PDA

View Full Version : Why did we invade Iraq?



Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 14:39
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

Please give me a rational logical explanation based on the principle of common sense

Halyavshik
05-10-2004, 14:40
Oil.

kak
05-10-2004, 14:40
Could the reason be as simple as for oil and money ? (i mean BIG oil and BIG money) :(

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 14:41
Originally posted by Amanda Huggenkiss
Oil.

There is and will be very little oil coming out of Iraq

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:48
because a blow needed to be struck at the heart of the arab world to make it clear the us meant business.

because saddam was a vicious animal, and i'm sorry maine, those tinpot dictators in central asia don't compare, and he had been mucking around with inspectors for a decade (russia and france didn;t disagree with the assessment he had wmd) over weapons programs that were potentially extremely serious.

because iraq was not a fanatically religous society, one of saddam's few positives (religion was a threat to power), which gave grounds for hope that something approaching a democractic/civil society could be built there.

because a decent iraq could potentially set an example to other neighbouring states.

because saudi arabia couldn't be touched for fear of an iran-style regime taking control of a country with the world's largest oil reserves. taking iraq would also allow us bases to be moved from saudi soil, a serious gripe for muslims

to cut the price of oil as a side issue.

i don't think any of these were unreasonable or sinister goals. what then happened, the war-profiteering, sophistry, venality, arrogance etc was just unbelievable....and i feel like an imbecile for ever thinking better of bush and his gang.

kak
05-10-2004, 14:50
Maine i'm afraid you are totally.... wrong....!
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 14:51
Let's define the question a little better. "We" was a coalition of I believe to be 35 countries or something thereabouts?

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:53
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Let's define the question a little better. "We" was a coalition of I believe to be 35 countries or something thereabouts?

come off it...it was the us and britain.

the rest are a farce, including australia's contribution.

there was/is no coalition. a coalition is what bush snr had.

kak
05-10-2004, 14:55
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Let's define the question a little better. "We" was a coalition of I believe to be 35 countries or something thereabouts?

hum hum...:rolleyes: can you give me the name of the 35 countries ??.... i mean i'm not saying that they were not 35 but...did you have a look at this"coalition" ?

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 14:57
Originally posted by kakrout
hum hum...:rolleyes: can you give me the name of the 35 countries ??.... i mean i'm not saying that they were not 35 but...did you have a look at this"coalition" ?

Apparently Alqueda did.........as many of their civilians have lost their heads because of it!

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:00
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Let's define the question a little better. "We" was a coalition of I believe to be 35 countries or something thereabouts?

Coalition. A close friend of mine is a liaison between the White House and Kuchma. According to him, the US government threatened Kuchma's gang that if they didn't join "the coalition" they would pay for it later. On the contrary, if Ukraine decided to join, all kinds of good things would follow, including Kuchma's post presidential immunity. needless to say Kuchma jumped in and said thank you for letting me in. This is how so called "coalition" was formed. Most countries were threatened into joining or joined to benefit financially from the US. At the time the US government needed support badly. If I remember correctly, United Nations strongly opposed the invasion.

Halyavshik
05-10-2004, 15:03
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Let's define the question a little better. "We" was a coalition of I believe to be 35 countries or something thereabouts?

Yes, thank god for those troops from Honduras, Moldova and the Dominican Republic !

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:05
Originally posted by kakrout
Maine i'm afraid you are totally.... wrong....!
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
Agree it has a lot of reserves but....
With chaos in Iraq how can that oil can be pumped and exported? There will be no stability in Iraq in foreseeable future, as there will not be any in Afghanistan. The oil pipes will be blown up, personnel will be killed or kidnapped, etc.

DJ Biscuit
05-10-2004, 15:22
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
Agree it has a lot of reserves but....
With chaos in Iraq how can that oil can be pumped and exported? There will be no stability in Iraq in foreseeable future, as there will not be any in Afghanistan. The oil pipes will be blown up, personnel will be killed or kidnapped, etc.

Don't worry,the people who wanted this oil,and will get it, will simply build the price of death, destruction,murder and torture into the cost per barrel. The cost being paying to murder,torture and destroy in order to get that oil. Business is never simple.

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:25
As far as I remember there were two major and one minor reasons for us to invade Iraq.
Major:
1. Sadam's regime is a threat to humanity and the USA because of existing WMD.
2. Sadam is a threat to humanity and the USA because it harbors and supports terrorist, including Al qaeda.

Minor:
3. He's a bad guy and terrorizing his own people.

First two reasons turned out to be not true. So we invaded Iraq to get rid of sadam because of reason #3, to free Iraqies. They are free now.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:32
Originally posted by kakrout
Could the reason be as simple as for oil and money ? (i mean BIG oil and BIG money) :(

i've said before and i'll say it again. those that were for the war had economic reasons and those opposed also had economic reasons. its just that those oppossed were able to hide behind the moral high ground....

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:33
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
because a blow needed to be struck at the heart of the arab world to make it clear the us meant business.

because saddam was a vicious animal, and i'm sorry maine, those tinpot dictators in central asia don't compare, and he had been mucking around with inspectors for a decade (russia and france didn;t disagree with the assessment he had wmd) over weapons programs that were potentially extremely serious.

because iraq was not a fanatically religous society, one of saddam's few positives (religion was a threat to power), which gave grounds for hope that something approaching a democractic/civil society could be built there.

because a decent iraq could potentially set an example to other neighbouring states.

because saudi arabia couldn't be touched for fear of an iran-style regime taking control of a country with the world's largest oil reserves. taking iraq would also allow us bases to be moved from saudi soil, a serious gripe for muslims

to cut the price of oil as a side issue.

i don't think any of these were unreasonable or sinister goals. what then happened, the war-profiteering, sophistry, venality, arrogance etc was just unbelievable....and i feel like an imbecile for ever thinking better of bush and his gang.

Ned bravo,
it's the most profound explanation I've heard to date from anyone. Disagree with your points completely though

DJ Biscuit
05-10-2004, 15:34
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

So if we are to free people we consider not free, where next?

Cuba, why haven't we invaded them?

Chechnya?

Iran?

Uganda?

N. Korea?......etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.......

The list is endless, as is the willing suspension of disbelief given to Bush et al by people that actually believe that the motive was to free those people.

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:36
legspreader, I must have missd it. Please explain economic reasons behind people who opposed the war.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:37
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
Agree it has a lot of reserves but....
With chaos in Iraq how can that oil can be pumped and exported? There will be no stability in Iraq in foreseeable future, as there will not be any in Afghanistan. The oil pipes will be blown up, personnel will be killed or kidnapped, etc.

when calculating oil shipments traders bye and large discounted its supply due to saddams habit of cutting off supplies from time to time. alot of the spike in world oil prices can be associated with substantial uptake in demand globally especially asia supply disruptions and fears from Nigeria, Venazuella and from Yukos

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 15:37
My question is - why was Saddam not mopped up during Desert Storm back in 1991? Why did Iraq have to go through 13 more years of that rule? I remember wildly celebrating the capture of Saddam with about three of my notorious Toilet Duck cocktails - and then waking up the next morning asking why in the world I was celebrating something that happened 13 years too late and with so much unneeded agony.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:40
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
legspreader, I must have missd it. Please explain economic reasons behind people who opposed the war.

the major benificieries of the oil for food program were the same countries apposed to the war. some of this information is now offically coming to light as I understand it but time will tell....

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:42
Originally posted by 85StonePolarBear
My question is - why was Saddam not mopped up during Desert Storm back in 1991? Why did Iraq have to go through 13 more years of that rule? I remember wildly celebrating the capture of Saddam with about three of my notorious Toilet Duck cocktails - and then waking up the next morning asking why in the world I was celebrating something that happened 13 years too late and with so much unneeded agony.

the fear of what they're experiencing in Iraq right now, outrage in the arab world and a vietnam like scenario....

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:45
Originally posted by legspreader
the major benificieries of the oil for food program were the same countries apposed to the war. so of this information is now offically coming to light as I understand it but time will tell....

Can't argue with that :(

kak
05-10-2004, 15:51
Originally posted by legspreader
i've said before and i'll say it again. those that were for the war had economic reasons and those opposed also had economic reasons. its just that those oppossed were able to hide behind the moral high ground....

leg...think about that for one second:

"those opposed" were maybe not ready to have so much more blood on their hands just for................. money............

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:54
Originally posted by kakrout
leg...think about that for one second:

"those opposed" were maybe not ready to have so much more blood on their hands just for................. money............

Agree with legspreader. France, Russia and Chinabenefited from the deal and were hiding their real interests behind morale facade.

What about the Americans who opposed the war?

