War on Iraq in general

Remove all ads!

Well, here it is, the mother board of all Bush bashers, and anti war advocates. And to me it seems like the right time to express my views.

Iraq
Blood for oil, not the people, or the WMDs just oil

Patriot act
Big Brother is watching you...

France
So they want peace...

Coalition of the willing
Some small countries just in the coalition for trade agreements

The Geneva Accords
The what?!

what are your thoughts?

 

Iraq:
Though Saddam did need to be dealt with and I feel the world is a better place without him in power, the entire invasion of Iraq was handled disgracefully poorly. Everything from the reasons for the war on down to the aftermath. Our allies don't trust us, our enemies are now more determined than ever, and our citizens, for the most part, don't seem to have a clue about the seriousness of it all. They seem to be happy as long as "we won," and Americans hate nothing more than losing at something.

Saddam:
We defeated his entire army in less than 2 weeks, the quickest military victory in history. No weapons stockpiles have been found despite repeated claims by Bush, Rumsfeld and others that "We know for a fact that he has them" and "We know where he keeps them." Yet I'm to believe he was such an immediate, world-ending threat? I'm to believe that a better case couldn't have been brought against him to convince the world community we were in the right? Spare me.

Our International Image:
Tarnished beyond repair. The United States, for the first time in our history, is the most hated country in the world. We've severely weakened the credibilty and effectiveness of the United Nations, an organization we helped create, in part to keep powerful countries from overstepping their bounds. By attacking Iraq pre-emptively, we took a terrible risk. We put our credibility on the chopping block. That risk would've been justified had this one simple promise, paraphrased of course, been fulfilled: "Saddam is a danger to the world, and we'll prove it by uncovering his vast stockpiles of the most dangerous weapons ever created." It's a very dangerous, frightening precedent to have set.

Conflict of interest:
Dick Cheney, former CEO of Haliburton, who still receives $150,000 a year in deferred salary from them (ie, he's still on the payroll), should have resigned the office of vice president when Haliburton received the reconstruction contract, uncontested and without bidding. Critics say Haliburton recieved the contract because they are by far the most qualified company for the job, and one of the biggest oil companies in the world, easily capable of handling the job. Fine. But Dick Cheney still owns a substantial amount of stock in the company, stock which will no doubt make him even more wealthy when the $7 billion plus contract is paid through. He stands go gain more personally from this war than any Iraqi.

More to come...

 

I fear that the true threat to world peace and stability is on the other side of the world from the present conflict and is largely being ignored...North Korea.

 

Right now North Korea is nothing but a hot air balloon, with no air in it. But that might not always stay the same way. I agree that the matter should get more attention. Too bad there's no oil in North Korea, otherwise they would have been toast by now.

 

lol north korea couldn't attack anything. the biggest threats is china, which i don't think will attack anybody. and usa who have attacked 2 countries during the last 3 years....

 

Well, the oil issue aside, there were other unscrupulous reasons for the attack.

You see, Saddam was contemplating the shift to the Euro, one which would have made him a richer nation than he was, due to those laughable exchange rates we are all convinced to follow, and some other easons I will explain further down.

This would have given him a definate edge over nearby countries, like Turkey and Iran, which more than likely would have caused them to also follow suite. I actually think some consultation was taking place to this effect at the time between Iraq and those other countries, but I may be wrong.

So we are talking about The Middle East, that is, OPEC-in which a huge portion of the world's oil stockpiles are found-switching to the Euro from the Petro-Dollar.

This is important, because the main reason that the US can seem to get away with a six-trillion dollar debt (it may now have risen to seven), besides loaning from other countries who may recognize what is going on, is that it in effect has created a dollar hegemony.

The US produces dollars, while other countries produce things. Now I know that there are many American producers, but a lot of these are either owned by over-seas companies, produce their goods overseas for booming profits due to near-slave condition cheap labour factories, or are so inextricably tied to the stock-market that they play more of a part in this dollar hegemony than any other.

