Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I was against it from the start and new that 9-11 was an alibi to complete the unfinished job of the Bush Sr. Administration. I could watch the president and know he was misleading everyone and evidence is now out to prove it. I figured the war would be easy but this part would not be.

We're claiming to liberate a country from a brutal dictator and now some soldiers with guidance from higher command are acting like Saddam with the tortures and demoralizing behavior, it's even worse in the eyes of the surrounding neighbors to see Americans doing it to Muslims rather than their own leader doing it to them.

We're trying to democratize a country with three different Muslim groups who happen to hate each other and don't want the other in power...this will never work people!!!

Posted

Bushmustgo, the war has happened. Now the Americans need to transition Iraq some how. You seem to think you have the answers. What should they do?

Posted

Several years ago, my car broke down in a small town in Wisconsin and I had to wait several hours while it was in a garage. In wandering around the town, I saw a small monument with the names of some 10 young men from the town killed in Vietnam. I realized, "There are thousands of towns like this across America."

It has been fashionable on the Left to say the Vietnam War was a big mistake and America should never have gotten involved. No doubt, there were many errors committed in Vietnam, and Robert McNamara has listed many. Nevertheless, America was right to get involved. America was fighting the good fight. The same one Churchill fought.

Since World War II, America has learned that it must defend the principles of liberty abroad where it can and when the threat is particularly great to America itself.

This defense of liberty sometimes means lengthy, complex wars that last for years.

On the balance of evidence, Iraq had WMD and this provided justification for war. The possibility Iraq would share these weapons with a terrorist group also justified war. One forgets also the signal this war delivers to other countries about America's intention to defend itself. Gaddafi is not the same as before.

Most Canadians travel abroad without visas, move freely from one part of Canada to another and write all kinds of nonsense on forums such as this. Too easily, we take these freedoms for granted.

As Canadians, we should be grateful those young Americans believed in their country, and grateful America won the Cold War.

Posted
On the balance of evidence, Iraq had WMD and this provided justification for war.

Ummm, where have you been the last year and where are the WMD that were the sole basis of this war?

How many Iraqi's were on those hijacked planes on 9-11?

If we say Saddam used WMD on his own people 15-20 years ago, how come we didn't do something then under Repulblican leadership?

It's been said by the administration that there is NO hard evidence to link Saddam to Al Qaeda.

The list goes on and on and now we've forgotten about who was solely responsible for 9-11, Osama himself and now we're spending billions and billions of dollars while giving tax cuts to pay for this, the interst on this deficit will burden us for a long time.

Fighting terror with bombs does not work, it only aggrevates the situation...just look at Israels handling on terrorism; has it worked?

Good PR and good Foreign Policy with diplomacy will go much longer than our bombs turning moderates into extremists! It is time for new leadership....NOW!

Posted
Ummm, where have you been the last year and where are the WMD that were the sole basis of this war?
On the balance of evidence at the time. But the war surely depends on more than WMD.
Fighting terror with bombs does not work, it only aggrevates the situation...just look at Israels handling on terrorism; has it worked?
The Israelis have tried almost everything. Do you know who know Golda Meyer was?
Good PR and good Foreign Policy with diplomacy will go much longer than our bombs turning moderates into extremists!
Do you really believe that? Who flew those planes into the buildings? Rich Saudis who had never been harmed by Americans! Have you ever heard of Baader-Meinhof?
Posted
The Israelis have tried almost everything.

Yep, everything except for the right thing which is, pulling out of the settlements. Remember, this is against the U.N.; however, we have not backed it and have not done much to enforce it like we have in Iraq. Having said that, our biased relationship with Israel, the religious enemy of the Middle East is one of the major reasons we are also considered devils and past foreign policies have aggravated an already volitile crazy religious ancient region leading to someone conspiring and delivery hanous acts to kill themselves just to kill some of us...now that's some powerfull hatred. Of course you don't understand all that goes on in other countries from our govt.'s foreign policies and perhaps you should educate yourself.

Now these U.S. pics of Iraqis is another black-eye and the Mid East will never trust us so don't ever use the excuse that we're tyring to liberate Iraq...their are many ulterior motives here, including oil...even though we're misled to believe it isn't the Iraqi's and other oil flowing nations there no darn well what's up, they may be crazy but, they weren't born yesterday!

On the balance of evidence at the time. But the war surely depends on more than WMD.

You're the one who brought up the WMD in your argument and now you're backing away saying (plan 2) that the war depends on more than that???

Was it the link to Al Qaeda?

Was it the link to 9-11?

Was it that we still have the receipts to those WMD's?

The credibility of this Administration is damaged and is no longer, and it's even worse in these foreign lands. New leadership brings that, "start-over" atmosphere which is the necessity now.

Posted
Fighting terror with bombs does not work, it only aggrevates the situation.

Absolutely. Good thing the US went in and liberated a country then started rebuilding it so the people can be free from tyranny and have self determination. In order to give them that so thaqt terrorism becomes less of an option for their hopelessness, you have to secure the place by taking out those who want to have a hold on the people. You knew that though didn't you?

On the balance of evidence at the time. But the war surely depends on more than WMD.

Got that right. Amazing how one dimensional some people are when they address this issue. 'Why not North Korea? Why not China etc' It pretty much comes down to the unique situation that Iraq was in with it's geographic location as a centralized Middle Eastern country, Saddam being a 'disposable government' complete with Iraq having enough natural resources so that the US could oust and replace with a prosperous nation in minimal time. The hoped for result - a nation that works and is not under the boot of some nut or tyrant. They had legal justification for doing so given the UN resolutions (which if properly cross referenced gives 'Member Nations Assisting the Country of Kuwait' all the necessary permission to carry this out scince they had not adhered to their part of the 91 ceasefire by co operating fully and ridding themselves of 'all WMD and rrelated materials and equipment' As Blix attested to in his 27 Jan brief to the UN in 2003.) The results so far have shown a decrease in terrorism the world over. Lowest in over thirty years matter of fact.

Given that it is legal, then your arguments against the war must be moral Whose though? The elected government of the USA approved, the UN wrote the rules that made it legal, the US didn't invade us, the Iraqis had no official government outside of Saddam who was a criminal, and the Iraqi people are in the process of putting together a representative government and there is no way that they want to return to the days of Saddam. So whose morals were infringed on here?

So many equate terrorism with the specifices of 9 11 thinking cause/effect. It was not that particular act that is the reason for Iraqi Freedom but it is that act, that shows how serious this can be if action is not taken against terrorism. Just because the guys flying the planes on 9 11 were Saudi does not mean that Islamo Fachists and Islamic Terrorists the world over are all Saudi. They are all nationalities.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted

I don't recall much terrorism coming from Iraq until after we invaded. Now the brutal acts caused by Saddam is being duplicated and hanous depictions of Muslims being in nude and provactively humiliating manners by our own forces coming from higher commands.

