i still believe we need an animal or natural disaster or something in the name...maybe
"operation desert pig"
i still believe we need an animal or natural disaster or something in the name...maybe
"operation desert pig"
Actually, I believe I said I was a (p)atriot NOT a (P)atriot. I opposed the war last year, this year, and right now. Unfortunately, I have no choice but to hope Rummy's war plan works well enough that our military objectives are achieved with a minimum number of civilian and military casualties while being costly enough that we do not repeat such actions in the future.
Quite right. There could also be some shift in opinion owning to the fact that alot of what has gone on in the war reflects very badly on the Iraqi regime. Watching them mortar their own people will tend to do that.
You can't ignore the fact that Syria, Iran and the rest of the Muslim world may hate Saddam but be a bit unhappy about what they see as an attack on their culture, religion or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean Saddam is a good guy and shouldn't be removed. Jordan has almost completely flipflopped on the issue. Do they suddenly believe differently based on a better rationale or are they swept up in the same pro-Islam posture?
What if we had just started a bombing campaign instead of an actual invasion. Would you have supported that?
"Most of the world agrees with my impressions of the war on Iraq"
another timeless gem from BaliBabyDoc
I could list 45 governments that don't.
Perhaps you should question the motives of the two most staunch opponents.
Under the food for oil program Saddam had control over where a large % of the money was spent. He was also allowed to choose the bank which would administer the funds, it's in France. We won't even discuss what the funds intended to feed his people were used for. Why not though, France sold them some snazzy new mirage parts, and Russia added some anti-tank rockets and GPS jamming equipment. Neato. I hear you asking yourself, "but I thought those weapons were banned by the UN?" Of course you are right again, you are a very perceptive individual.
What is that? Didn't those two countries themselves sign the resolutions that banned those very weapons? You said yes, didn't you? We got another winner here folks, you are hot tonight mister, you're killing me. We are doing our best to get them to observe UN resolutions, but as you know, they do have veto power.
Now lets look at where else that money went that Saddam had to spend.
From 1996-2000 the majority of the money he had control over was given to France and Russia, about 2 billion each. There were also deals in the 4 billion dollar range that would take effect once sanctions ended. This is why they have both pushed for the end to the sanctions, years ago even, THANK YOU for reminding me, couldn't have done it without you. If Saddam is removed from power they get nothing, this is why they would not approve of any measure that would have removed him.
I understand their financial interests and position, as well the effect on their economies from being the primary beneficiaries of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves . But I cannot excuse them for making deals with Saddam at the expense of the Iraqi people. The fact that they violated resolutions they signed seems to make their arguements rather hypocritical, especially when you consider there was no resolution stating we could not resume the war of 1991.
From 2000-2002 the majority of the $$$ Saddam could control went to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Yes I too thought the Syrians and the Iraqi regime had long standing bad blood, but those night vision goggles were a very nice token of friendship and greatly appreciated, special thanks from Saddam.
Hopefully Egypt has not become reliant on Saddam's money, otherwise their current public appeals for an immediate cessation of force would reek of desperation.
Personally, I like our intentions. Let that wealth be used by the people brutalized by the very man supposed to be their "leader". If they choose to deal with those that strived to keep him in power at least it will be done for their benefit, not at their expense.
Who said Oil, of course this is what the war is all about, notice how the prices have SKYROCKETED. IMHO Bush held back the grounds troops to give the Iraqi's more than enough time to light up 416 of the 500 wells, at least they got 42 out already. Now that Bush has oh so craftily used Saddam, duping him into believing he would be given 7 virgins in return, he is using the military to eliminate his co-cospirator. Meanwhile gas prices continue to go up, making him and his cronies more and more money......
another timeless gem from BaliBabyDoc
I could list 45 governments that don't.
Perhaps you should question the motives of the two most staunch opponents.
Under the food for oil program Saddam had control over where a large % of the money was spent. He was also allowed to choose the bank which would administer the funds, it's in France. We won't even discuss what the funds intended to feed his people were used for. Why not though, France sold them some snazzy new mirage parts, and Russia added some anti-tank rockets and GPS jamming equipment. Neato. I hear you asking yourself, "but I thought those weapons were banned by the UN?" Of course you are right again, you are a very perceptive individual.
What is that? Didn't those two countries themselves sign the resolutions that banned those very weapons? You said yes, didn't you? We got another winner here folks, you are hot tonight mister, you're killing me. We are doing our best to get them to observe UN resolutions, but as you know, they do have veto power.
Now lets look at where else that money went that Saddam had to spend.
From 1996-2000 the majority of the money he had control over was given to France and Russia, about 2 billion each. There were also deals in the 4 billion dollar range that would take effect once sanctions ended. This is why they have both pushed for the end to the sanctions, years ago even, THANK YOU for reminding me, couldn't have done it without you. If Saddam is removed from power they get nothing, this is why they would not approve of any measure that would have removed him.
I understand their financial interests and position, as well the effect on their economies from being the primary beneficiaries of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves . But I cannot excuse them for making deals with Saddam at the expense of the Iraqi people. The fact that they violated resolutions they signed seems to make their arguements rather hypocritical, especially when you consider there was no resolution stating we could not resume the war of 1991.
From 2000-2002 the majority of the $$$ Saddam could control went to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Yes I too thought the Syrians and the Iraqi regime had long standing bad blood, but those night vision goggles were a very nice token of friendship and greatly appreciated, special thanks from Saddam.
Hopefully Egypt has not become reliant on Saddam's money, otherwise their current public appeals for an immediate cessation of force would reek of desperation.
Personally, I like our intentions. Let that wealth be used by the people brutalized by the very man supposed to be their "leader". If they choose to deal with those that strived to keep him in power at least it will be done for their benefit, not at their expense.
Who said Oil, of course this is what the war is all about, notice how the prices have SKYROCKETED. IMHO Bush held back the grounds troops to give the Iraqi's more than enough time to light up 416 of the 500 wells, at least they got 42 out already. Now that Bush has oh so craftily used Saddam, duping him into believing he would be given 7 virgins in return, he is using the military to eliminate his co-cospirator. Meanwhile gas prices continue to go up, making him and his cronies more and more money......
Let's go after france and russia when we are done with Iraq. We can steal the french wine, and russia has oil and uranium, everything we need to restock after this war. I eagerly await the cheap oil when this is done, my 455 Pontiac eats dead dinosaurs like crazy!
Let's just ignore France and Russia beacuse, well, we can. The Russians need our money though (especially since they just lost Sugar Daddy Saddam) and have already taken steps to repair the relationship. We will maintain a good relationship with Russia, but were going to hammer the French, wait, not militarily, but with the american $.
Liberating those people is a fortunate side-benefit of this war and without that element it would not be palpable.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I wonder if personal attacks will lead to a vacation?
Edit: Morph, do not let them intimidate you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter