The War In Iraq
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
Before I start, I think that despite our differing opinions, we can all agree that this war is hopefully to end as soon as possible with as few casulaties, no matter on which side, as possible.
Now, being a moderator, that is an organizer of this discussion, I suggest the following:
Instead of debating out of the blue with no common basis whatsoever, I propose to use the first five to ten posts in this topic to illustrate ones point of view. Seeing the versatility of opinions expressed throughout the precessing thread, I believe this will give us a pretty good idea of how the other sides point of view was formed and thus could provide us with a terrific basis for the actual discussion, not to mention that right now, after the first missle strikes and before the first big airstrike, there isn't much else to talk about.
The whole thing should work like this: Tell us why you think the war is waged. Try to give justification by an outside source if you're touching a controversial or not well known subjects. I write 'try' because we all know that finding something specific about a topic as highly discussed as this one in the internet can be quite difficult - and I don't think many of us are anal enough to try and claim that arguments they're uncomfortable with to be lies (hint, <i>hint</i>).
When the actual discussion has started, please try to keep your posts structurized and to the point. Experience shows that discussions on these boards usually split into different sub-topics that're discussed by different people, and it can be a pain to search through a three-page pampleth just to find that one little paragraph that's of importance to you.
Also, note the topic title. We're discussing the war on Iraq her, <i>not</i>, to name an example, the war on Chechya. If you want to discuss other topics, create seperate threads. Don't put them in here as distraction from the topic at hand.
I'm going to be moderating the thread quite actively. This means that, no matter what opinion you have, if you don't comply to the rules stated in here or in the FAQs, don't expect your post to survive for long. I'll save all edited posts content for two days, should you feel you've been treated unfairly, PM me and complain.
<span style='color:purple'>*Nemesis Zero puts the staff of moderation down and steps up to the soapbox.</span>
<i>A chronological analyisis of the sources of the war:</i>
The pretty much only thing that's sure about the whole issue is that there was <i>no</i> direct aggression from the side of the Iraqs government at the beginning of the crisis. No attack, no louder threat than usual, no genocide. Instead, and now we're entering the debated room, the war has been planned since W.Bush took residence in the White House - literally one of the first actions he took in his position as President was ordering the biggest air strike on Iraqi territory since the end of Desert Storm.
Two years later, after the 'distraction' of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the White Houses attention shifted back to the Iraq. One could literally watch how the Iraq grew from one of the casually mentioned members of the Axis of Evil to the big threat that would have to be dealt with as soon as possible. I believe it was 1800 who pointed this out in the old thread - after the end of the strikes on Afghanistan, a few weeks without of crisis followed. Then, Bush started talking about how imediate steps would have to be taken against Hussein. As already said, no aggression from the other side had happened during that time.
<i>The 'terrorism' issue:</i>
This chronological description implies already that I'm not agreeing with one of the assumptions that're often made - that the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror. The assault on Hussein was planned before Bin Laden (allegedly) ordered the attack on WTC and Pentagon.
Because of this, the alleged links between Husseins regime and Al-Quaeda stayed at all times sketchy at best. Remember how Powell <a href='http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1140.shtml' target='_blank'>quoted a (faulty) student paper</a> in front of the UN, that Bin Laden literally stated in his last tape that he does <i>not</i> support Hussein and that Hussein is head of a 'socialist' party and widely regarded an atheist who uses fundamentalist rethoric to keep the religious parts of his population quite.
This leaves us with the question for the motives behind the assault:
<i><b>Motives:</b></i>
<i>Weapons of Mass Destruction:</i>
First, I do not doubt that Hussein possessed WoMD, nor do I doubt that it's in his interest to obtain such.
I do however doubt that he is currently in possession of nuclear weaponry and that he's got chemical weaponry in threatening amounts. The biological weaponry is a little a trickier issue.
Why do I think that Hussein has no nukes? Nuclear weaponry requires big facilities to produce and store. None of them were found by the inspectors, which regularly <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56506-2003Mar7.html' target='_blank'>remarked upon the acceptable level of cooperation of the Iraq</a>, while the hints by the American secret services were called <a href='http://truthout.org/docs_02/022303A.htm' target='_blank'>"garbage"</a> as not <i>one</i> of them, and there appeared to be lots of them, proved correct.
This applies not only for nuclear, but all WoMD, and does in my opinion discard CIA & co. as source of prove - even with their best effort, they couldn't lead the inspectors, which were allowed everywhere they wanted to go, to one piece of 'smoking-gun' evidence.
But let's proceed: What about chemical weapons? It is true that the Iraq possessed C-weaponry from the times when it was supplied by the Pentagon. The gasses sent to Hussein are however known to dissolve into harmless gasses within five years. The initial weaponry used during Desert Storm is thus useless nowadays, and producing new supplies in war-relevant amounts would have required factories, which not even the Pentagon, which claims it could watch every mouse on Iraqi soil, claims to exist. (I've thus far not found an English source for this, sorry.)
