|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 22:32:22 GMT -5
LOL But of course Chirac will say that publically!  I was refering to his probable (IMO) private wishes. If the US succeeds with a quick war, and (I disagreeumption/hope) the majority of Iraqis cheer the US and express gratitude for liberating them, France and Germany are going to look *mighty* awful. I expect the US will make sure they get plenty of thanks for Iraqis. Invaders can always find locals willing to go with the flow. Now, if Saddam is half as bad as we think he is, then the US won't have to look for long. As to the real wishes of the French or anyone else - you're assuming some pretty dark intentions without serious reason to do so. I think that's a dangerous path - economic or geopolitical benefits are one thing, hoping for a long drawn-out war is quite another. Especially since it wouldn't benefit the French or anyone else.... whenever the US wins they'll find people to be thankful, and if it's fast, it backs up the French claim that Iraq wasn't that much of a threat anyhow. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 21, 2003 22:52:18 GMT -5
No one is pro-Saddam, but a lot of people are anti-going to war just for the he11 of it. A 'significant' number of Palestinians are pro-Saddam. Millions of protesters around the world with nothing to say about Saddam but plenty of venom for Bush (comparing him to Hitler) also seem pro-Saddam. People (not you, but MANY if not the majority of protesters interviewed) are trying to make it look like Saddam is the victim and that this war is just about oil. No country government has even suggested such nonsense! The fact is France and Germany made deals with the devil (Saddam) for oil..and, IMO, they acted in bad-faith in decisions concerning the security cousel. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 21, 2003 23:02:58 GMT -5
I expect the US will make sure they get plenty of thanks for Iraqis. Invaders can always find locals willing to go with the flow. Umm...not really, not really at all. Did any Kuwaitis appreciate it when Iraq invaded? Agreed. No, I think Chirac's political future and French pride would be smashed the second any evidence showed up concluding that Saddam indeed had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It's a very reasonable (and widely held--even political analysts in France have stateds this) assumption that Chirac is hoping for a prolonged war, or even better (for him), complete military failure for the coalition. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:10:04 GMT -5
A 'significant' number of Palestinians are pro-Saddam. OK, I should have been clearer - no one in the Western World is really pro-Saddam. Well, plenty of people have suggested this is about oil more than anything else. As to those who seem pro-Saddam, I think that's just a case of Bush seeming overly belligerent, and hence seeming like the bad guy (whereas I just see 2 bad guys). To quote a British Ministers resignation speech: " Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war. " This isn't from a Frenchman or a German or a Russian... They wanted more time for inspections. Inspectors were there on the ground. Why go to war. Just a quick reminder on how anxious the US has seemed to invade Iraq, a humorous article from an American paper: www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.htmlIf that's how it looks to Americans, just imagine what it looks like from the outside. That British minister, when he resigned, asked 2 solid questions. Go ahead and answer them: "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?" "Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? " From news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stmA British Minister who's against the war seems as close to a neutral point of view as we can hope to get... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 21, 2003 23:13:44 GMT -5
Bush looks pretty awful right now because he has gone against the wishes of his own people and of most of the people of the world. France, Germany, and Russia have actually respected public opinion and that looks good from where I'm sitting. (I won't say anything about Chretien and public opinion...) Over 60% of Americans support the war against Iraq. If the governments of France, Germany, and Russia cared to educate their people on the facts, their people would also support the war. Instead, you have the majority (healthy assumption) of people of those countries thinking this war has something to do with US hunger for oil, imperialism, and war-mongering. The leaders of those countries base their decisions on sinister motives, distinct from actual public opinion (which is based on ignorance and anti-Americanism). Canada, on the other hand,....  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:16:03 GMT -5
Umm...not really, not really at all. Did any Kuwaitis appreciate it when Iraq invaded? The Iraqis didn't have much time to put pressure on the Kuwaitis, and PR wasn't a priority for them anyhow. Phew ;-) Saddam having weapons of mass destruction would look bad, but that's not the same as a prolonged conflict. I'm not so sure about that.... war causes instability in so many ways, few politicians want it to last any longer than needed, things can just get too ugly. Also, Chirac wants the UN to be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and I think he wants that phase to start ASAP so France has a positive role to play rather than be seen as a spoiler. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:23:51 GMT -5
