PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War -- Illegal? Legal?



senseiman
19-09-04, 12:57
UN secretary General Kofi Annan caused quite a stir recently when he stated in an interview that he believed the Iraq invasion was illegal. Leaders of countries who contributed troops to Iraq, including Japan, were quick to reassure their publics that their actions were legal, but were they?

From my perspective, the invasion was completely unjustified from the beginning and has been made even more so now that the main reasons for it have been proven false. What is at stake here is whether the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive self defence" is at all a legitimate concept. Under even minor consideration it seems evident to me that it is not. Not only had Iraq not attacked the US or threatened to do so, even if it had WMD it would have been completely incapable of using them against the US. The rationale therefore, is that all you need is the mere possibility that at some unspecified time in the future an as of yet undetermined threat to your security may develop in order for you to invade another country.

When using this as the standard, it is clear that any act of aggression, no matter how blatant, could be justified as "pre-emptive self defence." To take one example, Pearl Harbor would be considered a completely justified act of self defence if this new standard were to be applied retroactively. The US battleships at Pearl Harbor represented, if anything, a much graver and more immediate threat to Japanese security than Iraq's alleged WMDs (which, given Iraq's lack of missile technology, would have had no way of reaching the US in the first place) ever did to the US. If we cannot take into consideration (as the Bush doctrine demands)the fact that the US had neither attacked nor threatened to attack Japan, then Pearl Harbor would fall into the category of a 100% justifiable and legal action. Ditto with the Nazi invasion of Poland, the North Korean invasion of South Korea, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and just about every other act of blatant aggression commited in the 20th century. If the Nuremburg tribunals are to be taken as a precedent, then the Iraq war was an illegal act of aggression and the people responsible for it should be brought before a judge.

blessed
19-09-04, 13:23
yeah, illegal, the US invaded the place without support from UN, NAT(T)O, or me so its bad (im in a hurry)... I loved Annan's responce, it was so good: you could just see he new his answer would start a big ass argument, but he was ready for it...

bossel
19-09-04, 23:48
Senseiman said it all, I think.

cicatriz esp
20-09-04, 02:51
Both illegal and unethical.

Maciamo
20-09-04, 04:02
The problem is that the world is becoming governed by an establishment of rich people from the US and their "allies". After reading Gold Warriors (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=127222), I understood that some high-ranking US politicians, CIA officers and top business people (from Citibank and all the so-called axis of corporate evil (http://www.hereinreality.com/news/axis.html) ) had an immense control over world politics. The US has financially supported (=bought) elections or top politicians/parties in Japan, Italy and Greece (and surely also in South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc.), has placed and supported dictatorial regimes in the Philippines (all presidents since Marcos), Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and many other countries.

Would you be surprised to know that even British Prime Ministers since Thatcher have been very good friends with those US officials rigging elections worldwide ? After all, where did general and ex-Chilean dictator Pinochet go when he was prosecuted at home for the political assassinations he orderedduring his long regime ? He went to the UK and met his good friend Thatcher.

What about John Major ? He is one of the directors of the Carlyle Group (see this thread about Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11973)) who manages the Bush and Bin Laden assets. But he is not the only head of state there. There is also the Philippies' ex-president Ramos and even ex-US president George H.W. Bush Sr and plenty of ex-US Secretaries of State, Defence or others (just check their website, FAQ no 7 (http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/company/l3-company737.html#7)). That is why the immensely rich and influential Carlyle Group can be called a former Head of State's club, and Micheal Moore tells us that they wanted the US to attack Iraq and Afghanistan through the Bush administration (their administration), as they have huge investments in "defence" (arm-makers) and the "media " (which will of course cover the war).

That only add to the fact that the Japanese leading political party, the LDP, has been a puppet of the US government since its creation in 1957, and has never lost an election since then (even recently amidst serious public disconent and disillusion). They just buy off any political opponent asking them to join the LDP or give up politics, and convincing them with their huge US-fed funds.

Now, Tony Blair seems a pretty good friend of George W Bush. Has he also been bought by the Bush & Co's oil and Carlyle money ?

