WAR ON IRAQ:BIG mistake

Here's the thing that bothers me. The government does not care about the suffering of others. Proof: Tibet. Since the 1940's, Tibet has been under the opressive and murderous thumb of the chinese government. all these years and our "Compassionate" government hasn't done a thing to help them. Not just Bush, but ANY government. The Tibetans have nothing to offer us, but hey, did you ever see how much stuff in stores is made in China? Now Iraq has oil. So they get freedom. that doesn't make you a little wary of the motivation in "liberating" Iraq? And motivation does count. The ends do not justify the means.

if none are found, who will be surprised? Bush's State of the Union Address quoted intelligence that Iraq was buying weapons materials from Nigeria, intellegence that was a KNOWN forgery. Boneheaded? Damn right! They lied, and they're getting caught on it. Meanwhile the bodies of Americans keep piling up. But hey, oh well, "they were mistaken."

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

A few things before I get back into it:

First, I'd like to say the 'classified information' in the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia is outrageous and everyone, hawks and doves alike, deserve to know what is in that report.

Next, it's hardly news to anyone that the UN needs to be sent in, pronto. Americans aren't exactly equipped to deal with paid children throwing hand grenades from the tops of buildings.

And finally, Liberia. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please post them. Start a new thread if you have a lot to say.

So, let me ask you a question: did the oil belong to Saddam? Saudi Arabia has oil, why haven't we invaded them? What about Venezuela?

They've found massive numbers of casings and chemical suits, as well as documents lifted recently and older intelligence reports from the mid-1990s, so nobody is denying that there was a WMD program at some point during those twelve years of sanctions.

As for the Niger claims, I'll remain skeptical until the brits prove it - it doesn't matter, anyway, because it's already been proven that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon in 1991, and there's no reason to believe he's had a change of heart.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Well, not Venezuela, but we certainly are trying to build a case against the saudis with that 9-11 "report" now aren't we? Except the Saudis aren't falling for it. I truly believe we still may invade them soon enough.

Yes, but it sure looks like their WMD program was dismantled a long time ago, not at all the huge stash of WMD's that we were told were pointed at the U.S.A. and ready to strike at any minute. And that is what I'm on about. How the hell could Saddam have gotten a huge stash of weapons built up with the U.N. constantly up his ass since the first gulf war? It's impossible!

HOW HOW I will tell u how he buried them in the desert before the UN got there so they couldn't find them and Saddam told the scintist to lie to the UN inspectors by threating to to kill there familys so the scintist showed the UN inspectors everything they where allowed to show.

As far as american troops dieing I don't know if you have heard but like a day or two after we got Saddams sons that has decreasd.

__________________
"isn't it funny you hear a phone ring and it could be anybody, but a ringing phone has to be awnserd doesn't it................doesn't it"

Okay. I really, really wish I'd been here for all of this.

My feelings about the war and the occupation of Iraq are mixed. Very mixed. But I feel I have to weigh in.

Iraq's connection to the World Trade Center attacks has never been proven, and you know--whether you believe in this war or not--that the government has been trying like hell to make those connections. And if they had made them, by God they would've been all over the news.

So we go into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. However, Saddam Hussein--crazy power-mad man that he is/was--didn't have any such weapons. The purpose of a government having a nuclear weapon is not to use it; it's to have it as a threat, a bargaining tool, an intimidation. The Cold War taught us that. If Saddam had had a nuclear weapon, chances are excellent that we would've known about it immediately, because he would have made sure of it. When India and Pakistan developed nuclear weaponry, we knew about it soon enough. Weapons of mass destruction equal power, a kind of power Saddam would have jumped all over.

And if he'd had a nuclear weapon, we might not have gone charging in. You only use a weapon like that if you feel you have no other choice, and the destruction of your regime would seem like the prime time.

His regime, too, was not of Hitler proportions, and didn't look to be progressing in that way any time soon. Taking over small, undeveloped, poor countries/people that neighbor you is not the same as waging all-out war on a superpower like the United States. I've said it before and I will say it again: Iraq posed no threat to us. And don't give me any twaddle about "future power"--they didn't have it, and it would have taken them years and another World War to get it, if they ever could; Saddam's history doesn't indicate it. Taking out Iraq now isn't going to save us from WWIII down the road.

