Right. The revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil will go to rebuilding the country but, and especially if there is a U.S.-based government in place, there will most likely be extremist groups out to block that flow of oil in an attempt to hurt the U.S.
I thought you meant Blair as he seems more interested in reconciling the Europe/US split (as is logical since the UK is part of the EU).
The UN should have some input on the intervening decisions. However, I'm pretty sure Bush and Blair (Bush more than Blair) would want more input for the countries in the coalition than for those opposed.
I wouldn't expect there to be many, if any, terrorist attacks in Iraq as while the coalition forces are there assisting in the stabilizing of Iraq there will be a fairly large military prescence making it much more difficult for terrorists to attack.
I'm not even sure if terrorist would bother attempting attacks on the Iraqi wells, pipelines, etc. They would probably be more interested in attacking purely American interests.
Quite probably. Which is why its important to move from an American - UN administration to a purely Iraqi one as quickly and as safely as possible.
Andy
It looks like the US/UK et al are trying to involve France in the rebuilding of Iraq as indicated by Powell's comments.
France just wants to make sure that the interim administration that's set up involves the whole UN - and not just the "coalition of the willing". I admit that they could have put that in a slightly less confrontational way though - but given the current climate and the "scapegoat" mentality going on they're probably on the defensive.
Andy
I have not read everything here, but there are many MANY reasons to neutralize Saddam. Do you people not realize his sons are more crazed than he is? Read the Sports Illustrated article on Uday Hussein and you will know. Saddam Hussein does have the power to kill the world three times over, also. In 1995, they declared to the UN that they produced 5,000 gallons of Botulinum toxin, the deadliest substance on earth. 1 gram of it can kill 1million people (go look it up, it is true). There was no sign they got rid of it, and inspectors themselves acknowledge he still can produce much more than that. If they don't neutralize him now, his sons will take over eventually and are more willing to use them. I can also see why people are against it, though people usually are against any war that takes place.
I would have to say that most of the world is opposed to it because of Bush's own diplomatic shortcomings, and comparisons to how Clinton managed to gain support for Kosovo can probably prove that. Arab nations DO want Saddam out, and he has already launched 3 missiles at Iran (they confirmed it was not US, but Iraqi), not to mention the 10+ at Kuwait. Most of the statements made by their leaders are for domestic consumption, because their governments don't want them to be even more angry.
To say that inspections should have run their course is not an intelligent argument against war is not intelligent. Inspections were working and, like I said, it was evident Bush was determined to go to war. If he let them run their course it would have been better for him. I doubt the whole oil argument, because it is so evident that he is finishing what his dad started. On drudgereport.com, I saw a link to a news article quoting Bush in March 2002 as saying "F--k Saddam." I think that says enough right there about the reasons. However you cannot deny that getting him out of there is best, but they did a sloppy job of drumming up support. So sloppy that he has turned most of the world against us (though most of their citizens are being as childish as ours--see recent reports of European consumers boycotting American companies that are locally owned franchises...how stupid). It is a very sticky situation, but could we please refrain from lowering ourselves to insults? Please keep the arguments professional and acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you cannot contain your anger then go sit in the corner for timeout lol
.
Last but not least, look at France, Germany and Russia. They do not do this for the good of the world all the time either. I suppose we should mention China, and how they laid the Fiber Optic cable for Iraq's air defenses. Lets not forget about all that France, Germany, and Russia have done for Iraq. They are probably as guilty about following dollar signs as we are, and probably are afraid that they won't get their debts paid if Saddam Hussein is toppled. We put him in there a long time ago, and gave him aid to invade Iran after their revolution too. The world caused this problem, and its a shame the world isn't dealing with it on a united front. I am an American, and I hate our seemingly unconditional support of Israel. The fact that we vetoed resolutions on condemning the deaths of UN staff and personnel by the Israeli Military is outrageous. These are my 2 cents on the matter, and I would again like to urge intelligent discussions, and not to lower yourselves to insults of one another.
I would have to say that most of the world is opposed to it because of Bush's own diplomatic shortcomings, and comparisons to how Clinton managed to gain support for Kosovo can probably prove that. Arab nations DO want Saddam out, and he has already launched 3 missiles at Iran (they confirmed it was not US, but Iraqi), not to mention the 10+ at Kuwait. Most of the statements made by their leaders are for domestic consumption, because their governments don't want them to be even more angry.