It seems to me that several governments (UK, Italy, Japan, Philippines...) have long (since the aftermath of WWII or at least since the early 1980's for Britain) been bought by the US, with their leaders joining the Carlyle club and others I don't know about. Isn't it strange that all these countries have had so few heads of state or political parties leading them since their supposed affiliation with the US ? Let's check one by one :

- Japan : LDP ruling since 1957 (all the US involvment explains in Gold Warriors (http://www.eupedia.com/shop/showproduct.php/product/323/sort/7/cat/12/page/1))
- Philippines : from 1965 to 1998 => Marcos (1965-86), Aquino (1986-92), Ramos (1992-98).
- UK : Thatcher (1979-1990), Major (1990-97), Blair (1997-now).

Aren't these unusually long period in power, especially that most of them had and have little public support. In Britain, Major was unpopular but stayed 7 years. Blair had 2 million people protesting against him, the war in Iraq and other policies, but is still in power after 7 years. Needless to mention that Marcos was not popular and feared in the Philippines. Japan's LDP has completely lost public confidence since the burst of the economic bubble in 1990. Before, they were already heavily corruped, but at least the country was doing well. Nothing changes because the economic situation is still enviable by international standards. In Italy ? Berlusconi is no better than Bush. He is also a rich, right-wing businessman who bought his way to power, among severe public anger. No wonder they should be friends. What is more, Italian politics is as corruped (by the US) as Japan, which explains why prime ministers (Berlusconi excepted) have not lasted longer than in Japan since the 1950's (check list here (http://www.italyemb.org/Premiers.htm)).

But why should leaders notoriously known as Bush's friends (Blair, Berlusconi, Koizumi) stay in power while the public in each country is mostly against them, especially in Italy and Japan where Prime Ministers usually change so quickly. Berlusconi is in office since June 2001 and Koizumi since April 2001. Bush came in in January 2001. Coincidence ?

Satori
20-09-04, 07:50
Now, Tony Blair seems a pretty good friend of George W Bush. Has he also been bought by the Bush & Co's oil and Carlyle money ?

It would appear so, from this video:

God, King, and Law:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/brits.html

Brilliant post, btw. I'm definitely going to have to read Gold Warriors. I don't know what else to add to what you and Senseiman have written, except to say that I think it's an excellent topic! :cool:

Lina Inverse
20-09-04, 21:02
Anyone who only has the faintest clue knows that it is totally illegaly, and that there aren't (and never were) any WMD. It's a war just for the war's sake, nothing else.

Miss_apollo7
20-09-04, 21:08
In my opinion, it was illegal because the UN did not accept it and approve of it...

I think Kofi Annan is a wise man... :wave:

Satori
22-09-04, 13:46
Just received this newsletter on the subject:


Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * [email protected]
__________________________________________________ _

PM Tuesday, September 21, 2004

With Bush at U.N.: Iraq War Illegal?

Heads of state, including Geroge W. Bush, address the U.N. General Assembly today. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently stated the invasion of Iraq "was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter from our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."

Here are some relevant excerpts from the U.N. Charter:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations....

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice....

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security."
-- U.N. Charter (Chapter I, Article 2; Chapter VI, Article 33; Chapter VII, Article 39)
[See: <http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter>]


FRANCIS BOYLE, [email protected], http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0024.htm
Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois and author of the new book "Destroying World Order." He said today: "The entire legal argument for the invasion of Iraq was a fraud and that was clear before the invasion took place. The U.S. government drove towards war, it did not attempt to avoid it as the Charter calls for. Kofi Annan should have clearly said that it was illegal at that time. But stating it now does pull the legal rug out from under continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq. The United Nations must ensure the immediate departure of all foreign military forces from Iraq, and the exercise of their sovereign right to self-determination by the Iraqi people freed from the current U.S.-imposed puppet government."

[See Boyle's quote on the IPA news release of Nov. 1, 2002, "Interviews on Iraq: U.N. Endgame," at: <http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR110102.htm>]

JOHN QUIGLEY, [email protected]
Professor of law at Ohio State University and author of the book "The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II," Quigley said today: "Kofi Annan is correct that the war was not justified based on the resolutions the Security Council had adopted. Iraq complained at the time that this was aggression, but the U.N. did not respond. The U.N. should have been demanding that the U.S. stop its threats and would be responsible for any damage caused by an invasion. Of course it's virtually impossible for that to happen since the U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council; but that's what should have happened."