Biological weaponry, however, doesn't only not dissolve, it even grows with time, and there is no denying that Donald Rumsfeld supplied Husseins regime with Anthrax and other biological weapons during the pre-Desert Storm era. The question which I can't answer is whether these weapons have been fully (or at least substantiatly) destroyed during the first weapon inspections, all I know is that, as already said, not even the American Intelligence could lead the inspectors to storgae places, and, and this is a very important point, <i>Hussein didn't use nor threaten the use of them</i> within the last thirteen years. This either means that he hasn't got any more, or that he's a total moron - a man with WoMD at his hands is usually treated quite a bit more respectfully in the world; check Kim Yong Il for example.
This all sums up into the conculsion that, while the fear of WoMD may play a part in the plans of Bush, it is most probably not the leading factor.
The motives I see as most important are economic considerations, large-scale foreign political considerations, and a sort of 'family tradition'.
<i>Economy and domestic politics:</i>
The economic interests the Bush administrations are usually summed up into 'No Blood for Oil', which holds, while shortened, a true meaning:
The Iraq is in possession of between 25% and 33% of the remaining oil reserves on Earth, which are pretty much unobtainable for the American economy for several reasons: The embargo, which Bush couldn't drop without of what he would regard as substantional political humiliation, the calculations of Hussein, who actively used and uses the oil to strengthen his base of power, for example by increasing and decreasing the oilrates to contradict the OPECs descisions, and the fact that most of the Iraqi oil is being bought by European contractors (note that this is <i>no</i> thread about Europe, we've got one of them if you want to talk about this).
The American industry is however known to be one of the most oil-dependant economies in the world. The constantly <a href='http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P40540.asp' target='_blank'>rising</a> oil prices are one of the biggest influences to the current beginning recession - obtaining a direct and cheap source of oil, such as an occupied Iraq, would help funding the industry without of making drastic (although necessary) domestic changes.
It's also important to remember that a war usually distracts from domestic issues, such as the mentioned recession, the fact that Bushs government threw the US back into huge debts, and the 'Enron'-affairs, in which the current government had direct involvements.
<i>Large-Scale politics:</i>
In the large political framework, an Iraq with an US-friendly government would be highly desireable for the American strateges: The current ally Saudi Arabia becoming more and more of a problem due to its monarchs <a href='http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P40540.asp' target='_blank'>involvement in terrorism</a> and the growing anti-americanism in its population, which would make a shift of the local American troops into a less hostile environment adviseable. An allied Iraq could help immensely with this.
<i>Family pride:</i>
Third, we have Bushs family involvement. I suppose he tries at least subconciously to end what Bush sen. began - not to mention that "this guy tried to kill my daddy, after all.".
This is of course a shortened up list of motivations, but I assume you get the picture.
<i><b>Conclusion:</b></i>
Concluding from this, we have <i>no</i> direct or forseeable threat from the Iraq, we have, at least according to the majority of the UN, no broken resolution 1441, we have no Iraqi terrorists plotting the next 9/11.
We have however a lot of direct and one-sided interests from the White House in a war.
This means to me that we're currently seeing an aggressive, not preventive or defensive war being waged, and this, I can not support.
Now, being a moderator, that is an organizer of this discussion, I suggest the following:
Instead of debating out of the blue with no common basis whatsoever, I propose to use the first five to ten posts in this topic to illustrate ones point of view. Seeing the versatility of opinions expressed throughout the precessing thread, I believe this will give us a pretty good idea of how the other sides point of view was formed and thus could provide us with a terrific basis for the actual discussion, not to mention that right now, after the first missle strikes and before the first big airstrike, there isn't much else to talk about.
The whole thing should work like this: Tell us why you think the war is waged. Try to give justification by an outside source if you're touching a controversial or not well known subjects. I write 'try' because we all know that finding something specific about a topic as highly discussed as this one in the internet can be quite difficult - and I don't think many of us are anal enough to try and claim that arguments they're uncomfortable with to be lies (hint, <i>hint</i>).
When the actual discussion has started, please try to keep your posts structurized and to the point. Experience shows that discussions on these boards usually split into different sub-topics that're discussed by different people, and it can be a pain to search through a three-page pampleth just to find that one little paragraph that's of importance to you.
Also, note the topic title. We're discussing the war on Iraq her, <i>not</i>, to name an example, the war on Chechya. If you want to discuss other topics, create seperate threads. Don't put them in here as distraction from the topic at hand.
I'm going to be moderating the thread quite actively. This means that, no matter what opinion you have, if you don't comply to the rules stated in here or in the FAQs, don't expect your post to survive for long. I'll save all edited posts content for two days, should you feel you've been treated unfairly, PM me and complain.
<span style='color:purple'>*Nemesis Zero puts the staff of moderation down and steps up to the soapbox.</span>
<i>A chronological analyisis of the sources of the war:</i>
The pretty much only thing that's sure about the whole issue is that there was <i>no</i> direct aggression from the side of the Iraqs government at the beginning of the crisis. No attack, no louder threat than usual, no genocide. Instead, and now we're entering the debated room, the war has been planned since W.Bush took residence in the White House - literally one of the first actions he took in his position as President was ordering the biggest air strike on Iraqi territory since the end of Desert Storm.
