|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 14:16:25 GMT -5
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. I see what you're saying, but I do not "grant the Palestinians the right to be anti-american because of their suffering," I merely recognise that they are and say that America should be trying to change that rather than making it worse. BTW, the events of 9/11, although tragic, are hardly comparable to the number of deaths resulting from US wars/sanctions/economic policies/etc. There is also no evidence of any link between Iraq and 9/11, and going to war despite massive international public opinion and killing Iraqi civilians will only increase anti-American feelings even further, and the result will be way more terrorism. -Why do Palestinians attack Israel? They are in the midst of a 50 year war and their low standard of living is a direct result of (a) the creation of the state of Israel and (b) Israeli violence and, IMO, "state terrorism." -Why is the US attacking Iraq? See any of mine or PTH's posts.... The two situations are not really comparable. (I realise that I should not have used Palestine as my example before because it has started a whole new debate but it was the first thing that came to mind. Live and learn I guess.) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 15:08:59 GMT -5
Right - that's why the US is competing with CNN for badnwidth. Sure - I'll agree that the US already had their weapons built, but don't you think that they're going to have to rebuild every cruise missile that they're firing into Iraq.
You want a number? 1,500 cruise missiles were fired last night. That's $1,000,000,000 lost right there.
But of course you want to just ignore the facts.
So the UN appointed government will be a US puppet - naturally, because we don't allow countries that disagree with the US like Russia, Germany and France in the UN, so obviously the US controls it.
Once again PTH, you can't have it both ways. Either the UN works or the UN is a puppet of the US. Which is it?
Sorry - now you're implying that the US is governed by idiots who have just stumbled upon a wonderful idea of how to set up a puppet government and secure their oil resources forever. Your argument gets more and more illogical as time goes on. Try and work in the realm of the real world next time.
Why can they prop up Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Answers please, not some mindless rheotirc about propping up nations working and not working. Either they can do it or they can't.
McVeigh believed in his cause. Paul Bernardo believed what he was doing was right. Hitler believed what he was doing was right. No one acts because they don't believe in something. What are you trying to say here?
How do you know that they weren't going to get a majority. Maybe they just didn't feel like negotiating with France, Russia and Germany anymore. As for 'most of the world' being against this war, well - there are only two peoples really affected by it. And from what I understand 76% of Americans are for the war, and you'd be nuts to believe that most Iraqi's don't want to get rid of Hussien.
Key words. Appear. To you and handful of protesters that is. Once again, lets try and stick to the facts instead of anti-war speculations.
Fine. FACT: Iraq owes Russia more money then any other country in the world. However, if there is a regime change, Russia stands to lose that if there is a regime change.
Fine, let's look up long term trends in forgien policy of the protesting nations shall we?
Russia: Invade, kill, massacre (Communist)
Germany: Invade, kill, massacre, hunt down jews, black and other less desirables (Nazi's)
France: Invade, conquer, impose high taxes (Napolean)
History is irrelevant.
Nice bit of arguing ad hominem there PTH. That really make you look good.
Yeah, twelve years is hardly enough time to destory ones weaponry.
Isn't this war enforcing that treaty, or are you still stuck on the lie that the US is doing this all for Iraq's oil?
Once again, Iraq should have had to prove that they had done away with theirs. They were arguing ad ignorantiam - that the burden rested on the UN. They should have been forced to provide solid proof.
The vetoes were being used because France, Germany and Russia wanted to maintain the status quo. The US and UK were more than willing to give the UN a chance to prove itself. Sadly, they hid behind diplomacy saying that they didn't want anything that said "we'll go to war if you don't hold up the conditions of the cease fire". Which ironically, was a condition of the cease fire. Instead they wanted to dither. Iraq had 12 years of chances.
They found components of WMD's. The reports Iraq made as to the status of their arms programs were lies. Once again, the burden does not rest with the UN, it rests with Iraq. They failed to make the burden.
Later...