[See Quigley's quote on the IPA news release of Feb. 10, 2003, "U.S. Credibility Problems," just after Colin Powell presented the U.S. case for war at the U.N.: <http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR021003.htm>.]

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

I have always believed the Iraq war was illegal.

:souka:

sl0815
26-09-04, 00:06
Don't care whether it's legal or not. war is just wrong! :( :( :(


Jan

Brooker
26-09-04, 00:27
Legal or illegal seems irrelevant. Wrong, yes. But the "legality" of conflicts is always decided by whoever wins the conflict. Laws are written by the people who are in power, so that means that America is incapable of doing anything "illegal", because they have the power to make the rules.

Like the case with Nazi leaders after WWII, if America were to loose this war to a mightier power, I'm sure all of America's leaders would spend the rest of their lives in jail or be executed. In that case their actions would be deemed "illegal".

So, illegal according to who? According to the U.N? Yes, illegal. I think the question is a little flawed, so I can't answer it. Although the discussion of the issue is valid.

lolife
27-09-04, 10:40
AFAIK, there are actually no international law, only treaties and agreements, as within WTO, the UN and such. So, the way it is "illegal" is that it is going against a lot of those treaties and agreements that the US has once agreed to abide by.

But I guess that is not as important when there's noone around with a bigger stick to poke at you.

senseiman
27-09-04, 13:15
Legal or illegal seems irrelevant. Wrong, yes. But the "legality" of conflicts is always decided by whoever wins the conflict. Laws are written by the people who are in power, so that means that America is incapable of doing anything "illegal", because they have the power to make the rules.

Like the case with Nazi leaders after WWII, if America were to loose this war to a mightier power, I'm sure all of America's leaders would spend the rest of their lives in jail or be executed. In that case their actions would be deemed "illegal".

So, illegal according to who? According to the U.N? Yes, illegal. I think the question is a little flawed, so I can't answer it. Although the discussion of the issue is valid.

Yeah, but the ironic thing about this war is that the Americans are breaking the very laws that they themselves established. The UN (and its charter, which the Iraq war clearly violated) was set up at the behest of the US during the second world war. And the legal precedents from Nuremburg and Tokyo, some of which are very relevant to the Iraq war, were established by American judges. That is what really astounds me. 13 years ago the first president Bush went to war against Iraq in order to uphold the rule of law and the principles of the UN charter. Last year the second president Bush went to war against Iraq in flagrant defiance of the law and the principles of the UN charter. What a difference 13 years can make!!!

Satori
14-10-04, 02:00
I thought this was interesting ...

* Broadcast Exclusive: James Baker's Double Life in Iraq: The Carlyle Group Stands to Make Killing on Iraqi Debt *

In a major expose published last night on The Nation magazine's website, columnist Naomi Klein reveals that President Bush's special envoy on Iraq's debt, former Secretary of State James Baker, has been using his position to benefit his corporate clients and the Carlyle Group, the powerful merchant bank and defense contractor where Baker serves as a partner.

Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/13/144220

And here's the link to the article they're talking about:

James Baker's Double Life:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&s=klein

:okashii:

Hachiko
28-10-04, 01:48
Of course not. :okashii:

Lina Inverse
28-10-04, 02:57
Of course not. :okashii:
Of course not illegal, or of course not legal? :?

Censport
31-01-05, 17:52
Let's see... in '91, Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement. As part of that agreement, he was to destroy his WMDs and a list of traditional weapons. Instead, he used chemical and/or biological weapons to commit mass murder against the Kurds. He also blocked attempts by UN inspectors over the next 12 years to confirm that he had destroyed his weapons, as he had claimed.

The UN (since some people think they are a litmus test) passed 14 resolutions calling for action to be taken against Saddam. The same UN passed no resolutions barring the US from taking that action. Once invaded, the US found and destroyed about 400,000 tons of traditional (non-chemical/biological) weapons that Saddam posessed in violation of the '91 cease-fire agreement.

