|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 18, 2003 6:25:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 18, 2003 8:59:57 GMT -5
I know the war against Iraq is possibly only hours away, but there are some things I just can't figure out. For instance, why does the United Nations continually miss the boat when it comes to international crisis? We're not just talking about Iraq, but other international crises as well.
Back in 1991, one of the finest professional soldiers this country has produced in many years, Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret'd), received little if any support from the UN when he actually arrived in the Balkan theatre of operations. Why? Because the UN had failed to accurately assess the magnitude of the Balkan conflict. Having said that, the UN had such a loose grip of the situation that the whole conflict soon became a media-driven fiasco.
Moreover, in 1994, the UN security council chose to ignore the warnings from another outstanding Canadian soldier, Maj.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire (ret'd). Dallaire repeatedly warned the UN of the pending genocide in plenty of time, yet the UN did nothing until 800,000 Tutsis had been murdered. If that wasn't enough, the UN then failed to intervene when evidence was presented confirming the retaliatory massacres on the Hutus, which occurred well after the conflict had supposedly ended. Why?
Countless media sources have presented overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who supports terrorism. In addition to gassing 5,000 of his own people, his government financially rewards Palestinian families whose offspring sacrifice themselves as suicide bombers. With such evidence continually brought forward, how does the UN Security Council always seem to miss the message, conflict after conflict? How do specific members of the security council refuse to believe what is going on?
The sad part is, on the surface at least, the UN has chosen to ignore these atrocities, similar to the way it has ignored past similar events. It's confusing that it took the events of 9/11 to trigger actions we're seeing today. The UN should have recognized the warning signs years ago.
Rick Landry
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 18, 2003 9:18:08 GMT -5
The UN Security Council just made itself irrelevent. What I don't understand is our boy scout "I Am Relevent To My Eyes And Why Am I Not King Chretien" has to kick the US in the nuts. WHY? We are not going to war with Sadam? Fine, shut your mouth and don’t make it more difficult for Bushy Baby. It's not like we have 65% of our goods going down south. It's not like we are a world power and can defend ourselves. It's not like we can not be choked off by long delays at the border. We are now in bed with such relevant powers as France and Germany. Isn't that great? What does that tell you about our government? At least the Brits recognize their friends. If I was Bush, I would find the first opportunity I could and make France pay and pay and pay. 10,000% taxation on ALL their goods. 50,000% tax on all lacy goods.  France and Germany concocted the European Economic Union for their benefit, maybe a nice little trade war is in order? How would Germany enjoy that? Oh I forgot, Germany and France do a lot of business with my buddy Sadam, could that be a reason why they want to be buddies? Could it? Nah, they have pure and altruistic reason for sure. For sure.  I could go on but I have to go to work and make products that go to the States so my employees can put food on their table and clothes on their back. Oh yes, and bleed taxes to a Liberal Government who has MP’s spouting about “Hating those bastards”. End of rant (for now). |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 18, 2003 14:37:09 GMT -5
This guy expresses it much better than I could: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stmAlso www.worldpeacecomm.com/pm_011503.html#storyPlenty of other interesting tidbits all over the place. I for one think that the US will go in, crush the Iraqi resistance, and then what ? Iraq isn't ready for a democracy, and even if they were they are just like the Saoudi's - deeply anti-American. A democratic government there will kick out the US, so I think in the end the US will either have yet another puppet government to run, or they'll wind up having an even worse enemy than Saddam is now, within 10 years or so. But who cares for the long-term ? Elections aren't every 10 years ! While waiting for the nasty bits to come back up to haunt us, while waiting for the next Sept. 11th, Bush can win another election, and his buddies can make a bundle selling all the wonderful sweet light crude.... |
|
|
|
Post by Ged on Mar 18, 2003 16:11:44 GMT -5
Kudos to you Rick.
The U.N. is a left leaning debating society. "We don't want to fight." Remember that quote from our esteemed leader. These people think that any situation can be solved peacefully. They are wrong. They have silently stood by while over a million people worldwide have been ethnically cleansed. Their lack of action that calls for force, is not just wrong, it's downright murderously criminal.
Hussein is a tyrant of the highest order. When his brother-in-law returned from Jordan, he was quickly eliminated in less than three days. The man murders anyone who disagrees with him, period. How many thousand of Iraqis have simply gone missing, never to be seen again. How many are imprisoned and tortured for having opposing political beliefs.