Lets not forget about the 3 Muslim groups within Iraq who hate each other and we're trying to "democratize" them...I smell a civil war. This country will not be recovering anytime soon while our money keeps flowing in their and our soldiers keep on dying due to the poor planning and ability of this administration to get proper funds and foreign troops to pay for this while we have poverty, etc in our own country. Also recall that this administration felt very strongly against having Iraq pay the debt back with their extremely rich oil wealth.........what a crock of leadership here!

Posted

Bushmustgo, most of the people on this forum are Canadian. They are not our troops; however I do appreciate the sacrifice the US is making to try and stem the growth of terrorism world wide.

I read in your statements an ideologue that is hoping for the failure of his own troops and government. You are confusing many arguments and are just displaying your hate for Bush. This is a shame. This form of expression is done best with a placard out front of some protest. On web forums you have the opportunity to discuss possible solutions or alternatives for action. I will ask you again. What can they do now?

Please be a little more insightful than a world wide PR campaign and diplomacy. (Diplomacy only works with a carrot or a stick) The stick was the invasion; the carrot is not having to repay their debt. What good foreign policy and diplomacy do you speak of?

Posted
You're the one who brought up the WMD in your argument and now you're backing away saying (plan 2) that the war depends on more than that???
No, the threat of WMD (perceived at the time) and Saddam's refusal to respect UN resolutions motivated the war. But this simply reflected the fact that his regime was a threat to world security.
everything except for the right thing which is, pulling out of the settlements.
Do you think if Israel pulled the settlements out, there would be peace? Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. That's not bad considering the wars in the past. The Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea.
Lets not forget about the 3 Muslim groups within Iraq who hate each other and we're trying to "democratize" them
Do you mean "democracy" is only for "white" people? I also find fascinating that these differences within Iraq, once the Saddam regime is gone for good, are now becoming known - and freely expressed within Iraq.
our soldiers keep on dying due to the poor planning and ability of this administration to get proper funds and foreign troops to pay for this while we have poverty, etc in our own country.

Keep this in perspective. It is not obvious that the US government can solve the problem of poverty in America by throwing money at it. The casualties in Iraq are nowhere near the casualties suffered in Vietnam. There are too many however.

I don't recall much terrorism coming from Iraq until after we invaded.
No, the war is now being fought there and in Afghanistan for much smaller stakes than if it were fought in Europe or America.

John F. Kennedy, a hero to the left in America, wrote a book called "While England Slept". The idea of this book influences modern American foreign policy - the US must be interventionist and must be willing to defend freedom and its interests sooner rather than later.

One can argue about execution but not the basic principle.

Posted

I think I would be supportive of the war in Vietnam, due to the fact that it was an effort to stem the flow of communism. However I am against the idea of forcing countries to accept democracy. I know that it sounds idealistic to spread democracy and liberty abroad but it does not work. Lets look at America, who brought them liberty, themselves. Wilson who was interventionist believed that democracy must be exported, and interventionism on the part of the states created the second world war. If people want democracy then I would support them 110%, but we should'nt force feed it down their throats.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

- George Orwell's Animal Farm

Posted

We could go around the WMD mulberry Bush again and again. Fact is, there have been no WMD found, and no evidence of active WMD programs (beyond a few scientists filing false reports and cashing cheques for nuclear work that wasn't being done). However, it is reasonable to assume they knew in advance that Saddam did not have WMD. Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations said as much before the war.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that the surest way to assure victory was to disarm one's foe before the battle. That seems to be the case in this situation.

Do you think if Israel pulled the settlements out, there would be peace? Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. That's not bad considering the wars in the past. The Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea.

Pulling out of all the settlements would be the first steps on what would undoubtebley be a bumpy road to peace. But it's necessary step. The final part of the above statement is base don sheer ignorance and is borderline racist.

I also find fascinating that these differences within Iraq, once the Saddam regime is gone for good, are now becoming known - and freely expressed within Iraq.

Freely expressed, alright: with mortars, RPGs, car bombs and bullets...

I'll say this much for the US: they've managed to bring both Shia and Sunni together in common hatred of the occupiers. It took the British nearly 3 years to provoke a popular uprising in 1920. The Americans have managed it in less than 12 months.

John F. Kennedy, a hero to the left in America, wrote a book called "While England Slept". The idea of this book influences modern American foreign policy - the US must be interventionist and must be willing to defend freedom and its interests sooner rather than later.

One can argue about execution but not the basic principle.

Oh really? I can. First, the idea of America as a benevolant protector of peace, freedom and democracy that has a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles is predicate don the (false) belief that "US interests" and the aforementioned ideals are one and the same.

However, this view completely fails to take into account a consistent pattern of behavior where by the U.S. is perfectly willing top lend its support to totalitarian dictatorships, despots, rogues and murderers, so long as they suit the very real strategic, polituical and economic interests of the United States. History has shown that, as far as teh U.S.A is concerned, when democracy and dollars clash, the dollar talks, freedom walks. Usually to the gallows.

Good thing the US went in and liberated a country then started rebuilding it so the people can be free from tyranny and have self determination.

Even is I do take the stretch required to buy the whole "liberation" argument, i'd have to say that the U.S.'s handling of the Iraq situation is doing more for

terrorist recruiters than anyone could have hoped.

This, combined with the continued unquestioning backing of Sharon's policies in Israel and continued material and political suppport of vile, repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbeckistan and elsewhere, it appears the U.S. is trying to douse the flames of anti-US sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds by using gasoline.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that the surest way to assure victory was to disarm one's foe before the battle. That seems to be the case in this situation.

I thought that you contended that everybody knew there were no WMD in Iraq, therefore, there would have been no reason to try and disarm something that did not exist. Make up your mind here, can't have it both ways.

Freely expressed, alright: with mortars, RPGs, car bombs and bullets...

I'll say this much for the US: they've managed to bring both Shia and Sunni together in common hatred of the occupiers. It took the British nearly 3 years to provoke a popular uprising in 1920. The Americans have managed it in less than 12 months.

Actually BD, it is not the average Iraqi that is doing that but rather those who want to take advantage of the situation for the gain of power themselves. Average Iraqis are angry that the US has not crushed these insurgents already and made them more secure. Undoubtably, nobody want s the US there, even the US but you know what would happen if they left today. Occupation is a necessary fact unti the Iraqi government is strong enough to take on the insurgents themselves.

