|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:47:13 GMT -5
Mr. Bozo, stop shadowing me, I got gas...... The statement was simple and it was made to a response of a sarcastic comment made at me. "Why would one want to open a debate" was referring to myself. Even simple folk can talk fancy..... You can say whatever you want Mr. Bozo and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. Instead of shadowing boxing, let's discuss some larger issues. The EEU? World Peace? Condoms for pandas? You sure it's not oil that you have? Hey, it's not just about me. Whatever methodology any of us uses to make our points as long as it provides at the least information, and if we're fortunate, leads to knowledge, is valid IMO. Wild salmon is to Alberta beef, as farmed salmon is to...? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:56:49 GMT -5
3 alternatives to invasion. Decapitation Tactical bombardment. Negotiated removal. - Japanese proverb; likely the inspiration behind the abolition of merciful capital punishment in favour of sadistic life imprisonment. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 27, 2003 22:04:34 GMT -5
If he was as bad as the US decided to portray him, they made a huge mistake in not taking him out in 1991, that's all. I agree. This military action is 12 years to late. But, as the cliche goes, better late than never. Appeasement isn't a bad policy when a peace has been dictated too harshly. Up till March 1939 appeasement was the right way to go; you can't later on claim that it was wrong because of the knowledge of later events, since at the time people had no way of knowing. Appeasement was not a reaction to the Treaty of Versaille. It was a reaction to the horrors of World War I. And you can claim it to be wrong in hindsight. That's the nature of the beast - you get to look back and see if the policy was a good idea or a bad idea. Appeasement has shown itself to be a bad system of forigen policy. Period. Of course, any evidence we can come up with will be disregarded as another conspiracy.Just think about this - no WMD have yet to be found. And the US is not allowing UN inspectors to go back into Iraq. Doesn't that ring some alarm bells, somewhere  I've yet to see any evidence, so your claim is nothing more than an attempt to colour your argument and make people believe you have some facts backing you up. Oh, and the weapons inspectors thing... lets see. Iraq is still a war zone. Why do I not want civilians running around in a war zone looking for WMD's? But hey - let's look at some other reasons that the US went after Iraq. The Al-Queda/Iraq link, which... hmm... seems to me that someone from the Toronto Star (oooh... non -American media, fancy that) has found documents that link Iraq to Al-Queda. www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426But I bet he was bought off by the American Military right? No one finds fault with the movement - just like no one was pro-Hussein, it doesn't mean that there weren't better ways to do things. Name one. Yeah, that Colin Powell guy is a real jerk - you realise he apologised for the CIA's role in putting Pinochet in power ? What a loser ! Hm? Of course networks do that, but they can put the emphasis on the aspects of interest without giving thoroughly biased coverage. The BBC complains about the lack of US persepective, think about that. The BBC is very much on the same side as the US, yet still finds their news to be too heavily biased. Indonesia was so incensed at Western coverage that they sent their own news groups. Your point is what exactly? Facts are facts - irregardless of how they are presented. Do you even read any of the links M. Bozo puts up ? Even if you discount 90% of what they say, there's plenty left to put major doubts about the wisdom of this whole affair in any sane person. Actually - I read a lot of them on my own before he posts them. Not many over the past week, as finals have occupied me, but reading the news online is a daily thing for me. But unlike you, when I read them I ignore the rhetoric and mindless pro/anti-war slant that either side puts on it. As a thinking human, I'm capable of making up my own mind without being force fed thoughts from either side. And, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing but half-truths and ignorance propping up the anti-war side. I think any sane person could pick most of these out... but whatever. Later |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 27, 2003 22:45:55 GMT -5
I agree. This military action is 12 years to late. But, as the cliche goes, better late than never. My point was that Saddam's horror show was dragged out and hyped when WMD didn't shot up. Well, I disagree here. Germany had some legitimate problems with Versailles, and had Hitler been a sane Nationalist, appeasement was the way to go. And by the time it's not a war zone, then the inspectors won't be needed. Read the article from Bozo's link about this; the US hasn't told the UN to hang tight for a week or two, they've ignored them. Ooh, a letter with Bin Laden's name on it. I'm sure there aren't dozens of those. I mean, the world of despots and oil-rich multi-millionaires isn't that huge, of course there will be some level of contact. BinLaden was once involved in some oil dealings with of the Bush's ! (I think George I's father) So that link doesn't impress me much. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. Inspections. UN Inspections. The ones that had just re-started - and the reason they'd stopped was the US attack on Iraq back in 98. Oh, and maybe the fact that several inspectors were CIA didn't encourage the Iraqis to welcome them back. You obviously aren't up to date. Powell apologised for the US role in putting Pinochet in power. It's no longer a conspiracy theory, it's historical fact. Oh please. Facts can be spun in dozens of different directions. The slant you give to a story can massively influence how people react to it. You say this, yet you could be Ari Fleisher himself. Half-truths ? No real WMD found, no UN inspectors on the ground, massive riots, and worldwide NGO's complaining that they (or the US army if they'd care) could have taken far better care of Iraqis. And another worrisome slant - the US really doesn't have a plan in all of this. They deliberately caused a war at a given point in time, yet had no real idea about any kind of an endgame. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64457-2003Apr20?language=printer*sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 28, 2003 1:32:59 GMT -5
My point was that Saddam's horror show was dragged out and hyped when WMD didn't shot up. Once again - what does this have to do with the price of tea in china? Either you're trying to justify your anti-war stance by saying that its all Americas fault (which is illogical) or you're dropping an irrellevant point for some reason or another. Well, I disagree here. Germany had some legitimate problems with Versailles, and had Hitler been a sane Nationalist, appeasement was the way to go. And the one nation in Europe that didn't adhere to the policy of appeasement was? Germany. Once again - not on topic it all. The point is that the olicy of appeasement lead only to greater hardship for everyone involved. Had the world stepped in when Germany started to rearm (thus violating the ToV), there would never have been a WWII, the Holocaust would not have been nearly as bad and a whole bunch of other generally good things would have resulted. The policy of appeasement is directly responsible for WWII. Oh, by the way, does Saddam Hussien qualify as a sane Nationalist? And by the time it's not a war zone, then the inspectors won't be needed. Read the article from Bozo's link about this; the US hasn't told the UN to hang tight for a week or two, they've ignored them. I like how to try and boil the reasons for war down to one point. Lets get things straight - Iraq has already fired weapons into Kuwait (very early in the war) that were banned by the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. That's justification enough for the UN to go into Iraq, but the UN has proven to be timid and useless, set in the same set of policies that lead to WWII. So the US enforced it. As for the "ignore" issue, they have not "ignored" the UN inspectors, they have not replied - the difference being that to ignore someone is an act, whereas not replying could just mean "Hey, we're busy with other things". Oh, and the inspectors? A quote from one of them: It was understandable, ElBaradei said, that U.S.-led coalition forces would handle weapons searches during hostilities, but "once there is a secure environment, I don't see any reason why we should not go back as soon as practical."As Iraq is hardly secure Ooh, a letter with Bin Laden's name on it. I'm sure there aren't dozens of those. I mean, the world of despots and oil-rich multi-millionaires isn't that huge, of course there will be some level of contact. BinLaden was once involved in some oil dealings with of the Bush's ! (I think George I's father) So that link doesn't impress me much. Funny that. Doubting a CBC report now. I suppose they're just a part of the conspiracy. Give me a break. It's more evidence than you have for your "blood for oil" theory. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. Inspections. UN Inspections. The ones that had just re-started - and the reason they'd stopped was the US attack on Iraq back in 98. Oh, and maybe the fact that several inspectors were CIA didn't encourage the Iraqis to welcome them back. Right. Inspectors that hadn't worked in the past. That weren't recieving Iraqi cooperation when they returned. The reason you're "beating a dead horse" is because your suggestion is asinine. You obviously aren't up to date. Powell apologised for the US role in putting Pinochet in power. It's no longer a conspiracy theory, it's historical fact. Like I tried to imply. Off topic. Irrelevant. Oh please. Facts can be spun in dozens of different directions. The slant you give to a story can massively influence how people react to it. Which is why you read them and make up your own mind about them. Pretty simple eh? You say this, yet you could be Ari Fleisher himself. And you could be Joe Protester who goes to protests in between latte's because it's the stylish thing to do. Half-truths ? No real WMD found, no UN inspectors on the ground, massive riots, and worldwide NGO's complaining that they (or the US army if they'd care) could have taken far better care of Iraqis. No WMD's - They could have been removed from the country into Syria or Iran, both of which have rather pourous borders with Iraq. Or they might just not be found yet. UN Inspectors - Not sensible while the area is not secure Massive Riots - Been there, done that. Not worth commenting on. NGO's - Right. Not worth the waste of breath on it. Of course those NGO's all could have the power on right now, I'm sure. Do you read the articles you post, or do you just throw them up in hopes that something in there confirms your theories? Seriously - that report does little more than to question the number of dollars that the operation will cost, and the length of a possible prolonged presence in Iraq - niether of which is set in stone right now as it will depend on the situation. Yeah... *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 28, 2003 16:25:58 GMT -5
