Iraqi feelings.

Remove all ads!

Thank you, DR. You said it well.

 

Oil has been mentioned. And I think one may argue that oil is important for the Iraqi feelings, because in the end, it will all be about the Benjamins.. ahm no, about the main factor of their economy. As for feelings, it would be interesting to know, how they feel about their oil and what attracted other countries attention to their country. And further it will be intersting to see, what companies will sell the oil. Here we agree, the biggest part of the ME oil will further go to Eurasia. Hypothetically, if the oil from the ME would stop flowing, where would the Euroasians go to get their oil and what would happen to the oil price ?

To the sulfur. The point of my article is, they have to separate the sulfur, whatsover. Developing new markets for yet some more sulfur is one of the ways to make the whole thing cheaper. Plus finding cheaper ways to seperate it. And as the article mentions, the oil from the Americas has the same sulfur problem, while you've seen the problem only with ME-oil . But I think oil-price has a tendency to be inelastic, people will have to buy it anyway, no matter what it costs. Anyhow, just might be my prejudice, but the US isn't to far in envioremental legislation anyway, i.e. other regions have stricter rules so or so.

But the main reason for the war was "reshaping" the ME. The Oil is just a bonus. As is a further grip on one of the most importat geostrategical regions in the world. And of course, the possibility to move soldiers away from Saudi-Arabia, but don't have to move them away from the ME.

Hm, I think Grey Magistrate appreciates the great game like I do. At least I hope so.

 

Some of us never were sold on it to begin with.

 

I thought that WMD had nothing to do with it? So why did BTA mention WMD in point 1 and 2?

 

Iraq had WMD 15 years ago and used it against Iran but then Saddam was a nice guy who was fighting muslim fundamentalists.

Then why Saddam didn't use them even in the final hours before his fall?

Germany did the same thing 65 years ago. Must they be invaded as well?

U.S.A. was not authorized to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

After 6 months of occupation not one of those WMDs has been found.

It was not the international community in iraqi borders, just U.S.A and the coalition of the willing. Also, Iraq accepted all the american demands before the invasion.

 

I want to add that there has been testimonies that the Iraqie regime tried to communicate with the USA administration giving almost everything to avoid this invasion but the subject was rejected without even considering.
Secondly BTA please decide were WMDs threat a selling point for you or not? Because you say this

And this

And then you say this

Can you tell me which of these statements are true? You sound very confusing.

 

Not trying to spam my website around here, but there's an article I linked to today that examines a Top Secret document that the Weekly Standard got ahold of. It details links between Iraq and al-Queda. www.gleefulextremist.com/blogger.html

 

Sorry Shralp the CIA came out today and said there was no basis of truth in the article.
Just anther cheap ploy by the right to justify the mess they have gotten us into.

 

The Weekly Standard is the neocons Prawda. I wouldn't take anything there for gospel. So, the article about the memo is no exception. Here you can see spin at work, if you care to look close For clarification just try this for a change, or ask the Pentagon which flatly stated:

That is, the committee asked about a possible link, and the reply adressed that question. This article provides an analysis on the leaked memo and the likely reasons why it was leaked.

Besides, as a nice bit for all those who still wrongly insist that the Invasion of Iraq was legal, check this. Recently, to my surprise, Rickard Perle has admitted the invasion has been illegal. Kinda amazing to hear that form one of the main architects of that war.
That is, the neocons care about international law (as democracy) when it suits their purposes. If not, well, then wars of agression (or non-democratic strongmen) do just fine.

EDIT: Against some peoples belief the UN did not endorse the occupation with their post-war resolution ... otherwise the US would feel no urge to adress the problem of legality, that is: the lack thereof. The US want another UN resolution blessing their CPA and whatever it has done and a new to be installed iraqi government.
This implies that it didn't get lost on them that in the current legal state of affairs there might be some loose ends, like claims against the US and their CPA because of the (mostly US) contractors paid for with iraqi money ... from an authority exactly not authorised to spend that money. Surprise, surprise.

[ November 20, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Interesting. I hadn't seen the CIA response (I assume there hadn't been one by the time I posted on my site). Are you talking about the Post reporter? Because he denied arming, while the release was talking about training. Also interesting that you believe a Pentagon denial while you're usually the first to scream that they're lying.

On the "international law": Rags, I don't think you've been paying attention. Not many people at all have been saying that international LAW allowed the U.S. attacks. What we've been saying is that we're not bound by international law. I know you Euros and other backward people want to believe that the UN runs the world, but the fact is that it doesn't, countries ignore what it says, and the UN doesn't do anything about it but whine and pass another resolution. So the U.S. does the dirty work.

At the same time, you guys get to complain that we're too imperialist (when usually you're complaining that we're too isolationist). The Muslims claim we're too decadent, while the Europeans claim we're too religious. The powerful nations think we're too quick to move, while those who need help hate us for not doing enough. And ya know what?

We don't care what France and Germany think.

On another note: There were more countries in the coalition attacking Saddam Hussein than were in the coalition in Kosovo or the Gulf War. Oh, but they didn't get the pretty UN stamp of approval because of France. Big deal.

[ November 20, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Yes, lets list the "Mighty" Coalition of the willing. We have Afghanistan (oohhh!), Albania (who???), Australia (at least they have a military, of course the vast majority of thier people were against it and thier prime Minister, like Blair will be out of a job once thier term is up),Azerbaijan (what!!!!), Bulgaria (ohhh!), Colombia (wow, what a military power!), the Czech Republic (of course, if you join you can join NATO),Denmark, El Salvador (you're kidding right!), Eritrea (WHo!), Estonia, Ethiopia (go starving children and attack our enemies), Georgia, Hungary, Italy (finally, that makes 2 contries with military power of any sort), Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lituania, Macedonia, Nicaragua (Just switch the war on drugs to the war on terrorism), the Phillippines, Poland, Palua (a mighty island group with 20,000 citizens, and absolutly no troops.) Other troopless nations inclued Iceland, Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, and Micronesia. Poland did give us 200 troops, yahhhh poland!. Morocco sent no troops but offered us 2,000 monkeys to detonate land mines. Thank you. We still have Romania, Slovakia, Spain (13% supported a UN sanctioned invasion, there goes another elected official)and Turkey. Which leaves the only country to signicantly help us in any way, England.

Countries who were opposed and this is just a very tiny sample (consider that those listed above are the only ones willing to help in any way at all) Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium , Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Isreal, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, SOuth Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thialand, United Arab Emirates, Venezuala, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe and 103 more countries.

 

Shralp,
you missed the really funny part of Perle's quote. That is that he openly admits the illegality while Bush still utters something like "Of course we were acting legally".

So in your opinion the US aren't bound by in ternational law. Well, then why the hassle to launch another UN resolution? Maybe because it is effective and obliging in the end?
As for Iraq the legality is a key concern for the US and the contracting companies.

As for your UN paranoia: While the UN is a corpus of international law, she *isn't* interantional law. I suggest you to recognise the difference. Or maybe you have the caveman attitude, UN, international law - let's god sort them out, I don't understand the difference anyway. Let Madeleine Albright teach you a lesson on the UN: Think Again: The United Nations.

The US live with international law, and not only because of their own strength. Without that you notice international law protects you. With terrorists all over the world, hiding in other countries, the US is dependent on cooperation with other countries, because they don't know how to handle thing locally and are dependent on local authorities and support.
Let's imagine: There is a terrorist in the UK. Invading the UK to get him, even when you feel totally unbound by international law, is sort of ruled out. The US also can't go to the UK and arrest him to bring him to the US. They, for some silly reason named sovereignty, have to ask the brits to snatch him and then to hand him over. The US need cooperation (besides, this is for mutual benefit - it works the other way round as well). This cooperation is usually reglemented in bilateral, or, mon dieu, multilateral agreements (that is, they are international law).

When you get consular support when you're in trouble in another country, that's the result of the Vienna convention on consular relations, mon dieu, the UN again!
Every US aircraft landing in Europe and every european aircraft landing in the US do so because of international law, organised under the auspices of the ICAO, mon dieu, a UN organisation!
SARS was primarily controlled succesfully as a result of the efforts of the WHO, you may smell it already, a UN organisation, yuck.
And so on. They do not control the world, they are the best tool at hand to manage the emerging complexities of a global society - in consent. Face it, international law is a necessity. As well as the UN, as there are things of global concern that have to be adressed globally.

To see the recent US extravagancas such as invading Iraq against international law as a precedent for a change in it, is pretty much like suggesting that Al Capone's way to control Chicago set a precedent that US law isn't applicable anymore. Not really convincing, and I'm apalled by the sycophancy of those who hold this position.

The attitude you prefer, that the US are unbound by international law, and only use it when it suits there purposes, is basically Saddam's attitude, and that of your local don. It won't make you friends and this world is a silly place to be alone. The more unpopular you get the more expensive bribery will become. That's my humble backward euro opinion.

 

Rags, Rags, you still haven't learned a thing. Yes, there are UN organizations that do notable things (though I dispute the idea that the WHO was responsible for stopping the spread of SARS), but the fact is that the functions that you list would be filled by multi-lateral agreements if the UN weren't there. Do you really think people are going to stop flying to the US if the UN decides to shut down? Not a chance.

Ok, you got me on condemning all international law. I wasn't looking at multilateral agreements as international law, but I agree that they are necessary. (Don't try to pretend that the UN is just one big multi-lateral agreement.)

To answer other questions: Under the multilateral agreements at the end of the Gulf War, our actions are legal. Under UN rules, they're not. Hence the disconnect between Bush and Perle.

