rival the world's greatest in terms of opulence...
All caused by US/UN sanctions. Thanks for clearing that up, dead.
He couldn't spend on infrastructure and hospitals because of the evil US/UN sanctions.
Thank Allah the sanctions didn't prevent him from amassing a personal fortune estimated at greater than $10 billion. And it didn't keep him from trying to build the world's biggest mosque. Or 78 presidential palaces.
Whew! Those Iraqis were lucky in that, I guess.
-
if we'd invaded hitler in '39 we'd have had a similiar bunch of hand wringers
the question is will iraq be better off in 5 years now than in 5 years if we would have followed the course of action of the previous admin (hand wringing group) which was to let Saddam continue to oppress his ppl, fire missiles at our planes & do whatever else he & his thug admin wanted to ... I think it will be.
-
Originally posted by banana
I thought I would start a discussion on Iraq, in the hopes that only those who can step back and look at it unemotionally and rationally would reply.
Please, keep it civil.
I did, and still do, support the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow it's government. There were at least four good reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his cronies(in no particular order):
1. Refusal to comply with the United Nations
2. The possibility of the existence of WMD, and the chance they would find their way into the hands of terrorists who could then use them against citizens of any country, not just America.
3. Saddam's regime guaranteed an unstable middle east.
4. Saddam's oppression of the Iraq people's freedom and liberty.
That being said, I think the Bush administration made a huge faux pas by not being totally honest with the American public about the real reason we went in there. Personally, I would've have preferred if Bush had listed the four reasons above in public, and made it clear that there wasn't any one overriding reason.
He did mention all of the other reasons many times. His administration put the WMD's in the lime light. The only reason I can think of to do this would be to make it so everybody had a stake in this. Now most Dems seem to think that this was misleading. I can understand that logic. It has yet to be proven that he did intend to mislead the world, yet you would think that he's already been convicted.
Personaly I don't think he did or would mislead the world on an issue as important as this. I say this because of a few reasons. One would be that from the start he has always maintained that they had no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Another would be that he has been up front and consistant about Sadaam since the campain in 2000. Also another thing about the 9/11 connection. If he were to use that as an excuse to attack Iraq surely it would have been in 2001 or 2002 when he had 90% support and could have nuke just about anybody he wanted to. There are more but I think I've made my point. :)
By choosing to focus only on the WMD, the current administration set themselves up for failure, and consquently, sharp criticism.
Yes, I agree. PR has never been his strong suit though, or any Republican's for that matter.
I don't have a problem per se with the Bush administration going it alone vis-a-vis Iraq without the Unites Nations, because history has taught us(Rhineland 1936, Munich 1938) that such organizations(in this case the League of Nations) can become paralyzed when faced with a difficult decision that's needed for the good of the world. However, now that we have gone ahead and went it alone, it is cheeky of the U.S. to start asking for assistance from the UN now that the honeymoon with the Iraqi citizens had apparently ended.
Yup, though there is part of me that would love the help. It would help mend some fences. I don't think the honeymoon is over either. I hear reports of Iraqi's still thanking Americans and that are happy we are there. We get all the negative stuff in the media. It gets me down and I have to keep telling myself that we've only been there a few months. The war hasn't been declared over, just major hostilities. Sux hearing about our finest getting killed everyday. And makes me feel pompass at times arguing in support of this war. But in the end we HAVE to stay and finish this. This is the sort of thing that can bring a country down.
In my opinion, we should finish what we started. If the UN comes to us and wants to help, then we should accept. But we should be prepared to see things through alone if we must, because we started it alone.
i agree totally.
From a strictly human viewpoint, I am saddended that so many American servicemen and Iraqi people have been killed, especially after the war has been declared over. We should't forget the sacrifice the soldiers are making, every day. Neither should we forget or ignore the culture of the Iraqi people. We need to continue to show them respect, and to act like liberators, not conquerors.
yep.
It is unfortunate that some people on this BBS, who pretend to be freedom loving American patriots, continue to label anyone who questions the actions and motives of the Bush administration, as unpatriotic traitors. These so-called patriots must have forgotten all about the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution.
Well i have called people terrorist lovers or osama supporters, but it's usually out of anger and usually pointed at our Euro friends. There are those here on this board and AGW that I firmly believe hate America and want osama to win and enjoy seeing our boys and girls dying everyday.
The right to question, criticize and scrutinize the government's policies and actions is one of the fundamental rights that this country was founded on. Some of us have seem to forgotten this.
Yes, but some abuse this too. I'm not talking about citizens though. I'm talking about the democrats in congress and in government. They use anything they think will hurt bush. They make slanderous accuisations daily against him. They do this when our country is in the middle of a 2 front war. A war that they themselves, most of them, voted for. A war that even though most of the people around the world won't admit, that we didn't start. I think this is a very very dangerous thing to do, and for all things political power. To me it shows a willingness to put this country through hell to get thier power back. That's not good, in fact I'd almost say it's evil.
The road ahead in Iraq is sure to be long, full of danger and uncertainty for all involved. My hope is that Iraq can rejoin the world as a peaceful, democratic nation with as few casualties as possible, as soon as possible.
Can't wait to see our troops headed back to their families.
Me too man, me too.
I hope I was civil enough for you. It's been a while since I've tried to discuss this rationally ;)
-
You can justify it all you like. The fact remains you were not asked there by the Iraqi's, you were not supported by most of the world when you decided to do that. Heck, you couldn't even stop your NATO ALLY Turkey from accepting the 'smuggled' oil. And finally and most importantly, you could not find the validation for the attack you were looking for hence proving everyone who opposed the conflict right.
And you continue to pay for it. Hey it's your lives, your money. It really doesn't bother me. Someone has to play the 'police' I guess. The only thing that bothers me is the likes of you, who try repeatedly to find excuses for the invasion.
Does USA have an international '911' to call if one of our inferior countries should some day need assistance? I mean if this is the spirit, all oppressed countries should want your help.
Which plans does your government have for helping the several african and asian countries currently in civil wars or oppressive dictatorships? None. Tibet? Rwanda? Somalia? North Korea? What about those?
Now why is that? If your intention was purely to help the poor oppressed people of Iraq, what made Saddam so special?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It's amazing how -dead- blames the poor living standards of the Iraqi people on the USA and not on Saddam Husseins disasterous international policies and willful cruelty against his people.
Hit that straw man, Grun. I'm just questioning the impeccability of some of the statements. And pointing out that the US and the UK under the auspices of the UN also had a lot to do with running Iraq into the ground.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
You can justify it all you like. The fact remains you were not asked there by the Iraqi's, you were not supported by most of the world when you decided to do that. Heck, you couldn't even stop your NATO ALLY Turkey from accepting the 'smuggled' oil. And finally and most importantly, you could not find the validation for the attack you were looking for hence proving everyone who opposed the conflict right.
And you continue to pay for it. Hey it's your lives, your money. It really doesn't bother me. Someone has to play the 'police' I guess. The only thing that bothers me is the likes of you, who try repeatedly to find excuses for the invasion.
Does USA have an international '911' to call if one of our inferior countries should some day need assistance? I mean if this is the spirit, all oppressed countries should want your help.
Which plans does your government have for helping the several african and asian countries currently in civil wars or oppressive dictatorships? None. Tibet? Rwanda? Somalia? North Korea? What about those?
Now why is that? If your intention was purely to help the poor oppressed people of Iraq, what made Saddam so special?
you keep forgetting about the 12 years of UN sanctions. That in itself trumps all.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The fact that the US wanted the sanctions dropped after the war but some security council members said no kinda voids his "US led UN sanctions" statement
Seems fair enough to me if the UN goes ahead with the damn sanctions - the replacement regime wouldn't even let the UN weapons inspectors in at all. Which makes them in material breach of 1441 et al., IIRC.
-
We went into Iraq in order to gain a presents in the region. If there is ever a full-scale world war it will start in the Middle East. Who ever controls the oil controls the war. This is why Japan bombed Pearl, We were protecting the oil fields in Indonesia, before Middle East oil was available. (1938) First oil fields drilled in Saudi Arabia.
We will NEVER leave Iraq (period). We will stay there to keep an eye on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan etc. We will never leave Afghanistan either, anyone (being Politicians ) says other ways is a liar and they know it. We are still in Bosnia right, case in point.
Germany and Japan took over (8) eight years to rebuild and they were a lot closer to democracy then Iraq has ever been. In 8000 years there has never been, not even accidentally been anything that even look remotely similar to a democracy in Iraq, what makes anyone think there will be one now? It won’t happen.
But we have accomplished more in Iraq in less time then what we accomplished in
Germany in 1945. Germany, 6 months to form Banking system, Iraq 3, Germany police force 16 months, Iraq 4. In Germany we were faced with sabotage just as we see in Iraq now, nothing new there. There will always be groups that don’t want change.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Dead, How those palaces get built? And the people live in mud huts?
Ya, Saddam what a philanthropist he was.:rolleyes:
Naah Hussein was awful - but he was awful when the US gave him botulin and mustard gas precursors, and the UK gave him anthrax. He was awful when the US & UK blocked a security council resolution against his use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. The "we had to get rid of him because he was awful" argument just begs the question - so why prolong people's suffering? And why bother with sanctions given that it's fairly obvious that it wouldn't hurt Hussein (if anything they strengthened Hussein's regime). The guys in mud huts were the ones that got nailed by sanctions.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
And you continue to pay for it. Hey it's your lives, your money. It really doesn't bother me.
I think it does bother you and greatly. Otherwise why would you continually ***** about it?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
proving everyone who opposed the conflict right.
By your timeline, I guess. Five whole months. What'll you be saying if they dig up huge amounts of WMD in two years? Will you come and admit you were totally wrong?
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Someone has to play the 'police' I guess.
No, someone actually has to BE the police. Big difference.
Clearly, you don't have the character or desire for the job. Best to leave it to those who do. Who will do the hard things? Those who can.
You cannot. The UN cannot. Just the way it is.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Which plans does your government have for helping the several african and asian countries currently in civil wars or oppressive dictatorships?
Actually, we're waiting to see YOUR government step up and try to do the right thing. :D
Oh..wait... that's a totally forlorn hope, isn't it?
:D
Well, figure it this way, eventually, we'll get around to them. And they'll bring it upon themselves, just like Hussein did.
The UN will point and talk, bark real loud and growl a bit but do nothing. Finally, the situations in those lands will get so bad, so evil that SOMEONE will have to do something. Even if the UN won't go along.
Think NATO illegally attacking Serbia because the UN, with all of it's internal bickering, made itself powerless to act against an obvious major evil.
Who will do the hard things? Those who can.
And those who can't.. will sit on the sidelines and b*tch and cry like the little nobodies that the have relegated themselves to being.
Have a very nice day! :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
And just for dead:
Oh, yes, clearly the magnanimous humanitarian, Saddam Hussein would have done far more for his country's infrastructure and health services if only it wasn't for the evil US and it's handmaiden, the UN.
Jeez... I've been off these boards a while and haven't missed it because of this kind of... well... less than intelligent commentary.
Think I'll take another break as it doesn't seem like much has changed.
Saddam Stole Billions From U.N. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/saddam_bribery030520.html)
And let's not forget the oil smuggling. The U.S. GAO Office estimated in 2002 that Iraq dleared 4.3 billion from oil smuggling since 1997. How? Where? 75,000 to 110,000 barrels of oil per day went through Jordan, 180,000 to 250,000 per day went through Syria, and went 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day through Turkey.
Clearly, Saddam was down to his last Dinar and could not help his people.
Whale, Hale Yah! The mean old UN kept him from building hospitals!
Saddam's Palaces (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_palaces.html)
All caused by US/UN sanctions. Thanks for clearing that up, dead.
He couldn't spend on infrastructure and hospitals because of the evil US/UN sanctions.
Thank Allah the sanctions didn't prevent him from amassing a personal fortune estimated at greater than $10 billion. And it didn't keep him from trying to build the world's biggest mosque. Or 78 presidential palaces.
Whew! Those Iraqis were lucky in that, I guess.
Well what did they expect? That Hussein would suddenly look out for his people?!? Sorry that dog won't run. He was a dreadful dictator - and last I checked dreadful dictators are not renowned for their charity work. I think it's a tradition, or old charter or something.
So sanctions (as you so helpfully point out) did not affect Hussein at all. Not one bit. They only affected innocent civilians. And they stuffed Iraq's infrastructure. So what's your point? Sanctions would only work if Hussein was a nice guy?!? That we made all those people suffer and die to make Hussein feel bad - even though pretty much by definition that was the last thing that was going to happen?
-
"By your timeline, I guess. Five whole months. What'll you be saying if they dig up huge amounts of WMD in two years? Will you come and admit you were totally wrong?"
Well if that happens, and I'm not saying it can't happen, I promise I will apologize. Why shouldn't I?
With all else, Toad, I think you're forgetting all the years your country was supporting Saddam because it was convenient at the time. Or the years your government was supporting the afghan extremists terror attempts against the russian forces, again because it was convenient for you. Islamic radicals were ok while cutting throats as it was your ideological enemy suffering then.
Saddam grew powerful partly because of your support. Same happened with afghan rebels. The problem with playing in the world sanbox is that historically looking, all those events have turned against you. You're fixing up your own mess down there.
Toad, you're a smart guy that I can tell. You're not smart enough, though, to convince me that your hands are not stained. How was it, btw, to take part in the biggest pre-iraq fiasco your country created? It sure made cool movies afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
With all else, Toad, I think you're forgetting all the years your country was supporting Saddam because it was convenient at the time. Or the years your government was supporting the afghan extremists terror attempts against the russian forces, again because it was convenient for you. Islamic radicals were ok while cutting throats as it was your ideological enemy suffering then.
Time changes situations and circumstances. It's very convenient for you to ignore that. I'm giving up trying to justify anything we do to outsiders, most have already determined to ignore reason.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
And you continue to pay for it. Hey it's your lives, your money. It really doesn't bother me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AKIron
I think it does bother you and greatly. Otherwise why would you continually ***** about it?
Ill bet he is a pissed off Frenchie who is losing money because he was doing business with the BATTH party and Hussain!:mad: Illegaly
-
So by your reasoning Siaf__csf we should still be pissed of at the Germans and Japanese cause they did some bad things in the past right?
-
Gtora well d'uh I think you were pretty pissed at them during WW2 as with the rest of the planet. The agressive policies of the countries were a valid reason for self defense. You didn't attack Japan or Germany because 'Hitler was a bad boy oppressing the jews'
In fact, if he wouldn't have been so expansive his actions would have continued unbothered. Believe it.
The US, anyway, wasn't the effecting force in creating the mess back then as it has been in the last two major conflicts. It's kinda hypocrite to rant about human rights etc. only a couple years after funding and arming the oppressor.
Boxboy: ROFL! Are you drunk? For the last time, I'm not french. I know you guys love to hate the french. I'm not. Deal with it.
I love you guys.. You make life richer.
-
Saif
You missed the point, Germany and Japan did horific things durring WW2. Yet now we do not hold it agaist them.
The united states did bad things in the past, we support Saddam, it was a pretty long time ago.
Yet you seem to be holding it agaist us still.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
... yeah right - that would have nothing to do with the US led UN sanctions, ...
... yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with sanctions either of course. Just because Iraq was only allowed money...
Originally posted by -dead-
So sanctions (as you so helpfully point out) did not affect Hussein at all. Not one bit.
LOL!
Talk about trying to have it both ways, eh dead?
You just told us all it was the SANCTIONS that ruined Iraq's infrastructure and impoverished the Iraq health system...poor Saddam just didn't have the cash to build the state of the art infrastructure and hospitals he really, really, REALLY wanted to build instead of palaces and Grand Mosques and personal fortunes.
:D Jeez, this is TOO GOOD!
-
Toad I think he was speaking of Saddam himself , not Iraq
-
GTora your supporting Saddam was _not_ very long time ago. It was in recent past. You were aiding him. Kinda like the third reich was aiding it's citizens in building gas chambers and ghetto's. Saddam knowingly committed crimes against humanity while he was on your payroll. There's the difference. Therefore you can not point your finger at him, because that finger is stained.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well if that happens, and I'm not saying it can't happen, I promise I will apologize. Why shouldn't I?
[/b]
Great! Just a thought for you then:
Be careful of the words you say, keep them soft and sweet;
You never know from day to day which ones you'll have to eat
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
you're forgetting all the years your country was supporting Saddam... supporting the afghan extremists terror attempts against the russian forces,...
Realpolitik, Siaf.
Imagine this: We were once actual ALLIES with and gave military arms to that true butcher, Stalin! Can you imagine!!!!!
Yes, it's TRUE!!!!!
Hey, did you know we were once ENEMIES with Japan? Yes, it's TRUE!!!!!
As Iron pointed out, times change. So do alliances, allies and erstwhile friends.
Man, one would think with all those 1300 year old cathedrals, some of yas would have noticed this.