Over 60% of Americans support the war against Iraq. That's called rallying yourself to a cause - what were the numbers before it was clear there'd be a war ? You can be plenty educated and still think it's all about oil.... I think your assumption is far from being healthy. In fact, I'd venture that most people in those other countries are more aware of the issues than Americans are. Americans tend to have a very black and white view of things, especially so since the US can usually afford to go it alone, whereas Europe is constant negotiating to get things underway, which requires more time and understanding, as well as respect for institutions - the US either gets its way or says to the world "screw you", which just about no one else can really afford to do. Do you read any non-American news sources ? Anything not from ABC fed straight from the White House ? You have a very All-American point of view, which essentially rejects anyone who doesn't agree with you as being weak, foolish or ignorant. *sigh*..... yup, it's sinister motives and conspiracies for everyone but the pure-hearted Americans, who only want to impose US-style "democracy", McDonalds and Coke on the entire planet. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 21, 2003 23:30:13 GMT -5
They wanted more time for inspections. Inspectors were there on the ground. Why go to war. Inspectors stated that they didn't have full cooperation. This is a violation of the resolution and enough evidence of ill-faith from the part of the Iraqis. Also consider that biological weapons can be created in even a housed basement. Iraq is HUGE. Further, consider that the Iraqis only cooperated at all when war was imminent otherwise. The American troops couldn't remain stationed in the gulf forever while this would go on...and had the troops left, there would be (very small and reasonable assumption) a lack of cooperation once again. That minister is out of touch with the new reality. Think September 11th. Again, the UN inspectors would get nowhere without American troops knocking on the door. Further, Saddam's weapons programme was hindered, but not blocked. Neutral, but IMO not bright nor based on today's realities. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:50:29 GMT -5
Inspectors stated that they didn't have full cooperation. This is a violation of the resolution and enough evidence of ill-faith from the part of the Iraqis. Also consider that biological weapons can be created in even a housed basement. Iraq is HUGE. Further, consider that the Iraqis only cooperated at all when war was imminent otherwise. Yup, American pressure was needed to get the inspectors in there. But they were in and getting increasing cooperation with time. The threshold for war should always be very high..... Not a reasonable assumption - let the inspections go on a few more months, don't fill in the region with additionnal thousands of soldiers, and let things take their course. If the inspectors are kicked out again, then you have a consensus to go in and blast Saddam. France itself stated that it would be "very much involved" once you had UN approval. What you don't seem to realise is that unilateral action on the American's part like this will only cause more 9/11's. Essentially, it becomes clear that American action can only be justified by economic motives - twice now they go to fight in an oil-rich reason, yet get barely involved around the rest of the globe. Israel can ignore UN resolutions at will because of the Jewish vote in the US. What kind of effect do you think this has in Muslim countries ? Tremendous resentment. The US asked for 9/11, and it's asking for more. Give it time - with pressure and time, Saddam would have been cooked. You're right - he doesn't agree with you, he must be a moron who doesn't know squat. When the next 9/11 rolls around, just remember this - you asked for it. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 21, 2003 23:57:22 GMT -5
Do you read any non-American news sources ? Anything not from ABC fed straight from the White House ? You have a very All-American point of view, which essentially rejects anyone who doesn't agree with you as being weak, foolish or ignorant. I read everything. www.wn.com is a terrific site to find news from online newspapers all over the world, even Iran. For years I've my own serious concerns about the world's future. Seeing on TV Palestinians suicide bombers do there thing scares the crap out of me. Then came September 11th... and continuous talk from Islamic fundamentalist clerics about a 'holy' war against 'infidels.' Believe it or not, there are people out there who'll nuke us ('infidels') as soon as they can.  I may seem All-American, but this is because I believe in their just cause. Before September 11th, I was actually somewhat anti-American. I have a distaste for American pop-culture, American food, the New York Yankees, etc. I also detested the ignorance many (a huge many) Americans have of what is going on outside of their borders. And, I never ever desired to live in the US. HOWEVER, I always respected what the US has done for the world. Freeing Europe in both world wars, trying to spare civilian lives when wars were thrust upon it, giving generously to almost every country in the world, taking it upon themselves to stop wars in the former Yugoslavia, etc. No other country comes close to doing so much...to doing their share. PTH, please tell me why the world (China, Russia, etc) are pushing the US to deal with the North Korean issue itself? Nobody but the US is willing to assume their responsiblities. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 0:06:13 GMT -5