Once again - what does this have to do with the price of tea in china? Either you're trying to justify your anti-war stance by saying that its all Americas fault (which is illogical) or you're dropping an irrellevant point for some reason or another. My point is that I doubt Saddam's regime is as bad as it's been made out to be in recent weeks; it's only when the US realised it badly needed a new/stronger case for war that Saddam became such a monster. Well, I disagree. The unjust treaty of Versailles was. Germany surrendered to Wilson's 14 points, not to every Allies' whim, though that's what essentially took place. Not when he invades Kuwait. But when he doesn't cooperate fully with CIA spies infiltrating the UN Inspections team, yeah, he is. Do you really read the paper ? There have been plenty of stories about how those missiles were, well, legal. Looks like the US goofed when they claimed they weren't allowed. The US has yet to have a real justification for this war. Saddam was weak, poor, his people starving because of US-imposed sanctions, and yet we can't find any credible sign of WMD. The US hasn't bothered to reply, whereas if the US position were what you claim, there would be an active dialogue on now to see how and when the UN inspectors can come back. You need to improve your reading skills. I'm not doubting the reports accuracy or truthfulness, I'm doubting its significance. That there is a letter from one to the other means little, what the letter actually says and what other evidence we can come up with that fits with it is what really matters. Somehow I think this letter will be just like that plant they found a few days after invading, the one everyone wanted to see as a chemical weapons plant (yourself included) and the whole story just dropped from sight... I've never boiled it down to such a simple issue. I think the US wants to ensure itself a stable oil supply but above all ensure stable oil prices to help their economy recover. Cooperation was improving. But Bush couldn't give the inspections a real chance now, could he ? They might have worked ! :-o You say that, yet why is that ? Why couldn't inspections, given a chance and with a little pressure on Saddam, have worked ? Of course, irrelevant. Anything that tends to show a US trend of putting in right-wing dictators that favour them economically is completely irrelevant. You and I bother wading through it all, but most people don't have that luxury, and the spin on an article heavily influences their POV. My point was that your view is essentially that of the US administration. Is there anything they claim you don't beleive ? Yup, benefit of the doubt. The WMD destruction may never be found, but no US president would ever lie about his intervention abroad. No way. Not sensible, or just potentially troublesome if they don't find what they "should" find ? US Generals don't want to be second-guessed by someone not in the chain of command it would seem. Who cares about the will of the people, right ? They might have food and water though. The world runs on money, the US has no idea for how long they'll be willing to stay there, which is a pretty darn good hint that they have no firm plans for how to deal with the situation they've created. Improvisation just won't cut it. Of course, planning might have meant getting the UN involved in some way, shape or form, which you can't have. After all, they might not be as pliable as is needed... and who cares if Irakis suffer, starve or die, right ? Who cares ! They're just Irakis, we haven't even bothered counting their dead yet. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 28, 2003 19:47:58 GMT -5
My point is that I doubt Saddam's regime is as bad as it's been made out to be in recent weeks; it's only when the US realised it badly needed a new/stronger case for war that Saddam became such a monster. No. Saddam's regime is bad. That's a fact. Not some political propoganda you can alter. You can change the presentation but the fact remains. Saddam's been presented as a monster because Saddam is a monster. Well, I disagree. The unjust treaty of Versailles was. Germany surrendered to Wilson's 14 points, not to every Allies' whim, though that's what essentially took place. It still doesn't mean Versaille was a cause of appeasement. Unless you're suggesting that the only reason Europe let Germany remilitarize the Rhine, reform Anchluss and take Czechslovakia because they were so trusted and everyone felt bad for Germany because of Versailles. Which is not the case - as we can observe France's Maingot line as a strong symbol of distrust and dislike of Germany. Versailles caused the second word war, but it was helped by Appeasement, which was rooted in a failed international organization and a fear of a repeat of the horrors of the first world war. Not when he invades Kuwait. But when he doesn't cooperate fully with CIA spies infiltrating the UN Inspections team, yeah, he is. What about when he kills his brother in law because his brother dissents with his ideas? What about when he tortures his national soccer team for losing a game? What about putting a serial rapist (Uday) in a position of great power? Do you really read the paper ? There have been plenty of stories about how those missiles were, well, legal. Looks like the US goofed when they claimed they weren't allowed. The US has yet to have a real justification for this war. Saddam was weak, poor, his people starving because of US-imposed sanctions, and yet we can't find any credible sign of WMD. I've read several conflicting reports. So fine, we'll assume their legal because hey - we'll give you the benifit of the doubt. Then why don't we give the US a chance to find them? After all - we gave the UN inspectors a couple months in a country that wasn't plagued, you don't seem to think that that was enough... The US hasn't bothered to reply, whereas if the US position were what you claim, there would be an active dialogue on now to see how and when the UN inspectors can come back. Once again - maybe they're concerned with more important things. Like trying to please everyone and protect everything in Iraq. Or trying to establish a new government there. Maybe they're trying to tell the UN "Get your priorities in order. We don't care about proof right now. We want to help these people." You need to improve your reading skills. I'm not doubting the reports accuracy or truthfulness, I'm doubting its significance. That there is a letter from one to the other means little, what the letter actually says and what other evidence we can come up with that fits with it is what really matters. Somehow I think this letter will be just like that plant they found a few days after invading, the one everyone wanted to see as a chemical weapons plant (yourself included) and the whole story just dropped from sight... You're lucky. British Intellegence are now doubting the letters veracity of the letter. However, had the letter been true it would have shown that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussien. Irregardless of it being an oil deal or a deal for a small thermonuclear device - the link is the key. I've never boiled it down to such a simple issue. I think the US wants to ensure itself a stable oil supply but above all ensure stable oil prices to help their economy recover. That is boiling it down to a simple issue. Cooperation was improving. But Bush couldn't give the inspections a real chance now, could he ? They might have worked ! :-o According to you he couldn't... You say that, yet why is that ? Why couldn't inspections, given a chance and with a little pressure on Saddam, have worked ? Because they hadn't worked. Tell me - let's say you're a construction worker. And you have this wall you want to knock down. And you throw tomatoes at the wall to this end. Obviously, the wall isn't going to fall down. How long do you give it until you switch to something more effective, like a wrecking ball? Do you just stand there throwing fruit because someone is saying "Well, it's not working now, but in future the wall might cooperate and spontainously fall over". Of course, irrelevant. Anything that tends to show a US trend of putting in right-wing dictators that favour them economically is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's the result of a different era of global politics. You and I bother wading through it all, but most people don't have that luxury, and the spin on an article heavily influences their POV. My point was that your view is essentially that of the US administration. Is there anything they claim you don't beleive ? Is there a single left-wing bleeding heart article on the war in existance that you don't believe? Yup, benefit of the doubt. The WMD destruction may never be found, but no US president would ever lie about his intervention abroad. No way. In this case? No. It doesn't make sense that they would. The US, on the course it is on now, stands to gain little from the war in Iraq (except perhaps, garner more hatred from the Islamic world) other than what they have said their goals are - the destruction of a nation that threatens them and the world with terrorism. Not sensible, or just potentially troublesome if they don't find what they "should" find ? US Generals don't want to be second-guessed by someone not in the chain of command it would seem. Not sensible as in "you might wind up dead". Who cares about the will of the people, right ? Right. The will of the people is to loot Baghdad. So I suppose the US should let them? They might have food and water though. No. Because the regime turned off the water. Not the US. And the US is trying to turn it on. The best the NGO's could hope is to ship in some water. The world runs on money, the US has no idea for how long they'll be willing to stay there, which is a pretty darn good hint that they have no firm plans for how to deal with the situation they've created. Improvisation just won't cut it. You missed the point of the article. It's not the money that's causing the "situation" as you put it. It's the fact that the US really doesn't know how long they're going to need to stay in Iraq. Much of that I would imagine would be determined in the coming weeks and months. This is not an improvisation so much as "we have no hard plans because hard plans won't work". Of course, planning might have meant getting the UN involved in some way, shape or form, which you can't have. After all, they might not be as pliable as is needed... and who cares if Irakis suffer, starve or die, right ? Who cares ! They're just Irakis, we haven't even bothered counting their dead yet. Conjecture and speculation doesn't wash if you came up with it just to sound impressive. Again - facts, please. Or at least some semblance of logic. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 28, 2003 21:57:22 GMT -5