Oh really? I can. First, the idea of America as a benevolant protector of peace, freedom and democracy that has a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles is predicate don the (false) belief that "US interests" and the aforementioned ideals are one and the same.

The US acts in it's own interest. this time, as always it acted similarly but it also acted in line with the safety of many other countries in mind as well as it ousted a Dictator and attempts to build a self determined governmental system for Iraq in which terrorists will have a hard time to find recruits.

As for blowing the hell out of anyone etc, less people have died as a result of this war than were killed in day to day administration under Saddam in peacetime by more than two thirds. The US has saved lives.

When you say 'their eyes alone' I take it you didn't think to include the others eyes. Eyes like : United Kingdom. Spain,

Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary

Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia,

Slovenia, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia,

Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Tonga, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica

Dominican Republic, Honduras, Australia, Kuwait, Eritrea,

Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Angola.

I know those 50 some odd countries are not that big of a player(s) as the US but surely, they share the US's zeal for

having "a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles ."

However, this view completely fails to take into account a consistent pattern of behavior where by the U.S. is perfectly willing top lend its support to totalitarian dictatorships, despots, rogues and murderers, so long as they suit the very real strategic, polituical and economic interests of the United States. History has shown that, as far as teh U.S.A is concerned, when democracy and dollars clash, the dollar talks, freedom walks. Usually to the gallows.

Bravo Black Dog! A valid point at last. The US foreign policy of the past has been to prop up a dictator in order to have somebody with which to deal with. Similar to the French and Germans who did everything they could to keep their deals with Saddam. LOL, it seems that all countries choose the most selfish way to gain what they want, even going against a war that they know they should have been for (and having their names added to the list above.)

Now you have to go back a bit, maybe ten years or so and think what the US would have done if they encounteredt the same scenario with the WMD and 9 11 and all. What would they have done with Iraq? Spent $500 billion and years and years of effort and lose troops or move in and install a new regieme that they had an agreement with? This certainly looks like they have changed their ways somewhat, I mean, elections, infastructure, social programs and all. How much easier would it have been to simply bring in a ruthless General and keep the population quaking and in control? You have to admit, things are different.

This, combined with the continued unquestioning backing of Sharon's policies in Israel and continued material and political suppport of vile, repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbeckistan and elsewhere, it appears the U.S. is trying to douse the flames of anti-US sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds by using gasoline.

One step at a time. It will take decades for this to work. Remember when Bush said that this would 'be a long, hard struggle that would take many years?' He meant it. Further confusing the whole action is the fact that many of the region don't understand what is happening. Heck! Many enlightened people of the West can't grasp the idea and fall back into the evil USA routine rather than stepping back and giving it a dispassionate thought.

Is the USA acting in it's own interests? Sure. Less terrorism means more money, more peace, more control, more trade. Good for them, good for us and good for everybody. Is France acting in their best interest when it tried to keep Saddam in power? Sure, more Saddam meant the Billons in oil contracts would be kept in place as would the repayment for the weapons that he owed Germany and Russia. I can't blame them for that as it is a lot of moola but I can for not helping out when it was clear those deals were off.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted

AllianceFanatic:

I think I would be supportive of the war in Vietnam, due to the fact that it was an effort to stem the flow of communism. However I am against the idea of forcing countries to accept democracy.

I am surprised to agree with you, AF. I think the Vietnam War was one battle in the Cold War. (It should be referred to as the Battle of Vietnam.) On a related point, I have always been surprised to hear anti-Americans blame America for the genocide of Cambodia. (Insane Statist-Leftists did the killing. Not Americans.)

At the same time, I objected to the war in Iraq for the simple reason that I thought Iraqis should decide their own future. When Romanians caught that scoundrel and his wife, video-taped a silly trial and then got rid of the two, I thought: for better or worse, Romanians have made their own history.

Iraqis should have had the same opportunity.

Posted
I thought that you contended that everybody knew there were no WMD in Iraq, therefore, there would have been no reason to try and disarm something that did not exist.

But there would be every reason to lead people to belive that WMD did exist. Otherwise it would look like a superpower bitch slapping a two-bit dictatorship that posed no threat at all. Remember, this was as much a media war as it was one of armies.

Actually BD, it is not the average Iraqi that is doing that but rather those who want to take advantage of the situation for the gain of power themselves. Average Iraqis are angry that the US has not crushed these insurgents already and made them more secure. Undoubtably, nobody want s the US there, even the US but you know what would happen if they left today. Occupation is a necessary fact unti the Iraqi government is strong enough to take on the insurgents themselves.

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever (beyond the daily pronoucements from the CPA and the Pentagon denouncing the insurgents as "terrorists"). Averag eIraqi sentiment seems to be that they don't like Saddam, they don';t like the insurgents, but neither do they like the U.S. To a country with experience in such matters, the U.S. is just another colonial power. In the meantime, U.S. displays of force (like their campaign in Fallujah) is feeding into the growing anger Iraqis have for their occupiers. They feel the U.S. doesn't listen and doesn't understand the need sof Iraqis. They want the U.S. out, which is why the insurgency is growing, and will continue to grow, especially if the U.S. continues to rely on its abiding faith in force.

The US acts in it's own interest. this time, as always it acted similarly but it also acted in line with the safety of many other countries in mind as well as it ousted a Dictator and attempts to build a self determined governmental system for Iraq in which terrorists will have a hard time to find recruits.

And access to oil and the prospect of a permenant military prescnce in Central Asia had nothing to do with it at all, right?

As for blowing the hell out of anyone etc, less people have died as a result of this war than were killed in day to day administration under Saddam in peacetime by more than two thirds. The US has saved lives.

Again, I'd like to see some support for this. I've read tons of comments by average Iraqis that say someting to the effect of that saddam was bad, but he kept society stable and that the U.S. occupation has made Iraq more dangerous than before.

This certainly looks like they have changed their ways somewhat, I mean, elections, infastructure, social programs and all. How much easier would it have been to simply bring in a ruthless General and keep the population quaking and in control? You have to admit, things are different.

Well, as the recent U.S. backed coup in Haiti shows, old habits die hard. Iraq, however is a unique case in that it was the first exercise of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and regime change (concepts that fly in the face of accepted international law). By attacking a country and overthrowing a regime that did not first attack them, the U.S. is setting a new precedent and making thei rown set of rules as they go. As a result, the eyes of the world, especially the already hostile, Arab/Muslim world are on this venture, which would make replacing Saddam with a U.S. chosen Saddam Lite a more difficult task. That means the invasion and occupation had to be dressed up in terms of bringing freedom to Iraq, even if the results have fallen well short of the stated goals (leading one to believe that the stated goals weren't the actual ones at all).