Not a reasonable assumption - let the inspections go on a few more months, don't fill in the region with additionnal thousands of soldiers, and let things take their course. If the inspectors are kicked out again, then you have a consensus to go in and blast Saddam. France itself stated that it would be "very much involved" once you had UN approval. Now that is not a reasonable assumption. France promised to VETO any resolution which could lead to going in and blasting Saddam. France insisted even on no deadline for such a resolution and this means (no assumption necessary) that inspections could go on forever. Wow, can't believe you said and actually believe that. This marks the end of the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 0:12:58 GMT -5
The fact is France and Germany made deals with the devil (Saddam) for oil..and, IMO, they acted in bad-faith in decisions concerning the security cousel. So Chirac and Putin and Schroeder might be just as bad as Bush? That doesn't make Bush right. I have not seen anybody try to make Saddam look like a victim.... This war might be "just about oil." All the pro-war people are trying to make it seem like this war is just about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's brutal dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 0:24:32 GMT -5
Seeing on TV Palestinians suicide bombers do there thing scares the crap out of me. Then came September 11th... and continuous talk from Islamic fundamentalist clerics about a 'holy' war against 'infidels.' Believe it or not, there are people out there who'll nuke us ('infidels') as soon as they can. Yup, and in some ways, Bush is a fundamentalist as well - "God Bless America" at the end of every speech ? Makes the whole issue even more religious-based than it seems. In WWI the US didn't free Europe, it was just a contributing factor to the Allies winning. And to be honest, had Germany won the world wouldn't have been that terrible a place (wwi, remember that) WWII: After contributing to the Western cause, the US backs out, leaving a major imbalance - the French and British don't want to get involved in another major stalemate of a war, yet eventually have no choice but to go to war, France is gone and Britain almost surrenders, yet the US merrily stands by selling them weapons.... it took Pearl Harbor for the US to "care". How about those thousands upon thousands of Kampuchean and Laosian civilians caught by those b-52 raids in Vietnam ? They do a big share, but it's also to their advantage in many cases. I think it has to do with the US having made previous deals with North Korea - but I gotta admit this one baffles me. China and Russia should care a whole lot more. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 0:31:23 GMT -5
Now that is not a reasonable assumption. France promised to VETO any resolution which could lead to going in and blasting Saddam. France insisted even on no deadline for such a resolution and this means (no assumption necessary) that inspections could go on forever. You're assuming the French wouldn't get tired of games, which they definitely would, in time. The inspectors were in for just a few weeks.... if after six months Blix were still complaining about a lack of cooperation, then the UN resolutions would have been approved in a jiffy. The US needs to learn patience in foreign policy.... especially after 9/11 the US could and should have been able to get worldwide approval, but that doesn't just happen because you want it to. Well, it's the logical consequence of America's foreign policy..... it's gotten to the point that military resistance is useless, so opponents have no choice but to resort to terrorism. From Beirut in 83 to 9/11 to the Palestinian bombers, it's all the same story.... hopelesness combined with a hatred from the US that comes from seeing completely ridiculous choices in foreign policy, choices that are good for the US internally but don't represent "American" values in terms of what's actually done abroad. It's scary as heck to think some people are willing to do such a thing, but it also says something about the depth of their despair - essentially, they know they don't have a chance and that the only way to make their lives "mean something" in the big picture is to blow themselves up or pilot planes into buildings. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 1:09:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 1:48:09 GMT -5
You 'shot me down' with five minutes of shoddy research that meant nothing in the real world. Anyone can throw up numbers, it takes something behind them to make it worth anything.
You did a good job with the oil feild numbers, but you forgot to account for the cost of producing said crude (maintaining oil wells, employing people to work on the wells, transporting the crude to some nearby body of water and transporting the crude then overland into the US. That's not a cheap process by any stretch of the imagination.
Another fallacy is based in your 'cost of the war' figure. In three nights of bombing (and only one night of serious bombing really) the US has already spent one billion dollars on cruise missiles alone. Your estimate looks like it'll fall very short once you include the cost of moving everything to the Gulf, let alone adding the things your forget about (i.e. fuel for the tanks which get about 1 mpg and the global bandwidth for their military communication that has to be bought from private companies).
But lets say your estimate somehow holds. It still is based on the asinine presupposition that the Iraqi's get nothing from their oil fields and the rest of the world does nothing about it. Whereas the US has already earmarked the money owed Iraq and all profits from the oil to go to a UN fund for the rebuilding of Iraq. The UN.
