|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2008 20:45:54 GMT -5
. The US has established themselves as military power over the decades but it means nothing if they don't have the leadership, HA. And right now, they simply don't have that at the highest level. There are competent leaders in the field, don't get me wrong, but when men like Colin Powell leave office the way the did, there's normally a reason for it. When he left I thought it left a huge dent in high-level leadership. I thought that Colin Powell would be the next President. I have HUGE respect for the way the man thinks and his integrity. As you know already, HA, Powell left because of his integrity. BC first brought the concept of Groupthink to our discussion boards a few years back (it's been a part of my lesson material on classroom dynamics ever since) and this was probably the most prevalent factor in the decision process for going into Iraq. George W was going in pure and simple. He would not listen to anything else. Initially Powell did what his Commander-in-Chief ordered him to do, but near the end I think his hypocrisy only went so far (just an opinion). As an aside, I honestly feel if Chretien's government did one thing right, it was keeping us out of Iraq. I think that, more than anything else he did while in office, kept Canada's integrity in tact with the international community. The Yanks have made some mistakes, HA. They're well documented. But this is what the media tends to focus on and, in turn, others perceive it as a reflection of the American society (when it's actually the action of a group of powerful men). What they don't focus on is how much they've been involved behind the scenes. We hear of the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and rightly so, but we don't hear of the American contribution all that much. They're providing mass logistics as well as continual air support to operations. Yet, the majority of their medias focus is on the Iraqi debacle. Don't get me wrong, it's important to have freedom of press, but the American efforts in Afghanistan are overshadowed by their involvement in Iraq. As another aside, do you know what Britain's bloodiest conflict is right now? It's not Iraq ... it's Afghanistan. But, we don't hear about that either probably for the same reasons we don't hear about the Americans. Go figure, eh. As for cowardly Canadians ... well ... sounds like someone might be baiting an argument there, HA. That, or they simply don't have a smick of what's really going on. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 10, 2008 20:54:35 GMT -5
As an aside, I honestly feel if Chretien's government did one thing right, it was keeping us out of Iraq. I think that, more than anything else he did while in office, kept Canada's integrity in tact with the international community. The thing is, dis (and I hear that thought a lot from pro-Liberal/anti Harper [especially] people), Chretien's role in keeping Canada out is that he didn't make a decision. He waited and waffled and pondered and hummed and hawed . . . and eventually he was able to point to the situation in Iraq and say "we stayed out and it was the right move", even though he didn't make a move. He wasn't praiseworthy in this situation . . . once again he was charmed, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2008 21:09:36 GMT -5
As an aside, I honestly feel if Chretien's government did one thing right, it was keeping us out of Iraq. I think that, more than anything else he did while in office, kept Canada's integrity in tact with the international community. The thing is, dis (and I hear that thought a lot from pro-Liberal/anti Harper [especially] people), Chretien's role in keeping Canada out is that he didn't make a decision. He waited and waffled and pondered and hummed and hawed . . . and eventually he was able to point to the situation in Iraq and say "we stayed out and it was the right move", even though he didn't make a move. He wasn't praiseworthy in this situation . . . once again he was charmed, though. Actually, I remember the US being extremely miffed at this. I don't know if it was waffling or not, but I do remember Chretien receiving a standing O from parliament for not going in. I also remember the latest Liberal rising star, Beaker John Manley, coming out of a meeting with Colin Powell having a 'somebody-just-ran-over-my-dog' look to him. Powell was looking for support and he didn't get it. And Manley was the guy who had to tell him. Then we started having a prolongation to the softwood lumber dispute, the mad cow thingy and so on and so forth. I can't say for sure, but I suspect our lack of support for the Iraqi operation had something to do with that. Odd, eh? As soon as Harper and his government took office those things started being resolved. All he 'had to do' was take the lead in Afghanistan. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 10, 2008 21:22:25 GMT -5
As an aside, I honestly feel if Chretien's government did one thing right, it was keeping us out of Iraq. I think that, more than anything else he did while in office, kept Canada's integrity in tact with the international community. The thing is, dis (and I hear that thought a lot from pro-Liberal/anti Harper [especially] people), Chretien's role in keeping Canada out is that he didn't make a decision. He waited and waffled and pondered and hummed and hawed . . . and eventually he was able to point to the situation in Iraq and say "we stayed out and it was the right move", even though he didn't make a move. He wasn't praiseworthy in this situation . . . once again he was charmed, though. Results are results, and I'm no Chretien apologist. He reduced our dependence on the US and we aren't in Iraq as a result of his (in?)action. Doesn't much matter to me how it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 22:14:34 GMT -5
The Yanks have made some mistakes, HA. They're well documented. But this is what the media tends to focus on and, in turn, others perceive it as a reflection of the American society (when it's actually the action of a group of powerful men). What they don't focus on is how much they've been involved behind the scenes. We hear of the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and rightly so, but we don't hear of the American contribution all that much. They're providing mass logistics as well as continual air support to operations. Yet, the majority of their medias focus is on the Iraqi debacle. Don't get me wrong, it's important to have freedom of press, but the American efforts in Afghanistan are overshadowed by their involvement in Iraq. As another aside, do you know what Britain's bloodiest conflict is right now? It's not Iraq ... it's Afghanistan. But, we don't hear about that either probably for the same reasons we don't hear about the Americans. Go figure, eh. As for cowardly Canadians ... well ... sounds like someone might be baiting an argument there, HA. That, or they simply don't have a smick of what's really going on. Cheers. In the last year or so I feel that there has been more polarization then ever and PARTICULARLY in the media. Right beside me, I have a large Canadian daily and I just can't believe to what extend they went to FABRICATE the news. Yup, now we are past slanting the news, we have reached the bottom of the gabage barrel where it's becomming accceptable to fabricating the news, like some third world bathroom rag. I am going start a thread about it when I have some time. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 22:16:29 GMT -5