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 22, 2003 16:18:06 GMT -5
Right - that's why the US is competing with CNN for badnwidth. Sure - I'll agree that the US already had their weapons built, but don't you think that they're going to have to rebuild every cruise missile that they're firing into Iraq. You want a number? 1,500 cruise missiles were fired last night. That's $1,000,000,000 lost right there. But of course you want to just ignore the facts. You're really stuck on the whole 'cost of war' thing.... ever think that the value of that oil to the US economy might be far more than its value on the markets ? So instead of being a 25-1 ratio, it's more like a 100-1 ratio, so however far off my numbers are, this is still a ery profitable war for the US. Which is why the French and others are already making noises as to how post-war Iraq will be governed. But the fact is, the US has massive clout internationally and will ultimately have predominant control of Iraq, probably after wishy-washing enough to get a UN stamp of approval - they'll probably spend a few billion bucks buying votes in the process though, but that's SOP. They didn't just stumble into it, it's been a Republican plan for years now. See BC's post on that subject. You can, for a certain length of time. But eventually, a position crumbles from its own internal contradictions. In this case it's just a slight variance of the normal model: "A classic model of the disaster is a U.S. decision to "help" an ally faced with domestic dissidence or even insurrection. First, the "threatened" country is declared part of America's vital interests; next, American military personnel and commercial camp followers are sent in to "assist" the government. The foreignness of this effort as well as its indifference to democracy and local conditions only accelerate the insurrectionary movement. In the end an American protectorate is replaced by a virulently anti-American regime. This scenario played itself out in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iran in our time. Now it appears it might do so in Saudi Arabia." Only this time, they'll create the allied government as they go in. Those psychos all had their own private little causes, the suicide bombers all beleive in essentially the same thing. Because that's why the US and Britain backed out. It's that simple. If a majority were forthcoming, they would have tried to push their resolution through - if they got turned down by a veto yet had a majority, they would have at least some claim to international support. "indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution", from the British Ministers resignation speech. Even if the US doesn't like negotiating, sometimes you have to - to get a consensus for a given course of action. The US might be the only ones strong enough to take the course on their own, but that doesn't mean it's fine for them to do so just because they "don't feel like negotiating" Handful ? HANDFUL??? Open your eyes, there are massive anti-war protests the world over. OK, you said it, I challenged you, so now it's a fact  All 3 of those have had at least one revolution/massive regime change since those events. And for France you had to go back 200 years as well. In the meantime, the US has been involved in just about every ugly war the world over in the last 50 years, typically because they supported oppresive right-wing governments , very much like those of Saddam Hussein. This isn't ancient history, it's what's going on the world over, now in Iraq, 15 years ago in Panama, before that Chile, Vietnam, countless others... Would be nice if you had a fact to back up your claim..... of course, you don't, because Bush doesn't, because the inspectors didn't have time to find anything. But hey, why bother looking ? We know the WMD are there anyhow... Just like 30 years is enough to pull out of occupied territories, and 8 years is enough to give up nuclear weapons, yet who is getting blasted ? Not the guys who influence the Jewish vote, not the guys smack in the middle of nowhere, but the guys sitting on the oil patch. But Oil has nothing to do with this.... It's not all for Iraq's oil, but if it weren't for Iraq's oil, the US wouldn't bother. They wanted proof that either Iraq wasn't cooperating, or that there really were WMD destruction. But Bush wouldn't give the inspectors the time, and went forward with war ASAP. *cough* WHAT The US went to war as soon as it possibly could, how long were the inspectors in there - 6 weeks ? The US gave the UN what amounts to be an ultimatum - "I'm going to invade Iraq, either tag along or buzz off", any talk of diplomacy was brushed off. The very idea of a 2nd resolution (one that would actually authorize the use of force) was brought in for the UK's sake - and they are getting blasted politically at home now. If for 12 years we could let things slide, why after 6 weeks is it so essential to go in and finish the job ? Why is Bush in such a hurry ? There is no logical outstanding reason for him to hurry so much. They failed to make the burden, so we'll go and free them from Saddam ? Or isn't it rather that because the US wouldn't give the UN time to make its burden (out of fear of failure to make a convincing one), the US decided to go to plan B, and "liberate" Iraq from the suddenly awful Saddam ? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 22, 2003 18:51:10 GMT -5
