Operation Iraqi Freedom

aine

Maybe I am just a typical anti-American student as my ever so slightly right wing brother (note the sarcasm he's just a step behind Margaret Thatcher....I mean he actually thinks George Bush is great!) is forever telling me!

But I have a question that I would like answered!

Why is it that America were hell bent on invading Iraq, I mean 'changing the regime' in Iraq?

Am I just being really cynical here or does it appear to anybody else that good ole George W was just finishing Daddy's job for him...and not very well I might add!

At the time they attacked Iraq the domestc support they had gathered was done under false pretences, over half of the electorate thought that Iraq were directly involved in 9/11!

Their own annual global terrorism report showed that both Iran and Saudi Arabia had more proven links to known terrorism than Iraq! And at that the ones they accused Iraq of were dubious to say the least...I mean one of them was a pro-Kurdish group....coz ya Saddam just loved the Kurds!

It just seems to me that George was very selective when naming his 'axis of evil' and yes I am aware that Iran featured there!

But lets face it...there are many countries that were and still are a far greater threat to peace on earth etc!

So my question is....Why Iraq?

Paddy20

VERY BLOODY OIL.

aine

Your cynicism outstrips mine! Surely there has to have been another reason? There are many other states with rich oil reserves and the like that leave a lot to be desired on the old human rights front too!

bonkey

Originally posted by aine
Surely there has to have been another reason?

Yup....it was the only oil-rich country that the US could easily manufacture an excuse to invade that stood a chance of being sold to at least some of the world.

Look at it this way....

How much has the US paid in the rebuilding of the following nations, despite it taking a role in the conflicts which helped devestate them ?

Vietnam
North Korea
Yugoslavia
Panama
Libya
Sudan
Guatemala

Answer : none.

Now, the US was making big noises about footing the bill for Iraq, but that bill seems to extend only as far as not billing the Iraqi government for the cost of the US military. In otherwords - the US won't ask IRaw to pay for the bombs that fell on it, or the people who fired them.

It does expect Iraq, however, to fund its own rebuilding....as evidenced by the frequent statements from US officials telling us that the on-going resistance which is torching oil-lines etc are only depriving their nation of cash it desperately needs to rebuild itself.

So maybe its not just oil.

Maybe the US govt. needed to clear some inventory so they could buy newer, cooler toys from their US-based arms suppliers (thus propping up the economy through increased government expenditure in the arms industry), as well as landing some truly stupendously massive contracts for their construction and oil companies (thus propping up the economy )which will be paid for by the Iraqi's.

Maybe they needed an increased presence in the ME, seeing as the Saudi's want them and their bases out.

But the humanitarian side? That was just an added bone to throw to Joe Q Public. The US couldnt care less about humanitarian issues in other nations until said issues can be leveraged to be of advantage in some way - which is exactly what was witnessed with Iraq.

And WMDs? Well - all the evidence would appear to indicate that while Saddam was in breach, the power-centres in the US and UK knowingly misled not only the public, but members of their own government as well into supporting a war on false premises.

At least, thats how I view it. You're free to differ.

jc

bloggs

There is also the problem with the US Media groups, who will never speak out against the President, and most certainly not against the US military during a time of war.

I remember watching Fox News (before the war), and the hosts were complaining about France and Russia's selling of weapons to Iraq during the 80s! Blood Hell!!! Don't they even know or want to tell people the history of old Donnie Rumsfeld?

Sleipnir

Oil. It's not cynical, it's the truth.
What other reason could there be? Removing a despot? What about all the other dictators in the world, why aren't they so keen to remove them?
Why wasn't he removed during the first Gulf war? The Americans were on the outskirts of Baghdad but didn't enter. Even though the people had already started tearing down the statues of Saddam and rising up against the military secure in the knowledge that the Yanks would arrive soon. When America turned their back on them Saddams security forces went nuts and killed them all.
You should read micheal Moore's book "Stupid White Men" to get a real picture of Americian Internal and foreign policies. And his movie "Bowling for Columbine" is a real eye-opener.

bloggs

Originally posted by Kananga

You should read micheal Moore's book "Stupid White Men" to get a real picture of Americian Internal and foreign policies. And his movie "Bowling for Columbine" is a real eye-opener.