Oh, and btw.. if we did SOLELY create the mess in Iraq (a very dubious hypothesis) at least we cleaned it up.
And I prefer that WE finish what WE started without asking the UN to help. Responsibility, accountability.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How was it, btw, to take part in the biggest pre-iraq fiasco your country created?
I was extremely proud to be a tiny part of an attempt to prevent communism from being imposed on a people by force of arms. Although the attempt failed, it does not diminish the goal in my eyes.
And a few thoughts for you chum:
Post-Tet, the military situation was well in hand. The VC had essentially been wiped out. They had their tulips handed to them on a plate, thinly sliced with a tart mayonnaise/horseradish sauce. Huge strides were made under General Abrams in stabilizing the country. It was the lack of balls on the part of US politicians that allowed regular NV armed forces to build up in the South. Further it was the determination to "get out" at all costs that led to eventual NV victory. Had the same determination that decimated the VC during TET been applied to killing the NV regulars wherever we found them the story would have been quite different.
Call it a fiasco if you like. If it was, it was a fiasco by the politicians, not the military. Cripes ammighty.. the ROE for the airwar alone were ludicrous.
But take all the cheap shots you like. It's what you do best. :D
The goal was honorable; I'm proud I was in uniform.
And now, bold Siaf, just what country's citizenship do you claim? Or do you not have the gonads to say it and be proud of it?
-
LOL.
4 years is a long time in my book or 8 depending on the president. You are blaming the US and the present administration for the errors of past presidents.
-
It takes alot of guts to talk smack about someone's country when you won't even mention where your from, eh Siaf?
I simply do not understand this sudden hatred for America.
Is it simply envy? Do foreign countries simply hate us because they are no longer a world power, or never were?
You do realize, we did the WORLD a favor here. Whether you like our methods or not, we have brought more stability to this region than there ever was. We freed an opressed people. But most important of all, if we took a passive role, how long do you think it would have been before SH DID develop WMD's if he did not do so already? And how long before they DID find their way into the hands of an extremist group?
No country in this world is safe from terrorism. None.
There may have been no connectipon between SH and 9/11 but bet me he would not give a weapon to any terrorist group if the price was right.
Disagre with our mthods all you want, but it all comes down to the fact that the world envies our ability to do what they can only debate at a sidewalk cafe.
Toad could probably say this better, but I think you get my point.
-
"Realpolitik, Siaf.
Imagine this: We were once actual ALLIES with and gave military arms to that true butcher, Stalin! Can you imagine!!!!!
Yes, it's TRUE!!!!! "
Which is a fact I still despise today. Historical error.
Muckmaw where did I ever say I hated america? I disagree with your foreign policies and I love to argue with people who blindly support the agressive attitude, thats all. I have nothing against americans or the american way of life, as I repeatedly have tried to explain to many of you.
For some reason you folks always turn criticism to being hatred - there's a difference you know. I have long time friends in the US - trust me, I don't want anything bad to happen to them or you.
You say you did the WORLD a favour. How so? The WMD is still missing somewhere. How was he a threat? I'm sure a better guess would be you went there to do your oil reserves a favour.
I have no need to bring my true nationality in the discussion since I live in a country that has always minded its own matters and relying on good relationships and neutrality. We didn't ask or take anything from other countries or force ourselves over others.
It's called peaceful living.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I have no need to bring my true nationality in the discussion since I live in a country that has always minded its own matters and relying on good relationships and neutrality. We didn't ask or take anything from other countries or force ourselves over others.
Ah, you're from the only country on earth that is pure as the driven snow, eh?
:D
But you can't name it?
:D :D
Because you just can't tell us?
(http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/cwm/big/bigsmirk4.gif)
-
Iraq was about more than just about Iraq
it sent a message to every country around it
do you think they got the message of this admin?
I do
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
You say you did the WORLD a favour. How so? The WMD is still missing somewhere. How was he a threat? I'm sure a better guess would be you went there to do your oil reserves a favour.
I have no need to bring my true nationality in the discussion since I live in a country that has always minded its own matters and relying on good relationships and neutrality. We didn't ask or take anything from other countries or force ourselves over others.
It's called peaceful living.
I thought the WMDs did not exist? Read my post again, please. How long, Siaf, before SH DID develop WMDs if he did not do so already? I ask you this question directly. Can you honestly sit there and say that he would not have given said weapons to the highest bidder?
Please answer my questions.
If the answer is in the affirmtive, then you must realize that he was a threat to the World. Not the western world, but the world as a whole. He was a military power with the 4th largest army and an agressive weapins program. This is not some BS Somali Warlord with a few RPGs in his tent.
AS for your country, why don't you share it with us. Tell us where this Utopia is, so we may model ourselves after the "Peaceful living" you have achieved. Perhaps the US is not the only country with stained hands, eh? Perhaps yours are not so clean as well.
Did your Utopia stand idley by as the Nazi's Goose stepped all over Europe? Is that what you call minding your own business? Possibly, but we hear in the US have a word for people who are don't make the hard choices, who don't face true evil....
I think you know what it is.
-
Well I see you understand my point now since your ignoring it:)
Guys!
I know his country!
It's right near happyland and south of Ihaveaclueland.
I think it is called
Imatoolland.
-
Muck: Trust me, there are several countries on this planet that have a clean record when it comes to international affairs.
I just won't bring it up as it is not the issue here.
The discussion is about your agressive foreign policies. If the offensive would have had UN approval or it would have been clear self defense (as I managed to swallow the afghanistan offensive) I'd be just fine with it.
Eagler: The message was probably heard on government level. As with organisational level (terrorism) the message was probably a good recruit poster for future generations. The region was wary about your intentions to start with. The humiliation of the arab world can lead to serious side-effects I'm afraid.
You know THOSE guys really think you're the great satan (and I think I belong in the same ballpark in their eyes.)
And Btw Toad nice smileys.
Oh, and Gtora silence doesn't mean approval. I fail to see the importance of your presidential elections in this matter. The same guy was ruling at the other end during the years. The same officials were in power. The machine is the same - only goals change. You fail to see it.. If you train a pitbull to attack your neighbour and then blame it for biting your guest.. well you figure it out. Whose at fault? The dog with a bad temper or the person who feeds the dog and it's agressive behaviour?
-
So your saying nothing has changed since WW2 then and we should be held in contemp for helping the USSR?
The U.S. foreign policy changes with the President. It is far from the same administration now. Or are you one of the Black helicopter, its all one evil government and elections don’t mean anything crowd.
You have lost just about all your meager credibility by not saying where you are from.
You are blaming the current admin for the errors of a past admin, and justifing it by saying welll it was the US that did it.
That's like today the US is bad cause Russia killed tons of Poles durring the war and we gave them the trucks to do it.
I am betting Canada.
-
Gtora you fail to see the connection. IF your country would have supplied the trucks KNOWING they will be used for crimes against humanity and then later accusing the very people they knowingly helped for doing the same thing again.. that would be hypocracy.
That was clearly not the case during WW2.
If history would be as short as one period of elections, things would be awfully easy and comfortable for all war criminals.
-
Anyway it's getting painfully obvious that you guys are living at your private world where outside influence has little effect.
I get the feeling of banging my head to the wall - and there's no point to continue.
Thanks for all the good comments on this discussion.
-
You are not making a lot of sense.
You are saying A: the US was bad and made Sadam.
You are saying B: the US is bad for taking sadam out while saying he is evil and we created him.
You are saying c: the current admin is hypocritical and wrong because they are oposing a dictator another admin supported.
Ultimatly you are saying we are getting what we deserve when a US service man dies "HA HA HA you suck and made your bed now lie in it bad bad Americans?"
What is your point? The US is bad and you think the war was wrong? the Iraqis are worse of now? The U.S is bad cause there are no WDMS?
Your saying we should have left him alone to play his endless games with the U.N? If that had happend I am sure we would be right at the same spot we where at before the war. Sadam in power, and no proof of destroyed WDMs, and a UN with it's thumb up is arse.
I agree with Toad on the WDMs, I think anyone who thinks 5 months is long enough to find something Sadam had 12 years to hide is frankly a fool.
-
you ought to shut your hole siaf. you say nothing here thats even worth a good pummeling. punk
-
Just wanted to make history by joining a thread in which I could agree with Mr. Toad. :)
Monk is right - you should run for office; I have already told you that, but LOL the reason why you didn't. :D
Yes, the infrastructure rebuild will take time, but there's no doubt that Iraq is better off now than it was under SH.
Damage caused by US bombs will take months or years to repair - much longer than it took to inflict. See - they do have it modelled correctly in AH! ;)
Still, I agree with Siaf in other threads, and he has the balls to say what he believes. Whether or not you agree with it does not detract from the praiseworthiness of its being said in the first place. Some of you ask where Siaf is from. The way he describes it sounds like Switzerland - am I close?
-
He's hiding his nationality because it's easier to throw stones that way.
Beyond that, IF what he says were true, it also means his illustrious country has managed to stand clear when other nations struggled and sacrificed against truly evil regimes for the sake of all.
But maybe, just maybe, his country was able to profiteer by selling supplies to one or both sides... with antiseptically clean hands, of course.
Perhaps like the Swedes and their iron ore or the Swiss with their banks full of Nazi gold.
He's not worth killing another electronic ink, for sure.
-
I dont even know what to say in response to siaf's comments about his little magical country... :rofl
-
Switzerland
Beetle I like you a lot and look forwoard to meeting meeting you soon, but seriously are you really that uninformed about the Swiss? Have you no clue how close the Swiss were to the Nazi government and how much looted Nazi gold (as in smelted from gold teeth) they hold in their banks to this day?
-
Maybe we oughta cut Siaf a little slack. He's probably just ashamed of his country. Hey, there can be only one number one. ;)
-
Hey Iron I like your sig.. :)
-
I always thought she was a pretty smart woman, never understood why so many Brits don't like her.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I always thought she was a pretty smart woman, never understood why so many Brits don't like her.
Simple, they are basically communists who wanted to destroy the UK economy and align away from the UK/USA alliance which saved the world only a few years before. Just read about the UK coal miner union strikes and some of the UK anti war groups of the cold war era. Truly despicable people and Margaret was the perfect strong willed person to confront these evil groups. I simply love how she restored the UK economic progress by destroying the evil coal mining unions and putting those greedy unproductive bastards in their place.
-
How long, Siaf, before SH DID develop WMDs if he did not do so already? Can you honestly sit there and say that he would not have given said weapons to the highest bidder?
Siaf, answer the question.
You've dodged it enough already.
Bailing out on a thread is the cowards way out. I think I know where your from now.
We did you're little Utopia a favor by getting our hands dirty and taking out one miserable piece of trash. It's just a matter of time before we send him to meet the real great satan.
A good quote I picked up today which seems to apply:
"They're pissed off at us because we're Americans and can do what we want, and they're not and they can't."
Not 100% true, but it applies to a certain extent, would'nt you agree, Gulliver?
-
With all else, Toad, I think you're forgetting all the years your country was supporting Saddam because it was convenient at the time.
'Convenient at the time' is a world-class understatement and shows you have no real grasp of history, international relations, etc.
The Middle Eastern Nation with the most powerful standing military - Iran - had just been taken over by a fundamentalist Muslim revolution. The arch-enemy of Iran - Iraq - was the 2nd most powerful Nation militarily, and was outnumbered roughly 3 to 1. So in your book the 'common sense' play would be to let Iran take over Iraq, and then be standing there alone next to Saudi Arabia and adjacent to the majority of the oil reserves for the entire free world. I'll clue you in a little - it wasn't only the U.S. that helped Iraq in this situation, and for obvious reasons. The fundamentalists of Iran didn't just hate the U.S.A. - they were the self-avowed enemies of most of the 'free' Western world. If they won the war with Iraq the results would have been absolutely catastrophic as far as the free market economy of the world goes. Or maybe you think it would have been 'no big deal' if, at the height of the cold war, the oil supply for every Nation opposed to the Soviet Union was suddenly put at very great risk. No - that would not have been destabalizing in the least bit. I am amazed at your ability to reduce major complex political and strategic military events to one or two sentences. Wherever you come from, it's amazing you don't work for your foreign ministry.
Or the years your government was supporting the afghan extremists terror attempts against the russian forces, again because it was convenient for you. Islamic radicals were ok while cutting throats as it was your ideological enemy suffering then.
You are an expert at one thing for certain - redifining reality to benefit your arguments. 'afghan extremists'? Afghanistan is almost entirely tribal. The various tribal leaders that chose to fight *the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan* were helped by the U.S., the U.K., Pakistan, and numerous other Nations. Again you say 'conventient'. Others would say there was a worldwide 'cold' war underway, and the communists invaded a Nation with the obvious strategic aim of threatening the oil reserves available to their enemies, which was a smart move. And bin-Laden's is one of the few who betrayed the Nations that helped those willing to fight the Soviets in their hour of need. Here's another short history lesson - numerically speaking, the majority of the forces that wound up overthrowing the Taliban were from the various Afghan warlords who fought the Soviet Union with the aid of the U.S., the U.K., etc. A couple of 'rebel' leaders did 'stab the West in the back'. The others remembered who their true friends are, which was very fortunate for 'the good guys'.
Based on your statement, you are defending the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan? It's apparent that you consider the Soviet forces involved in the invasion to be the 'victims' of 'Islamic radicals'?
Are you aware that a very small % of the armed forces facing the Soviet Army were Islamic extremists? The vast majority of the people who took up arms against the Soviets were Afghanis.
Before we move on, we'll correct this section of your 'historical fantasy' (for the sake of reality, and believe me, on this BBS reality could use the help):
1. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
2. Many more Nations that 'just the evil U.S.A.' aided Afghanistan, because they were the victims of an invasion by a hostile foreign military. Please note that this does not mean I smile at the thought of Soviet soldiers (or any soldiers for that matter, as opposed to terrorist types) getting their throats slit.
3. The vast majority of the fighters that opposed the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were Afghanis - 'Islamic extremists' were a minority (on a side note, some friendly advice here - if you ever find yourself speaking with an Afghani who fought the Soviets, do not explain to him how it was 'Islamic extremists' who fought and defeated the Soviet Army when it invaded Afghanistan).
4. The vast majority of the tribal leaders, warlords, and 'man in the street' types of Afghanistan are still grateful for U.S., U.K., Pakistani, etc. assistance 'in their hour of need' when they were facing the Soviet Union. Who do you think provided the Coalition forces with all that critical pre-invaion intel before the hammer dropped on the ATF (That's Alliance of Taliban Forces in case you were wondering) - Americans with shoe polish on their faces 'disguised' as Afghanis? It was Afghanis who had remained loyal and friendly to the West.
Saddam grew powerful partly because of your support. Same happened with afghan rebels. The problem with playing in the world sanbox is that historically looking, all those events have turned against you. You're fixing up your own mess down there.
You stated it again, so I'll correct you again.
1. Iraq had more Nations that the U.S. cheering for it during the Iran-Iraq war. This is partly because the Iranians were attacking oil tankers of all Nationalities in the region. Another reason people were cheering for Iraq is because Fundamentalist Islamic states with big strong militaries scare everyone who isn't an Islamic Fundamentalist.
2. The majority of the Afghani rebels who fought vs. the Soviet Union fought on the side of the Coalition when the time came to overthrow the Taliban. Words cannot explain the enthusiasm I would feel if I were allowed to take you to Afghanistan to 'set the record straight' with some 'Afghan rebels'. I'd even settle for taking you to 'little Vietnam' in San Jose and/or Los Angeles CA. and watching you explain to the Vietnamese immigrants 'what really happened in the war in Vietnam'. Air fare is on me - just let me pick up a video camera and get some legal paperwork done so I'm not responsible for your safety.
Anyway it's getting painfully obvious that you guys are living at your private world where outside influence has little effect.
Yeah, you really set the record straight. It's too bad that everyone else is too dumb to listen to you. I mean, I'm pretty sure you talked to more Iraqi POWs than I did after the '91 war, right? And you've talked to more Afghanis as well? Or is it that reading the papers and watching the news gives you a better idea of what is 'really going on'? And I'm sure you know what really happened in Vietnam better than Toad - after all, he was only in the military at the time.
Then again, you could just be clueless, and posting inflammatory remarks on topics that you have no real-world knolwedge of, which is sadly sort of the 'norm' for this part of the BBS as of late (both in terms of overly pro-U.S. arrogance and anti-U.S. rhetoric).