Well, maybe I wouldn't have to keep bringing it up if you weren't stuck on the asinine suggestion that Bush is in the war for oil. But you know... Nice way of avoiding the question. I'll ask again - does the UN work or not? If yes, then how can you persist with the suggestion that Bush is after oil? If no, then why should Bush wait for UN approval? Didn't BC preface that article with a mention of it sounding like something Oliver Wood would cook up? But yeah - let's put our faith in anything online. You ought to put on a tinfoil hat. Again you avoid the question. Does it work or doesn't it? If it works, and the US is so interested in oil then why bother with Iraq when they have Saudi Arabia (esp. since you are all too quick to mention how this destablizes their control in the region.)? If not, then why bother? By the way - why not examine some cases of where American involvement through military and fiscal support has been more successful? Such as but not limited to Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Egypt, Germany, France, most of the rest of Western Europe.... Yup - Hitler had his own little private cause. And no one helped him. No one at all. Right. So you get rid of France, Germany and Russia leaning on the smaller countries to preserve their own interest and you think that maybe the vote might change slightly? Maybe, maybe not - but I only see one country (including the big three) really bitching to the UN about it. Funny that the Iraqi leadership (who's prosperity is based upon Saddam's whim) want Hussein to stay in power. You can if your partner is not exactly willing to budge. Bush has put forth any number of proposals - they were just all backed up with a deadline as opposed to saying "yeah, we'll see...". Dodge the subject. Still waiting for proof of Bush's intent to grab all the Iraqi oil. Try: www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/1004privatiz.htmwww.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_36/c3747082.htmQuite clear that Russia has problems with anything going against Iraq to cause them not to get repaid. Hey... who helped those regime changes in Germany and Russia? Seems to me I remember American soliders in Europe and American dollars helping rebuild Russia. But that's ancient history and it hurts your argument. Once again - I see how a selective recollection of facts might be useful. If I had proof to back up my claim that you're arguing ad hominem? You're all the proof I need friend. As for the WMD - I don't know that they're there. I do know that we've already seen examples of Iraq using weapons they're not supposed to have. But why bother looking at the facts? Completely meaningless. You talk about Israel like it's the same situation at all. It's not. Try to stay on subject or draw a better analogy. Just like they didn't bother with Somalia. Just like they didn't bother in Kosovo. If there's nothing in it for the US, they just don't bother right? How about the 12 missiles that they discovered that could've been used to deliver a WMD (did not contain the WMD components, but not all missiles can)? How about the fact that the report made to the UN was untruthful? How about Blitz saying that the Iraqi's weren't cooperating (note: he did say that they were changing very slowly in his last report). 12 years and 6 weeks sounds like a reasonable amount of time to disarm doesn't it? Or is that just me? Lots of reasons: (a) Saddam could very likely be in league with terrorist groups (he is, perhaps not ones that strike on American, but he has been known to provide money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers) or he will be shortly. And he has the resources and desire to produce WMD. (b)Saddam has been constantly repeating how God will bring fury down on the infidels. If nothing more it makes you wonder. (c)North Korea is threatening to create a two-theatre situation. Logic says you take one of the two agressors out before either creates a problem. Korea can be manipulated morso internationally and is the stronger of the two. Take out the weak, uncontrollable one. (d)Justice is not served by leaving Saddam in power. (e)There is something to be said for decisive speed and force. It makes the battle much easier. Furthermore, from their arguments, I doubt that regardless of the outcome that Russia, France and Germany would want to go to war. Again - they have too much to lose. That's why they wouldn't set a deadline. Iraq did fail to prove they had no weapons. Iraq has resisted the order to disarm for twelve years. You claims that US has ulterior motives and that they went in for other things. The burden of proof rests upon you to prove it. Later |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 19:13:47 GMT -5
This encapsulates perfectly the narrow-mindedness of the anti-Iraq war mentality. Where's is the contradiction? Where are your facts? You have NOTHING but suspicions. It's exceedingly irritating and exhausting to try and hold a serious debate with people who continuously make completely irrational statements and use misinformation to make extremely general statements.
Even when you baby step them through the facts, even after you point out all their inconsistencies and misinformation, it doesn't help.
Let's review the debate:
Anti-war argument #1
The Iraq war is all about oil!