Separate, but Stupid White Men isn't that great a book in my opinion, i much prefered 'The Shadow of the Eagel', explains the corruption and the control of former Republican regimes and how they are destroying the world. SWM seemed to be to be one long rant. Also BFC wasn't as true as Moore had made out. Remember the Bank where you could buy the gun, well instead of giving the gun out there, they gave people a receipt to buy a gun in the local store. Still crazy, but i don't know why Moore couldn't just tell the truth.

Just another question was the american operation really called Operation Iraqi Liberation before it was changed to freedom?

The Corinthian

Simply citing oil as the reason would probably be an oversimplification. Certainly oil was probably a factor, but I would imagine than numerous other factors may have also come into play (although some may be coincidental or post facto):

1. Control of the Iraqi oil industry, for the purposes of assigning long term drilling contracts and franchises to selected US firms.
2. Use of oil revenue to pay for reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure by selected US firms.
3. Removal of the Iraqi threat to regional US interests, thus allowing them to extricate themselves from Saudi Arabia - a both financially and politically expensive arrangement.
4. Discouraging the use of the Euro as a potential competitor to the US Dollar as the currency of trade for oil by removing the only OPEC state that had moved to it (although others were considering it).
5. Removal of a potential threat to the US’s strongest ally in the region - Israel.
6. A move to boost the administration’s popularity and distract attention from domestic problems and scandals with a popular war - and in the US, it is still largely popular.
7. A good opportunity to use up some old ordinance and field test some new weapons.
8. An initial implementation of the foreign policy espoused by the PNAC, which is closely connected to the present US administration.
9. An honest belief in the existence of Iraqi WMD and the benefit of the removal of a brutal dictator.

And before people jump down my throat on that last one, while this may indeed have been a real reason for the war and subsequent occupation, evidence would seem to point towards it, if true, having been meant as no more than an altruistic by-product, at best.

Psychological factors may also have played a part given GWB’s father’s roll in the first, some would argue incomplete, Gulf War and his own morality given his strong religious, indeed evangelical, beliefs.

No doubt one could speculate to a number of other possible or probable reasons.

As such I don’t know if one can truly point the finger at just one reason for the war. Chances are no one or two reasons would have justified the war and that it was a combination of a number of them. Control of a valuable resource such as oil probably would have been the clincher though.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by bloggs
Remember the Bank where you could buy the gun, well instead of giving the gun out there, they gave people a receipt to buy a gun in the local store. Still crazy, but i don't know why Moore couldn't just tell the truth.

When MM is in the bank he asks when he can have the gun, The bank-teller says that they have at least 500 guns in their safe. She made no mention of giving him a receipt so he could pick up his gun elsewhere, she said they had them on the premises.



You're right Corinthian, I was over-simplifying when I said it was just about oil, just so I didn't have to type for ages!

But I do believe that oil was the overriding reason for the war against Iraq, especially about some OPEC countries moving to the Euro as the oil transaction currency of choice.
Iraq had moved to the Euro for oil transactions in 2000 and had also converting his reserves to Euro and so made a killing. This made other OPEC's look at the euro as a serious alternative. Iran being the main one to look at. It is of little surprise that Iran is also on America's Axis Of Evil list.

Most (if not all) of the oil contracts have now gone to U.S. countried (Donnie Rumsfeld's last company (of which he is now an 'advisor')got the biggest contract.

The American's are also eager to get out of Saudi because, quite simply, the saudi's don't want them there.