Two years later, after the 'distraction' of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the White Houses attention shifted back to the Iraq. One could literally watch how the Iraq grew from one of the casually mentioned members of the Axis of Evil to the big threat that would have to be dealt with as soon as possible. I believe it was 1800 who pointed this out in the old thread - after the end of the strikes on Afghanistan, a few weeks without of crisis followed. Then, Bush started talking about how imediate steps would have to be taken against Hussein. As already said, no aggression from the other side had happened during that time.
<i>The 'terrorism' issue:</i>
This chronological description implies already that I'm not agreeing with one of the assumptions that're often made - that the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror. The assault on Hussein was planned before Bin Laden (allegedly) ordered the attack on WTC and Pentagon.
Because of this, the alleged links between Husseins regime and Al-Quaeda stayed at all times sketchy at best. Remember how Powell <a href='http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1140.shtml' target='_blank'>quoted a (faulty) student paper</a> in front of the UN, that Bin Laden literally stated in his last tape that he does <i>not</i> support Hussein and that Hussein is head of a 'socialist' party and widely regarded an atheist who uses fundamentalist rethoric to keep the religious parts of his population quite.
This leaves us with the question for the motives behind the assault:
<i><b>Motives:</b></i>
<i>Weapons of Mass Destruction:</i>
First, I do not doubt that Hussein possessed WoMD, nor do I doubt that it's in his interest to obtain such.
I do however doubt that he is currently in possession of nuclear weaponry and that he's got chemical weaponry in threatening amounts. The biological weaponry is a little a trickier issue.
Why do I think that Hussein has no nukes? Nuclear weaponry requires big facilities to produce and store. None of them were found by the inspectors, which regularly <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56506-2003Mar7.html' target='_blank'>remarked upon the acceptable level of cooperation of the Iraq</a>, while the hints by the American secret services were called <a href='http://truthout.org/docs_02/022303A.htm' target='_blank'>"garbage"</a> as not <i>one</i> of them, and there appeared to be lots of them, proved correct.
This applies not only for nuclear, but all WoMD, and does in my opinion discard CIA & co. as source of prove - even with their best effort, they couldn't lead the inspectors, which were allowed everywhere they wanted to go, to one piece of 'smoking-gun' evidence.
But let's proceed: What about chemical weapons? It is true that the Iraq possessed C-weaponry from the times when it was supplied by the Pentagon. The gasses sent to Hussein are however known to dissolve into harmless gasses within five years. The initial weaponry used during Desert Storm is thus useless nowadays, and producing new supplies in war-relevant amounts would have required factories, which not even the Pentagon, which claims it could watch every mouse on Iraqi soil, claims to exist. (I've thus far not found an English source for this, sorry.)
Biological weaponry, however, doesn't only not dissolve, it even grows with time, and there is no denying that Donald Rumsfeld supplied Husseins regime with Anthrax and other biological weapons during the pre-Desert Storm era. The question which I can't answer is whether these weapons have been fully (or at least substantiatly) destroyed during the first weapon inspections, all I know is that, as already said, not even the American Intelligence could lead the inspectors to storgae places, and, and this is a very important point, <i>Hussein didn't use nor threaten the use of them</i> within the last thirteen years. This either means that he hasn't got any more, or that he's a total moron - a man with WoMD at his hands is usually treated quite a bit more respectfully in the world; check Kim Yong Il for example.
This all sums up into the conculsion that, while the fear of WoMD may play a part in the plans of Bush, it is most probably not the leading factor.
The motives I see as most important are economic considerations, large-scale foreign political considerations, and a sort of 'family tradition'.
<i>Economy and domestic politics:</i>
The economic interests the Bush administrations are usually summed up into 'No Blood for Oil', which holds, while shortened, a true meaning:
The Iraq is in possession of between 25% and 33% of the remaining oil reserves on Earth, which are pretty much unobtainable for the American economy for several reasons: The embargo, which Bush couldn't drop without of what he would regard as substantional political humiliation, the calculations of Hussein, who actively used and uses the oil to strengthen his base of power, for example by increasing and decreasing the oilrates to contradict the OPECs descisions, and the fact that most of the Iraqi oil is being bought by European contractors (note that this is <i>no</i> thread about Europe, we've got one of them if you want to talk about this).
The American industry is however known to be one of the most oil-dependant economies in the world. The constantly <a href='http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P40540.asp' target='_blank'>rising</a> oil prices are one of the biggest influences to the current beginning recession - obtaining a direct and cheap source of oil, such as an occupied Iraq, would help funding the industry without of making drastic (although necessary) domestic changes.
It's also important to remember that a war usually distracts from domestic issues, such as the mentioned recession, the fact that Bushs government threw the US back into huge debts, and the 'Enron'-affairs, in which the current government had direct involvements.