Right. Bush will make Iraq catipulate with ease, but has decided to let the largest oil producing nation in the world (who also has strong ties to terrorism - although not so much state sponspored) to remain 'unstable'. You can't have the arguement both ways PTH. Either the US is capable of propping up a puppet government in any country so as to drain its oil and make it stable, or it can't. Your call.
Riiight. Can you explain that one to me again? The French and Germans allowed NATO to bomb the living bejesus out of Kosovo because they allowed NATO to bomb Kosovo? That's circular logic.
Germany and France didn't have a problem with ridding the world of Milosevic because they didn't stand to lose anything without him being in control. Both France and Germany however, like to keep the Iraqi government well fed (because none of that money goes to the Iraqi people who aren't in the the Baath party) and well armed and thus stand to lose a lot to a new regime.
Funny - because you know, you'd figure now that there are no shipments coming out of the second largest oil producer in the world that oil prices would be sky rocketing. But no, that's not happening. Why? Becuase the other oil producers are compensating for the losses. Very, very simple solution.
Nice baseless statement made to make the US look bad. Too bad you can't roll out a couple 'well-researched' facts to back that one up.
Another nice pair of baseless facts. Now you're suggesting that not only is this war for oil, but for a couple paltry contracts. Care to try back that one up?
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not the nicest countries to live in, no doubt, but don't kid yourself. Their problems stem from archaic religious laws. Meanwhile, the poor people of both countries live with a standard of living (in terms of possessions, education etc) that would make the average Canadian worker jealous. They treat their citizens well, if they do subject them to harsh laws.
Compare that to Iraq, where the people live under greater opression (although not religiously based) AND have fewer human rights AND are starving because Saddam is too busy having murals painted of him or having writers prepare new epithets for his title.
As for North Korea - not a nice place, but they are a lower threat to others around them. Why? Not because Saddam has more WMD, but because North Korea can be leaned upon by China to more or less not stir the feces too much, where as Saddam is a loose cannon.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 2:01:07 GMT -5
TNG, I'm too tired to respond to all that, other than to say that Bush is a loose cannon IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 2:09:11 GMT -5
Many people are idiots. Most protesters don't know or even care about facts. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 2:12:58 GMT -5
I've never argued that Bush was absolutely reasonable about this. He rushed far to quickly in this and did not give Saddam the appropriate 'shot across the bow before I blow you out of the water', but AFAIC Saddam has had more than enough time to comply. It's just a matter of that the US should've started nagging about Iraq's non compliance seven or eight years ago.
What I am saying is that (a) this war is justified; (b) while there is little doubt that the US will come out the better overall for this war, they are in it at least partially for altruistic reasons; (c) this war is ultimatly justified; and (d) it is not completely GWB's fault that diplomacy failed.
As to your condition - coffee, it does the body good. And it lets you finish all those temr papers you left until the last night to start too!
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 3:04:52 GMT -5
You 'shot me down' with five minutes of shoddy research that meant nothing in the real world. Anyone can throw up numbers, it takes something behind them to make it worth anything. You did a good job with the oil feild numbers, but you forgot to account for the cost of producing said crude (maintaining oil wells, employing people to work on the wells, transporting the crude to some nearby body of water and transporting the crude then overland into the US. That's not a cheap process by any stretch of the imagination. Another fallacy is based in your 'cost of the war' figure. In three nights of bombing (and only one night of serious bombing really) the US has already spent one billion dollars on cruise missiles alone. Your estimate looks like it'll fall very short once you include the cost of moving everything to the Gulf, let alone adding the things your forget about (i.e. fuel for the tanks which get about 1 mpg and the global bandwidth for their military communication that has to be bought from private companies). But lets say your estimate somehow holds. It still is based on the asinine presupposition that the Iraqi's get nothing from their oil fields and the rest of the world does nothing about it. Whereas the US has already earmarked the money owed Iraq and all profits from the oil to go to a UN fund for the rebuilding of Iraq. The UN. Hey, your estimates on this aren't any more backed up than my are, so don't start calling my estimates fallacies - I at least realise my guesstimates are just that, guesstimates. But the cost of war is dwarfed by all that oil, that was my simple point. *sigh* You can make a government hold for a while, but often it fails after a while. It seems to be working out in Egypt for example, but they seem to be losing the battle in Saoudi Arabia. And the Saoudis are a good example that keeping the government in place doesn't stop citizens from taking over Boeing jets and going to visit the WTC up close and personnal. A better point would be to say that the immediacy of the crisis made just about everyone agree that rapid action was required. In Iraq.... there's