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:54
Originally posted by kakrout
leg...think about that for one second:

"those opposed" were maybe not ready to have so much more blood on their hands just for................. money............

now you just being navie, once again i'll state they're able to take the moral high ground. can you honestly say china russia care about blood on their hands. I've only used these countires as its undisputable human life isn't exactly their highest priorty, with the other countries its debatable. but they're are not above question either....

kak
05-10-2004, 16:04
i'm not being naive...i was referring to france and others country.. not countries like china or russia wich are notreally known as " real democraty countries"....

legspreader
05-10-2004, 16:06
ok france doesnt want blood on its hands in the middle east buts ok in africa. ok now i understand...

kak
05-10-2004, 16:11
i think you understand nothing leg...
give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?
oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??

legspreader
05-10-2004, 16:18
Originally posted by kakrout
i think you understand nothing leg...
give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?
oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??

here you go read up on your countries philithropic activities in africa ..... http://www.oxan.com/db/item.asp?NewsItemID=DB91318 they use it as they're personal play ground to exploit and manipulate as they see fit. as for your example of france invading countries you also have a short memory as invassion colanization is the legacy of frances glories past....

Random
05-10-2004, 16:20
Originally posted by kakrout
i think you understand nothing leg...
give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?
oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??

Guess the french revolution doesn't count ?? :D

trying to inject a sense of humour in this thread !!!!

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 16:27
Originally posted by Random
Guess the french revolution doesn't count ?? :D

trying to inject a sense of humour in this thread !!!!

well done!...and what about napoleon and the enlightenment belting that ramshackle reactionary coalition of monarchies!

kak
05-10-2004, 16:35
Random, injection welcome ;)
leg do not come to me with colonization please, (africa? america? slavery?) all you are doing is jumping to any direction, answer my last question then we'll start a new thread about how bad is france.
Someone start a thread call "why did we invade irak" you and i agree the fact it was just money/political reason but you have to come to me and tell that france is a ****ing bad country....guess what? i'm tired to repeat myself, i'm not the leader of my country, wich means that i may not support all the bad stuff that france has done in the past...You see i'm french i'm able to see what's wrong with my country/ my president...etc. etc. as for you i'm not really sure that you can stand any critism against America.

Random
05-10-2004, 16:42
Napolean !!! That man got more spanked than a ginger haired step child !!!

:D

I mean the french couldn't even invade where I'm from !! And you can see the buggers !! They did have a go mind you but were routed by a sterling performance by some brave chaps !!

:cool:

legspreader
05-10-2004, 16:51
Originally posted by kakrout
Random, injection welcome ;)
leg do not come to me with colonization please, (africa? america? slavery?) all you are doing is jumping to any direction, answer my last question then we'll start a new thread about how bad is france.
Someone start a thread call "why did we invade irak" you and i agree the fact it was just money/political reason but you have to come to me and tell that france is a ****ing bad country....guess what? i'm tired to repeat myself, i'm not the leader of my country, wich means that i may not support all the bad stuff that france has done in the past...You see i'm french i'm able to see what's wrong with my country/ my president...etc. etc. as for you i'm not really sure that you can stand any critism against America.

im not jumping in any direction just pointing out that france has more blood on their hands than they can ever attoin for, but convientally forget this when it suits them. as for france being a bad country, i was just pointing out that they're not as clean as you were trying to portry them. ok you're not the leader but you do hop back and forth in terms of your position. funny that you being french and all. i can stand critism of my country and agree with some of what others are saying but what i cant stand is when someone takes the position my countries good and yours is bad ignoring the faults of their own country. the phrase dont throw rocks in a glass house comes to mind. and yes you do take this position (at least in the tone and work of your messages).

oh as for recent blood letting how about this one http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ivory/2003/0104hands.htm

trebor
05-10-2004, 16:59
Good point legspreader,
can anyone explain the reason the French are getting involved there then?

kak
05-10-2004, 17:09
recently i said:
Do not vote for Bush
Irak war was for Oil!
recently you here: America s...cks!
well let's make it clear for both of you guys:
Busch s...ks this war like anyother s...ks
Good to know that you can come to me with past stories good to know that america has free us some decades ago
The question i asking to myself is: do i still have to discuss with you guys since it seems that you are a bit deaf.

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 17:14
This is a tongue in cheek article from MAXIM Magazine:

Next Stop: France!

It’s been nearly 60 years since France was last invaded. Le clock is ticking…

Maxim, June 2003

We pretended not to notice their anti-American rabble-rousing. We didn’t interfere when they committed one cultural atrocity after another. We turned the other cheek as they built up weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq? The Taliban? North Korea? Non, monsieur: C’est France, of course! The country that hones her nukes by blowing up Pacific islands. The nation that stuffs our ports with rancid cheese but rallies to keep American movies out of her precious cinema. The U.N. Security Council afterthought that’s carried on a torrid, oily affair with Iraq for over a decade.

Who unties France from the tree and helps her find her panties every time the Germans are done with her? America, that’s who. Our reward? A nonstop stream of lip-sneering, cigarette-waving, mime-walking-a-dog snobbery. Time to return le favor.

C’EST LA GUERRE
When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache.

Gallic Wars, 58–51 B.C. (L)
Julius Caesar was the first in a long line of foreigners to wipe his sandals on the face of France. Local chiefs welcomed him, hoping he’d protect them from—why, looky here!—Germany. Instead, Caesar made them his bitches.

100 Years War, 1337–1453 (W)
France, being progressively wiped out by technically weaker British forces, dramatically improved the caliber of her army by signing up one schizophrenic teenage girl (Joan of Arc). We can’t make this stuff up, folks.

Italian Wars, 1494–1559 (L)
France mixed it up with various Italian city-states, hoping for a piece of the big pizza pie. Instead she got a Mafia-style beating, becoming one of the few countries to lose multiple engagements to…ahem…Italy.

30 Years War, 1618–1648 (T)
France was not initially a participant in this Holy Roman Empire smackdown but managed to get invaded anyway because…well, why not? We score it a tie since the other participants eventually just started ignoring her.

French and Indian Wars, 1689–1763 (T)
France’s ploy to trick Native Americans into conquering Canada and everything east of the Ohio River failed when said braves woke up and smelled the cheese. Two “ties” in a row induced delusions of military grandeur.

American Revolution, 1775–1783 (W)
In a move that will sound eerily familiar to future Americans, France skipped in at the last minute to claim a share of the victory. The first rule of French warfare: The less we fight, the more likely it is we’ll actually win.

French Revolution, 1789 (W)
Real victory at last! Of course, this was at least in part because their opponent was also French. And fat…and asleep…and good at dancing…and prone to wearing wigs and vast amounts of clown makeup.

The Napoleonic Wars, 1803–1815 (L)
Napoleon (great General…alas, Corsican, not French) marched army into a Russian winter in spring uniforms.

The Franco-Prussian War, 1870–1871 (L)
Pissed off by a royal wedding in Spain, France declared war on Germany. In one of history’s recurring roles, Germany laid siege to Paris. One general defending the collapsing city actually fled in a hot-air balloon.

World War I, 1914–1918 (T)
On the verge of loss, France was saved—get used to this—by the U.S. Madame learned what it’s like to bed a winner who doesn’t call her Fräulein. Sadly, GI condoms stalled improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II, 1939–1945 (L)
The conquered Frogs were just sitting down to bratwurst mit der Führer when they were liberated by the U.S. and Britain. They shaved the heads of Nazi collaborators until the world’s razor supply was depleted.

War in Indochina, 1946–1954 (L)
French colonialist forces in Southeast Asia pleaded sickness, took to bed with the Dien Bien flu. The frogs inspired Charlie to such intense hatred of foreigners, even the U.S. found itself mired in la merde.

Algerian War of Independence, 1954–1962 (L)
Now even poverty-stricken African colonial upstarts could smell patsy…The first rule of modern Muslim warfare was born: We can always beat the French.

War on Terror, 2001–In progress
France, trying to get a jump on the inevitable, has surrendered to Germany and fundamentalist Islam; a plan to surrender to Monaco was foiled when the prince escaped in a cab. —Sid Stafford


FROG FACTS

Forty percent of Frenchmen and 25 percent of Frenchwomen do not change their underwear every day. Tied together, all those soiled briefs would make a stinkin’ chain 3,700 miles long… from Paris to Baghdad and back!


Technically, it’s not France; it’s the Fifth Republic of France. When the French decide their constitution stinks, they just give up and slap together a new country. Germany reportedly still wants in on this action.


When you need to be rescued, what language you gonna speak? Mayday, the term used by distressed sailors and aviators, comes from the French term m’aidez, which expresses France’s national motto: Help me.


MADE IN FRANCE?
Not everything French sucks. How ’bout:

The 3 Musketeers Bar
The duplicitous nature of a scrumptious treat that looks like doody—what’s more French? Alors…the trail sadly leads straight to our own Mars, Inc. in McLean, Virginia.

French Kissing
Of course zey invented this one—they’re pros at battling with only their tongues, right? Um…actually, our Kama Sutra tells us the Hindus had perfected the technique by the fourth century. Another reason India should replace France on the UN Security Council.

French’s Mustard
It’s yellow, it runs, and it stains the pants…could anything be more French? Mais non, monsieur—inventor George French, of good ol’ Rochester, New York, simply had the misfortune of being born with a lousy name. Let’s call it Mickey Mousetard.

The French Maid
At last, a truly French invention! Impractical can-can outfits, feather dusters…those inconsiderate sickos could at least buy them vacuums.

kak
05-10-2004, 17:38
at least you could come with some new jokes ....