My predicition? The U.S will maintain a large force and control over Iraqi affairs until the completion of the four plus permenant bases in Iraq, at which point the U.S will withdraw to these basis and leave Iraq in the hands of a lame duck government. If such a government (which would invariably be seen as a U.S. puppet) the U.S. would be in a position to bring in a Murabek or Mushareff style "strongman", to rule in an authoritarian fashion while still giving lip service to the democractic process. But then, I'm an optimist.

One step at a time. It will take decades for this to work. Remember when Bush said that this would 'be a long, hard struggle that would take many years?' He meant it. Further confusing the whole action is the fact that many of the region don't understand what is happening. Heck! Many enlightened people of the West can't grasp the idea and fall back into the evil USA routine rather than stepping back and giving it a dispassionate thought.

I think the problem is, KK, that the anti-USA crowd (more accurately, the anti-imperialism crowd) simply doesn;t buy it. By your own admission, the U.S. has a poor track record in foreign affairs. People on my side of the fence don't have any reason to belive the leopard has changed its spots, especially considering the group in charge. We hear the rhetoric coming from Bush, Rummy, et al. We just don't buy it.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
But there would be every reason to lead people to belive that WMD did exist. Otherwise it would look like a superpower bitch slapping a two-bit dictatorship that posed no threat at all. Remember, this was as much a media war as it was one of armies.

I have quotes of Chirac, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Clinton all saying that they existed. If you don’t like that, then I also have the wording of the resolutions 1441,687,686 saying that Saddam is not permitted to process any WMD, related WMD Material, resources or related equipment and even specifies ‘dual purpose equipment.’ . I also have Blix’s report from the runup to the war saying that Saddam was in clear violation of the resolutions and Kay verifying it after the war.

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever (beyond the daily pronouncements from the CPA and the Pentagon denouncing the insurgents as "terrorists"). Average Iraqi sentiment seems to be that they don't like Saddam, they don';t like the insurgents, but neither do they like the U.S. To a country with experience in such matters, the U.S. is just another colonial power. In the meantime, U.S. displays of force (like their campaign in Fallujah) is feeding into the growing anger Iraqis have for their occupiers. They feel the U.S. doesn't listen and doesn't understand the need sof Iraqis. They want the U.S. out, which is why the insurgency is growing, and will continue to grow, especially if the U.S. continues to rely on its abiding faith in force.

Does the average Iraqi guy strap a bomb to himself and blow up people? Does the average Iraqi hack fellow clerics to death with swords? Explain how letting a bunch of heavily armed guys who are the private army of the violent murderous cleric settle in a city and fire at US forces and be called justified when there is an arrest warrant out for the guy? Do you think that these guys are contributing to the stability of the situation or do you not think that is might be just a tad creepy against what the general population want given the fact that the rest of the country is trying to build a life for themselves and promote stabilty so they can build a country, heal and make a government?

RECENT GALLUP POLL FINDINGS

Those polled were virtually united in opposition to attacks against Iraqi police, the survey found. Ninety-two percent said those attacks could not be justified.

But the Iraqis surveyed were split on whether ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was justified. Fifty-two percent said it was not, while 47 percent said it could be justified.

Asked about when they wanted U.S. and British forces to leave, 57 percent chose immediately, as in the next few months, the poll said; 36 percent said troops should stay longer.

At the time the question was asked, 53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe. Sixty-nine percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.

But asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.

So, seems that the US is, as we all know not liked and as I said, the Iraqis agree with everybody including the soldiers and the US people that they want them out but the people don’t like the insurgents either as they attack the police. They like the fact Saddam is gone and they want the US to go as well. However, they figure they would be less safe if the US went. That sounds anything but a popular uprising to me.

In short, they are there to finish a job however dangerous and costly it may be for all. I know that we all find that unpleasant but such is reality. The insurgents however want to fill the vacuum to gain power, surely you are not for that? Of course not, the stakes are too high herre and even the insurgents and terrorists know that. So as Bush said, ‘we will stay and finish the job. We will not abandon the people of Iraq.’

And access to oil and the prospect of a permanent military presence in Central Asia had nothing to do with it at all, right?

US controls the oil in Iraq and the price goes up. Got to hear the Liberal conspiracy on that one LOL. In reality though, 'Hello, earth calling' Over 80% of the oil contracts so far have gon to non-US interests. Saddam wanted to control the oil supply of the ME by taking Kuwait and Saudi and continued to pursue his WMD programs even throughout the sanctions while his people starved. Oil was another reason why Iraq was a viable choice to begin the Democracy seeding in that it could pay for it’s own reconstruction and make a country with opportunity for it’s people. The issue of the permanent military presence is valid as it would be a completely predictable move for the US to make as it plans on continuing it mission of enabling democracy in the region via economic, cultural, political and if necessary military means. You can be assured that no matter what government takes power that the security support from the US and the continuing $ support from same will be part and parcel of the package for allowing these bases.

Again, I'd like to see some support for this. I've read tons of comments by average Iraqis that say someting to the effect of that saddam was bad, but he kept society stable and that the U.S. occupation has made Iraq more dangerous than before.

I’m tired of this BD, go to Iraqibodycout.com and look the numbers up, then go to the UN report on how many people Saddam has killed. It comes out to ten or eleven thousand from Iraqi Body count and Saddam - 300,000 (not to mention the millions during war with Iran and Gulf I) Then average it out by months Saddam was in power and the time the US has been there. I comes out to something like 5:1 or something. When you go to the search engine, look up ‘mass graves’ that gives numbers as well. Amnesty international and UN Human rights are other good sources.

As for more dangerous, heck, it still hasn't settled down yet. Like when you go to the dentist and the freezing wears off then you blame the dentist for making it worse. Stuff like ripping the government out of a country is painful and takes time to heal. Surely you are not that nitpicky to have ever expected intant results with everybody hap hap happy right away?

unique case in that it was the first exercise of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and regime change

9 11 showed the US that in the nuclear age, it cannot wait until terrorists attack, it has to take action beforehand. Iraq, with an unstable leader in the heart of the Middle East who did nothing to promote stability was an accident waiting to happen and provided the opportunity to promote democracy.

(concepts that fly in the face of accepted international law)

Read 687 and 686 where it states that ‘Member States assisting the government of Kuwait are permitted to use military force to enact these resolutions’ and then read Blix’s report where he shows Saddam had not come clean and continued to play games of deception. Whatever you call the Invasion of Iraq, stupid, silly, horrific and all, one thing that it was, was legal.

Now if the UN had made a resolution cancelling these resolutions then that would have been different, but they didn’t did they?