The thing is, dis (and I hear that thought a lot from pro-Liberal/anti Harper [especially] people), Chretien's role in keeping Canada out is that he didn't make a decision. He waited and waffled and pondered and hummed and hawed . . . and eventually he was able to point to the situation in Iraq and say "we stayed out and it was the right move", even though he didn't make a move. He wasn't praiseworthy in this situation . . . once again he was charmed, though. Results are results, and I'm no Chretien apologist. He reduced our dependence on the US and we aren't in Iraq as a result of his (in?)action. Doesn't much matter to me how it happened. Red, what do you mean "reduced our dependence on the US"? Economically? Foreign policy? How? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2008 22:46:14 GMT -5
The Yanks have made some mistakes, HA. They're well documented. But this is what the media tends to focus on and, in turn, others perceive it as a reflection of the American society (when it's actually the action of a group of powerful men). What they don't focus on is how much they've been involved behind the scenes. We hear of the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and rightly so, but we don't hear of the American contribution all that much. They're providing mass logistics as well as continual air support to operations. Yet, the majority of their medias focus is on the Iraqi debacle. Don't get me wrong, it's important to have freedom of press, but the American efforts in Afghanistan are overshadowed by their involvement in Iraq. As another aside, do you know what Britain's bloodiest conflict is right now? It's not Iraq ... it's Afghanistan. But, we don't hear about that either probably for the same reasons we don't hear about the Americans. Go figure, eh. As for cowardly Canadians ... well ... sounds like someone might be baiting an argument there, HA. That, or they simply don't have a smick of what's really going on. Cheers. In the last year or so I feel that there has been more polarization then ever and PARTICULARLY in the media. Right beside me, I have a large Canadian daily and I just can't believe to what extend they went to FABRICATE the news. Yup, now we are past slanting the news, we have reached the bottom of the gabage barrel where it's becomming accceptable to fabricating the news, like some third world bathroom rag. I am going start a thread about it when I have some time. Nothing new there, HA. We're often at the mercy of what the editing staff want us to read. Western new agencies or Islamic clerics ... nothing new. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 11, 2008 0:17:40 GMT -5
Results are results, and I'm no Chretien apologist. He reduced our dependence on the US and we aren't in Iraq as a result of his (in?)action. Doesn't much matter to me how it happened. Red, what do you mean "reduced our dependence on the US"? Economically? Foreign policy? How? It's falls under the "results are results" post above. The proportion of international trade dedicated to the U.S. compared to all other countries decreased by about 20% over the course of Chretien's first two terms. Again, I don't have exact figures on me, I ran across these numbers in an Econometrics study I was doing using BoC data. It happened. I don't much care how. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 11, 2008 1:33:46 GMT -5
At least you dind't say they invaded for oil. Or was that an oversight? HA, HA. C'mon. You're an intelligent fellow or you wouldn't get into these philosophical debates. When was the last time a brothel was attacked to steal the magazines in the waiting room? When did you last go to a hospital for the cafeteria food? Iraq has oil and sand. If you were a sand nut, you'd invade the Sahara. These are American businessmen we're talking about...not exactly renowned for altruism. You don't spread a way of life (eg democracy). If it's so wonderful, everyone will eventually join. The Watchtower people, for all their perseverence, only help me keep the recycling people in business. I won't convert, I could never get used to having Saturday as the day of rest....oh whoops, pardon me, wrong religion. In any case, I'm too busy, searching out more brothel magazines. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 11, 2008 7:23:04 GMT -5
The proportion of international trade dedicated to the U.S. compared to all other countries decreased by about 20% over the course of Chretien's first two terms. Isn't it interesting, though, that with the CDN $ at prime our trade with the US [our major trading partner] is down and businesses are going down? We may have lost trade with the US but it certainly hasn't picked up in other world areas . . . in fact, we ship more jobs out than bringing in to the country, the government spin machine the current job creation stats notwithstanding. More people found jobs than lost jobs last month? Yup, UI EI (more spin) ran out for auto workers who made $60,000 + a year and are now at MacDonalds and Tim Hortons. Good old Canadian employment -- who needs the US and their tainted money? edit: we need the US and their tainted money -- The unemployment rate rose to its highest in over a year in June as employers shed full-time workers, confirming a long-awaited slowdown in the labor market as the economy slows. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 11, 2008 8:13:00 GMT -5
At least you dind't say they invaded for oil. Or was that an oversight? HA, HA. C'mon. You're an intelligent fellow or you wouldn't get into these philosophical debates. When was the last time a brothel was attacked to steal the magazines in the waiting room? When did you last go to a hospital for the cafeteria food? Iraq has oil and sand. If you were a sand nut, you'd invade the Sahara. These are American businessmen we're talking about...not exactly renowned for altruism. You don't spread a way of life (eg democracy). If it's so wonderful, everyone will eventually join. The Watchtower people, for all their perseverence, only help me keep the recycling people in business. I won't convert, I could never get used to having Saturday as the day of rest....oh whoops, pardon me, wrong religion. In any case, I'm too busy, searching out more brothel magazines. Do you, or anyone else, have anything even remotely resembling proof to support this claim? Or are you just parroting the overused line "Blood for Oil" over and over and over again? Because really - I've asked that question about fifteen times in this thread and no one has had anything even remotely resembling a coherent answer (the best they can come up with is, by the way, the same as you - there's oil in Iraq, so it must be the only reason why they went over there). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 11, 2008 8:44:35 GMT -5
If it looks like a duck, TNG, if it looks like a duck . . .