no such rush. Inspectors were doing their jobs. If Hussein being an SOB is reason enough, than why not take him out 12 years ago ? His WMD have deteriorated in the meantime so he was more of a threat back then too. Essentially, I wonder about US motives, but you're willing to paint the worst possible interpretation on France or German moves. In the process thoroughly ignoring the fact that Russia was willing to use its veto as well, and that the majority of the security council was against war too - which is why there never was a 2nd proposal for a resolution, because it wouldn't have gotten a majority and would have had 2 vetoes against it to boot - ie, not even the possibility of claiming you might have something approaching a consensus. Yeah, that can work over a period of time, but oil is a commodity that we're going to be running out of over the next 20 years. For now we can be OK, but if the Saoudis get restless, the US will be happy to have Iraq under their control. The current raise in prices is actually entirely due to changes in the supply pattern because of the problems in Venezuela. Once Iraq is back in the loop, they'll have the same power to disrupt patterns of supply. Hmm, if you're going to criticise an absence of facts, maybe you should have some of your own ? If you want me to look up US puppet dictators, I'll do it, only it might take a while, there are so many, you know. Noriega(put in place by the father of "they tried to kill my daddy" himself), Pinochet, the Duvalier's, and that's just off the top of my head, in the America's. You're the one who mentionned the contracts, not me. Don't you think some US weapons firms would love to be doing business with Iraqi oil interests ? Or is the US military-industrial complex too nice to do anything like that ? Sounds like a great place to live: "Executions by hanging are public -- there were at least 60 such executions in 1994. The main opposition is from Sunni Islamists, and hundreds are in prison. Saudi Arabia is supported by the United States and other western democracies because of the enormous oil wealth that lies below the country's desert sands, its pro-West stance, and the royal family's staunch anti-fundamentalist position. The irony of American policy in Saudi Arabia is that the US, the world's most vocal advocate for democracy, supports one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world." When you have to compare someone to Saddam to make him look good... Hey, that actually has some basis in reality. Makes for a nice change of pace. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 3:12:17 GMT -5
I've never argued that Bush was absolutely reasonable about this. He rushed far to quickly in this and did not give Saddam the appropriate 'shot across the bow before I blow you out of the water', but AFAIC Saddam has had more than enough time to comply. It's just a matter of that the US should've started nagging about Iraq's non compliance seven or eight years ago. And yet nagging about Israel for not respecting UN resolutions for the past 30 years goes unnoticed ? How many more 9/11's do we need to realise that the issues aren't separate; you can't impose on set of laws on Israel and another on Iraq. Sure it is - but so would a dozen other wars. Why push so hard for this one ? Altruistic ? If Saddam were just a rough rules rather than a psycho, I think we'd be seeing the exact same events unfold. Saddam being an SOB is a practical plan B given that WMD simply couldn't be proved. And after 6 weeks or so, the US had to move in before it became really clear that there just weren't very many if any of those in Iraq. See a) Of course, but IMO it's largely his fault. Deciding suddenly and unilaterally to go after Iraq, without making due allowance for diplomatic niceties and different country's expectations as to what's a decent time interval before taking out the big guns, isn't a recipe for consensus. He didn't want it to fail, but he didn't make the efforts reasonably needed to make it work, either. The UN isn't a luxury to use when it happens to suit your needs and leave aside the rest of the time... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 3:39:16 GMT -5
Statements like this do nothing to further the debate. I could just as well say "most people who have an American flag as their avatar are morons," or "most people who believe George Bush when he says the war is not about oil have never been to Chicago," or "most people who drive mini-vans have hair." (However, I don't make such statements....) Of course you could state that, please do. And logical people will look at that and conclude that you are, if nothing else, very consistent in your nonsensical statements. Regarding September 11th, do you also agree in that the US 'was asking for it'? How awfully absurd and sad. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 3:46:36 GMT -5
Does it ever make you wonder that we're both up so late debating this? I mean really... ;D
And I disagree. Because your costs of war are innaccurate. The US has already spent like well over two hundred billion on getting the troops and equipment to the desert etc. They spent more than a billion dollars today in Cruise Missiles. And we're not even considering such intangible resources that must be purchased (such as bandwidth for their massive communication system) or the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Furthermore you're making bad assumptions on the amount of oil that the Americans will get. Listen very closely:
It has been proposed by the US (don't know if they've settled on what to do yet that the UN will inherit the Iraqi oil resources. Thus the UN (which has been opposed to the war) will reap the profits of the oil, not the US (which obviously doesn't rule the UN and will have some say, but in the end very little).