To say that inspections should have run their course is not an intelligent argument against war is not intelligent. Inspections were working and, like I said, it was evident Bush was determined to go to war. If he let them run their course it would have been better for him. I doubt the whole oil argument, because it is so evident that he is finishing what his dad started. On drudgereport.com, I saw a link to a news article quoting Bush in March 2002 as saying "F--k Saddam." I think that says enough right there about the reasons. However you cannot deny that getting him out of there is best, but they did a sloppy job of drumming up support. So sloppy that he has turned most of the world against us (though most of their citizens are being as childish as ours--see recent reports of European consumers boycotting American companies that are locally owned franchises...how stupid). It is a very sticky situation, but could we please refrain from lowering ourselves to insults? Please keep the arguments professional and acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you cannot contain your anger then go sit in the corner for timeout lol
.Last but not least, look at France, Germany and Russia. They do not do this for the good of the world all the time either. I suppose we should mention China, and how they laid the Fiber Optic cable for Iraq's air defenses. Lets not forget about all that France, Germany, and Russia have done for Iraq. They are probably as guilty about following dollar signs as we are, and probably are afraid that they won't get their debts paid if Saddam Hussein is toppled. We put him in there a long time ago, and gave him aid to invade Iran after their revolution too. The world caused this problem, and its a shame the world isn't dealing with it on a united front. I am an American, and I hate our seemingly unconditional support of Israel. The fact that we vetoed resolutions on condemning the deaths of UN staff and personnel by the Israeli Military is outrageous. These are my 2 cents on the matter, and I would again like to urge intelligent discussions, and not to lower yourselves to insults of one another.
I reckon most people around here are with you on that one. The devil is in the detail of how we got to this war IMHO.
I'll take your word on that as I have no knowledge on that issue.
To say that inspections should have run their course is not an intelligent argument against war is not intelligent. Inspections were working and, like I said, it was evident Bush was determined to go to war. If he let them run their course it would have been better for him. I doubt the whole oil argument, because it is so evident that he is finishing what his dad started. On drudgereport.com, I saw a link to a news article quoting Bush in March 2002 as saying "F--k Saddam." I think that says enough right there about the reasons. However you cannot deny that getting him out of there is best, but they did a sloppy job of drumming up support. So sloppy that he has turned most of the world against us (though most of their citizens are being as childish as ours--see recent reports of European consumers boycotting American companies that are locally owned franchises...how stupid). It is a very sticky situation, but could we please refrain from lowering ourselves to insults? Please keep the arguments professional and acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you cannot contain your anger then go sit in the corner for timeout lol
Even whether inspections were working or not - we could still have secured an agreed timetable, that when expired would have made it significantly easier to garner support for this war IMHO.
Make no mistake - IMHO morality as used in reference to this war is on shakey ground - regardless of how well off the Iraqi's will be when finally liberated. Hopefully we are having intelligent discussions (well, in this thread anyway
)Andy
The morality of this war is evident by the atrocities committed by Saddam against his own people, for this reason alone this is a just action.
The morality of this war dates not just from the now and not just in respect of the suffering of the Iraqi citizens. If we were to debate morality we could discuss whether this war would have been needed if Saddam hadn't had western support in the 80's. We could discuss whether it is ethical to liberate someone by blowing them up. Whether a paranoia of attack is an ethical reason to start a pre-emptive war.........
The morality is definitely on shakey ground.
Andy
we are hardly blowing people up, thats a stark contrast to the actual weapons and their precision that have been used. we will wind up killing less civilians than the regime has.
Saddam's ties to terrorists, his known WMD and his willingness to use thme harldy makes this a "paranoid" attack.
Saddam's ties to terrorists, his known WMD and his willingness to use thme harldy makes this a "paranoid" attack.
Okay - move "paranoia" down to "fear". You are blowing people up - however unintentional. I still see no hard and fast arguement as to why this is definitely a "moral" war -not in the context of now + everything that has gone before.
Andy
A war to remove this tyrannt is and WAS moral, even 20 years ago.
You confuse fear with REALITY. Are we afraid of terrorist attacks, yes, have they happened, yes. Could WMD make these attacks even worse, possibly even GLOBAL catastrophies.....? No brainer there, Does Saddam have them? yes, does he supply, train, finance, etc.. terorists? yes, andy youre a bright guy, you can see the obvious connection without depending on fear or paranoia, its a logical conclusion and legitimate concern.
You confuse fear with REALITY. Are we afraid of terrorist attacks, yes, have they happened, yes. Could WMD make these attacks even worse, possibly even GLOBAL catastrophies.....? No brainer there, Does Saddam have them? yes, does he supply, train, finance, etc.. terorists? yes, andy youre a bright guy, you can see the obvious connection without depending on fear or paranoia, its a logical conclusion and legitimate concern.