Saddam is a brutal and oppressive dictator who’s used chemical weapons on his own people. He’s ignored UN resolutions for a dozen years and is now finally paying serious consequences. Additionally, Iraq is a proven supporter of terrorism (encouraging Palestinian terrorist bombers by providing funds to their families). How is this all about oil?
But there’s oil in Iraq!
So?
The oil is valuable!
It’ll remain in Iraqi hands, so what’s your point?
Uhh… it’s all about oil!
___
Anti-war argument #2
The US asked for September 11th, and now they are asking for it again!
This statement would be laughable if it weren’t so sickening. It is EXACTLY the same as saying the Jews asked for WW2 (because they came to Germany).
Uhh... I'll just ignore this inconvenient excellent point.
___
Anti-war argument #3
The US is always after their own self-centered interests!
The US liberated Europe, the US fought for democracy in Korea, the US liberated Kuwait, the US stopped the massacring of Muslims in both Kosovo and Bosnia, the US is liberating Iraq, and the US is trying to get the UN involved (despite the fact everyone is pushing to US to deal alone) in the issue concerning Iraq. In addition, nobody else in the world comes remotely close to giving as much money and food to the needy around the world as the US. Meanwhile, what has France, Germany, and Russia done? While UN sanctions are imposed on Iraq, they make sinister deals with the oppressive dictator.
But the US only really got involved in WW2 after war came to them!
And obviously they've learned their lesson. Isn't going to take a nuke in continental Europe for other countries to finally get involved in this war on terrorism?
Uhh...they'll never attack me 'cause...I'm not an infidel.
___
Anti-war argument #4
The UN inspectors should have been given more time!
12 years not enough? Besides, it was already determined that Iraq was not fully complying. The only reason there was any cooperation at all was pressure asserted by the US build-up of troops and threat of war.... pressure greatly reduced because of France and Germany's idiotic and selfish decisions to never support an Iraq war. Consequently, Saddam thinks he has world wide support enabling him to win against an ostricized US.
Uhh...more time! No? Oil! No also? Well it has to be something...I just freakin' hate America!
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 15:55:30 GMT -5
This will be my last post on this subject. People ask for "facts" yet can't supply any on their side, or choose to ignore anything that doesn't agree with their current views. I'm going to sum up my views and leave it at that. Well, maybe I wouldn't have to keep bringing it up if you weren't stuck on the asinine suggestion that Bush is in the war for oil. But you know... Nice way of avoiding the question. I'll ask again - does the UN work or not? If yes, then how can you persist with the suggestion that Bush is after oil? The links you gave me are the best proof that this is about oil - you harp on and on about commerce with Saddam, but just about the only think in Iraq worth anything to the outside world is the oil. Your article about Iraqi debts towards Russia ends with links "More Articles on Oil in Iraq" and "More Articles on Oil in Conflicts" - just that should be enough of a hint, as if everything that happens in the middle East wasn't about Israel and/or oil anyhow. And the fact that just about all of Bush's cabinet is made up of former oil company execs also makes the whole thing seem awfully centered on oil, especially so little time after we see Bush base his domestic policies centered on energy. But you're right, Bush hasn't come out and said "we're just after their oil", and I could be wrong. But with everything pushing people the world over into thinking this is about oil (about 2 trillion dollars worth) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see some proof that this isn't about oil, which is where the UN could have proven so useful. As to the UN working - like just about everything in the world, it works if you let it work. If you view it as a rubber stamp to what you want to do regardless, then of course things won't work smoothly. I'm not saying the UN is in any way perfect, sometimes US muscle is needed to get things moving. Without US pressure, the inspectors would never have been let back in for example. However, I think it's especially important for the US to do things through the UN, given their status as the only superpower. The difference between being the biggest kid in the schoolyard and being a bully is a very narrow one, and the US needs to realise that it needs to be far mroe careful in its actions to preserve the apperance of conflict of interest, or just of selfishness. If tons of well-informed people the world over (look at the polls, it's not only die-hard peaceniks who are against this war) think this is about oil, how do you think the people who actually live in the area feel ? The US needs to take clear steps ahead of time to make sure its interests are clear and that they aren't going in for economic/oil or political reasons all their