Why Bomb Iraq?
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
Comments
same with my girlfriend
I hated his condescending tone towards the patient girl , who showed her good will in vain and couldn't flame him back because of her tolerance. Who has to "grow up" here ? I can guarantee that such a reply written here would have called for sarcastic answers or even a warning from the mods.
btw : "Nickelodeon diplomacy" is now a famous quote <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The use of military force is just Neanderthal diplomacy.
Like... what exactly? If you don't say how your doing the same thing as she did.
but the people who have lived in Iraq know that saddam would never listen to the UN, there is a reason that almost all of the american iraqis are for war, they want a better life for the people of their country, one that can only come about by force. Do you think we could have used diplomacy with Hitler?
During the cold war , the US government didn't remotely need to declare wars on the regimes that weren't obedient enough. Firstly , their secret services did a way better job at removing leaders by force (I have a book listing 42 of the worst acknowledged operations , including coups and murders , lead by the CIA since its creation. rawr <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo-->)
So no matter how paranoid Saddam can be , he could have been killed with ease if the CIA were involved in the assassination.
Secondly , the economic and propaganda pressure usually causes the downfall of the target regime (exception in Venezuella where Hugo Chavez somehow manages to keep the people's support to a degree) : seeing that Saddam's power is fading away , most Iraqi would have let him down after a while because of the growing international control over the country (UN inspectors , then various peacekeeping forces , who knows , Saddam might have retired like Pinochet when the need for democratic election had arisen)
Whatever you can tell me , Bush and his petty alliance don't really care about the Iraqi people.
The western diplomacy seems to only consider direct concerns. Iraq attacks Iran which is an ennemy so we sell them weapons. Iraq attacks Kuwait which has oil so we attack it. Iraq has oil and economy goes bad so we attack it. Here are the main reasons of the western countries behaviors towards Iraq. Do they speak about the upcoming "democratic elections" ? No , the pentagon just gives vague rumors about unknown exiled Iraqis. They all speak about "rebuilding" Iraq... which means : exploiting its ressources. After such a show of arrogance from Bush , most western governments don't have to hide under walls of hypocrisy , they just talk about the dirty work using politically correct words.
They don't hope to sound believable ; they just hope that their people won't care enough. We have to prove them wrong.
<b>Companies bid on rebuilding Iraq</b>
Halliburton, Bechtel benefit from experience and political ties
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/bu...es/20030330.htm</a>
<b>Secret Bids</b>
Companies, Including Big GOP Donors, Invited to Vie for Iraq Contracts
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/i...ract030322.html</a>
<b>Iraq Rebuilding Contracts: What's at Stake?</b>
Federal spending on postwar reconstruction projects could reach into the tens of billions of dollars, and benefit some of America's largest industrial companies. No wonder it's creating controversy already.
<a href='http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/...,437274,00.html</a>
<b>Bipartisan Amendment Calls for Explanations on Awarding of Iraqi Reconstruction Contracts</b>
<a href='http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/040303presssc.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/040303presssc.htm</a>
<!--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-->In recent weeks, USAID hand-selected companies in a secret bidding process to award four separate Iraqi reconstruction projects totaling $1.7 billion. In the past, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that contractors had not done enough to contain costs on projects involving logistical and engineering support in areas where the U.S. military was involved. According to a September 2000 GAO report, Federal officials "frequently have accepted the level of services the contractor provided without questioning whether they could be provided more efficiently or less frequently and at lower cost."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mean to imply that the US bombed structures that they wanted to rebuild. From a military standpoint the Command and Control Facilities need to be eliminated. What I think is questionable is the US agenda after the Iraqi people have been 'liberated'. The quesion is who profits from "bringing democracy to the Iraqis?" And remember, the US adminstration is paying for the rebuilding of Iraq from your tax dollars.
No, I was just kinda annoyed how you left off with out saying exactly how.
<!--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-->During the cold war , the US government didn't remotely need to declare wars on the regimes that weren't obedient enough. Firstly , their secret services did a way better job at removing leaders by force (I have a book listing 42 of the worst acknowledged operations , including coups and murders , lead by the CIA since its creation. rawr <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo-->)
So no matter how paranoid Saddam can be , he could have been killed with ease if the CIA were involved in the assassination.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam has an extremly ruthless security team. He stages fack coups just to find who is loyal. Those that arent... See the mass grave thread. Before the war Saddam had not been seen in over 4 years. It was all doubles. In order to see Saddam you are driven out side of baghdad blind folded strip searched washed in turpin time then clothed with other cloths and most the time Saddam won't even show up! Even if we did kill him his kids are even more ruthless then he is.
<!--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-->
Secondly , the economic and propaganda pressure usually causes the downfall of the target regime (exception in Venezuella where Hugo Chavez somehow manages to keep the people's support to a degree) : seeing that Saddam's power is fading away , most Iraqi would have let him down after a while because of the growing international control over the country (UN inspectors , then various peacekeeping forces , who knows , Saddam might have retired like Pinochet when the need for democratic election had arisen)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thousands have died trying to revolt against saddam. The sadist just has a gas attack against any would be revolters.