You see, most of the world is based against the US petro-dollar, and Dollar reserves, according to international law, must be stored by the bank in USA reserves, thus any surplus in effect belongs to the US. The US owns the world's oil for free.

So with the OPEC change to the Euro, which is a win for them, the US loses big time, because it has to pay the assets they are in control of back to the rightful owners, and Bush and his regime, along with the US economy, falls.

So by invading Iraq the US does two things-it distracts and frightens the Arab nation and induces war between the states (as you can see by its agreement to assist Turkey against the kurds, the involvement of the Serbs, the treaties with Iran etc, its shift away from blind-support of Israel to a more even approach of the Palestein conflict-which coincidentally assists in the next step, for not only does Israel become more involved in settling its disputes, but the oil is also challenged), and it also gains control of the oil prices which is what it truly is after, as the US can now negate the bonus from switching to the Euro. And this is what happened too, after the war, for some reason the oil prices went down, and this negates the bonus OPEC would have recieved by being paid its assets etc.-and with the US Haliburton oil pipeline they are now able to dictate whether oil prices rise or lower, by flooding the market, or by withdrawing their own stocks (which they are increasing with each war, they took Afghanistan's oil too, I would not be surprised if they took more while "assisting" Turkey and Iran.

Once the Money issue is solved I'm sure Bush will make it personal, for while his father certainly holds a grudge against Saddam (He was a rouge CIA agent after all-or is that what they want you to think? *cough* Bin-Laden works for the US *cough*) and this whole fiasco can be seen as a repeat of the Pinochet affair, or any other CIA trained and placed dictator for that matter, Bush himself really doesn't like China-before this whole "war on terror' baloney, he was raving alot about China-but I think that if he does attack China that will be one step too far.

 

Equester, China can attack but will not, but North Korea is a big threat as well, they have the capability of firing a nuke into Hawaii, Alaska, and the eyes and ears of the USA un Asia, Japan.

 

You shouldn't believe everything people tell. In case North Korea would nuke Hawai ... how much do you think would be left of the regime in Pjonyang? Kim is a survivor, and actually pretty predictable, despite everything the media, or the US propaganda, say.

If Kim has learned one thing from Iraq, then to speed up his nuke program in face of his personal threat: The recently ever agressive US foreign policy. Having seen that he cannot survive the onslaught of the US high tech arsenal he has to find another deterrant. And the nuke is by far the cheapest way for him to achieve that.

The US only attack minors. Rubbled after 10 years of bombing and a cruel embargo - and with an obsolete army - Iraq was simply no match for the US. Kim noticed that too, probably with some concern, as his army, though huge, is just as obsolete as Saddam's, if not worse.

With nukes Kin can deter the US. The risk of losing some twenty-thousand, if not more, US soldiers in combat is a sobering element in the wet power projection, hegemonia, war on evil and regime change dreams in some minds in Washington. Plain and simple. Kim wishing nukes isn't insane but simply logical and stringent.

The US plans for missile defence, with the usual references to the north korean threat, are in fact an agressive move to counter deterrence. The current US gvt doesn't want to be deterred, they want no limits in their ability to strike.

Insofar the US foreign policy produces the threats it claims to see already by speeding up their emergence. That is IMO quite a counterproductive approach.

 

The point is, if North Korea is attacked, they will have no way of pushing it back, unless China interferes. So North Korea is going to fall one way or another, so, if I was Kim, I would flatten some enemy land with some nukes before I go down.

 

The point is: Why should he do such a thing? Especially when give a chance to leave to exile for instance. Leave him an exit option and he will use it.

Probably there is only one person atm in the world who might have the guts for a thermonuclear war anyway ... if god wants it ... BRING'EM ON!

 

The point is, he's too proud, and if he's going to lose, he might as well hurt the US as much as possible, no matter the consequenses.

 

I found a good line today

Bush wasted a decade of goodwill in less than six months. Quite a feat. And the effect is as described.