own. Sometimes though, there might not be time for that - in Kosovo for example, things needed to move fast. So NATO acted. Not the US, France, the UK, Germany, or anyone else alone, but NATO, as a group. A group action always holds far more legitimity than anything one nation decides (and has a handful of others tag along). But in the case against Iraq, the weapons inspectors were there for what, 6 weeks ? We can claim it's the fault of Iraq if they were kicked out, but it remains that the US didn't give much time for inspections to work - or not work. But, as everything else concerning diplomacy, that takes time. A few more Hans Blix reports claiming that Iraq wasn't cooperating could have changed the balance of world opinion. But there was no time for that, the US insisted on very short deadlines, with ultimatums for war included. The question arises - did the US even want the inspections to work ? In this case especially, the US had repeatedly shown extreme belligerence towards Iraq, namely after sept. 11th, I beleive it was Rumsfeld who was talking about invading both Afganistan and Iraq, and he got hushed up - but little signs like this over the years are very indicative of something, or at least that's how they seem. UN approval for actions would make things seem far more legit, which is why in this case they would be even more critical. History also shows that US involvement in foreign countries doesn't often give the results we'd all wish for. In developped countries the nations can get back on their feet quickly enough, but in developping countries it gets far more complicated, especially when the US-backed governments act in a way the US wants it for its own economic interests, and not for the good of the people. A good example is the Shah in Iran, who was put back in power in the 50's, and 25 years later or so you had a fundamentalist revolution. So yes it's possible to keep an unpopular government in power, for a certain period of time. Saoudi Arabia is slowly reaching the point where we have to wonder if it'll stay stable, Korea has had repeated military coup's, yet their military is under US control, if you go back in history it's not hard to find dozens of examples of US-backed hardline regimes. Do a simple google search on a few of your own favorites and you can find new ones too. As the world's sole superpower, the US has a particularly critical role to play, but it has to be very careful in doing so. If it is to act quickly, there has to be a clear cause for the rush. Otherwise, diplomacy has to be used. The US is so strong it doesn't need to use diplomacy, that's the very reason why they need to use it. Otherwise it's courting disaster. See 9/11. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 18:18:21 GMT -5
It's been fun PTH. Too bad you're leaving it - it's nice to have someone to bandy words with.
But anyways - on to my reply...
Well - see, that's the thing. Your main argument has been this has been for oil, that Bush is doing this for ulterior motives, that he's lying to all of us and because he's only in it for personal gain, he shouldn't be there. The burden of proof lies with you to make that case, and you haven't made it.
Meanwhile, I've said that Germany, Russia and France don't want anyone to mess with the status quo in Iraq. I provided data to back that up, both in my links and in a previous post (although it may have been in another string - I'm sure you read it as you were arguing over there too and I believe you've mentioned it here). You've tried to spin it as further reason for the US to go in (to get those contracts) but that's just a silly idea as if the US went after everyone who didn't give them all their military business, we'd all be under the 'oppresive regime' of the US.
You state that the US could have waited for more than six weeks, and honestly, I tend to agree with you. Well - not quite - I think the US should have dealt with Saddam in 1991, but for the sake of six months... well I mean it's not unreasonable. However, I think that should be qualified with I don't think France, Russia or Germany would have wanted to go in in six months time, or in a year, or in two years. The US has been debating with France, Germany and Russia over Iraq for some time. This is not new opposition to the US. So why dither and give Saddam more time to develop his weapons and sell them to terrorist organizations and deploy his forces more effectively? Why not simply move in and use a Blitzkrieg type manover (and before anyone graps for a Bush = Hitler reference on that last count, the Blitzkrieg as it is known now has existed for longer than the German Country has (although in slightly different forms). It is known that ancient Roman armies used to coordinate massive divisions of archers and the roman legionaires to quickly defeat their enemies - the attack used sundials or other crude time pieces to give a roughly accurate time for a switchover between falling arrows and the thrusting sword thus making their opponents incapable of defending themselves.)?
But that's just speculation. You're colouring someone because of what their job is.