But where you really crossed the line, at least with me, was the gloating over the casualties to Coalition troops in Iraq. Your average American may have an overly simplified view of the world, but they almost always err in favor of the good guys. Even the daydreamers in America that chanted 'Ireland must be free' (as if the Irish were living behind the U.K.s own version of the 'Iron Curtain') never 'cheered the good news' when some U.K. soldier wound up KIA in N. Ireland (and that attitude is far to the left of my personal attitude, for what it's worth). In Algeria French soldiers were the 'good guys' to Americans - because even if there was some valid argument against them being there they didn't target women and kids as part of their SOP - and their enemies did. Some Americans have said some dumb things on this BBS, but not one has ever gloated over the deaths of anyone's combat troops - even Iraqi combat troops. In your other thread you asked 'are we happy now?'. I think you knew the answer before you asked the question, which makes the question all the more tasteless. Your question of Toad about being part of a 'fiasco' when he was serving in the military at the time is also a maneuver destined for the 'Big Book Of Classic prettythanghole Statements'. I'm sure that Toad was the one who made the U.S. Congress vote to leave Vietnam 'in the lurch'. Luckily, he never got what was coming to him. Your secret is safe with me Toad. :)
Your entire line of reasoning is severely lacking in facts. The Iraqi people are far better off today than they were a year ago. The day after you posted your 'Forget about Iraq?' thread the former Iraqi Defense Minister surrendered largely in part to reasoning on the part of the Coalition that he could help put an end to the diehards still fighting a guerilla war. "No end in sight"? Maybe you're closing your eyes because you don't ever want to see an end to the guerilla attacks whose sole aim is to prevent the creation of a stable self-governed Iraq?
I get the feeling of banging my head to the wall - and there's no point to continue.
Yeah, it must get tiring throwing together 2-paragraph fantasy gloats involving the deaths of U.S. servicemen as opposed to spending 30 minutes or more posting multiple paragraphs involving facts, careful analysis, etc. in an effort to educate and generate worthwhile discussions. You appear certain that the U.S. is evil, etc. Since we're 'beyond saving' here at the AH BBS, maybe you should frequent the Al-Jazeera BBS. I'm fairly sure your world views and your peculiar 'version' of history would make you fairly popular over there. I'm actually envious of you - I'd sleep a lot better at night if I could reduce the major problems of the world into 2 simplified sentences when it comes to right and wrong, solutions, etc.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. What's up with not saying what Nation you are a citizen of? What's the big deal?
p.p.s. To everyone who fought the communists in Vietnam.
-
Wulfie
Damn, I am impressed! you rock man!
Prolly a waste of time on saif but really nice post.
to you as well Toad.
I think it's pretty damn funny he pulled the "you are all just to dumb to talk to so I am going away cause I am OH SO much smarter" lol.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The conflict created instability and more hatred in the mid-east area.
Before the conflict, there was only peace and love.
-
the danger lies when the same spew of a Siaf__csf and other similiar mouthpieces on this bbs is spoken to a different audience over and over again, some would call brainwashing, without the wisdom of a Toad or a wulfie to counter and is delivered by thier highly respected religious leaders to religious fanatics - the same message inspires some to kill Americans and her allies.
That is why I do not have patience for such garbage.
You are with us or you are against us - pretty dam clear to me.
-
Eagler
Re: your avatar:
Please no more Cheney. Personally, I think I can only vote for Bush this time without Cheney. How 'bout Bush/Rice? Or Powell? Or frickin' Krusty the Klown?!
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL!
Talk about trying to have it both ways, eh dead?
You just told us all it was the SANCTIONS that ruined Iraq's infrastructure and impoverished the Iraq health system...poor Saddam just didn't have the cash to build the state of the art infrastructure and hospitals he really, really, REALLY wanted to build instead of palaces and Grand Mosques and personal fortunes.
:D Jeez, this is TOO GOOD!
As Straffo points out Hussein is just a guy not a country.
So let me rephrase: Hussein skimmed whatever he needs for his own evil dictator stuff regardless. He's an evil dictator - it's in the job description. Sanctions were always destined to affect the people alone, and not Hussein.
Besides which your example of palaces is somewhat specious - building palaces and grand mosques require concrete, tiles and bricks, which is probably locally made and is certainly not stuff that the US & UK reps on the 661 Committee are going to hold back because it was "dual-use" stuff - like pencils, chlorine for water treatment and diptheria vaccines.
For Iraq's health system, on the other hand, a lot of the stuff required was classified as "dual-use" - so it really doesn't matter how much cash you allocate to the health system - it won't make a bit of difference because you can't buy anything with it.
And it wasn't just sanctions that trashed the infrastructure - it was massively bombed first, then many replacement parts were denied - "dual-use", apparently - for a few years.
-
Two things:
1. Wulfie, you write very well and you have an excellent way of expressing your well formed and well informed opinions. I wish I was half as smart and half as well spoken.
2. Let me make this perfectly clear:
I tested for and won a 4-year AFROTC scholarship in 1968. Just after the TET offensive and during the rising anti-war trend in the US. I was proud and happy to get it. It guaranteed me a slot in UPT if/when I graduated from college.
I started UPT in November of '73. Only one man in my class actually set foot in VietNam. The rest of us were just getting to our operational units when the US deserted our South Vietnamese allies.
The one guy that DID set foot in VietNam arrived at Clark AFB as a grass-green C-130 copilot. He checked in to the Ops Officer and was briefed on an immediate mission. They told him they were going to evacuate Saigon, to stand on the rear ramp and if he saw a missile homing up on them to fire this flare gun out the rear. In short, he didn't even have time to unpack. That was the timeline of Class 75-04.
I did NOT fight in VietNam. However, I volunteered with that intention and progressed through University and UPT as fast as possible. I even went to summer school to cut out an extra semester. I wanted an F-4 to VietNam. Didn't get it. In my class of 55 graduates, there were 6 F-4's; those were the only fghters. NONE of those guys ever became operational before the US had pulled out either.
So, let's keep that clear.
I did end up flying a lot of missions 20 miles off the coast of Vietnam but that was from '75-'80 and another story entirely.
But I'm no "war hero" and I never said I was.
I salute those that actually served there.
-
Dead, point is that there was MORE THAN ENOUGH money available to do good things for the common people. Sanctions didn't change that fact.
You can't have it both ways. The sanctions couldn't really damage a piss-poor system very much, infrastructure or health.
This all started with you carping about what's been done there since the end of the war.
Yeah, electric's back up to 75% of what a crappy system did prior to the war. You call that sort of statement "sad and obvious propaganda".
It's simply the truth. And the big difference? It's going to get much better and will eventually far surpass the pre-war system. Further, entire neighborhoods won't have their electricity turned off as punishment to some enemy of the regime or on the whim of a dictator.
Same is true for the health system. You counter your own implication that without sanctions health spending would have been much higher by admitting that Saddam didn't really give a spoiled fig and probably wouldn't have funded it. Can't have it both ways.
And, again, point is that the health system is only going to get better. Better than it ever was before, better than that of its neighbors.
When this is over, the common people of Iraq will no longer live in a 3rd world country. They'll have modern medicine, open and uncensored schools, a free market, modern utilities... and some sort of democracy.
Now, you want to talk about destablizing the Middle East? THAT'S when things are going to get shaky in a lot of countries neighboring Iraq.
Of course, some folks view that as a good thing.
I'm one of those.
-
Nice way of trying to twist my words wulfie. You must have an unconcious ability of selective reading as you missed totally the parts where I explicitly expressed my support to the TROOPS that were out there. I HATE to see any american serviceman die because of a stupid powermonger in the politic position. The policies are the only thing I'm criticising - but as it is the standard here, anyone who dares to open up and say something negative of the 'YEAH WHOOOHOO Nr.1! WE ROCK LETS NUKE THE REST' attitude, becomes an America hater. A couple years ago you'd call me a communist as that was _The_ buzzword for hating things back then.
Now, that enemies have changed, you call me French (which is dumbfounding, how did they become your enemy nr.1 as theyre still your ally.) Eagler was the first one to take the first step of almost calling me a terrorist / religious fanatic for expressing my point of view. That's a sign of a healthy society folks! :D
Let's just suppress any negative posters with witty arguements like and the likes. Heck, let's just ask Skuzzy to ban the guy who dares to have a different opinnion. That's happened too. You guys love censorship, one thing is for sure.
Wulfie, I'm not here to make an essay of international relationships as you grasp it. I'm here to raise questions about the true motivations for going to Iraq, the implications and the background of cold-war induced dirty work which created the current situation to start with.
US is not the only one to blame, the soviets were equally dumb or even dumber (I prefer the latter) for trying to dominate the world. All this hate, fighting and bickering is the result of a few retarded old men. I hate politicians. The powerplay resulted in millions of needless deaths already and will continue to do so.
Just out of interest, what shifted the scale so much between Iraq and Iran? How come Iran ceased to be the bad guy and your ex friend became the monster of all times? Or is it just that you want to stir the soup down there in order to weaken the regimes enough to gain ultimate control of the oil, which is naturally the driving force behind this all.
Man I just can't wait to see what kind of battles there will be in near future when the resources start to dry off. Are people really so dumb that we'll burn off all of the fossile fuels before shifting to alternate energy sources?
To Toad: The issue is not about whether the result of the offensive was good or bad. The question is did your country have the right to interfere with other countries internal businesses? I think it did not. History shows that when people wants change enough, it will revolt. Trying to induce revolt without 100% backing from the people will just result in massacres, which the US caused in Iraq briefly after gulf1.
-
Grünherz,
Thank you for your kind words. It is true, I have never been to Switzerland. I don't know about the amount of nazi gold on deposit at Swiss banks. I do know that the nazis plundered many valuables and art treasures from the countries they invaded. I do know about that law in California (and possibly other states) that says that if money is left in a bank for seven years, and there are no movements on the account and the account holder does not write to the bank about it, then the funds in that account are to be turned over to the state. I don't know a great deal about laws governing Swiss banks. But if they had a law like the one in California, all that nazi gold would be turned over to the Swiss government and they could wash their hands of the nazi gold stigma.
AKIron, yes - Margaret Thatcher was easily the best Prime Minister in my lifetime, and really turned around years of decay resulting from Labour Government and unfettered Trade Union power. When she came to power, the top rate of income tax was 83% with a 15% surcharge on investment income making the overall top rate 98%! And they wondered why the big money went overseas. :rolleyes: Margaret's government took the top rate down to 40% and abolished the investment income surcharge. The big money came back home. I had a hot debate about it with Dowding in this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71804) thread.
-
They did it very knowingly and happily, their hands are dirty no doubt - if its the knowing willful storage of gold plundered by the Nazis during WW2 then I'm not willing to make moral judgements based on mere legal terms. And frankly they have had 60 years to make right and they have not, at leant not until the lawsuits started pouring in. So basically the Swiss are not clean in this regard, not even close.
BTW lets entertain your hypothesis about bank laws and the 7 year thing you mentioned. A lot of european Jewish families had swiss accounts and of course the majority of them failed to keep in touch with the bank during and after the war. You dont have to be a clever swiss banker to calculate the odds of what most likely happend to those people, do you? So how do you morally apply thatr 7 year law in this case as if nothing unusual happend?
-
Grunherz the swiss have always been greedy people, that's for sure. So they accepted gold. Big deal.
Who did they attack? Who did they kill? Whose internal relations did they mess up? Nobody. They just accepted bank savings from a wargoing country at a time when nobody outside germany REALLY knew about the attrocities taking place.
What were the swiss supposed to do with the nazi money? Hand it back over the the reich?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Grunherz the swiss have always been greedy people, that's for sure. So they accepted gold. Big deal.
Who did they attack? Who did they kill? Whose internal relations did they mess up? Nobody. They just accepted bank savings from a wargoing country at a time when nobody outside germany REALLY knew about the attrocities taking place.
What were the swiss supposed to do with the nazi money? Hand it back over the the reich?
OMG I cannot belive what you just wrote, how evil and dismissive and callous it is towards the Swiss finacial services in help of the nazi war effort.
I will simply let the others tear up what you wrote.
-
So they made money off of Genocide, and it's OK.
Your freakin Einstein, my friend.
-
Grunherz the old coal miner: I simply love how she restored the UK economic progress by destroying the evil coal mining unions and putting those greedy unproductive bastards in their place.
How many tons of coal have you mined, man? Have you ever visited a coal mine?
Do you have any idea of the circumstances those guys had in the past and still have in countries like china?
Big big words, coming from an empty head. I'm beginning to think that Grun had to leave his homecountry because they decided he's better off in a rubber dingy somewhere far away. :)
-
It's so easy to judge afterwards.. The question is was the Swiss leadership and banks really aware of the source of the gold? Did the nazi leadership take them for a tour in the concentration camps to show off the source of the gold? I highly doubt that. The fact is that the allied troops were dumbfounded with the sight of the camps when they finally reached them. Now why is that? Nobody knew maybe?
Has that been proven? Because at least I haven't seen any documents stating that.
If accepting money was the limit, then swedes are equally guilty along with multiple countries that traded with nazi-germany.
Back in those days there were no CNN and satellite uplinks informing people of other countries.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Grunherz the swiss have always been greedy people, that's for sure. So they accepted gold. Big deal.
Who did they attack? Who did they kill? Whose internal relations did they mess up? Nobody. They just accepted bank savings from a wargoing country at a time when nobody outside germany REALLY knew about the attrocities taking place.
What were the swiss supposed to do with the nazi money? Hand it back over the the reich?
Sorry Siaf I think most people will pay attention to this stement of yours...
-
Grunherz by your logic, everyone who trades with a 'selected bad country' is taking part in the human rights violations et cetera?
So we should all collectively sue ourselves for trading with Saddams regime. You probably burned his oil in your gasoline. You're guilty. We should all collectively sue ourselves for accepting south african diamonds, collected with slave labour. We should all collectively sue ourselves for dealing with the americans, who accepted slave labour and massacred the natives... We should all collectively sue ourselves for importing oil from russia, electronics from China.. etc. Heck! It's illegal even to buy Japanese products as they committed war crimes during WW2. I've owned a toyota - sue me.
Trade has never gone hand in hand with morale. Iraq only proves that - even with the sanctions there were always willing buyers. Funnily enough, one pipeline went right to your own ally's territory.
-
My oh my how you are starting to write up excuses and justifications when it hits close to home, eh...
But I'll simply let you do the talking again:
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Grunherz the swiss have always been greedy people, that's for sure. So they accepted gold. Big deal.
Who did they attack? Who did they kill? Whose internal relations did they mess up? Nobody. They just accepted bank savings from a wargoing country at a time when nobody outside germany REALLY knew about the attrocities taking place.
What were the swiss supposed to do with the nazi money? Hand it back over the the reich?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Just out of interest, what shifted the scale so much between Iraq and Iran?
Did you miss the Iraqi invason of Kuwait?
Did you miss the Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions and endless UN resolutions?
Sorry, my mistake...there was an end to Iraq-SH UN resolutions as of last March.
-
No Grunherz that doesnt cut it.
Do you have proof that the swiss knew what they were accepting when they did it? If not, please find it before making accusations. If the same gold would have been handed to your own government (present or past) they'd take it. Maybe confiscate and use it, take it they would in any case.
Holden: Ok, Iraq invaded kuwait - so it's not ok to invade kuwait but it's ok to support them in an attempt to invade an another country? Right?
How about not meddling with other countries affairs at all and do things only when asked? If a country is attacked and asks for help - fine. Everyone should help. That's what the UN was built for. That's what the 'police' did right. I fully support the coalition kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. But to induce and support conflicts within countries? That's where I pull my line.
-
Kuwait invaded somebody? Where? When? They allowed staging on their territory, but did they put in troops?
It can be argued that the invasion by 'Coalition' forces are in response to violations of various UNSC resolutions, only the last one of which was 1441.
1441 said that consequenses would follow if not adhered to. That the international community did not have the backbone to back up their words and only coalition did is the issue IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nice way of trying to twist my words wulfie. You must have an unconcious ability of selective reading as you missed totally the parts where I explicitly expressed my support to the TROOPS that were out there. I HATE to see any american serviceman die because of a stupid powermonger in the politic position. The policies are the only thing I'm criticising...
Now, that enemies have changed, you call me French (which is dumbfounding, how did they become your enemy nr.1 as theyre still your ally.)...
Wulfie, I'm not here to make an essay of international relationships as you grasp it. I'm here to raise questions about the true motivations for going to Iraq, the implications and the background of cold-war induced dirty work which created the current situation to start with.
US is not the only one to blame...
Just out of interest, what shifted the scale so much between Iraq and Iran? How come Iran ceased to be the bad guy and your ex friend became the monster of all times?...
Sorry but when you ask Americans on this BBS if 'we're happy now' about our guys 'getting b***f*****' I'm not buying the oh so typical dodge "I hate America's Leaders, not the troops". You had an axe to grind and you came out looking for a fight. Don't look for a fight if you don't really want one. Call the CiC an idiot? Give me a break - do you really think there is no more to the situation than you know or that what you hear on the TV?
I'm sorry, but right now the French Government is not an ally of the United States. Maybe on paper, but in terms of actions no way in hell could you call them an ally. The French foreign minister *refused to answer when asked by reporters who he wanted to prevail - Hussein or the U.S.*.