My predicition? The U.S will maintain a large force and control over Iraqi affairs until the completion of the four plus permanent bases in Iraq, at which point the U.S will withdraw to these basis and leave Iraq in the hands of a lame duck government. If such a government (which would invariably be seen as a U.S. puppet) the U.S. would be in a position to bring in a Murabek or Mushareff style "strongman", to rule in an authoritarian fashion while still giving lip service to the democractic process. But then, I'm an optimist.

I don’t know about the puppet government, you think they have problems now with credibility, wait until they hold free elections after the interim government has their day and it’s hand picked candidates. Therefore I don’t believe for a moment it will be a puppet government. If it is, then I will concede to your way of thinking. However, until that happens, let’s wait and see, I contend that since that is the vocalized purpose of the US invasion - to bring democracy to Iraq, they will have to accept whatever form that takes, however painful.

I think the problem is, KK, that the anti-USA crowd (more accurately, the anti-imperialism crowd) simply doesn;t buy it. By your own admission, the U.S. has a poor track record in foreign affairs. People on my side of the fence don't have any reason to belive the leopard has changed its spots, especially considering the group in charge. We hear the rhetoric coming from Bush, Rummy, et al. We just don't buy it.

And I explained to you how much easier this could have gone simply by weakening Saddam and allowing a coup. Don’t you think for a moment that it would have been much easier to do that and thereby, commit all those troops to Syria instead? Heck, they would even have the help of the ‘New Regime’ for crying out loud. Your argument is as tired and false as the ‘oil for blood’ slogans.

Just wondering, where do you think the US should go from here? Should they pull out? Allow an election immediately and trust that Iraiqs themselves will be able to hold free and fair elections? Is that within realistic expectations on the left or are you more or less resigned to the same reality that is the right in that we are locked on a course that must be seen until it berths at a democratic vote?

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted

The war in Iraq was necessary from whatever view point is taken. If you are liberal then you will understand the massive amounts of human rights violations that took place are, in fact, crimes. Do not attempt the "well China does too and we aren't fighting them argument" that is futile. If you respect the human rights of people the more people free the better. If you are conservative then you will understand the need to disarm and dictator that aids and harbors terrorists that endanger the security of the United States. The American soldiers that have died there joined the military of their own accord. Joining the military is not a free-ride job. You run the risk of being killed when you sign the papers. As far as the "Dubya is finishing the job his father couldn't argument" goes, that is rediculous. The military under the first President Bush was far better equipped than the military in its present condition. He did not invade all they way to Baghdad because he did not want to inherit the problems we are currently facing and it was not in the mission objective decided upon the by the UN security council ih how to deal with Iraq's invasion of its southern neighbor.

-Demonsthenes

Posted
I have quotes of Chirac, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Clinton all saying that they existed. If you don’t like that, then I also have the wording of the resolutions 1441,687,686 saying that Saddam is not permitted to process any WMD, related WMD Material, resources or related equipment and even specifies ‘dual purpose equipment.’ . I also have Blix’s report from the runup to the war saying that Saddam was in clear violation of the resolutions and Kay verifying it after the war.

Yadda yadda yadda. If you feel the war is justified based on legal niggling (can I also expect you to support a U.S.-led coalition to bring regime change to Israel too?) fine. But as I've said, and will say no more, the war was "sold" on the basis that Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMD that posed an "immediate" threat to world stability. There wa sno basis for immediate military action. the sanctions were working. The inspections were working.

Does the average Iraqi guy strap a bomb to himself and blow up people? Does the average Iraqi hack fellow clerics to death with swords? Explain how letting a bunch of heavily armed guys who are the private army of the violent murderous cleric settle in a city and fire at US forces and be called justified when there is an arrest warrant out for the guy? Do you think that these guys are contributing to the stability of the situation or do you not think that is might be just a tad creepy against what the general population want given the fact that the rest of the country is trying to build a life for themselves and promote stabilty so they can build a country, heal and make a government?

I'm not defending the methods or the objectives of the insugency, only stating that it is their right to resist an occupying foreign army.

US controls the oil in Iraq and the price goes up. Got to hear the Liberal conspiracy on that one LOL.

Gee, and who benefits from high oil prices...hmmm...

Over 80% of the oil contracts so far have gone to non-US interests.

Care to back that up? I look around I see Halliburton (Cheney's old pals) getting lucrative deals, I see Betchel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All are US-owned and headquartered.

Anyway, oil (who controls the supply and who profits) is the cornerstone of the U.S. policy vis a vis Iraq, and has been for a while.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary." -Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002
The issue of the permanent military presence is valid as it would be a completely predictable move for the US to make as it plans on continuing it mission of enabling democracy in the region via economic, cultural, political and if necessary military means.

Sounds like good ol' fashioned imperialism to me, wot? Really, we must keep an eye on these savages, gawd knows they can't be trusted to manage their own affairs. Pass me a crumpet, Major.

I’m tired of this BD, go to Iraqibodycout.com and look the numbers up, then go to the UN report on how many people Saddam has killed. It comes out to ten or eleven thousand from Iraqi Body count and Saddam - 300,000 (not to mention the millions during war with Iran and Gulf I) Then average it out by months Saddam was in power and the time the US has been there.

Does that figure actually not include the deaths incurred during the Iran/Iraq war? How many during the sanctions? Not to defend Saddam, but I think the numbers lie.

More to the point, are we judging killers by volume now? Are the 10,000+ Iraqis that have died in the past year any better off than they were? Are their families? It's looking more and more like the Bush regime has no plan for Iraq, indeed, lacked a plan from the outset, and it's Iraqis who pay the price. :angry:

9 11 showed the US that in the nuclear age, it cannot wait until terrorists attack, it has to take action beforehand.

I don't remember any nukes on 9-11, but whatever. To be frank, that's crap. The whole doctrine of "preemptive" war is crap. You cannot fight terrorism with brute military force.

Just wondering, where do you think the US should go from here?

Turn over civil adminstration to the UN for a quick transition to a new governing council. Announce a date for internationally overseen regional elections. Withdraw the bulk of combat troops, focus on training Iraqis to do the job of keeping the peace and give them the means to do so. Send the meassage to the Iraqi people: "we've screwed up, so we're letting you take over. If you need help, we and the international community will oblige."

I really don't know if this is the solution. But I can tell you that the deeper the U.S sinks, the less chance Iraq will ever flourish as a democracy.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

More...

I don’t know about the puppet government, you think they have problems now with credibility, wait until they hold free elections after the interim government has their day and it’s hand picked candidates.

Behind the scenes, US tightens grip on Iraq's future

As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.

In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.

...