No. Saddam's regime is bad. That's a fact. Not some political propoganda you can alter. You can change the presentation but the fact remains. Saddam's been presented as a monster because Saddam is a monster. Then why wasn't he presented as a monster from the start ? Saddam's atrocities were only publicised once WMD weren't being found. (Call that a fact if you will) Versailles caused appeasement, because others also say that Versailles was overly harsh. Hence appeasement, which went too far, but that couldn't be seen until Hitler went beyond the Sudetenland. Internal politics. I'm sure the CIA killed off some of Saddam's opponents when they helped him take power. (not a fact, but pretty safe conjecture) So he's a psycho, so what ? All this came to light far too late to be of value as an original motivation for invasion, seems like Plan B or plan C to me. Well, the US has gone through large numbers of sites where they claim there were WMD, something like 70. They've clearly made this a priority.(fact) Then again, British and American intelligence are the ones who were claiming there were WMD in Iraq. They showed their innermost secrets to other governments, who remained unconvinced. (fact) Wait, British Intelligence ? The same guys who took a guys Masters thesis (with typos and all) from 1992 or so and called it a report on Iraq's weaponry ? (fact) Maybe the UN has someone competent to do the job right... Help ? They've been searching for WMD and protecting oil machinery more than they've controlled looting (fact), and you say they care for those people ? If that kind of link is all you seek, then you'll find it somewhere for sure. Oil can mean economics or commerce in multiple ways, you like keeping it at the blood for oil level since it means when Exxon isn't making billions you can think you're right. Whatever. Huh ? I was being sarcastic. He didn't give the inspections a real chance because they weren't going to give him a decent case for war. (conjecture based on facts, such as the Blix report and the Robin Cook speech. 2 people who were well-placed to know what was happening) Screw the analogies here. The inspectors were in Iraq, cooperation was increasing, what more could you ask for ? If the US could wait from 1998 to 2002 to get the inspectors back in, why couldn't it wait more than a couple of months before invading ? I disagree. National policy is a continuity of little, individually insignificant events. But the whole contains trends, and as such past policy is a very good judge of future events. Plenty. The US can benefit in quite a few ways. It can stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros, and help the US dollar keep its supremacy. It can meld the new Iraqi government to tend towards US policies. It can directly intimidate Iran and Syria, and has started doing so (fact). abcnews.go.com/sections/business/US/iraqreconstruction_030422.htmlBut I guess ABC is left-wing, bleeding heart, right ? Then the UN inspectors would be on their way, and would sit tight in Kuwait until things were safe. Conjecture based on facts. I was referring to the will of the people to have a muslim-based government, yet from the start the US has wanted a secular government, and has brought in a criminal expatriate to form it.(fact) NGOs know better than the US army how to deal with civilians, which isn't surprising since their job is to help distressed populations. They should have been in the loop. I did what you keep on claiming you do - I took the facts and reached my own conclusion. And that is that the US is improvising all the way, and isn't in any way committed to making this work. I hate to tell you this, but hard facts take a long time to leak out. At this point, you have to take what facts we have and extrapolate, and that, along with trends over the decades, is the best way to judge US policy - or any other policy, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 0:40:33 GMT -5
Then why wasn't he presented as a monster from the start ? Saddam's atrocities were only publicised once WMD weren't being found. (Call that a fact if you will) He's been a monster from the start. I've seen Saddam Hussien as an "evil" person (for the sake of simplifing terms) since the early 90's (about the time I got around to paying attention to international politics). Internal politics. I'm sure the CIA killed off some of Saddam's opponents when they helped him take power. (not a fact, but pretty safe conjecture) Again - different era. See my longer rant on it below. So he's a psycho, so what ? All this came to light far too late to be of value as an original motivation for invasion, seems like Plan B or plan C to me. I like how you use came to light. Sure - the media only jumped on it recently, but the exploits of Uday have been in the news (if you pay enough attention) for quite some time. Just because you were ignorant of it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Well, the US has gone through large numbers of sites where they claim there were WMD, something like 70. They've clearly made this a priority.(fact) Sure. It's a priority. What exactly were the priorities of the inspection teams if not to find weapons? Were they supposed to sit around the Palestine Hotel and watch hockey? But anyways - it doesn't answer my question. Why do you insist on giving the Weapons Inspectors more time than two months and criticize the US when they haven't found anything yet? Then again, British and American intelligence are the ones who were claiming there were WMD in Iraq. They showed their innermost secrets to other governments, who remained unconvinced. (fact) That's actually fiction. They remained unswayed. Big difference. Maybe some of these other nations who were "unconvinced" had other reasons for remaining "unconvinced". Wait, British Intelligence ? The same guys who took a guys Masters thesis (with typos and all) from 1992 or so and called it a report on Iraq's weaponry ? (fact) Maybe the UN has someone competent to do the job right... Non-sequiter. Help ? They've been searching for WMD and protecting oil machinery more than they've controlled looting (fact), and you say they care for those people ? Once again - it's alot easier to control an oil platform in the middle of the desert than to control an urban situation. You make it sound like it's a snap to take control of a city with a population in the millions. If that kind of link is all you seek, then you'll find it somewhere for sure. And you'll dismiss it for sure. Oil can mean economics or commerce in multiple ways, you like keeping it at the blood for oil level since it means when Exxon isn't making billions you can think you're right. Whatever. No. I've never denied the fact that oil has weighed on no ones mind. I, unlike you however, am not convinced in the story of "the US is motivated by an effort to control world oil stocks" as I have seen not a shred of evidence of this. Given that this could easily blow up in their face and cause other oil controlling nations to try to destroy the US, it would seem illogical for the US to carry this out. Huh ? I was being sarcastic. He didn't give the inspections a real chance because they weren't going to give him a decent case for war. (conjecture based on facts, such as the Blix report and the Robin Cook speech. 2 people who were well-placed to know what was happening) I was being sarcastic as well... Screw the analogies here. The inspectors were in Iraq, cooperation was increasing, what more could you ask for ? If the US could wait from 1998 to 2002 to get the inspectors back in, why couldn't it wait more than a couple of months before invading ? How about total cooperation. Not "increasing cooperation" or "possible cooperation". Iraq was told comply or else. They didn't. Period. I disagree. National policy is a continuity of little, individually insignificant events. But the whole contains trends, and as such past policy is a very good judge of future events. Then why didn't NATO (under US control) set up a dictator in Kosovo when they knocked over Milosevic? Or Hati. Or Somalia. Or Bosnia. Or.... The facts don't line up with your theory. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 0:40:55 GMT -5