:rolleyes:

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 17:42
Originally posted by kakrout
at least you could come with some new jokes ....

:rolleyes:

You need to write to MAXIM Magazine, not me.

trebor
05-10-2004, 17:42
Originally posted by kakrout
recently i said:
Do not vote for Bush
Irak war was for Oil!
recently you here: America s...cks!
well let's make it clear for both of you guys:
Busch s...ks this war like anyother s...ks
Good to know that you can come to me with past stories good to know that america has free us some decades ago
The question i asking to myself is: do i still have to discuss with you guys since it seems that you are a bit deaf.

Karoute,
WAR sucks, i agree but sometimes the reasons don't.

trebor
05-10-2004, 17:51
While yankee@moscow is perhaps a little over the top. I do have to agree with him.
France owes a massive debt to the States (we all do in Europe)and never once has tried to repay it or even aknowledge that it even exists!
Another point, if the same were to happen again i mean the security of Europe were threatened, the States would do the same again.

kak
05-10-2004, 18:06
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
You need to write to MAXIM Magazine, not me.

"Maxim, June 2003"

Hello Mac Fly! it's october 2004 out there!

:rolleyes:

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 18:46
Originally posted by trebor
While yankee@moscow is perhaps a little over the top. I do have to agree with him.
France owes a massive debt to the States (we all do in Europe)and never once has tried to repay it or even aknowledge that it even exists!
Another point, if the same were to happen again i mean the security of Europe were threatened, the States would do the same again.

I really don't think that France owes America anything. That's all water under the bridge. Most of that generation is gone. We'll miss them, but it's a whole new world now.

If anything, France and the USA are tolerating each other these days. I think that we are allies when necessary. I don't have any feelings one way or the other. That's just an observation. I've only been to France twice. It's difficult to form an opinion when you haven't lived in a place.

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 18:47
The Parisien: Better to read one than to meet one

Big Bugga
05-10-2004, 19:05
france has nothing to gain? Do some reading. Frances large "muslim" population has a number of forward thinking business men. Seems if you check, French muslims have been cleaning house in the Arab world with new products that basicaly dupilate the favorite ones made in the USA that for political reasons muslim clerics in the middle east have been screaming for their people to stop using and supporting the capatalist devils in the west. Smokes, soda's ect ect ect. Total knock offs of the western products but sold by the french not the americans so its all ok. It may not be oil money but some pockets are getting filled, and they belong to those cheese eatin' surrender monkeys the french. And I dont even remember who mentioned American Slavery, but last time I checked it was Europeans that brought em there and continued to sell them there to increase the amount of good that could be sold and in turn shipped back to Europe, sorry the americans where wrong for using them, but so was everyone involved, dont even bring up that crap. Sweet baby jeebus, if people want to bring up slavery start a new thread and I'll be happy to show how everyone has enslaved someone else and in turn been enslaved through the history of man...stupid.

Bugga'

Filimon
05-10-2004, 19:54
Originally posted by trebor
While yankee@moscow is perhaps a little over the top. I do have to agree with him.
France owes a massive debt to the States (we all do in Europe)and never once has tried to repay it or even aknowledge that it even exists!
Another point, if the same were to happen again i mean the security of Europe were threatened, the States would do the same again.

Ahem, how long back are we going to go debt-wise? Wasn't it French who helped the US big time to defeat British in the War of Independence, thus creating a debt to the French for the very existence of their country?

Filimon
05-10-2004, 20:06
Saddam was a total a.sehole - no question about that. However, fighting crime by committing another crime does not improve the situation. If you kill someone for killing someone - you will still go to prison. It seems that US is above the law.

Canadian1979
05-10-2004, 22:38
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I really don't think that France owes America anything.


Other way around I'd say. It was france who helped your criminal exile forefathers to gain their independence from the British. I'd call that a debt that won't be paid off for a few more centuries.

Canadian1979
05-10-2004, 22:40
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
Why did we invade Iraq?


As for the original topic, has no one else heard that Iraq (Saddam) was making the move toward the Euro as the main currency for his oil for food sales? And pushing other Arab leaders to do the same. Doing so would have thrown the US dollar even further into decline.

kniga
06-10-2004, 00:41
Kakrout,

"give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?"

Algeria ring a bell?

Braders
06-10-2004, 05:10
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

Please give me a rational logical explanation based on the principle of common sense


Without reading a single post i would opt for Oil and the 'God syndrome' eg: policeman of the world. short and straight to the point.

Canadian1979
06-10-2004, 05:20
Originally posted by Braders
...policeman of the world....


The problem with that is no one wants you to be "world police". We want you to mind your own damned business. USA is a big country, fix your own backyard before messing with everyone else.

Braders
06-10-2004, 05:24
Originally posted by Canadian1979
The problem with that is no one wants you to be "world police". We want you to mind your own damned business. USA is a big country, fix your own backyard before messing with everyone else.


I agree unfortunately there has to be a copper!

and as we all know, you're defenseless if they want to haul you into the station for no good reason.

Big Bugga
06-10-2004, 06:35
http://www.teamamericamovie.com/

put this in your maple leaf pipe and smoke it molsen ice for brains!

Bugga'

trebor
06-10-2004, 08:34
Originally posted by Canadian1979
The problem with that is no one wants you to be "world police". We want you to mind your own damned business. USA is a big country, fix your own backyard before messing with everyone else.

Tell that to the people of North Korea. The country that should be next on the list for a forceable leadership change.

kak
06-10-2004, 11:04
Originally posted by kniga
Kakrout,

"give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?"

Algeria ring a bell?

Kniga with all respect, please quote me correctly:

give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?
oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??

btw if you think that Algeria as smthing to do with "economical reason" and that you can compare(france/algeria) with (us/irak) change your book of history.... :rolleyes:

kak
06-10-2004, 11:07
oh by the way, i'm not De gaulle...i was not borm by that time, what i like from you guys is that you always come to me with history....that's nice but when i come to you telling that bush is a cretin and that the irak war was for oil, i'm talking about RIGHT NOW ;)
Did i ever criticize smthin else? past stuff?........
Still the same old song with you guys...bah
:rolleyes:

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:32
Originally posted by Filimon
Ahem, how long back are we going to go debt-wise? Wasn't it French who helped the US big time to defeat British in the War of Independence, thus creating a debt to the French for the very existence of their country?

actaully that was more or less oportunism on their part. they provided logistical support covertly initially and didnt provide military support until they saw we had a good chance of winning. its the old addage the enemy of my enemy is my friend. the french were still a bit miffed about the bloody nose the brits had just given them and they were itching for pay back.

Sadie
06-10-2004, 11:32
Bedtime Stories for Young children (http://mbravo.spb.ru/blog-arch/000092.html) :)

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:34
Originally posted by Canadian1979
Other way around I'd say. It was france who helped your criminal exile forefathers to gain their independence from the British. I'd call that a debt that won't be paid off for a few more centuries.

so what does that make the candians the bastard step children of the american indians french and english.

Maine Surfer
06-10-2004, 11:35
Originally posted by Braders
Without reading a single post i would opt for Oil and the 'God syndrome' eg: policeman of the world. short and straight to the point.

You know, these reasons are obvious. Back when the invasion started I lived in Maine. People were feeling very patriotic with support for war everywhere.

Explained by the White House, there were 3 reasons to invade Iraq:

1. Sadam was an immediate threat to the US because it was a proven fact that he had developed ready to be deployed WMD.

2. Sadam was an immediate threat to the US because it was a proven fact that he was harboring terrorists preparing to strike the US.

3. We wanted to help Iraqi people. They needed to be free from the dictator.

Actually #3 was the most popular emotional reason, especially among American women. Oh, terrible Sadam.

When I tried to open my mouth about oil being the reason behind the whole thing, I started getting emotional punches below my waist. People looked and told me that I simply was an immigrant who didn't understand patriotism, that America gave me everything; that I was unthankful foreigner, etc. It hurt quite a bit as I truly love the country so I kept my mouth shut.

Now, nearly two years later, the White House goons officially declared that there hasn't been any evidence to back reasons #1 and #2. Reason #3: All Iraqis hate Americans and want them out of their country. That includes Iraqi women and children.

I'll rephrase my question. Americans, who believed that going to Iraq was just according to the three reasons, please explain me now,

Why did we invade Iraq?

85StonePolarBear
06-10-2004, 11:36
Originally posted by Big Bugga
france has nothing to gain? Do some reading. Frances large "muslim" population has a number of forward thinking business men. Seems if you check, French muslims have been cleaning house in the Arab world with new products that basicaly dupilate the favorite ones made in the USA Bugga'

As an FMCG analyst by profession (who is not entirely unfamiliar with the market for FMCG products in the Arab world), I think that you are exaggerating the impact of products such as MeccaCola. One look at their website and the photos of the packaging therein show that the products are low budget imitations, which will sell mainly to lower income consumers who rarely, if ever, bought the original US product in any event. My prediction is that these "Islamic" brands are a fad which will not last longer than a couple of years, and despite what you or I may have read, I wonder about their profitability. I also wonder who is really behind them (Saudi sponsored extremist groups??)