So you're not here for essays. Well, I hate to break this to you but you're dealing with extremely complex topics, so a 2 paragraph statement or response is never going to be enough. There's too many points to address. What you do is the equivalent of asking a question like "Abortion should be punishable by death - yes or no - make your case in less than 3 sentences". Sounds great, if your lifetime goal is to debate on the Jerry Springer show.
You say now the U.S. is not the only one to blame - that's sure a different tune than what you were singing initially. I seem to recall something to the effect of 'The U.S. is reaping what it sowed'. The funny thing is there is no one to blame at all. Throughout the history of mankind there are not many examples of an international relations-level crisis that had a 'perfect solution', especially when 'hindsight' was applied. What was done was the correct thing. This concept will probably elude you for your entire sheltered life however. Tell me what the U.S. should have done differently during the Iran-Iraq war? Tell me what the U.S. should have done differently in Vietnam? Your attitude seems to be that the U.S. was wrong and arrogant to even get involved. The history of Nations that try to 'avoid getting involved' is usually not a pleasant one. Switzerland pulled it off because they were very tough in terms of their military and they occupied a part of the Earth that was not a 'must have' most of the time. Not every Nation has these circumstances to work with.
Last but not least - Iran shifted from being the #1 bad guy when they lost the ability to wage offensive warfare with any reasonable chance of success. The war with Iraq depleted their manpower reserves, destroyed the majority of their high tech warfighting gear, and anything that wasn't destroyed was useless as their was no one around to repair and/or maintain it. Then Iraq, with an experienced army with good equipment decided to annex Kuwait and begin massing military units on the border of Saudi Arabia. Of course in your twisted world the U.S. knew this would happen all along. All part of our master plan to take over the free world. This master plan is boring. We take too long and give people too much of a chance to whine. I want a new master plan, where we get to act like stormtroopers. If everyone with the intelligence to turn on CNN and commit everything they hear to memory is going to hate us for no reason, the least we could ask for is a chance to do something fun to earn the hatred.
Your opinion of what went on in Afghanistan, of what's going on in Iraq, of what has happened in the Middle East and Vietnam in the past...has nothing in common with reality. You state things as facts that I know to be wrong based on real life experience. Posts like the ones you make and the majority of the responses to those posts are like listening to a bunch of 8 year old virgin boys who are natives of Wisconsin argue over the best way to get laid in Thailand. It's amazing, in a very sick and painful way. Someone writes a post that is totally inaccurate. Then 20 people argue for 150 posts about the details of the initial post - none of which have anything to do with reality.
We'll go back to Jerry Springer mode now, and break it down to a really simple level, so you won't have to deal with 'essays':
1. You stated "we're getting b***f*****". When you look at the history of guerilla warfare, we're doing very well. I guess because CNN doesn't report on all the bad guys who are being captured and killed you just assumed it wasn't happening?
In other words, your assumption - the one in your 'I'm looking for a fight with any American on this BBS' post - is wrong. I point out why in great detail and you tell me you don't have the time to read long words.
2. You stated that there was no end in sight. What do you base this analysis on? The fact that a TV news reported commented 'there's no end in sight here in Iraq'? I've got Friends over there right now. I hear more about what's really going on day-to-day from 'small talk' than you will probably ever learn about in your entire life. So I'm telling you you are wrong. If you weren't on such a mission to piss people off, I might take 15 minutes and give you some directions to some really good international (in terms of sources) research material. But why bother? Your mind is made up.
You are the epitome of 'amateur hour'. An equivalent would be my telling the assembled starting forwards of World Cup Soccer what they were doing wrong in terms of offensive tactics on a BBS.
Based on your attitude on this BBS and the words and tone you chose, I think you are an idiot. This is not because you are not 'pro-U.S.'. There are people on this BBS that don't agree with the current U.S. policy whom I do not consider to be idiots. We have discussions about things. Every so often someone catches themself thinking or saying "I honestly did not know that" or "I never thought of that". You blew any chance of being part of such a discussion when you made your eloquent 'getting b***f*****' statement. How many Iraqi and/or foreign guerilla fighters have been killed or captured since the 'official end of major hostilities'? Do you know? I do and I don't think you do. The ratio would not lead your average unbiased observer to come to the conclusion that the Coalition forces (composed of the U.S. and a few dozen other Nations that you don't consider to be 'on the planet') are 'getting b***f*****' by the insurgents they are facing.
So we'll sum up:
You: "America is getting b***f***** in Iraq!"
Me: "You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about".
You: "There is no end in sight!"
Me: "You are wrong."
Is that non-essay enough for you?
For everyone else - a link to a story on examples of media bias and media coverage of the current situation in Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1
Mike/wulfie
-
Let me put this in once more just in case Siaf starts his grand philosophizing about the evil USA again...
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Grunherz the swiss have always been greedy people, that's for sure. So they accepted gold. Big deal.
Who did they attack? Who did they kill? Whose internal relations did they mess up? Nobody. They just accepted bank savings from a wargoing country at a time when nobody outside germany REALLY knew about the attrocities taking place.
What were the swiss supposed to do with the nazi money? Hand it back over the the reich?
BTW very nice wulfie, well though out, well written and nice link to an excellent article - I posted that one too. :)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
No Grunherz that doesnt cut it.
Do you have proof that the swiss knew what they were accepting when they did it? If not, please find it before making accusations.
http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/switzerland/switzerland.htm
Lots of good reading there.
"Switzerland's war-time record is complex and often appears contradictory. Historians argue that Switzerland suggested to Nazi Germany in 1938 that a 'J' (denoting Jude or Jew) be stamped in German Jewish passports to facilitate recognition by Swiss border police."
"In the late 1950s details about Switzerland's decision in 1942 to refuse entry to at least 30,000 Jewish refugees began to emerge. But it was not until the 1990s that the questions of dormant bank accounts and trading in gold with Nazi Germany became high-profile issues. Critics say these ties to the Third Reich show that Switzerland profitted from the war, while defenders say they were necessary to maintain independence from the fascist powers. Many Swiss historians who have been scrutinizing the nation's past for the last decade have come to feel that the reason Hitler did not invade Switzerland was because its value as a financial clearing-house and a source of hard currency was much greater than its value as an occupied land."
Ouch. "Don't beat her to death she's too good in bed". How does it feel to know you were a *****potato for the Nazis. Hershey's chocolate for me from now on, thankyouverymuch.
"Amid the row over the shredding of historical evidence by UBS, the WJC released documents charging the UBS with storing paintings stolen from prominent Jewish collectors until they could be picked up by middlemen working for Hermann Goering."
"The report claims that Swiss bankers showed 'indifference to the needs of the victims of the Holocaust and their heirs which persisted until the current international pressure came to bear'. It also criticizes other neutral countries and the Allies. In response to the report the Swiss authorities acknowledged that it had entered into 'questionable deals' with the Third Reich but denied helping to prolong the war."
A lot of reading there. A couple of essay's worth I'd say. :)
So let me get this straight - there's no proof of this, but the Swiss Banks agreed to pay out hundreds of millions anyways?
I really like the parts about how people in Switzerland were still as of a couple of years ago calling the investigations into the wartime conduct of Swiss banks 'part of a Jew conspiracy'. Switzerland is screwed. Between the Jew bank conspiracy and the U.S. conspiracy to take over the entire world, well, they've got nowhere left to hide.
Mike/wulfie
-
Hmmm.......very nice Wulfie.
I think I found a running mate for Toad.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
It's so easy to judge afterwards.. The question is was the Swiss leadership and banks really aware of the source of the gold? Did the nazi leadership take them for a tour in the concentration camps to show off the source of the gold? I highly doubt that. The fact is that the allied troops were dumbfounded with the sight of the camps when they finally reached them. Now why is that? Nobody knew maybe?
""In the late 1950s details about Switzerland's decision in 1942 to refuse entry to at least 30,000 Jewish refugees began to emerge."
I suppose the 30,000 Jewish refugees trying to flee to Switzerland never mentioned why they were so eager to leave Nazi-controlled Germany? Did the Swiss assume they hated good beer and oompah music?
"Switzerland's war-time record is complex and often appears contradictory. Historians argue that Switzerland suggested to Nazi Germany in 1938 that a 'J' (denoting Jude or Jew) be stamped in German Jewish passports to facilitate recognition by Swiss border police."
So the Swiss had no idea what was going on with the Jews in Germany...and in a completely unrelated action suggested that the Germans specially mark all Jewish passports?
I'm curious what your take is on all of this.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Monk
Hmmm.......very nice Wulfie.
I think I found a running mate for Toad.
The only political office I would ever hold would have something to do with violence, secrecy, unaccountability, Swedish women under the age of 25, Hemicudas, and Jagermeister and it would be during FunkedUp's Presidency. I'd also probably need lazs on board as some sort of PR/propoganda/foreign ministry official.
When we went down fighting in a blaze of glory, news reports along the lines of this report would surface as they overran my secret compound...
Current Events Real Story:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - The doors of the town house opened to reveal a playboy's fantasy straight from the 1960s: mirrored bedroom, lamps shaped like women, air-brushed paintings of a topless blonde woman and a mustached hero battling a crocodile.
Next door, where iron sheets were welded over all the windows, they found more than 6,000 Berretta pistols, 650 Sig Sauer pistols, 248 Colt Revolvers, 160 Belgian 7.65 mm pistols, 12 cases of Sterling submachine guns and four cases of anti-tank missiles all still in the unopened original boxes. There were also tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition mortars and cases of old handguns and heavy machine guns."
When Our Grand Scheme For World Unity Fails version of the Story:
"Maui, Hawaii, U.S.A. - The doors of the town house opened to reveal a playboy's fantasy straight from the 1960s: mirrored bedroom, lamps shaped like women, air-brushed paintings of a topless blonde Swedish woman almost certainly under the age of 25 and a naked Jagermeister-coated hero battling a Great White shark. Next door, where depleted uranium sheets were welded over all the windows, they found more than 6,000 Colt 1911 pistols, 650 Sig Sauer pistols, 248 Colt Revolvers, 160 9mm fully automatic Russian pistols (editor note: I always loved 9mm Stechkin MPs)[/i], 12 cases of Thompson submachine guns and four cases of anti-tank missiles all still in the unopened original boxes and loaded into a fleet of Black 'Hemicuda' 'muscle cars'. There were also tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition mortars and cases of old handguns and heavy machine guns, all apparently stockpiled to protect the world's largest freezer containing a nearly unfathomable ammount of Jagermeister and 'Presidential' corndogs'."
FunkedUp for President!
Mike/wulfie
-
"Like a red-headed stepchild".
Wulfie!
-
:D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I explicitly expressed my support to the TROOPS that were out there.
I find this statement amusing when made by one of my liberal countrymen as they get in their jabs to the current administration. It is a defensive statement but can be true nonetheless, at least in their case. What goes beyond amusing into the ridiculous is your claim of support for US troops. How do you do this exactly? Support US troops I mean. Lack of criticism perhaps?
Some may contradict me on this but I believe that most US military personel are conservative in their political leanings. If you understood how they felt about folks with your attitude I suspect you'd withdraw your "support" rather quickly.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I HATE to see any american serviceman die because of a stupid powermonger in the politic position. The policies are the only thing I'm criticising...
Well the policies are the responsibility and product of a hell of a lot more people that the CiC, many of them being people who were not elected to their position (intelligence, military, etc.). And in the U.S.A. a powermongering CiC is not given a 'free pass' to go to war wherever and whenever he wants to. The U.S. is in Iraq due to a lot more than the 'whims' of our President. Sorry, but it's not an 'issue' that you can 'pin' on one single elected official. And Superman could be the CiC and we'd still be losing a soldier or two here and there to attacks by insurgents. Howard Dean could be CiC tomorrow and 3 months from now if you looked at how things fared under Dean or Bush they'd probably be the same. Because at that level the CiC isn't making any of the calls. He's not qualified to. Advisors who have made a profession out of military matters, intelligence matters, national security matters, etc. briefed the CiC (which is their job), answered his questions, 'brain stormed' with him, etc. And 'at the end of the day' (really the end of at least several months), when the best course of action was determined based on the professional opinions of numerous persons besides the CiC who also serve the United States of America out of choice, the President informed the Citizens of what was going to be done and why. Similar procedures take place in most Nations that are some form of democracy or republic. The CiC doesn't just 'get a wild hair up his prettythang' and determine that the U.S. is going to attack Iraq.
I'd suggest you read the book 'Bush at War'. It's written by Bob Woodward - the reporter who helped bring Nixon down - and it gives a good day to day picture of 'what goes on' at the Presidential level. You may be disappointed however - the VP doesn't run into the CiCs office every hour screaming "Haliburton needs more $$$ we need to take down Iraq or Saudi George!".
AKIron the only thing that is annoying is that in many cases (but less than 50% - a lot of Citizens just hate the military and/or the government but need a way to say it so they don't look like traitors) people are opposed to military action based on incorrect data. The same situation existed as far back as Vietnam, where the U.S. was exercising 'imperialism' by propping up a regime that was 'opressing' the 'peoples ability to choose their own government'.
When someone tells me they are against war because they don't like to see civilians get killed I can respect that. I try to explain that the only thing you can do is to end the war as fast as possible. But the people who argue that war never works or is not a valid option in extreme circumstances are 'sheep' as opposed to 'tigers'. They are incapable of understanding that sometimes someone or something is going to make it a mission to engage you in combat. And the only two options are to fight and maybe prevail or to not fight and get killed. Running away isn't an option if you want to stay in the history books.
One of my favorite things in the mid '90s was to inform antiwar types that the U.S. actually had a lawyer present to approve targets for the air campaign during the '91 Gulf War (I see it coming already from Dowding - yes Dowding, he probably got beat up while on vacation in England :)) and he rejected targets on numerous occasions. Usually the people that are honestly concerned for noncombatants were a little surprised by that revelation. I'd like to think that they maybe had their opinions altered a little by it.
Mike/wulfie
-
Who would of thought that by nationalizing a country's oil reserves it would send the region into fifty years of death and decay.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The emphasis was on WMD and disarmament. It pervaded all of the Coalition's diplomatic overtures and sabre-rattling before things went 'Live'. When Blair persuaded Bush to go the UN route to tackle Iraq, tell me, what was the angle pursued?
WMD's and their possible use....as it should have been.
The UN chief weapons inspector back in 95 admitted himself, that if it had not been for the defection of Sadams son in law and the following intel they recieved from him, they would have just left back in 95. At that time, he told them he had destroyed all of his WMD's.
The man can't be trusted...he has persued WMD's for the past 20 years.
Why would you spend such time defending this man....you must need more direct proof....more dead Americans work for you....then you will let us know if we can act on our own behalf I suppose.
-
(first booze in 5+ months here - excuse the grammar and spelling errors, etc.)
Blair especially is not getting a 'fair shake' in my book as he has been campaigning for nonproliferation of WMDs since the day he was 'elected' which was some time before 11SEP01. He made it an issue before anyone else in the upper political circles really considered it a major issue.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by AKIron
......If you understood how they felt about folks with your attitude I suspect you'd withdraw your "support" rather quickly.
[evil grin]YEP[/evil grin]
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I HATE to see any american serviceman die because of a stupid powermonger in the politic position. The policies are the only thing I'm criticising -
Saif__csf:
Intresting that the above statements are contradicting.
Calling someone a 'stupid powermonger' is not a criticism of policy.
I point this out only to help raise the level of rhetoric on this BBS, not to insult you... you idiot. ;)
-
Ok...
I have been laughing for 15 minutes now. That is probably the funniest quote posted on any bb in the history of the internet.
Hope you dont mind wulfie...I just *had* to steal that quote and put it in my sig.
btw, do you have an email where I can reach you? I was wondering about cmmc2.
-
Hmmm the reason for the beginning of this thread seems to have gotten lost?
Well hmmm.....
IMHO (constructed after much reading and the examining of many opinions, and the history of that region) we are really really in for it in the middle east, and probably everywhere else unless we are very very careful. It may already be too late.
I do not think that we can avoid being painted as the Christian West trying to impose our ideals on the Eastern Muslim World. I am of the opinion that this administration has made a very serious error! I find myself wondering if Greed (the big oil companies?) has anything to do with it.
We can come up with all sorts of phrases/reasons/etc. that try to tell the people of the area how and why we are being/doing good to/for them.
BUT! I think it will not much matter. I think they will refuse to agree with us and continue to kill our troops.
Further I think the situation will only get worse the longer our troops remain. A sorta of ... why won't these people who claim they have done us good go away now that they are done? Will possibly become a ... the invaders must be driven forth!!!! Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God ... Kinda thing.
We are dealing with a culture that is so different from our own that basic communication in and of itself can be problematic!!!!!!
A Democracy is not what many of them actually seem to want. Much less a Representative Republic.
The area has been ruled by religion for over 1000 years. I don't think we can change that in a few months or even years. Witness the Kosavo( spelling?) situation and the hatred and atrocities that happened there.
We are dealing with a belief system. A faith situation. Many Many VERY bloody wars have been fought over such! What Saddam did may come to matter very little. He may even, over time, become a martyr if we are not very careful.