The French sold this guy a nuclear reactor in the late seventies. They knew what he wanted it for. The Germans are implicit in arms dealing as well, just as are the Yanks. Shame on them all. The Ayatollah was the bigger of the two evils at the time the Yanks gave him anthrax. I certainly don't condone their actions. The whole world has helped this man arm himself, and the world should be responsible for disarming him. It's been 12 years, enough already.
5000 Kurds were slaughtered in 1988. The guy has WMD's and he will use them. If we keep playing with our peckers, we'll have another North Korea on our hands. Look out then.
Canadas position is a disgrace. Our military has been neudered strictly for political motives and now we won't stand with our strongest allies in ridding the world of a ruthless murderer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 19, 2003 18:39:11 GMT -5
While I agree that (a)the UN has failed to act where it should and (b)Saddam needs to be removed, I am not as put off by Canada's failure to move troops to the Gulf as many are.
For one, our troops aren't needed there. The cost to the US for sending the handful of divisions that Canada would send to the Persian Gulf is minimal. Furthermore, their troops are likely better armed and better supported by their home nation. While I would like to see Canada have a stronger military presence, it's not going to change overnight, and facing facts - Canadian ground troops or pilots are just not needed. We have warship in the region as part of the deal with Afghanistan should the coalition require extra assistance.
With the emaciated Canadian military, in disrepair thanks to generations of cuts to their funding, sending forces to the Gulf would be useless at this juncture. Why put our men and women in harms way for little to no strategic benifit? Right now the best thing that Canada could do is stay out of it, to work as a liason between the French/Germans and the US/Brits and send in aid once the killing is done.
Don't get me wrong. We SHOULD be there. But right now there's really no need for us to be so agressive.
Yours,
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 20, 2003 12:49:16 GMT -5
From Robin Cooke, former staunch ally of Tony Blair, and the US in general. His resignation speech:
"I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us. I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persis tent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.
I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support."
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 20, 2003 23:09:46 GMT -5
Honestly guys, I'm hoping the only reason this war is being fought over is because of the UN's inability to properly resolve problems and their inability to follow through with action to resolutions. The UN has served Iraq numerous resolutions over the last twelve years calling for that country to disarm. But, what have they done to follow up?
This war is an uncertainty to most people and so it should be. People are divided right down the middle on this one. To decide who is right or wrong is all perception. The anti-war protests are very well documented by the media. Indeed, these demonstrations are not left off any news broadcast.
However, there's an equal amount of people who want to see the Butcher of Baghdad removed, if for no other reason so as to at least give the 60% of the Iraqi public who are starving, a chance at a better life.
I honestly believe that if the UN had any intestinal fortitude whatsoever, they would have enforced their resolutions some eleven years ago, maybe sooner. Yes, they authorized embargos on Iraq, yet though Iraq was lacking in supplies, it was supplementing their necessities through Syria. To that, had the UN organized a military force in which all member nations contributed, we might not be at this point today. Hussein might have gotten the message back then.
However, the UN didn't. They served one resolution after another and did nothing to enforce their demands.
I do agree that Hussein must be removed from power. His political position towards both Israel and the USA threatens the proposed plan for a new Palastinian state. I'm not saying the Palastinians will accept it, but Hussein will no doubt try to provoke Israel into the war, which will compel the remaining Arab countries to retaliate. Successfully doing that would put that plan on the backburner.
I honestly believe this whole situation could have been avoided had the UN decided to enforce it's resolutions instead of filing them. Instead, the Americans and British have drawn the ire of most and now have less than creditable reputations worldwide. And make no mistake, American and British passports may be targeted as a result. Little attention will be given to the "me too, me too" countries, of which Spain is only one.
Having said that, I think this process was overdue. However, it's the way it came about that I have a problem with. 9/11 was the excuse Bush needed and he's using that, whether citing it publicly or not, to justify this action and future actions.
Should Canada be involved? Tough question to answer really. However, we can't forget that the Americans are our friends. Friends stand together in time of need. In fact, it's during your time of need where you find out just who your friends are.
Is our military ready? Another tough question. Most of our ground forces are overworked, while some still are burned out. However, the lads I've talked to would go in a second.
Professionals or friends? Both I think.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 20, 2003 23:15:16 GMT -5
I agree with you 100% Dis and well said.
I can not believe the hypocrisy that is disguised as altruism.
