The Iraq Thread 2

[Cephalid 0]

Well they all tried. The UN did, germany did france did some other 120 plus countries did. How do you handle a leader or better say administration that doesn´t give a F**** about other countries opinions ?

yup we all tried. but if it wasn't for continuous opposition of France for the sake of opposition, who knows if that was able to prevent TBA from going in with that shitty little idea of "non-UN compliance'?

They didn't oppose it because the sake of opposition but because there was no justification for war. Something like 90% of the French people were opposed to the war and their democratically elected leaders represented that view in the UN.

And blaming it on France is quite silly as of about 200  countries, something like 40 supported the war.

Well may be 90% percent of the French where against this war. But don't expect that the European governments, Germany, France and even Russia where just against the war because of it's people. Blair was supporting the war while there were mass demonstrations in London against this war.

Historically mainly France, also a little bit Germany and Russia had strong economic relations with this area. They were also afraid that they would loose influence, if a war would start. Doesn’t matter if the war would have taken place under UN role or by the alliance of the willing. They thought they would loose the one or other way and that's what's happening now. They may hopped that they could anticipate a war, what I not really believe. Bush is now giving out contracts for rebuilding the Iraq to US companies and companies of states of his alliance.

Well according WTO the bidding should be international. This is now a typical American behaviour. They use WTO law as long it is serves their interests, otherwise they don't give a s*** about it. But that’s another topic.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]No argument about that. As a religious, observant Jew, I have no problems with Bush's particular words, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.

That might be because Bush is standing on your side of the fence, so to speak.

And which side is that? I'm referring to myself as a United States citizen here.

And that doesn't mean that I think Bush is a great president or that I approve of his policies.

[Cephalid 0]

According Paul O' Neil, 9/11 and weapons of Mass destruction where never the reason for the attack of Iraq. They were locking for a legitimate reason since the beginning.

But read it your self.

BBC

NZZ

[denoir 0]

Well may be 90% percent of the French where against this war. But don't expect that the European governments, Germany, France and even Russia where just against the war because of it's people. Blair was supporting the war while there were mass demonstrations in London against this war.

Historically mainly France, also a little bit Germany and Russia had strong economic relations with this area. They were also afraid that they would loose influence, if a war would start.

Of course, but you're clearly on morally higer ground for not starting a war out of self-interest than starting a war out of self-interest.

Furthermore, it's not quite a simple question of economics. There is quite a lot of ideology involved on both sides. While USA clearly had among other things economic interests I'd say that the primary driving force behind the war was neo-conservative ideology. If economy was the only thing of interest then Bush Sr or Clinton would have already invaded Iraq.

Europe (especially France, Germany & Co) on the other hand has since WW2 had a very strong desire for multilateralism - shown by their serious attachement to the UN. It's also a question of ideology.

[miles teg 1]

I agree it's definitely alot about ideology. Paul O' Neil talks about how those around Bush kept on repeating to him like a mantra "stick to principles, stick to our principles." when Bush questioned the policies they were pushing him to support.

The real stunning thing about O'Neil's testimony is that he has 19,000 internal white house documents to back it up. On the show 60 minutes, they showed lots of those documents with very clear plans for invading Iraq and that were put together before 9/11. They even showed how the oil contracts would be devided up. I mean it's just STUNNING evidence showing that Bush took America to war for oil and yet most of the mainstream America media has had very little coverage about this massive bombshell. It's just sickening. I hope the democratic nominee for president makes some TV commercials that FULLY hammer home to Americans that Bush took us to war for oil and not because of 9/11, WMD's, or to capture Saddam Hussein and that Bush conned all of us.

With this amount evidence (and I'm certain legal action will be taken against O'Neil as some of the documents are said to be classified) it's impossible to refute that Bush misled America and got us into a mess of a war and increased the threat of terrorism against America (and the world).

But right now most conservative Americans don't seem to care and just pretend they don't hear or see the facts.

Trenches are dug and really the election all depends on the media. If the media continues to be pro-Bush and refuses to hammer him on his lies, then I think Bush will win because Americans are scared and uncertain about the future...but they see the economy recovering (supposedly) even as jobs continue to flow at record levels to developing countries with not even a peep about regulating such job losses.

But ultimately I'd say about 60-70% of Americans are just blind sheep who follow the herd led by the mainstream American TV media (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[toadeater 0]

According Paul O' Neil, 9/11 and weapons of Mass destruction where never the reason for the attack of Iraq. They were locking for a legitimate reason since the beginning.

But read it your self.

BBC

NZZ

Just verifies everything the "conspiracy theorists" have been saying.

The invasion of Iraq you're seeing today was supposed to happen back in 1991. Bush Sr. just couldn't get the leeway he needed with Old Europe's NATO along, and all the Islamic countries insisting that Iraq not be occuppied by the US. Now with 9/11 and the Anthrax letters, Bush had all the moral excuses he needed to go in alone.