The US can benefit in quite a few ways. It can stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros, and help the US dollar keep its supremacy. It can meld the new Iraqi government to tend towards US policies. It can directly intimidate Iran and Syria, and has started doing so (fact). (a) If it had control of Iraq it could. Has the US made any effort to install an American puppet as leader of Iraq, or have they been focusing on an international rebuilding effort? (b) Possibly. Of course, they didn't do that the last time (when Hussien took power), and since you're certain that US forigen policy doesn't change, one would imagine that you've contradicted your arguments. (c) No disagreement on that point here. Of course, since Syria doesn't produce any oil and since the US can pretty well fly bombers over either of these countries with relative ease, I fail to see how Iraq serves to further this effect, or the US's quest for oil that you see. No. But this is more an internal matter rather than an external (ie the companies that won the contracts are major republican contributors). The company that won the contract in the main story is also the company that worked on the Hoover dam and the English Chunnel. And Haliburton (mention in the second "part of the story") is one of only a handful of companies globally that put out oil well fires, and one of maybe two or three companies world wide to do it on the scale of an entire nation of Iraqs situation petroleum system. The lack of international participation is one of those things required under US law. Is the law just? Not really. But it is laws - not something new. There are no doubt corrupt people in the US government. They are not, however, running the show. It is not some evil conspiracy. Then the UN inspectors would be on their way, and would sit tight in Kuwait until things were safe. Conjecture based on facts. Or they could fly in from where ever they are as soon as it is safe. Which is probably the best way. But hey... I was referring to the will of the people to have a muslim-based government, yet from the start the US has wanted a secular government, and has brought in a criminal expatriate to form it.(fact) Uhh.. you might want to check your facts. The US has not brought in Dr. Chalabi to form a (secular or otherwise) government. The US has returned him to Iraq, yes, but that hardly means they intend to support him in a bid to build the government. In fact, portions of the American Govermental Infrastructure (the NIS predominantly) do not trust Chalabi. He is, however, an important player in the entire process. But do not mistake him for the end. NGOs know better than the US army how to deal with civilians, which isn't surprising since their job is to help distressed populations. They should have been in the loop. They also don't work to well when being held hostage, or shot at. But hey... I did what you keep on claiming you do - I took the facts and reached my own conclusion. And that is that the US is improvising all the way, and isn't in any way committed to making this work. Once again, remaining flexible does not equate to improvisation. I hate to tell you this, but hard facts take a long time to leak out. At this point, you have to take what facts we have and extrapolate, and that, along with trends over the decades, is the best way to judge US policy - or any other policy, for that matter. I agree. The facts will be slow coming. But wheras you look at convienent facts from the past (and tend to ignore the inconvienent ones) I try to apply logic and common sense. And it comes out in favour of the US. Remember - when you look back decades you're looking at cold war policies that have changed. If American Forigen policy was the same now as it was in the seventies, the world would be a much safer place atm as Bursh would still have an army capable of waging a war in two theatres (Iraq and N. Korea) and this war probably wouldn't have happened quite so fast (as, if you look at it logically, a big reason for this was was to "secure" Iraq and prevent it from causing trouble in case N. Korea decides to test one of its new nukes on Japan or Austrailia.). |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 29, 2003 8:27:27 GMT -5
I've actually given up. I could never understand why left wing liberals would mock and complain about my right-wing views, and call me ignorant, rude and stubborn. I had always thought I was open and accepting of opposing views, and assumed that others of my opinion felt the same way. I see now where the left was coming from. The pro-war faction here has ignored and casually dismissed any argument we make, and then has the gaul to complain that we aren't making any arguments. We have, as bozo pointed out with the summary of everything he said, its just nobody on the other side bothers to read them. The really sad thing is, the pro-war side here actually believes they have won the debate. Probably because the US won the war, which is somehow equated with winning this debate. This despite the fact that nobody on the anti-war side thought the US would lose, and indeed, it was won of our main points for opposing the war (that Iraq was so weak they posed no threat to anyone). In fact, just about everything the anti-war faction said would happen, has happened. The only thing that is surprising to me, is the speed at which some of these things occurred - I thought 5-10 years, they have been happenning less than a month later. To summarize: * Contrary to the rather vehement insistence of the pro-war faction, not only did Saddam Hussein NOT use any WMDs against the US, but no weapons of mass destruction of have even been found, despite the rather Keystone Copish US prancing about in Iraqi farmlands. I am sure though, that some will be "found." Meanwhile, in the "while you were away" category, North Korea not-so-quietly went and built themselve a nuclear bomb. Whoops. Guess you picked the wrong Axis-of-Evil member, eh Dubya? Pity for the world North Korea doesn't have any oil. * Contrary to the pro-war belief, the Iraqi army was so weak and disorganized they provided no opposition to the US. They had no airforce, no navy, and an army that was largely conscripted, untrained and outdated. Course, we knew this, because Robin Cooke (former Foreign Secretary, and thus someone who would know) told us so before the war. Saddam didn't even control one-third of his own country, never mind dream of regional, or world domination (world domination??). * No credible link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, or Iraq, has been found. No surprise here, as both the US State Department, and the British Ministry of Defense said there was none. * As predicted, neighboring Middle East countries have begun the "Great Meddle." Syria is harboring Iraqi ministers and/or wmd, Iran is stirring up Shia resistance, and at least one Special Operating Force from Turkey has been arrested by US troops trying to sneak into Kurdistan. * Speaking of Shias, not only did they not gladly welcome US occupation, they have protested vehemently, often violently against it. US troops shot and killed at least 12, and wounded over 50 in a violent anti-US protest yesterday. To make this clear for those who missed it, US troops fired on civilians. If those civilians were armed, and firing at the US, that just makes it worse. * Also as predicted, or feared, the US is displaying little to no foresight for what they have undertaken. Some would call it flexibility when of course its just bad planning. Even senior US military personnel are saying they weren't really prepared. Close to 50% of the US population, according to a recent CNN poll, feel the US should leave Iraq within the year. * As a result, rather than crowds of people showering "liberating" troops with flowers, Iraqi cities erupted into violent looting, rioting, vengence killing and general anarchy (though surprisingly enough, not around the oil fields or ministries of oil, which were very well guarded). Donald Rumsfield somehow tries to imply this is "freedom." * Arab resentment, fueled by anti-CNN al Jeezera coverage, reaches new heights of hatred. Both within Iraq, and without. As images of destroyed cities, and the slow US response to rebuilding are splashed throughout the Arab world, resentment grows. As, of course, does the misery in Iraq. Al Nasiriya is still without water, and a cholera outbreak is imminent. * The Shiite cleric the US had hoped would begin the great national reconciliation process, was hacked to death within days of returning to Iraq, as was the cleric he was supposed to be reconciling with. Course, one has to wonder why Abdul Majid al Khoei would bring a gun to a reconciliation meeting, but I digress. The great reconciliation meeting yesterday did not include recognized leaders of the shiite community, which continues there "death to America" crusade. * The man the US hoped would lead a new Iraqi government, al Chalabi, has virtually no support within the country, and cannot travel to any country that has an extradition treaty with Italy (as he is wanted for bank fraud there). * In the meantime, Osama bid Laden is still free, as is the Mullah Omar. Another US soldier was killed in a pro-Taliban attack just this week, and the only bar in Kabul, a much bally-hooed symbol of the new, free Afghanistan, closed, citing terrorists threats. Taliban forces, with the compliance of local warlords outside of US control, continue to regroup and re-arm. It is to this forgotten mess that Canadian troops (some with less than 3 weeks operational training) are heading, to replace US troops. This was all predicted before the war. And yet the pro-war insists they "won." Wow. Okay then, as I said, I have given up. If you all want to pat yourself on the backs for a job well done, then okay. I guess ignorance really is bliss. In the meantime, I will take my left-wing, liberal, bleeding heart appeasing assinine, irrelevant, simplistic, naive comments to my the local latte shop, where I will weep my tears of reality into my black turtle neck. I mean, that's what we do, right?  And in the not-do-distant future, when Canadian troops start coming home in body bags, and when bombs start going off in NYC subways, and when somebody, somewhere, explodes a nuclear device, "just because they can" we can all sit here and wonder how the world came to this. Sigh indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2003 8:54:10 GMT -5
BC, a most excellent post.
You, me, PTH, MC, the poster formerly known as GMan 77, and others, could not possibly embody a more diverse group of individuals. The designation of us as *doves* is inaccurate, simplistic, convenient, and insulting.
I'll say it again: that my fears and predictions have borne fruit gives me no joy or comfort whatsoever. There was an opportunity to take a small evolutionary step in dealing with rogue nations, as proposed by nations who have endured and learned from long histories of bloody wars. It was dismissed out-of-hand by a nation barely out its infancy, that was so recently built on genocide and slavery, but which also had managed in its primitive state to provide an exemplary theoretical model of what a constitution could be. Disapppointing to be sure, but one always hopes that positive lessons are learned from present-day blunders.