With regards Iraq's WMD program, there have been hundreds of searchs throughout Iraq over the past 12 years which have turned up nothing. Really nothing, not a hint of fissile material nor a whisper about chemical or biological weapons.
No doubt Saddam did have a weapons program in the past (as the Kurds can prove) but perhaps he decided after the last war that he would not have international support of any kind while he had them.
Also, while the search was going on, North Korea admitted that they were developing nuclear materials and refused all calls to stop their efforts of creating a nuclear weapon. So,
1.) Iraq has no WMD that we can find, anywhere. And no evidence that such a program exists.
2.) North Korea (also on the Axis of Evil) has admitted that they are developing nuclear weapons and will oppose all efforts to stop them from doing so.
So Iraq was deemed a greater threat to international peace?

Then there was the link between Iraq and Bin Laden. They went very quiet when asked to produce any evidence.

I would certainly agree with your point on Israel. Although were they that much of a threat knowing who would back Israel up if ever attacked by Iraq?
Saddam was an evil man but he was not stupid. He did (try) to attack Israel during the last war but at that stage America were already knocking on his door. He had nothing to lose.

I agree that there was more than one reason why they went to war. I just think that saving the Iraqi people didn't figure on that list, until it went to the PR people.

bonkey

Originally posted by Kananga
When MM is in the bank he asks when he can have the gun, The bank-teller says that they have at least 500 guns in their safe. She made no mention of giving him a receipt so he could pick up his gun elsewhere, she said they had them on the premises.

Lets not get dragged off-topic on this, folx.

THere's been plenty of previous threads about the non-accuracy of Moore's so-called facts. Either search for them, or start a new thread if you're interested.

jc

spongebob

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Discouraging the use of the Euro as a potential competitor to the US Dollar as the currency of trade for oil by removing the only OPEC state that had moved to it (although others were considering it).
Removal of a potential threat to the US’s strongest ally in the region - Israel.
A good opportunity to use up some old ordinance and field test some new weapons.
An honest belief in the existence of Iraqi WMD and the benefit of the removal of a brutal dictator.

As such I don’t know if one can truly point the finger at just one reason for the war.

Well put Corinthian, covered all the angles I could think of except for one. I added one long term geopolitical consideration at the end and removed some of yours.

1. Discouraging the use of the Euro as a potential competitor to the US Dollar as the currency of trade for oil by removing the only OPEC state that had moved to it (although others were considering it).
2. Removal of a potential threat to the US’s strongest ally in the region - Israel.
3. A good opportunity to use up some old ordinance and field test some new weapons. (Mucks 'sell by date theory' of modern warfare)
4. A belief in the existence (or well formed plans therefore) of Iraqi WMD and the benefit of the removal of a brutal dictator.
5. Some consideration has also been given to the formation of a unitary Kurdish State by biting (Kurdish) lumps out of NW Iran, N Iraq , N Syria and S Turkey which would allow a pipeline to run from Azerbaijan to Incirlik or Aleppo on the Med. The Turks have been unreliable of late and are threatening to go Islamic to boot, watch that space. Nor have the Kurds ever fought a war with the Israelis which makes them popular in Washington. The Kurdish state would control the key Water Supplies to the North as well. Israel would allow such a state to exist.

There are my five main reasons in descending order of importance. The game was up for the US if the pesky I-Ray-Nee-Awns sided with Saddayum on point one.

Iran has active WMD programs probably including a Nuclear one and is probably already able to hit Israel with their North Korean missiles. Iran is safe from invasion unless they try to sell their oil and gas in Euros.

M

Vader

First, I want to contribute my opinion to yere previous and very intelligent points:

Aine
Am I just being really cynical here or does it appear to anybody else that good ole George W was just finishing Daddy's job for him...and not very well I might add!

George Bush I did not want to remove Saddam, he was one of America’s key allies in the cold war receiving the largest military aid package at one time. He just wanted to re-stabilize the local market, something dictators do very well. (This prestigious title then moved to Israel>Philippines>Turkey and now Columbia. All have violated UN resolutions, as well as committing genocide, oppressing democracy and developing WMD’s)

Aine
But lets face it...there are many countries that were and still are a far greater threat to peace on earth

72% of the world’s population considers America the greatest threat to their countries security. Fact.

Kananga
You should read Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" to get a real picture of American Internal and foreign policies.