The war was delayed so that the US could attempt to persuade the UN to enforce its own resolutions. The UN would neither enforce its own resolutions nor stop the US from enforcing them. Does this have anything to do with the Oil-for-Food scandal? Could be. Kojo Annan (Kofi's son) has personally admitted to brokering millions of barrels of oil in that scandal.

The score so far:

UN resolutions: 14-0
point: legal
Saddam violations of cease-fire agreement: Several
point: legal
Number of confirmed mass graves so far: 270
point: legal

Iraqis writing their own constitution and choosing their next leaders: Priceless

Now you're free to believe whatever crackpot conspiracy drivel you want, Michael Moore and his kind are happy to get rich off of your hate. But as evidence goes, documented history carries more weight than the theory and speculation of professional protestors.

Edited to add: It's kinda funny to hear so many US foreign policy experts cry about WMDs, imminent threats, comparing Bush to Hitler and calling him a terrorist. I bet if you were to ask the people actually affected, the Iraqis, I'd say that at least 67% of them don't give a flying rat's butt about WMDs or UN permission.

Here's an article from one of them: Naseer Flayih Hasan (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16513)

No-name
31-01-05, 22:16
I think war should always be a last resort--
A pre-emptive war, a war of agression-- even if you let the people vote after is clearly illegal. We have set a really bad precident with this one.

Michael Moore not withstanding, even if you claim that there is an imminent threat (Hitler said that about Poland), you better back it up with real evidence at some point... and we can't do that.

Censport
31-01-05, 22:19
Ah, but what Bush said was that we shouldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. We also couldn't prove that Saddam wasn't a threat at the time.

No-name
31-01-05, 22:42
Ah, but what Bush said was that we shouldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. We also couldn't prove that Saddam wasn't a threat at the time.

Yeah, but you can't haul off and slug someone at a bar because they might hit you at some future date. You can't beat up your neighbor because they might someday steal you lawn mower, or because they looked at you wrong.

Censport
31-01-05, 23:12
Actually, I remember a case from the late 80's where a guy went into a bar and shot a man in cold blood. His defense was that he feared the man would kill him in the near future.

Acquitted.

I know, I know. You're actually making good points. But there was no other way to unseat Saddam or hold him accountable.

As for your assertion that any pre-emptive war is illegal, it's a tough point to argue. I'd have to refer to the violations of the cease-fire agreement. At that point, and considering the world scene right after 9/11, we were working with what we knew at the time. We had to compare the risk of leaving Saddam in power with the risk of unseating him and turning the country over to its citizens. Could you imagine Clinton being forced to make such a decision? (or any substantive decision, for that matter)

No-name
31-01-05, 23:28
"Hey Monica, smoking or non-smoking?"

Shooter452
01-02-05, 02:05
Actually, I remember a case from the late 80's where a guy went into a bar and shot a man in cold blood. His defense was that he feared the man would kill him in the near future.

Acquitted.

I know, I know. You're actually making good points. But there was no other way to unseat Saddam or hold him accountable. (bold print added)
As for your assertion that any pre-emptive war is illegal, it's a tough point to argue. I'd have to refer to the violations of the cease-fire agreement. At that point, and considering the world scene right after 9/11, we were working with what we knew at the time. We had to compare the risk of leaving Saddam in power with the risk of unseating him and turning the country over to its citizens. Could you imagine Clinton being forced to make such a decision? (or any substantive decision, for that matter)

Cens, I don't wanna stir up this pot too much but hold him accountable for what? What crimes did he commit against US citizens or US Sovereignty? These are reasons to go to war. Even threats to US property might be a reason to attack another sovereign nation, but have any of these things occurred?

And pre-emptive wars can be a short slide down the slippery slope if you make them an exception to prohibitions against agressive war. What we committed when we attacked Iraq is an agressive war. The kind of thing that Nazi Germany did to Poland in 1939. In another thread I stated that I was not comfortable being in the same company as Nazi Germany, this is another such example.

I am not against war. War is a great solver of problems between two nations, but the righteous nation does not always prevail, so I think war is the very last stop on the resolution flow chart, unless yours is a agressive, expansionist country. Sucn nations have not faired well in history. Is this really the way we want to go?