That, and revenge for Papa.
To "save the free world from Saddam"? The free world wasn't in danger.
To save the Iraqi people from a despotic leader? Then why hasn't there been an invasion of Zimbabwe -- Mugabe's a despot if ever there was one.
A good reason for going into Iraq has not yet been articulated . . . and the poor reasons for going in are tired and have lost credibility.
Why not just do something out of the ordinary and be honest? "We went in because we felt it was in the best interest of the people of the world to depose Saddam. We had hoped that the conflict would be well over by now; unfotunately we were wrong. We sould like to leave* and we will at first opportunity, once the are has some form of stability -- but we will not cut and run like others advocate".
[*boy would they like to leave]
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 11, 2008 9:08:39 GMT -5
Stand up in court proof? Probably not. Circumstantial evidence? A whole lot.
* Alan Greenspan, arguably the most powerful man in the US at the time, tells the Bush Administration that the removal of Saddam Hussein is essential to secure world oil supplies.
* The Polish Foreign Minister openly admits that the only reason Poland joined the attack on Iraq was to gain access to Iraqi oil fields. "That is our ultimate objective." he said.
* The Wolfowitz Doctrine, drawn up long before the invasion by most of the Bush Administration's key thinkers states "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
* The PNAC doctrine, also written by members of Bush's inner circle, states that "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
* In 2001, before the invasion, the "Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" Report, ordered drawn up by Dick Cheney, states that "Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the U.S. should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.” This report is written by Luis Giusti, a Shell Corp. non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum; and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Strangely enough, these three companies now stand to earn billions of dollars in Iraqi oil contracts that were just awarded to them, in a no-bid process.
The list goes on and on. Is any of it the "magic bullet?" Nope. There is no concrete evidence, and there will never be any concrete evidence, that oil was the primary reason for the war. But while we may never find the bullet, there sure is a lot of smoke coming from that gun...
Do I believe that oil was the only reason for the war? No. I do not think there is ever one sole, or even primary reason for any war. But it sure was convienient to have it there, was it not? I think that the Bush/Wolfowitz plan was to topple Saddam Hussein, and like the domino theory pushed during the Cold War, watch the waves of democracy flow over an oil-rich region that would then be so grateful for their American-inspired freedom, that they would become staunch and loyal Western allies. Nice in theory, but of course the domino theory failed miserably during the Cold War, and those who don't know their history...
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2008 10:10:53 GMT -5
HA, HA. C'mon. You're an intelligent fellow or you wouldn't get into these philosophical debates. When was the last time a brothel was attacked to steal the magazines in the waiting room? When did you last go to a hospital for the cafeteria food? Iraq has oil and sand. If you were a sand nut, you'd invade the Sahara. These are American businessmen we're talking about...not exactly renowned for altruism. You don't spread a way of life (eg democracy). If it's so wonderful, everyone will eventually join. The Watchtower people, for all their perseverence, only help me keep the recycling people in business. I won't convert, I could never get used to having Saturday as the day of rest....oh whoops, pardon me, wrong religion. In any case, I'm too busy, searching out more brothel magazines. Do you, or anyone else, have anything even remotely resembling proof to support this claim? Or are you just parroting the overused line "Blood for Oil" over and over and over again? Because really - I've asked that question about fifteen times in this thread and no one has had anything even remotely resembling a coherent answer (the best they can come up with is, by the way, the same as you - there's oil in Iraq, so it must be the only reason why they went over there). I've always respected your opinions and view, TNG. As I was saying earlier in the thread, I was one of those who initially supported military action against Iraq. HA and I were pretty much at the top of that support heap, wishing the Americans well. However, I don't know how he feels now, but I feel I was duped into those beliefs. While it took him a while, I'm really glad BC entered into the thread. He never believed the initial reasons the Bush Administration gave for going into Iraq. I believed the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction but when they didn't find them I was let down. Furthermore, I can't begin to tell you how I felt when it was made public that the Yanks and Brits had either ignored or fabricated 'certain' intelligence, so as to justify their actions. Why the heck would they do this? They also cited that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. He was a brutal dictator whose removal would benefit the Iraqi people and bring stability to the region. What a crock! Yes, he was brutal, but if that was the criteria for "smoking him out of his hole" (a favourite phrase used by Bush) then a precedent had been established. In other words, why stop with Iraq when there are equally oppressive regimes all across the world? And, of course, the invasion failed to bring stability to the region. Why? I think it was because they didn't think this out very well at all. Bringing democracy to a centuries-old autocratic society just doesn't happen overnight. The same can be said of Iran as well. Bush has already tagged Iran in his "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. Why stop there: * when Syria has been known to harbour just about every terrorist group known to the Middle East? or, * when China leads the world in human rights abuses? * Saudi Arabia ... well never mind ... Have to run TNG. Lunch at the mess today. But I'd like to discuss this a tad more later on mate. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 11, 2008 10:15:00 GMT -5