MM is not funny, he is a poor linguist and his points don’t deal with the important global issues. Although “Operation Canadian Bacon” would be a good parallel for the Iraq war. Read Noam Chomsky if you want an intelligent, in depth, fair and impersonal analysis of American policy, just my humble opinion.

Operation Iraqi Freedom or Iraqi Liberation
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a much better name than the original name for Afghanistan called “Operation Infinite Justice”. Sound a bit too evangelical, kind of like a crusade, no wonder they changed it.

What I think were the reasons for going to war.
1)Yugoslavia was an excuse to establish the legitimacy of NATO to act without UN approval this was an excuse to the legitimacy of America to act without any international approval. When you can do this other countries are afraid of you, you can monopolise world markets and bully developing countries. Remember most US politicians and their staffs and businessmen or have sizeable investments.

2)Popularity. Americans are a proud and arrogant people who believe in their moral superiority. If a President can go to war, convince the people it’s a good war and not loose too many casualties then he will be re-elected.

3)Personal gain. President Bush and his staff are businessmen and have sizeable investments in companies associated with oil and construction.

4)The national economy. America is in the middle of a recession and war is good for business. The arms industry is bigger than computers and the war just gave it a major boost.
5)Christianity. This is probably a point that I’ll get a lot of criticism for but I strongly believe it. Christianity is the most destructive force the world has ever known. It caused the dark ages, empire building, the crusades and the destruction of indigenous cultures. I think its obvious that Bush considers himself a good Christian or at the very least is pandering to the Christian vote.

6)This whole idea of a war on terrorism reminds me of Orwell, how you can rule a people with an Iron fist if you make them constantly afraid of something. We are already seeing the beginning of Big Brother with the curtailment of civil liberties in the “home of the free”. So far the numbers arrested in America for peaceful protests, freedom of expression in “No-Say areas”, and flag burning has reached the tens of thousands, but is it reported in mainstream media?

But a war is very expensive and if the project for the new American century is to be achieved it will require a lot of them and so that is why Iraq as opposed to any other potential target was chosen. America was going to war, 9/11 gave them the excuse, it was just a matter of whom. Iraq was chosen for the oil so that it could fund this war and future wars (Afghanistan paid for itself with new pipe-line deals). The war wasn’t about oil but it wouldn’t have happened without it.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
How much has the US paid in the rebuilding of the following nations, despite it taking a role in the conflicts which helped devestate them ?

Vietnam
North Korea
Yugoslavia
Panama
Libya
Sudan
Guatemala

Answer : none.

None? You should have a look at this and this then. :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
None? You should have a look at this and this then. :rolleyes:

Look at what?

The first link is the World Bank. It is not the US, and it does not make payments or even restitution, but rather gives loans. The best you can possibly say is that the interest rates are slightly lower than the "real" banks who wouldn't loan the money in the first place to such a bad risk.

I see absolutely no relevance to what I was discussing there.

The second link is the US Agency for International Aid. Again, I see absolutely no mentions of restitution paid for damages incurred as a result of war relevant to the nations I mentioned.

Please note that I never once suggested that the US does not give foreign aid. I simply said that it does not have a good history of paying for the rebuilding of nations that it tears down.

Now, if you have figures that show me wrong, maybe you could just present them, or a clear link to them, rather than just rolling your eyes and handing us links to "generic" US-funded international aid sites.

I am talking specific funds allocated above and beyond normal international aid to help rebuild a nation, which were allocated because the US caused significant damage during a conflict.

jc

jc

Naruto

two words:

Family Tradition


his father invaded iraq so he decided he would too. Damn bastard.

bloggs

Grasping at straws but, is there anyone here who supports Bush, as i would like to hear their point of view on this :ninja:

bloggs

You have seen the movie (War on Terror) now get the action figure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3184709.stm

Havelock

A very good debate so far, I am considering playing devils advocate tomorrow but for the moment I shall agree with the majority, as to ague the other point will take longer than I have this afternoon.

the simple answer:
It invaded Iraq as part of its shemes to maintain America's Superpower status throught control of oil supplies, the establishment of a military power base in the middle-east, incouragement of internal expendature on military hardware, the pacification of its populace throught a constant state of war (how very 1984) and discourage direct military police action against it self by continual show military force.