My vote: assasinate the bastage or then just breath heavily on his back so he won't do any nasty stuff anymore(well he actually hasn't done very much).
<!--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-->Do you think we could have used diplomacy with Hitler? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, we should have let him go to art-school <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<b>We are not in Iraq for oil.
We are not in Iraq to liberate people.</b>
We are in Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have played hopscotch with the UN over the past 12 years. The Saddam signed a treaty in 1991, that said he could maintain powe in Iraq if he disarmed. There was never ANY proof that the Iraqi military had rid itself if its WMD's as there are no incinerators in Iraq that burn hot enough to destroy chemical and biological weapons. In 1994 inpectrs found a Calutron (a device used to enrich Uranium to a weapons grade radioactivity), despite the fact that Iraq said they had no such device.
Ask yourself this if you are against the war:
How long must you wait before you decide that diplomacy is not working? We have tried for over a decade. Iraq has already attacked two of its neighbors in the bast 20 years, and has made public statements against our own country and others.
If you are angry because of a lack of UN "support":
France, Germany, AND Russia are all involved in multi-billion dollar contracts with iraq over oil. They have much more to lose from a war than we have to gain regarding oil. And let's not forget that France pressured other countries on the security council into voting no on military action by saying they would veto said countries' intrance into the Europian Union.
becuase bush said so, and he just <b>has</b> to get revenge for daddy
meh
(the above was emotion based arguing)
Notice how the Bush administration has already given out contracts for repairing the Iraqi infrastructre?
thats counting you chickens before they've hatched
I'm starting to think about putting 'we', 'us', and 'they' in the swearword filter.
Really, who are 'you'?
The American soldiers? How do you dare to speak for 150.000 people?
The American government? Then check the scripts from the UN hearings and realize that 'you' claimed other stuff.
The American people? Tell that to the <i>two-hundred-fifty thousand</i> people who showed up on the anti-war rally in NYC at the fifteenth of February.
Differentiate, please.
[edit]Better, Mons? I had the number from heise.de, but it's not worth the hassle, is it? The fact remains - there is no 'we', the Americans, there is no 'them', the French. There's only you, and me, and him, and her, and the whole rest.[/edit]
And I think when he says we, he means the collective statistical 72% 'we' in the United States that 'strongly' support the actions in Iraq, plus another 10% that 'somewhat' support it, according to most polls I've seen. Not that polls can necessarily be believed at all times, but whatever.
And settle down, beavis! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I digress however. Wars, for reasons such as nationalism, have tended of late to be extraordinarily popular for governments such as the US and Australia. George Bush's approval rating skyrocketed after Sept 11 despite the fact that his government had failed to stop or detect the attack. John Howard (Australia PM) got a massive approval boost when 88 Australians were killed in the Bali bombings (interestingly in comparison if you scale the population of Australia to the level of the US and look at the revised casualty figures we took the equivilant of approx 1300 killed) and his government also failed to stop or prevent the attack (turns out the government knew but didn't issue a warning. Still didn't dent his apprval ratings). Anywho there seems to be an assumption that once troops are over there fighting speaking against the war means betraying the troops. Although myself and every anti-war supporter I've met 100% support our boys fighting over in Iraq the assumption remains. This attitude may account for much of the war support which occurs.
In an interesting side study, look at the reactions to war in 1914 and 1939 in Europe. War in 1914 is met by massive celebrations and spontaneous cheering in the streets, thousands upon thousands of volunteers signing up until the armies of Europe can't keep up with demand. Then look at 1939. Just quiet resignation, no celebrations, not even in Germany. Everyone had remembered what the previous war had brought, the pain, suffering and utter devestation. No-one wanted another one. Perhaps today, because we in Australia and the US have been removed from war, or never seen it touch our shores, we have differing attitudes to countries that have been wracked with war throughout their entire long histories.
Btw, before someone jumps in and says "But that could have been prevented if the pre-emptivly took out Hitler", think again. Stalin in Russia was deeply paranoid of all of Europe and certainly had the power to invade if he chose to do so. Given the way the war could have gone, we actually got off fairly lightly.
Bias is something extremly hard to filter out of the information we process
NS rules....
yes, that was bias <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
no, but I hear you can buy girlfriends cheap here... <a href='http://www.ebay.com' target='_blank'>http://www.ebay.com</a>
Im for getting saddam out of power, Force seems to be the only way.
On the subject of support for the war, it appears that support took a jump shortly after the bombs started falling. From what I understand, this isn't unusual. You have a certain percentage that's For it. Then another that's Against it. The larger group in the middle takes more into account. Probably the biggest factor is the relationship they have with the individuals involved. While they might not have family in the military, they may know someone who does. When the fighting starts, it seems the majority says "Ok, this thing is moving forward. Let's make the best of it and find an end ASAP." While monitoring the means, they'll save their judgement for the end. That's why we're starting to hear questions in the press conferences like " When do you know you're done?" and so on.