If it looks like a duck, TNG, if it looks like a duck . . . What's that other colloquialism? Something about judging books by their covers? That, and revenge for Papa. To "save the free world from Saddam"? The free world wasn't in danger. To save the Iraqi people from a despotic leader? Then why hasn't there been an invasion of Zimbabwe -- Mugabe's a despot if ever there was one. A good reason for going into Iraq has not yet been articulated . . . and the poor reasons for going in are tired and have lost credibility. Why not just do something out of the ordinary and be honest? "We went in because we felt it was in the best interest of the people of the world to depose Saddam. We had hoped that the conflict would be well over by now; unfotunately we were wrong. We sould like to leave * and we will at first opportunity, once the are has some form of stability -- but we will not cut and run like others advocate". [ *boy would they like to leave] You obviously haven't read my other opuses (what's the plural of opus anyways? Opuses? Opusi?) on the matter, so I will sum them up for you very briefly. It is far to simple to say that the U.S. went into Iraq for any one reason. In anything but a very small dictatorship, things happen for many reasons. Is oil a factor? I'm certain it was. The presence of oil in Iraq makes it a far more important region then say, as you mentioned, the Sahara (at least until they discover how to make my car run on sand). Was it the only motivation? Not a chance. Was it the primary motivation? I strongly doubt it. Here's how I think things went down in the War Room (you can't fight in the War Room). Saddam has been a thorn in the side of American Interests since the end of the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980's. The U.S.A. sided with Iraq (probably as revenge for Iran's revolution in the late 1970's and the damage done to American interests at that time, although I'm sure the fact that they wanted to keep Iraq's oil fields out of the hands of a hostile government didn't hurt) but later came to regret it because it turned out Saddam - well, he was none too stable a leader. Colloquialism time. Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. And Saddam had nigh on absolute power. He turned on his own people and began to savage enemies he found within Iraq. He also turned on his (much smaller) neighbour Kuwait, and even threatened the Saudi's. So the U.S. stepped in, liberated Kuwait, dismantled the Iraqi army and went home. Problem was, Saddam didn't exactly give up. He constantly threatened his neighbours. He rattled sabers. He was coy about the status of his WMD plans (by coy I mean he was "of course I don't have a nuclear weapon's facility, but you're not allowed to look into any of my nuclear plants or weapons facilities to confirm it"). He killed, maimed and tortured his own people. In short he became a menace to everyone. Worse that that, he was in the Middle East. Think about poking a very large grizzly with a stick. Then imagine you're standing between a very hungry grizzly and his food and poking him with a stick. Yes, the oil matters. It makes a difference. It's why no one has gone in to get Mugabe. In humanitarian terms it would be a great victory (although no greater than deposing Saddam, IMHO). However, he's not really hurting anyone on a global scale in Zimbabwe. Is it a humanitarian nightmare? Sure. Does it have the potential to become a global - or even a regional - humanitarian nightmare? Does he threaten the world's largest supply of oil. Not really. On top of that, the U.S. is already pretty tied up in the wars that it's started, and probably can't consider sustaining another massive operation. In truth, many good reasons have been articulated. Including some aspects of what the 'Blood for Oil' crowd are saying. Yes, oil does matter. Big oil is making a massive profit off this. But that's just a happy coincidence. The real reasons had more to do with stabilizing a strategically vital area. But no one reason is ever going to be enough to justify a war. Never. The American Revolution was about more than just taxes and freedom, the French Revolution was about more than killing a king, the American Civil War was about more than just ending slavery, the first world war was about more than some unpopular Archduke being shot in the Balkans and the second world war was about more than just stopping Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 11, 2008 10:50:54 GMT -5
You obviously haven't read my other opuses (what's the plural of opus anyways? Opuses? Opusi?)
The most common plural of opus in English is opuses. Some people use the Latin plural, opera. Opi is fairly common in the field of classical music, though mostly in informal contexts. The use of any of these three pluralizations may result in the speaker being corrected, though opi above all should be avoided in formal contexts.
Eh, wuddyouknow?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 11, 2008 11:07:11 GMT -5
It seems, TNG, that we are in agreement and saying the same thing in differnt words.
Oil played a part in it. Anti-Saddam played a part in it. Heck, "we've got no one as weak to attack" may have played a part in it.
and now . . . they're stuck with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 11, 2008 11:53:54 GMT -5
From Day 1 of this "conflict" the questions "why there, why now?" would ring loudly in my mind.