Now, you'll have to excuse me while I have my traditional North American breakfast of bacon and eggs with toast and black coffee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2003 9:50:05 GMT -5
So the blood boils again and the mind races. Mission accomplished.  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 13:55:09 GMT -5
* Contrary to the rather vehement insistence of the pro-war faction, not only did Saddam Hussein NOT use any WMDs against the US, but no weapons of mass destruction of have even been found, despite the rather Keystone Copish US prancing about in Iraqi farmlands. I am sure though, that some will be "found." Meanwhile, in the "while you were away" category, North Korea not-so-quietly went and built themselve a nuclear bomb. Whoops. Guess you picked the wrong Axis-of-Evil member, eh Dubya? Pity for the world North Korea doesn't have any oil. Just because he didn't use them doesn't mean he doesn't have them. It simply means he (a) realized that he'd have no global support if he used WMD's and would likely have even fewer places to run or (b) by the time US troops walked into Baghdad, the Republican Guard unit in charge of deploying said weapons was in such disarray that an attack was impossible. I mean no disrespect when I call you (or PTH, or Mr. B, or whoever) paranoid (or any other label for that matter). It simply means you do not fit in my narrow world view, and it is because you are by my standards paranoid. You believe the US will manufacture evidence against Saddam Hussien - which means no matter what comes out, you will doubt it. You again bring up the oil issue when only a band of blithering idiots would risk offending the largest producers of oil in the world (the Middle East) for the sake of the oil from a single country. N. Korea was not attacked not because it has no oil, but because it has a powerful ally in China. Saddam has no such ally (Syria tolerates him, but no one else is really on his side). It's a matter of taking what you can get. * Contrary to the pro-war belief, the Iraqi army was so weak and disorganized they provided no opposition to the US. They had no airforce, no navy, and an army that was largely conscripted, untrained and outdated. Course, we knew this, because Robin Cooke (former Foreign Secretary, and thus someone who would know) told us so before the war. Saddam didn't even control one-third of his own country, never mind dream of regional, or world domination (world domination??). It's not hard to achieve world domination when you lie in the centre of the most strategically important region in the world. All Saddam has to do is conquer Saudi Arabia, and he essentially has the world by the short and curlys. A well placed chemical bearing missile into Midyah or Mecca (if he can make it look like it's an American weapon, all the better), a well timed anti-US uprising in region and wham. Not to mention the fact that this move stands to stabilize a dangerously unstable region (the destablization will occur short term, but in the long term, not having a crazy dictator for a neighbour will result in better international relations with Syria, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). * No credible link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, or Iraq, has been found. No surprise here, as both the US State Department, and the British Ministry of Defense said there was none. Your point is? Once again - just because we don't see one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further to that, it is likely that one of the terror organizations that Iraq is linked to (Hezbollah is the big one I believe) can be linked to Al Queda. What the old saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Al Queda and Saddam are perfect bedmates. * As predicted, neighboring Middle East countries have begun the "Great Meddle." Syria is harboring Iraqi ministers and/or wmd, Iran is stirring up Shia resistance, and at least one Special Operating Force from Turkey has been arrested by US troops trying to sneak into Kurdistan. How does this make the war on Iraq wrong? Because other nations are meddling in one anothers affairs? Come on. Shi'ites from Iran have been infiltrating Iraq for years trying to stir up anti-Saddam/pro-Tehran sentiment. Turks and the Kurds have been squabbling with each other for longer than Iraq has existed. Why would they stop simply because the US invaded? * Speaking of Shias, not only did they not gladly welcome US occupation, they have protested vehemently, often violently against it. US troops shot and killed at least 12, and wounded over 50 in a violent anti-US protest yesterday. To make this clear for those who missed it, US troops fired on civilians. If those civilians were armed, and firing at the US, that just makes it worse. Of course they haven't. I think the US overestimated the feeling of debt the Shia's would experience after having been relieved from the oppressive pressure of Saddam Hussien's thumb. That's not surprising - Muslims view the US as the right hand of the Zionists in Israel (whom they loathe). Right now, the Shia are saying "thanks for saving us, you zionist infidels, now get the hell out". Doesn't meant they're right. Just means they don't like having other people in charge. People are like that. * Also as predicted, or feared, the US is displaying little to no foresight for what they have undertaken. Some would call it flexibility when of course its just bad planning. Even senior US military personnel are saying they weren't really prepared. Close to 50% of the US population, according to a recent CNN poll, feel the US should leave Iraq within the year. Of course it's bad planning to leave your options open when it comes to fiscal restraints on your operations. Really it is. You should set a budget based on how long you think everything is going to take, and be done with it. After all, World War I was over by Christmas, just like everyone expected right? * As a result, rather than crowds of people showering "liberating" troops with flowers, Iraqi cities erupted into violent looting, rioting, vengence killing and general anarchy (though surprisingly enough, not around the oil fields or ministries of oil, which were very well guarded). Donald Rumsfield somehow tries to imply this is "freedom." I don't pretend to have to defend Donald Rumsfield, but it does mean that they are finally free. The looting is not a result of, but moreover a symptom of being free. As for the looting/rioting, once again how easy is it exactly to control an entire city from a military standpoint. Crime occurs in American and Canadian cities and no one complains. Riots/protests etc occur from time to time, and no one says that the government or the police didn't do their jobs - in fact most of the time people scream police brutality and press charges. So I ask "What's with the double standard?" |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 13:55:29 GMT -5
* Arab resentment, fueled by anti-CNN al Jeezera coverage, reaches new heights of hatred. Both within Iraq, and without. As images of destroyed cities, and the slow US response to rebuilding are splashed throughout the Arab world, resentment grows. As, of course, does the misery in Iraq. Al Nasiriya is still without water, and a cholera outbreak is imminent. Right. Once again - the reason Al Nasiriya is without water is because of Iraqi forces destroying the power grid as they left. Saying that the US should be able to simply turn it on with the flick of the button is akin to me saying "Traverse is a great defensive defenceman" and expecting it to come true. * The Shiite cleric the US had hoped would begin the great national reconciliation process, was hacked to death within days of returning to Iraq, as was the cleric he was supposed to be reconciling with. Course, one has to wonder why Abdul Majid al Khoei would bring a gun to a reconciliation meeting, but I digress. The great reconciliation meeting yesterday did not include recognized leaders of the shiite community, which continues there "death to America" crusade. The cleric was assasinated. The verdict is still out on who though. In the meantime, check your facts: www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5741525.htmThe relevant passage: There was little acrimony among the delegates who represented a variety of ethnic and religious groups: Shiite and Sunni Muslim clerics, wearing traditional robes; Kurds from the north; tribal chiefs in Arab headdresses; and Iraqis who fled the country years ago, who wore Western business suits.
Notably absent were the two main Kurdish political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party, an absence U.S. officials blamed on ``logistical problems.''
Also missing were the Iraqi Communist Party and the Islamic Dawa Party.