Nor has he made any move to claim all the oil for the USA. Nor has he said "we, the benificiary American government, will administer the oil until the Iraqi's can". They have made no moves to control the oilfields besides to take military control of them to extinguish the fires that Saddam (or his troops) have lit (and to prevent them from doing so).
You'd think that there'd be at least some obvious indication that this "blood for oil" conspiracy that everyone is spouting. But there's none. None at all.
And so your getting upset about the US using that muscle? To back up a UN cease fire that has gone unenforced for twelve years? I'm sorry - I don't see the logic in your statement. The UN telling the US that it can show it's teeth, but can't bite is like the UN telling it's peacekeepers they can have guns, but they can't fire them to defend themselves (see Croatia I believe it was). It's stupid and dangerous.
I don't see the reason why they had to hurry in Kosovo and not here, except maybe because Saddam has pretty well obliterated anyone openly against him. He is still a threat to world security. He is still a threat to regional security. He is still a threat to his people. And striking quickly will minimalize losses.
TBC...
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 18:18:56 GMT -5
In short? No. They didn't. In long? Not as they were proceeding. Iraq was hampering the inspectors efforts. It wasn't the outright resistance of the late nineties, but Hans Blix said that Iraq was being less than cooperative. And this was only because the US was applying massive amounts of threatening military pressure. Meanwhile, if Kim Jong Il decided to 'test' one of his nice new nukes on, oh I don't know, say... Japan - whoosh. All pressure vanishes. The entire military presence loads up on boats and goes to deal with a new situation. Saddam kicks the inspectors out, fires up the old WMD plants, sells a couple to Al Queda and then marches on Saudi Arabia in the effort to create his new, Arabaic nation. Suddenly the US is forced with the thought of losing all it's oil or letting Korea nuke the bejesus out of Japan, and are forced into doing something truley horrid like turning Baghdad into glass.
Yes - that's just a speculative sitaution. Yes - it's a worst case scenario. But there evidence to suggest that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia if given a chance (and certainly Kuwait). And this is not a situtation the US can afford to even think about facing.
You would too if Saddam essentially said "yeah, you had it coming you American infidels" in the face of the greatest tragedy in the US since Pearl Harbour. Even China had the good sense to send their condolonces. Not to mention the fact that there's reasonable evidence to support that Saddam supports Al Queda (not quite substantiated, but the weak link is between one international terrorist organization - the name I've forgotten, but they controlled a town on the Iran/Iraq border that was bombed today) and could easily provide them with WMD's.
As for the Rumsfeld thing - it was a journalist who asked him if the president intended to go after other countries like Iraq once Afghanistan was emptied of Al Queda. Rumsfeld I believe answered something like 'probably' or 'if they are connected to terrorists I'd imagine so'.
Then why not just deploy military like you claim is in North Korea (which has been under the US ontrol since the fifties) and run a similar hardline regime? Why not go for the greater amount of resources if both are options? Sponsor a military coup, install a new western liking leader. Fewer deaths, fewer cries of rage in public.
Why use diplomacy when no one else is negotiating? You have to be willing to give and can not just take take take like France, Germany and Russia were doing. Why not strike fast when other countries eliminate diplomacy? Hit them hard, take them out - don't give them time to be ready.
As for the 9/11 disaster - what do you suppose brought that on? Think that maybe they weren't happy with the US saving all those muslims in Somalia and Yugoslavia?
