|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Very well done piece from Canada, covers a lot of ground and quotes actual sources that people have heard of before. Well worth the read.
The Toronto Star March 9, 2003 Oil war: 23 years in the making Analysts see attack this week or next 'We're just waiting on the president' By Linda Diebel WASHINGTON—Any day now, there will be bombs falling on Baghdad. Conventional bombs like nothing the world has ever seen. "The bombs will still be ringing in their ears when the 'Third Mech' shows up,'' says U.S. military analyst John Pike, of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and whatever's left of his so-called elite Republican Guard after the first days of aerial pulverization. "The Third Mech will be driving down the main drag in Baghdad.'' Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, describes an assault on Saddam's regime that begins with "shock-and-awe'' aerial bombardment, and quickly moves into crush mode with the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) rolling up from the Kuwaiti desert and U.S. Marines storming the port city of Basra. "Chances are 90 per cent it will go pretty quickly, and 10 per cent it will turn into one big holy mess,'' predicts Pike. But, before turning to the combat debut of bombs that weigh about 9,000 kilos and can take out an entire battalion, consider why the United States is going to war. Consider who drew up U.S. goals and objectives in the Persian Gulf, when, and why. Consider oil. This particular operation — Pentagon working title: "OpPlan 10-03-Victor" — has been on the drawing board for a year, according to defence officials. The immediate goal is disarming Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. It's expected to begin soon, this week or next. Hard to hold back more than 300,000 U.S. and British troops, in place and pumped to go. But the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security — "the vital interests of the United States'' — to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention. This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot. This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, "when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.'' The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves. "The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today. "If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare. Washington is betting, Klare believes, that "controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.'' These ideas aren't new. For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House. "You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,'' says George Friedman, chair of the intelligence organization, Stratfor. Originally, this was the "Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. "I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,'' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness. "I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,'' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. "They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis.'' Akins adds: "These people with their imperial ideas see themselves as part of the Great American Empire." The players have moved steadily through the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush and Bush himself. They include: Vice-president Richard Cheney, a former oilman, like Bush, and defence secretary during his father's Persian Gulf War in 1991; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, once Reagan's personal emissary to the Middle East when Saddam was a U.S. friend and staunch ally; Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who began publicly calling for war against Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks; and Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness'' for his political stick-handling. They are joined by think-tankers, from fellows at the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Bush recently chose a CSIS forum, rather than the White House, to deliver a major prime-time speech to the American people to make the case for war. The CSIS board includes, among other heavy-hitters, Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger. Bush often mentions Iraqi oil, a jarring focus for a president on the brink of war. "We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage from a dying regime and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people,'' he said in Last week's radio address. Colin Robinson, an analyst with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, says: "The United States can stand well-accused of trying to dominate the whole region for its oil. But conspiracy theories are usually too complicated for everybody to carry them off." Friedman says the 1991 war left unfinished business, the "status quo'' of Saddam in power. Not so this time, he says, in a war which, as U.N. diplomats dither, has already begun. In recent weeks, British and U.S. warplanes strayed outside "no-fly'' zones to bomb Iraqi surface-to-air missiles. Robinson describes these zones, set up by the U.S. and Britain after Desert Storm as "barely legal'' in terms of international law. As well, U.N. officials report violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. soldiers. But the real devastation should begin within days. "We've got everything we need. We're just waiting on the word, the decision from the president," Maj.-Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told the Washington Post Last week from Kuwait. First comes aerial bombardment, an extraordinary 1,500 bombs every 24 hours during the time it takes heavy mechanized divisions to move up from Kuwait to Baghdad. Big heavy bombers, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, buttressed by screaming navy and air force jets will pound Iraqi sites, picked by aerial drones and U.S. and British Special Forces already in Iraq. Defence contractors are eager to test out new gadgetry. One new bomb is the 9,000-kilo MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst). "Well, it's very efficient,'' says Friedman. "Let's say you've got a large concentration of Republican Guard units, instead of having to do repeated bombing sorties, you can take out a battalion (500 to 600 troops) with one bomb.'' Friedman's sources in theatre tell him there are "terrific fights between defence department officials and field commanders who are raring to go now.'' He says time is the enemy of troops in the field. Sandstorms at the end of March, for example, could play havoc with laser targeting systems. Without the anticipated "northern front'' through Turkey, there are plans for C-130s to ferry troops to northern Iraq, as well as missions for U.S. Marines and Special Forces to secure oil sites throughout Iraq. "The U.S. military cannot be defeated on the conventional battlefield,'' says military analyst Pike. But what about the variables? How much of a threat is Saddam? What about chemical and biological weapons? "We gonna find out,'' says Pike. Meanwhile, Iraqi exiles, opposed to Saddam, have been meeting with U.S. and British oil executives, promising access and leases in return for political power. And, the U.S., as Friedman points out, on the brink of world hegemony, is going to find out who its friends are. "I do so enjoy Canadians (against the war) getting so obsessed with human rights, and then pay no attention to places like Venezuela,'' says Friedman, who thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is next on Bush's military agenda. "I read the Canadian press and I wonder what planet your country is on. "We have allies, and we are going to see who they are,'' he concludes. "If France, if Canada, can't support us in opposition to Saddam Hussein, you can't say you are our allies. Canada consistently says it's an ally of the United States of America ... we'll see, won't we?'' Copyright © 2003, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Seven years or so ago, there was a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.
Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. It's obviously all about the oil. Also those of you who say that the war just causes oil prices to go up seem to forget that Texas is a major oil producer and when oil prices went down is was really bad for the oil producing states. [ March 14, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Everyone knows that the real reason for the Iraq war is so that the US can claim Iraq as a colony. This will allow the United States to fulfill its lifelong ambition of becoming a member of OPEC.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Thermodyne
- Do you actually think that it is your "niceness" and "weakness" thats makes you a target for terrorism ? - Do you seriously belive bombing Bagdad will make fewer terrorist ? - Do you think less funding for terrorists would be available ? - Do you belive there is no other places available for training terrorists ? Going to war may restore some American pride, but it wont stop terrorism. The only solution to terrorism is to start respecting (other) people, and find a solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem other than genocide. Primitive: "Peace nick" and proud. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted? Edit And I assume by your first quesion that you meant an invasion of Iraq not just lobbing a few bombs at Bagdad. [ March 15, 2003, 13:42: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
“Do you actually think that it is your "niceness" and "weakness" thats makes you a target for terrorism ?”
Who said anything about niceness and weakness? We are talking about changing the policies of the regions governments. ”Do you seriously belive bombing Bagdad will make fewer terrorist ?” Get your head out of the sand, this is not Humanities 101. We are not just going to bomb Baghdad. ” Do you think less funding for terrorists would be available ?” We have already made progress on that front. And we continue to restrict the access to cash every day. ” Do you believe there is no other places available for training terrorists?” The risks involved with providing hospitality to terrorists will soon become almost intolerable. So yes, there are other places, but Club Arabia is loosing many of its safe houses. “ Primitive: "Peace nick" and proud.” Agree 100%. Typical peacenik speak. Lots of word and no solutions. Slogans instead of actions. Perhaps you guys need to go to Iraq and have a march, right in front of the Palace. Whoops, guess that won’t work, only the Bath party can march there. Given the freedom to do so, I wonder how many Iraqis would be marching against Saddam. [ March 15, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ok, this what I'm, about to state has no bearing as to if there should be an attack on Iraq or not. For my view on that look down a couple of Posts.
The only way to completely eredicate terrorism is to remove its' growing ground. The foundation of terrorism is unequality and unjustness. Real or perceived. Take as an example, the Israel - Palestina conflict. If the palestinians where able to leave the refugees camps and have a good life with freedom of education and good chances of getting decent jobs, alot of the terrorism there would disappear. This is not an extreme point of view, it's a point of view that is shared by many high ranking Israeli officers. http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/11/19/mitzna011119 People tend to turn to terrorism when they are desperate or when they have a psychic disorder making them incapable of empathy. So to eradicate terrorism we need to eradicate poverty. It's a grand goal but not impossible. I don't say that I have the solution to all problems but I belive that this is the path we must start to thread if we do want a future in peace, where peple don't get desperate enough to strap explosives on themself and go out and blow people up. Israel-palestina had a period of peace when things where going in the right direction, unfortunatly that has stopped with the assasination of Rabin. As to the Iraqi conflict things aren't black and white but rather shades of grey. I do belive that we might be forced to use military power there but there is no rush. Let the UN decide. The Iraqi doesn't have nuclears. They have biologic and chemical weapons but their delivery systems are inadequate. Their current weapons aren't more effective than explosives in killing civilians and against a well equipped military they are almost useless. If the inspections are allowed to continue we MIGHT avoid war. The springing point is to allow the UN to continue their inspections and discussion. Then we can decide this together. The situation in Iraq is as in many countries in the world bad for many of the inhabitants. That is no reason to rush into things. Things are bad in Iran, Tibet and some other places as well, eventually we might have to use the armed forces to fix things. The current situation is difficult as the US can't afford to keep their forces idle their for much longer and Bush has the election next year to consider. A war might be the best thing, I don't know, I can't be certain of that before it has actually happened, no one can. (: How to abolish poverty and unjustice in the arab world where a few people are extremely rich and some have almost nothing? I'm not sure, but a war against Iraq might be the way to go, if it is possible to make a democracy there afterwards a lot might be won. [ March 15, 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
DavidG:
Then we have different opinions. I have no problems with that. Just to make it clear: I have no love for Saddam. The world would be a much better place without him. My problem is with the coupling of terrorism exclusively to Saddam/Iraq. Only a fraction of the terrorists, the funding and training facillities stems from Iraq. Both a full invasion and just lobbing bombs over Bagdad will be used by muslim fundamentalists from all over the world as an excuse to launch new attacks agains the US. Any solution to terrorism, warlike or peacefull, will have to be focused over a much larger area than just Iraq. Termodyne: I am speechless. Geo: I did not intend for that response. Of course there is no justifiable reason for terrorism. Ruatha Good post |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ruatha, your arguments are sound, but the scope is far too limited. The problems in Israel are far more complex. Every time the diplomats are beginning to make headway, it is derailed by the religious factions that hold much of the power base there. Without separation of church and state, there will be no peace in the region.
As to the poverty aspect, you need to study the culture. Kingdoms and such are not for the benefit of all of the people. Even in Iraq, which is not a monarchy, some are intended to be above others. The tribal structures of the region need to be put out the door with Last month’s garbage, they both stink. I think a good dose of universal civil rights would cure a lot of what is wrong in the region. As to the timing of the war, well let’s just say that tactical considerations are coming into play now. Every day we wait, more Americans will die. What is occurring at the UN has nothing to do with war and the future of Saddam. It is economics pure and simple. When the government of Iraq changes, they will probably stop paying market +% for French goods, they will also probably want to restructure their debt with Moscow. It looks good when the world argues about halting the New American domination of the world, but it is just talk. When the coup took place in Moscow, the world became a Pax Americana. We are at least a decade ahead of every military force in the world, and still maintain a blue water navy to project our influence with. I doubt that any country in the world is willing to spend the trillions that it would take to catch up. Everyone should consider what the situation would be today if the other side had won the cold war. Then they should study history for a few years and see where appeasement and delay have taken the world in the past. Also they should study the French involvement in the region. Remember, it was France who could have prevented Khomeini from ever taking power in Iran. How many millions would that have spared? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Primitive, I don't think any reasonable person is saying that Sadaam is the only person fronting terrorism. But a jounrey of a thousand miles starts with one step. We dealt with the Taliban, no we are dealing with Sadaam.
9/11 taught the US one thing mainly. The rules have changed. Now the US is demonstrating to those that participate in and support terrorism that changing the rules applies to them as well. Hopefully any that remain will see what has happend in Afganistan and is going to happen in Iraq and realize that the days of getting what you want by these means are over. Just as the advent of nuclear weapons has made the thought of global war between nation states unthinkable, the proliferation of these weapons and the invention and proliferation of other types of WMD such as chemical, and bioligical has made acts of terrorism to costly to contemplate or tolerate. We can't simply click our teeth at the problem any longer. But the US can't simply go about blugeoning terrorist Groups till the end of time either. Along with eliminating the threats to our security, we must find a way to help others resolve their disputes without resorting to blowing up office buildings and buses to get our attention. This means we have to put Isreals feet to the fire as well. They have to some up with a long term solution to the issues causing so many people pain. On that were can agree 100% Primitive. Bush and Blair have taken some constructive steps towards that goal as well. Few people notice or give them credit for it. But that jounrney will take time as well. This problem wasn't made overnight, it won't be fixed overnight either. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Primitive, don’t be speechless. This is a debate, nothing else. I am an aggressive debater and tend to use documentation as a weapon. It is not that I don’t respect your views; it is a case of finding weakness with your presentation of them. Debate is an excellent way to examine the workings of the world, but it must not be confused with other less polite forms of discussion. I have had heated debates with several of the people here, but I still consider them my friends, and think that they still respect me.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Thermodyne:
