No sh|t etech! People opposed to the war outside Iraq, know better than that shoe pounding buffoon!
Czar, when you are right you are right.
The people of Iraq are irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the anti-war protestors and the countries, that for their own reasons, want them to stay under the rule of Saddam.
The people of Iraq are irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the anti-war protestors and the countries, that for their own reasons, want them to stay under the rule of Saddam.
sure, so you are turning into those people who said "Remember 9/11" each time someone mentioned anything that could hurt heir patriotic pride
I just post a simple link where there is some clarification of the coalition and you get this knee jerk reaction, I thought you were smarter than that
Thanks for the infor Czar. I was wondering what countries besides britain were supporting us. I'm sure the solomon islanders can lob coconuts at Saddam.
We know that this is a war invented and prompt up by Bush to appease the right wingers who called to have Saddam removed for having tried to kill his daddy.
Thats OK with me. I support Bush in this as the commander in chief, and only hope causulties are light and victory is swift.
When its all over, we can asess the validity of the rhetoric offered by this administration and judge him at the polls.
Originally posted by: Czar
sure, so you are turning into those people who said "Remember 9/11" each time someone mentioned anything that could hurt heir patriotic pride
I just post a simple link where there is some clarification of the coalition and you get this knee jerk reaction, I thought you were smarter than that
Czar, wtf are you talking about with 9/11. I did not bring that up or imply that.
The subject is Iraq and the people of Iraq are relevant to this discussion. In fact they are much more relevant than the uninformed anti-war protestors will ever be.
Debate that.
*shrug* it is the knee jerk reaction I am talking aboutOriginally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
sure, so you are turning into those people who said "Remember 9/11" each time someone mentioned anything that could hurt heir patriotic pride
I just post a simple link where there is some clarification of the coalition and you get this knee jerk reaction, I thought you were smarter than that
Czar, wtf are you talking about with 9/11. I did not bring that up or imply that.
The subject is Iraq and the people of Iraq are relevant to this discussion. In fact they are much more relevant than the uninformed anti-war protestors will ever be.
Debate that.
Originally posted by: Czar
*shrug* it is the knee jerk reaction I am talking aboutOriginally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
sure, so you are turning into those people who said "Remember 9/11" each time someone mentioned anything that could hurt heir patriotic pride
I just post a simple link where there is some clarification of the coalition and you get this knee jerk reaction, I thought you were smarter than that
Czar, wtf are you talking about with 9/11. I did not bring that up or imply that.
The subject is Iraq and the people of Iraq are relevant to this discussion. In fact they are much more relevant than the uninformed anti-war protestors will ever be.
Debate that.
In other words you would rather not discuss that point. That's fine, if I were in your position I wouldn't want to either.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,775
- 6,337
- 126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
*shrug* it is the knee jerk reaction I am talking aboutOriginally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
sure, so you are turning into those people who said "Remember 9/11" each time someone mentioned anything that could hurt heir patriotic pride
I just post a simple link where there is some clarification of the coalition and you get this knee jerk reaction, I thought you were smarter than that
Czar, wtf are you talking about with 9/11. I did not bring that up or imply that.
The subject is Iraq and the people of Iraq are relevant to this discussion. In fact they are much more relevant than the uninformed anti-war protestors will ever be.
Debate that.
In other words you would rather not discuss that point. That's fine, if I were in your position I wouldn't want to either.
There are many reasons why people oppose the war. They've been discussed to death already, Search works nicely
tec699
Where were the Europeans? Where were the years of UN resolutions threatening serious consequences if they did not stop? A country with a dictator and small power base is a different situation than a civil war.
Stupid opinion. You are saying that our politicians are sending our troops to Iraq based solely on some contributions. It is cynicism of that sort that will destroy the US, not an outside enemy.
Oil is a consideration. How many nasty toys could Saddam buy if all sanctions were lifted and he was selling oil? What would happen to the world economy if Saddam decided he wanted a high price on his oil and attacked the oil fields of Kuwait and SA? How many billions of people would die if he managed to throw the world into a depression that rivals the 30's?
So you are saying that we should let fear stop us from doing what is right? Go hide in your basement, it's a nasty world out there and somtimes the nasties have to be dealt with.
If you had an informed opinion and not just rants and trolls then your opinion might matter, as it is, no.
Where were the Europeans? Where were the years of UN resolutions threatening serious consequences if they did not stop? A country with a dictator and small power base is a different situation than a civil war.
Stupid opinion. You are saying that our politicians are sending our troops to Iraq based solely on some contributions. It is cynicism of that sort that will destroy the US, not an outside enemy.