Ahem...

Vader

Turnip, the example the truely spells out in black and white that the US only aids in reconstruction when it stands to make a profit is Nicaragua. Nicaragua went to The World Court after America invaded it. The World Court juged that the invasion was unwarrented and the conduct of it illegal. It also ordered America to pay substantial reparations. The US did not. It vetoed a UN resolution to obey international law and continued its war untill the government had been over thrown and a puppet government installed.

The new government entered into an insane trade agreement with the US which led them to borrow excessive sums from the world bank, which led the IMF to intercede in its affairs.

Nicaragua never received any reparations and now owes the US money!

napalm@night

look i dont really care about what the reason was or wasnt for for invading Iraq.However, i do believe that we cannot just leave people like sadam in place running country's where they can kill who they like have there police force out raping and torturing people who they like im sorry but an Iraq without Sadam is a better world not only for us but for the people of Iraq. I really think everybody in the west has been so selfish in the need for a reason for taking care of business in Iraq. Why??? must it really effect us before we get rid of sadam! Yes it shuold have been done a long time ago we all know that but that doesnt mean we shouldnt haven done it! (Better F***ing late then never is what i believe) There is so much eveil in this world maybe we should do a turn for some other people even if it wont effect us for there GOOD! THE guy was Cracked!

its time we started living in a proactive world as opposed to a reactive one im at me wits end anyway heres hopeing....

bonkey

Originally posted by napalm@night
its time we started living in a proactive world as opposed to a reactive one im at me wits end anyway heres hopeing....

So, what you're saying is that a better world would be one where we can get rid of those who's ways and actions we disagree with strongly enough?

I thought Saddam doing just that is what you were complaining about being a bad thing in the first place????

/me shakes head.

jc

napalm@night

no what i am saying is seeming that maybe it was too big idea for you to understand.. is that by living in a proactive world we are not going to let loonley dictators murder rape and torture there own people however, and whenever they feel like it .and the only time when we doing anything about it is after they do something that effects us.... thats part that i just cant stand.

gandalf

Originally posted by napalm@night
no what i am saying is seeming that maybe it was too big idea for you to understand.. is that by living in a proactive world we are not going to let loonley dictators murder rape and torture there own people however, and whenever they feel like it .and the only time when we doing anything about it is after they do something that effects us.... thats part that i just cant stand.

Ah life is so black & white

Thats all very fine but it appears a dictator only turns looney when they go against US foreign policy. Up until that point they can murder and torture as many of their own people as they want because they are right behind Uncle Sam.

In a proactive world I'd expect to have a proper due course of justice and not detention without charge using the blanket term "terrorist". Wars would be justified and not illegal actions taken by some nations so there ruling administration can hide their economic failings behind the patriotic fervour of the flag.

Just out of curiousity what age are you napalm ?

Gandalf.

mr_angry

You know when the whole Iraqi thing kicked off earlier this year, I was totally against it. To my mind, it was George Bush doing another Afghanistan - just wading in and kicking out any government they didn't like. (And, for what it's worth, I thought what happened in Afghanistan was far worse. Did anyone ever read about the oil pipeline scandal, or that the new Afghani president, Mohammed Karzai, was CEO of a major Texas oil firm in the late 90's?)

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic. The thing that changed my mind was this:

Regardless of Weapons of Mass Destruction, were the Iraqi people asking to be freed?

And the more I thought about it, the more I had to answer 'Yes'. There have been people flooding out of Iraq for years, following persecution and torture. These people have been asking the western world for help in freeing the people of Iraq from opression. Is it that different from the Spanish trying to free us from the English? Nobody back then said "Look at those awful Spanish types trying to gun down innocent Englishmen in Ireland", yet the result would have been much the same.

True, we freed ourselves in the end (which I feel was much better for us), but the weapons of our opressors back then were far less effective than Saddam's arsenal. There's no way the ordinary Iraqis could have freed themselves. They needed help.