What a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 11, 2008 14:03:14 GMT -5
I've always respected your opinions and view, TNG. As I was saying earlier in the thread, I was one of those who initially supported military action against Iraq. HA and I were pretty much at the top of that support heap, wishing the Americans well. However, I don't know how he feels now, but I feel I was duped into those beliefs. At the time I towed the official line of "Saddam=Bad therefore Removing Saddam=Good" (I think). But I was younger then, and more idealistic. I like to believe I've gained something approaching wisdom since leaving school, getting married and generally being forced to do (some) growing up, though it's probably more like wishful thinking. I will freely admit that the party line was, in the past, just that. A line. A line used to convince idealists (like myself) to support a war that is far, far more complex than can be explained in a 30 second clip on CNN. In our day and age it would be impossible to sit down and discuss the true reasons behind the war in any form of media. Most people would tune out, and instead listen to the anti-war protesters, who are shouting slogans (and damn good ones) from the rooftops. Do I like being mislead? No. But IMHO it's not a matter of one side being honest and the other dishonest. It's both sides are spinning the situation to further there own agenda. I don't like that, but it seems I have to live with it. So while I'm living with it I'll listen to all the half-truths I can find and try and put something together from that. And my opinion, thus formed is that the Iraq war is, at its roots, a just war. The Americans have botched at lot of it, to be sure. I think they under-estimated the tenacity of their enemy. This is the area of the world where different tribes have grudges dating back a thousand years. Waiting out the American Forces will be a cinch for these people. While it took him a while, I'm really glad BC entered into the thread. He never believed the initial reasons the Bush Administration gave for going into Iraq. I believed the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction but when they didn't find them I was let down. Furthermore, I can't begin to tell you how I felt when it was made public that the Yanks and Brits had either ignored or fabricated 'certain' intelligence, so as to justify their actions. Why the heck would they do this? I won't deny this. It was a big mistake for the American spin machine to trot this out for the unwashed masses to consume. But again, I refer back to my previous paragraph. It is more complex than just WMD's. It is more complex than just oil. It is a whole slew of geopolitical nonsense that no one wants to hear. So no one hears it. The fact remains that WMD's, even if they were never found, are still a credible reason. Saddam was never, ever upfront and forthright about his actions regarding WMD's. He was intentionally deceitful and difficult. When the Security Council demanded he turn over very detailed manifests regarding certain chemicals and compounds (which they were well within their rights to do following the first Gulf War) he handed over a giant manifesto containing lists of everything the Security Council wanted and other mundane items, like canisters of green paint. He used this as a veiled threat against his neighbours. "We may have WMD's, we may not." And, given the strategic importance of the area (yes, oil, ladies and gentlemen - not just Iraqi oil, but oil from the entire Middle East) poking around and rattling sabers was not something that would (or should) be tolerated. They also cited that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. He was a brutal dictator whose removal would benefit the Iraqi people and bring stability to the region. What a crock! Yes, he was brutal, but if that was the criteria for "smoking him out of his hole" (a favourite phrase used by Bush) then a precedent had been established. In other words, why stop with Iraq when there are equally oppressive regimes all across the world? The same can be said of Iran as well. Bush has already tagged Iran in his "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. Why stop there: * when Syria has been known to harbour just about every terrorist group known to the Middle East? or, * when China leads the world in human rights abuses? * Saudi Arabia ... well never mind ... That's a poor argument. Essentially you're saying if you can't solve the world's problems, don't solve any of them. Why stop Hitler when Stalin is just as bad? Doing good somewhere - anywhere - is better than doing no good at all. No one nation has the resource to fix everything, and the international community is more or less useless in such things (witness, as you mentioned, the dysfunction of the UN in Rwanda and the Balkans, or our own allies reluctance to pitch in in Afghanistan of late). And, of course, the invasion failed to bring stability to the region. Why? I think it was because they didn't think this out very well at all. Bringing democracy to a centuries-old autocratic society just doesn't happen overnight. As with the absence of WMD's, I've no illusions about how badly the place has fared. Someone (I think it was you even) mentioned that this was more because the US military is not geared for long term occupations. It's geared for a modern war - get in, break the backbone of the enemy, and claim victory. In fact, the US did this surprisingly well. It's just the stuff after it - the restoring peace and order where they have suffered. They've failed for a number of reasons beyond the fact that they are not geared towards it though. The occupation has failed because (a) they are trying to unite ethnic groups (Sunni, Shiites and Kurds) who have for the better part of the last millennium tried to kill each other; (b) they are under immense pressure to appear in a certain way - to balance the needs of the individuals under the authority with the need of the many to live within a functioning government; (c) specters of Somalia (where they appeared to take sides, possibly making an already great tragedy even worse); and (d) lack of quality leadership at the top (yes, I'm being critical of G.W. here - the way he has overseen the prosecution of the war has been far from brilliant, he plays too much attention to the polls and not enough to what needs to be done). Have to run TNG. Lunch at the mess today. But I'd like to discuss this a tad more later on mate. Glad to have your input in the conversation. It's always good to hear from someone who brings an interesting perspective (and thought provoking reasoning) to the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2008 19:45:44 GMT -5