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:37
Originally posted by Canadian1979
As for the original topic, has no one else heard that Iraq (Saddam) was making the move toward the Euro as the main currency for his oil for food sales? And pushing other Arab leaders to do the same. Doing so would have thrown the US dollar even further into decline.

dont talk business you're not very good at it. it would take more than saddam to change the currency oil is traded in. hell european leaders have been pushing that for years.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:41
Originally posted by Canadian1979
The problem with that is no one wants you to be "world police". We want you to mind your own damned business. USA is a big country, fix your own backyard before messing with everyone else.

canadian crawl back into your hole. the US is stuck in a damned if they do damned if they dont situation. there are always going to be conflicting global views of how the US should act in the world . if you look at the first two world wars. the us was damned for not joining sooner. if we would have gotten into the mix sooner today we'd probally be portraid as war mongars just as you're saying now. iraq damned for acting unilaterlly north korea damned for not acting unilaterlly....

Kingwillhe
06-10-2004, 11:43
Originally posted by Maine Surfer
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

Please give me a rational logical explanation based on the principle of common sense

Countries, and their Administrations, are complicated beasts. Like Icebergs so much remains below the surface that in depth analysis is required and even then it is rarely non partisan!

I would like to see a new thread started with the question “What has to be done to save the situation in Iraq and leave a viable and contributing country in place?”

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:45
Originally posted by kakrout
oh by the way, i'm not De gaulle...i was not borm by that time, what i like from you guys is that you always come to me with history....that's nice but when i come to you telling that bush is a cretin and that the irak war was for oil, i'm talking about RIGHT NOW ;)
Did i ever criticize smthin else? past stuff?........
Still the same old song with you guys...bah
:rolleyes:

you're a piece of work. you ask for examples.... we give examples you then dismiss them as not happening in the last couple of years. we respond to your questions respond to ours dont ignore them and push them off as irrelevant....

Filimon
06-10-2004, 12:35
Originally posted by legspreader
actaully that was more or less oportunism on their part. they provided logistical support covertly initially and didnt provide military support until they saw we had a good chance of winning. its the old addage the enemy of my enemy is my friend. the french were still a bit miffed about the bloody nose the brits had just given them and they were itching for pay back.

May be, but if we limit ourselves to the argument that the main issue is the result, not the motivation for achieving it (US and Saddam being the prime example), then what does it matter what French thought?

kak
06-10-2004, 12:46
Originally posted by legspreader
you're a piece of work. you ask for examples.... we give examples you then dismiss them as not happening in the last couple of years. we respond to your questions respond to ours dont ignore them and push them off as irrelevant....

i'm not a piece of work leg....example people give are...I mean algeria/france = us/irak for you ? You can still came to me with all the stuff that you want, it does not change the MAIN trouble:



I mean we are talking about war and bush and that's all!

BUT you have to come to me and start to talk about how bad is france and blabla...

If a guy from Cuba/ Austria / Germany / Switerzland etc... would criticize bush and war the same as i do would you still act like this?? the answer is : NO.

You've got trouble with france, you see france and french people as a globality.
I do not have trouble with America, or american people (at least some of them) You hear only what you want to hear, my threads/ comment are not against America....they against Bush and this stupid war for oil and money.

but of course if you are a bush fan i understand your reaction and must admit that we will never be able to discuss together.
:rolleyes:

legspreader
06-10-2004, 12:48
well playing devils advocate a strong undertone of many of these discussion are what is the motivation. ie why did the us invade iraq. so im just interjecting along a similiar line. i could be mistaken but if memeory serves me correctly the french had just lost canada to the british in a peace treaty around the same time the decided to help us....

kak
06-10-2004, 12:51
french, french....again and again leg you know whatt look again the name of the thread.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 12:54
Originally posted by kakrout
i'm not a piece of work leg....example people give are...I mean algeria/france = us/irak for you ? You can still came to me with all the stuff that you want, it does not change the MAIN trouble:



I mean we are talking about war and bush and that's all!

BUT you have to come to me and start to talk about how bad is france and blabla...

If a guy from Cuba/ Austria / Germany / Switerzland etc... would criticize bush and war the same as i do would you still act like this?? the answer is : NO.

You've got trouble with france, you see france and french people as a globality.
I do not have trouble with America, or american people (at least some of them) You hear only what you want to hear, my threads/ comment are not against America....they against Bush and this stupid war for oil and money.

but of course if you are a bush fan i understand your reaction and must admit that we will never be able to discuss together.
:rolleyes:

well actaully i would criticiticize them as well. i dont have a problem with someone because of their nationality race sex ect ect. though its funny how many french have a problem with me because i'm american... I don't dispute some of what you say and have actually stated post supporting some of your ideas or similiar ideas in the past. but your stance that france has clean hands in this sistuation is 100% false and that was the point of all those post. As for being a bush fan not really dont like a lot of the things hes done but as has been discussed by others I like his domestic policy much much more than kerry's and wouldnt trust kerry with regards to global policy as his stance changes as quickly as public opinion which would be disasrous in terms of policy.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 12:57
Originally posted by kakrout
french, french....again and again leg you know whatt look again the name of the thread.

theres and old saying 'be careful what you ask for you might just get it' you had asked for examples of french wrong doings. when they've been provided you ignore them and point to the fact that its not on the direct topic of the thread. you've been around long enough that in many if not most cases threads evolve over time into totally different issues and topics.

kak
06-10-2004, 13:04
Originally posted by legspreader
you had asked for examples of french wrong doings.

I have asked this:

give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??


I think you miss two points...

1. invade a country for economical reason

2. trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator

then now you can still come to me with other stuffs....

:rolleyes:

legspreader
06-10-2004, 13:09
well your entire colonial era comes to mind in terms of invading a country for economic gain. basically your entire countries history until very recently.

as for the second point we can go round and round but i stand behind what i said before the main reason why your country didnt join was because of money a fact that you denie and started this divergence in the thread

so basically dont throw stones in a glass house my friend....

kak
06-10-2004, 13:30
once again you answer on....i do not what:

question:give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers, and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??

so i going to be more precise /re- formulate ONLY for you:

When did France decided to invade a sovereign country for economical reason and asked for other countries to join in pretending it was actually to free people from a dictator??????

keep change of subject as long as you want leg, like why france did not join...etc...etc.

but i give the answer to you: NEVER.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 13:38
are you that dense i've ansered your question several times. the only responce you can formulate is restating the question. ok they never asked others to help. but they did plenty of invading for economic purposes and often under the guise of saving them the christian missionary crusade.... youre now talking semantics. so they didnt ask for help they just did. i restate the only reason they didnt join was finanacial and if they saw greater economic benifit from joining they would have. if you look at many of the countries lined up pro us coalition - anti us coalition its pretty obvious to see this. so tell me that im lying....

kak
06-10-2004, 13:57
you know what? i'm not saying that you are liying. i never did. The trouble is not to know why france did not join or not . They may have not join for economical reason as you said, they may have not join as well
1. Because they did not want to lie to the entire world.
2. They may have think that it wasn't worst all this blood/ dead people
3. Irak war was going to be like a "vietnam war"
4. You do not attack a country just like this, just because a stupid president has decided it.
Do you need some more reasons ???
Leg you can still think that this war was necessary, or you can still think like trebor that oil rule the world (so basically ...who cares about the dead people)
my point was, is, and will be to say that this war was for oil and money, this is /was a stupid war, and is a disaster.. that i'm fu...ink happy that my country did not join in (and i actually, i do not care about why they did not join)
For me they are clever american people who start asking themselves like mainesurfer for example...and they are stupid one like you who will always claim that "we were needing this war" and while we are fighting here poor young americans are still dying everyday, just because a stupid guy decided so. it's pathetic.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 14:04
I am so amused by the way this thread has developed. Particularly the premise that because other countries have at various points in their dark and often inglorious past, invaded other countries for less than honourable reasons, then a country now cannot be criticised for doing the same, especially by citizens of aforementioned nations. You can't be rude about my country because others have done it so it's okay!!! Imagine if someone raped and murdered a family this morning and in his defence he said, ‘‘Hey, don't look at me, the Vikings did it before me and you aren't saying anything about that'' should we stop arresting such people.

It seems to me that those using such petty foils are lacking in real moral, political grown up argument. But keep up the playground name calling, because it's funny and make's you look sooo silly! ;)

Filimon
06-10-2004, 14:08
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
I am so amused by the way this thread has developed. Particularly the premise that because other countries have at various points in their dark and often inglorious past, invaded other countries for less than honourable reasons, then a country now cannot be criticised for doing the same, especially by citizens of aforementioned nations. You can't be rude about my country because others have done it so it's okay!!! Imagine if someone raped and murdered a family this morning and in his defence he said, ‘‘Hey, don't look at me, the Vikings did it before me and you aren't saying anything about that'' should we stop arresting such people.