Having said that, I feel that the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was a complete fabrication, and its fairly clear to me that Saddam wasn't able to "deploy them in 20 minutes". Especially as the coalition forces couldn't even find any!

I can't say I stand up for the way that things were done. But they HAD to be done. People should face the consequences for what they actually did wrong, but freeing the Iraqi people was ABSOLUTELY right.

mr_angry

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Gandalf.

On another note, I think the world should come together and wade into Israel and sort the whole thing out. The state of that place is sickening.

The Saint

I am posting a link with a fairly comprehensive history of US state terror and military action. It may not look like a credibly site (with the swastikas on the US flag and all) but all of this guys sources come from reputible authors such as Chomsky and Blum. It should be viewed by all who believe that the US is a force for good in the world and by those looking to expand their knowledge of US state terror and military action.

http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/ChronologyofTerror.html

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mr_angry4
And the more I thought about it, the more I had to answer 'Yes'. There have been people flooding out of Iraq for years, following persecution and torture. These people have been asking the western world for help in freeing the people of Iraq from opression. Is it that different from the Spanish trying to free us from the English? Nobody back then said "Look at those awful Spanish types trying to gun down innocent Englishmen in Ireland", yet the result would have been much the same.

Ignoring the morality of “the end justifies the means” - which is in effect what you have just said - one must ask whether Iraqis are in fact better off? If their newfound freedom includes poverty, violence and an instability that was not present or as severe under dictatorship, would they not be worse off?

Freedom, democracy and even electricity seem to be some way off for the Iraqi people at present. Optimistically, it will take years, if not decades to sort out. Little comfort to you average Iraqi - unemployed, hungry and surrounded by crime. He’s probably beginning to even get nostalgic for the job and social stability he enjoyed Saddam Hussein regime.

Or as Khrushchev once wryly observed; “a man with a full belly seldom thinks of causing trouble”...

Vader

napalm@night
Ok I can come up with three possible conclusions judging from what you’ve just posted:

1) You’re young
2) Your either American or British or have strong links with America or Britain
3) You are trying to stimulate debate

Which is it? Nobody EVER has the right to a preemptive attack! You can never say for sure what someone will do in the future so you can’t take actions against them. You can’t judge someone for a crime they didn’t commit.
“no what i am saying is seeming that maybe it was too big idea for you to understand..”
don’t get c0cky beetle dick!

mr_angry4
“Did anyone ever read about the oil pipeline scandal, or that the new Afghani president, Mohammed Karzai, was CEO of a major Texas oil firm in the late 90's?)”
several people were talking about MM already on this thread, it was agreed he isn’t always totally trustworthy. But I tend to believe him on this one.
“Regardless of Weapons of Mass Destruction, were the Iraqi people asking to be freed?”
Yes. Are they free? No
America has installed an interim dictator to sign away Iraq’s wealth ,secure US markets and outlets for its propaganda. The US says Iraq needs this interim leadership because democracy is such a foreign concept to them. Bullsh*t. Iraq had a longer democratic tradition than America until the CIA assassinated its leader and placed Saddam in power.
Don’t compare our history with Iraq’s. Your in way over your head

Vader

I am posting a link with a fairly comprehensive history of US state terror and military action. It may not look like a credibly site (with the swastikas on the US flag and all) but all of this guys sources come from reputible authors such as Chomsky and Blum. It should be viewed by all who believe that the US is a force for good in the world and by those looking to expand their knowledge of US state terror and military action.

http://www.americanstateterrorism.c...gyofTerror.html

The sad part to all that is that there is so much more. Sudan being one of the most obvious with the death toll in the millions and still rising. Also should be included every country under the power of the IMF.

The equally terrible thing is not how many wars america fights but how it fights them. It has used nerve gas, napalm, agent orange, atom bombs, depleated uranium shells, incinorator bombs, cluster bombs, mines etc etc. It rejects decisions by the world court, vetoes the UN, uses internment, concentration camps, paramilitaries, assassines, pyscological war fare etc etc
These people are incidious, evil scum of the earth!! Facists, liars, hypocrates, thieves etc etc. If I had time I could tell you stories till doomsday.

bonkey

napalm@night
no what i am saying is seeming that maybe it was too big idea for you to understand..”