Oil is a consideration. How many nasty toys could Saddam buy if all sanctions were lifted and he was selling oil? What would happen to the world economy if Saddam decided he wanted a high price on his oil and attacked the oil fields of Kuwait and SA? How many billions of people would die if he managed to throw the world into a depression that rivals the 30's?
So you are saying that we should let fear stop us from doing what is right? Go hide in your basement, it's a nasty world out there and somtimes the nasties have to be dealt with.
If you had an informed opinion and not just rants and trolls then your opinion might matter, as it is, no.
Hey etech...
I still think ya'll are barking up the wrong tree if you really think this ever had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. What happened were two significant events: Bush won (more or less) the election and brought in some pretty radical foreign policy folks (his dad called 'em The 'B' Team) who believe it's in America's interests to use its military power directly and frequently in the unipolar world. These folks were largely ignored, as was foreign policy in general, until 9/11. We freaked out. Understandibly Bush freaked out. And the alternatively ignored, feared and ridiculed guys who've been saying we need to wander the world like Kane in Kung Fu kicking ass suddenly pointed out they've had this little plan they've been working on. If you've been keeping up with events you know about the skirmishes between State and the civilian folks in the Pentagon. Powell is the only Bush, Sr. 'A' Team member in this administration while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (along with their scarey sidekick Perle who recently called an investigative reporter that revealed his questionable profiteering from homeland defense 'a terrorist') are heart and soul signatories of the 'B' Team documents.
The B Team wants to remake the world, more or less, in our image or at least kick ass and take names to ensure nobody ever tries to surpass our might (this is pretty close to the exact language in our new official strategic defense documents. As a wise man said 'Sure, no country in our position wants a global competitor. But you don't go around saying that you'll take preemptive action to keep it from happening - in public.')
The administration knows where Al Qaida comes from. They know it's not Iraq. They mopped up Afghanistan and, next, you have to look at Saudi Arabia - there's no two ways about it. Any kind of overt attack would be too disruptive to the global economy and, besides, the Saudi royals are our boys. We supported them, and radical Sunni/Wahabi Islam, throughout the cold war as a proxy philosophy murderously opposed to aetheistic communism. This took most dramatic form in our cooperation with Pakistan's ISI intelligence service (later strong allies of the Taliban), Saudi Arabian moneymen and the Mujaheeden guerillas of Afghanistan as they took on the Soviets.
The problem is now that we've supported the Saudi Royals who are dependant on theocratic claims of purity to maintain their rule and now there are those who actually decided to take that religious sh!t seriously. They turned shining fanatical eyes back on the rulers that oppressed their brethren and saw pretty clearly a high level of hypocrasy between what the Saudi royals claimed to stand for and what they, in fact, did. The pure rulers were bed with Americans infidels whose godless culture and venal greed was taking over the world. At this point the Saudi Royal family is all split up. Ultimately, the country is a welfare state with the Royal's doling out a percentage of oil revenue to keep the people happy and the imams well-fed. When oil prices crashed there was suddenly less money to go around. The Royals began to take sides. Some even started believing their own hype and aligned themselves with the religious fanatics in fact. Most simply pay lip service to both the fanatics and the U.S. in order to keep their skins intact, the oil revenues coming in, and their claims to rulership alive. Tricky ain't it?
Clearly something has to be done and when in doubt, if you're a freaked out Texan, that something has to involve kicking ass. While we can't move directly against the Saudis or other countries contributing to the problem we can kick the tar out of Iraq because, on a technicality, we're still at war according to a ten year old UN resolution and a creaky ceasefire agreement that was honored more in the breach than observance. Once you mop up there you'll control the second largest reserves of oil in the world which should help focus the thinking of the less savory elements in the Gulf leadership. You also have a strategic position from which to launch attacks to protect 'strategic interests' around the region should rebellions or guerilla action threaten oil fields or 'friendly' governments in other countries or should other countries be revealed as supporters of terrorism or in a rush to develop nuclear weapons in the middle of the world's gas station. (Hey, Iran. How's it going?)
Largely, I see this as a pretty good plan. The problem is that it has never been revealed but obliquely to the American people. This thinking is really why Bush keeps confusing Saddam with Osama despite the fact they've got nothing in common and are, in fact, mortal enemies. It's also why you keep hearing about a democratic Iraq. It's poking at the autocratic Arab and Persian regimes in the region and letting the leaders know we've got causus belli any old time we want so they better play ball. None of them are democracies. All of them have special places in human rights hell waiting for them.
