***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[Yax]

Originally posted by: shifrbv
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.

You know, that makes sense so if I was a Republican, I'd say you were a 'Moron'.
Republican rule number 1: Mindlessly vote for the Republican candidate, especially if he's an idiot.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: etech

No, liberation is not a fallacy. The people will be out from under Saddam's rule. I already said why I don't think what the US did in the Cold War applies to this situation. If you want to go back 30, 40, 50 years and try to draw paralles to what is happening today then you may but you ignore history and the context of the world events when you do.

It surely applies, because the "liberation" was not the main objective then, and it is not now..... but the media makes a good job telling you otherwise.

Saddam is the only dictator that has had twelve years of ignoring the world's demands to disarm. He is the only one that has UN resolutions that threatened him with serious consequences if he did not. But for the sake of argument, what other dictator in the world would you say deserves to be removed more than Saddam?

Well, not exactly a dictator because he lives in a democratic country, but he surely is an oppresor.... More hints, his country has been IGNORING and VIOLATING UN resolutions since 1967....... So it kills your assumption of "Saddam is the only one....." What makes this country different??? Why not ask this country to COMPLY with the resolutions???

How do you know what the Iraqi people want? The can't speak their mind in Iraq. Almost every interview I have seen with Iraqis out of that country want Saddam gone.

Have you tried to switch to a non-USA based news service??? I agree, they don't like him, but you are totally ignoring that they are not fighting for him, they are fighting for their country. PATRIOTISM is the key here (as said by an Iraqui civilian)


Finally (sorry, I deleted your paragraph about the contract), if the business doesn't come to me, I'll go the business..... Why not try to see that knowing the capabilities of this company is safe to assume that it could get the businees IF AVAILABLE..... Well, it is not available, but not a problem.... We'll make it "available".... and give the "advice" to the business holder that the bid is the best bet..... Sounds like a classic business strategy???

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: etech

No, liberation is not a fallacy. The people will be out from under Saddam's rule. I already said why I don't think what the US did in the Cold War applies to this situation. If you want to go back 30, 40, 50 years and try to draw paralles to what is happening today then you may but you ignore history and the context of the world events when you do.

It surely applies, because the "liberation" was not the main objective then, and it is not now..... but the media makes a good job telling you otherwise.

Saddam is the only dictator that has had twelve years of ignoring the world's demands to disarm. He is the only one that has UN resolutions that threatened him with serious consequences if he did not. But for the sake of argument, what other dictator in the world would you say deserves to be removed more than Saddam?

Well, not exactly a dictator because he lives in a democratic country, but he surely is an oppresor.... More hints, his country has been IGNORING and VIOLATING UN resolutions since 1967....... So it kills your assumption of "Saddam is the only one....." What makes this country different??? Why not ask this country to COMPLY with the resolutions???

How do you know what the Iraqi people want? The can't speak their mind in Iraq. Almost every interview I have seen with Iraqis out of that country want Saddam gone.

Have you tried to switch to a non-USA based news service??? I agree, they don't like him, but you are totally ignoring that they are not fighting for him, they are fighting for their country. PATRIOTISM is the key here (as said by an Iraqui civilian)


Finally (sorry, I deleted your paragraph about the contract), if the business doesn't come to me, I'll go the business..... Why not try to see that knowing the capabilities of this company is safe to assume that it could get the businees IF AVAILABLE..... Well, it is not available, but not a problem.... We'll make it "available".... and give the "advice" to the business holder that the bid is the best bet..... Sounds like a classic business strategy???

Iraq is a Democracy? I must be missing something.....

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Iraq is a Democracy? I must be missing something.....

Come on my friend you know what I meant, he asked for other dictators and oppressors.... I just gave him the hints....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Jmman

Iraq is a Democracy? I must be missing something.....

Come on my friend you know what I meant, he asked for other dictators and oppressors.... I just gave him the hints....

I'm not sure what you tried to give me but I don't buy it.

If you think Iraq is a democracy in practice and not only in name then you have very little understanding of the situation there.


The rest of your 'points', aren't.

Liberation of the Iraqi people is not the main point, we agree on that. It will be one of the outcomes and a rather nice one at the end of it all. Tell me why this war has to be about only one thing.

Name the UN Resolutions that threaten the US with serious consequences if the US does not comply. I'll be waiting.

Yes, I get my news from many different services and still see no reason to change what I said.

As for what you said about the contracts you will have to rephrase it if you want a response. What you wrote didn't make any sense.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: etech]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Jmman

Iraq is a Democracy? I must be missing something.....

Come on my friend you know what I meant, he asked for other dictators and oppressors.... I just gave him the hints....

I'm not sure what you tried to give me but I don't buy it.

If you think Iraq is a democracy in practice and not only in name then you have very little understanding of the situation there.


The rest of your 'points', aren't.

Liberation of the Iraqi people is not the main point, we agree on that. It will be one of the outcomes and a rather nice one at the end of it all. Tell me why this war has to be about only one thing.

Name the UN Resolutions that threaten the US with serious consequences if the US does not comply. I'll be waiting.

Yes, I get my news from many different services and still see no reason to change what I said.

As for what you said about the contracts you will have to rephrase it if you want a response. What you wrote didn't make any sense.

Well, you didn't look deep enough . The country that I am talking that is also in violation of over 60 UN resolutions since 1967 is your biggest ally in the middle East. The USA vetoed proposals to enforce those resolutions. I NEVER said Iraq was a democracy, but rather an answer of the question "what other dictators or oppressor are there outside right now...." You have the answer..... "Butchiel "

The resolutions don't apply to the USA, they apply to their main ally in ther middle East (do you need more hints?)

Good for you to get news form other sources, so you surely have read the interview of the person who shut down the 2 apaches (or at least claim to). He is clear, I don't like Saddam, but I don't like invaders either. You also surely saw the volunteer women brigade, and also the women asking "why do you bomb us??" While people don't like Saddam, their patriotism is making them not like the invaders either.

The contracts.... well, what I mean is that if I don't have a contract that could give me BILLIONS, let's try to make it available. If it is given to other companies (from the Sena and Volga rivers), How can I "persuade" the goverment to give it to me.....??? Easy solution, let's take out that goverment! The conection is logical... the overall oil output from the country (Iraq) won't change regardless of who gets the contracts, It is not the object to drop the gasoline prices too much, we are not going to control the supply and destination.... But the REVENUES generated by those contracts will shift their addressee, be paid is USD rather than Euros and their final destination won't be Lyon or Grenoble, it will be Houston. As a high profile person, you can make that "minor" change happen..... shift the revenue destination.... that's all!! Well, it requires a little turmoil (a war, but who cares of thousands of deaths if the money is good..... Money first! Enron anyone?) The overall picture doesn't change that much.

What if the public doesn't buy it, as it is against the values of the country and the people??? Feed them some FEAR, PATRIOTISM and MASS MEDIA and they will be happy..... "We are going to liberate" "We are going to destroy weapons".....

Sound like a conspiracy theory?? No doubt!!!!
Is it ilogical??? No, and I would love to see how it is illogical (numbers are appreciated).
Unethical??? Totally!!!
Unlikely??? Well, you wouldn't doubt of the high profile persons ethics, such as CEOs.....

You have been willing to have a civilized discussion, and I appreciate it. Thanks for it and to all the others who are searching for the truth. Take the time to analyze it, even better, try to impersonate this high profile person.... Is money above the willing of the people???? It shouldn't, that is for sure.