I belive you are making it to easy on yourself if you belive that France and Russia opposes the war purely out of economical reasons. That is just as bad as beliving that the US want's to invade purely by economic reasons as some seems to think. I think that Blairs speech when he stated that he couldn't with good consciense do nothing about the situation was a good speech. But I do firmly belive that both France, Russia and the other nations who opposes the war do so in the belief that it is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. And I do belive that the US, UK and Spain promotes their cause for the same reasons. Who are right? As stated I don't know but I belive that only a war may prove who was right or wrong. A bad solution at best but perhaps the only one, so there is no need to rush into it. (Edit added:) (Quote:Every day we wait more Americans die) How? Every day more of the Iraqi weapons are destroyed, making an eventual war easier on the attackers. I don't see americans dying every day by Iraqi attacks. I've not seen any evidance that Saddam has connections to terrorists, sure he appluads every terrorist action against the US and propably has connections to terrorists, but that doesn't say tha the Iraquis themself are plotting terrorist attacks. They are propably helping in funding and equipping terrorists, but if the war starts tomorrow or in 6 months it will propably not make any significant difference in stopping many terrorist attacks. It's not the Iraqui republican guards that are blowing up planes, it's civilians that are mostly unknown until they've perpetrated their act. The situation in Iraq has been the same for many years, a few months more will propably not make much difference. [ March 15, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geo:
It seems like we don't dissagre in the goal, just the means to get there. You make good points there for your views. However, not good enough to change my mind regarding going to war on Iraq right now. But I have not ruled out that there might be a time in the (near) future when war would be necessary. Thermodyne It might be some wisdom in your wievs, but the obnoxious way you present them makes it impossible for me to find any. I can have a debate anytime with anyone willing to follow some simple rules of conduct. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Thermo... you hit the nail with a hammer there. Very good point.
No one is going to fight USA in the conventional way. Perhaps a united Europe with a good 50 years of infrastructure growth. War is evolving again. New Doctrines are being written. And a new type of fighting is starting to take place. It will be interesting to see how the Conventional forces adapt to it. One must think that history will repeat when it comes to the evolution of the battlefield. On another topic. I believe in the long term goal of bringing stability to the region of the middle east. But the USA government has a history of doing the mopping up and humanitarian side 'half assed' or ignoring it all together. This issue has been a thorn and an issue raised by many respected veterns of the US Armed forces. ( And i do not mean any disrepect to veterns, nor current active members of the armed forces ) Born in Northern Ireland and raised in Canada I think I have a unique persective on Terrorism/Freedom Fighter , I see alot of similarites between USA today and England 100 years ago. I do not want to see Canada get tied down to another empire, where when one is at war we are at war. But these issues are being debated here. You could take a newspaper from 100 years ago and read the editorals and you would be shocked at how similar they are to todays editorals. I am shocked at how the american media and gov't has treated their long standing allied country the French. This will take decades to fix. Which is too bad as relationships between nations at that level should not be tossed away so quickly. Makes you shake your head. Well this ramble has to end as I do not think i made a single point or added to the debate..... just felt like typing i guess. Good day to everyone. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Of course it is not for purely economic reasons. Well in Russia it might be, they are in a very bad way there. I can only hope that the world continues to finance their transition. But France also has concerns about influence. And a Colonial Empire with ambitions along those lines is always a difficult think to accept. As I have already posted, many people see an American victory in the gulf as a keystone event that will direct the course of world policy for decades to come. I think the writer suggested that it would be for the next century. I think that this is a stretch, very little survives that long. But as an American, I do think that the time has come to act. Oil has been used as a weapon against us repeatedly for most of my adult life. If we have the ability to bring an end to this leverage, then so be it.