I hope the US has a very short memory when WE need their help. Oop's I'm sorry, we only want their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 20, 2003 23:26:19 GMT -5
I agree with you 100% Dis and well said. I can not believe the hypocrisy that is disguised as altruism. I hope the US has a very short memory when WE need their help. Oop's I'm sorry, we only want their money. You know yourself, HA, they are our friends. We and they make a pretty darn good balance don't you think? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 20, 2003 23:45:26 GMT -5
Honestly guys, I'm hoping the only reason this war is being fought over is because of the UN's inability to properly resolve problems and their inability to follow through with action to resolutions. The UN has served Iraq numerous resolutions over the last twelve years calling for that country to disarm. But, what have they done to follow up? The UN needed the US to add a bit of muscle to get the inspectors back in - but once they are in, why go through with a war ? The only justification would be how Saddam is as a leader, yet there are tons of other examples of leaders doing just as many wrong things to their people. While I agree with the sentiment, what do you think would have happened had their been a revolution, an army general took over and said he was friends with the US and essentialyl kept on oppressing the people ? Bush and co. would have been happy as long as they got their drilling rights. Which is why US muscle is needed - at times. But now they've gone completely overboard. Well, what do the Palestinians have to lose anyhow ? Israel hasn't respected any other plan in the past, why would they respect this one ? And the whole idea of a peace plan also comes through UN resolutions - so if the UN really had guts, it would have been attacking Israel far ahead of Saddam. Yup - from the start W. has wanted to go and get the guy who "tried to kill my daddy". He just has a ready excuse. I remember after 9/11 I was worried about the US response, and I was comforted by the measured response in Afganistan. Looks like the overkill just came later than I thought. Well, is the US really in need ? We were the in Afganistan when they really wanted to get things going, but when they go and manufacture a conflict because Dub wants one, should we be involved ? I don't think so. Being there when a friend is attacked is very different from helping your friend when he picked a fight with a weaker guy just to get a good clean win. I think we can actually prove more useful as peacekeepers once the fighting stops - having not been involved from the start means we can at least seem neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 21, 2003 4:31:46 GMT -5
The UN Security Council just made itself irrelevent. Yes... the UN is irrelevant because it doesn't come and go at George Bush's bidding? (Rhetorical question, no need to reply) |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 21, 2003 4:41:11 GMT -5
PTH, well said. I can't believe the hypocrisy of the US government, this has gone way overboard. If they care so much about the Iraqi people, why didn't they lift their sanctions? How about lifting their sanctions on Cuba which are completely without any justification. If the UN had guts they would give the US an ultimatum to get out of the Gulf within 24 hours or face sanctions (I'd like to see that:  . Just because we depend on the US, doesn't make it right for us to go along with them, regardless of what they do. Our fence-sitting prime minister has once again done a brilliant job of placing himself squarely in the middle, refusing to take a strong stance either way. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 21, 2003 8:30:24 GMT -5
Right - so you want to give Hussien more money to give to suicide bombers in Israel right? You want to give Hussien more money to spend on developing weapons of mass destruction. The sanctions that everyone rails against are designed to allow Iraq to sell it's oil to feed it's people, to house them and to buy them medicine. However, the fact of the matter is that Saddam chooses not to give his people anything. Instead, he builds giant Stalin-esque murals of himself, tortures members of his football team when they fail to succeed, allows his insane (whom Saddam also thinks is loopy, which is alot coming from a madman) son Uday essentially free reign to do whatever he pleases (such as, but not limited to: rape; castration; electroshock torture).
The only hypocracy involved here today is the fact the UN allows a vengeful, angry, insane and agressive dictator to continue to rule a country after he invaded a defenceless neighbour (and would have invaded others had the US/UN not stepped in an reenforced their armies). Did we offer a 'peace treaty' and 'economic sanctions' to Hitler?
The UN has failed time and time again to live up to its mandate. The UN failed in Bosnia, when they sent their troops in incapable of defending themselves. The UN failed in the Balkans when they permitted Milosevic, a man who was intent on committing genocide, to continue to rule (NATO stepped in without UN support). The UN is supposed to work for the benifit of peoples everywhere, but instead it tries to cover it's head in diplomacy and mandates and hopes the problems go away.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 21, 2003 15:20:39 GMT -5
Right - so you want to give Hussien more money to give to suicide bombers in Israel right? You want to give Hussien more money to spend on developing weapons of mass destruction. So it took 12 years for the US gov. to figure out that the sanctions weren't working? You claim they were necessary so rather than debate that, I will make my point differently: If the US government cares so much about the Iraqi people, why did they supply Saddam with weapons? Why did they stand by and say nothing when he used chemical weapons against his own people, and why did they continue providing him with financial and military support? Why did they deliberately prolong a war between Iraq and Iran that had huge human costs on both sides by secretly helping both countries? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 21, 2003 18:56:57 GMT -5
Same as it ever was.