So much of this is tied to money--every war is, to some extent. We take control of Iraq; we have first dibs on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. But it isn't just about the oil. It's about having a power center in one of the most American-hostile areas, it's about making money. Nothing makes money like a war, and Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton--plus so many other of our main-guy officials' ties to big business--is just too much of a coincidence for me to overlook.

But it can't be denied that the Iraqi people were in need of help. Saddam Hussein is not a good man, and he sure as hell wasn't a good leader. His people were horribly oppressed and tortured. And if Iraq's a better place for them now, that's all to the good. However, and this is an extremely valid point that I'm certain has been made before--Monkeypunch, I think--there are people who are living in that kind of state, who are dealing with oppressive dictators worse than Saddam, all over the world. Why now? Why Iraq? This is overly simplistic, but it boils down to three main things: we had Desert Storm, we had 9/11, and they had the oil.

What we live in is a nation of fear. We're taught to fear so many things, folks. And that isn't to say there's a helluva lot to fear out there, but living in the United States--the land of the free, built on immigrants from other countries--is rapidly falling into an us-or-them mentality. How are we supposed to love our neighbors if we're afraid of them? And I'm talking about the people next door as well as the people in other countries.

Do I think America is horrible? Hell, no. I love this country, and I love living here. But when a war is so contested by the public that free speech freedoms become an issue, you have to think about it. You have to consider it.

Christ. I really didn't mean to go on so long, but I had to say something. It feels all jumbly to me, but I'm going to go ahead and post it. If things need further explanation or expansion, I'm sure I'll be told.

__________________
You were a demon and a lawyer? Wow. Insert joke here."

I agree with u that saddam was not a threat to the US but think about the other countrys around Iraq he has proven that he will attack them.

I disagree with you as far as saddam not using WMDs he has proven that he will us chemical weapons on his OWN no less what makes u think that he won't us the WMDs?

I know that we haven't found them but I am going to make the point that I made in my first post about this think about how many years he has had to hide them.

One of that Saddam attacked Kuwait--well, one of the given reasons--was that Iraq suspecte Kuwait of drilling under the border and tapping into Iraq's oil.

What other countries has he taken over? This is a sincere question--I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it; I'll try and look this up for later discussion.

Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are very different things, not that the two don't have any similar effects. However, a key word in your statement is "own." He used them on his own people. Not on other countries. He used them as an oppressive tactic, not an offensive tactic. And part of having those chemical weapons was rather like the point I made: power. Over his people. His own people.

Yes, he's had time to hide them. But if he had them, we would have known--not because of U.N. weapons inspectors, but because of him.

He didn't take the other country over but he attack Iran. yeah he used them on his own people but what makes you think a man who would kill his own people wouldn't do it to other countrys?

What do u mean "because of him"?

Who else would he use them on? Would he--could he--launch a full-scale war on any other country, especially one with a superior military, both in numbers and in weaponry, with chemical weapons and no giant upswell of Iraqi pride to make the people want to fight? His people didn't love him, and he knew it. He was a businessman. What his regime depended on was his hold over his own people, not the taking over of other countries.

What I meant by saying we would have known because of him: He would have leaked the information out. When you have a weapon of mass destruction, you tell people--unless you're a terrorist who depends on the element of surprise. Saddam was not a terrorist.

EDIT: I feel I have to add something. People do act unpredictably, and, sure, Saddam might have had secret nuclear weapons. He might have gone nuts and set them loose on another country, starting a war he couldn't hope to win. He might have done a lot of things--but that's no different, really, than the threat of something like that happening in any country, even the United States. Sure, they're films, but look at Dr. Strangelove or Failsafe. People are unpredictable.

However, I'm thinking in terms of logic. And I don't believe Saddam was crazy. He wouldn't have stayed in power so long, otherwise.