But officials from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an Iran-based group of Shiite Muslim exiles, did attend. The council had refused to attend a similar meeting held earlier this month near An-Nasiriyah.* The man the US hoped would lead a new Iraqi government, al Chalabi, has virtually no support within the country, and cannot travel to any country that has an extradition treaty with Italy (as he is wanted for bank fraud there). Again - check your facts. Chalabi is supported by a large part of the US government, but not all. The NIS is general, and Colin Powell in particular are not fond of the Chalabi option. And the recent appointment of L. Paul Bremer to oversee both the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq (same article) implies that Chalabi is not nesscessairly the prime candidate. And I believe it's Jordan he's wanted by, not Italy. * In the meantime, Osama bid Laden is still free, as is the Mullah Omar. Another US soldier was killed in a pro-Taliban attack just this week, and the only bar in Kabul, a much bally-hooed symbol of the new, free Afghanistan, closed, citing terrorists threats. Taliban forces, with the compliance of local warlords outside of US control, continue to regroup and re-arm. It is to this forgotten mess that Canadian troops (some with less than 3 weeks operational training) are heading, to replace US troops. And it should be clear that Afghanistan != Iraq. For one, the US went into Afghanistan solely to placate it's populace who were screaming for blood after 9/11. Is Osama still on the loose? Yes. Do we know where? Well - if he's hiding out in Afghanistan he's less intellegent then we give him credit for (as God only knows - a stray patrol might just stumble upon him. This was all predicted before the war. And yet the pro-war insists they "won." Wow. Okay then, as I said, I have given up. If you all want to pat yourself on the backs for a job well done, then okay. I guess ignorance really is bliss. In the meantime, I will take my left-wing, liberal, bleeding heart appeasing assinine, irrelevant, simplistic, naive comments to my the local latte shop, where I will weep my tears of reality into my black turtle neck. I mean, that's what we do, right? I do not believe I have won. There are no winners or losers. Just conflicting ideas. And the sarcastic insult isn't appriciated (-: And in the not-do-distant future, when Canadian troops start coming home in body bags, and when bombs start going off in NYC subways, and when somebody, somewhere, explodes a nuclear device, "just because they can" we can all sit here and wonder how the world came to this. I would argue that it's because there are too many people like you who are unwilling to take the great step to take the fight to those who would wreck havoc upon us. Some 70 years ago a guy named Hitler and another guy name Mussoleni came to power and tried to go against international will and carve themselves great nations at the expense of their population. The League of Nations failed to live up to it's mandate and did little but impose scarely followed sanctions. While Saddam certainly doesn't have the resources that the Axis did prior to WWII, we live in an era where a single bomb can level a city and ten (well placed) can annilihate a country. It doesn't take much anymore. I'd rather lose young men who have given their lives to fight for the cause of the right that might be unnescessary rather than lose children and innocents because we failed to act. Maybe that makes me a "hawk" or a "warmonger" or whatever. I think that makes me reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 29, 2003 14:58:10 GMT -5
Just because he didn't use them doesn't mean he doesn't have them. I mean no disrespect when I call you (or PTH, or Mr. B, or whoever) paranoid (or any other label for that matter). It simply means you do not fit in my narrow world view, and it is because you are by my standards paranoid. You believe the US will manufacture evidence against Saddam Hussien - which means no matter what comes out, you will doubt it. You again bring up the oil issue when only a band of blithering idiots would risk offending the largest producers of oil in the world (the Middle East) for the sake of the oil from a single country. N. Korea was not attacked not because it has no oil, but because it has a powerful ally in China. Saddam has no such ally (Syria tolerates him, but no one else is really on his side). It's a matter of taking what you can get. So let me get this straight - regardless of whether or not there is any proof that Saddam Hussein has any WMD we are going to assume he does. Even if we can't find any. Guilty until proven ... well, proven what? Innocent? Apparently that is not possible. You would make a lovely police officer. The US staked a large portion of their rational behind this war on the belief that Hussein had these weapons, yet they can't find any. Also, if these weapons were such a threat to world security, why aren't they doing everything to find them? Why haven't they invaded Syria, which has larger stockpiles and may indeed be harboring what is left from Iraq? Why not invade Iran? Why not finish the job? What you are saying is that the US invaded Iraq not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the easy thing to do?? N. Korea may have an ally in China, but isn't a nuclear bomb in the hands of a madman still a nuclear bomb in the hands of a madman? What happened to sacrificing for the good of the world? To doing the world's dirty work, no matter how dangerous it may be? To suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and all that? Again, from Robin Cook, a man in a much better position to have the whole story than us: 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. But if YOU say he has them... It's not hard to achieve world domination when you lie in the centre of the most strategically important region in the world. All Saddam has to do is conquer Saudi Arabia, and he essentially has the world by the short and curlys. A well placed chemical bearing missile into Midyah or Mecca (if he can make it look like it's an American weapon, all the better), a well timed anti-US uprising in region and wham. Not to mention the fact that this move stands to stabilize a dangerously unstable region (the destablization will occur short term, but in the long term, not having a crazy dictator for a neighbour will result in better international relations with Syria, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Doesn't this contradict your previous statement? Why is this region the "center of the of most strategically important region of the world?" Is it because of the lovely vacation spots? The banana groves? The dot-com companies that set up shop there? Or, could it be, possibly, maybe, because of the oil that is there? And to suggest that not having a crazy dictator around will somehow improve relations with Syria, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is, well, bizarre. All those countries are run by crazed dictators themselves. You may think this move will stabalize the region, but I beg to differ. Go visit the English version of the Al Jeezera web site. Of the 31 links to articles on their front page, 19 contain anti-American rhetoric. Al Jeezera is the most important source of information for the Arab speaking world. This is what they read, this is what they believe. Strange as it may sound, the Arab world really doesn't care about Private Jessica Lynch. If the US wants this region to be stable, they are going to have to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab people, and clearly simply removing Saddam Hussein is not going to do so. Your point is? Once again - just because we don't see one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further to that, it is likely that one of the terror organizations that Iraq is linked to (Hezbollah is the big one I believe) can be linked to Al Queda. What the old saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Al Queda and Saddam are perfect bedmates. Actually, no. According to all reports, Iraq is a minor player in the terrorism game, prefering instead to focus their efforts on eliminating Iraqi opposition abroad. Saddam's survival instincts in full swing. Iran and Syria are both prime sponsors of Hezbollah (as is Saudi Arabia) while the most Iraq ever did pay off families of suicide bombers, and that was only just recently. Awful, to be sure, but no where near the the same level as other countries in the region. Osama bin Laden actually hates Saddam Hussein, and views, or viewed him as one of those Arab leaders that needed to be overthrown. You forget that Hussein cracked down heavily on Shiite fundamentalists, and indeed, any Islamic fundamentalist that threatened his regime. Again, his survival instincts. The US State Department has said there is no link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, the British Department of Defense has said there is no link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and Hussein and Al Quaeda had quite a little hissy fit with each other some time back. By all accounts, there is no link. Yet you insist there is one, with no actual evidence to back yourself up. Okay... How does this make the war on Iraq wrong? Because other nations are meddling in one anothers affairs? Come on. Shi'ites from Iran have been infiltrating Iraq for years trying to stir up anti-Saddam/pro-Tehran sentiment. Turks and the Kurds have been squabbling with each other for longer than Iraq has existed. Why would they stop simply because the US invaded? Doesn't make the war right or wrong. What it is though, is exactly what was predicted to happen by the anti-war faction, depsite claims by the pro-war side that all would be peachy-keen in the region just as soon as Hussein was gone. Obviously that is not, and will not be the case. Of course they haven't. I think the US overestimated the feeling of debt the Shia's would experience after having been relieved from the oppressive pressure of Saddam Hussien's thumb. That's not surprising - Muslims view the US as the right hand of the Zionists in Israel (whom they loathe). Right now, the Shia are saying "thanks for saving us, you zionist infidels, now get the hell out". Doesn't meant they're right. Just means they don't like having other people in charge. People are like that. And yet, this is supposed to stabalize the region? How again? Over 60 civilians were shot by US troops yesterday, protesting against their involvment and occupation of Iraq. How exactly is this country supposed to become a shining beacon of tolerance and acceptance in those conditions? Especially considering that US public tolerance for these affairs is fantastically low? Isn't it more likely that the US will put in a token effort, and then leave, leaving the country to fester in Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Americanism? Of course it's bad planning to leave your options open when it comes to fiscal restraints on your operations. Really it is. You should set a budget based on how long you think everything is going to take, and be done with it. After all, World War I was over by Christmas, just like everyone expected right? What options are these, exactly? Some estimates say it will cost upwards of $14 billion to rebuild the country. Who is going to pay for that? Is there any planning? Money set aside? Proposed goals, deadlines, targets? Where is the white paper, outlining the plan? I don't pretend to have to defend Donald Rumsfield, but it does mean that they are finally free. The looting is not a result of, but moreover a symptom of being free. As for the looting/rioting, once again how easy is it exactly to control an entire city from a military standpoint. Crime occurs in American and Canadian cities and no one complains. Riots/protests etc occur from time to time, and no one says that the government or the police didn't do their jobs - in fact most of the time people scream police brutality and press charges. So I ask "What's with the double standard?" I will be in Houston shortly. I will be sure to smash in a couple of windows and take something for you, to exercise my American version of freedom. Somehow though, I suspect you won't be hearing from me for a while... After most North American riots, people ALWAYS say the government didn't do their job. Witness the Anti-Globalization demonstrations, or the Stanley Cup riots. The police are either accused of not getting there in time, from overreacting, to goading protesters on, to being unprepared. Try reading up on some of the more recent riots some time. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2003 15:13:38 GMT -5
So let me get this straight - regardless of whether or not there is any proof that Saddam Hussein has any WMD we are going to assume he does. Even if we can't find any. Guilty until proven ... well, proven what? Innocent? That is taking a very French approach to the matter, isn't it? (Where *is* that irony emoticon?) However, maybe this is closer to the mark: realpolitik noun
practical politics, decided more by the immediate needs of the country, political party, etc., than by morals or principles
To paraphrase that great American motto to suit the present administration's adventurism: "Give me convenience, or give them death." |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 29, 2003 15:20:03 GMT -5
Right. Once again - the reason Al Nasiriya is without water is because of Iraqi forces destroying the power grid as they left. Saying that the US should be able to simply turn it on with the flick of the button is akin to me saying "Traverse is a great defensive defenceman" and expecting it to come true. And yet in Basra the British somehow managed to restore water to the city WHILE the conflict was still going on, within a matter of days. Its been what, three weeks since Nasiriya fell? Regardless of who did or did not destroy the Iraqi infrastructure, the perception in Iraq and in the Arab world is that it was the Americans, and that the Americans are slow to rebuild it. The cleric was assasinated. The verdict is still out on who though. Umm, no. The verdict is in. He was brought in to reconcile with a pro-Hussein cleric. A mob supporting a third cleric attacked the pro-Hussein cleric, and the pro-US cleric pulled his gun and started firing into the crowd. In the ensuing chaos both clerics were hacked to death. I'm not sure what verdict you are waiting for, but it seems to me the much anticipated reconciliation meeting was a total flop. In the meantime, check your facts: www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5741525.htmThe relevant passage: There was little acrimony among the delegates who represented a variety of ethnic and religious groups: Shiite and Sunni Muslim clerics, wearing traditional robes; Kurds from the north; tribal chiefs in Arab headdresses; and Iraqis who fled the country years ago, who wore Western business suits.