It seems to me that those using such petty foils are lacking in real moral, political grown up argument. But keep up the playground name calling, because it's funny and make's you look sooo silly! ;)

Extremely good point! USA and Britain broke the law when they invaded Iraq. Motivation behind the invasion can only be mitigating circumstances, never an excuse. However, even that motivation was flawed, which resulted in USA and Britain breaking the law.

yankee@moscow
06-10-2004, 14:15
Originally posted by Filimon
Extremely good point! USA and Britain broke the law when they invaded Iraq. Motivation behind the invasion can only be mitigating circumstances, never an excuse. However, even that motivation was flawed, which resulted in USA and Britain breaking the law.

HOLD ON, you are stating that the US and Britain "broke the law" like they were convicted in court or something. You are giving an opinon, and a fairly bad one at that. I just wanted to point that out for everyone else. BTW, whose law did they supposedly break? Or did all of those UN security council orders mean nothing?

legspreader
06-10-2004, 14:16
you know what i feel sorry for your ignorance and for trying to put words in my mouth. funny how you brought up viatnam can you remind me how that started again.....

fine you take a stance i have no problem with that
1) everyone sitting president lies to the whole world on an ongoing basis
2) your country has traditionally had no problem slaughtering people so this statement is laughable
3) i agree and have state so in the past (once again remind how vietnam started)
4) an you dont just block un resolutions with veto power for economic reasons (chirac)

i wasnt happy about the war or our involvements in many conflicts but you know what in 1990 i bet the kuwaitis were pretty f*&king happy when they saw us m1's rolling into town and you would have been too if you were living there. I do not follow unqustionablly and understand the short commings of my country and its policy but at least i acknowlege them. you gloss over your countries dealings and say it wasnt my descision or ignore the sistuation as if it didnt happen. so i restate dont throw rocks in a glass house your country has less than sterling history in terms of foriegn policy and as stated before has more than its fair shair of blood on its hads which you would rather ignore. fine this just instilates to everyone what i've been saying. i love it. I'm stupid because i bring up some of the skeletons in frances closet when you put france foward as an example of justice and right in the world. ok i'd rather be stupid that whatever you claim to be....

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 14:19
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
HOLD ON, you are stating that the US and Britain "broke the law" like they were convicted in court or something.

FYI

Breaking the law is not defined by being convicted in a court of law. I broke the law ten times over the weekend, but I was neither caught nor tried. ;)

yankee@moscow
06-10-2004, 14:23
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
FYI

Breaking the law is not defined by being convicted in a court of law. I broke the law ten times over the weekend, but I was neither caught nor tried. ;)

I knew you were a lawless troublemaker!:)

You do make a great point. It also depends on where you are. You can do things legally in Holland that would get you executed in Iran.

Regardless, my point is that I'm tired of people stating opinion, popular opinion, and points of view as hardened facts when they aren't. That's all.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 14:27
Originally posted by Filimon
Extremely good point! USA and Britain broke the law when they invaded Iraq. Motivation behind the invasion can only be mitigating circumstances, never an excuse. However, even that motivation was flawed, which resulted in USA and Britain breaking the law.

after france stated they would veto any use of force even if wmd were found. why because of $$$.

kak
06-10-2004, 14:31
leg ;) looks like you did not read other comments from others people....keep come to me with your past history.
you could at least join the majority of this world and say that this war IS stupid, and IS a disaster instead of keep fighting me about france/chirac/how bad was our country in the past...etc.etc.
end of discussion, you can take it as a victory, you can have fun with trebor about french like as usual : heyyyy they surrender. i just waste too many time with you ....

kak
06-10-2004, 14:33
for those interested in: legal or illegal
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

Filimon
06-10-2004, 14:37
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
HOLD ON, you are stating that the US and Britain "broke the law" like they were convicted in court or something. You are giving an opinon, and a fairly bad one at that. I just wanted to point that out for everyone else. BTW, whose law did they supposedly break? Or did all of those UN security council orders mean nothing?

Well duh! Of course I am giving an opinion! Isn't it what this forum is about? Whatever gave you an idea I "convicted" them!

In my OPINION they breached Articles 2(4), 51 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to which USA and Britain are subscribed, which prohibit use of force aganist another nation (Art 2(4)) but for the reasons of self-defense ((Art 51) OR when the Security Council authorised such use "to protect international peace and security" (Chapter VII). Bush tried to go around the issue by inventing "pre-emptive self-defense", no doubt after a good payout to his lawyers, but the law does not allow such thing. The exceptions under Article 51 are two distinctive steps: self-defense is for the situations when you have no time to decide, because it threatens your country's security. If you have time to debate the issue of the strike - you should do so and only strike if the Council agrees. If the Council does not allow you to attack, you cannot attack anyway and THEN claim it was self-defense or try to re-write the law posthumously.

The only thing the US are able to rely at this stage is Resolution 1441 of the Security Council, which warns Iraq of "serious consequences" if it does not comply with UN resolutions on WMD. However, even in this case, even with the ambiguous text of the resolution, there is clear intention to leave the last decision whether to strike to the Council, not to the individual members. US and Britain ignored this.

yankee@moscow
06-10-2004, 14:40
Thanks for clarifying you opinion.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 14:40
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
FYI

Breaking the law is not defined by being convicted in a court of law. I broke the law ten times over the weekend, but I was neither caught nor tried. ;)

A question of "íå ïîéìàí - íå âîð" (one is not a thief if he is not caught), huh? :)

legspreader
06-10-2004, 14:46
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
I am so amused by the way this thread has developed. Particularly the premise that because other countries have at various points in their dark and often inglorious past, invaded other countries for less than honourable reasons, then a country now cannot be criticised for doing the same, especially by citizens of aforementioned nations. You can't be rude about my country because others have done it so it's okay!!! Imagine if someone raped and murdered a family this morning and in his defence he said, ‘‘Hey, don't look at me, the Vikings did it before me and you aren't saying anything about that'' should we stop arresting such people.

It seems to me that those using such petty foils are lacking in real moral, political grown up argument. But keep up the playground name calling, because it's funny and make's you look sooo silly! ;)

in my defence he asked for examples and some of what i was pointing out is going on now not in the past. dj i know you dont agree with my politics which is fine but at least i look at the facts when i make decisions and don't ignore the facts just because i dont like them...

legspreader
06-10-2004, 14:49
Originally posted by kakrout
leg ;) looks like you did not read other comments from others people....keep come to me with your past history.
you could at least join the majority of this world and say that this war IS stupid, and IS a disaster instead of keep fighting me about france/chirac/how bad was our country in the past...etc.etc.
end of discussion, you can take it as a victory, you can have fun with trebor about french like as usual : heyyyy they surrender. i just waste too many time with you ....

if you've read some of my posts ive said this. what we were talking about were some of the reasons why countries were for or against it. i was stated many times and will again those countries that were for the war did it for financial reasons those who were against it did it for financial reasons..

legspreader
06-10-2004, 14:52
Originally posted by Filimon
Well duh! Of course I am giving an opinion! Isn't it what this forum is about? Whatever gave you an idea I "convicted" them!

In my OPINION they breached Articles 2(4), 51 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to which USA and Britain are subscribed, which prohibit use of force aganist another nation (Art 2(4)) but for the reasons of self-defense ((Art 51) OR when the Security Council authorised such use "to protect international peace and security" (Chapter VII). Bush tried to go around the issue by inventing "pre-emptive self-defense", no doubt after a good payout to his lawyers, but the law does not allow such thing. The exceptions under Article 51 are two distinctive steps: self-defense is for the situations when you have no time to decide, because it threatens your country's security. If you have time to debate the issue of the strike - you should do so and only strike if the Council agrees. If the Council does not allow you to attack, you cannot attack anyway and THEN claim it was self-defense or try to re-write the law posthumously.

The only thing the US are able to rely at this stage is Resolution 1441 of the Security Council, which warns Iraq of "serious consequences" if it does not comply with UN resolutions on WMD. However, even in this case, even with the ambiguous text of the resolution, there is clear intention to leave the last decision whether to strike to the Council, not to the individual members. US and Britain ignored this.

but wasnt iraq tech in breach of security counsil resloutions opening the door to military action. upon til the first bomb dropped saddem thought he was untouchable. because he had assurance from certain members of the security council that any resolution for use of force would be vetoed...

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 14:54
Originally posted by legspreader
in my defence he asked for examples and some of what i was pointing out is going on now not in the past. dj i know you dont agree with my politics which is fine but at least i look at the facts when i make decisions and don't ignore the facts just because i dont like them...

Everyone is entitled to their own politics and views. That's the beauty of these forums and so called freedom of speech on a grander scale. It is also important to remember and understand/realise that political and moral opinions/standpoints are made not on a list of facts, facts do not justify actions which involve human lives, but on moral decisions and positions. I am not sure if I have completely seen your facts through to a logical conclusion, which you will agree is the bottom line expected from a list of facts which must be joined by a common denominator, and proven by the way. I will continue to search for your point, which you have proved by using proven non disputable facts. If I can't find them I may ask. Not forgetting that this formula could be applied to many countries not just Iraq, therfore UN resloutions and regulations should be carried out equally, faily,shall we say based on facts. World war agianst everyone, anyone?