<i>Large-Scale politics:</i>
In the large political framework, an Iraq with an US-friendly government would be highly desireable for the American strateges: The current ally Saudi Arabia becoming more and more of a problem due to its monarchs <a href='http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P40540.asp' target='_blank'>involvement in terrorism</a> and the growing anti-americanism in its population, which would make a shift of the local American troops into a less hostile environment adviseable. An allied Iraq could help immensely with this.
<i>Family pride:</i>
Third, we have Bushs family involvement. I suppose he tries at least subconciously to end what Bush sen. began - not to mention that "this guy tried to kill my daddy, after all.".
This is of course a shortened up list of motivations, but I assume you get the picture.
<i><b>Conclusion:</b></i>
Concluding from this, we have <i>no</i> direct or forseeable threat from the Iraq, we have, at least according to the majority of the UN, no broken resolution 1441, we have no Iraqi terrorists plotting the next 9/11.
We have however a lot of direct and one-sided interests from the White House in a war.
This means to me that we're currently seeing an aggressive, not preventive or defensive war being waged, and this, I can not support.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<b>Why i think we should go to war with Iraq</b>
<u>Core shrinking the gap countires</u>
Basically a core country is a nation like the U.S.A, France, England, Japan, ext... They are rich, have a stable goverment, have free media and most importanlty trade on the global market alot.
A gap nation would be like Iraq, Cuba, Hati, Columbia ext... They are poor, have oppresive goverments or not very stable ones. They also dont compete on the free market.
"A country’s potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity." --THOMAS P.M. BARNETT
Some may call this war to be like a colonialism. But America dosent do that. When we bombed Germany and rebuilt it we did not force the Germans to produce raw materials to be used in America. No we helped them build factories so they could manufacture there own stuff.
So basically here we can bomb iraq from the outside when ever they dont comply to some UN resolution for enternity. Or we can force a regime change once and they can join us in the global economy and we wont have to worry about them being oppressed by dictators or producing a new 911.
<u>North Korea</u>
The United States Military is the #1 in the world with much more advanced equipment then any other nation. Its been along time though that we have faced an actual powerful oponent. If we are forced to face a country like North Korea there will be much more loses on our side then then there would be with Iraq. This would change the minds of many Americans that should America remain involved in world affairs?
Taclking something like North Korea would make it almost impossible to confront Saddam later on.
<u>An actual country in the Middle east we can support that is Muslim and does not commit suscide bombings</u>
The Bush administration has questioned Isreal's number of slain civilians. The United States needs a country it can support that in the middle east that is not only a musslim majority but does not commit terrorism. Palastien could fill this they may one day will if everything goes smoothly but if the **** hits the fan we have a back up. al-Qaed can't say we are against the Muslim world if we support a Muslim democracy. This is purly theory though I could and probably am wrong.
oh yeah and i think he has WoMD in the form of anthrax and chemical gases. Weather he has anything to deliver anthrax thats another story entierly.
And I also agree with Salty on why something should be done. However, I do not think an all out assult is the right way to go.
Also, I would like to add something in the motives section that doesnt seem quite right.
I´ve been watching the speech President Bush made right after the bombing started. And he makes several refrences to the need for liberating the Iraq population from their oppresor. And that this war is waged for freedom.
While this issue were in the hands of the UN this motive almost never came up. It was all about WoMD and the terrorist support that Saddam supposedly was involved with(wich he very well might have been). I´m pretty sure that the Bush administration couldnt care less about people getting oppressed half a world away.
It saddens me that now that the war is started and when people have allready died, it has to be justified as a "dying for a good cause" situation.
The way I see this sitiuation , as do many other people around the base that I have talked to all had the same answer.
Are we doing the right thing? Yes. There is no doubt that Hussien is not a good person. If anyone here wants to debate that they will lose. He has done some horrific things to his own people and people of the neighboring countries.
Was he the highest priority? Hec no. He became our target, but North Korea, and Osama are still our biggest dangers. When this war is over, nothing will get remedied with those two problems.
Did we go about doing this all wrong? Yes. We alienated our allies, and while they will be back after this, for right now we are doing many things that are just bad in global policy. We have flexed our muscle and stood alone, and that will make us gain many things(namely power), but we will lose many allies in the short term.
We have done the right thing, and its for the better. But we went about it all wrong. I dont think this will permantly destroy any allies we had. But the world is gona change very quickly. Several organizations that had power, had been overidden. The UN, NATO, the Security Council. We, as a nation, have pretty much ended them. I am sure that new organizations will form, but as to weather or not they are any good...we just have to wait and see.
<b>For those of you on the ns forums, this is an email response from me to my friend who tried to get me to go to a peace rally.</b>
Before we get caught up in youthful idealism, lets re-examine our ignorance. In my estimation, we can’t take full blame for our current state, perhaps the media, certainly our society.
You are all aware, as I am, that War in Iraq has commenced: This is where I throw in my $0.02.
As much as the war in Iraq is about removing a malevolent dictator from a corrupt regime it is also America asserting its strength and the quiet reshuffling of global powers.