Notably absent were the two main Kurdish political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party, an absence U.S. officials blamed on ``logistical problems.''
Also missing were the Iraqi Communist Party and the Islamic Dawa Party.
But officials from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an Iran-based group of Shiite Muslim exiles, did attend. The council had refused to attend a similar meeting held earlier this month near An-Nasiriyah.Again - check your facts. Chalabi is supported by a large part of the US government, but not all. The NIS is general, and Colin Powell in particular are not fond of the Chalabi option. And the recent appointment of L. Paul Bremer to oversee both the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq (same article) implies that Chalabi is not nesscessairly the prime candidate. And I believe it's Jordan he's wanted by, not Italy.[/quote] You are right, it is Jordon that is radically opposed to the hand-picked successor to the throne of Iraq. That makes it so much better, that a fellow Middle Eastern country likes him so much. And you are right again, representitives of the Iran based Shiite movement attended the second meeting, after skipping the first. Course, remnants of the Taliban attended reconciliation meetings in Afghanistan too, but I digress. Will the Americans accept an Iranian backed government in Baghdad? Will the Shiite radicals accept anything less? And it should be clear that Afghanistan != Iraq. For one, the US went into Afghanistan solely to placate it's populace who were screaming for blood after 9/11. Is Osama still on the loose? Yes. Do we know where? Well - if he's hiding out in Afghanistan he's less intellegent then we give him credit for (as God only knows - a stray patrol might just stumble upon him. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is Iraq. Both are countries that are fading very quickly out of the US public conscience. Osama was detested, hated, vilified, despised. Yet a mere two years later people couldn't care less about where he is, or what he is doing. Do you think he retired? Do you think he decided the fight was no longer a valid one, and is living out his golden years in quiet solitude? Or is it more likely that he is plotting, plotting, plotting? That more terrorism is on the way? This is the fear for Iraq. The Arab world, both within and outside of Iraq, percieves this war as a war of US aggression against an Islamic nation. Unlike the US population though, they tend not to forget these things. Meaning that there is a good chance elements within Iraq are also plotting, plotting, plotting. In 1998 Al Quaeda attempted to blow up two US embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of civilians. The US attacked several Al Quada bases in Afghanistan, symbolically really, and then forgot all about it. I would bet good money the vast majority of US citizens could not name the two countries those embassies that were attacked were in. Yet Al Quada didn't go away. Instead they came back. Again, we are letting them up off the mat, and they will come back again. How long before others join there cause? I do not believe I have won. There are no winners or losers. Just conflicting ideas. And the sarcastic insult isn't appriciated (-: Strange that you would take such insult to the sarcastic insult. I mean, everything I said came from posts you made... I would argue that it's because there are too many people like you who are unwilling to take the great step to take the fight to those who would wreck havoc upon us. Some 70 years ago a guy named Hitler and another guy name Mussoleni came to power and tried to go against international will and carve themselves great nations at the expense of their population. The League of Nations failed to live up to it's mandate and did little but impose scarely followed sanctions. While Saddam certainly doesn't have the resources that the Axis did prior to WWII, we live in an era where a single bomb can level a city and ten (well placed) can annilihate a country. It doesn't take much anymore. I'd rather lose young men who have given their lives to fight for the cause of the right that might be unnescessary rather than lose children and innocents because we failed to act. Maybe that makes me a "hawk" or a "warmonger" or whatever. I think that makes me reasonable. Wow. That's beautiful. Are you running for office? I have never stated that I do not believe war is not at times just. If you had even just a passing knowledge of things I have written over the last few weeks, you would know as much. Therefore, I am quite willing to take this great step you propose, if and when it becomes necessary. I have yet to see the neccissity here in Iraq, and in fact, I fear that this war only makes the neccissity of this great step all the more likely to have to take place in the not so distant future. The seeds of disent have been sown deep in the Middle East, and rather than pulling them up, I fear this war will only serve to fertilize them. You make think this will help the world, but alas, I fear it will only make it a more dangerous place to be. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 17:21:44 GMT -5
So let me get this straight - regardless of whether or not there is any proof that Saddam Hussein...[snipped to keep the character count down]...has them... Saddam Hussien is not guilty before proven innocent. Prior to 1991 Saddam Hussien had WMD's, including an advanced nuclear weapons program. Post 1991 the UN ordered them to disarm, and eventually appointed a weapons inspection team to ensure that the actions that the Iraqi's said they were taking were actually taking place. These inspectors recieved no cooperation from the Iraqi government, who, at the same time, continued to defy the UN ordered no-fly zone over Iraqi airspace. Eventually, they left as the US was intending to take action action Iraqi defiance over the no-fly zone, asked the inspectors to leave so they could carry out bombing raids. Seeing as how the inspectors were being stopped at every turn, they left. Fast forward to late 2002, and the UN pass a resolution that says Iraq must comply with weapons inspectors, or they would be forced to comply. The weapons inspectors went back in in Janurary, and continued to recieve no cooperation. Further to that, there were several tonnes of various WMD's unaccounted for in an Iraqi report on the status of their arsenal, including a whole lot of dead Vx nerve gas (the numbers escape me at the moment). So the coalition decided to enforce the cease fire. Before PTH (or someone else) chimes in that they were starting to cooperate in the last report that Blix made to the UN, starting to cooperate was not acceptable. It was either full cooperation, or forget about it. Bottom line - WMD's found or not - Iraq has not been clear about its programs. If they were making trouble for the inspectors and had nothing to hide, then one must assume Saddam Hussien is a mindless fool. As for the Korea issue - you are mistaken. A war with Korea could spark a global conflict that could certainly precipitate nuclear war. It is not simply a matter of easy or hard. It is a matter of dangerous or safe. Further to that, as China is such a big ally of Korea, China can lean on Korea and keep them more or less in line - whereas there is no nation that Iraq really listens to but Iraq Doesn't this contradict your previous statement? Why is this region the "center of the of most strategically important region of the world?" Is it because of the lovely vacation spots? The banana groves? The dot-com companies that set up shop there? Or, could it be, possibly, maybe, because of the oil that is there? And to suggest that not having a crazy dictator around will somehow improve relations with Syria, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is, well, bizarre. All those countries are run by crazed dictators themselves. But it's not because of the oil in Iraq. It's because of the oil around Iraq. Iraq could be as dry as a bone, but because Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are easily in reach - Saddam could easily corner the world market. That doesn't mean that Iraq is more important. It means that the region is more important. Further to that, Korea has a political ally (see above) that can control them. If the US went after Korea and removed most of its troops from the Gulf, Saddam could easily take Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia. Suddenly you have a two theatre war. Whereas while China is leaning on Korea to play somewhat nice, they won't get involved in the whole war thing. You may think this move will stabalize the region, but I beg to differ. Go visit the English version of the Al Jeezera web site. Of the 31 links to articles on their front page, 19 contain anti-American rhetoric. Al Jeezera is the most important source of information for the Arab speaking world. This is what they read, this is what they believe. Strange as it may sound, the Arab world really doesn't care about Private Jessica Lynch. If the US wants this region to be stable, they are going to have to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab people, and clearly simply removing Saddam Hussein is not going to do so. I said long run rather than short run. Long run as in a stable political power in the region would tend to stablize other nations. Irregardless if the region is pro or anti-US forigen policy, it would be significantly more stable, and would probably foster the peace process in Israel. Actually, no. According to all reports, Iraq is a minor player in the terrorism game, prefering instead to focus their efforts on eliminating Iraqi opposition abroad. Saddam's survival instincts in full swing. Iran and Syria are both prime sponsors of Hezbollah (as is Saudi Arabia) while the most Iraq ever did pay off families of suicide bombers, and that was only just recently. Awful, to be sure, but no where near the the same level as other