That's besides the fact that he knew there was no WMD, and lied to Congress about it. Is lying to Congress, and presenting false evidence an impeachable offense, btw?

Let's not forget Tony Blair too.

[toadlife 3]

You guys all convieniently forget that Bill Clinton, the president all you Bush bashers love so much, was the first president that signed into law the declaration that Iraq needed a regime change, and that we were the country that should bring that regime change about. This happened in 1998 - two years before 'W' came into office.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm

September 11th only delayed the innevitable. The notion that we Americans are blind sheep is offensive. Americans were on board with going into Iraq and "finsihing the job" long before 'W' and his WMD campaign. The only people being fooled are the ones that were unfamiliar with the United States' policy towards Iraq in the first place.

The fact is removing Saddam Hussein was American policy before Geroge Bush came into office. Whatever we had been doing from 1998 until 2003 obviouly had not worked, and the sanctions we had against Iraq seemed to be only hurting the Iraqi people. Bush chose to go in and use the last resort to carry out the United States' policy on Iraq - plain and simple. The argument he used to get other countries on board may be questionable, but the policy was there from the beggining.

[ralphwiggum 6]

You guys all convieniently forget that Bill Clinton, the president all you Bush bashers love so much, was the first president that signed into law the declaration that Iraq needed a regime change, and that we were the country that should bring that regime change about. This happened in 1998 - two years before 'W' came into office.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm

September 11th only delayed the innevitable. The notion that we Americans are blind sheep is offensive. Americans were on board with going into Iraq and "finsihing the job" long before 'W' and his WMD campaign. The only people being fooled are the ones that were unfamiliar with the United States' policy towards Iraq in the first place.

and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

Quote[/b] ]The fact is removing Saddam Hussein was American policy before Geroge Bush came into office. Whatever we had been doing from 1998 until 2003 obviouly had not worked, and the sanctions we had against Iraq seemed to be only hurting the Iraqi people. Bush chose to go in and use the last resort to carry out the United States' policy on Iraq - plain and simple. The argument he used to get other countries on board may be questionable, but the policy was there from the beggining.

it didn't work because 1)there were traitors who would not listen to the president's words. (sounds familiar?) 2)If TCA lifeted sanction, would GOP accept it? no, they would have gone and cried that TCA was feeding Saddam.

as you said(about policy), if your statement is true, TBA went to war with a plan that should not be sold with a bad info. why wasn't TCA moving in to IRaq? becuase GOP would oppose, and there was no clear and present danger. after 9-11, the second assumption was placed under suspicion, and was in fact used by TBA as a part of 'war on terror' package. now the claim that TBA was merely following the policies already setforth is just an excuse, and a bad one sice that argument would imply that TBA lied to people, exploiting people's fear, to achieve a futile situation.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

How backstabbing. How absurd. How...political.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

How backstabbing. How absurd. How...political.

oh yeah

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLI....eact.02

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/13/iraq.us/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp also criticized Clinton.

"My hope would be that he would consult the bipartisan congressional leadership, consult the leadership that was put together, the tremendous coalition in the Persian Gulf under President Bush, and also consult very closely and carefully with all our allies," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/congress.iraq/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Gephardt noted that Gingrich and Lott pledged their support for Clinton's stance two weeks ago. "Two weeks later we are still not having action in the Congress on a resolution," Gephardt complained.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLI....ex.html

and on the other hand, the nations that tried to harass US says

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/world.reax.iraq.02/index.html

[toadlife 3]

and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

Yes I realize this. If Republicans were as willing to work with Democrats as vice versa, I think we might have gone into Iraq way back in 1998.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who wrote this quote:

Quote[/b] ]To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

[denoir 0]

The fact is removing Saddam Hussein was American policy before Geroge Bush came into office.  Whatever we had been doing from 1998 until 2003 obviouly had not worked, and the sanctions we had against Iraq seemed to be only hurting the Iraqi people. Bush chose to go in and use the last resort to carry out the United States' policy on Iraq - plain and simple. The argument he used to get other countries on board may be questionable, but the policy was there from the beggining.

The prefered method before W came to power was containment. And judging by the lack of WMD in Iraq, I'd say it worked very well.

From international point of view (and to which Clinton didn't object) Iraq was to be handled like Libya is handled today. Sooner or later Saddam would have presented a 'mea culpa', and sanctions would have been lifted. Through free trade and open communication Iraq would have adapted and changed into a more open country. That was the plan anyway.

The reason for the difficult road to that was the war in '91. It did not kill off Saddam, but it left him very weak domestically. So he had to re-assert his power which was done through brutal oppression and demagoguery, mostly anti-American. And the regular bombings of the so called "no-fly zone" did not make things better. All this made Saddam's return to grace very difficult. Not at all impossible though.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

How backstabbing. How absurd. How...political.