Aside from the lack of candor in presenting this operation to their own citizens, the Bush adminstration's overreliance on the B Team has lead to a very scarey national security document and constant rhetoric that's really freaked out the world. We're the most powerful country that's ever existed on this planet. We're all but synonymous with economic development. And until now we've never launched a preemptive war of conquest without significant international understandings in a place of such huge global significance. Even those countries that are our allies have populations violently at odds with their leaderships.
And here I am still right in the middle. I want to believe we really do plan to bring democracy to a grateful Iraqi people. I want to believe that will, along with the economic benefits it brings to these people, force other governments to reform or face the ire of their publics. I want to believe our military presence will be a steadying hand to protect governments in transition.
And then I remember that the Victorian Empire was about bringing enlightenment to the savages until commerical interests took over and all but enslaved colonials to their own interests. I remember who backs this adminstration politically and why. I remember why Bush, Sr. considered the various policy directions of the B Team scarey and members of the A Team feared the appearance, and the reality, if arrogant imperialism in our bearing. We are a mighty nation and, amazingly, until now have avoided the usual alignment of powers one sees against the mighty. Why? Because we're not seen as threatening. Well, beginning with 'you're with us or against us' we suddenly became pretty damn scarey. We've invoked questionable evidence against Iraq, used rather brutal strongarm tactics in our diplomacy, ridiculed our allies and other friendly nations, spied on diplomats on a remarkable scale, and run roughshod through the Phillipines and Columbia. We've scorned international institutions when they became flighty precisely because of our intimidating, insufferable, comportment.
I really don't know what to think. The die is cast. What we see in Iraq will tell us what is to come. If this administration is sincere in its claims about its goals for Iraq and the Iraqi people are genuinely glad we've come as liberators then we'll have one future. If American logos start going up like medieval standards on occupied oil derricks patrolled by American soldiers and paramilitary 'contractors' and governed for an extended period by generals then we have an entirely different future.
Sidebar: A lesser known and unrelated fact is that the CIA helped the Iraqi Ba'ath party overthrow Iraq's previous rulership when it started tilting to the Soviets. A young man named Saddam was a Ba'athist political leader in exile in Cairo, Egypt at the time and was known to visit the U.S. Embassy there. Later, in the 80's we supported Saddam with intelligence, munitions and WMD 'dual use' items when he fought the radical Shiites of Iraq who themselves were rebels against the dictatorial regime of the Shah installed by the CIA when an elected Iranian leader tried to nationalize previously colonial British oil fields. And you wonder why folks don't trust us...
I still think ya'll are barking up the wrong tree if you really think this ever had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. What happened were two significant events: Bush won (more or less) the election and brought in some pretty radical foreign policy folks (his dad called 'em The 'B' Team) who believe it's in America's interests to use its military power directly and frequently in the unipolar world. These folks were largely ignored, as was foreign policy in general, until 9/11. We freaked out. Understandibly Bush freaked out. And the alternatively ignored, feared and ridiculed guys who've been saying we need to wander the world like Kane in Kung Fu kicking ass suddenly pointed out they've had this little plan they've been working on. If you've been keeping up with events you know about the skirmishes between State and the civilian folks in the Pentagon. Powell is the only Bush, Sr. 'A' Team member in this administration while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (along with their scarey sidekick Perle who recently called an investigative reporter that revealed his questionable profiteering from homeland defense 'a terrorist') are heart and soul signatories of the 'B' Team documents.
The B Team wants to remake the world, more or less, in our image or at least kick ass and take names to ensure nobody ever tries to surpass our might (this is pretty close to the exact language in our new official strategic defense documents. As a wise man said 'Sure, no country in our position wants a global competitor. But you don't go around saying that you'll take preemptive action to keep it from happening - in public.')
The administration knows where Al Qaida comes from. They know it's not Iraq. They mopped up Afghanistan and, next, you have to look at Saudi Arabia - there's no two ways about it. Any kind of overt attack would be too disruptive to the global economy and, besides, the Saudi royals are our boys. We supported them, and radical Sunni/Wahabi Islam, throughout the cold war as a proxy philosophy murderously opposed to aetheistic communism. This took most dramatic form in our cooperation with Pakistan's ISI intelligence service (later strong allies of the Taliban), Saudi Arabian moneymen and the Mujaheeden guerillas of Afghanistan as they took on the Soviets.