So which is it? Or even more importantly, why would the USA take the risk of destroying world opinion of them for a chance at securing this oil. Why would they risk their supposed control of the world largest oilfeild for a shot at the second largest?
GWB may or may not be stupid. However, all his advisors aren't.
Oh, and I suppose while I'm talking I may as well say that the Americans, Canadians and French are a good example that really just about everyone has a certain percentage of insane citizens who do stuff like leave an explosive laden Ryder truck in front of government buildings, walk into legislature and start to mow down people while dressed in a military uniform and/or put sarin in a locker in a crowded bus station
Because "world opinion" was against it. Like it is now. Thankfully though, some people have the common sense to do what is right rather than what a few self serving nations want you to do.
I'm just doing what every anti-war protestor is doing. Everyone is throwing up the "no blood for oil" signs and acting like Bush has ulterior motives. However, there is enough information to support that two of the countries that were so staunchly opposed to the resolution are opposed to it because it hurts them. I'm suggesting they have ulterior motives.
I'm fighting fire with fire.
As for the Russians... well, I can't provide numbers for their trade off the top of my head, but I have a funny feeling that they've got a vested interest in Iraq trade. Or at the very least, hiding Iraqi WMD from the world. Why? Because most of Iraqs more modern WMD are Russian in design. Don't believe it? Ask yourself why the US army has hired Russian weapon scientists to be brought in to disarm any WMD's discovered.
Or maybe the Russians are worried about all the money the Iraqi's owe them....
What does it matter what they've done with 'puppet dictators'. We're talking a decade ago. You know how things change over time....
For what amounts to small beans?
Yeah.
Like I said - could be worse. At least they're more or less free there.
Well, you know... I could've compared it to India or Pakistan or Egypt or well, there's a lot of countries that are worse than or as bad as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. I simply contrasted Iraq to Kuwait - I assure you Hussien makes all but the most evil of evil dictators (Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler to name two who are worse than Saddam) look like pussycats.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 3:58:58 GMT -5
Only three of them have the potential to have WMD. Iran, Iraq and N. Korea (notice the correlation to the AoE there). Iran is in theatre and can be easily handled should they get uppitty during the war. Kim Jong Il is as crazy as Saddam, but he listens to other countries from time to time. Therefore the you attack Iraq and WWIII won't erupt somewhere else (imagine if Iraq decided to conquer say... Saudi Arabia while the US was busy trying to stare down N. Korea).
A typical unsubstantiated claim. But just something quick and dirty. Iraq HAS BEEN hiding weapons that were banned by the cease-fire in their country. While no WMD have been found, we do know that at least two missiles have been fired into Kuwait that had a longer range than permitted by the armistice.
Furthermore, you're arguing from ignorance. Basic rule of thumb is that if you say something (like, I am destroying all my WMD's in accordance with our agreement for you not to turn my country into glass) you have to prove it. The UN should've been able to sit back on their asses and be handed reports of exactly what was being destroyed. But that wasn't done and the UN had to be proactive. And they were hindered at every term.
Funny that...