I did not answer the poll. I don't know "illegal" and "legal" in the case of warfare. It sounds like a lawyer's definition that gets hammered out long after all the dead are buried and we forget just how horrible war can be...to the participants...to the by-standers.


Omnium rerum principia parva sunt. Ira furor brevis est.

zafer
01-02-05, 02:53
Illegal. ******* illegal.

And people want Iraqis to be thankful? For what? You know the CIA brought Saddam Hussein to power in a coup they backed in the first place? And that's no conspiracy, it's fact.

Sally_Hawn
01-02-05, 03:22
I didn't vote in this poll because I am not sure whether this war is legal or not, but I am happy for the Iraqi people today. They are allowed to vote for their own government! Oversea Iraqis can have a say too. This morning there're over a thousand Iraqis in Ontario have already casted their vote in the ballots.

senseiman
01-02-05, 06:34
Let's see... in '91, Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement. As part of that agreement, he was to destroy his WMDs and a list of traditional weapons. Instead, he used chemical and/or biological weapons to commit mass murder against the Kurds. He also blocked attempts by UN inspectors over the next 12 years to confirm that he had destroyed his weapons, as he had claimed.

For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991. Not that it necessarily makes much difference, an atrocity is an atrocity whether it violates some agreement or not. But when weighing the legality of the Iraq invasion the Kurdish question can only be considered relevant if the invasion put a stop to an ongoing atrocity or prevented one that was about to take place. Given that the US and British no fly zones allowed them to control the flow of military personell into Kurdish territory, the Kurds were safe and this cannot be considered a factor. Past crimes against a third party are not considered legitimate causes to war in international law, especially in this case given that the US supported Saddam at the time sed crimes occured.


The UN (since some people think they are a litmus test) passed 14 resolutions calling for action to be taken against Saddam.

None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq. The UN charter is very clear about this, there are only two cases in which war is authorized. One is in self defence, which clearly does not apply here. The other is for actions which have SPECIFIC UN security council authorization, which the Iraq invasion did not have.

The same UN passed no resolutions barring the US from taking that action.
Completely irrelevant, the lack of a specific resolution banning something does not confer legitimacy on sed action. It like inferring that because there is no law that specifically states "Phil may not murder Bob" that Phil may murder Bob with legal impunity. In this case it is doubly ridiculous to point this out as the US, as a permanent security council member, would have had to have specifically authorized a resolution barring itself from invading Iraq.



in violation[/I] of the '91 cease-fire agreement.

This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.


The war was delayed so that the US could attempt to persuade the UN to enforce its own resolutions.

No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.


The UN would neither enforce its own resolutions nor stop the US from enforcing them. Does this have anything to do with the Oil-for-Food scandal? Could be. Kojo Annan (Kofi's son) has personally admitted to brokering millions of barrels of oil in that scandal.

As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of. Annan had no power over the decision, it was entirely up to the fifteen individual governments that made up the security council at the time of the invasion.




Now you're free to believe whatever crackpot conspiracy drivel you want, Michael Moore and his kind are happy to get rich off of your hate. But as evidence goes, documented history carries more weight than the theory and speculation of professional protestors.

This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.

senseiman
01-02-05, 06:47
Ah, but what Bush said was that we shouldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. We also couldn't prove that Saddam wasn't a threat at the time.

Is this not setting the bar a bit too low? I mean, this is saying that a war is justified not only if there has been no act of agression against you, but even if there is no existing threat of action against you. Just the slim possibility that at some indefinite point in the future a threat may or may not emerge. Thats all you need. Given that the methods for judging the 'potential' threat levels seem to be based entirely on conjecture they could easily make the case that any country in the world poses a potential future threat and that ANY act of aggression is therefore fully justifiable.

This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.

Censport
01-02-05, 18:16
Is this not setting the bar a bit too low?
Yes, it is setting the bar a bit low. Uncomfortably low for everyone. But considering the terror threat as a whole just after 9/11, I don't think it's unreasonable. You've got to remember Saddam's pattern of behavior and his penchant for saber-rattling (Boy, I bet he'll never do THAT again! LOL!).


This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.
Like that would be anything new?

Britain, 1812.

Japan, 1941.

Militant Islam, 2001.