I am particularly intrigued to see the formula which proves Saddam was a threat to world security, and to the facts which spell out what world security is and where it is agreed and proven that country A,B or C has the right to decide on this or point it out or as a last resort act upon it.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 14:57
Originally posted by legspreader
but wasnt iraq tech in breach of security counsil resloutions opening the door to military action. upon til the first bomb dropped saddem thought he was untouchable. because he had assurance from certain members of the security council that any resolution for use of force would be vetoed...

Yes, technically it was. If you are stopped by security for taking a pair of jeans out of the store, would you consent to the security beating the living daylight out of you because you are "technically" in breach of the law on theft? Especially when it turns out in the end that those jeans were actually yours and you did not do anything wrong? Or would you prefer for the appropriate body to make this decision?

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:00
Well said.

Laws have checks and balances and also have future actions. Steal an apple at age 8, the bobby tells your old folks. Test a nuclear weapon....depends on who you are, good guy or bad. We can have them you can't. Cos we said so. There's the rub, aye.

Back to point, punishment to fit the crime?

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:05
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit


I am particularly intrigued to see the formula which proves Saddam was a threat to world security, and to the facts which spell out what world security is and where it is agreed and proven that country A,B or C has the right to decide on this or point it out or as a last resort act upon it.

well he was playing a game of brinksminship with denying access to weapons inspectors ect ect. well he went over the brink.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:06
Originally posted by legspreader
well he was playing a game of brinksminship with denying access to weapons inspectors ect ect. well he went over the brink.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Hans Blix and a group of inspectors actually in Iraq at the time fo the invasion? And weren't they asking for more time to do the inspections?

Ned Kelly
06-10-2004, 15:09
It pains me to weigh-in for legs here - love ya legs but can't understand what you're saying most of the time - but my understanding was that the 1991 ceasefire was based on unfettered UN access to WMD sites/programs.

Failure to abide by that technically constituted a resumption of a state of war. Of course, Japan and Russia are still at war too, but as I understood it the US and Britain could argue pretty persuasively they were enforcing international law (though everyone ignores these things when they don't suit their interests).

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:10
Originally posted by Filimon
Yes, technically it was. If you are stopped by security for taking a pair of jeans out of the store, would you consent to the security beating the living daylight out of you because you are "technically" in breach of the law on theft? Especially when it turns out in the end that those jeans were actually yours and you did not do anything wrong? Or would you prefer for the appropriate body to make this decision?

ok a better example is there is a known felon on parol for several major fenolies including assault asault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. He then leads police on a high speed chase. at the end of the chase his car is surounded by police with drawn guns telling him to put his hands on the dashboard of the car. instead he starts to reach under the seat. he could be reaching for a bottle of water or a gun but with his past history who knows...what do you do

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:14
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
It pains me to weigh-in for legs here - love ya legs but can't understand what you're saying most of the time - but my understanding was that the 1991 ceasefire was based on unfettered UN access to WMD sites/programs.

Failure to abide by that technically constituted a resumption of a state of war. Of course, Japan and Russia are still at war too, but as I understood it the US and Britain could argue pretty persuasively they were enforcing international law (though everyone ignores these things when they don't suit their interests).

all good ned verbally im very articulate but i've always been much weaker in writen form. what you stated oppenants of the situation tend to ignore.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:16
Originally posted by Filimon
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Hans Blix and a group of inspectors actually in Iraq at the time fo the invasion? And weren't they asking for more time to do the inspections?

but they were denied unfetted access and had over the past several years been kicked out of the country on a whim....

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:17
Now Legs, this is an example of what Ned said, I can't see what you are on about again. You said your argument regarding the war in Iraq is based on fact. Plaese don't give an example: ''It is a bit like...blah blah blah''

It's not like, it is....what is it, facts, dates, laws, statutes, invasion rights, violations and so on.You started the fact issue, go for it. Don't try and explain it by using a different event, that's what you do when you explain something that is theoretical, but here you do have facts and events.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:18
Originally posted by legspreader
ok a better example is there is a known felon on parol for several major fenolies including assault asault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. He then leads police on a high speed chase. at the end of the chase his car is surounded by police with drawn guns telling him to put his hands on the dashboard of the car. instead he starts to reach under the seat. he could be reaching for a bottle of water or a gun but with his past history who knows...what do you do

Not a good analogy all. Replace "police" with "eager citizen" and see the difference. Police has a power to...police. USA took it upon themselves. Read Chekhov's "Unter Prishibeev" - you'll see what I mean.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:18
Does Iraq have the right to send inspectors to America to check for WMDs and if not why not? Just a thought. :D

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:19
Originally posted by legspreader
but they were denied unfetted access and had over the past several years been kicked out of the country on a whim....

Not at the time of the invasion, they were not.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:20
Originally posted by legspreader
but they were denied unfetted access and had over the past several years been kicked out of the country on a whim....

Is this one of those facts (proved and undisputed of course) that you have been talking about?

On a whim? Fact? I could go on...

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:31
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Now Legs, this is an example of what Ned said, I can't see what you are on about again. You said your argument regarding the war in Iraq is based on fact. Plaese don't give an example: ''It is a bit like...blah blah blah''

It's not like, it is....what is it, facts, dates, laws, statutes, invasion rights, violations and so on.You started the fact issue, go for it. Don't try and explain it by using a different event, that's what you do when you explain something that is theoretical, but here you do have facts and events.

wasnt it you and filimon that just used a hypathetical example so i followed suit. so by your logic i have to play by different rules than you?

ok fact saddam was in breech of multiple un resolutions. he was playing cat and mouse with UN. examples sale of oil outside the oil for food program, importation of goods equipment specifically banned by un sactions ie fiber optic systems linking anti aircraft missle instaltions used against coaltions flights in the no fly zones. illegal surcharges of oil, the developement of missles with a range greater than allowed, restricted access for weapons inspections.

he knew he could get away with it because a certain permanat mermber to go un-named publically stated even if wmd were to be found they would still veto military action. i wonder why that might be.....

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:32
Originally posted by Filimon
Not at the time of the invasion, they were not.

ok how many times are you allowed to knowingly break the law and not be punished

Sidney Bliss
06-10-2004, 15:33
Originally posted by legspreader
wasnt it you and filimon that just used a hypathetical example so i followed suit. so by your logic i have to play by different rules than you?

ok fact saddam was in breech of multiple un resolutions. he was playing cat and mouse with UN. examples sale of oil outside the oil for food program, importation of goods equipment specifically banned by un sactions ie fiber optic systems linking anti aircraft missle instaltions used against coaltions flights in the no fly zones. illegal surcharges of oil, the developement of missles with a range greater than allowed, restricted access for weapons inspections.

he knew he could get away with it because a certain permanat mermber to go un-named publically stated even if wmd were to be found they would still veto military action. i wonder why that might be.....

Thanks - I needed that laugh.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:33
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Is this one of those facts (proved and undisputed of course) that you have been talking about?

On a whim? Fact? I could go on...

ok what do you call the fact they needed to give saddam 24 hour notice before the inspection of any facility. that was a fact dont believe me look it up....

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:34
Originally posted by legspreader
wasnt it you and filimon that just used a hypathetical example so i followed suit. so by your logic i have to play by different rules than you?

ok fact saddam was in breech of multiple un resolutions. he was playing cat and mouse with UN. examples sale of oil outside the oil for food program, importation of goods equipment specifically banned by un sactions ie fiber optic systems linking anti aircraft missle instaltions used against coaltions flights in the no fly zones. illegal surcharges of oil, the developement of missles with a range greater than allowed, restricted access for weapons inspections.

he knew he could get away with it because a certain permanat mermber to go un-named publically stated even if wmd were to be found they would still veto military action. i wonder why that might be.....

US and Britain also broke UN resolutions and articles of the Charter - noone claimed a sole right to bomb them.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:35
Originally posted by legspreader
ok how many times are you allowed to knowingly break the law and not be punished

I repeat: US broke the law too. Who is going to punish them?

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:36
Originally posted by legspreader
wasnt it you and filimon that just used a hypathetical example so i followed suit. so by your logic i have to play by different rules than you?



Oh dear. Please Legs don't show yourself up. Our examples were first of all in a different context, that is important. Secondly mine was used to show weakness in an argument by two other people not to explain an ongoing and real situation. Therefore play by the same rules by all means, but first try to understand those rules.

This whole thread is fascinating and to be honest I was not sure which way I swayed regarding Iraq but having read what Legspreader has written, his justification, rationale and argument I can say that I come down firmy off the fence and am totally against the war and actions taken before and since by the coallition.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:42
the funny thing is i never said i was for it. but i dont like people sitting back and throwing rocks either. to have someone sit back bash the us for doing this over money fine i agree that had a lot to with it but not to acknowledge that money played a pivotal role of deciding which side of the fence countries lined up on is silly

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:43
Originally posted by Filimon
I repeat: US broke the law too. Who is going to punish them?

ok fair enough answer this then what recourse did the us and uk have when - France declared they would veto any use of force for breach of sanctions including the discovery of WMD.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 15:47
Now, Legs that'sthe first time I've read something and understood AND agreed with you. You know my opinion on the war and on world politics in general, that's why I've kept out of this mainly. But certainly, most of the countries in or out have been swayed by money. A strong economy helps a country make strong foreign policy decisions too. A strong economy helps boost national security and so on. Therefore naturally money was a strong deciding factor. No doubt that money is higher on the list than morals, human dignity,democracy, the right of humans to lives, human rights of other kinds and so on,no doubt at all.