<b>The UN</b>
The UN embodies the old European powers. The United Nations was created as a world body of peace and international law after World War II. As such it fails to represent the global community. The old European powers of France and Britain, even Germany and Russia are the most represented on the Security Council. In contemporary times America has proven itself to be the world’s only Superpower. This does not mesh with the way of the UN old boys’ club and goes along way to explain the position of France, the once world power, seeking again to return to its "rightful" place
This is not a new issue, it has been a stumbling block from Vietnam to Bosnia. The catalyst for change was terrorist threat demonstrated on September 11 and the move of America from conservatism to proactive aggression. In my estimation, the UN will now go the way of the League of Nations. While apt at global issues, it cannot be a global peace body, or a top level enforcement agency of world politics. The Security Council has failed in the same way the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII. Let the United Nations solve the problems of feeding the poor and curing the sick, and let the nations of the world create them. The UN has been proved a powerless puppet of an old regime.
Whilst the above is a pragmatist’s view, the goals of the UN were always an unattainable utopia. The collapse of real power of the United Nations, in my estimations, is the largest impact that will come out of this Gulf War II.
<b>America “Enlightenment”, the “Flaws of Democracy” and the rollout of a “Brave New World”</b>
The other issue whose borders extend beyond that of Iraq is America spreading of the gospel of democracy. America is a super power, the only superpower at the moment. When I used the word "gospel" I actual meant the religious connotations. For anyone that has been in Washington DC on the fourth of July, or anyone that watches the US media, it is quite apparent that being American is a religion. A religion as strong as those that bind Islamic nations. America believes so completely in democracy that is wishes to globalise it. There has been conjecture that Iraq may be the first of many nations bought to the light of American democracy (North Korea anyone?).
Proving that democracy is a flawed utopia as much as communism is beyond the scope of this email.
However a few thoughts might help.
<i>Democracy is meant to be for the people by the people.
People mainly vote from a position of ignorance, and beyond that vote for themselves, rather than the benefit of the nation.
In the 1998 Federal Election 36.1% of eligible voters in the US participated. (The majority of Americans didn’t add their voice to the glorious democracy)
Freedom is never without cost, and nation that supports unconditional freedom is bound to implode. (read articles of the forecasts for Americas fall. Also see the fall of the classic empires, that of Greece and Rome).
The media is often a negative force that directly contradicts the good of a nation, yet reaches the majority of that nation.</i>
So lets just take for a given that Democracy is not the world’s answer to everything. Let’s assume that we try to bring democracy to a nation that has existed without it successful for generations dating back millennia. It is more than a little presumptuous that a cultural paradigm shift can be bought about in our generation, or the term of a president. It is not however beyond the scope of thought that the people of a country may react, even violently against it. The Puritans came the Americans to convert the natives, yet ended up destroying them. Now American reaches out the convert the world. I fear much destruction and ultimate failure.
<b>A small world view.</b>
Many of the thoughts and demonstrations about the war in Iraq have been about why has Australia got involved? It wasn’t that long ago that Australia blindly followed Britain wherever she would go. In a similar vein Australia is following America. Being allies of America is a positive for our nation. The Prime Minister mentioned the sharing of intelligence that goes towards minimising the terrorist threat against Australia. Another advantage is purely economic. America has been known to buy off countries with trade agreements and international political deals. Our farmers certainly could do with the excise being lifted from our beef and the recommencement of free trade without American subsidy. A certain country that border Iraq and has a strategic military position now has American backing for entering the European Union in the next four years. Whilst I am not a fane of American culture, our partnership with them is not detrimental.
Then there is the humanitarian argument. An argument often thrown about by those that have faith in the ability of humans to better themselves. I don’t agree, although I will attempt to sympathise. Yes innocent people will die. This I am neither happy nor proud. Sadamn Hussein is an evil person and corrupt leader. He tortures his own people, and steals from the hungry and poor. America is committed (much to its financial suffering) to restabilising Iraq. The mission is called, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (don’t you love America <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). The logistics of the humanitarian aid that American will give to Iraq will extend far beyond that of war. In the short term, people will suffer, certainly some will die. There is hope for a better life for Iraq in the long term. It is quite possible that American will forget Iraq that a decade, from now Iraq will collapse again. However America still has troops 40,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea that have been there since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953). This demonstrates America’s ability to commit. Of course Vietnam contradicts this and the quarter of a million landmines that America has placed on the Korean border isn’t a positive but that is for the birds.
The oil war. The Gulf War was about oil. Much of the politics of the Middle East is about oil. If America wins the war against Iraq, it with the UN will have control of Iraq’s oil supplies. America will then be in a position to bargain new deals with Kuwait over oil supplies. Let’s shift focus to American politics for the moment. Everyone likes oil, a good economy need oil, the three big states (election wise) Michigan, Tennessee and Texas (Bush’s home!) are the biggest users of oil in the US. It is more than likely that oil production will be stepped up post the War in Iraq. What does this mean in real life terms? We get cheaper petrol. Whilst I still firmly believe that alternate fuel sources are the ultimate answer. Those among us crying for cheaper fuel, might want to shift their focus to pro-war.