His regime did have control over the Iraqi people they where terriorfied of him and his sons because if they said anything bad about them he would kill you and your family. You are however right the his people would not go "willing" to war but he would force them. Saddam is so a terriorist saddam would not tell america a god dam thing cause once again we are talking about a guy who would kill his own people just for saying somthing bad about him and thats the truth! The reason saddam stayed in power for so long is because cause he is a dictator which means he has power of everything all of the people, all of the news, etc once again thats is the truth!

I know that. I believe I said that.

No one fights harder than someone who truly believes in what he or she is fighting for. Saddam may have forced his troops into war; it's absolutely possible. But you don't conscript unless you have the numbers to back it up, and if you have to kill soldiers to make other soldiers fight, that's just bad tactics. You'll end up with zero, because the rest of them are going to defect or surrender as soon as they can.

I'm not talking about him telling America anything. I'm talking about him letting the world know he's got power.

Look at it this way: why do people have guard dogs? Sure, they'll attack if they have to, but the best offense is a good defense--put up a sign that says "Hey, I've got a damn big dog here and he'll rip your balls off if you mess with me," and people are going to think twice before they try to take your stuff.

But in the world of global politics, the bark won't count for much unless you've got the bite to back it up.

EDIT: Forgot about the terrorist thing. Saddamn is definitely guilty of terrorist actions against his people, but he was a dictator. Is any nation/government that commits terrorist actions defined as terrorist? If so, put the United States up there on the list, too--and I don't consider us to be a terrorist organization.

Usually I'm not a stickler for grammar, but I have to draw the line at some point. This is barely coherent.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Just want to back up everything Mary's saying. Very fair and balanced in my opinion. We've been led by the nose it seems (your guys started it, and my lot in britain have tagged along to try and lend some vague sheen of validity to the whole thing)

-WMDs are bargaining tools to add weight to international standing/negotiation and provide a deterent etc etc. Simple power politics .

-As going in to save the people of iraq , i think we can all agree, was never a core issue (hence all the other countries "we" don't intervene in + the lack of attention given to the mechanics of regime building), people should stop using it as a justification [as monkey said]

-As Steve has said on other threads, America was aware, and supporting Iraq during most of it's attrocities (not to mention those of other countries) Funding Saddam and Osama then leaving them in the lurch once they'd served their purpose is one of the reasons they hate America so. Take responsability for your leaders' actions

-Oil , no matter what people say, is one obvious reason for all this (and let's face it, you can't really invade Venezuela, who had left the petrodollars system, despite prolific meddling in that continent. - they're not arabic enough to accuse of terrorism ) Saddam had also left the petrodollars system recently, but he has no WMDs to defend himself with/deter invasion it seems. The increased efficiency, and american control of Uraq's oil sorts out some shortfalls in their current import needs. [huuuuuuge comparative consumption doesn't help]

-Other profit motives : america's politicians aren't letting the UN get involved coz they're protecting the pie they've stolen. They want all the contracts for rebuilding, oil etc, as they've made quite clear. And considering that the war will be funded by the oil (spoils) it's a fairly insane claim to say they need to be re-imbursed for expense. Expense of life yes - but the recompense for that is not enraging world and fanatical opinion further and risking the lives of their citizens in this way.

-World politics and anti-americanism:

Having a base in the "arabic" regions, with Saudi support faltering, is obviously vital in the eyes of certain figures in the bush-admin etc. Project for the New American Century anyone? (abolute freaking, empirical nutters). Also note how american protection of trade routes by their navy and potential for invading at the drop of a hat (unless someone slows them down) are both considered big factors in their world influence.

Unfortunately, America's unilateral actions extend far beyond this war. Not ratifying/joining in on international agreements on legal-war-practices etc (ICC), emissions treaties (Kyoto etc etc etc), and so on, not to mention the untenable petrodollars system etc etc are driving the rest of the world mad. You are part of the world, not the exception. Please inform your politicians.

And finally, to give a bit of credence to the Un's inspectors.....the biological WMD expert Dr David Kelly, who we now know was commited to informing jornos/the public about issues politicians weren't revealing for their own ends [we can imagine ] i.e how the supposed bio-trucks were not in anyway connected with WMDs and were in fact sold to iraq by britain. He revealed things like this when Blair (and surely bush) knew this wasn't true but kept asserting it was [and certainly didn't make a big noise admitting they were wrong - did they even admit it??]