Those who believe differently from Islam are already being prosecuted, tortured, enslaved, and killed in countries within that region. DO NOT take my word for it! The information is out there. Look it up! Don't ask for leads just look it up. That way when you find it I will not be accused of making a false statement or trying to mislead.
And finally I ask a question of all.....
If a person believes that GOD wants them to fight, and kill, HOW do we argue with them? You gonna tell em GOD is wrong? Will you solve it by killing them all? If so how are you better then Saddam, or Stalin, or Hitler?
Everything here is just some thoughts and opinions I have formed watching and reading and thinking.
-
Originally posted by wrag
A Democracy is not what many of them actually seem to want. Much less a Representative Republic.
maybe not but there is a bright spot. The youth of Iraq
They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men. •
taken from
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110003991
-
Wulfie, thank you for taking time to express your point of view on the issues. However I must point out that my initial meaning was to attack the posters who blindly supported the offensive - and did so in a patronising tone of voice. I had to point out to them that none of the things they thought were blatantly clear ever realised - at least so far. I think it's highly unlikely that the WMD will emerge after this time (I recall Colin Powell stating that they knew the actual positions of the WMD depositories from satellite pictures.)
You pointed out that as guerilla warfare goes your troops aren't doing bad in Iraq. I don't argue that fact - the casualties aren't big considered the job they have to do down there. However I'm under the impression that the public opinnion in your country is that the loss of life is not acceptable regardless of 'how well' your troops do when put into the mission frame. If things continue like this for a longer time, heads will be asked to platter as the spending and loss of life mounts up gradually but certainly. Half of the US can't even properly point out Iraq on the world map, the loss of countrymens lives should be hard to sell in the context. If that happens and political pressure forces US to pull their troops out of the country well before things are stabilized there.. well.
It's very much possible that Iraq will become the second Yugoslavia where the death / removal of a dictator will eventually lead into a civil war. Although the situation in Iraq is not quite as complex, it's still a possibility. Bush1 pointed this out as the reason why he didn't want to remove Saddam from power in gulf1. Sooner or later the US troops will have to leave Iraqi soil.
Wrag made a very good point in his post. The day your troops entered and conquered Iraq, you became the western invading force. Every day that you hold the control of the country further rattles up the arab-islamic community. That fact alone jeopardises the whole plans to stabilize the country.
"Some may contradict me on this but I believe that most US military personel are conservative in their political leanings. If you understood how they felt about folks with your attitude I suspect you'd withdraw your "support" rather quickly."
Someones political views are not a determining factor as what goes with my support for some youngsters life. A human life is a human life regardless of religion or political view. They may even hate me, I still don't want them to die. Period.
It's pitiful that the posts here turn into character assassinations instead of trying to post valid answers.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
It's pitiful that the posts here turn into character assassinations instead of trying to post valid answers.
Sure you're sore that after your drive-by you were chased down and pummled. Why is that so many resort to whining about personal attacks when it's clearly what they wanted? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
You pointed out that as guerilla warfare goes your troops aren't doing bad in Iraq. I don't argue that fact - the casualties aren't big considered the job they have to do down there. However I'm under the impression that the public opinnion in your country is that the loss of life is not acceptable regardless of 'how well' your troops do when put into the mission frame. If things continue like this for a longer time, heads will be asked to platter as the spending and loss of life mounts up gradually but certainly.
The attitude of the American public with regards to war and the cost of war is a weakness that is caused by naivete in such matters and the actions of the majority of the American media outlets who exacerbate the problem by (deliberately?) failing to keep things in perspective.
No matter how good you are or how inept your enemy is you are going to lose guys on the ground. If there's really an 'American Persona' part of that 'persona' likes perfection, 'shutouts', etc. This 'persona trait' has a hard time handling the fact that - to loosely quote Hitler of all people - 'Even a victorious army pays a price', i.e. there's always a few guys that don't get to celebrate the big win when it comes to warfare.
I think the primary factor is that most Nations in Europe and Asia have had a continuos first hand 'institutional memory' of what warfare is really all about for several hundreds of years. America does not have the benefit of such experience. The last war fought by Americans on American soil was the Civil War - There aren't any citizens alive today to recall that war. Most Americans don't know, don't want to know, or cannot fathom how ugly a 'real war' is. The ones who wind up serving in the various combat arms of the U.S. military are educated about 'real war'. The uneducated majority are then all too often 'played' by the media because nothing generates ratings better than causing dismay and shock.
Immediately after the end of hostilities in the '91 Gulf War "We're in real trouble the next time a real war comes around" was not an uncommonly heard statement among the various circles of military personnel that discussed such things. The point of the statement was that since the '91 Gulf War went so well, and ended so cleanly as far as the American public was concerned (funny how the media never covered the butchering of the Iraqis and the Kurds who rose up against Hussein and were 'hung out to dry', but there 'wasn't a dry eye in the media house' when Iraqi vehicles and soldiers were getting hammered trying to flee Kuwait along 'the Highway of Death') that a large % of the citizenry basically became 'spoiled'. They took away the understanding that war could be fought cleanly and almost painlessly as far as Americans were concerned.
I don't know how the lesson is going to be taught - if it's going to take a President losing an election and his successor having the same difficulties (thus showing people that the type of 'win' they want cannot be delivered), or some '4-Star' telling it like it is and then being forced to resign, or a succession of nasty (to Americans, 'par for the course' to the citizens of some other Nations) ground intensive military conflicts but eventually the people who honestly currently don't 'get it' (as opposed to the people who harp on every death not because they give a damn but because it gives them something to harp about) will eventually learn. The sooner the better. When uneducated public opinion adversely affects the freedom of planning and execution of the professional military everyone loses.
The short version - one example is we should have gone in on the ground in Kosovo and ended the war in 1/10 the time it took to end it. American losses would have been higher for sure. Bad guy losses would have been 10 times however (meaning less of them migrating to other conflicts, like the ones who proceeded to go over to Chechnya and become terrorists) and a lot of civilians who were murdered during the execution of the air campaign would be alive today. But the political masters of the U.S. military wanted a 'clean' war, with minimal U.S. bloodshed. The sentiment is nice but it is wrong when war is the last best option.
In the republic that is the U.S.A., the ideal and intended relationship between the government and the military is that the government states the objectives and the military attains them. Senators and Congressmen have no place when it comes to opinions on how to attain them. If you employ a surgeon to remove the tumor you let him do so in the best manner that he knows how. You'd be a fool to spend 2 days on http://www.webmd.com and then ask for his plan of action so you could 'improve on it'.
Tell the professional(s) what you need done, even assign conditions. But when it's time for them to go to work let them do the job and get the hell out of the way. I cannot stand the horde of retired/former/etc. military guys who show up on Fox or CNN or ABC or NBC explaining 'how it should have been done' when they are about as 'in the loop' as JFKs Wife was when it came to who was sleeping with who (by the way that's not an anti-Democratic barb there - I think JFK was a great person and a good President).
More guys are going to get killed no matter how good the planning, support, etc. There is no way around it. Guys getting killed does not equal a 'quagmire'. Guys getting killed with no progress being made *sometimes* might be called a 'quagmire'.
You'd think that people would have a little faith after the predictions before the Good Guys attacked the Taliban wound up being so far off target.
Mike/wulfie
-
Wulfie:
Some Americans have said some dumb things on this BBS, but not one has ever gloated over the deaths of anyone's combat troops - even Iraqi combat troops.
You are joking right? I've seen comments from Americans gloating over Taliban deaths - hell, there were three threads devoted to that AC-130 footage containing plenty of mutual masturbation over the war-porn. Why do you think Hitech posted his request at the top of the forum?
Grunherz:
Simple, they are basically communists who wanted to destroy the UK economy and align away from the UK/USA alliance which saved the world only a few years before. Just read about the UK coal miner union strikes and some of the UK anti war groups of the cold war era. Truly despicable people and Margaret was the perfect strong willed person to confront these evil groups. I simply love how she restored the UK economic progress by destroying the evil coal mining unions and putting those greedy unproductive bastards in their place.
For starters you don't know what you are talking about, pseudo-Yank. You weren't there. And as for AKIron - you won't understand because you are a Yank and didn't live over here either. It's really as simple as that.
I like the pathetic 'evil' 'communists' rhetoric. No I love it. Because from my own direct experience of that time, which I can't be bothered to relate to you, the people involved were hard-working families. The communities destroyed were hard-working communities.
Now do what you always do and back-track from your ridiculous starting assertions. I just love your Hollywood 'bad-guy, good-guy' interpretation of history. But then maybe you could try and patronise me with your complete lack of knowledge and/or experience of the events you speak so inanely of...
Rude:
WMD's and their possible use....as it should have been.
The UN chief weapons inspector back in 95 admitted himself, that if it had not been for the defection of Sadams son in law and the following intel they recieved from him, they would have just left back in 95. At that time, he told them he had destroyed all of his WMD's.
The man can't be trusted...he has persued WMD's for the past 20 years.
All very interesting but doesn't address the point I was making regarding the switching of 'emphasis' in terms of the motivation for war. You've got to admit that humanitarian concerns have been up-played and WMD down-played.
Why would you spend such time defending this man....you must need more direct proof....more dead Americans work for you....then you will let us know if we can act on our own behalf I suppose.
Eh? Why is questioning the afore-mentioned switch automatically a defence of Hussein and his regime? Is there something wrong with you?
And as for Americans dying and more direct proof [of WMD I assume] - how many have died from WMD?
Let's get real here. We don't invade other countries at huge cost because the guy in charge slaps his people around. That's fantasy. So let's all save bandwidth and dispense with the "but he killed xxx people a day before breakfast" arguments. There are plenty of people like him. The real issues at hand are whether there was WMD present, links to terrorism and whether he was a general threat to the region.
-
I have some questions for you Dowding.. I had written a more direct and honest response but that would just have pissed you off so I'm gonna try a more constructive approach.
How many "hard working" communities of steam locomotive builders do you see around these days?
Why is that?
-
You assume I have issues with progress? Clearly your knowledge of the '84 miners strike is practically zero. You have no idea of the issues and repercussions spawned by the actions of 'Ze *****'. Here's a clue - method. I'm surprised the books you're apparently read didn't go into detail.
-
The basic economic issue is simple - there were too many miners being paid too high an aggregate wage compared to their output of economic value and this was due to abuse of union power and their manipulation of the political system with massive strikes.
Everything else is pointless. And frankly the long term boost in the UK economy after this imbalance was adjusted with Margarets confrontation of the unions and her other economic moves proves me right...
Look I know this is very personal to you Dowding but damn man you cant look at macroeconomic from your individual level.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Wulfie:
You are joking right? I've seen comments from Americans gloating over Taliban deaths - hell, there were three threads devoted to that AC-130 footage containing plenty of mutual masturbation over the war-porn. Why do you think Hitech posted his request at the top of the forum?
Those weren't ATF soldiers getting scorched by the AC-130. They were Al-Q terrorists with maybe (if we got lucky - I'd say the odds were in favor of the Good Guys in this case) a few senior Taliban 'political' leaders and some Al-Q leaders thrown in for good measure. There was a meeting taking place. Look at the vehicles and the fact that the targets were meeting in civilian population center. They probably weren't holding the meeting in a tunnel/cave complex because they didn't think it was necessary (and the serious tunnel/cave complexes weren't very accessible to motorized transport). Bad assumption on their part. :) They can die slowly with extra helpings of agony for all I care.
We've talked about this before - the difference between a conscripted ATF soldier and an Al-Q shooter that chose to be a terrorist.
You don't send Predators looking for ATF soldiers at random villages. ATF soldiers weren't motorized except in a few very rare instances. You don't use AC-130s on ATF soldiers to make sure you zap everyone at the scene by reducing their chance of escape to almost zero. ATF soldiers were engaging Coalition forces in open battle for the most part so Predators and C-130s weren't needed. The special operations guys working with the Afghanis who were fighting against the ATF brought a rain of JDAMs and other assorted A2G munitions down on the poor bastards - courtesy of the huge #s of stacked strike aircraft waiting above for CAS requests. Unfortunately (or fortunately - depends on who you are fighting for), there is a limited # of AC-130s and their services are highly regarded so they are usually going to be used for jobs that require a very 'thorough' application of A2G firepower. You'll know that the JSOC has brainwashed or applied MKULTRA mind control techniques to the right USAF General (Finally!) when the USAF decides that it is going to form 3 new wings of AC-130s and 3 new wings of A-10s and put them all under the control of JSOC.
You don't send Predators on 'random searches' to begin with. Hypothetically speaking...say you collect intel that points to a meeting of senior leadership or really bad bad guys (like a cell or two of tier 1 Al-Q operators). You monitor the suspected meeting site with a Predator or with other surveillance assets as applicable. If the expected meeting develops you have the AC-130 available to personally and individually atomize every terrorist scumbag that shows up.
The guys who got killed in that video were far behind the front lines, with a tunnel/cave complex located next to a village and had a lot of vehicles. These things all scream 'Al-Q' and/or 'senior leadership'.
The ATF soldiers were for the most part on the front lines, eating JDAMs, and dying to buy time for the Taliban leadership and the majority of the Al-Q scumbags to get to their fortified positions deep in the mountains. No reason to gloat over the ATF guys getting killed - most were in the service of the ATF because their warlord boss chose the Taliban because the Taliban controlled all the food (backed by Al-Q muscle in many cases) or they were civilian men who were conscripted into ATF service with food ('Fight for us or the village where your wife and children live gets no food') used as leverage. In the end the ATF soldiers were used as 'JDAM fodder' and before too long most of the warlords fighting on the side of the ATF switched sides because they saw they were being used as such.
If guys were whooping it up over that footage just because someone was getting blown up - that's not my style and you know this. :)
But I have no sympathy for the guys getting killed in that footage because of who was getting killed. I know one guy personally who was kneecapped, then castrated with a knife, then had his throat slow-cut so he choked to death on his own blood - after he was 'captured' by some Al-Q terrorists. There were numerous Afghanis who were beaten severely, had their families beaten and/or killed in front of them, and were then killed themselves - by Al-Q terrorists who 'suspected' they were aiding the Coalition.
If you have to kill some Iraqi or ATF soldier - that's war and it happens. No reason to throw a party over it afterwards. Odds are the guy didn't want to be there in the first place when you are dealing with armies in the service of dictators (certain Republican Guard types being the exception). Killing terrorists is honorable service in the name of karmic payback in my book. Far more enjoyable and acceptable cause for beers all around afterwards.
Sorry for any misunderstanding,
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Let's get real here. We don't invade other countries at huge cost because the guy in charge slaps his people around. That's fantasy. So let's all save bandwidth and dispense with the "but he killed xxx people a day before breakfast" arguments. There are plenty of people like him.
I think part of it was that he could be removed in a fairly contained fashion. Try to replace the leadership of N. Korea and it is guranteed that Seoul is going to disappear from the map in the first hour of the war. If Iraq had the same ability - i.e. say they could hit Tel Aviv or Qatar with several thousand tubes of artillery - and for some reason the Israelis didn't strike first :) - then Iraq would have had to been handled in a different fashion. This is precisely the reason Iraq was going after longer-ranged and more accurate SSMs. 100+ SSMs with 'special' warheads and the range and accuracy to hit Tel Aviv is effectively a 'gun to the head of an innocent bystander' for Iraq. They become a much more serious problem at that point, and even worse they know it - so they are inclined to 'push' more in terms of unacceptable behavior at the international level.
N. Korea's leadership is easily as evil as Iraq's leadership used to be. But the common dumb-as$ed chant of clueless Bush haters (Why don't we go after N. Korea?!? Because there's no oil to steal!) conveniently overlooks the fact that N. Korea already has the gun to the head of S. Korea's capitol. Military action is a much more serious endeavor 'from the get-go' because it's a given that you are going to have several thousand civilian deaths in the first hour of any war.
Mike/wulfie
-
Its easy to get hung up on the WoMD issue.............
I think to analyse it all you have to right back to the white house speaches post 9/11 and read up on all stuff related to the war against terrorism. (TWAT)
Reading these you will find some common threads.........
1) America alone (if need be) against world wide terrorism targetted against it.
2) Total acceptance of the "pre-emptive strike" as a method of combatting world wide terrorism.
3)The "for us or agin us" policy toward other nation states.
The first casualty of this could have been (and some will argue was) the UN.
All three of the above doctrines are contrary to UN ethos yet here is the most powerful nation on earth, espousing exactly those doctrines.
So we see a game of spin occuring where by Americas Allies (UK/Blair) and senior American Statemen (eg Powell) attempt to bridge the gap between American policy re avacado and the governing nations of the UN.
Skating over Afghanistan, the Taliban and the hunt for Al Queda (which is a pretty big leap but too much for this narrative) we come to US policy re avacado the UN and Iraq and the run up to 1441.
The first question in relation to avacado is why Iraq? the second is why then?