<b>Some Quick Points</b>
-America will not lose. America’s military is larger than the next ten countries combined. Military power didn’t stop a strategically retreat in Vietnam, however the situation is different in Iraq. America is pro-active and committed. A street war in would cause a huge amount of casualties to the American side. It is more likely that America will siege the capital and kill the leader with specialist troops.
-North Korea is a threat. I would not be surprised if the US focus is shifted to North Korea post Iraq. It also not out of the realm of possibility that North Korea will capitalise on America’s military engagement in Iraq. They have been known to in the past.
-Isn’t it hypocritical for the country with the most weapons of mass destruction to go to war against a country for having weapons of mass destruction? In short yes. However the war in Iraq isn’t solely about the weapons of mass destruction. Also, I don’t want those weapons pointed at us, and I would rather have them in the hands of America.
-Bush Sr. went to war. Bush Jr. has wound up in the same place. This is not entirely coincidence. But with Colin Powell (Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Gulf War) and **** Cheney (Secretary of Defence during the Gulf War) Bush wont be entirely lost.
<b>Finally, so you like the fence or what?</b>
Am I pro-war or against it? In short, neither, I am cynical and a pragmatist, I do not concern myself with issues that I deem inevitable. I merely seek to educate myself about them and draw conclusions to the affects and how they will affect me.
A|W
Ps. I encourage debate, and would love to be educated more. Feel free to forward this. It just some of my opinions, what harm can it do
Self Edited: Make it contextual to this forum. It was originally an email response to some of my friends who wanted me to go to a peace rally. Some of it about petrol prices is an "in" joke.
I'll do my own soapbox thing by just highlighting counterpoints, as this thread is going to get mighty boring otherwise:
1. Yes, Iraq supports terrorism. They give palestinian suicide bombers a $25,000 reward for their families everytime they blow up an israeli bus or shopping mall. That's just one example. They nerve and mustard-gassed 5000 iraqis and 25000 iranians to death that we know about, and who knows how many people who were merely scarred for life. That's another example. I can go on if you like?
2. Yes, they most certainly have biological and chemical weapons. They have no capacity (anymore) to make nuclear weapons, but there are 30,000 nuclear warheads in the former soviet union, and plenty aren't accounted for. Considering your point about how he was supplied chemical weapons (by the US, britain, france, <i>germany</i>, and other countries - try not to be such a nationalist) dissolves your argument about him needing to make the weapons himselves in factories. As for us not being able to find them? It's a big country with a big city, and once you're underground, satelites and UN inspectors aren't going to find anything. It's a safe rule to assume that if a country develops/buys WoMD for 25 years straight and then they suddenly disappear overnight without fanfare that they just aren't being made on mainstreet anymore.
3. Economics - all wars are, at their core, about economics. It's one of the few absolutes. To say that's not a good reason is to simply say that war is not a good thing - and there would few people to contradict you. But to dismiss a war about the safety of a mere 1/3 of the entire earth's oil supply under the control of a crazed dictator, who has threatened and invaded <i>another 1/3rd of that supply</i> is lunacy. People seem to think that oil is just used for their car and that if Americans just drove less it would not be ncessary. In reality, gasoline makes up only a tiny portion of oil usage in America (or worldwide) - the vast majority is used for plastics. Unless you are willing to stop using plastics, you are unwilling to give up your main dependence on oil. This means you can probably multiply by 100x the number of people who die in a hospital each year without sterile plastic medical supplies, for just one example. We can all live in the 1850's again...
4. Politics - yes, Iraq is a good confluence of legitimate defensive and economic points that has the happy side-effect of allowing the creation of the only Arab democracy in the history of the human race. And since most of our troubles in the mideast come from awful governments, having one bastion of freedom and democracy (especially next to Iran, whihch just needs a shove to start the domino effect of freedom and civil rights), doing this will in the longterm cause the first stabilization the regio has seen since their european colonial occupiers pulled out in the 30's. Installing a democracy and ending tyranny may be the only good cause we have in this fight, but it outweighs all the negatives 100000 to 1. I wish we did it more often when the situation demanded it and their was no oil on the table, but at least it's being done here. to say that this is not possible and that you cannot install democracy where there has never been any before is to ignore the examples of Germany, Japan, the balkans, and so on.
5. Family pride? Not worth replying to. Let's stick to something quantifiable.
Your conclusion basically says: I believe the iraqi government is lying, has WoMD, and is run by a crazed dictator. Hence, they are no threat to our neighbors or ourselves. I say this is naive poppycock and inaction has and will cause far more suffering in that region in the world for the next hundred years if you DON'T do anything about it.
I would also like to apologise for perhaps comming across as anti american in my first post. I dont wish to offend.
The first source I can come up with is an <a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,234547-2,00.html' target='_blank'>interview in the Spiegel</a> (middle of the page, get Bablefish ready). The interviewed is clearly one-sided, so I'll try to supply further evidence as soon as I find it.