And that's just attacks on U.S. soil. Pause for a moment and consider the list of attacks on U.S. interests around the world...

No-name
01-02-05, 18:27
Is this remotely logical?: There is a country that has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It has a history of using them. It is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it has invaded and intervened in dozens of other countries both overtly and covertly sometime several times with minimal justification or provocation. It has often replaced unfriendly democracies and installed despotic repressive regimes simply because they support its interests.

Is it rational then to invade and disarm this country pro-actively? I think a pre-emptive strike by third world nations against the United States could be justified by this post 9/11 logic.

Censport
01-02-05, 18:44
For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991.
Ah, I got the date wrong. My bad.


None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq.
That could be a matter of interpretation. I'll look up the resolutions and post what I can find here.


Completely irrelevant...
I say nay, laddie, as that was addressed to those who think the UN has the final word on world affairs.


This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.
I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.


No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.
First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.

Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.

Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.


As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of.
See point three, above.


This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....

No-name
01-02-05, 18:50
Work for that dour and humorless former SNL writer Franken? I'd rather work as Limbaugh's drug connection.

Censport
01-02-05, 19:37
Ah, one below the belt. That's okay, you'd have better job security as a unionized teacher. *cough*

No-name
01-02-05, 20:28
You missed the Al Fraken decade bit where he declared the decade about "me...Al Franken." Funny stuff. He is a humorist first. I think you also missed the fact that Moore is highly entertaining and a significant amount of satire and self deprication goes into much of what he does. It's not journalism, it is entertainment...the stunts are meant to be satirical, insightful and at some level, funny.

I read both Moore's "Dude Where's My Country" and David Hardy and Jason Clark's "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man." One of these books was quick witted, sharp and biting, relevant and well written, the other was written by a pair who seemed to be rather clueless and is rather pedestrian, plodding and clunky. (Guess which one I liked?) I also read some of Al Franken's book and a few chapters of Rush-- both were okay (I didn't finish either, so they weren't all that interesting) but Franken was funny and Rush was only at his best when he was angry...his more sober observations make him seem...constipated.

What does Rush say about the ACLU defending the privacy of his medical records in the Fla. perscription shopping investigation?

Censport
01-02-05, 20:38
You're right, I missed those examples because I'm not a fan of their work. I've looked at how they treat the people around them and 'under' them. From what I've seen, Moore is self-deprecating when it pays well. I'll find a link.

I've never read a Rush book. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever read one of his columns. Just as Hannity is at his best in book form (I know several women who disagree with me. They want to see him on DVD, if you catch my drift.), Rush is best on radio. He's a natural. Good voice too.

And Rush welcomed the ACLU, and even helped explain why they were right to help him.

Edited: Here's a link on Moore: linky (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16810)

No-name
01-02-05, 21:20
I'm shifting over to the left v right thread...

Censport
01-02-05, 21:28
This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
Since you're such a big fan of Coulter, here's a nice picture of her I found for you:

Annie get your gun (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/liberal_nightmare/)

senseiman
02-02-05, 06:32
.


I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.

In the strict legal sense it was not a justification as finding evidence after the fact of violations does not retroactively provide a basis for the invasion. Non-compliance in and of itself did not provide an automatic "trigger" that would make the invasion of Iraq legal.

Ignoring the legal rationale it doesn't seem at all practical to say that invading a country for possesing large quantities of banned conventional weapons is at all reasonable. Those weapons didn't shift the balance of power into Saddam's favor at all. Invading Iraq to relieve him of these weapons is overkill in the extreme, like police pumping a jaywalker full of lead in order to promote traffic safety or something.



First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.

Well you got me there. We'll have to continue this discussion in a few years to see who is right. From the way things are looking now I'm quite willing to stand by my interpretation of events though.


Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.

The two terms aren't synomymous. Like I said, the other members of the security council saw things differently and I think their method makes sense. If we were to resort to invasion to enforce every UN security council resolution the world would be in a pretty bad place right now. Given the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, it seems to me that invading the country with the express purpose of ridding it of those weapons was not an appropriate means of "enforcement", especially in light of the immense destruction and loss of life that action has caused.


Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.