Unfortunately, this exceptionally fine man [or so he seems to me], is now dead, by apparent suicide. My theory is that, coz he had promised to reveal all his previous contacts with jornos he was afraid he was going to get some giant life-sentence for breaking secrecy laws etc. He just wanted to get back to the real business of in iraq [as he wrote in an email shortly before his death]. He seemed to be incredibly frustrated that he couldn't pass on information to the public and with all the spin surrounding this nonsensical war. This man, who was respected world-wide, by everyone except saddam who tried to get him specifically removed from iraq etc, was famed in his own circles for forcing people to accept their guilt/lies. He did it in Russia. He did it in Iraq (t'was coz of him that after four years of denial iraq admitted to trying to rebuild their bio-weapon program. He was "80%" sure they had dealt with most of their attempts to rebuild, which for a scientist is pretty damn sure)

As Mary said, announcing the WMDs presence [when they are substantial enough] is how we would know really know if he had them. Low-scale stuff was being contained by some fine, driven inspectors.

Oh and Sutter, i love the way your name rhymes with nutter. Was that deliberate?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Yep, they would have. But does it matter? Iraq has a history of harboring international criminals and Saddam's secret police force has been proven to have shady connections with all sorts of criminal organizations. So even if the evidence isn't concrete, it's still reasonable to assume Saddam and the al Qaeda network were bedfellows.

What do you mean by Hitler proportions? Maybe not in territory, but Saddam was a genocidal maniac.

Liberia doesn't pose a threat to us, either. Should we stand by and watch thousands be murdered?

Yoda's disproven this repeatedly. If this war were profit-motivated there'd be a lot more evidence of campaign contributions, etc.

You're wrong. It boils down to repeated violations of Resolution 1441, violations of every human-rights standard known, and the war on terror, which, as Afghanistan has proven, applies to terror-regimes as well.

The oil probably has something to do with it too, I don't know. But I look at it completely differently. If Iraqi oil is no longer under Saddam's control, that yields two positive things: the Saudi monopoly is cut in half (why do you think Saudi Arabia opposed the war?), and it prevents a potential ecological disaster.

That doesn't justify anything.

He used them on the Kurds, who are not technically 'his people.' He also murdered Kuwaiti civilians and launched missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War. And if you use the weapons, period, then it's 'offensive'. Doesn't matter who you're oppressing. That's violating innumerable international agreements and human rights treaties, which is a perfectly good pretext for regime change in itself.

You could argue the CIA is a terrorist group. State-sponsored terror is no different, and probably more lethal, than a rogue group like al Qaeda. And the US is guilty of terrorism, and sponsoring terror.

Don't you think that gives us a responsibility to the decent Iraqis and Kurds and ensure their safety from Saddam? I mean, we got ourselves into that mess, we have to get ourselves out. Especially the Kurds...they've been getting screwed by us forever, and we owe it to them.

Absolutely. And let's not forget: one of the original reasons for the Middle East's hostility towards America was our involvement in the founding of Israel.

This is one of the ideas about taking over Iraq that really gets me. If we're going the route of "if Saddam has chemical weapons, who's to say be wouldn't use them on other countries," then who's to say America, having gone in on their own (no offense to the other countries in the Coalition ) and taken over Iraq, won't extend this to any other country with viable resources or a strategic location? We've done it before.

And then, in fifty years, it'll be the sun never sets on the American empire. It sounds silly, but it's a definite and frightening possibility.

Good points about Kelly, too--I didn't know much about him.

And that's all I have to add. Nicely put, Golgot.

Sorry about the double post, but I didn't want to add to an already lengthy post.

I'm not sure it's necessarily reasonable. Al Qaeda is both directed and sponsored by fundamentalist Muslims, of which Saddam is most definitely not. And especially now, when we're in Iraq, any link to al Qaeda the government could dredge up would be too useful. It would give them justification on too many levels. The fact that we've heard nothing about this is indicative that there is no real connection.