I've always respected your opinions and view, TNG. As I was saying earlier in the thread, I was one of those who initially supported military action against Iraq. HA and I were pretty much at the top of that support heap, wishing the Americans well. However, I don't know how he feels now, but I feel I was duped into those beliefs. At the time I towed the official line of "Saddam=Bad therefore Removing Saddam=Good" (I think). But I was younger then, and more idealistic. I like to believe I've gained something approaching wisdom since leaving school, getting married and generally being forced to do (some) growing up, though it's probably more like wishful thinking. I will freely admit that the party line was, in the past, just that. A line. A line used to convince idealists (like myself) to support a war that is far, far more complex than can be explained in a 30 second clip on CNN. In our day and age it would be impossible to sit down and discuss the true reasons behind the war in any form of media. Right! Because the actual agendas for war are often kept from us. It's unfortunate, but the ones bearing the brunt of this are the troops, who have little to say in such matters. In war the enemy is war itself. However, I believe the real enemy to Middle East peace has continued to rear its head. Iran was behind the Hezbollah action when they went up against Israeli troops not so long ago. Hezbollah, while influential in Lebanon, are nothing more than forward Iranian infantry who take their ideology from the Iranian Islamic Revolution. They, and their leadership, do not want the country of Israel to exist. Here's a quote to what I mean: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that the United States and Israel would soon be "annihilated ..."We can call this simple sabre rattling, but if you're an Israeli citizen it means much, much more. Without getting long-winded (sorry too late) it might mean war. I don't recall Hussein ever saying something like this, but that's not to suggest he didn't. He may have had a brutal regime, but I don't think he was ever the kind of threat to Middle East peace the way the USA made him out to be. In fact, he was probably the stabilizing force if nothing else. I brought Iran into this because back in 2001, George Bush targeted them as a member of his Axis of Evil. Back then he even stated what he could offer the Iranian people ... "freedom" was his offer. IMO, if democracy didn't work in an autocratic society such as Iraq, how the hell will it work in one of the most fundamental Islamic countries like Iran? If there's a threat to Middle East peace then focus on that. But, don't go down that 'deomcratic' path again. The Iraqi people were never the enemy. They are now though. I think they've tried conveying the reasons for the invasion but quotes like: "Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people." It was part of a longer list of recommendations in Bush's State of the Union just prior to the invasion, but many believe it had nothing to do with the financial well-being of the Iraqi people. I remember reports being published that suggested what you're saying, TNG. Iraq not complying to UN mandates. Actually, Patton wanted to keep going right through the Russians. However, like Swartzkoff in '91, he was told to stop. As far as the argument goes, what I was suggesting was, if you're going to be the world's self-appointed police officer in "The New World Order" I feel you've got to have to back it up. And right now, the 'police' aren't getting the job done. I think the UN will have to redefine the way their approach to business if it has any chance of restoring its credibility. The Security Counsel concept simply doesn't work. Moreover, there are too many UN organizations working against each other. HA said that I think ... not sure ... have to go back in the posts. I think the remainder of Arab countries saw how easily the US war machine made this look. One day they invaded and in a very short period of time American armour was racing through the streets of Baghdad. It wasn't so much that things had gone according to plan, as it was necessary to have those tanks in Baghdad as a presence. It told the rest of the Arab League, "... see how easy it was ..." IMO, it really didn't matter how much they planned for an occupation. It would have failed anyway given the circumstances. They're a foreign army on Iraqi soil. What made them think they could do some of the things you cited, is beyond me. Have to run TNG. Lunch at the mess today. But I'd like to discuss this a tad more later on mate. Cheers mate! BTW, I started this reply around 4 PM and I'm only finishing it off now. Life calls you know. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 11, 2008 20:58:16 GMT -5
Actually, Patton wanted to keep going right through the Russians. However, like Swartzkoff in '91, he was told to stop. I don't think Schwarzkopf wanted to keep going. Not if is autobiography can be believed. "From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit -- we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."
-- Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, It Doesn't Take a HeroInteresting that this was published in 1993. Again, those who don't know their history... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2008 22:28:40 GMT -5
Actually, Patton wanted to keep going right through the Russians. However, like Swartzkoff in '91, he was told to stop. I don't think Schwarzkopf wanted to keep going. Not if is autobiography can be believed. "From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit -- we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."
-- Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, It Doesn't Take a HeroInteresting that this was published in 1993. Again, those who don't know their history... Good reference BC. I really should have conveyed the whole story. I remember Swartzkopf saying something like, "... had we wanted to, we could have gotten to Baghdad totally unopposed ..." That might be a paraphrase though. Were Colin Powell actually stopped Swartzkopf was directly after the highway massacre. I don't know if it's mentioned in your book, but after massacring a portion of the Iraqi military on this congested highway, which later became known as, "The Highway of Death," Swartzkopf wasn't the one to hold up his forces. In fact, he wanted to keep going. It was Colin Powell who ordered Swartzkopf to hold up. A good thing too. The massacre was condemned because these Iraqi soldiers were in full retreat, which caused the congestion on the highway. The action was later determined by some as a violation of the Geneva Convention because it was in fact a retreat. I think it was this action that coined the phrase "The 100-Hour War." However, I also remember Powell fielding a question from the media that asked, why they didn't pursue the Iraqi army into Iraq. Powell just reminded the reporter that the objective was the liberation of Kuwait and not the invasion of Iraq. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 0:00:51 GMT -5
At least you dind't say they invaded for oil. Or was that an oversight? HA, HA. C'mon. You're an intelligent fellow or you wouldn't get into these philosophical debates. When was the last time a brothel was attacked to steal the magazines in the waiting room? When did you last go to a hospital for the cafeteria food? Iraq has oil and sand. If you were a sand nut, you'd invade the Sahara. These are American businessmen we're talking about...not exactly renowned for altruism. So what was Somalia? Bosnia? Or are you joining the "American invaded for the oil" camp? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 0:26:17 GMT -5
Do I believe that oil was the only reason for the war? No. I do not think there is ever one sole, or even primary reason for any war. But it sure was convienient to have it there, was it not? I think that the Bush/Wolfowitz plan was to topple Saddam Hussein, and like the domino theory pushed during the Cold War, watch the waves of democracy flow over an oil-rich region that would then be so grateful for their American-inspired freedom, that they would become staunch and loyal Western allies. Nice in theory, but of course the domino theory failed miserably during the Cold War, and those who don't know their history... Bingo. The theory was nice, the execution went perfectly, it's the damn peace that was and is the problem. I was waiting for you to come into the conversation and I was saving my Kurd "counter punch". Mehh, your reasonableness just deflated it. Anywho...imagine what kind of conversation we would be having if the Sunni's and the Shia's went the Kurd direction. Right now, the American's would be sitting pretty and Wolfowitz would be on TV every two minutes. On the other hand, what kind of horrors would be awaiting the Middle East if all of a sudden all of the region got the democratic virus....and voted fundamentalist regimes. Imagine if half of them had a variation of the Hamas party running Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. One of the biggest concerns about the war was my fear that the Americans could be opening a Pandora's box of tribalism and fundamentalism. My thinking was....maybe the Iraqi's could of done it right because they had a history of secularism. Sadly, precious few masses in the Middle East don't get "direction" from a Mosque. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 0:45:26 GMT -5
HA and I were pretty much at the top of that support heap, wishing the Americans well. However, I don't know how he feels now, but I feel I was duped into those beliefs. Well, to me it was a good idea, great execution and lousy peace. See my above response to BC. The wild card was and is Iran which has done it's utmost to fuel as much chaos as possible. I think Iran's contribution to Iraq's instability was not given enough consideration by the Bush administration. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 1:02:59 GMT -5
JUST FOR THE RECORD....for those who don't know. This is ONE reason the Americans invaded....yellowcake. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A chain reaction that put Iraq's nuclear hoard in Canada's hands
550 tonnes of fuel en route to Ontario
ANDY HOFFMAN
July 8, 2008
MINING REPORTER -- It was not your typical business meeting.
Last February, a group of Cameco Corp. executives jetted to Paris for a secret rendezvous with officials from the government of Iraq.
The topic of discussion was the Saskatoon company's interest in 550 tonnes of uranium, also known as yellowcake.
The radioactive material represented the last vestiges of a nuclear program initiated by Iraq's former leader, Saddam Hussein. Iraq was looking for the right buyer for the yellowcake and with guidance from the U.S. State Department, Cameco had made the short list.
The clandestine gathering at an undisclosed location in the French capital eventually led to a deal for the world's largest uranium-producing company. On Saturday, about 1.2 million pounds of uranium arrived in Montreal by ship. Cameco will transport it to processing facilities in Port Hope and Blind River, Ont., where it will be readied to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Yellowcake was at the heart of the U.S. government's justification for invading Iraq in 2003. At the time, the government claimed that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase more uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. When former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of the attempted purchase, his wife Valerie Plame's job as a CIA officer was leaked to U.S. journalists by government officials.
Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was convicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice as part of the Plame affair.
Cameco won't say how much it paid for the yellowcake, only that the transaction and its terms, which were finalized in April, will make money for the company. The price tag is understood to be in the tens of millions of dollars. At current spot market prices, the material would be worth more than $72-million (U.S.).
"Not only is it profitable, it also moves uranium to a more stable part of the world and provides revenue to the Iraqis as well. It really is a positive deal for all the parties involved," Mr. Krahn said.
The Canadian uranium company's long-standing relationship with the State Department helped pave the way for the transaction. Cameco already purchases uranium removed from decommissioned Russian nuclear warheads in a program that involves the U.S. government.
Once the deal between Iraq and Cameco was done, it was up to the U.S. military to get the yellowcake out of Iraq and deliver it to Montreal. A State Department spokesman said there were concerns that the material - which was originally obtained by Iraq before 1991, and was being stored in aging containers - would draw enemy interest.
Although the powdered yellowcake is a relatively safe material that would have to be enriched if it were to be used in a so-called dirty nuclear bomb, the U.S. government was still anxious for it to be removed from the war-ravaged country.
"Our security concerns were that terrorists or insurgents might target the facility where it was being stored to make it a high-profile target. There was a great deal of operational security in place during the time when the material was being prepared for shipment in order to safeguard the operation and the lives of American soldiers," the spokesman said.