Currently, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which answers to the Pentagon, has total control of the governance of Iraq. It can issue decrees on virtually any topic, which then immediately become law. It will formally cease to exist on June 30. The Governing Council exists largely as an advisory body. Its members can pass laws, but the legislation must be approved by Mr. Bremer. The council has no control over the U.S. military, and in practice has little influence on civil matters.

It's unclear what powers the interim government, which will be set up by United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, will have. It will not control Iraq's security forces or military. In theory, it will have the ability to enforce and interpret laws on its own, though it will as of now lack the ability to write new ones or make large changes to them.

One thing is clear: The government's actions are likely to be heavily influenced by dozens of U.S. and Iraqi appointees at virtually all levels.

And more:

WMD intelligence "deliberately misleading": Powell

*take note of how Powell's own handlers try to pull him off the air.

When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed.

But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.

Not mentioned, of course, is the fact that the intelligence on Iraq was routed from the CIA through the D.O.D and the Office of Special Plans, which routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as 'likely,' 'probably' and 'may' as a way of depicting the country as an immediate threat.

Of course, seeing as how the Republicans are the party of personal responsibility, we can expect Powell to step down anyday, right? Right?

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
Thank god people like you, who can't even be bothered to get their facts straight before running their mouths, are minor voices that have no bearing on the future of humanity.

Got that off another thread. Your quote. I have facts, I would like to see some to support your arguments for a change.

Yadda yadda yadda. If you feel the war is justified based on legal niggling (can I also expect you to support a U.S.-led coalition to bring regime change to Israel too?) fine. But as I've said, and will say no more, the war was "sold" on the basis that Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMD that posed an "immediate" threat to world stability. There wa sno basis for immediate military action. the sanctions were working. The inspections were working.

Is Israel a Dictatorship that starves it’s own people? Do they have mass graves? Do they threaten the west? Do they have aspirations of taking over the entire middle east? Are they undergoing UN inspections? Are they supporting terroist organisations?

The people that I quoted all worked with the same intelligence that Bush and Co used to

make the case for war. The only difference was that Bush acted and they, for many reasons (most having nothing to do with peace and goodwill such as the UN Oil for Food ripoff and Chirac’s bribes from Saddam) sat on their hands.

I'm not defending the methods or the objectives of the insugency, only stating that it is their right to resist an occupying foreign army.

Got you. Just as it is your right to kill, murder, rob and rape fellow Canadians during the runup to an election? Where do you get the logic that the insurgents are legitimate? Who has given them any form of mandate? Who is their leader? What are their objectives? How will they govern once the US has been ousted? Who elected them?

Or is the Governing Council the interim voice of Iraq?

Gee, and who benefits from high oil prices...hmmm...

Gee, the people that own it? Everybody else still gets paid the same to develop, refine, pump, transport and all.

Care to back that up? I look around I see Halliburton (Cheney's old pals) getting lucrative deals, I see Betchel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All are US-owned and headquartered.

Are you unable to use a search engine? No wonder your arguments are continually flawed.

http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_oil2.php

“Have the Iraqis begun to sell oil?

Yes. Since the end of the war, SOMO has drawn up contracts for the sale of approximately 34 million barrels of oil to some of the world’s largest oil companies, including British Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, ChevronTexaco, Petrobras of Brazil, China’s Sinochem International, and French concern TotalFinaElf. Most of this oil is coming from Iraq’s southern oil fields and being transported to tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal at Mina al-Bakr.”

Sounds like good ol' fashioned imperialism to me, wot? Really, we must keep an eye on  these savages, gawd knows they can't be trusted to manage their own affairs. Pass me a crumpet, Major.

Cute. Emotional, baseless and fraught with ommission of facts. Typical leftist crap. You call them Savages and the US is trying to empower them. You would have them under Saddam and the US would free them. Major.

Does that figure actually not include the deaths incurred during the Iran/Iraq war? How many during the sanctions? Not to defend Saddam, but I think the numbers lie.

More to the point, are we judging killers by volume now? Are the 10,000+ Iraqis that have died in the past year any better off than they were? Are their families? It's looking more and more like the Bush regime has no plan for Iraq, indeed, lacked a plan from the outset, and it's Iraqis who pay the price.

No. If it included the war it would be over a million and a half. These are mass graves, not a baby dying of malnutrician and bvuried in a private funeral. As a side note, Saddam used UN ration cards as a form of control, held medical supplies and food for his troops and party members. There was more than enough stuff getting to Iraq to feed the people. As well, I guess you havn’t heard of the UN scandel? . I know you knew that. Try using a search engine to verify it please before you call it BS.

As for judging killers by volume, LOL how else to you describe the Biblical proportions of death that Saddam inflicted on his people versus the relative miniscular amount that have died as a result of freeing them? So Far, if the US had not interveened, 25,000 Iraqis would be dead under his tenure. Net savings of fifteen thousand lives. Those who are alive will never know how their fate would have been different but the numberws tell us that there are fifteen thousand more alive today than there would have been, that number grows by 1,500 a m month. That is bad in your mind right?

I don't remember any nukes on 9-11, but whatever. To be frank, that's crap. The whole doctrine of "preemptive" war is crap. You cannot fight terrorism with brute military force.

Yet in the face of evidence you, like Chamberlain can make peace on an ‘if?’  All the signs were there, all the reasons were there, all the rights were there and you would choose peace and appeasement?  If you were in charge, whast would you tell the troops or for that matter the families of the troops who died ousting Saddam out of Jordan or Kuwait a decade later who died from a tactical nuke, nerve agent or a bio weapon of some kind?  That at least this time they didn’t do it pre-emtively.  That even though hundreds of thousands were killed that at least it was more justified?

While we are at it, tell me what indications you have that Saddam wasn’t trying to build WMD in the future given the fact that he had gone to no small expense and effort to maintain that capability.  Why would he desire this stuff?  And last, tell me why you think that Saddam never had any intention of ever being aggressive again?

Turn over civil adminstration to the UN for a quick transition to a new governing council.

Hmmmm, you must be John Kerry. That’s his plan too. Tell me Black Dog, has the UN returned the call? So far they have declined all invitations. Unless of course you know something the rest of us do not. Seems they don’t like getting blown up and shot at, running away when it happens never to return.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted
Got that off another thread. Your quote. I have facts, I would like to see some to support your arguments for a change.

I guess to you "facts" are those things that support your arguments. I've posted a ton of facts,a swell as various expert opinions on the legalities of the war. The international legal community remains divided on the war, so it's no surprise that you haven't convinced me.

Is Israel a Dictatorship that starves it’s own people? Do they have mass graves? Do they threaten the west? Do they have aspirations of taking over the entire middle east? Are they undergoing UN inspections? Are they supporting terroist organisations?