So, now they opposed the war because of the money they were making from the oil for food program? Of course it has to be corruption and have nothing to do with the fact that more than 80% of the populations of those countries were vehemently opposed to the war. I find this a little hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that France, Russia and Germany have all recently agreed to forgive Iraqi debt in totals that amount to several times whatever money they may have made from Iraqi oil, which AMERICAN companies were also involved in selling FYI. There are probably a million other legitimate reasons for not wanting to get involved in an illegitimate war that everyone could see would descend into a costly quagmire. I would imagine that corruption would come VERY low on that list.





I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....

As one of her detractors I can easily recognize that she has a sense of humor,but it is not one that I share. But that is besides the point as it is her political views and not her sense of humor that I am repulsed by. Most of it sounds like deranged ranting to me with very little in the way of an argument . In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity. The woman is sick. Rush isn't so bad, I've read two of his books and I can say that while I don't agree with his political views at least he doesn't make me want to vomit every time I read or hear his words. Coultier has that effect on me.

No-name
02-02-05, 06:40
I generally agree with you, Senseiman- at least in sentiment if not in detail. My 2.5 cents: Before you start a war in which thousands of innocents will lose lives, children, parents, houses, arms, feet and faces there must be a better justification than that bad guy who may have bad weapons may one day do something bad to us. Any hawkish newspaper can make up something like that.

Censport
02-02-05, 20:21
In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity.
Another example of tongue-in-cheek. In that instance, it was an angry tongue, I'll grant you that, but not offered as seriously as Pat Robertson's comments at that time.

No-name
02-02-05, 22:32
"I was just joking..." is a great excuse for saying stupid, insensitive or offensive things. I use it all the time.

senseiman
03-02-05, 06:33
Another example of tongue-in-cheek. In that instance, it was an angry tongue, I'll grant you that, but not offered as seriously as Pat Robertson's comments at that time.

Tongue in cheek or not, any joke about wiping a major religion with over a billion followers off the face of the planet is something any decent person should find offensive. It is at the same level as neo nazi "jokes" about ridding the world of jews and like them she deserves to be condemned for it.

Censport
03-02-05, 17:18
Fair enough. Her humor on that was in poor taste. Still, I don't think you'd want to spend a lot of time on here defending everything Moore, Franken & co. have said.

Now, it's back to the action....


Is it rational then to invade and disarm this country pro-actively? I think a pre-emptive strike by third world nations against the United States could be justified by this post 9/11 logic.
So 9/11 was what then, a diplomatic mission?

No-name
03-02-05, 22:59
9/11 was a tragedy. It was an attack beyond comprehension for which we should be angry. It was mass murder on a large scale, that should be condemned in the strongest language. It will have political repercussions for the next century.

I hope 9/11 wasn't some jingoistic wake-up call for the last remaining super power to swagger around and keep those third world countries in line. I hope it isn't a carte blanch to invade whomever seems threatening and impose whatever order we feel fit.

And it is this post 9/11 logic that I said justifies any third world country attacking the United States. (Since we have WMD's and a history of invading foreign nations...). I think we need to distance ourselves from this thinking.

McTojo
05-10-05, 03:58
I think we need to understand the traditional role that the U.S. has played over the last quarter of a century, and no I will not go into great detail.

basically, this War has its place for the purpose of opening up the middle east, I mean, in terms of fostering Democracy in Iraq. It has nothing to do with the betterment of the U.S. whatsoever. Consequently, the U.S. will never see the light at the other end of the tunnel in Iraq. This war like so many other wars have benefited the beneficiary ONLY. This war will never have anything to do with fighting terror nor will it ever have positive residual affect for me or any other American. The negative residual affect is Bush reneging on his tax cuts. And as far as seeking retribution for 911, it's absolutely absurd to even concede that Iraq was somehow remotely responsible given the report by the 911 commission. There is simply not enough facts to warrant an invasion of Iraq because of its suspected role in 911. This action shows a lack of maturity within our government.

EdZiomek
16-10-05, 07:49
I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!

Question... from me, an ignorant tourist...
Can a war be illegal, and totally immoral, yet somehow ... thank God, thank somebody, thank Bush & Company maybe, for doing SOMETHING in a disaster situation!