 

North Korea has bigger problems than just energy supplies and their people are not willing to sacrifice themselves to a lost battle, their administration knows that and i don't think he is very fond of the idea of dragging NK and himself (the only thing that matters to him) to a war. China is a huge country that now has as a prime target the economical uprise and not to become the bad guy (it's bad for business ).
As for USAs image throughout the world well... i am sorry but now USA has managed to get a label on her saying armed and dangerous and this will show more in the years to come. I feel that most countries are trying to be in good terms with USA out of fear, and if the opportunity comes then they will be among the first to help her sink. But the only one to be blaimed is USAs current administration and not the rest of the world.
I read about how scared people in USA are for the possibillity of another mindless terrorist attack and they say: why we did nothing to them, we only try to help.
But i fear that they are forgeting the fact that their goverment has different goals and policies and these policies and goals innocent people pay with blood not only in the Middle East or wherever US has troops but in USA too.

 

In many ways, I think the US is trying to bend some countries to their point of view.

 

After yesterdays attack on the hotel where Wolfowitz was residing he gave an interview:

"Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy civilian chief at the Pentagon, promised an "unrelenting" effort to crush Iraqi resistance after his hotel in Baghdad was hit by a barrage of rockets early yesterday."

Later that day a general, commenting on the attack, said that the increase in attacks means that the US are making progress and that the iraqi obstructors try to undermine it, trying to drag the US back one step after the US advanced three.

Seen that way the attack reports the US administration complains about so much would actually be the good news they've been waiting for. What a success must we make: "Another GI dead! Hooray!" Perhaps that's the rationale behind Bush's "Bring 'em on!" Sure, the more resistance, the more progress.

I have problems with that sort of logic, in this time of sophism we need another diogenes.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yet, we did find Long-Range Tactical Missiles, which Iraq was forbidden to have under a decade-old treaty. Also, Saddam violated the Geneva Convention by using women and children as soldiers.

Our international image has definitely been damaged, but to what extent? Other nations will still continue to trade with us and we'll continue to remain in the world. At this point in time, there is not a nation in the world that does not depend on the U.S. as a very strong market for international trade.

Global image in all honesty is not that difficult to repair. Remember how quickly Japan and Germany (and even Italy) got their good name back after the fascist wars of the 1940's?

As far as North Korea is concerned, nothing is going to happen there. If any sort of nuclear strike were to happen against Alaska or Hawaii, it's safe to say that the U.S. won't be the only nation going after them with a vengeance.

China isn't a threat. They depend too much on the United States's money to risk getting on unfriendly terms with us. As was already stated, making your best customer mad is not a good business tactic.

Where'd you hear that statistic? Our debt is not that high. Last time I checked, it was roughly $4 trillion, and it could not have climbed $3 trillion in a year.

Every nation in the world is condemning our attacks. I ask you, if 10,000 citizens died and 19 city blocks in downtown Berlin were destroyed by some extremists intentionally crashing your own planes into them, wouldn't you be out to put an end to it?

 

Rastor makes a very strong point. Since the war against terrorism began (post 9/11), numerous terrorist plots have been foiled. Most of these planned attacks had been in the works prior to the US invasion of Afganistan. Most of these planned attacks were against targets outside of the US...Fance, Germany, Italy, England. Sometimes they were planned against a distinctly US target, such as embassies, but mostly they were planned against anything that represented western society. It is almost certain that US soldiers have lost their lives preserving the lives of innocent civilians in the aforementioned European nations.

When the US embassy in Kenya was bombed, over 200 people were killed. Only a handful were US citizens, the rest were Kenyan nationals caught in the crossfire of terrorism. It is difficult to determine how many Europeans are alive due to the blood of American troops.

It is also inacurrate to assign the current level of terrorist attacks upon the policies of the Bush administration, to say that if it were not for our present aggression, there would be no terrorism...tell that to the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, tell that to Leon Klinghoffer, tell that to the Marines in Beirut, tell that to the civilians at the Teheran embassy, tell that to the accountant on the 89th floor of the South Tower, tell that to the passengers over Lockerbie...I could go on but the soapbox beneath me is starting to creak...