Israel commits human rights abuses, illegally occupies land and posseses illegal WMD, all in violation of international law and UN resolutions. Based on your strict legal interpretation of world events, this should be enough to elicit some kind of response.

Got you. Just as it is your right to kill, murder, rob and rape fellow Canadians during the runup to an election? Where do you get the logic that the insurgents are legitimate? Who has given them any form of mandate? Who is their leader? What are their objectives? How will they govern once the US has been ousted? Who elected them?

My logic is the same as that used by George Wshington and the French partisans: people have the right to resist foreign occupation. Period.

Gee, the people that own it? Everybody else still gets paid the same to develop, refine, pump, transport and all

You mean the forign oil companies you mention below?

Are you unable to use a search engine? No wonder your arguments are continually flawed.

Whatever. You stated a figure (80 per cent), I asked for backing, you failed to comply (no where does your link confirm your statement that 80 per cent of Iraqi oil is being sold to non-US firms.) I'm just going to assume you made that number up.

Cute. Emotional, baseless and fraught with ommission of facts. Typical leftist crap. You call them Savages and the US is trying to empower them. You would have them under Saddam and the US would free them. Major.

Satire is beyond you. Your argument that the U.S. is "empowering" Iraqis (by torturing prisoners and strafing weddings, I assume) and that a permenant US military prescence is necessay to "enable" democracy smacks of the "white man's burden" logic that drove British imperialism in the last two centuries. It's rife with paternalistic and racist assumptions that "these people" cannot manage their own affairs without the firm hand of the west to guide them.

No. If it included the war it would be over a million and a half. These are mass graves, not a baby dying of malnutrician and bvuried in a private funeral. As a side note, Saddam used UN ration cards as a form of control, held medical supplies and food for his troops and party members. There was more than enough stuff getting to Iraq to feed the people. As well, I guess you havn’t heard of the UN scandel? . I know you knew that. Try using a search engine to verify it please before you call it BS.

As for judging killers by volume, LOL how else to you describe the Biblical proportions of death that Saddam inflicted on his people versus the relative miniscular amount that have died as a result of freeing them? So Far, if the US had not interveened, 25,000 Iraqis would be dead under his tenure. Net savings of fifteen thousand lives. Those who are alive will never know how their fate would have been different but the numberws tell us that there are fifteen thousand more alive today than there would have been, that number grows by 1,500 a m month. That is bad in your mind right?

We have absolutely no way of knowing how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war. The 10,000+ figure is civilian casulaties only, that does not include the number of Iraqi troops (predominately concripts) killed in combat, as your numbers do. But it's really not a question of "who's worse" but of "are Iraqis better off". Assuming they are dying at a slightly smaller rate now (and again, your numbers lie, as it takes total Iraqi deaths during Saddam's regime and averages them out, which is misleading), the civil and physical infastructure of Iraq, once one of the most advanced in the region, has been decimated. Power, water and food are spotty, security is non-existent in much of Iraq. The future is uncertain, with sectarian violence or outright civil war distinct possibilites. Either that or continued occupation and governance by a foreign army.

Hmmmm, you must be John Kerry. That’s his plan too. Tell me Black Dog, has the UN returned the call? So far they have declined all invitations. Unless of course you know something the rest of us do not. Seems they don’t like getting blown up and shot at, running away when it happens never to return.

Bush is using the same rhetoric (having "borrowed" his "new" Iraq poilcy from Kerry). And honestly, after being sidestepped, insulted, coerced and ignored by the Bush admin, it's no wonder the UN is giving the US the cold shoulder when it comes with its hand out. As for the UN running wawy from Iraq: they're still there and are the people formulating the plans for the June transfer.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
I guess to you "facts" are those things that support your arguments. I've posted a ton of facts,a swell as various expert opinions on the legalities of the war. The international legal community remains divided on the war, so it's no surprise that you haven't convinced me.

I don't expect to convince you. Your mind is unchangable and you have proved it by your unwavering commitment to changing the criteria of the argument in order to portray your overall position as correct. For example, we talked about legalities and I show you where the resolutions authorize action and you bring in opinion. I show you how even the French acknowlege that it is legal and yuo come back with opinion. The only mind I would ever expect to change is one who is not sure which way to go on this issue. I would change it with fact rather than feeling. Saddam was a menace, Saddam would have become a problem far greater than he ever was if he continued on his present curse. He was given ample opportunity to change and did not. Hence, the US, using the UN's own resolutions formed a coalition and took car of him.

My logic is the same as that used by George Wshington and the French partisans: people have the right to resist foreign occupation. Period.

Ah yes. GW, the man who killed his own people in order to get them to think the British were not effective in keeping law and order. Did not GW have a popular vote to back him, you know, one from the people themselves? Show me where the majority of Iraqis wish the Insurgents to kill them a little more via suicide bombs in order to perpetuate the instability and fear that they all really want. Unless of course normal Iraqis do not want to live in fear and instability, then of course your argument is invalid..

You mean the forign oil companies you mention below?

Whatever. You stated a figure (80 per cent), I asked for backing, you failed to comply (no where does your link confirm your statement that 80 per cent of Iraqi oil is being sold to non-US firms.) I'm just going to assume you made that number up.

OK, I couldn’t find it on the spur of the moment. I ask you to do some simple math and here, using the quote below find that the figure is actually more like 85%.

Have the Iraqis begun to sell oil?

Yes. Since the end of the war, SOMO has drawn up contracts for the sale of approximately 34 million barrels of oil to some of the world’s largest oil companies, including British Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, ChevronTexaco, Petrobras of Brazil, China’s Sinochem International, and French concern TotalFinaElf. Most of this oil is coming from Iraq’s southern oil fields and being transported to tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal at Mina al-Bakr.
Israel commits human rights abuses, illegally occupies land and posseses illegal WMD, all in violation of international law and UN resolutions. Based on your strict legal interpretation of world events, this should be enough to elicit some kind of response.

No argument here. I think that your fatuousness shows through here though. Israel has not mobilized a million soldiers and invaded another country with the intent of taking it over, nor has it once again mobilized a million or so and done it again and then poised to invade yet another country with the intent of taking it over lock stock and barrel. Israel, while in violation of Resolutions is nowhere near the danger that Iraq ever posed to world peace. Israel posess a problem through ONE SOLITARY PROBLEM - Their conflict with the Palestinians.

Satire is beyond you. Your argument that the U.S. is "empowering" Iraqis (by torturing prisoners and strafing weddings, I assume) and that a permenant US military prescence is necessay to "enable" democracy smacks of the "white man's burden" logic that drove British imperialism in the last two centuries. It's rife with paternalistic and racist assumptions that "these people" cannot manage their own affairs without the firm hand of the west to guide them.

smacks of the "white man's burden" logic that drove British imperialism in the last two centuries.