countries in the region. What about the islamic terrorist city that was in Northern Iraq (near the Iranian border). I can't remember which group that was, but I am fairly sure that counts as state sponsored terrorism. But anyways - I can't quote any hard facts, so I'll concede the point. Osama bin Laden actually hates Saddam Hussein...yourself up. Okay... Once again - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if there is no link, given their mutal hatred of the US, they are bound to wind up at least discussing things (or perhaps working through a neutral third party). The US hates communists and has hated communists since the Russian Revolution, but they were willing to side with Stalin to help fight the Axis. Doesn't make the war right or wrong. What it is though...the case. If I'm guilty of painting all doves with the same bleeding heart liberal paint, then you're guilty of the same. I've never said all would be peachy keen. I've even said that the move runs a big risk of blowing up in our faces - a risk, I'll add, that would be greatly decrased had a couple other members of the international community came onside (ie I would imagine that if two of Russia, Germany, Canada and France had been involved in the colation army, we'd see a lot more Arabic countries taking a much softer stance on the issue) (note: This is not implying that everyone should come onside. This is implying that if the concerns of a nation lay with the end result in the region, the simple fact that they're not involved has likely worsened the situation) - but that the possible positives outweigh the possible negatives And yet, this is supposed to stabalize...and anti-Americanism? Yes. The incident yesterday was a combination of bad timing and triggers that are probably just a touch too light. Remember, the day before yesterday an Iraqi "civilian" threw himself into a munitions depot and detonated himself, killing Marines nearby. No body implied this was going to be easy, that it was going to be without effort or mistake. As for the US pulling out - I don't see that happening. Unlike Afghanistan, the US has had a long term presence in the region (since 1991) and is not likely to suddenly wander off. What options are these, exactly...white paper, outlining the plan? Umm... wasn't PTH complaining mere digital seconds ago that the US was handing out contracts hand over to foot for the rebuilding of Iraq to American companies? Wouldn't that suggest that - given that the government isn't likely to contract out work without having set aside money for the expenditure - there has been some of this planning done, and the fiscal problems people are having have more to do with how long there will be a military presence in Iraq? I will be in Houston...from me for a while... I said a symptom of freedom, not freedom nesscessairly. Your reply is an oversimplification at best. After most North American riots, people ALWAYS say the government didn't do their job. Witness the Anti-Globalization demonstrations...riots some time. I've yet to hear that many that say "the police didn't arrive in time". Most of them (granted - I'm focusing on the Quebec and Ontario anti-globalization riots that occured whilst I was living in Toronto) are "the police goaded us" or "the police are brutal enforcers of a repressive regime" or "the police beat me" or "I got hit with a rubber bullet and I wasn't doing anything" or "why did they gas me" and what not. And in some cases it's true. The police tend to be overzealous when people are smashing them over the head with concrete. But that's besides the point. The point is that controlling a riot requires extreme tactics. Extreme tactics that probably aren't healthy to use when in the middle of a war zone. So they let them riot, and probably saved American lives in the the process. Or perhaps we should just line our soliders up so people can attack them, create a situation where civilians are in the way of a military action, and wind up with countless Iraqi's dead - that's sure to engender support. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2003 17:44:28 GMT -5
And yet in Basra the British somehow managed to restore water to the city WHILE the conflict was still going on, within a matter of days. Its been what, three weeks since Nasiriya fell? Regardless of who did or did not destroy the Iraqi infrastructure, the perception in Iraq and in the Arab world is that it was the Americans, and that the Americans are slow to rebuild it. While I don't disagree with your statement on how the Arab world sees it, I would point out that perhaps the damage in Basra wasn't as severe as in Al Nasiriya? Tough to tell, but Umm, no. The verdict is in. He was brought in to reconcile with a pro-Hussein cleric. A mob supporting a third cleric attacked the pro-Hussein cleric, and the pro-US cleric pulled his gun and started firing into the crowd. In the ensuing chaos both clerics were hacked to death. I'm not sure what verdict you are waiting for, but it seems to me the much anticipated reconciliation meeting was a total flop. I admit I probably missed that (I was struggling through finals at the time) but anyways, that was beside the point (though one wonders what the third cleric showing up with the angry mob was intending to do)... You are right, it is Jordon that is radically opposed to the hand-picked successor to the throne of Iraq. That makes it so much better, that a fellow Middle Eastern country likes him so much. I was merely making a point that your facts were wrong, just like they're wrong on Chalabi being the "hand-picked" successor. He's far from hand picked (though admittedly he's a leading candidate). He's not supported by all of the US, including, as I mentioned, Colin Powell. And the guy running the "rebuilding" process in Iraq just happens to be anti-Chalabi too. Funny that. And you are right again, representitives of the Iran based Shiite movement attended the second meeting, after skipping the first. Course, remnants of the Taliban attended reconciliation meetings in Afghanistan too, but I digress. Will the Americans accept an Iranian backed government in Baghdad? Will the Shiite radicals accept anything less? Possibly. I thought the idea of the whole "reconciliation meeting" thing was supposed to work on things like that. Maybe I'm wrong... Unfortunately, Afghanistan is Iraq. Both are countries that are fading very quickly out of the US public conscience. Osama was detested, hated, vilified, despised. Yet a mere two years later people couldn't care less about where he is, or what he is doing. Do you think he retired? Do you think he decided the fight was no longer a valid one, and is living out his golden years in quiet solitude? Or is it more likely that he is plotting, plotting, plotting? That more terrorism is on the way? This is the fear for Iraq. The Arab world, both within and outside of Iraq, percieves this war as a war of US aggression against an Islamic nation. Unlike the US population though, they tend not to forget these things. Meaning that there is a good chance elements within Iraq are also plotting, plotting, plotting. Just like the US left Kuwait all along after the Gulf War right? I mean come on - a prolonged military presence overseas? It'll never happen... Strange that you would take such insult to the sarcastic insult. I mean, everything I said came from posts you made... Maybe you missed the smiley at the end of the line... Wow. That's beautiful. Are you running for office? I have never stated that I do not believe war is not at times just. If you had even just a passing knowledge of things I have written over the last few weeks, you would know as much. Therefore, I am quite willing to take this great step you propose, if and when it becomes necessary. I have yet to see the neccissity here in Iraq, and in fact, I fear that this war only makes the neccissity of this great step all the more likely to have to take place in the not so distant future. The seeds of disent have been sown deep in the Middle East, and rather than pulling them up, I fear this war will only serve to fertilize them. You make think this will help the world, but alas, I fear it will only make it a more dangerous place to be. But that's the issue. I believe your threshold to be unreachable, your standards too high. I think people look at the past, and tend to say "we don't want war any more" and so they do their best to avoid it. But that attitude only works if everyone else adopts it, and I can tell you that everyone hasn't. Eh... we're opposing opinions. It happens. Not everyone is as gifted as I am to be the holder of universal truth (-: |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2003 18:43:38 GMT -5
Eh... we're opposing opinions. It happens. Not everyone is as gifted as I am to be the holder of universal truth (-: Hey, are we allowed cheering? Go TNG Go!...........  I'm just swimming on the sidelines, waiting...........  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 29, 2003 22:27:53 GMT -5
Well, BC seems to have responded more clearly than I ever could've. Just an interesting tidbit of news for you all: "In the run up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudis said they would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince Sultan base without a UN resolution authorising war. The Saudi refusal was reported to have created a rift between Riyadh and Washington. " news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stmThe Saoudi's were obviously terrified of Saddam then.... And BTW TNG, the no-fly zones weren't a UN issue, they were a US and UK call. "The United Nations does not recognize the no-fly zones or the U.S. assertion that it is enforcing U.N. resolutions. Last fall, Russia's foreign ministry said escalating attacks by U.S. and British warplanes against Iraqi air defenses have made it more difficult for U.N. efforts to resume weapons inspections in Iraq" www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2003/0115airstrikes.htm |
|