Go and read the rules. I think you'll find stuff in there about not insulting other posters.

Originally posted by Vader
don’t get c0cky beetle dick!

Same applies to you Vader.

We - the modes - don't care who start things. If you (generic) persist in being uncivil, you (generic) will pay the price.

jc

Piliger

Originally posted by Vader

These people are incidious, evil scum of the earth!! Facists, liars, hypocrates, thieves etc etc. If I had time I could tell you stories till doomsday.

Don't waste our time. You're clearly a sad and damaged little lying psycopath yourself, and this crap about American terrorism is so much crap too. Get a life.

Vader

which part do you need proof of(srecifically) and I'll show you where I got it from, my references include acclaimed scholars, M. Moore, N. Chomsky, M. Albert, M Weisbrot and nobel prize nominees.

gandalf

Piliger did you not see the warning about personal abuse in the post right above yours ??

Your new so I will let you away with it this time but I expect you to edit it out of your post. If it happens again you are banned from here.

Also THe Saint did back up his views with a reference no matter how distasteful it is to you. Weres your backup for "this crap about American terrorism is so much crap too", from my view America has an awful lot to answer for in realition to some of its foreign policy for the last 50 years.

Gandalf.

The Saint

which part do you need proof of(srecifically) and I'll show you where I got it from, my references include acclaimed scholars, M. Moore, N. Chomsky, M. Albert, M Weisbrot and nobel prize nominees.

I dont think Michael Moore is in the same league with Chomsky and the likes. He is very opinionated and hardly an acclaimed scholar. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy reading MM but it must be read with a pinch of salt and I wouldnt take his word as gospel. Chomsky on the other hand backs up everything with official documentation, quotes and proves his points very well.

Vader

I didnt say I like MM I just said that I have read him. Your dead right, like what I said about MM earlier.

These people are incidious, evil scum of the earth!! Facists, liars, hypocrates, thieves etc etc.

Just so theres no misunderstanding, I was talking about those in Power not the average american. I feel sorry for those americans who have been bombarded by proparganda and indoctronation, I dont blame them.

mr_angry

Don't get me wrong Vader, I agree wholeheartedly that George Bush didn't go into Iraq to free its people. America constantly has hidden agendas. But I am hopeful that SOME good will eventually come from this sad and bitter situation.

I disagree strongly with you rejecting my comparisons with Irish history though. I'm in way over my head? What is that supposed to mean? I feel entirely justified in drawing these comparisons, and if you feel you disagree with this, then I challenge you to disprove the legitimacy of these comparisons with facts and logical reasoning. Not just dismissing it out of hand in a frankly arrogant manner.

As an afterthought, I've included below a letter that Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) sent into the English national newspapers shortly before the war began. Enjoy.

---

Give this man a knighthood, oscar, medal of honour, whatever....


A letter to the London observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty
Python).

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've
been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but
he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr
Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources
- that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street
telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by
one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the
police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they
need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll
come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and
wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel
will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the
street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to
me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little
difficult.

Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to
do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I
want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy
towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and
security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide
bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries
that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's
garage and kill his wife and children.Strike first! That'll teach him a
lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that
totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing
Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as
much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr
Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the
world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when
you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all
terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist
is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about
would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate,
since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already
eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who
could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's
achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But
then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the
only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip
of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I
don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one
will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I
might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic
as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give
the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws
and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them
over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street
to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing -
and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Vader

Your dam right you deserve an explanation, it is arrogent to say that, I was still in the frame of mind that I was in the re-united Ireland thread.
Why cant one draw comparrissons between Irish history and american history?
1) They have a tradition of capitalism, we of socialism
2) We have always been opressed, them opressors
3) They have always simplified problems down to with me or agan me and dealt with them in one on one ways whereas irish history is riddled with contraversies involving usually no fewer than 5 seperate interests *
4) Yes we both seem to justify wars on moral grounds but then most irish leaders in these wars tend to become martyrs and american leaders tend to become richer.