Iraq had little or no links with Al Queda. It funded terrorism in Palestine as did (do) organistions in Iran, Syria, Saudi, Egypt, Libyia and Algeria plus others.
Indeed the totalitarian ba'athest state suppressed any form of organisation that would have looked any thing like Al Queda.
To look for the source wealth of Al Queda we look to Saudi first and latterly Egypt, Sudan and other Arab states. We see that whilst Saudi is superficially an ally it is not in control of the "Al Queda" problem.
Indeed it the relationship between the US and the leading Saudi families that fuels "Al Queda". Long term then Saudi is potentially unstable in a way far worse than Iran was in the time of the shah.
A paradox ensues.......... an international catch 22 if you will............ Saudi sits on the worlds largest oil reserves, it is an ally, it is undemocratic, it is fueling unrest and anti US sentiment thru its rulling casts relation ship with the US. Its de stablisation could wreck the world economy.
avacado demands that the US must resolve the Saudi problem but the US finds its hands tied.
Iraq sits on the worlds 2nd largest (potentially largest) oil reserves. It is an international pariah, it is already under sanction re its refusal to allow weapons inspectors, large parts of its populace (apparantly) are in need of liberation, a war has already been fought against it with the full backing of the UN and large swaths of the Arab nations, and Iraqs "demonic" governmental structure is still in place.
The conversion of a potentially massively wealthy central Arabic state to that of a US freindly democratic and (hopefully) stable nation. Places a totally different aspect upon the Saudi problem.
The democratic (capitalist) model is a proven convertor of foe to ally in terms of the aspirations of the mass populaces. Even in Islamic regions we see popular use of the democratic model over the islamic social model where it has been allowed to flourish. (malaysia, thailand early days in Indonesia) (or so US / western foriegn doctrine believes)
Further if a US freindly Iraq is stable the oil power of Saudi is not as massively critical to the west as it was. (still a biggie tho)
So why Iraq? .......... because Saudi was not an option and it is ultimate self funding.
Why now/then? ............. because (so went US policy thinking) you can!
a)Ridding the world of an evil dictator.
b)Liberating an oppressed people.
c)Removing terrorist funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups.
Plus with a bit of spin
d)Removing the potential for Iraqi funded terrorist strikes agin the US/west.
e)Countering a "real" threat of proliferation of WoMD in the hands of a "rogue" state.
All make this a "do 'able" option.
So Bushes government starts to make the case.......... and finds that the rest of the world (with the probabale exception of Blair) and indeed the US population does not really care about reasons a to c. Indeed only the US nation is really bothered about d.
e however is already work in progress. It allows allies such as Blair and statesmen such as Powell to garner world support via the UN.
Together they start to build the case for 1441 and WoMD. They believed that Blair could carry the Euro's and Powells administration could carry Putin into the adoption of a resolution that provided the full WoMD mechanism for invasion of Iraq.
But they did not. To get the support of the French and the Russians 1441 carried a ratification clause. Invasion could only be authorised by another UN mandate after inspections were judged to have failed.
1441 potentially tied the hands of the US in direct contradiction to the 3 common policies re avacado post 9/11.
The invasion window of spring 2003 loomed and US were forced to move logistics to the gulf in readiness. It was under the guise of "escalation" to force Hussain to "comply" yet we know now that despite publicity to the contrary no evidence of existing WoMD was available.
At this point 1441 had already been abandoned by the US administration. However Blair desparately needed 1441. He did not have the support in the UK without it. Further Powell still wanted to carry the UN and direct antithisism toward the UN would have harmed US interests elsewhere.
The French, Russians and Germans were not willing to accept that inspections had failed and China was starting to play a role.
Ratification did not follow no UN mandate to invade Iraq has ever been given.
The US (and the UK) went in alone.
WoMD became a tool, a bargaining chip used to persuade. It became a focal point in a way that Bushes "hawks" would never have wished IMO. It will be revealed as an hypocracy that will mask the right or wrong of the real reasons for invasion.
The real challange now is the construction of a free democratic and above all stable Iraq. It should be seen to be free of all influence from foriegn governments yet freindly to the west.
TWAT depends heavily on this.
It will continue to take up US resources for several more years.
Be it military, or commerce or just straight aid.
It will have to develop through several US administrations, which may be Republican (with or without present thinkers such as Rumsfeld) or even Democrat.
It is simply a massive undertaking.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The basic economic issue is simple - there were too many miners being paid too high an aggregate wage
84 miners dispute was about power............
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And as for AKIron - you won't understand because you are a Yank and didn't live over here either. It's really as simple as that.
Ah, I see. Yet not living here in the US doesn't deter you from offering your leftist views on how we should govern ourselves. If I offer to keep my opinions regarding English politics to myself perhaps you'll do the same regarding US politics?
-
Dowding.....
My point is we believe that he was a threat and that his history proved, along with intel from around the globe, that he would continue as he had in the past.
As to talking down WMD by the Bush admin....the time to talk will come....most of you that are against this war seem to think that all the woes of Iraq should have been solved in 5 months time....it's not about the facts, it's political and for some of you personal towards GWB.
Just my opinion.
-
Yet not living here in the US doesn't deter you from offering your leftist views on how we should govern ourselves.
Example, please. I couldn't give a rat's bellybutton about US internal politics. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on how you 'should govern yourselves'.
But when it comes to the big wide world and America's administration, you can bet it will receive commentary if it interests me. Same goes for any other country.
I stand by my point - without having lived under Thatcher, your opinion is at best uninformed. Being impressed by a couple of quotes from some after-dinner speech hardly makes your opinion anything else.
As to talking down WMD by the Bush admin....the time to talk will come....most of you that are against this war seem to think that all the woes of Iraq should have been solved in 5 months time....it's not about the facts, it's political and for some of you personal towards GWB.
Forget about the 'Iraq rebuilding ETA' straw man argument - I wasn't arguing anything in that direction.
So you agree the talking down has taken place? Why do you think that is? Why do you think the US administration has switched emphasis?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Example, please. I couldn't give a rat's bellybutton about US internal politics. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on how you 'should govern yourselves'.
OK, maybe I'm mistaken, I'm not gonna search through your past messages. I will keep this in mind however when I read your future posts.
-
The destruction of the UK's economy is a worldwide matter Dowding...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Example, please. I couldn't give a rat's bellybutton about US internal politics. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on how you 'should govern yourselves'.
But when it comes to the big wide world and America's administration, you can bet it will receive commentary if it interests me. Same goes for any other country.
I stand by my point - without having lived under Thatcher, your opinion is at best uninformed. Being impressed by a couple of quotes from some after-dinner speech hardly makes your opinion anything else.
Forget about the 'Iraq rebuilding ETA' straw man argument - I wasn't arguing anything in that direction.
So you agree the talking down has taken place? Why do you think that is? Why do you think the US administration has switched emphasis?
It's simple Dowding....we did not find what we fully expected to find....the media and liberals have jumped on the Admin's back accusing them of lying.
Until they are found, what would you have us speak to....the Bush admin still contends that the intel was good and that the proof of years past indicates WMD's are present.
The dislike of this president by the left is what stokes these fires....to pretend that our actions were unjustified only because WMD's have not yet been found is convenient for those against this admin.
Time will tell, won't it.
-
*as Skuzzy would say* This thread has lost its usefulness.
IN
:D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But when it comes to the big wide world and America's administration, you can bet it will receive commentary if it interests me. Same goes for any other country.
I missed this the first time through. America's administration belongs to America. Comment all you want, as we say here it is a free country. However, I'm also free to make observations about your country and I think that Margaret Thatcher was one heckofa prime minister, saving you and yours from going down the toilet.
Guess your opinion about America or any country other than your own counts about as much as mine about yours.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if we'd invaded hitler in '39 we'd have had a similiar bunch of hand wringers
the question is will iraq be better off in 5 years now than in 5 years if we would have followed the course of action of the previous admin (hand wringing group) which was to let Saddam continue to oppress his ppl, fire missiles at our planes & do whatever else he & his thug admin wanted to ... I think it will be.
Good point, Eagler. Actually, there were hand-wringers in 1939--Lindburgh and the American Eagle party, among others. They thought old Adolph was a wonderful guy who was just taking care of business in Germany.
-
Good analysis, Tilt.
The bottom line is, of course, OIL. Saudi Arabia's internal politics is a ticking time bomb. The unrest in Iraq will give Saudi dissidents somewhere to let off steam without disturbing the royal kleptocrats, though the American presence will also feed the unrest. In any case, having a large military presence in Iraq, the US is in a much better position to seize...er, protect, Saudi oil, should it become necessary.
-
Of course, the other side of that coin is the failure of Iraq to comply with the terms of the GS1 ceasefire, which makes GW2 merely the continuation of that authorized conflict.
Just saying, for every rabbit either side pulls out of the hat, there's a counter argument and usually it's an equally valid one.
:p
-
What a cute fuzzy bunny!
Here, look at this one!
08/11/2002
Press Release SC/7564
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002)...
...The United Kingdom’s representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.
The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
Your turn.
:p
-
Originally posted by banana
I thought I would start a discussion on Iraq, in the hopes that only those who can step back and look at it unemotionally and rationally would reply.
Please, keep it civil.
I did, and still do, support the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow it's government. There were at least four good reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his cronies(in no particular order):
1. Refusal to comply with the United Nations
2. The possibility of the existence of WMD, and the chance they would find their way into the hands of terrorists who could then use them against citizens of any country, not just America.
3. Saddam's regime guaranteed an unstable middle east.
4. Saddam's oppression of the Iraq people's freedom and liberty.
"1. Refusal to comply with the United Nations"
The United nation did not support the attack on IRAQ.
"2. The possibility of the existence of WMD, and the chance they would find their way into the hands of terrorists who could then use them against citizens of any country, not just America. "
This is a to weak reason and just a smokescreen for the real reason to attack IRAQ: OIL
I am pretty sure that Bushie wouldnt mind Saddam selling and dealing with any kind of weaponary as long as he stayed in the leech of US.
"3. Saddam's regime guaranteed an unstable middle east. "
This is also very wrong, the gap that is left from the fall of IRAQ, will be filled by another.
IRAQ was a big papertiger, with big words and no action. Next one that comes might really make a diffrance. The saying "better with the devil that you know", says a lot.
"4. Saddam's oppression of the Iraq people's freedom and liberty."
Now, since when did the US care about any peoples freedom and liberty? One special event that comes to mind happend during the 9/11, thirty years ago.
-
Ok, Ok.. Boosh made it all up..........
Here are a few old tidbits ...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny
Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish
the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that
the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our
allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9,
1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development
of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for
his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.
10, 1999
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports
indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf
War status. In addition, Saddam continues to
redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United
States and our allies."
-Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability
of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that
it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein
retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological
warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the
United States the authority to use force-- if
necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat
to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein
is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons
and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made
in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockeffer (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution
that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase
his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear
weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has
had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation . And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
-
Originally posted by Toad
Dead, point is that there was MORE THAN ENOUGH money available to do good things for the common people. Sanctions didn't change that fact.
Maybe there was more than enough money - but if those folks in the 661 committee won't let you buy spare parts or medicine or what all because the US & UK delegates block them, then HAVING MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY IS OF NO USE WHATSOEVER. Sanctions did change how much money there was, and they also changed what you could buy with the money.
You can't have it both ways. The sanctions couldn't really damage a piss-poor system very much, infrastructure or health.
My contention is that bombing made it a piss-poor infrastructure. Eg this from the US DoE: "Around 85%-90% of Iraq's national power grid (and 20 power stations) was damaged or destroyed in the Gulf War."
The sanctions just prevented them from fixing the bomb damage with anything more than kludges and from dealing with any wear and tear afterwards. The sanctions also meant the Iraqi currency collapsed, which further added to the problems.
And the sanction process made even applying to trade food or medicine with Iraq expensive and exasperating: "One small British company that sold medical supplies described the process: First, to talk to an Iraqi buyer, public or private, a seller had to apply for a license to negotiate, which could take three to four weeks. Once buyer and seller came to an agreement, the seller had to apply for a supply license, which could take up to twenty weeks. In the meantime, Iraq's currency would have devalued substantially, so the buyer might not be able to afford the same quantity of goods or might need more time to raise the additional hard currency. But that would require a change in the terms of the application, and any change in the application meant the whole process began again." - according to an article in The Nation.
The Washington Post of Friday, February 25, 2000 pointed out that "Mostly as a result of U.S. objections, for example, the U.N. sanctions committee has held up $601 million in contracts for repairing Iraq's power grid, 48 percent of all the contracts in that sector.
Similarly, the sanctions committee has placed "holds" on the import of $297 million in spare parts--or 38 percent of the total--intended for Iraq's oil industry, according to U.N. data. Iraq uses its oil revenue to pay for humanitarian imports under the U.N.-sponsored "oil-for-food" program."
Here's what Denis Halliday, the UN Co-ordinator of Humanitarian Relief to Iraq and administrator of the Oil-for-food program said about the sanctions: "I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water."
He resigned from the post to protest the situation. His successor Hans Von Sponeck reckoned oil-for-food allowed $100 per person per year. He said "It is simply not possible to live on such an amount. Set that pittance against the lack of clean water, the fact that the electricity fails for up to twenty-two hours a day, and the majority of sick people can't afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of trying to get from day to day and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but it is now unavoidable."
He resigned too. This all started with you carping about what's been done there since the end of the war. Yeah, electric's back up to 75% of what a crappy system did prior to the war. You call that sort of statement "sad and obvious propaganda".
I believe if you read the post again the thing I was carping about as sad and obvious propaganda was the phrase "damaged ... by years of disrepair and neglect under Saddam" - rather than the whole truth that it was damaged by US & UK bombing and suffered years of disrepair and neglect mostly due to UN sanctions (led by the US & UK). And I also recall carping about the phrase "compared to $16 million in the final six months of Saddam's regime". I singularly failed, however, to carp about the electrical grids status being at 75% of the pre-war levels. Still, I'll carp about it a little further down just to please you. It's simply the truth. And the big difference? It's going to get much better and will eventually far surpass the pre-war system. Further, entire neighborhoods won't have their electricity turned off as punishment to some enemy of the regime or on the whim of a dictator.
Well 75% is actually a lie - it was 72% in your quote, but I'll let you off. It might be the truth, but not the whole truth and it's disingenuously put. Which is to say it's definitely not simply the truth. As is the tone of your statement that it will surpass the "pre-war" system (which war?) - one should hope it does, given that Iraq is now allowed to buy spare parts, and that the US & UK aren't going to bomb it every so often. And whilst ABC were flaunting the 72% of the prewar peak, on the same day, AFP came up with: "Iraq's current power production capacity is 3,200 megawatts compared with 4,000 megawatts before the start of the war in March, according to a coalition official.
Iraq's maximum potential capacity is 6,000 megawatts, according to the same source."
The CIA rated Iraq's capacity as 9,902 megawatts in 1989 and the DOE states the Iraqis got back 75% of the grid in 92 - which would be 6,750 megawatts (the CIA gave a figure of 7,300 MW in 1992 which is the highest estimate for '92 I have seen). So 72% of 6,750 would be 4,860 - or if we use the CIA figures 5,256 - which is a tad higher than the current 3,200 (according to AFP). So maybe ABC is using the U.N. Iraq Program estimation of November 2002 that generating capacity was 4,300-4,400 MW. But if we take both US-Iraq wars into account, the grid is currently at 32% of the pre-US bombing level.
Same is true for the health system. You counter your own implication that without sanctions health spending would have been much higher by admitting that Saddam didn't really give a spoiled fig and probably wouldn't have funded it. Can't have it both ways.
Well health spending may not have been slashed as much as the - again rather disingenuous - US dollar figures would have us believe: The Iraqi Dinar was worth US$3.20 before the sanctions. The US dollar peaked at 3000 Iraqi dinars in 1996, then went back down to 450 in 1997 but by 2002 it was back up to 1,900 Dinars. So US$16mil would be 30.4 billion dinars in 2002, 6.4 billion in '97, 48 billion in '96, but only 0.05 billion (50 million) in 1990. But of course the huge change in exchange rate would have nothing to do with sanctions... :rolleyes:
However with sanctions in place, he could have allocated billions and it would still be fairly useless. Medicine was continually blocked as dual use: diptheria & yellow fever vaccines, radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs, painkillers, X-ray stuff, Nitrous oxide to name but a few.
You appear to be engaged in the kind of double standards you accuse me of here: deploring the fact that Hussein was too evil to buy enough medical supplies and at the same time ignoring the fact that the US & UK not only precipitated huge health crises in Iraq but also wouldn't let Iraq buy the medical supplies to deal with said crises. And, again, point is that the health system is only going to get better. Better than it ever was before, better than that of its neighbors.
When this is over, the common people of Iraq will no longer live in a 3rd world country. They'll have modern medicine, open and uncensored schools, a free market, modern utilities... and some sort of democracy.