The problem is now that we've supported the Saudi Royals who are dependant on theocratic claims of purity to maintain their rule and now there are those who actually decided to take that religious sh!t seriously. They turned shining fanatical eyes back on the rulers that oppressed their brethren and saw pretty clearly a high level of hypocrasy between what the Saudi royals claimed to stand for and what they, in fact, did. The pure rulers were bed with Americans infidels whose godless culture and venal greed was taking over the world. At this point the Saudi Royal family is all split up. Ultimately, the country is a welfare state with the Royal's doling out a percentage of oil revenue to keep the people happy and the imams well-fed. When oil prices crashed there was suddenly less money to go around. The Royals began to take sides. Some even started believing their own hype and aligned themselves with the religious fanatics in fact. Most simply pay lip service to both the fanatics and the U.S. in order to keep their skins intact, the oil revenues coming in, and their claims to rulership alive. Tricky ain't it?
Clearly something has to be done and when in doubt, if you're a freaked out Texan, that something has to involve kicking ass. While we can't move directly against the Saudis or other countries contributing to the problem we can kick the tar out of Iraq because, on a technicality, we're still at war according to a ten year old UN resolution and a creaky ceasefire agreement that was honored more in the breach than observance. Once you mop up there you'll control the second largest reserves of oil in the world which should help focus the thinking of the less savory elements in the Gulf leadership. You also have a strategic position from which to launch attacks to protect 'strategic interests' around the region should rebellions or guerilla action threaten oil fields or 'friendly' governments in other countries or should other countries be revealed as supporters of terrorism or in a rush to develop nuclear weapons in the middle of the world's gas station. (Hey, Iran. How's it going?)
Largely, I see this as a pretty good plan. The problem is that it has never been revealed but obliquely to the American people. This thinking is really why Bush keeps confusing Saddam with Osama despite the fact they've got nothing in common and are, in fact, mortal enemies. It's also why you keep hearing about a democratic Iraq. It's poking at the autocratic Arab and Persian regimes in the region and letting the leaders know we've got causus belli any old time we want so they better play ball. None of them are democracies. All of them have special places in human rights hell waiting for them.
Aside from the lack of candor in presenting this operation to their own citizens, the Bush adminstration's overreliance on the B Team has lead to a very scarey national security document and constant rhetoric that's really freaked out the world. We're the most powerful country that's ever existed on this planet. We're all but synonymous with economic development. And until now we've never launched a preemptive war of conquest without significant international understandings in a place of such huge global significance. Even those countries that are our allies have populations violently at odds with their leaderships.
And here I am still right in the middle. I want to believe we really do plan to bring democracy to a grateful Iraqi people. I want to believe that will, along with the economic benefits it brings to these people, force other governments to reform or face the ire of their publics. I want to believe our military presence will be a steadying hand to protect governments in transition.
And then I remember that the Victorian Empire was about bringing enlightenment to the savages until commerical interests took over and all but enslaved colonials to their own interests. I remember who backs this adminstration politically and why. I remember why Bush, Sr. considered the various policy directions of the B Team scarey and members of the A Team feared the appearance, and the reality, if arrogant imperialism in our bearing. We are a mighty nation and, amazingly, until now have avoided the usual alignment of powers one sees against the mighty. Why? Because we're not seen as threatening. Well, beginning with 'you're with us or against us' we suddenly became pretty damn scarey. We've invoked questionable evidence against Iraq, used rather brutal strongarm tactics in our diplomacy, ridiculed our allies and other friendly nations, spied on diplomats on a remarkable scale, and run roughshod through the Phillipines and Columbia. We've scorned international institutions when they became flighty precisely because of our intimidating, insufferable, comportment.
I really don't know what to think. The die is cast. What we see in Iraq will tell us what is to come. If this administration is sincere in its claims about its goals for Iraq and the Iraqi people are genuinely glad we've come as liberators then we'll have one future. If American logos start going up like medieval standards on occupied oil derricks patrolled by American soldiers and paramilitary 'contractors' and governed for an extended period by generals then we have an entirely different future.
Sidebar: A lesser known and unrelated fact is that the CIA helped the Iraqi Ba'ath party overthrow Iraq's previous rulership when it started tilting to the Soviets. A young man named Saddam was a Ba'athist political leader in exile in Cairo, Egypt at the time and was known to visit the U.S. Embassy there. Later, in the 80's we supported Saddam with intelligence, munitions and WMD 'dual use' items when he fought the radical Shiites of Iraq who themselves were rebels against the dictatorial regime of the Shah installed by the CIA when an elected Iranian leader tried to nationalize previously colonial British oil fields. And you wonder why folks don't trust us...