I, of course, do not accept Madeleine Albright as an authority on anything except how to get Jesse Helms to like you.

If people evaluated others solely by UN criteria then, yes, America would be in trouble. Fortunately, with the exception of the resentful industrialised nations who get a kick out of attacking the last remaining superpower (oh, and the nations who fear they might be next), most of the world evaluates actions based on their intrinsic worth -- and there's no doubt that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Apparently to Jschild, a nation's worth is determined by their military power, but I disagree.

Before you dismiss the leaked memo from DoD, you might want to read the Weekly Standard's response.

 

NO, but saying that more contries helped during this war than the previous is wrong when you look at the actual resources put at our disposal. For example, which is more helpful, 20 countries giving 200 million in aid and 20,000 troops or 40 countries giving 10 million in aid and 5,000 troops (this is just an exammple but look at the actual amount of troop and money assistance in the first war compared to the second, they can't even compare) Our coalition has more countries this time but far less actual help. thanks for all the monkeys.

 

Shralp,
I do think I did understand you. And you post tells quite a bit about you. IMO you think that international relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimises what prevails. The US are the strongest power on earth atm. Therfore they can impose on the rest of the world their will, values and interests.
And the world is better off adopting the American way because it is superior, haven't the US *won* the cold war? I think you feel along this lines.

Your perception that the actual US way is the one way to go, for the best of America and the stupid world that just doesn't understand, is distorted. America got where it was until they started their Iraq program by not abusing its power.

The 'new way' is to change that approach fundamentally. The US is about to gamble with longstanding friendships and putting quite a strain on them.

To see the American model as a receipe for success for the world also is flawed. The US success mainly relies on the US beeing the dominant center of economic power, with a currency attracting foreign investors. That cannot be copy-pasted on another country, which is necessarily in a totally different situation. And that is why the rest of the world, understanding that, will reject this.

And besides, you have noted that you, stating that if the UN wouldn't be there, the US would have bilateral treaties. Well, these would still qualify as international law inter partes. And the US would still be bound to them.

The grand Americans of the last century iirc saw the US to be a country that honours treaties. That might be worth to be remembered here and then. The US isn't improving it's credibility when it displays a contempt for treaties or international law, this doesn't imply reliability too.

How serious do you take a treaty promise of a country that declares that it might not care about this treaty if it feels so? How credible is such a country? You can hardly think that only the US power might force the other countries to accept such inconsistencies - at no price for the US. That would be a grandiose folly.

 

Goosey, you're almost talking sense today. Those ritalin pills I sent you must be kicking in.

Anyway, I think it vital that the U.S. obey its bi- and multi-lateral agreements. No argument there.

But you're off on your analysis of my attitude.

It's not that might should make right, no. My point is that there is no controlling legal authority (to borrow a phrase from a talking robot) for international relations. I think the U.S. should stick with its international agreements for our own good, yes. But that does not include obeying the dictates of an organization that has shown itself to be untrustworthy, anti-American, anti-Semitic, unceasingly left-wing, notoriously inefficient, and amazingly spineless.

 

Moral absolutes are unrealistic. If we go by them, then Bush should be removed from office for being responsible for the deaths of well over 15,000 innocent civilians and the injuring of nearly 100,000. Saddam Hussain certainly didn't kill tham many in the past 2 years. Bush did. In fact, the United States has killed more innocent civilian than any other nation in the world in the past few years by a vast margin. How about those absolutes?

 

If Saddam was toppled for moral reasons how come there are plenty of other evil dictators around who enjoy the full blessing of the US just because they suck up? Plenty of countries in the so called coalition of the willing are ruled by undemocratic despots who stifles all opposition. If the US toppled Saddam out of moral reasons and it was the moral thing to do to topple an evil undemocratic sadistic despot then the US has its work cut out for them, plenty of such people around the world.

However, I dont think it is moral to go around toppling foreign governments, no matter how vile. Sad but true, each country needs to find its own way and sooner or later they will reach freedom. It is not up to anyone else than the people of each country to decide what kind of government they are to have. May sound callous but you may have noticed that people generally dont like to have foreigners coming in and telling them what to do. People tend to prefer their own sadistic tyrants before foreign occupants. What the moral thing is to do is to help countries who try on their own to reach democracy, encourage elections, check for cheating, work for freedom of press of speech but without the guns. It wasnt the NATO bombings that pulled down Milosevic, it was his own people. What we shouldnt do is to support dictators, which by the way a certain government ,whose supporters claims to hold the moral highground, has done all over the world for decades and still does.

You shouldnt throw stone in a glasshouse Shralp. I do not think any US government has much of a right to speak much of moral on the international scene, certainly not the current one.

Hopefully the people of Iraq will pull themselves together though and get over the fact that they were invaded, defeated and humilitated and work for the betternment for all. What is done is done and now they do have a chance, hopefully, to make something good of it. I hope for a Germany or Japan instead of a Vietnam.