As a side note, the region likes to speak of the outlaw nation of Israel. If Israel has no standing as a nation state, should we give the area back to the original owners? The Last government with legal title to the land? Well folks, that would totally screw the Palestinians, they have never had anything more than a mandate from the British Empire. The Last rulers were the Ottomans, the area was taken from them after the first experiment the Europeans had with modern warfare. I for one have no particular love for Israel, but in a region of despotism and untruth, they are a beacon of light. They have withstood everything the Islamic world has thrown at them and punished the Arabs in the process. I do respect Israel for being able to preserver under imposable odds. I respect them for being a damn spunky little country. Where would appeasement and delay have gotten them in the past? Personally I see no solution for the Jews. One side or the other is going to have to make war so terrible that even the Islamic terror Groups will sue for peace. Only then will both sides be willing to make the needed compromises. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge. The way is to stop it and back off. I do respect Israel for what they have accomplished and in some parts I understand what they are doing to the Palestinians but in some parts it is incomprehensible. If you look on their history in WW2 I can understand that they think, never again, but they sould also remember how it was to be on the receiving end. (The palestinians are no saints either, they are fighting an assymetric war, not apologized but understandable.) As to Pax Americana, just becourse you are the strongest kid on the schoolyard it does not give you the right to be a bully. To quote the respected autority , the movie spiderman : "With great powers come great responsiblity" (I think it was something like that) Currently the US are ruining alot of their credibilty abroad, threatening Turkey, France, Germany, Russia and others if they won't agree with the US point of view. Yes, I wopuldn't have liked to see the former east block winning the cold war, but to replace the cold war with bloody war is no success. Now we have a chance of moulding the world we would like for the future, currently the US are mangling their opinions over everyone that opposes their views, it will take along time reparing. And the bad relationships will effect the US, the US is not an isolated isle, it is dependant upon the rest of the world wether they like it or not. I belive that many in the US are suspicious of the UN, as they can't controll it. That part of the UN is the good part. The UN will always have a credibilty tha the US can't get. Just becourse on nation can't control it. Therefore I belive we must work together in the UN. It's a slow process but so are all democratic processes, that doesn't mean it's a bad way, it gives you time to reflect upon what you are about to embark upon. (Edit: On another issue; Thermodyne; Check your e-mail) [ March 15, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco, I would have to say that the relationship with France has never been all that good. Sure we presented a united front to the Soviets, but the French were not full participants in NATO. At the end of the Second European experiment with modern warfare, France was handed back to the French and they went about trying to reacquire their colonial holdings. This put them at odds with America. And relations have been cool at best since then. While we were Allies, France has often opposed American activities that were not to France’s direct benefit. I have no problem with this; they are a self governing nation. But a look at their history will show that more than a few of the world’s problems since 1945 involved French diplomatic policy. Very few were solved by French intervention. They have not demonstrated the needed resolve in many years. They did not have the resolve to fight a tactical withdrawal against the Germans; instead they left several hundred thousand British troops holding the bag. Then they did not have the resolve to take their fleet to sea and scuttle it. Preferring to believe that they would be able to prevent the Germans from commandeering it. What would they do, just tell Hitler that he could not have it? Let’s not even talk about what they did in SE Asia, and the about turn they made after asking their Allies for help. And I think the Algerians would have a few points to make also.
But in the end it comes down to this. The French are self serving and benefit from appeasement. So if we do not appease them, then what influence do they have? I have always wondered why France had a permanent seat on the Security Council. There are many Nations that are more deserving. Actually, why are any of the seats permanent, should the dead wood be trimmed away now and again? The UN has not changed with the times; it has become a paper factory that rivals the US government. I fear that it has also had its day, much like the French. If France had come forward and stated that they were opposed to the war because of the economic damage it will do to France, then I think America would have had a lot of respect for their objection. But to say that they are concerned for the Iraqi people. Give me a break. Since when has France given a damn for anyone but themselves? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Guys, I think we should put together a game around this, complete with a diplomatic organ like the UN. The purpose would not be to win in the shortest period of time, but instead it would be for the diplomacy. It would be a long slow game, so only those who are truly interested should join. Personally, I think we would all have many heated debates along the way, and in the end, have enjoyed it very much.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo [ March 15, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, That is the difference. The second WW wasn't bad enough to stop future wars. WW1 ended with a bad deal for the loosers who had to follow several conditions. WW2 ended with a good deal for the loosers, they got aid and support from the winners. They didn't need to cry out for revenge! I do not belive it was the horrors of WW2 that inhibited WW3, it was the good post-war behaviour that did it. btw, the cold war might have been involved in avoiding ww3 too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Some wars must be fought. That doessn't mean that in many cases there are other solutions! [ March 15, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am sick and tired of everyone linking 9/11 with Iraq. W and his gang have been wanting to take out Iraq since 1998!! Read the letter below.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm 9/11 was simply an excuse!! Saddam's weapons of mass destraction are also a bogus excuse - witness that some of the main "evidence" was actually fabricated (so well in fact that it was almost not discovered - hmmm) If the evidence is so strong why did they have to make things up!!? http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ When W was campaigning to be president he was adamantly against nation building - now all of a sudden he wants to go in and save the Iraqi people. That's is another a bogus excuse. Where was he two years ago!? You guys complain about peaceniks - but the protests against intervention in Afghanistan were small at best. It's only since this reckless war that people have come out on the street. All you people that support the would probably jump off of a bridge if W. wanted you to. The two main reason for this war are: Distraction from W's failed presidency - the war talk didn't start until October of Last year right before the election. The GOP needs to finish this war in time for the next election cycle - that's why they are so hot to invade now. Money - It's no coincidence that a huge rebuilding contract was awarded to a company that Cheney is associated with. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/MN242495.DTL Oil companies stand to make a lot of money when they can resell Iraqi oil if they can dictate the terms to a pliable Iraqi government. [ March 15, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I thought this article is a pretty good response to some of the "it's all about oil" arguments.