Isnt it exciting to read how the fate of a country was being tossed around by two political parties half way across the globe

[NavyEEL 0]

Quote[/b] ]and back then Republicans were the ones clamining it was an unneccesary movement. how ironic.

How backstabbing. How absurd. How...political.

Isnt it exciting to read how the fate of a country was being tossed around by two political parties half way across the globe  

it will be even more exciting to read about the successes of that country once it is rebuilt, a new government is in place, and modern education systems are up and running.

[bn880 5]

Yeah and when English is their primary language, !McDonalds favorite food, Holywoody favorite entertainment, and General Mortars favorite car eh.

OK, maybe that's not so hot.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Yeah and when English is their primary language, !McDonalds favorite food, Holywoody favorite entertainment, and General Mortars favorite car eh.  

OK, maybe that's not so hot.

dude, you've been playing with OFP too much.

anyways, as Miles Teg said,

http://money.cnn.com/2004....cnn=yes

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Treasury Department said Monday it is looking into how a government document from the very early days of the Bush administration -- marked "secret" and outlining plans for a post-Saddam Iraq -- became part of a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast Sunday night.

"Based on the '60 Minutes' segment aired Sunday evening, there was a document that was shown that appeared to be classified," said Treasury Department spokesman Rob Nichols. "It was for that reason that it was referred to the U.S. inspector general's office."

nice. guess CIA leak investigation is minor considering this huh?

on the other news

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/stop.loss.family/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Butz is one of thousands of service members whose retirements or separations from the military have been delayed over the past two years by so-called Pentagon "stop loss" orders.

The orders result from the stress of global deployments on the military since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The most recent were issued by the Army earlier this month to keep troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan from retiring or leaving military service for up to 90 days after they arrive home.

[Cephalid 0]

Of course, but you're clearly on morally higer ground for not starting a war out of self-interest than starting a war out of self-interest.

Furthermore, it's not quite a simple question of economics. There is quite a lot of ideology involved on both sides. While USA clearly had among other things economic interests I'd say that the primary driving force behind the war was neo-conservative ideology. If economy was the only thing of interest then Bush Sr or Clinton would have already invaded Iraq.

Europe (especially France, Germany & Co) on the other hand has since WW2 had a very strong desire for multilateralism - shown by their serious attachement to the UN. It's also a question of ideology.

Yes, I agree with you, that’s why they were pushing it over the UN, to extend and continue the inspections. Also starting a war in an Arab nation is not very aiding in the fights against terrorism. This war helps organisations like al-kaida to recruit new peoples and finding new supporters. But that’s something W ignores.

I think, well I have no proof, the economic relations had a bigger influence then many expect. Just try to imagine what the French industry lost because of this war. All the refineries in Iraq where manly delivered by European and Russian suppliers, but not only those, also most of the power stations and others. The Americans have a strong present in Saudi Arabia, but most of the other Arab nations try to buy by everybody else than American companies. These are billions of contractual values for overhauling and repairs which where lost. Don’t underestimate the influence of the industry in politics, especially the French oil industry. Russia for example had contracts for advancement of oil for the next couple of years, which are for the birds now.

[Apollo 0]

Very nice link that BBC article ,that gives some ground to discuss on.

Searching on data on the ellection contributors of Bush/Cheney 2001 ,i found some interresting data:

Ellection contributions from oil&gas company's to republicans and Democrats in the last ellection here

result:

Democrats: $5,022,832

Republicans: $19,879,181

total contributions since 1990:

Democrats: $41,303,372

Republicans: $118,257,058

Why do they have such an preference for the Republicans.  

Here is a list of some major contraters in Iraq rebuilding contract's with the amount of money they donated in the last ellection.

I can not guarantee that the source is not biased by default...

edit: yes i can ,the data is from a govermental commite

http://www.fec.gov/

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]it will be even more exciting to read about the successes of that country once it is rebuilt, a new government is in place, and modern education systems are up and running.

I hope the education system is anything but american

I dont want people living beside me spelling tyre , tire

[bn880 5]

Among a long list of what happened in Iraq

US Troops Kill Iraqi civilians

US attack heli shot down

[aj_addons 0]

i heard they nearly shot down one of those big transport planes a couple of days ago hit the wing with a strela or something

[bn880 5]

Yes a C-5 Galaxy, knocked #4 engine out, but wing stayed intact...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont want people living beside me spelling tyre , tire

What's wrong with spelling tire that way? What you have to worry about is the Americans trying to bring Ebonics to Iraq .

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont want people living beside me spelling tyre , tire

What's wrong with spelling tire that way? What you have to worry about is the Americans trying to bring Ebonics to Iraq   .

Jeez you know what tire in ENGLISH's english really means

Like tire , tiring ...

1.To diminish the strength or energy of; fatigue.

2.To exhaust the interest or patience of; bore.

Now i wonder how would that thing fit in a car

[bn880 5]

Try rubber and pants...