Diplomatic ramblings were unworkable. Why? Because the French, the Germans and the Russians were vetoing anything that came across their desks that said "The WMD's must be proven to be destroyed by this date". They refused to give the Americans and British the leverage they needed for full cooperation. Efforts to broker a deal made by such hawks such as the UK and such doves as Canada were automatically veoted.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 4:31:15 GMT -5
Regarding September 11th, do you also agree in that the US 'was asking for it'? How awfully absurd and sad. To put it bluntly, yes. It is very sad that they have managed to inspire so much hatred and violence in the world and it is indeed absurd for people to claim that there is no connection between what the US does to the rest of the world and what the rest of the world does to the US (ie. that US foreign policy in no way contributes to anti-US feelings and the resulting anti-US terrorism). Obviously, I do not support or condone the terrorist attacks anymore than I support US bombing of Iraqi civilians, but, if you grew up in Palestine, for example, can you honestly say that you wouldn't hate the US? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 5:03:23 GMT -5
Of course you could state that, please do. And logical people will look at that and conclude that you are, if nothing else, very consistent in your nonsensical statements. Perhaps you missed my point. This is exactly how people will react to generalizations like the one you made. Broad statements with no basis in fact will not enhance either your argument or your credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Mar 22, 2003 10:56:32 GMT -5
To put it bluntly, yes. It is very sad that they have managed to inspire so much hatred and violence in the world and it is indeed absurd for people to claim that there is no connection between what the US does to the rest of the world and what the rest of the world does to the US (ie. that US foreign policy in no way contributes to anti-US feelings and the resulting anti-US terrorism). Obviously, I do not support or condone the terrorist attacks anymore than I support US bombing of Iraqi civilians, but, if you grew up in Palestine, for example, can you honestly say that you wouldn't hate the US? I've just completed reading this debate. Good points on both sides once you strip away the emotion and rhetoric. But this last statement if very difficult to accept. To blame the US on the plight of the Palestines is simplistic, and to justify their condonement of 9/11 because of their anti-Americanism is worse. What are most of the Arab states doing for Palestine? There are enough, and with enough wealth, to exert pressure on Isreal. But they rely on the US to come up with some magical formula to restore their state. Egypt on several occassions has tried to go to war with Israel, and has had their ass kicked every time. So the Arab states sit back and do nothing, about a cause that is so important and dear to them, that some of them give their lives. Why are they worried about Isreal's ability to destroy them? If you're going to kill yourself to destroy a bus, or a night club, wouldn't it be better to try to use any resources to try and destroy the very country that is oppressing you. The US remains silent because of the strong Jewish political and economical voice in the US. And the US should be blamed for their position? There are enough Palestines/Arabs/Muslims in the US to mobilize and gain political power and strength with the US system to attempt to neutralize the Israeli voice in US politics. The Jewish lobby is also powerful in London. But there are Palestines and Muslims in London that can use the same resources available to the Jews. Instead, radical clerics recruit disenchanted young Muslims to go to Afganistan to be trained in the nuances of terror. Radicals use freedom of mobility, and information within the very country they set out to destroy and to devise the largest and most destructive terrorist plot in the history of mankind. And the Palestines rejoice in their refugee camps. Uh, uh, I'm sorry. They had a clear choice, and unlike the Israelis, they chose plan B. If the terrorist are so clever an ingenious to devise a complex plot such as 9/11, wouldn't their skill and energy be better served using the American system in a legitimate way to advance their cause? The US was humbled by 9/11. The same openness to the world that they embrace, almost destroys them, and effects everyone in the free world. As a result, I am not particularly for this war, or any war, but I do not begrudge the US to do anything within their power, to make sure that no country or organization ever again becomes a threat, with world public opinion on their side, or not, and whether there is a real connection to 9/11 or not. Lets face it, America has changed post 9/11. Public opinion for this war may be around 60% in the US, but I'm almost positive it is closer to 90% among the families of the 9/11 victims. Losing loved ones to senseless acts of terrorism has that effect, whether you're Palestinian, or a New Yorker. If you grant the Palestinians the right to be anti-american because of their suffering, you shoud also recoginize the US's perogative to destroy any threat it senses, and is within their power to destroy. I'm sure France would be more on side with the US and their agenda if the Eiffel Tower was targeted, or even worse, if poisonous gases were dropped all over the Bordeaux wine growing region. More 9/11's are gonna happen? Lets see them try. Maybe some attempts, but never anywhere close to the same scale. The Palestines and the Muslim world are anti-American. Guess what? Many Canadians are anti-american. Many Canadians are anti-Toronto. People in general develop that syndrome where they despise anything big and powerful. It is natural. Any when the ideals of capitalism and commercialism fly in the face of principle religious ideals, then you have the making of radicalism and terrorism. The biggest, and most powerful becomes the target, whether justified or not, and most often it is not. Maybe the US apathy on the Palestinian question has something to do with the anti-americanism. But there are more countries to blame, Canada included. Or how about Russia who conveniently "allowed" many Jews to leave to their religious homeland after the Communist revolution, or Germany who after WWII made enough European Jews uncomfortable in Europe, that returning to their religious homeland was the only option. They are just as more to blame for the creation of Isreal and the infringement of Palestine, then the US and UK. It is my opinion, that to conclude that the US had 9/11, justifiably coming to them, is overly simplistic, and somewhat naive. There must be some else there for one to hold this position. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 12:27:24 GMT -5