Well said but not even close. In the days of the British, England was highly unlikely to be in the remotest danger from hordes of spear throwing aborigionals from thousands of miles away. This is a different world today. A loose canister of chemicals from a terrorist (you have noticed that most terrorists who attack the west are from the Middle East havn't you?) can wreak havoc. It is an action of necessity to address this problem. Surely you agree with this? I assume that our onlky lines of diffeerence are the methods.

As for the method here I suppose that you would have approved of the opposite destroying the regime and installing a US approved dictator? After all, this is what the left had assumed was going to happen from the start. Now you are against democracy or are you against the installation of a US friendly dictator?

We have absolutely no way of knowing how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war. The 10,000+ figure is civilian casulaties only, that does not include the number of Iraqi troops (predominately concripts) killed in combat, as your numbers do. But it's really not a question of "who's worse" but of "are Iraqis better off". Assuming they are dying at a slightly smaller rate now (and again, your numbers lie, as it takes total Iraqi deaths during Saddam's regime and averages them out, which is misleading), the civil and physical infastructure of Iraq, once one of the most advanced in the region, has been decimated. Power, water and food are spotty, security is non-existent in much of Iraq. The future is uncertain, with sectarian violence or outright civil war distinct possibilites. Either that or continued occupation and governance by a foreign army.

You have no way of knowing? No wonder your arguments are not based on fact. Iraqibodycount is a leftist anti war organization. They tell you exactly how they get their figures. I can help you with proof but you have to be able to know how to use it and how to verify it. It's the left's figures, not mine. If anything, they are inflated to back up your points. Anyhow, scince you don't have any proof (as usual) we have to take that leftist site's word on it. Here is proof of Saddam's killings

300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

BASSEM MROUE and NIKO PRICE

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's government is believed to have buried as many as 300,000 opponents in 263 mass graves that dot the Iraqi landscape, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration said Saturday.

Bush is using the same rhetoric (having "borrowed" his "new" Iraq poilcy from Kerry). And honestly, after being sidestepped, insulted, coerced and ignored by the Bush admin, it's no wonder the UN is giving the US the cold shoulder when it comes with its hand out. As for the UN running wawy from Iraq: they're still there and are the people formulating the plans for the June transfer.

OK, without gong any further, let's go back here when I asked for your view of what should happen here. You said to turn it over to the UN. Now you agree with me that the UN did not, does not and will not want to do anything with Irq other than administrate it. Sorry BD but admining isn't what Iraq needs right now, they have a council and they need security more than anything.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted
Ah yes. GW, the man who killed his own people in order to get them to think the British were not effective in keeping law and order. Did not GW have a popular vote to back him, you know, one from the people themselves? Show me where the majority of Iraqis wish the Insurgents to kill them a little more via suicide bombs in order to perpetuate the instability and fear that they all really want. Unless of course normal Iraqis do not want to live in fear and instability, then of course your argument is invalid..

Give me a break. No one likes foreign occupation. Most Iraqis want the U.S. gone. People don't need to conduct a referendum to determine whether or not an occupying power should be resisted. According to you, revolutionary movements throughout history should have stopped and taken polls before proceeding. Imagine this scene unfolding across Europe circa 1943: "Well, fellas, we lost the vote, I guess we just have to learn to live under the Nazis because we don't have an expressed mandadte by the peopel to fight back."

OK, I couldn’t find it on the spur of the moment. I ask you to do some simple math and here, using the quote below find that the figure is actually more like 85%.

No where are you getting the 85 per cent figure from? "Simple math" using what figures? Explain.

Israel, while in violation of Resolutions is nowhere near the danger that Iraq ever posed to world peace.

Um..In case you've been napping, the Palestinian "issue" is a major bone of contention in the Arab world. It's the source of much anti-Israel and anti-USA sentiment and a continued focus of terrorist organizations (Remembe rthe four mercenaries killed in Fallujah? The crowd that dragged the bodies through the streets was chanting the name of Hamas leader Sheik Yassin).

One would think someone interested in fighting terrorism would want to take steps to ensure stability and act to remove some of the things that motivate terrorists. Not to mention the fact that Israel's record of human rights violations are beyond the pale for a country that calls itself a democracy.

the days of the British, England was highly unlikely to be in the remotest danger from hordes of spear throwing aborigionals from thousands of miles away. This is a different world today. A loose canister of chemicals from a terrorist (you have noticed that most terrorists who attack the west are from the Middle East havn't you?) can wreak havoc. It is an action of necessity to address this problem. Surely you agree with this? I assume that our onlky lines of diffeerence are the methods.

Specious logic, at best, given that Iraq had no connections to global terrorism or to the 9-11 attacks. If anything, the invasion of Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse by fuelling more anti-American sentiment.

As for the method here I suppose that you would have approved of the opposite destroying the regime and installing a US approved dictator? After all, this is what the left had assumed was going to happen from the start. Now you are against democracy or are you against the installation of a US friendly dictator?

Now look who's being fatuous. I don't believe democracy can be implemented by the military machinations of a foreign power. As I stated before, if the U.S. was actually interested in spreading democracy and fighting terror they would have started somewhere liek Saudi Arabia, a client state and the premier sponsor of terrorist organizations in the region. The US could have nurtured homegrown democracy movements and used their clout to push for democratic reforms. Instead, they went after Iraq, a place where any sane person would know that a foreign backed democratic experiment would have little chance of success. Which leaves us with two possibilities: either the U.S leadership is hopelessly incompetent and naive and honestly expected to be greeted with rose petals by throngs of jubilant Iraqis ready to take the reigns of a new democracy, or the whole business of democracy is a smokescreen, a bit of political slight of hand to dazzle the folks back home.

You have no way of knowing? No wonder your arguments are not based on fact. Iraqibodycount is a leftist anti war organization. They tell you exactly how they get their figures. I can help you with proof but you have to be able to know how to use it and how to verify it. It's the left's figures, not mine. If anything, they are inflated to back up your points. Anyhow, scince you don't have any proof (as usual) we have to take that leftist site's word on it. Here is proof of Saddam's killings

300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

Uh. Iraq Body Count's numbers are estimates . As the U.S. general who led the invasion said "We don't do body counts.".

Again, though, the Saddam's brutality is not the issue (especially since-whoops!- the U.S. supported him while he merrily filled mass graves). It remains a question of are Iraqis better off"? (A question you totally sidestepped)

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,833
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    maria orsic
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • VanidaCKP earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • maria orsic earned a badge
      First Post
    • Majikman earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • oops earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Politics1990 went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...