Prop up and support Saddam (or a facsimile anywhere in the world) when convenient. Denounce and destroy Saddam (or a facsimile anywhere in the world) when convenient.
I guess the American government just has no use for him any longer.
Perhaps installing a culturally foreign system of government will bear the same happy results Africa has shown us for a couple of centuries.
Oh well.
Besides the Americans have their own highly developed weapons which have been begging to be tested on a battle field. How else to verify that the R&D people are doing a good job.
Maybe the French will come over and help the Americans disarm their weapons of selective destruction when this TV show is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 21, 2003 20:20:23 GMT -5
To keep Iran from taking control of the Iraq. They felt at the time that they could extert at least a small modicum of control over Saddam at the time, where as the Iyotolleh (spelling is probably wrong) was distinctly anti-american and could not be trusted. The 'chemical weapons against his own people' business started in 1988. US support was withdrawn from Iraq shortly thereafter IIRC. And though he had been a ruthless dictator since his ascent to power in the mid to late seventies, once again - he was the lesser of two evils. Similar to the the allies working with Stalin in WWII to conquer Hitler. Stalin was a bad man and everyone knew that he had killed off most of Polands elite when he invaded it (mass graves were discovered by the Germans when they drove Staling back into Russia, were intercepted and decoded. It's called the siding with the lesser of two evils. To prevent imbalance in the region. For, while they liked the thought of having Iraq as a massive bulwark against the Islamic Fundamentalism that was raging in Iran, giving an anti-semetic state (there is but one synagouge in Iraq, most of the nations Jewish people were killed when Hussien took power, and there are no reference to jewish people in any history books in the country, including those which discuss WWII) weapons capable of dominating the region (where there is a Zionist state which was at the time more or less hated by all it's neighbours) is not a smart idea. Everyone's been all over Bush because they percieve his less than altruistic "intentions". Consider, for a moment, the intentions of those nations that are raising the biggest stink about it: Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power by The Heritage Foundation February 28, 2003 France a.. According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner. b.. Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3] c.. France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4] d.. Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq's Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves.[5] e.. France's Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq's telephone system.[6] f.. From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.[7] Germany a.. Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8] b.. It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq. It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9] c.. During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10] d.. In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11] e.. German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project.[12] [1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook. [2]Jon Talton, French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003. [3]Jon Talton, French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003. [4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002. [5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002. [6]Evelyn Iritani, Hussein's Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime, The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002. [7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981-2001, at projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_198 2-2001.pdf. [8]David R. Sands, France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties, The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003. [9]David R. Sands, France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties, The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003. [10]Africa Analysis-Trade Points Way to Peace, The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002. [11]Faye Bowers, Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests, Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003. [12]Helping Saddam Rearm, The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002. Later |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 21:02:35 GMT -5
Ouch, the US got outbid in all these contracts ? Something must be wrong - let's invade, and make sure all contracts are distributed "equitably".
Reminds me of the softwood lumber dispute - the US is for free trade, but when they don't come out on top using that method, they find another way.