[ October 29, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

So yes, closest of all to 7 trillion

The site is here

And while we're on the subject, where did you get the idea that the rest of the world somehow depends on America for its wellbeing? I admit that the economies are nowadays fairly inter-dependant, but remove any country from the mix, and after some initial re-adjustment, things will balance out again.

Every country in the world used to get by just on it's own at one stage, and could do so again. Even with the increased levels of blatant consumption, the removal of America as it stands would hardly be overly signifigant, after a short period of time, and the ones conquering are likely to set up their own trading country.

And another thing, this isn't personal, but how can America critisize one country for having non-nuclear missiles, when it has the largest stockpile of arms in the world, nuclear or otherwise. I remember some bragging took place during the invasion about the US "mother-of-all-bombs." To me that poses a more signifigant threat.

The point about the weapon stockpiles was that it was claimed Saddam was ammassing nuclear and biological weaponry for use against the US, and none of these type were found (I wouldn't be surprised if they were buried in a desert somewhere, but Bush did say "we know he has them, we have seen them, and we know exactly where they are", and he was told repeatedly by the inspectors that they had not found anything).

Also, people are angry about they way Saddam was removed, it could have been done 10 years ago very easily, but Bush Snr. and the others involved had a lot to gain by leaving him in power, it could have also been done now without all the civillian bloodshed, and the total and on-going de-stabilisation of the region, but this was not the case.

This is why all these minor treaties and shifting alliances are being formed right now, to keep the area de-stabilisd.

How can you equate 2 buildings with 19 city blocks? Edit: I just remembered this too, 10,000 was the total number for everyone involved. Only 2-3 thousand were actually killed.

Anyway, the damage done to Iraq was far greater than this was, and he wasn't even invloved in those attacks, let alone the ongoing bombing of the middle-east that happened by the US before, after, and while those attacks took place.

Two wrongs do not make a right; forgive and forget; turn the other cheek; let he who is without sin cast the first stone; does this mean anything to a president who preaches bible verses while fighter-jets fly overhead?

You do know that on the same morning the US gave the order to bomb a primary school in some middle-eastern country don't you? (I forget which one, but it was not an isolated event, the US bombs civilian buildings almost every single day)

To say that there are terrorist attacks regardless of the actions of the US is one thing, but to deny that the US government probably does more bombing, killing, and assassination then anyone else is ludicrous, let alone their financial support of many of these terrorist and dictatorial institutions, which has been well documented and even discussed here at length in other topics, let alone the assumption or inuendo that the US is some giant peace-keeping loving force of crusading saviours, putting their lives in front of "those poor skinnys/rag-heads." Please. They're probably the ones who made their guns for them.

The only time the US gets involved is if they think there is some financial or political gain, the minute this is doubted, all (if there was any) support is withdrawn.

And by the way, allthough I doubt that even Bin-Laden or any Taliban/Al-Qaeda was involved in those attacks, as dispicable as their actions within their own country were (and even though they do work with the CIA), I do agree it was purpotrated by extremists in the hope of spreading terror. This is always the way I've thought of the US government, I don't see why that would change now.

[ October 29, 2003, 03:12: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

@ Manus...I have enjoyed many of your posts, but this time I take exception...

Actually, the most common third world weapon is the SKS assualt rifle, made by China.

That belief is currently espoused by only the most ignorant. Evidence is incontrovertible that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible for the attacks.

Perhaps the US has been responsible for deaths on a world scale, but unlike terrorist cells our government is answerable to a higher power, the people of the US, who will remove from power anyone who blatantly violates that privelege.

Do you sleep better at night without the threat of Soviet tactical nukes being launched in your back yard? (I assume you are from Europe, forgive me if I am mistaken) Are you too young to remember the real threat of Mutually Assured Destruction? You are safer as you sleep tonight due to America's strength under a much maligned Ronald Reagan, whom history will remember much more fondly than you do.

This war against terrorism is the same thing. It is not for the faint of heart, but in the end, you as an innocent civilian will enjoy the safety that American sweat and blood has bought.