No it is definitely fear. I guess you've read most of my posts and so you know that I believed that not only would it come to war but that I support it as the only way to get Saddam to disarm. That still doesn't change the moral issues though. A war may have been moral 20 years ago - but quite the reverse happened - and now we're having a war to remove WMD that we have all no doubt in some small way been responsible for him procuring. It may be the appropriate action to take now - but the fact were having to do it at all underlines my concerns with the "morality" of - and I'll be clear here - not the action of war in isolation but also encompassing the necessities that bought us to this point and the fact that innocents will die for all our selfish mistakes.
I don't doubt it is the right thing to do - but I don't think we should be riding the moral high ground either.
Andy
I have another question for those of us who believe that the UN is surplus to requirement. I would like to know how international business would be conducted, humanitarian missions organised and how all countries in the world would be guarenteed some sort of voice that the world would be able to hear?
Cheers,
Andy
Cheers,
Andy
alexruiz
Platinum Member
- Sep 21, 2001
- 2,836
- 556
- 126
I guess you have good answers why the same WASN'T done with Francisco Franco, Anastacio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista and specially the "golden child" of the USA "liberation efforts".... Augusto Pinochet.
All of them committed atrocities against their own people. What makes Saddam different from them???
I could go and ask the same about not removing "Butchier" Sharon, who does the same to his people (yes, by definition, without a country of their own makes most of the Palestinians part of Israel, same way most of the Kurds are "Iraquies")..... ???
What is the logic used to take some "butchers who commit atrocities" and not others...... ????
The UN is a good forum for each member nation to have a voice. However, as has always been the case, some nations have louder voices than others. As for humanitarian missions, I expect the UN will still continue to do that. Does the UN have much of a hand in international business? I would expect most international business deals to be agreements between the governments of each nation involved in the business/trade agreement - I don't see where the UN would have any need to be involved.
I agree that the removal of Saddam is inconsistent if you leave other ruthless dictators in power. However, there is rarely (if ever) enough motivation in the international community to remove said dictators. That should be the goal of the UN, to police the world and remove tyrants when necessary. However, that will never happen as their is not enough of an international consensus to undertake such actions.
As for the morality of the war, I agree that to trumpet the morality of the war is inconsistent. We are not going to war to free the Iraqi people (the reason the moral high ground is so often claimed) but to disarm and remove Saddam. While I feel the war is justified, even morally so, the opposition can rightly claim that their position is morally justified as well. (Although, I don't see any other solution to the problem at hand.)
I agree that the removal of Saddam is inconsistent if you leave other ruthless dictators in power. However, there is rarely (if ever) enough motivation in the international community to remove said dictators. That should be the goal of the UN, to police the world and remove tyrants when necessary. However, that will never happen as their is not enough of an international consensus to undertake such actions.
As for the morality of the war, I agree that to trumpet the morality of the war is inconsistent. We are not going to war to free the Iraqi people (the reason the moral high ground is so often claimed) but to disarm and remove Saddam. While I feel the war is justified, even morally so, the opposition can rightly claim that their position is morally justified as well. (Although, I don't see any other solution to the problem at hand.)
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Well, that's only partly true. If the US were really concerned about Saddam, we would've invaded again in '94 / '95 when Saddam started fscking around with the UN. As for the Iraqi people argument, if we really cared we would've taken care of business in the Gulf war. It is quite obvious this war has nothing to do with freeing iraqi people or stopping iraq's "impending" chemical weapons program.
Secondly, what right do we, as a soveriegn nation, have to tell Saddam what he can or cannot do? I understand that he slaughtered his own people, please don't start lisitng the autrocities, but if we really cared, something would've been done when they were committed.
This war is not just simply because we are attacking preemptively. Iraq has done nothing against the US to provoke a war. SO what right do we have to invade?
I agree that we should have taken care of Saddam during the Gulf War. However, each President has his own adminstration and his own foreign policy. George HW Bush placed far too high a value on the opinion of the UN. Had he removed Saddam then, the past 12 years would have been better for all parties involved. The US does not have the right to tell Saddam what to do; however, the world community as a whole does.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Agreed. My point was that we just can't do whatever we please in the world. Although I think the UN is terribly organized and managed, we should heed world opinion. I think the situation would change very quickly if, say, Saddam had nuclear / biological weapons and we had concrete proof of that and also had proof he was trying to bring them into the US. Although, in that situation, the UN would probably have backed a war.
etech - You haven't answered my question. Is it your contention that if a 2nd resolution were passed (and France had gone along with everything) that inspections would have continued?
Responding to your post 03/25/2003 12:00 AM
Responding to your post 03/25/2003 12:00 AM
My contention was that once France nullified any threat of force that Saddam had no reason to cooperate with the inspectors in any meaningful way. France showed their card that they would not support force. That led to the US having to play the only card left in the game.
why didnt it then just put it for a vote? if it would have been vetoed but still gotten enough votes to pass it then the US could have declared some sortof a victory
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