[Edit]Found other sources <a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html' target='_blank'>here</a> and <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true' target='_blank'>here</a>. <a href='http://213.84.233.194/rumsfeld/IMGA1558.JPG' target='_blank'>This</a> is a picture of the mentioned handshake (horrible quality).[/Edit]
By the way, I'm going to wait some more before actively involving myself in the discussion again, but I really don't think it's necessary for us two to insult each other. If there's one thing I'm not, it's nationalistic towards Germany, and you know this.
Looks like they have an online version without the graphics:
<a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?cp1=1' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?cp1=1</a>
By the way, I'm going to wait some more before actively involving myself in the discussion again, but I really don't think it's necessary for us two to insult each other. If there's one thing I'm not, it's nationalistic towards Germany, and you know this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Under the Reagan administration. Oh well, I wouldn't put anything past the purveyors of the Iran-Contra scandal. Point taken on the anthrax - I thought we had 'only' given them chemical-weapons manufacturing components. I hate governments... you may not realize this, but I often vote libertarian for that very reason (PM me if they don't cover that one in Germany - it's a very minority party).
And sorry, I wasn't trying to insult you. I should have put a little smiley in there, as it was a gentle prod against your usual ultra-anti-nationalism that I'm well aware of. My point was to remind you that no one else here understands your anti-nationalism, so you need to remember to include more than just America in your list of evildoers when you make those sorts of lists. But I apologize anyway.
Back on topic - reply to my points, dahm you! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
/edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded. He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja. He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a “final opportunity” to do so “fully and immediately” or face “serious consequences.” But in its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone. Never will it have waged a war in such isolation. Never have so many of its allies been so firmly opposed to its policies. Never has it provoked so much public opposition, resentment and mistrust. And all this before the first shot has been fired.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kickbooty opening quote from that supplied article by bubbleblower. I highly recommend everyone here read the rest: <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?cp1=1' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?cp1=1</a>
<span style='color:white'>Aside from the fact that Soviet isn't citizen of the US as far as I know, we <i>have</i> a 'don't insult other peoples education'-rule around here.</span>
<span style='color:yellow'>Okay, I'll rephrase that, as it was the starting point to the rest of the post.</span>
Whereever you are from, you can't just declare that your side are the "good guys", and hence somehow don't need to follow the rules you expect the "bad guys" to follow. The only fair thing to do is to expect all countries to follow the same rules.
Besides, surely it <i>is</i> the USA that is currently busy using its staggering miltary budget to invade other countries without UN authorisation at the moment, not Iraq.
It's all very well the USA being the "world's policeman" (although I'd rather they stuck to being just a policeman, rather than a sheriff), and insisting on certain standards of behaviour from other countries, but they really should make more of an effort to achieve those standards of behaviour themselves.
I would suggest, for starters, ceasing to unreasonably veto every UN resolution on Israel/Palestine, signing up to the International Criminal Court, cooperating with the UN Human Rights Commission, signing up to the anti-landmine treaty, observing the Geneva Convention for its captives in Cuba, agreeing to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, allowing access to biological weapons inspectors, and reinstating the ICBM treaty it has just withdrawn from (so it can create a new generation of space-based weaponry).
Is it any wonder that other countries are suspicious of the USA's motives when they see how routinely they obstruct or try to wriggle out of any sort of multinational agreement? In many cases the USA is standing almost totally alone as the only significant non-signatory (eg in the cases of landmines, ICC, and carbon emissions).
If the USA actually cooperated on things like these, especially simple things like letting UN observers into Israel (vetoed for the umpteenth time in 2001), I think they'd be amazed how much better they'd be regarded by the rest of the world.
So, maybe invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussain <i>is</i> a good thing. But it cannot be left to individual countries to pick and choose which situations get intervened in, and that's why I object to this invasion. The US is being extremely selective in the fights it chooses, as any country probably would be. That's what international forums like the UN are for - to agree on situations that need to be intervened in, and what measures should be taken.
And going to the UN will often mean compromise - it's all very well saying that the US made the effort to go to the UN, but one does get the impression that they'd decided to invade Iraq at the end of March, regardless of whatever the other UN states or the UN weapons inspectors said. It was as if they were just hoping the UN would agree to what they were going to do anyway, and if not, well tough, they're "irrelevant".
Everyone agrees that Saddam being out of power would be a good thing per se; the debate is about whether it is worth defying the UN, throwing out weapon inspectors, alienating most of the rest of the world and bombing Iraq back into the stone age for.
As far as I remember, there was very little protests made towards Operation Desert Fox, (this would be the attack made by Clinton during the December of 1998) - how was the situation of this attack different? Was there UN backing in Desert Fox? Because from what information I obtained from one website, (globalsecurity.org - which I can assume to have some sort of bias), there was definite actions by Saddam to not allowing UN inspectors do their job, whereas in the present day attack, the UN safety inspectors were making progress.
Anyone to confirm this?