One should hope so, because pre 1991 the Iraqi welfare state was among the most comprehsive an generous in the Arab world according to The Economist's Intelligence Unit.
The biggest reason the Iraqis live in a horrible mess at the moment is because the US & the UK made it a horrible mess. Up until the bombing and sanctions they had modern medicine, modern utilities, 93% of the population had free health care - Adult literacy was at 95% one of the highest in the world - sure, they had the evil dictator, but it's a feature they have in common with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - but Iraqi society was pro-western, secular, women were allowed education and jobs, and - for the Arab world - relatively open. As the US Assitant Secretary of State said to Hussein in 1989: "You are a force for moderation in the region" ;).
Whether the US effort will succeed or not to bring all these promises in to reality remains to be seen. Certainly, Afghanistan's example does not bode well for the people of Iraq, but we shall see.
Now, you want to talk about destablizing the Middle East? THAT'S when things are going to get shaky in a lot of countries neighboring Iraq.
Of course, some folks view that as a good thing.
I'm one of those.
I'd be in favour of a democratic Iraq, but with Afghanistan as a yardstick of democracy imposed by the US - I'm not holding my breath. As to your new "domino theory" - I would urge more than just a little of the famous US business-speak "cautious optimism" on your part - not only has the US got into trouble over a domino theory before, but also it would appear to be flawed reasoning from the outset: living right next to some sort of muslim democracy with open markets and all mod cons certainly appeared to have absolutely no effect on Hussein's regime.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What a cute fuzzy bunny!
Here, look at this one!
Your turn.
:p
Hehe still pulling out 1441 - Despite the fact that Iraq, under US occupation, is currently in a even clearer material breach of 1441 than Iraq under Hussein was - at least Hussein let the Inspectors in.:lol
-
First post, yah, whatever. You aren't convincing me in the least nor am I convincing you in the least.
Last post, 1441... no need for inspectors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It doesn't exist any more; that regime is gone.
New country, in effect, to be represented by it's own elected government in the near term.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Here is
The fact that the invasion was a breach of UN law is undeniable...........
The US does not hold its self a subject of UN law.
The US does not hold its foriegn policy subject to the will of the UN.
The US does not adhere fully to the Hague convention or will allow its citizens to be subject to the international war crimes commision.
In summary the US claims the right to limit the jurisdiction the UN holds over its policies and its people.
Its not alone in this.............
But all that is beside the point (or shall we say the US/UK policy toward the UN is another point) whether you agree with the ethicacy of it or not.
The mechanism by which the US/UK tried to get the UN "on side" was WoMD.
It failed.
Actually it had no real evidence that WoMD was a problem.....just a lot of Political momentum around the subject.
Why would the US/UK not wait for Hans Blix?
Because the invasion had to take place in Spring............it was politically too costly if it did not and the US and Bush (and to a lesser extent the UK and Blair) would have been a laughing stock because a massive concentartion of logistics would have to be with drawn in apparant retreat.
Bush would have taken on the image of a Carter. Fooled into apparant retreat by an Arab despot and a few french diplomats.
Republicanism (a la Bush) would enter the dark ages in the US.
Equally there was the possibility that ( had they waited) Hans Blix would find nothing. This would have been totally unacceptable........it would have totally neutered US foriegn policy in the gulf and wrecked long term avacado policy.
If this debate is about the hypocracy of international diplomacy and the dissembling of truth to give inaccurate and unbalanced views of the facts......
Then I agree WoMD was a huge error.
An attempt to accept an exaggerated version of the known truth built to fit an arguement readily accepted and not fully tested.
If this debate is about the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq, of potentially liberating an oppressed people (time will tell), of following a plan sympathatic to the long terms aims of avacado...........
Then in my view so far it ( the invasion and its after math) is going rather well............
We are going to have to wait a few years to see if its all worth while.
-
Yes GScholz Bush is Hitler and Amreeka is like Nazi Germany. Good good will you twirps give it a rest.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the USA is unwilling to abide by the agreements she has made how can any international document signed by the US government be trusted?
Welcome to the world of international Politics.............
The error here is to think that one reason is the overriding reason and then argue for / agin on the basis of your view.........
This is a falacy........to bring multiple bodies on side not only within the US administration, but within the other Houses and the US populace, and then garner moral support from "influential" allies through our the world and (hopefully) the UN........... there had to be lots of reasons............. a reason to suit every cause.
The only new reason was avacado all the others (yes including oil interests) had always been there.
TWAT was not the only reason it was just the new and overbalancing one.
Yes Cheney had interests and Rumsfeld was / is a powerfull "hawk" but their likes have been/will be in most US administrations.
Blair even believed that he had struck a deal whereby the US would force Isreal to deal with Palestine as part of his backing for Iraq............... some hope. The "Road map to peace" is just paying lip service to it.
Focussing on WoMD was a stupid blunder because it messed up timing. Powells attempts to persuade the UN were farsical....a salesmans last chance shot at winning an order.
my opinion now is, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the past, that the future of Iraq is potentially healthier than it was 12 months ago.
Everything on the international scene is done to serve the interests of the perpetrators...........
if the object of your arguement is to point out that the most powerful nation on earth uses its power to serve its own interests then I agree with you.
if the object of your arguement is to point out that the most powerful nation on earth abuses its power to serve its own interests then I agree with you.
because they are one and the same............
hand wringing to moralise past motives (or not) achieves nothing.
studying the power balance and using it to understand or (at lofter levels) even influence future actions has potential.
-
Originally posted by Toad
First post, yah, whatever. You aren't convincing me in the least nor am I convincing you in the least.
Last post, 1441... no need for inspectors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It doesn't exist any more; that regime is gone.
New country, in effect, to be represented by it's own elected government in the near term.
An nice warm fuzzy sentiment - but sadly, resolution 1441 makes no mention of a specific regime - merely Iraq and the Iraqi government.
eg: "5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;"
And the current Iraqi government refused to let UNMOVIC in. Neither, it could be argued, has "post-war" Iraq "provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material".
Sounds like a material breech to me.
-
The idea that the current Iraq has anything at all in common with the Iraq that those resolutions mention is simply laughable.
Which makes your entire line of reasoning here laughable as well.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In the city of San Francisco on the 26th of June 1945 the USA signed and ratified the UN Charter. If the USA is unwilling to abide by the agreements she has made how can any international document signed by the US government be trusted?
Excuse me but have I missed anything? Have the US violated the UN charter?
And before you start pulling quotes out of the UN charter from the net, riddle me this: Who decides if a nation is in violation of the UN charter?
So stop posting BS.
-
dead your my hero.
utter devastation.
-
This is silly, Dead.
Your arguing semantics.
There is no Iraqi government to reply to a UN request for information.
The Iraqi government does not exist at this time. It is simply a country managed by an occupying army.
Don't you have something with more meat than this?
This posts sounds like an argument a third rate attorney would put forth.
-
Now THERE'S a pair to draw to......
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, it seems we are in agreement here except on two points:
1. I don't think avacado is the reason for this invasion, but the justification for it (to the US public and the world). The US administration had its eyes on Iraq long before 9/11.
2. The future of Iraq and indeed the whole Middle East still hangs in the balance.
Again my view is that there is not one reason that has to be justified by another, but several reasons some less paletable than others soem more so.
re the future....... I agree when it is history we will judge then move on to worry about the new future...........
-
It sounds to me like some on this board really do believe that the UN is the worlds governing body?
-
It sounds to me like some on this board really do believe that the US is the worlds governing body?
-
the united nations is not the duly elected governing body of the united states and therefor has no constitutional say in matters concerning the united states. however, the united nations may work with or against the united states as it deems appropriate.
the people of the united states elect those who govern them.
no one in the united nations is elected by the people of the united states so the united nations has no power or authority
over the people of the united states.
when the interests of the united nations conflict with the interests of the united states then it is the duty of those elected united states representatives to do what is best for the people of the united states.
could I have possibly explained this with any more clarity?
====
addendum:
Was there ever any doubt whether or not hussein had WMDs? Or were the Kurd gassings just a CIA plot......
I thought putin was made from KGB material........
"The question is, where is Saddam Hussein? Where are those weapons of mass destruction, if they were ever in existence?"
Putins (really dumb and pathetic if true) question to Blair
-
Originally posted by GScholz
1. I don't think avacado is the reason for this invasion, but the justification for it (to the US public and the world). The US administration had its eyes on Iraq long before 9/11.
First I need to ask what is avacado? Are you guys using that to refer to Bush? or is it an acronym? Second, you are right in saying that the Bush admin. had it's eyes on Iraq long before 9/11. Iraq/Hussein were in just about every campaign speach I heard Bush give. Because he knew just like 90% of everybody else that Sadaam needed to go, period. That's been a known fact for 12 years.
In a sense this war was a fufulment of an election promise, something George W. Bush has had a pretty good record on, albeit not 100%. Speaking for myself, I've wanted Sadaam gone since we let the Shiites and Kurds down right after the opening of the gulf war. You think the war ended in '91? Why did we bomb Iraq almost daily for 10+ years?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The problem is that the anti-US euros think this is a good opportunity to make fun of/bash/critizise/whatever the US.
snip
Can you say "noodle envy"? :)
culero (I thought so)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The idea that the current Iraq has anything at all in common with the Iraq that those resolutions mention is simply laughable.
Which makes your entire line of reasoning here laughable as well.
Well for starters:
1. They're spelt the same so the name that appears in the resolutions are the same.
2. They have the same borders and occupy the same place.
3. It's mostly the same people.
4. They use the same languages.
5. They have the same religions.
6. The government of Iraq is still called the government of Iraq so the name that appears in the resolutions are the same.
On a less frivolous note - find me the bit in any of the UN resolutions that says "if you get rid of Hussein, we'll let you off".
Originally posted by muckmaw
This is silly, Dead.
Your arguing semantics.
There is no Iraqi government to reply to a UN request for information.
The Iraqi government does not exist at this time. It is simply a country managed by an occupying army.
Don't you have something with more meat than this?
This posts sounds like an argument a third rate attorney would put forth.
You need to watch the news more - Iraq's first president after Hussein was Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and they have a 25-member Governing Council (they're going through the whole council alphabetically to share the presidency). If they're a bit too puppety for your tastes there's always L. Paul Bremer the U.S. administrator of Iraq.
Of course it's semantics - all law is down to meaning of the words.
It's semantics in the same way that the issue of the contentious "unaccounted for" WMDs was arguably semantics. No one in the UN actually knew how many WMDs Iraq had or had produced, so the figures were, for the most part, estimates. Thus if Iraq did not reach these estimates - even if it was because they hadn't produced that much - the UN would hold them in material breech.
It's semantics in the same way that Bush justified the invasion as being what was meant by the "serious consequences" in paras 12 & 13 of resolution 1441: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
So I'll stand by this "third rate attorney" reasoning because it raises an important question: Why didn't the interim government/US government let UNMOVIC in? What's the big problem with letting them in - if it's all as you suggest just semantics or as Toad suggests - laughable?
The nonsubmission to this "formality" in turn raises some rather scarier questions:
Is this perhaps a handy "get out of democracy free" card for the US, should the US disapproves of the Iraqi people's choice in any future election? Will they, if seriously upset by Iraq's choice, cry "Material Breech" and reinvade?
Or is it to allow the US to plant WMD evidence without the embarrassing prospect of some independent expert seeing through such a subterfuge and blowing the whistle?
Given some of the venal and devious foreign policy episodes in the US's recent past, these are questions that should be asked.
-
How naive to think you could have a "civil" discussion in this baboon cage.
-
It's as Toad suggests; laughable.
And you're making it more so. And I thank you for that.
Just about anyone else, before reading the nunmbered bullet items as if they were immutable laws, would read the 1441 preface and try to understand the reasons for the SC resolution.. Which isn't very hard to decipher at all. :D
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Pretty clear that the intent of the UN since the ceasefire that ended GW1 and through all of the following years and resolutions had the goal of removing Iraq's threat to international peace and security.
Pretty clear that Iraq is not presently a "threat to international peace and security".
Don't have to be Albert Einstein to see those two ideas are correct.
So the goal of 1441 has clearly been achieved.. .unfortunately, not by the UN, but as has been discussed in other threads the UN doesn't really do that sort of thing, do they?
But you go on putting up stuff that anyone... well almost anyone... can see is no longer applicable and pretend that you've found some sort of proof that the US is ... what?... as bad as Hussein? Is secretly hiding Iraqi WMD in Iraq and plans to use them as a threat to international peace and security? Needs further UN action to insure that Iraq is no longer a threat to international peace and security?
Like I said, laughable.
But it's cheap entertainment, so please do keep on. I enjoy watching people.. well, you probably know what you're actually doing here.
:D
-
You can talk about resulotion here and # this and # that. You can yell all about WMD and Terrorists, stability of the area, in cause of the world peace, protecting your country, protecting their country, protecting poor, protecting rich, democracy, freedome, justice.
But you don´t need to do that. We others know the real reasons, as well as you. The Oil.
Only the thought of your country facing an oilcrize is making your goverment shake.
SO you pissed madsam off, because he pissed you off, trying to steal some oil. He dont want to sell you any and you invade his country, to secure that the oil will come to your country.
-
Ahh the evil oil argument strikes again...
What makes you think Saddam did not want to sell oil to the USA, by far - as you lefties are happy to say most times - the worlds largest consumer of oil? If we just wanted access to Iraqi oil we had 12 years to drop the sanctions and get it withiout 12 years of risky air patrols, without any of this diplomatic haggering and cheif of all without the enormous cost of the war and reconstruction.
Tell me why do you refuse to stop being such an idiot?
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's as Toad suggests; laughable.
And you're making it more so. And I thank you for that.
Just about anyone else, before reading the nunmbered bullet items as if they were immutable laws, would read the 1441 preface and try to understand the reasons for the SC resolution.. Which isn't very hard to decipher at all. :D
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty clear that the intent of the UN since the ceasefire that ended GW1 and through all of the following years and resolutions had the goal of removing Iraq's threat to international peace and security.
Pretty clear that Iraq is not presently a "threat to international peace and security".
Don't have to be Albert Einstein to see those two ideas are correct.
So the goal of 1441 has clearly been achieved.. .unfortunately, not by the UN, but as has been discussed in other threads the UN doesn't really do that sort of thing, do they?
But you go on putting up stuff that anyone... well almost anyone... can see is no longer applicable and pretend that you've found some sort of proof that the US is ... what?... as bad as Hussein? Is secretly hiding Iraqi WMD in Iraq and plans to use them as a threat to international peace and security? Needs further UN action to insure that Iraq is no longer a threat to international peace and security?
Like I said, laughable.
But it's cheap entertainment, so please do keep on. I enjoy watching people.. well, you probably know what you're actually doing here.
:D
Hmm "Iraq is not presently a threat to international peace and security"?
Tell that to Sergio Vieira de Mello. I'd say people blowing up the UN HQ does pose a threat to international peace and security. But I'm sure thats just laughable really.
It's not too safe for the US & UK troops either: According to one of Robert Fisk's latest reports in the Independent, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, commander of the US 800th Military Police Brigade "was remarkably frank about other events, such as the fact that the Americans in Abu Ghraib are attacked four out of every seven nights with mortars, small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
That's 16 times a month. And that's a lot of attacks." Laughable, no doubt.
And let's be like the interim government and CENTCOM and not even mention how dangerous and deadly it is for Iraqis. Because that would be laughable.
But I digress. Away with such laughable musings.
So is what I'm suggesting - that Iraq is still in violation of 1441 - really so far-fetched and laughable?
Consider for a moment:
Have the US arrested or killed Hussein?
No.
Have the US located and destroyed the much vaunted WMDs?
No.
So Hussein & the WMDs are, we presume, still out there.
And if I'm reading your argument right - it was really only Hussein and his WMDs that were "a threat to international peace and security" according to your reading of 1441. So what you're saying effectively is that although the two main threats to international peace and security are still at large and have not been found, it's all OK really and there is no longer any "threat to international peace and security": here's Tom with sports...
What I am trying to argue is that Resolution 1441 has not got anything in it to justify either:
a) regime change being considered compliance or
b) invasion without the consensus of the Security Council (you know, the guys who passed the 1441 resolution).
This is what the UK Ambassador to the UN said about 1441 in a speech just after its adoption: "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."
This is what the US Ambassador to the UN said about it: "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed." He goes on to hint that the US will invade anyway if the Security Council refuses to give them approval.
And in my original argument I'm pointing out that, like it or not, technically the invasion has fulfilled none of the stated goals of 1441. Although, of course, I suspect it has achieved several of the unstated goals. ;)
Personally I reckon that by about 1998 there were no WMDs and the US & UK both knew it. And that the US & UK's 1441 Resolution was an vague attempt at justifying the forthcoming invasion of Iraq with the backing of the UN - an attempt that failed. So to me the 1441 Resolution is nonsense from the get go, but then I don't go around waving the thing about like it's some sort of rubber stamp that proudly proclaims the invasion "Kosher" (or should that be "Halal"?!?). I merely enjoy pointing out that as a justification for the invasion, it's far from ideal, and beset with many problems - not least of which is the issue of the current regime's non-compliance (to whit: where are all the WMDs?)