Filimon
06-10-2004, 15:53
Originally posted by legspreader
ok fair enough answer this then what recourse did the us and uk have when - France declared they would veto any use of force for breach of sanctions including the discovery of WMD.

My view is they did not need any recourse. There was no immediate threat to their security, well no more than that from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, the reports on WMD (as it turns out) could have been interpreted either way, inspectors were in, Iraq produced a dossier, which whilst not being a pinnacle of clarity and truth, was certainly a sign of readiness to cooperate. I'd say the best way was to give the inspectors more time and in the meantime decide what further actions might be necessary. "Serious consequences" under Resolution 1441 did not have to be military force.

My view is the situation just before the invasion was much more under control than it is now.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 15:58
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Now, Legs that'sthe first time I've read something and understood AND agreed with you. You know my opinion on the war and on world politics in general, that's why I've kept out of this mainly. But certainly, most of the countries in or out have been swayed by money. A strong economy helps a country make strong foreign policy decisions too. A strong economy helps boost national security and so on. Therefore naturally money was a strong deciding factor. No doubt that money is higher on the list than morals, human dignity,democracy, the right of humans to lives, human rights of other kinds and so on,no doubt at all.

i know i stray here in there in my arguments but this is the basis for most of what i say. i just get a bit miffed when people ignore this fact and start bashing away. when both the leaders on both sides of the fence based their stance on the same principle. obviously some come out looking better than others....

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 16:05
As to what the UK and US should have done in the light of veto, they maybe should have respected the lawsof the body of which they are members. Plus, as Filimon points out they needn't have done anything, there was no threat from that country.

As I said, having read your arguments I can safely say that I feel justified in my opinions, you didn't win me over, the opposite in fact, you showed the lack of fundamental justification in the position and actions of the people and position you support. Or perhaps you failed to argue well enough.

veejay
06-10-2004, 16:19
A friend of mine forwarded the below to me...thought I would post it here...

October 5, 2004

The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't

Of all the justifications that President Bush gave for invading Iraq, the most terrifying was that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb that he might use against the United States or give to terrorists. Ever since we learned that this was not true, the question has been whether Mr. Bush gave a good-faith account of the best available intelligence, or knowingly deceived the public. The more we learn about the way Mr. Bush paved the road to war, the more it becomes disturbingly clear that if he was not aware that he was feeding misinformation to the world, he was about the only one in his circle who had not been clued in.

The foundation for the administration's claim that it acted on an honest assessment of intelligence analysis - and the president's frequent claim that Congress had the same information he had - has been steadily eroded by the reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission. A lengthy report in The Times on Sunday removed any lingering doubts.

The only physical evidence the administration offered for an Iraqi nuclear program were the 60,000 aluminum tubes that Baghdad set out to buy in early 2001; some of them were seized in Jordan. Even though Iraq had a history of using the same tubes to make small rockets, the president and his closest advisers told the American people that the overwhelming consensus of government experts was that these new tubes were to be used to make nuclear bomb fuel. Now we know there was no such consensus. Mr. Bush's closest advisers say they didn't know that until after they had made the case for war. But in fact, they had plenty of evidence that the claim was baseless; it was a long-discounted theory that had to be resurrected from the intelligence community's wastebasket when the administration needed justification for invading Iraq.

The tubes-for-bombs theory was the creation of a low-level C.I.A. analyst who got his facts, even the size of the tubes, wrong. It was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A week before Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he warned of an Iraqi nuclear menace, international experts in Vienna had dismissed the C.I.A.'s theory about the tubes. The day before, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and rejected the tubes' tale entirely.

It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric.

Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the tubes theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a "dispute" about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb.

Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or "to referee disputes in the intelligence community." But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war.

If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 16:33
Thank you for that.

What worries me is the way people debate this in such flippant terms as if wereally do literally have a god given right to invade someone else's country,home and kill it's citizens and overthrow it's very existence. Because the people there are thousands of miles away and are depicted as 'different', 'uncivilsed' 'need freeing from themselves' ;dirty'and so on, their deaths, painfull, slow deaths in horrendous conditions which we cannot even imagine and would not wish on ourselves or our own, are somehow devalued, and sterile. We do not seem to give a thought to the chaos and suffering we cause by our actions 'mistakes'. It's only Iraq, they deserved it any way. People, people just like us, IT experts, shop owners, lawyers, accountants, sportsmen, mothers , fathers and so on, just like us are dead, dying and will die in pain, pain and suffering and yet we don't consider this in our blaming, in our debate and it never haunts our dreams. Who are we to play god this way and yet remain clean, balmeless and unmoved?

legspreader
06-10-2004, 16:37
let me point out a parrellel where the world went the other way WWII with germany and japan.

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 16:41
And the parallel is where?

legspreader
06-10-2004, 16:49
the parrellel saddam-hitler interest in expanding their territory through conquest. (in both cases because economic situations were unstanable under existing condidtions). world turned a blind eye as hitler invaded country after country. the world followed the train of thought its not our affair we shouldnt get involved. saddam devasted with the war against iran decides to take over his relatively but very rich neighbor. do you think saddam would have stopped at kuwait if we hadnt stepped in?

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 16:52
That was Kuwait, a different war, what about now? Plus, in that case, logically we, the so called free world should be attacking Ephiopia and so many other countries for exactly the same actions and rationale, shouldn't we? But we don't, and won't.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 16:56
you know the answer goes back to money and not intrupting the oil supply. in terms of it being different i agree to a certain extent but the arena. what do you think would happen if the un had walked away from trying to police saddam

DJ Biscuit
06-10-2004, 16:59
The invasion by coalition forces (sic) would have happened sooner! :D

veejay
06-10-2004, 17:13
DJB -- Completely agree with you in terms of how the debate has taken shape. There always seems to be a 'just clause' to any war declared, even though the same reasoning is not applied to other regions / countries.

One of the things that has been most troubling about the aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq is the seeming social amnesia we have developed. How many times has it been brought up by those who have justified invasion and overthrowing 'dangerous regimes' that the very governments we are toppling now are one's the US was responsible for funding, supplying weapons to in the first place?

Zephyr
07-10-2004, 10:52
Originally posted by kakrout
i think you understand nothing leg...
give me an example when france decide to invade a country for economical reason killing people by thousand including their own soldiers?
oooh and of course trying to say to the entire world to join us because is to free poor people from a dictator??
Um Vietnam comes to mind .........sorry kak.

Zephyr
07-10-2004, 10:54
Originally posted by Filimon
I repeat: US broke the law too. Who is going to punish them?
Or ahem Israel for that matter!

kak
07-10-2004, 11:26
Zephyr, i must confess that if you are refering to "indochine war" here comes at least an example which maybe relevant but still..it's really difficult (impossible) to compare the reason why France decided to have this war with the reason why USA decided to go to irak
(as far as i know irak was never an US colony? but it may become one....)

Zephyr
07-10-2004, 11:30
Exactly, the US has established no less than 14 "permanent " bases in Iraq as of this time. So what's really going on?

Jet
07-10-2004, 11:32
Kakrout, do you know that President Shirak once almost married an American - Southern girl, when he was studying in the US?? Can you imagine that??!

Maine Surfer
07-10-2004, 11:35
Originally posted by Jet
Kakrout, do you know that President Shirak once almost married an American - Southern girl, when he was studying in the US?? Can you imagine that??!

No way!

Zephyr
07-10-2004, 11:36
Uh ...and why not ?

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 13:29
Maine Surfer,

I have a question for you. I have read your posts here and in other threads and am curious. I have tried to find a common pattern in your opinions but so far am struggling.

So, the question is simply this:

Do you appose the war in Iraq and continued occupation of Iraq?

Or were you/are you in favour of Bush's et al actions and support the war and occupation?

Oh, and why the exclamation to the previous 'fact' regarding Chiraq?
Thanks for your time.

Ghost
07-10-2004, 13:42
I smell rain.

Maine Surfer
07-10-2004, 14:22
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Maine Surfer,

I have a question for you. I have read your posts here and in other threads and am curious. I have tried to find a common pattern in your opinions but so far am struggling.

So, the question is simply this:

Do you appose the war in Iraq and continued occupation of Iraq?

Or were you/are you in favour of Bush's et al actions and support the war and occupation?

Oh, and why the exclamation to the previous 'fact' regarding Chiraq?
Thanks for your time.

DJ,

I think I've made it pretty clear. I strongly oppose the war. I strongly oppose continued occupation of Iraq (although been asking myself lately what will happen after we leave).

Never been in favor of Bush's actions.

What made you wonder? Have I ever posted anything that suggested otherwise?

Exclamation sign means that things could have worked out quite differently for Chiraq had he married that American girl.

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 14:24
LOL.