And going to the UN will often mean compromise - it's all very well saying that the US made the effort to go to the UN, but one does get the impression that they'd decided to invade Iraq at the end of March, regardless of whatever the other UN states or the UN weapons inspectors said. It was as if they were just hoping the UN would agree to what they were going to do anyway, and if not, well tough, they're "irrelevant".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ehhh, we've been going to the UN for 13 years on Iraq. In fact, if the US had not gone to the UN in 1990 nothing would have been done to help kuwait. The same way nothing was done by the UN stabilize the balkans. Or Israel. Or anything since Korea, which was the last time the UN was down with armed conflict against an invader (again, at US insistence).
As for the argument that we are selective in what countries we attack - isn't that a good thing to the world, usually? If you mean why do we attack some dictatorships and not others, I say 'give us time'; if they are harboring terrorists, I guarantee we'll be after them oil or no oil (look at afghanistan after all - where were the big business interests there?). But saying that we should not disarm iraq, stabilizing the mideast to a great extent, and freeing its citizens from tyranny because we didn't do it for zimbabwe? It's as silly as it sounds.
There's such a thing as making up for past mistakes. That's the underlying reason with all this guilt-stricken european war protesting, after all.
^_^
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->" By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries)."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I know what they mean when they say we are the sole remaining superpower.
The price of freedom is never small, many times in history were blood, money, steel, and time sacrificed in order to allow the future to live a life of freedom and equality.
Defense comes with a price.
<b>::EDIT:: I didnt make the list so I'll post a quote from the messageboard where it was compiled about how hard it was to find examples. Someone accused him of having dug hard to find the All of the fringe left's protests ::EDIT::
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dug hard? That was from ONE PAGE from a google search that turned up
hundreds. Thus proving you wrong. But, being the pussified wanker you
are, you had to change your statement, to pretend you meant something
else....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
::EDIT:: Just wanted to make it a bit more clear ::EDIT::</b>
Actually, it's true. Russia had produced minature nukes (they fit in briefcases) just in case they had to be used. Some were stolen and sold on the black market. When they realized that there was no point in having them, they destroyed what they had, but there are still unaccounted nukes.
The price of freedom is never small, many times in history were blood, money, steel, and time sacrificed in order to allow the future to live a life of freedom and equality.
Defense comes with a price. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but I can find only 2 (not exclusive) conclusions to this :
1) The USA are leeching most of the world's ressources ;
2) They're spending an insanely important part of the state's funds on "defense".
Even if America truly helped freeing oppressed people on earth , this would have little use , as there would be nothing left to spend on education , research , health care , vital structure building and the like. Focusing on the military... that's what caused USSR's downfall.
Somehow , the war on Iraq seems to be a way of having more ressources to wage war again.
1) The USA are leeching most of the world's ressources ;
2) They're spending an insanely important part of the state's funds on "defense".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) The rest of the world does not defend itself as intensely as we do.
1) The USA are leeching most of the world's ressources ;
2) They're spending an insanely important part of the state's funds on "defense".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) The rest of the world does not defend itself as intensely as we do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they realy on us to.
Oil is a factor... for the Iraqi people. If Sadam destroys the one thing that it has more than enough to boost the economy of that nation and get it out of the 3rd world status. Iraq needs the oil so they can SELL it to the US and the other nations of the world. The oil could help Iraq get the money it needs if it is not spent on 7 palaces in Bhagdad for an oppressive dictator.
The goal of the war is not to take over Iraq but to liberate it. I can see why people are against war in general and this one could have been prevented if Sadam went into exhile when he had the chance but he did not. If Sadam was left alone he would go hitler on the world and take over or attempt to causing even more loss of life.
Iraq needs to be lilberated and allowed to choose who it wants to have as a leader. It needs a government that can make the quality of life 4 the citizens better.
Even if war was good for the economy it wouldnt effect the day after we start bombing.
...............
Iraq needs to be lilberated and allowed to choose who it wants to have as a leader. It needs a government that can make the quality of life 4 the citizens better. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we go in that country and declare war on it. Because war will save these people from getting killed. Civilians don't die in today's wars.
.......................
We will "liberate"(your word not mine) Iraq and choose the government for these people. and it will suck. and it will not be much better than what they have now. So it has always been, and always will be. Yay america.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The price of freedom is never small, many times in history were blood, money, steel, and time sacrificed in order to allow the future to live a life of freedom and equality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The price of freedom is more than that of physical sacrifice. To be truly free one must be willing to accept the fact that they could die any moment, by any cause, and there is nothing they can do about it. Once you begin to fear, you begin to be controlled. When you are controlled, you are not free.
Unfortunately, most sheople in America live in a state of fear, encouraged by the government and enforced by the media. Therefore, they are not free.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just kidding with you, I couldn't resist. Nothing personal by it - just reminded me of guys I knew in college. Which as Silverfox will jump in an remind us was a long time ago...
Unfortunately, most people in America live in a state of fear <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? There's no fear here in my location about government oppresion or being tortured and killed like in a certain MidEast nation.
That's funny because where i live, people are scared out of their wits because the Bush administration said that terrorists will surely bomb us. Bush doesn't need to kill us. He has ways of getting our enemies to do that for him.