* The version of Irish history thats tought in primary and secondary schools is very incomplete, probably due to efforts to simplify it for students. Also there are many aspects of Irish history that are yet to enter the history books(for anyone studing anywhere). I'm referring to the after effects of the civil war and 2 planned risings that never happened. This was part of the reason behind my statement "you are in over your head".

The other is that there is a lot lot more I can say on these topics and the statment "you are in over your head" was ment in the sense of "dont get me started".

mr_angry

Ok, they are some valid points. But I was really drawing a comparison between us and the Iraqi people, and the Americans and the Spanish. Not us and the Americans.

Yes, Iraq is a mess at the moment. But what did you realistically expect? A trouble-free removal of Saddam. And I know you're gonna say that you expected America not to go in at all, but would an International force have done any better, once the decision was made to go in? I seriously doubt it.

My personal opinion is that nobody has the right to "decide" what the government of a country is, except for the people of that country. But lets face it, the Iraqi people didn't have that kind of control over their government.

I agree with the Americans on one particular point - evil dictators like Saddam cannot be tolerated (or appeased). I know in the past that the Americans have taken the opposite view, but that doesn't mean that such behaviour should continue.

I agree that Iraqi people aren't much better off at the moment, but I think that things will get better for them from now on, whereas under Saddam, there would have been no improvement. Seeing the female Afghani athletes at the Athletics world championships, and our own special olympics gave me great hope. I'll be very disappointed if it proves unfounded, but that's the chance you take with hope.

bloggs

France and Germany reject US UN draft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3080094.stm

I guess this will create even more mindless Anti-European feeling across the pond. The American's won't see that it's their mess and unless they let pull out completly they can't expect it clean up.

mr_angry

Having read that, what can I say? Typical Americans. The analysis says:

The US has recognised reality in accepting a UN role in Iraq

Bullsh*t, by the looks of things. What they seem to want is to place other nationalities' peacekeepers on the front line to keep the Yanks from getting shot.

The person who commented:

Send in troops but the US and UK should bear the sole cost of the enterprise

was quite right. Its their mess, let them pay for it to be cleaned up. I notice they still haven't found any WMDs...

mr_angry

I found this too. Proves its all completely self-motivated.

Powell position

The CBO report is in the form of a letter to veteran West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, an opponent of the Iraq war.

It says that if the Pentagon continues with its current intention to rotate troops after one year in Iraq, it would need to reduce the 180,000 soldiers there now to between 38,000 and 64,000 by the winter of next year.

This would allow for family time, retraining and, above all, for enough troops to be kept ready for action elsewhere.

An alternative plan, to increase the size of the army by two divisions would, the report says, be very expensive. It would cost $19bn up-front and bring the cost of occupying Iraq to $29bn a year.

The idea of bringing the UN in was publicly floated by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

He is very close to the Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, and clearly would not have spoken without his chief's say-so. Mr Powell has now persuaded President Bush that this is the way forward.

bonkey

Lets not forget the alternate possibility....that the US want the UN to refuse the offer.

After all, it would add more weight to any future claims of the irrelevance of the UN (wouldn't even get involved in peacekeeping, and also give the US a "well, we offered and they refused" line to throw at the media any time that someone offers any criticism at this being little better than an occupation for profit.

jc

mr_angry

I loved someone's reference to the "You're either with us or against us" line.

Maybe that statement should have been rephrased:

"You're either with us, or against us. But maybe we've been a bit hasty. We still actually like you European types, especially buying our stuff. But we're gonna continue on our own anyway. Oh wait, we would actually like your help after all, 'cos we've got ourselves in a bit of trouble. As long as we're allowed to run the show, and tell you guys what to do! Yes, that's the kind of help we like... etc, etc..."

I really commend the Poles for helping them out - I don't think I could stomach that kind of attitude. No matter how many favours you got from them.