[ October 29, 2003, 03:41: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

Manus, you are so cheerfully lunatic that you make the perfect off-topic trap! OK, you've caught me. Here goes:

American debt: In absolute terms the debt is growing, but in relative terms it's historically pret' small. And relative is everything, since what matters is how much debt cripples your ability to invest in the economy. Iraq is in much worse shape owing $100 billion than America is owing $7 trillion. And most of that American debt is owed to...Americans. It's the equivalent of borrowing money from your parents to pay for student loans - yeah, you're in deep debt, but in exchange you get a better-paying job, and the money stays in the family.

Non-nuclear weapons: Which is worse, a nuclear missile in American hands or a machete in Rwandan hands? A French aircraft carrier or a North Korean sub? It's not the weapon itself that matters so much as the wielder. America, France, and Britain have proved over five decades their maturity in handling nuclear arms. Hussein and Kim Il-Jong have demonstrated the opposite. Since you're already quoting the Bible, let me add another: he who is untrustworthy with little will prove untrustworthy with much.

Weapon stockpiles: see above point. The only places with a higher per-capita-weapon ratio than Iraq (prior to invasion) are Switzerland, the Korean DMZ, and West Virginia. If Hussein didn't have WMD, it sure wasn't for lack of trying.

Saddam in 1990: There were two main reasons that Bush Sr. didn't invade Baghdad to depose Hussein. First, the Gulf War was fought under UN auspices, and - no surprise - the UN didn't approve of an occupation of Iraq. Second, the Americans were worried about the dangers and expenses of occupation. It wasn't so much that Bush Sr. had anything to gain from leaving Hussein in charge, but there was a lot to lose. If Bush Sr. had pushed through into Baghdad, we'd be having the exact same arguments today, only we'd be bashing the older Bush instead of his son.

10K citizens, 19 blocks: I think Rastor misspoke, referring only to the blast radius. You're right, Manus, three thousand is a lot less than ten thousand, and a heck of a lot less than, say, the yearly dead from UN sanctions on Iraq. Or the yearly dead in North Korea by famine and concentration camps. Or even the dead in France from seasonal change.

Damage to Iraq: Iraq was indeed damaged by the invasion, but more so by the wave of sabotage afterwards - kinda ironic that America spends billions on precision weaponry only to see the place shredded by looters. And for all that purported damage, America is spending huge sums to rebuild the country - far more than Hussein ever invested. On a macroeconomic scale, Iraq is actually gaining from the invasion. (There was an old parody movie about this - I can't remember the title, maybe "Of Mice and Men"? - about a country that provoked the US purely to get rebuilding funds.)

A li'l historical perspective is in order - the US devastated Germany and Japan, and then helped rebuild them to the economic powerhouses they are today. Iraq is starting much better off than either of those countries, largely due to the US' care during the invasion. No new Dresdens...no massive humanitarian crises...no refugee spills...etc.

And incidentally, although thousands of soldiers were killed during the invasion, something far less than three thousand civilians were killed. If we'd wanted people dead, we could've killed anyone we wanted - we've got the materiel to destroy the world a dozen times over. But instead we tried to keep as many alive, and as much intact, as possible.

Hussein not involved in the 9/11 attacks: No, and Bush never made that a casus belli. Bush didn't sell the war as a retaliation strike (like in Afghanistan), and not even as a strike on an "imminent" threat.

Turn the other cheek: The next time you hear those fighter jets overhead, flip that Bible open to Romans 13:1-7, or maybe Matthew 8:5-13, or just about any book in the Old Testament. You're correct that two wrongs don't make a right, but incorrect to assume that military force is wrong. God makes quite clear that it's wrong to use the military rapaciously (see Judges 18 for an ugly example of this), but often state force is not merely permissible, but morally required.

US daily bombing: Uh...no. Where are you getting that ridiculous statistic? Not even Israel bombs every single day!

The US is certainly not, as you put it, a "giant peace-keeping loving force of crusading saviours". But a little historical perspective, please - the US is the most benevolent superpower in history. Would you prefer Khanate Mongolia? Imperial Britain? Soviet Russia?

Your last point: I really don't know what you're trying to say. Could you please clarify?