These contracts can be used to make a case against the US just as well as they can be used to make a case against France and Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 21, 2003 22:13:41 GMT -5
I don't understand the point of this paragraph. You are saying its bad to give weapons to Iraq but that is exactly what the US did.... Also you are only obscuring the issue by saying that Iraq is anti-semitic, and again using the "not a good idea" argument, which does not prove anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 21, 2003 23:18:40 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Paul. I appreciate it for sure. This is a topic where questions have been asked, yet answers have been confusing and conflicting for sure. The UN needed the US to add a bit of muscle to get the inspectors back in - but once they are in, why go through with a war ? The only justification would be how Saddam is as a leader, yet there are tons of other examples of leaders doing just as many wrong things to their people. Have agree with you here buds. There are numerous examples of human rights violations throughout the world, which begs one to ask, why Iraq? Why now? Yet, has the UN asked any of these other countries to disarm? Not to my knowledge. Hussein has had twelve years to disarm and has made a mockery of the UN security council. There's little change to that today actually. With regards to the UN weapons inspectors; it's good that the USA flexed it's muscles in getting them there. However, I find it confusing that every time Iraq agreed to allow the inspectors into a specific place, Bush would demand something else. At this point, his position to disarm the country seems to have turned to a "remove Hussein at all costs," type of motive. We'll never know the question to that, Paul. Speculation at best. However, Bush has stated that he intends to use Iraqi oil to offset the cost of his war. The nagging question remains in my mind, "... is that all you're going to use of the Iraqi oil?" Anything more than that will rip away any hope the USA and Britain may have of reinstating their battered reputations internationally. It's a question that won't go away frankly. Have to see how this one plays out. France has already rejected the notion of a post-war Iraq being administered by the USA and Britain. I think they're completely right in their beliefs to tell you the truth. Disarm the country by force; fine. However, dividing the country up similarily the way they did to Germany after WW II, invites more conflict. The USA, Britain and their sheep, must leave when this is done. Hopefully, and I say again, hopefully when this is over, the UN is prepared to say "step aside now, we'll take it from here..." But it will mean nothing if they can't put a force in theatre to supervise the withdrawl. What you are suggesting is, what is the use of even trying. From what I understand, Israel has already agreed to the new Palastinian state proposed by the USA. I haven't heard how the Palastinians have replied. The problem started with the Israeli War of Independence back in 1948. They received arms and advisers from Britain. Once Palastine was completely in Israeli hands, they renamed it Israel. The problems started when the League of Nations (I think it was the LON) almost overwhelmingly, less the Arab countries of course, approved it. In later years, most of those Arab countries recognized the state of Israel providing it was inhabited by Jews of Middle Eastern origin. Well, that didn't exactly fly either. That statement just might be on his tombstone, Paul. Talk about a Freudian slip. Not really, no. But, it's important that you let them know they can rely on you, their friends, in time of need. We did that by offering to take some of their responibilities from them in Afghanistan. The problem is, they can't go in as a peacekeeping force in that country. We were part of the attack on the Taliban and Al Qeada. As a result, it's a major conflict of interest. Our reception will not be a warm one. This reminds me of Iraq when they picked a fight with Kuwait, who didn't want a fight mind you. That was twelve years ago and they were ousted from Kuwait. However, they still haven't complied with numerous resolutions to disarm. In Iraq yes, Afghanistan, well, not so good. For me the bottom line is, this country has to disarm, this dictator must go. To that I agree. However, I reiterate that though I support the action, I don't like how this conflict came about. It will also be interesting to see if there are more agendas to this than just disarming a nation and ousting it's leader. I'm as curious as the next guy. I'll drop you PM soon, Paul. Thanks very much for the discussion. I'll be more than happy to continue it if you would like. Same goes to all. Thanks again. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 21, 2003 23:23:23 GMT -5
Same as it ever was.Maybe the French will come over and help the Americans disarm their weapons of selective destruction when this TV show is over. Funny you should say that, MB. I was talking with my father about his earlier this evening. One thing we found odd was the fact that the USA and Britain have been harping on removing weapons of mass destruction. Well, the USA just detonated a 21-Kiloton conventional bomb late last week. That's one powerful bomb, MB. However, the atomic bomb dropped on Heroshima was only 20 Kilotons!? Though the conventional bomb the States tested didn't have the residual fallout of a nuclear bomb, it is a weapon of mass destruction don't you think? Hmm ... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 0:19:25 GMT -5
You could argue that American foreign policy in general is a weapon of mass destruction....
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 2:05:27 GMT -5
My arguement is that (a) the Americans in the early eighties acted on their ancient policy of containment (which dates back to the Korean War) to try and stem the tide of Islamic Fundamentalism by empowering a nation which disliked the fundamentalist ideals to act as a breakwater against it. However, they quickly realized the error of their ways and thusly tried to create a balance of power.
In other words, they screwed up, and then screwed up worse when they tried to fix it.
Quick question though - what difference does it make?