Thanks for the answer, now I know.

If we hadn't gone in murdering and pillaging in the first place there would be no need to ask the question what happens if we leave of course.

Until the next time.

Maine Surfer
07-10-2004, 14:27
DJ, all these posts.... Am I that unclear?:confused:

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 14:52
Well....I could just leave it at this: Your opinion seems to waver from thread to thread, or possibly it's simply not clear.

Anyway,you came out categorically in your last reply to me.

sfjohns67
07-10-2004, 15:02
I think we should drop a nuculer bomb on Iraq then go in and give everybody a bomb pop. That would be ironic.

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 15:04
god loves irony.

Fa-Q!
07-10-2004, 15:04
good idea. Accept-hey! who's gonna pay for all those Bomb Pops?

sfjohns67
07-10-2004, 15:05
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
god loves irony. So does uncle Darryl.

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 15:07
I hate to break this to you but, well I kinda think you better ring home, uncle Darryll, well,just ring home okay.

Oh and another thing god told me, didn't understand it but he told me to tell you and some guy called Bob that married men shouldn't do that stuff, apparantly only priests and little boys can do that. Anyway, make that call.

sfjohns67
07-10-2004, 15:11
Priests and little boys.....something only priests and little boys can do....

You mean make tons of money passing around a hat at the end of a stick?

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 15:14
No, fantasizing that there is some greater higher being than ourselves. Children do it because they are children and priests because they are inadequate sex fiends.

sfjohns67
07-10-2004, 15:16
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
No, fantasizing that there is some greater higher being than ourselves. Children do it because they are children and priests because they are inadequate sex fiends. OMG, I am like sooooo embarrassed! Did I give you the impression I think there's a higher power (my wife doesn't count, that's a 'tangential' power, not a 'higher' one) out there somewhere? Sorry, I'm a firm believer in nothing but the everlasting glory of being worm food.

Random
07-10-2004, 15:17
Is a bomb pop like a zoom ???

sfjohns67
07-10-2004, 15:19
Yeah, I think so. My ex-wife used to

Um, nevermind.

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 15:21
No,don't worry. I didn't take you for a sad person clinging to some vain childlike hope that this isn't all there is. I know you are an educated,erudite and thinking person.

But, that said I am talking to god, he aint nuttin like all them preachers and dumb a**es think he is though. Come the day boy are they in for a shock. Seems evrything is completely the otherway round.

Oops he calling I and I agin.

ITES AYE,

Random
07-10-2004, 15:21
Actually looking at that wrapper again after all these years ...is it just me or is that a disturbing image for an ice cream ???

:eek:

DJ Biscuit
07-10-2004, 15:23
Lyons Maid are probably part of the Masons conspiracy and this wrapper was a subtle warning that they intend to make war. In the case of Ice Cream it was probably a Cold War. ;)

Random
07-10-2004, 15:30
Us Masons had nothing to do with Zoom ....we prefered a Strawberry Mivi ....

;)

Big Bugga
07-10-2004, 19:41
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm

And so American as a "police" force for the world begins...and anyone is shocked that we went into Iraq? Every nation in the world has known we as a nation behave in such a manner fo oh...near 200 years? When it was a time that it worked out for some European nations it was ok..but when a nation does not agree then they comfortable forget about their past 200 years of either blind ignoring of the actions of the US or they suddenly grow moral issue becouse it does not directly fit their pocket books. Why is everyone sooooo surprised about this war? On this site above any other (one with residents of both the US and exSoviet Union posting here). We (the US) and Russia (the exSoviet Union) are fully and totaly to blame for this war. If you want the answers Go back to when we started using them collectivly as our pawns and weapons testers during the cold war. This war was inevitable, it was GOING to happen, its the natural conclusion to decades of middle east involvment in the capacity as the only remaing "cold war" bully left. The people of the middle east see the "Soviet" powers as gone, smited by Allah for their indiscretions..the US is the only one left. It does not of course help that we continued to meddle and interfere in the lives of the people of the middle east, or continue (though its not realy further needed) to support isreal and her own faciast doctrin toward her musslim neghbors. You can argue this was was just, or unjust and it quite honestly does not matter, this war was going to occure, it was going to happen. But for god's sakes dont "cry world" police! like its some kind of new thing, its not, its very very old. Like all police, it seems everyone hates seeing them in their review mirror or around when they are doing something fun but on the slightly illegal side, but when they need a cop boy they shout the loudest. George Carlin (sp) said it best in a stand up of his I seen years ago "Americans, we're wonderful people, but piss us off and we bomb your cities." Its true, on both counts. I would be tempted to see what the would would be like, and what the world would do if the US adopted the isolationist mentality it had prior to WW2. To close out borders, spend out billions on domestic problems, trade internaly solve our own probles and defend our borders for all immgrants with extreme prejudice. How long would it take for many nations of the world to start screaming for "Team America, world Police" to show back up like gun weilding cowboys?, never..a year? We'll probably never know.

take care

Bugga'

Filimon
07-10-2004, 19:49
Interesting... the only thing is that the policing done by the States is somewhat selective. Scandal with East Timor is a good example, when precisely the situation with calls for the USA to interfere happened. Then America suddenly declared it was not the "world police"and thus did not want to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign country (huh?). How can the "police" arrest one murderer but not even look at another.... is beyond me.

So is America States the wrold police? I think not. It's just a powerful country with a lot of money to spend on implementing its policies and intentions on an intercontinental basis.

Big Bugga
07-10-2004, 20:20
Of course its selective...but its nothing new, and thats my point. And as far as being "a powerful country with alot of money to spend on implementing is polices and intentions on a intercontinetal basis" ...yes...that was the point of bringing up its the only real super power...er...Bully, left from the cold war. I'm not arguing against the FACT we meddle all over the world all the time to meet our own agenda (and when I say we I men the rich guys who run stuff, I dont get crap outta it, wish I did), we do! I just find it mind boggling as my spelling that people get so shocked and awed (sorry had to do that) about it.

Bugga'

Blaked
07-10-2004, 22:14
Originally posted by Ned Kelly

because saddam was a vicious animal, and i'm sorry maine, those tinpot dictators in central asia don't compare, and he had been mucking around with inspectors for a decade (russia and france didn;t disagree with the assessment he had wmd) over weapons programs that were potentially extremely serious.


I'd rather let Saddam bugger homeless children up the arse than put the US/UK in danger of a new wave of terrorism, spend 200 bil, and put off our allies in Europe.

Filimon
08-10-2004, 01:52
Originally posted by Big Bugga
Of course its selective...but its nothing new, and thats my point. And as far as being "a powerful country with alot of money to spend on implementing is polices and intentions on a intercontinetal basis" ...yes...that was the point of bringing up its the only real super power...er...Bully, left from the cold war. I'm not arguing against the FACT we meddle all over the world all the time to meet our own agenda (and when I say we I men the rich guys who run stuff, I dont get crap outta it, wish I did), we do! I just find it mind boggling as my spelling that people get so shocked and awed (sorry had to do that) about it.

Bugga'

Nobody gets "awed" about it, don't get your knickers in the twist. What "boggles" everyone is that the US still tries to portray the whole thing from the moral high ground as a liberation, a bleeding favour to the world. What would change if the US said: "We are going to Iraq because we need oil and generally... we feel like it!" Who would argue? Bin Laden? He already declared every American a legitimate target. Russia? They could not care less. France? So what? What's the point of making the country not only hated by the whole world for invading Iraq but also for lying through the teeth about the reasons for doing so.

peyote
08-10-2004, 03:52
Originally posted by legspreader
ok fair enough answer this then what recourse did the us and uk have when - France declared they would veto any use of force for breach of sanctions including the discovery of WMD. the same recourse the rest of the world has everytime the US vetoes sanctions against israel, which they usually do. they have to follow through. simple as that.

Big Bugga
08-10-2004, 09:00
Sorry Fil you missed my little joke the awe part was making fun of the air campagne "shock and awe" the press called it....(joke grenade). And becouse of the war in iraq we are now hated by the rest of the world! heheh oh thats rich...we have been in a love/hate relationship with well...pretty much the entire world since our creation. I'm not defending what my country does...it just does it. But by no means does it make any sense for people to get all bent out of shape like its something new. Please feel free to speak out, protest, carry on..do what ever makes you feel good, but please dont think this is some new issue or that suddenly we do what we like, we always have and pretty much the rest of the "first world" nations have stood by, nodded their heads and silently agreed no matter what the said openly becouse their countries stood to profit. When the US makes money the rest of the "first" world nations make money too, you know it and I know it, and so does anyone with their finger even halfway on the pulse of the world econimy. Most of the world hates the US (becouse most of the world is pretty poor and get the shaft when the big boys prosper), and the US drags its other money making "first" world buddies along. All major governments are dirty, bloody, cut throat operations that smash who ever gets in their way, some do it more openly than others, some do it through others. But if you and I include my self and everyone else pretty much on this board, are even reading this and taking part in this discussion, your country (I'm sure there are exceptions) is as bloody, dirty and has as many skeletons to hide as the US does, we just happen to make the most headlines.

take care,

Bugga'