And I disagree. Because your costs of war are innaccurate. The US has already spent like well over two hundred billion on getting the troops and equipment to the desert etc. They spent more than a billion dollars today in Cruise Missiles. And we're not even considering such intangible resources that must be purchased (such as bandwidth for their massive communication system) or the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Most of the hardware has already been paid for anyhow, and a lot of those weapon systems need to be tested in combat - we can break down the costs forever, but the value of the oil in the ground greatly outweighs the cost of war. And you beleive them ? I mean, of course the US Occupation army won't pull out all that much oil, but don't you realise that the puppet government that will follow will essentially be doing the US's bidding, and becoming a primary, reliable source of oil ? Because they simply don't realise the effects of their own policy. To the US the UN has long been a useful tool to justify some actions, yet a very expendable one. They don't even pay their fees to the UN for Christ sakes... Because their control of the largest is in doubt in any case. They're not stupid, just convinced that America has a God-Given right to cheap oil. And they'll do whatever it takes to get it. Of course there are psychos all over. The difference is that the islamists do so for a cause they beleive in. A few ? How many times do you have to read it to realise it - it's not just France, or France and Germany, or France and Germany and Russia, but the majority of the world that's against this war. The US wasn't going to gain a majority in the Security council, so the vetoes wouldn't even have mattered, they weren't needed. This isn't just "a few self-serving nations" but a general world-wide feeling that this war doesn't need to happen. At least not yet. Yet you don't realise how minute those ulterior motives appear compared to what the Americans' appear to be. Aren't you the one who loves facts ? Not in terms of foreign policy. If you want to only look at this decade, you're not going to get much info anyhow. Looking at long-term trends, the US clearly winds up supporting large numbers of right-wing dictators, who apply highly un-American policies to their own populations. How many dozens do I need to dig up ? So those contracts are a motive for an international disagreement where most of the world is against the US, just because of a few hundred million to France and Germany ? Why is much of the rest of the world against this too ? |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 12:40:41 GMT -5
Iraq HAS BEEN hiding weapons that were banned by the cease-fire in their country. While no WMD have been found, we do know that at least two missiles have been fired into Kuwait that had a longer range than permitted by the armistice. Oooh, you put it in "ALL CAPS" so it must be true. Kinda like Rumsfeld saying "we haven't found any proof of WMD, BUT WE KNOW THEY ARE THERE". You mean, those missiles they were in the process of destroying ? If the UN had stuck around a bit longer, maybe they'd all be gone by now. No peace treaty lives on without some level of enforcement - just look at the treaty of Versailles. Of course we were going to have to lean on Saddam. The problem being of course, that Iraq claimed to have no WMD, so hard so get solid proof they were destroyed. The vetoes threatened always came from the fact that the US wanted the security council to have resolutions automatically leading to war - the French and Russians wanted to have a say in the final decision, not just hand over control to the US, and let them decide what constitutes a breach and what doesn't - largely because worldwide feeling was that Bush wanted war, and was going to find a way to get one. They weren't going to let him manipulate the situation to be able to call it a UN-approved war to boot. And hey, they were right, IMO. Just about everyone had the same POV - Bush has wanted a war from the start. At first it was WMD, then when they couldn't find any, or at least anything significant, then a slander campaign against Saddam started (not saying Saddam didn't deserve it, just that it just "popped up" when needed. If Saddam had WMD, no need to blast him or his regime....) - going over to plan B to go to war (or at least make a plausible casus belli), since plan A didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 14:05:27 GMT -5
I've just completed reading this debate. Good points on both sides once you strip away the emotion and rhetoric. But this last statement if very difficult to accept. To blame the US on the plight of the Palestines is simplistic, and to justify their condonement of 9/11 because of their anti-Americanism is worse. I'm not trying to blame the US for the situation in Palestine/Israel. I'm simply pointing out that, rightly or wrongly, there is a LOT of anti-American feeling in Palestine and that anybody who is raised their is likely to be anti-American. Perhaps Palestine wasn't the best example; to be honest I've never understood why the Americans were originally made out to be pro-Israeli, but I certainly think they have become pro-Israeli over the years, but that is another issue. I'm not saying if it's justified for people in certain parts of the world to actually want American civilians to die, I don't feel I'm in a position to make that judgement. All I'm saying is that people feel that way not because they are 'evil' but because of the world that they live in, and that in many cases, US foreign policy is a major contributing factor to their world. There are cases where the US is blamed unfairly, but that is hardly surprising or hard to understand; with such a long track record of oppressing other people and profitting from their suffering, it's easy to see why people might mistrust them, and the US often seems to make these situations worse, instead of trying improve their international image (case in point: Iraq). |
|