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,775
- 6,337
- 126
Just FYI: Europe, and most UN Nations had taken action against South Africa. The US, Britain, Israel, and a few other nations(possibly..dunno) refused to join the action against South Africa Apartheid Regime. There was a reason though, that being that South Africa was the only major supplier of Titanium(vital for high speed Fighter Aircraft) outside the control of the Soviet Union, Titanium is extremely rare.
tec699
That was a good post, well thought out and based on some truths. In the end though it all boils down to what will happen in the future. All of the fears and opposition to what is happening are based on what the administration will do once Iraq is free.
I'm willing to wait and see. If American flags go up on the oil derrecks than I will work to replace the current administration. Of course the Iraqi people should still be in better shape in any case. I find it difficult to believe that there can be only one reason to remove Saddam though that is how many people argue the situation. When you take all of the reasons for his removal and add them together it becomes quite apparent that it is the right thing to do.
Sidebar,
So? We helped a non-communist party of which Saddam was a member into power some forty years ago. I must guess the magic crystal ball was broken back then. Of corse that party went out of power after that. It then came back into power. I don't think there are any references to the CIA helping the Ba'ath party into power the second time.
tec699, that post is so unlike your others that I'm tempted to ask where you found it.
That was a good post, well thought out and based on some truths. In the end though it all boils down to what will happen in the future. All of the fears and opposition to what is happening are based on what the administration will do once Iraq is free.
I'm willing to wait and see. If American flags go up on the oil derrecks than I will work to replace the current administration. Of course the Iraqi people should still be in better shape in any case. I find it difficult to believe that there can be only one reason to remove Saddam though that is how many people argue the situation. When you take all of the reasons for his removal and add them together it becomes quite apparent that it is the right thing to do.
Sidebar,
So? We helped a non-communist party of which Saddam was a member into power some forty years ago. I must guess the magic crystal ball was broken back then. Of corse that party went out of power after that. It then came back into power. I don't think there are any references to the CIA helping the Ba'ath party into power the second time.
tec699, that post is so unlike your others that I'm tempted to ask where you found it.
lol... Actually I had that post saved on my harddrive for quite some time. When I worry about certain issues I'll just concentrate and write about those topics. It relieves the stress that I face on a day to day basis.
Mostly though when I do post my thoughts, it's usually is done in a quick manner. I'll get upset and quickly type a response.
Sorry but I haven't slept in 2 days and I'm feeling very irritable. bye all.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,775
- 6,337
- 126
I saw an economic analyst last night (on either CBC Newsworld, CNN, or CNBC) discussing the issue of re-building Iraq. He stated that in order to re-build Iraq, some 6million barrels/day would be needed to cover the cost. This is approx a tripling of the current Iraqi capacity and he also stated that it would take approx 6 years to acheive this level of production. So, according to him, the Coalition and/or others will need to support Iraq for about that period of time.
Don't have an opinion on this manner, but thought the info was interesting.
Don't have an opinion on this manner, but thought the info was interesting.
What are they basing their "rebuilding" costs on? The war is far from over so there is no way right now to know what infrastructure will need to be rebuilt.
Am I missing something?
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,761
- 5,923
- 146
What kind of years are you talking about, dog years or cat years?? As late as 1988, US companies provided Saddam with chemical ingredients and pesticides, which could be used against humans.
Under the Reagan administration, efforts were made to normalize relations with Iraq, because a loss to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war was viewed as disastrous. the US knew he used Chemical Warfare, but it was conveniently overlooked.
You did not read the posts. The topic was the old arguement that "the US put Saddam into power".
It is not as accurate as- The US helped the Ba'ath party into power to defeat a communist party. Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath party then.
As to your post.
Yes, the US helped Iraq in the war against Iran. There are very good reasons why that was done as you stated. What you left out are all of the other countries that supplied Iraq with weapons, both conventional and not and also "looked" the other way. Why did they and why don't you mention them?
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,761
- 5,923
- 146
This was another one of our failed efforts in muddling in the region, and those other countries who supplied Saddam were just as optomistically blinded to the true nature of Saddam. I supppose this war is a new trend away from trying to pick allies in a troubled part of the world: Just take the entire country by force, and set up the government of our choosing.
I hope only the best for our troops, and those of our allies. I hope the best for the people of Iraq. I hope this is wildly successful. I think it has a snowball's chance, given the complexity of the tasks at hand.
Later
Ah- Well, in his radio address today the Prez just said we'll (the military) probably be in Iraq for years.
Yes, stupidity because they do not agree with you. Can you be anymore close minded.
LOOK AROUND THE WORLD. This is not just a US protest; do you really think the millions and millions of people and the countries that aren't for this are morons? This war is all about fear; we feared that Iraq would sell WMDs to terrorists. So don't give me the fear angle; both sides have that.
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