Yes, but he was not also running a campaign to bring Iraqi pride into the forefront. One of the reasons Hitler was able to begin his campaign to take over Europe was because he fed on the emotions of the German people, who had been in severe financial straits since WWI and who no longer had any sense of national identity. Cripes, I can't think of any other way to put it--they were depressed, and he came in and said, "Hey, you're something special." They believed him, to the point that he was able to say Jews were vermin that needed to be exterminated.

That's what I mean when I say Saddam was not of Hitler proportions.

Nope. And I don't think I've ever said anything of the kind--I think we should help them, and we should help any country that needs our help. What I said was Iraq was singled out because of its attractiveness in terms of resources, position, etc.

But we aren't exactly charging into Liberia on a white horse to save the day, are we? They asked for 2,000 troops, and we're sending them ten.
They asked for our help, and this is what happens.

What's not covered here, though, is our government's interests and holdings in big business, both on an individual and a national level. Campaign contributions are not the be-all and end-all of the money that our politicians get or have access to.

Yes. But I'll say again: we're not charging in to save/liberate every country that has violated these three standards.

What is the potential ecological disaster?

I wasn't trying to justify the attack on Kuwait. I was kind of trying to make the point that trumped-up charges, whether they have a basis in fact or not, don't necessarily make an invasion right.

I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to be taken out of power. What I am saying is that we've gone in there and taken them over--we haven't just deposed Saddam and said, "Here, Iraqis, have your country back." We're putting military bases in place, we're making money from rebuilding, we've put a leader of our choosing in place, and we're gaining a huge stake in the oil there. It was not out of the goodness of our hearts.

About the Kurds: have we done anything for them besides get Saddam out? Sincere question, because I haven't heard anything about this.

We are in agreement.

Happy to slow you down (and force bush-n-buddies thru the UN. Do wish Tony would stop trying to be the big "head" meister tho -trying to please everyone- and get off his knees occasionally )

Are you getting much news about the kelly debacle your way?

And, yeah, (to continue our mutual back-pat ) unfortunatly i see the bush-admin etc as having an expanionist/empirical policy. Amazing that they're taking the military approach on some levels - but [and yoda will call this wacked out conspiracy, but i'm ready ] part of it is to back up industry/"free"-market expansion that thouroughly favours america (and other big-players if they can get in on the deals ) and contiunes the fifty year trend of taking advantage of countries that can't defend themselves (IMF onwards, tho whether all of it was deliberate, or just incompetant ,is debatable). Politics interferes on industry's behalf faaaaaaaaar to often(destroying the free-trade argument again and again and again), and even at the consumers + citizens expense. Often the citizens of other countries o'course - sweat-shops, ecological damage etc backed-up/protected by political representatives in the country etc- but that's NIMBYism for you (the british pseudo-middle-way is definitely included in this. Both american and britain politicians, and in fact almost all the "western" cultures, have cow-towed to industry more and more since the 50s IMO)

Ok, this may not seem very Iraq-y to some, but it is to me. How long before McDonalds can drape a glittering string of slime across the middle-east? They're a smart bunch over there- let's hope they do better fighting it off than we have

Interesting what you said before about the politicians using fear etc to get responses. Very old tactic of course. In britland it seems to be a bit more based around straight emotional manipulation (Tony belieeeeves, *tilt head - earnest brow-wrinkle* that this is the *push against "altar" with each word, wrists exposed* right..thing..to do). Only about 30% of the populace, if you believe the polls, fell for all this in an unquestioning way. Altho the IRA never did one big hit here (despite some heavy funding from a certain quarter ) our fear quota's kind of degraded . Funny what happens when the world touches you frequently.

Love your country really. Just hate your politicians and most of your industries

Not that I've noticed, but I've been out of the news loop for a bit. Got any links you could send my way?

In the case of the U.S.--I don't know much about British political currents--it's gone beyond kow-towing and more toward out-and-out monopoly. Why else would we take FCC restrictions off and allow a handful of companies to take over nearly every television and radio station, not to mention major newspaper, in the country? "Free speech," indeed.

Okay. The media thing is a touchy point with me, and I'll stop here. Off-topic, kinda. Maybe another thread.