Its basic premise is that whilst Iraq has huge oil reserves, she doesn't have the production capacity to have the effects some people are talking about. There is one rather large assumption made half-way through, though. See if you can spot it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?cp1=1 The fact is Cheney and his gang are already figuring out how to get profit. See my post below. [ March 15, 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Folks,
We can debate this till the bombs stop falling and not change one aspect of the outcome. Perhaps we should be coming up with ideas on what we might do in the aftermath. A bit fatalistic an cynical of me but also a bit practical. I hope I'm wrong. Side note: One of the most signifigant aspects of this debate is that it concerns the lives of those who will "defend untill death your right" to do so. [ March 15, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: Gryphin ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Wag the Dog - war talk starts right before an election
Fabricated Evidence - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ Graft to friends - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495 .DTL War plans since 98 - So 9/11 has nothing to do with it. (three of the people who signed the letter are in W's white house) http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Change of heart about nation building - W. campaigned against what he's doing Loss of good will - the whole world is against the u.s. now What's to debate? I think all of you that support the war should take a hard look. [ March 15, 2003, 20:41: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
One question that never seems to get answered is this: If you are opposed to war what do you propose as an alternative?
While it may be debatable that Iraq has WMD's it is pretty clear they would very much like to have them and will continue to work to get them. I believe it is also public Iraqi policy to support terrorism (as in them offering cash to the families of paLastinian suicide bombers) So what do you do? Everyone knows war is bad. It's a no brainer. But would Iraq be better off in say 10 years with a quick war or with leaving Saddam in power? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Rex, I think you need to take a chill, and stop being so argumentative. Many intellectually curious, intelligent, educated people have looked at the situation and have come to the opposite conclusion then you. Belittling and insulting those that disagree with you earns you nothing but disrespect in return.
You casually discard any opinion in opposition to yours. You write off any opposing evidence as conservative warmongering propoganda. And you accept as fact the most fanciful imaginings and of anyone that crawls out with an axe to grind against the current US administration. Your bias is evident. You are convincing noone of anythign except your own irationality. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
What concerns me is that W isn't focusing on real problems. Korea and Iran come to mind. By attacking Iraq it just reinforces these two countries' perceptions that they better build the bomb before it too late. If you really care about the palistinian issue then maybe you should push for a peace plan - that is the real seed of terrorism. This war is politically and financially motivated plain and simple. Besides who said I was against war? I think taking out the Taliban was a good thing. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Wizarc, signing off, skating by the US Govt. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Maybe we will get lucky and 'God' will come down and ask everyone to be nice especially to the place where his son was born.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Democracy?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Why?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Iraq is by no means the only problem, but the threat from Iraq is real, despite your belief to the contrary. If you can't fix everything at once you serve no purpose by doing nothing at all. Quote:
That is just making excuses as you acuse others of doing. But I agree the Palestinian issue needs to be addressed and a long term solution needs to be found. That is being done, or being attempted anyway. There is only so much you can do when two Groups hate each other so vehemantly. Quote:
There is no such thing as an apolitical war Rex. Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Had to dig way back to find this, been looking for hours. The Clinton administration was very concerned about the situation in Iraq, but IMHO not willing to risk intervention. American displeasure has been evident since the end of the gulf war. It was only the Clinton white house that was not concerned. I’m sure you all remember how it was back then, we would hear Monica’s name on the 6pm news, and awake to a new volley of cruise missiles fired at Iraq. Well here is how State felt about the situation in 99/2K
U.S. Department of State 99/00 [ March 15, 2003, 21:06: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ March 15, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And what do you propose to do when the inspectors are kicked out again? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
what was the question?
The shake hand ?? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Take a minute to listen to this mp3: http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true. The only reason this is mentioned is because some people are blaming France and Germany for the this when we helped arm Saddam in the first plance No one's addressed the fabricated evidence that Powell presented at the U.N. And why the pentagon is giving contracts to Cheney's buddies. Or why we are all of a sudden in the business of nation building. etc. Also: I'll listen to this mysterious clip later today - when I have access. [ March 15, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.