Cameco was originally contacted by the State Department in January to see whether it was interested in pursuing a potential deal for the Iraq uranium.
Its offer beat out bids from several other private companies, including at least one U.S. firm that also met with the Iraqi government officials, the State Department official said.
Cameco bought the yellowcake sight unseen. It had been evaluated by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who had weighed and sampled the material in 2000. U.S. military officials had also tested the material. "Nobody [from Cameco] actually went to Iraq," Mr. Krahn said.
The uranium sold to Cameco represents the only yellowcake that was left in Iraq. "This takes care of all of it," the State Department spokesman said.~~~~~~~~~~ www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080708.YELLOWCAKE08/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/~~~~~~~~~~~ Saddam may not of had a working nuclear device, but it's not because he had no intention of making one. After all, it's not like one acquires yellowcake.....to bake a cake. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 12, 2008 2:16:42 GMT -5
Why do we feel compelled to support failures and punish success?
Oil companies have been successful in Canada. Automobile manufacturing has been a failure. Wrong products, wrong design, high costs.
The Blackberry is a success. Nortel and Corel have been failing.
Molson's, (gulp) is now succeeding.
There is nothing wrong with doing a job well and making a profit. Jealousy is for lazy failures.
International business is corrupt. OPEC is corrupt. Nationalized oil companies outside the US are largely corrupt, yet oil companies have prospered in a challenging environment.
There is a lot of risk and science that goes into successful petroleum related corporations. They deserve their rewards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -5
To save the Iraqi people from a despotic leader? Then why hasn't there been an invasion of Zimbabwe -- Mugabe's a despot if ever there was one. Sure, as soon as Canada takes a leading role. Are you holding your breadth? But hey, as Canadians, we have a damn right to expect OTHERS to do the right thing and God forbid is THEY don't do it the way our pretty little imagination demands. We're special that way. Why not just do something out of the ordinary and be honest? "We went in because we felt it was in the best interest of the people of the world to depose Saddam. We had hoped that the conflict would be well over by now; unfotunately we were wrong. We sould like to leave * and we will at first opportunity, once the are has some form of stability -- but we will not cut and run like others advocate". [ *boy would they like to leave] First off, that explanation just doesn't sit well with most of the left and the Anti-American spitters because there isn't guilt and hate attached to it. To them, the ONLY "honesty" is for Bush to say "we slaughtered and murdered to steal oil". The rant is so simple...and self defining. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 12, 2008 12:56:41 GMT -5
To save the Iraqi people from a despotic leader? Then why hasn't there been an invasion of Zimbabwe -- Mugabe's a despot if ever there was one. Sure, as soon as Canada takes a leading role. Are you holding your breadth? But hey, as Canadians, we have a damn right to expect OTHERS to do the right thing and God forbid is THEY don't do it the way our pretty little imagination demands. We're special that way. HA, where are we going to get the troops from? I'm reading a lot of "Canada-should-be-doing-more" but, forgive me mate, I'm not hearing any solutions. Right now all, and I say again, ALL of our armed forces are tied up in Afghanistan. In fact, we have an extremely high attrition rate because we have to rely on our current troops to do multiple tours of duty. When you consider each tour can be nine months long, it puts a strain on the personal life, which explains why we have problems hanging onto a lot of our combat troops. Actually, I think the same argument can be used in reverse buds. While you denounce left-wingers for focusing on 'America-for-oil' you seem to be of the opinion that oil isn't the issue, when in reality, it's one of the major issues. For instance, the original American oil companies who were expelled from Iraq, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP, are now poised to move back in. BC also used a link several times that showed why Poland was in Iraq; it was to secure their future oil interests. This can't be ignored. It's good that the US found 'yellow cake' uranium because it proves that there was a program in place whether it was to produce dirty nuke bombs or local nuclear weapons. What I'm asking now is, it is this a legitimate find? If everything was so black and white, then why was there the need to produce fraudulent intelligence? This, too, can't be ignored. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 12, 2008 12:58:05 GMT -5
First off, that explanation just doesn't sit well with most of the left and the Anti-American spitters because there isn't guilt and hate attached to it. To them, the ONLY "honesty" is for Bush to say "we slaughtered and murdered to steal oil". The rant is so simple...and self defining. Not sure where you're going with that statement, HA. Are you saying a one-time statement totally defines someone? I would say yes, if that person continues on and refuses to consider other opinions. I used those terms in my earlier posts on this topic. Don't we all shoot from the lip at times? Since then, I've read other people's posts, and come to the thinking that we'll never know the entire truth. There's spin galore on all sides....evidence, lies, truths, half-truths, manipulation, etc. And until we know the complete truth, all we have is our opinions, tempered by which experts, sources, etc. we are inclined to believe. In hockey terms, we are much more likely to agree with a positive spin on the Habs, while slamming a positive spin on the Leafs. My thoughts now are, if there is wrong all around, I believe we are less wrong. I agree...the left goes too far in pacifism and points all ten fingers at the evil of military-industrial complexes. The trouble with that slant is that there is no solution in pacifism, at least in realistic terms....you'll get run over. The world has never been perfect....it's necessary to prepare to be, and get, messy. |
|