Absolutely. We've had the Red Scare, and then we had the Brown Scare. Not to mention all the crazy "advice" we were given about how to protect ourselves against terrorist attack. Duck and cover, duct tape and SaranWrap.

I'm going to have to see this Tony Blair body language for myself.

That's cool. Your food gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Thought i'd mop up on anything mary missed or was too nice to comment on ....

Yes, and the CIA etc have been involved with HOW MANY criminal and shady groups?? So we can safely assume that America is more than bedfellows with Al Queda, they're busy making babies Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever. It's not reasonable at all.

Argh! Being a maniac isn't enough. Being an effective/successful expantionist would be.

Again, no, you should go in with the UN. And then if you're still feeling altruistic you can stop selling arms to all the other oppressive regimes and go and sort them out. There should be at least 20 odd i'd imagine.



No he hasn't disproved it! Campaign contributions aren't the only way, they're just a fairly blatent bit of bribary-and/or-support for different legislations. But as the Enron debacle showed, and is still showing, Ken Lay whispering into Bush's ear over the years [want to see the letters?] for example has lead to some catastrophic executive decisions [California is suffering to this day i understand]. And what about Rumsfeld's strong strong connections with Halliburton. The bush-admin is rife with inappropriate industry connections. There are multiple ways to affect an administration. Add to that the fact that the oil issue is WITHOUT DOUBT profitable for America, and what you're saying needs a lot more backing up.



Israel? Please be consistant. If you're going to be dogmatic so will i. It's not just about 1441. 1441 is an excuse. You're wrong. [not to mention how you're breaking Un laws by totally controlling the regime-change process ]

Christ! I find this unbelievable. What about the american monopoly???? i.e the petrodollars system that favours you with every purchase? That strangle-hold, fiercely defended, is both HIGHLY PROFITABLE to america alone and entirely monopolistic. There was no Saudi monopoly. The Euro and Dinar systems where attempts to break the american monopoly. (your word, and a very fitting one it is too)

I imagine you're talking about saddam torching the wells are you [coz of the invasion! ]. If not, what ARE you talking about?

Ok, as you know Steve, the US has signed itself out of most international agreements on fair-play, legality, war-crimes etc (and for all i know human rights too - not that that's central to any of their actions. It's a "side-effect"). So please leave this ridiculous argument alone.

And what about DEPLETED URANIUM? Shouldn't the people who've polluted huge tracts of the earth for, well, probably longer than the human race'll be around (at this rate ) and caused and incredible civilian toll thru slow cancer death etc be considered more than just a little offensive? (and i don't give a **** if it was during war, it's in-excusable). And what about firing missiles off willy-nilly at Afghanistan previously on a whim during the Lewinsky-distraction. Considering the state of current up-to-date-quick-let's-go "intelligence" i have my doubts about the timing of that as it happens.

Glad you agree. So can you see now why these titanic double-standards mean you have very little chance of ever establishing peace in this region?

no, as Mary's said, but i'll elabourate: going in in this half-arsed, taking-over, we'll (ILLEGALLY) choose your new leaders for you, kind of way means you won't acheive the aim. Just sit and watch man. Either you'll leave 'em in the lurch, or you'll nest in. Either way your not going to leave a sustainable government behind you. Or at least, not one you want

(and don't expect anyone to listen to your harping about others breaking international law, or UN resolutions/laws, in the future. It's exactly what you're doing now. I'm sick of it)

This whole we're-saving-the-Kurds thing is crap. Most people just harp on about their Al Queda camp. Shouldn't you? Shouldn't you in fact be hunting down the evil kurds for their demonstrable links with Al Qaeda and their obvious desire and ability to burn america to the ground?

Sorry Steve, but your arguments are totally specious to me. Stop watching the Fox Network for heaven's sake

For sure: just go to www.guardian.co.uk and search for Kelly and that should be enough for now.

...

Me too! Have you tried "spotted-dick"? . Actually, that one's not bad - like having a slow-syrup-n-gungysweeteness delivery system in your stomach for the next two days. It's the boiled melon on sprouts you've got to look out for

(erm, at least it's GM free tho )