I do think there's a sinister aspect to not letting UNMOVIC back in though - it makes it easier to plant WMD evidence. Although perhaps I should be generous and give the US gov't the benefit of the doubt - maybe they're just being really stupid and leaving themselves wide open to this accusation. I don't really think they'll use 1441 as an excuse to reinvade - although it is a very far-fetched possiblity.
Just seen this interesting tidbit, BTW: Key Phrase Was Dropped from UK Iraq Dossier
Tue September 23, 2003 12:33 PM ET
By Katherine Baldwin and Janet McBride
LONDON (Reuters) - The British intelligence chief responsible for a pre-war dossier on Iraq's weapons dropped a key sentence from it days before publication after prompting from Downing Street, an inquiry heard Tuesday.
He did it at the suggestion of Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the inquiry heard.
The offending sentence stated that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was prepared to use chemical and biological weapons "if he believes his regime is under threat.""
Powell argued that phrase suggested Iraq was only a threat if attacked.
The revelation that Powell ordered the sentence to be omitted raises fresh doubts over the intervention of Blair's office in the compilation of the September dossier.
Hah! Laughable!
-
To paraphrase GScholz:
"Poor Old Saddam - waaaaaa"
-
Originally posted by Toad
When this is over, the common people of Iraq will no longer live in a 3rd world country. They'll have modern medicine, open and uncensored schools, a free market, modern utilities... and some sort of democracy.
Now, you want to talk about destablizing the Middle East? THAT'S when things are going to get shaky in a lot of countries neighboring Iraq.
I see the Interim government has made a well-meaning but badly executed step in the wrong direction towards fulfilling your prophecy:
America's toothless 'interim council' roars like a lion - against the press
Robert Fisk:
BAGHDAD - Sewage is coming through the manhole covers, there's still only 15 hours electricity a day and anarchy grips the streets of Baghdad, but yesterday America's toothless Iraqi 'interim council' roared like a lion, issuing a set of restrictions and threats against - the press, of course.
Aimed primarily at Arab satellite channels 'Al-Djazeera' and 'Arabia', which always air Saddam Hussein's tape recordings, the almost Orwellian rules -- each of which begin with the words 'do not' -- mean that Iraqi or foreign press and television news organisations can be closed down if they "advocate the return of the Baath party or issue any statements that represent the Baath directly or indirectly (sic)."
The council, which was appointed by US proconsul Paul Bremer, admitted yesterday that it had consulted Mr. Bremer's legal advisers before issuing its set of restrictions.
True to the chaos that governs Baghdad, the council's spokesman, Intefadh Qanbar - Ahmed Chalabi's man - initially said that 'Al-Djazeera' and 'Arabia' were to be closed down in Iraq.
Within two hours, it emerged that the two Arabic language channels would be punished for their alleged transgressions by being refused all co-operation by the 'interim council' for two weeks - a punishment many journalists here would wish to have inflicted on them.
But the list nevertheless provides an intriguing reflection on the 'democracy' which Mr. Bremer-who ordered his legal advisers to draw up censorship rules in the late spring - wishes to bestow on Iraqis. Some of the restrictions are so self-evident as to be naive.
"Do not incite violence against any person or group," for example, could have been enshrined in any civil law rather than a set of press restrictions.
"Do not incite violence against the authorities or people in a position of responsibility," falls into the same category.
But the references to the Baath party are clearly intended to prevent Iraqis hearing Saddam's voice.
Both Arab stations have run Saddam's tapes in full, including his most sinister address with its worrying expression of affection for the people of Baghdad - "I miss you, my dears" - but the rule shows just how fearful the US authorities have now become of Saddam's sympathisers.
After telling the world that most Iraqis are delighted with their 'liberation' and forthcoming 'democracy', the authorities are obviously aware that many Iraqis don't feel that way at all.
Journalists and others must also inform the authorities of "any acts of sabotage, criminal activity, terrorism or any violent action...before or after an attack takes place."
[No]*Journalists - not even 'Al-Djazeera's' - receive advance warning of ambushes but the rule is effectively asking them to become assistants to the occupation authorities.
Many Iraqis would say, with good reason, that the fearful US troops who have killed so many innocent Iraqis before, during or after attacks on their convoys, are just as dangerous to them as the guerrillas assaulting the Americans.
And clearly, the restrictions can be interpreted to embrace just about any reporter in Iraq.
A dispatch quoting Saddam or describing the Americans' sometimes brutal house raids can be deemed to have 'represented' the Baath party or incited Iraqis to violence.
There have been instances in the flourishing new Iraqi free press - there are now more than a hundred newspapers in Baghdad alone - of incitement to 'jihad' against the occupation authorities and totally false information about the behaviour of US troops.
But the opening of a journalism school would do more good than yesterday's 'do not' list.
As it is, even reporting yesterday's killing - or killings - near the Sunni city of Falujah by a missile-firing American helicopter - could fall into 'incitement to violence'.
US forces say they came under fire from a house in the city and killed "one enemy".
But hospital doctors gave the names of three men killed, all members of the same family: Ali, Saad and Salem al-Jumaili.
One of them was said to be an innocent farmer whose two children were wounded when he was killed.
American troops were later seen taking photographs inside the two buildings that were hit.
Pools of blood lay across the floor.
*Stuck the No in myself - I'm guessing it's a typo.
-
Powell getting emotional at the Halabja museum is ripe politics to say the least, the only thing that could trump that would be Kissenger weeping in Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Don't have to be Albert Einstein to se that Iraq wasn't a "threat to international peace and security" before you invaded it, however it is pretty clear the present situation in Iraq is a "threat to international peace and security".
Great!
The "laughability" quotient is rising!
The Sacred UN itself viewed Iraq as a "threat to international peace and security" or didn't you read 1441? The Sacred UN itself held that position through 12 years and lots of resoltuions to that effect.
But it's a threat now? Do explain; that should be just as entertaining!
-
I get this very funny feeling that everyone in this discussion is gentically related to everyone else in this discussion, hence the bloody raw thrust towards inbreeding.
I do suggest the use of a sanitized and blacked out lab for the purpose of this type of inbreeding in the future.
-
I find some of the arguements presented here very intriging.
I think that some should be remind of the title of this thread though, "A civil Iraq discussion thread: please leave your hyperbole at the door"
-
Another smoke bomb in to the door.........
http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html (http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html)
Looks like the oil thing may just go away........ the process is not an economic equivlent for drill and extract, but it looks like a great way to get rid of the landfill problem.
Lastly I was there the first time and I knew it wasnt over then, I spent months supporting refugee camps for the Kurds in the north while we tried to put the infastructure back together, SH was a blot on humanity, and the whole region is like some time capsule dug up from the 13th Cent. This may be one of the last times when a culture can so turn its back on the rest of the world, as we all become more inter related as a world culture, individual nations will be less and less willing to kick over the table that we are all eating off of. Give it a hundred years and see what it looks like .
BTW for a view from some one who grew up in the mid east and now writes for a living check out John Ringos web site in the rants and essay section
http://www.johnringo.com/ (http://www.johnringo.com/)
Gunns
pardon the spelling but it at the end of a mid Shift, and the coffee has run out.
-
Iraq wasn't a threat the whole WMD thing is a farce and Iraq never should of been invaded. It will all come out in the wash for Bush as it is for Blair at the moment. Only a matter of time.
Any arguments backing the reasons for invasion really are clutching at straws and have no depth,proof what so ever.
Bush is an idiot and this is turning into the biggest international farce in decades.
Oh, don't bother insulting my opinion, hardly read message boards as it is, let alone one this big. Email would be insure a good debate. :-)
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
funny how the conservatives posts seem to be gettin shorter and more inane.
when a man tells you you are wrong and then dissmisses every point you can think of over a week long period as a distortion or outright lie. calmly evenhandedly even politly, considering your uncivilized antics and utter disregard for facts ( its lies your putting forth hes shooting down).
have you ever thought your wrong and pigheaded? cause well dang its seeming pretty obvious to me. why you need to believe murderous lies to support you political party and what than means about you as a person.
flame me if you want i dont care. but wake up if you cant defeat his stated facts
YOU ARE WRONG!!!
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
funny how the conservatives posts seem to be gettin shorter and more inane.
YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Arguing with some of you libs is like beating yer head against a wall. Even the most stubborn of us eventually realize that the wall is just too thick.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
It sounds to me like some on this board really do believe that the US is the worlds governing body?
We're going to pursue paths which are in our best interests...that should not suprise you....all you have to do is agree or get out of the way.
There was, not so long ago, a time when Europe and the US shared common interests and goals....it's not our policies which have changed.
-
Originally posted by Animal
How naive to think you could have a "civil" discussion in this baboon cage.
Agreed
-
Bush is intelligent and doing a good job. Iraq is moving towards stability, painfully and tragically, but in the end it will all be good.
The whole UN speech is just politics on schedule.
:D
-
Originally posted by Rude
We're going to pursue paths which are in our best interests...that should not suprise you....all you have to do is agree or get out of the way.
There was, not so long ago, a time when Europe and the US shared common interests and goals....it's not our policies which have changed.
No, it does not suprise me at all. The actions of US today is just repeating historic misstakes and it proves that you learned a little during your short history.
The fact that Europe and US does not share the same interests and goals, is a healthy sign.
It shows: That the people in Europe are more concerned and have more knowledge about the rest of the world, then people in US. That the Europeen people are more well educated then the US people.
While the rest of the world is trying to break out of the straps that the Oil from middleeast is providing, US just make themselfs harder tied up to it.
When you are cold, pissing yourself might be a shortsighted soulotion.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
No, it does not suprise me at all. The actions of US today is just repeating historic misstakes and it proves that you learned a little during your short history.
The fact that Europe and US does not share the same interests and goals, is a healthy sign.
It shows: That the people in Europe are more concerned and have more knowledge about the rest of the world, then people in US. That the Europeen people are more well educated then the US people.
While the rest of the world is trying to break out of the straps that the Oil from middleeast is providing, US just make themselfs harder tied up to it.
When you are cold, pissing yourself might be a shortsighted soulotion.
Nice.
-
Found this today, thought some of you might enjoy it.
'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire
Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.
1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.
2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?
3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.
4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?
5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?
6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?
7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?
8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?
9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?
10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?
11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?
12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?
13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?
14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?
15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?
16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?
17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?
18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?
19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?
20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?
21. Would Hillary?
22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?
23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?
Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?
-
LOL Lazerus
-
lazerus, I comepletly agree: Bring the Re2005 to AcesHigh!
-
Originally posted by crabofix
lazerus, I comepletly agree: Bring the Re2005 to AcesHigh!
Finally
Someone who agrees with me:D
-
You can run, but You'll only die tired!
(http://home.earthlink.net/~twosteppin/kill.jpg)
AC-130 Aerial Gunner
1981-2003
-
"Give me a backhoe and I'll bury the world"- Archmedies
Seems that all this 'Bush and Blair' are liars crowd have based their argument on the thought that Saddam Hussein destroyed his weapons stockpile, a stockpile the UN and the world knew he had, and had used against the Kurdish people.
Iraq is the size of Caleeforneeya, and if I had a few weeks and the Mojave desert, I could easily hide tons of stuff. All it takes for a few tons of nerve gas is a few cubic meters of space.
I lot of people climbing pretty far out on that limb.
All it takes is opening of a basement in Tikrit we haven't yet got to and many will be eating crow. Maybe the crow is out there on that limb.
-
If you're just going to hide it the moment that you have an invading army at your borders, what's the point of having it?
-
Nobody said Hussein was a military genious.
Did he ever make an intellegent military decision?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nobody said Hussein was a military genious.
Did he ever make an intellegent military decision?
You'll have to do better than that. :rofl
-
I have no idea as to Hussiens motives. He could have ammassed 100 times the personal wealth if he had been a benevolent dictator.
He could have built 2 or 3 palaces and the rest could have been hospitals, schools, Bagdad U, (Or is it Bagdad State U?)
He could have chosen to maintain and expand the infrastucture of Iraq, using oil to build the myriad of petro-products, thereby creating a plethra of great jobs for his people.
He could have peacefully sold oil and provided for his people a lifestyle the envy of the mideast, skimming just a small percentage off the top of a huge pie, but instead chose to torture his people, ruin the economy of his homeland, and to keep Iraq in virtual poverty. Then he could eat all of a micoscopic pie.
In GW1, he allowed (what was it?) 6 months of preparation for the liberation of Kuwait and thought they would never attack.
I think calling Hussien a bad descision maker is an understatement, and I think I do not have to do better than that.
My point a couple of posts ago, is that WMD's may be out there, and when (if) they are found, a lot of people are going to have to choke back a lot of rhetoric.
My position is wait and see at this point, GWB could have screwed the pooch, or he could have made the best decision of the last 100 years. Time will tell, and we should let it play out for a while.
-
Holden - it seems strange that no-one has been persuaded (through cash or other means) to identify all these well hidden stockpiles.
Apparently Saddam had deployable WMD ready to go in 45 minutes - that would mean he had the infrastructure to fabricate and transport the stuff to where it was needed. That's alot of gear to hide. Let's say he does bury it in the desert - how many people would be required to do that? Are we saying that Saddam, Usay and Qusay struck out one night with a "learn-how-to-drive-a-360-in-one-easy-lesson" manual and buried an entire weapon's program including the finished article?
No, it would take more people. People who have already been taken in by the Coalition for questioning. Given the kind of inducements that were offered for the capture of the big cheeses, and given the length of time these big cheeses have been in captivity why has there been no progress in finding a single stockpile of WMD or even one piece of plant equipment? The mobile 'labs' turned out to be dis-used weather balloon inflators and the drums they found early on were just pesticides - not my conclusions, but those of the Coalition.
-
Dowding...
Have you ever adopted a dog from the animal shelter?
If the dog was beaten and otherwise mistreated by a previous owner, it may take some time to warm up to you.
I am not saying the stockpiles exist or the WMD argument was a ruse, I am advocating patience.
-
I am not talking about the dog - I'm talking about the fellas in jail for mistreating the animal. They've got nothing to lose - they are well and truly shagged. But they can gain alot.
Patience is a good thing. I can wait - but not indefinitely. Iraq is costing my country 40 million a week, while old age pensioners struggle on a pittance, new hospitals don't get built and staff don't get trained. Schools don't get new roofs, new books or computer equipment.
I'm all for foreign aid but there are limits. I think in about a year I'll look at the whole thing and draw firm conclusions then.
-
Included with the regular civilians are dogs of a rather high ranking pedigree. Saddam did kill 2 sons- in- law for crossing him....
The occupation is costing Britian and USA both quite a bit, and your timeline seems fairly reasonable.
Even if the reasons going in prove incorrect, the costs we are paying now seem to be unavoidable. The worst thing we could do now is a complete pull out and give SH an opportunity to return.
-
funny hard times are all over here also.
we are paying 1 billion a week. about 1/3 the people i know even have healthcare.
and the "hearts and minds" crap about a dog is just some crap left over from viet nam. they want us out never wanted us in.
iraqis dont like us. dont you get it?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
funny hard times are all over here also.
we are paying 1 billion a week. about 1/3 the people i know even have healthcare.
and the "hearts and minds" crap about a dog is just some crap left over from viet nam. they want us out never wanted us in.
iraqis dont like us. dont you get it?
Did staying out of it save the lives of those killed from the towers, world trade in 93, our cruiser that got hit or 9-11?
Perhaps you feel better being a victim.
-
Rude do you honestly think the terrorist attacks will actually stop with your country invading arab territory?
My logic says they increase with the offensive.
-
They'll stop, or at least slow down when the middle eastern governments begin showing zero tolerance for terrorist organizations within their countries. If we make that an imperative for the survival of said governments they'll have little choice. We can do this only with determined resolve to go the distance. Anything less will lead only to increased aggression.
I'm confident that Bush knew full well he was starting something that he couldn't finish, at least in one term. By "starting something" I don't mean he started this war. This war was begun long ago but escalated on 9-11-2001. What Bush started was a response to the Islamic fundamentalist aggression. A response that can only be successful when fully completed.
As divided as we Americans seem to be over so many things, I have strong doubts that we'll have the resolve to win this "war against terrorism". However, that we have a leader that is willing to risk very possible failure to do what must be done gives me hope.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Rude do you honestly think the terrorist attacks will actually stop with your country invading arab territory?
My logic says they increase with the offensive.
I understand fully that we have set an example to those who wish us harm starting in the pullout of marines in Beirut....killing Americans has been free of cost to this point. No longer.
I attended a Military Academy in high school....there were those who would push and continue to push until you busted them in the face...not once, but several times until they realized that there was a cost associated with that pushing.
Same principle applies in Afghanistan and Iraq.