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 4:17:33 GMT -5
My arguement is that (a) the Americans in the early eighties acted on their ancient policy of containment (which dates back to the Korean War) to try and stem the tide of Islamic Fundamentalism by empowering a nation which disliked the fundamentalist ideals to act as a breakwater against it. However, they quickly realized the error of their ways and thusly tried to create a balance of power. In other words, they screwed up, and then screwed up worse when they tried to fix it. Quick question though - what difference does it make? Later, I don't know. It was your argument, and I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. Some of your statements are pro-war and some seem to be anti-war. If you're asking why people are bringing up past US acts well that's because it shows the US is not as angelic as people are making them out to be and it provides evidence of more sinister motives and of past broken promises and disregard for human life. I don't see any reason to think that the US has learned anything - other than how to kill more people in less time. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 11:08:17 GMT -5
So now we're using things that happened a decade ago as 'proof' that Bush and Co are not being honest. I have bad news for you - no country is innocent. If we're using past crimes to 'characterize' countries - well hell, let's look at the major opposition to the Gulf War then shall we? France (Napolean, captipulation to the nazi's which included an oppresive puppet government, seziure of the Suez Canal among other things); Germany (where I can start and end with the Nazi's and make everyone else (except Russia) pale in comparison) and Russia (where I can start and end with Stalin and make everyone else (except Germany) pale in comparison) have HORRIBLE records when dealing with other countries. But somehow we're supposed to trust their judgement and not GWB's?
Your "evidence" is manufactured and ignorant of the facts. You say he's after oil, but evidence shows that he's not (by giving the oil to the UN instead of simply saying they're the conquerors and taking everything). You have no evidence except past acts (because Lord knows the US has such a horrible history of dealing with other nations) which are chosen through a selective memory. Come up with something concrete before you throw around these accusations against people. Or at least try to answer a simple question: "How are justice, freedom and the Iraqi people served by leaving Saddam in power?"
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 22, 2003 11:48:22 GMT -5
A lot of the following smacks of Oliver Stoner conspiracy-theorism, but its and interesting read nonetheless... Sunday Herald - 15 September 2002 Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President By Neil Mackay "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. "The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: '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.' "The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. "This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. ..." For the full report, see www.sundayherald.com/27735There's a much better detailed analysis of this story and its context at pilger.carlton.com/print/124759 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 12:39:52 GMT -5
C’mon BC I thought you were up to speed on all the conspiracies? There was all kinds of “documents” by the Reagenites during Reagan and Bushy 1 reign of world domination. Yup, I said World Domination. These “plans” or “documents” has been twiddley exercises that give Republicans more satisfaction then a busload of hookers. Wait, wait, you mean the Sunday Herald “just” discovered it? Was it a secret operation? A “deep throat” spilling the beans? Or did they use Google? You know Google? More plots can be discovered by Google and a fast computer then a thousand reporters screaming “eureka”. As usual, people trot out all kinds of arguments and “supporting evidence” from every angle of the debate. The Sunday Herald should be more original then that in order to claim “secret documents found”. I always try to read the Enquirer for my latest conspiracy theories. The best one I have heard yet is that Bush is an Alien and he will start WW3 in order to wipe the entire human race. However, a few chosen males and 10, 000 child bearing females will are going to be whisked up in a ship and brought down after the conflagration to repopulate the planet. I just happen to be one of the chosen one. Man, am I going to be busy……………. Con-spiracies……..don’t forget the “con” part of the word. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 22, 2003 23:03:24 GMT -5
Well, for Bush to have alledgedly come up with that blueprint he must have been very sure he was going to win his election, or maybe just preparing in the event of a win anyway. However, as many know, Bush only won his election by the slimest of margins. I think had they kept recounting the Florida ballets he would have eventually lost, albeit by a slim margin once again.
I'm not too sure as to the exact number, but if an election is decided by less than "X" number of votes, a winner is not declared. The running of the country is then turned over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's one airforce general, one marine general, one navy general and one army general, making both domestic and foreign decisions for the USA.
Hmm ... that could be a thread all of it's own.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 11:27:18 GMT -5
Well, for Bush to have alledgedly come up with that blueprint he must have been very sure he was going to win his election, or maybe just preparing in the event of a win anyway. However, as many know, Bush only won his election by the slimest of margins. I think had they kept recounting the Florida ballets he would have eventually lost, albeit by a slim margin once again. I'm not too sure as to the exact number, but if an election is decided by less than "X" number of votes, a winner is not declared. The running of the country is then turned over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's one airforce general, one marine general, one navy general and one army general, making both domestic and foreign decisions for the USA. Hmm ... that could be a thread all of it's own. Cheers. This "blueprint" or plan is from the Reagan era. It's a long story that I have writen about in another post. Bush is just another caboose chugging along on the Republican tracks. |
|
. Just because we depend on the US, doesn't make it right for us to go along with them, regardless of what they do. Our fence-sitting prime minister has once again done a brilliant job of placing himself squarely in the middle, refusing to take a strong stance either way.