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 20:04:34 GMT -5
If you’d take off your anti-American goggles, you’d quickly discover that it is you who’ve been overlooking an overwhelming number of irrefutable and meaningful facts thrown your way. The “this war is all about oil” argument simply does not hold. Let me show you what I mean: So the Russians, French, and Germany have a vested interest in the survival of a Saddam-controlled Iraq. This only explains why those governments are AGAINST war. FICTION: Just about all of Bush’s cabinet is made up of former company execs. THEORY: …makes the whole thing seem awfully centered on oil…<br> FACT: Saddam is an oppressive dictator comparable to Hitler. Saddam sponsors terrorism. Saddam has sought and had (he even admitted so) WMD. INCOHERENT ARGUMENTS: “But with everything pushing people the world over into thinking this is about oil (about 2 trillion dollars worth) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see some proof that this isn't about oil, which is where the UN could have proven so useful.”<br> FACT: The “everything” you talk about includes ignorance, anti-American bias, jealousy, economic self-interest, misinformation, etc. People’s anti-war opinions vary drastically…even from their own government. Virtually NO country’s government has even hinted at the absurd notion that this war is about Iraq’s oil. The pro-Iraq-war arguers, on the other hand, are unified in their belief that Saddam is an evil and dangerous man who must be stopped. Okay, no major disagreement here. Your OPINION: The US needs to realise that it needs to be far mroe careful in its actions to preserve the apperance of conflict of interest, or just of selfishness. My OPINION: I think the US already is aware of the obvious and is trying to be very careful. Your apparent OPINION: The US cannot act against a brutal dictator unless you and everyone else are 100% convinced that oil is not a factor. My OPINION: Your statement is irrational. I’m convinced, along with tons of well-informed people the world over that this war is about fighting terrorism via the overthrow of a brutal dictator who supports terrorism. IRONY: Things needed to move fast, so a country from another continent had to solve a problem on Europe’s own soil. OFFICIALLY: Nato acted, as a group. REALITY: The US acted and NATO gave moral support. Your GUESS: But in the case against Iraq, the weapons inspectors were there for what, 6 weeks ? We can claim it's the fault of Iraq if they were kicked out, but it remains that the US didn't give much time for inspections to work - or not work. REALITY: Uhh…try more like 3 months: November 27 to March 18. Inspections did work in the respect that it was determined that Saddam was not fully cooperating with inspectors and thus violated the prior resolution. Note: You failed completely in this paragraph to really link the Iraq war to US oil interests. Note: You failed completely in this paragraph to link the Iraq war to US oil interests. Fundamentalism in Iran has nothing to do with it being a ‘developing’ country. Good examples of the effects of US involvement in foreign countries come from recent history. Consider the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. Note: You failed completely in this paragraph to link the Iraq war to US oil interests. REALITY: Diplomacy had no chance due to sinister vested interests of France, Germany, and Russia in a Saddam-controlled Iraq. As we observed, Saddam only gives even the slightest cooperation when under extreme pressure…pressure that France, Germany, and Russia was obviously not willing to apply. CONCLUSION: You failed miserably in your attempt to link the Iraq war to US oil interests. Your entire argument is based on your own suspicions and the fact that many people share your opinion. Well I have news for you: common sense is not so common. Many people around the world even think this war is about Islam (check out today’s ‘Dessins du Jour of ‘Le Monde’: ![]() a1692.g.akamai.net/f/1692/2042/1d/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/vignette_img/vgn_03032310_irak+xrse.jpg[/img] Interestingly, 59% of the German populace think *Americans* are ‘war-mongers.’ Go figure… The fact oil exists in Iraq and that ‘the people all over the world think it’s about oil’ and ‘my google search found so many articles on the web talking about wars for oil’ mean nothing. The governments around the world aren’t even claiming the war is about oil. To the well-informed, logical, and unbiased, if you wanted to, you could make just as equally an unconvincing case that this war is about LAND. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Mar 23, 2003 20:50:14 GMT -5
If you’d take off your anti-American goggles, you’d quickly discover that it is you who’ve been overlooking an overwhelming number of irrefutable and meaningful facts thrown your way. The “this war is all about oil” argument simply does not hold. Let me hold your hand now as I smash to bits the crap holding your thesis together: Too bad I didn't get to read anything beyond this point. You're a good writer Spozzy...articulate and passionate. Let's work on respectful shall we? Thx, CO |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 21:26:32 GMT -5
Too bad I didn't get to read anything beyond this point. You're a good writer Spozzy...articulate and passionate. Let's work on respectful shall we? Thx, CO Point well taken, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Mar 23, 2003 21:28:16 GMT -5
Point well taken, I apologize. I VERY MUCH appreciate that pal. Takes a man to do this. Thx, CO :-) |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 21:42:21 GMT -5
I VERY MUCH appreciate that pal. Takes a man to do this. Not really...it just takes someone to point out when I've had a brain cramp.  |
|