Iraq was a CATASTROPHE, before Gulf 1 and 2! It was a plague!!!!
I hate war. I get ill thinking about all the death and destruction and damage to world public opinion that has resulted from our management of this horror show.

But there was also a daily nightmare called Saddam Hussein. Why did America harp on about WMDs? Possibly did ... ahem... someone GIVE THEM TO HIM?!?

My WMD is crystal clear... the "Oil for Food Money", the 10 Billion dollar cash fund that Saddam had, that can buy you shiploads of WMDs... oh yes they can! In my opinion, Saddam was financing terror in other countries, namely Israel/Palestine, probably North Korea, probably Syria, etc.

Do I think Bush has done a good job? Frankly no. Not good at all!

But I think history is going to look at this whole tragedy in an amazing new way...

Reverse Don-Quixote.... try-try-try, then fail, then succeed in failure!

"Select Corporate America entities invade Iraq, get rid of Sicko Hussein, and try the "Don Quixote effort" for the media... You know, the mantra..."Pie-in-the-sky", "Camel in every pot", "Freedom and Democracy", etc. etc.

The Iraqi people will eventually say... "Thank you very much Mr. America, now how fast can you leave?".

Then the tribal interests within Iraq will restore to the way they were before we came in... with the Shia's in charge this time... and in 20 years they will beg for us to come back in, as tourists." Everybody loses in the war, everybody wins in the Peace.

But the world, and that region of the world will be a much better place for all the tragedy and sacrifice of American troops and Iraqi citizens, and Afghan citizens.

What did Osama Bin Laden try to do? Unite the Arabs and Persians and Palestinians and Egyptians and Muslims, against the Infidel West?

And what has been the result, but the EXACT OPPOSITE? You even have Zarqawi inciting Sunnis to kill Shia! You have Russian goons killing elementary school children. You have Bali fundamentalists killing Aussie tourists... that makes a lot of PR sense! What rotten scum these people are...

Bush... love him or hate him... (and we have done so much wrong, I know... I think our conduct has been horrible at times, brilliant at times, catastrophic at times, heroic at times), the end result is a world talking to each other more, trying like hell to understand each other more, be more tolerant of each other.

And lets get the HELL OFF OIL! Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan... you are the new creative geniuses... give us a 200 mile per gallon of hydrogen, car!

senseiman
16-10-05, 08:22
I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!

Question... from me, an ignorant tourist...
Can a war be illegal, and totally immoral, yet somehow ... thank God, thank somebody, thank Bush & Company maybe, for doing SOMETHING in a disaster situation!

Iraq was a CATASTROPHE, before Gulf 1 and 2! It was a plague!!!!

Iraq was a catastrophe before the war, but what is clear is that all the invasion has served to do is make a bad situation worse.


But there was also a daily nightmare called Saddam Hussein. Why did America harp on about WMDs? Possibly did ... ahem... someone GIVE THEM TO HIM?!?

My WMD is crystal clear... the "Oil for Food Money", the 10 Billion dollar cash fund that Saddam had, that can buy you shiploads of WMDs... oh yes they can!

Er...how? There were inspectors in the country until 1998 destroying what weapons he had and a complete embargo on the country to prevent weapons from being imported for the rest of the time. Plus of course the fact that there WEREN'T ANY WEAPONS FOUND after the invasion, which kind of takes the wind out of the sails of that argument.


In my opinion, Saddam was financing terror in other countries, namely Israel/Palestine, probably North Korea, probably Syria, etc

Your opinion based on what? The question of whether Saddam was financing terrorists is a factual one, not a matter of opinion. The only financial support he gave to terrorists was to the mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers. Its hard to see what scenario there would be in which Saddam would have financed North Korean "terrorists", I'd be interested to know what you are talking about there.

nurizeko
16-10-05, 10:30
"Pre-emtive self-defence" = hostile invasion's dressed up to look friendly.

I was against the war to start with, i was against it as it happened, but were there now, i dunno wether its because of an actual smidget of decency and common sense or wether bush just doesnt got a clue what to do now but at least the coalition is sticking in and trying to keep the country together.

Still, it never really excuses the fact that it was an illegal invasion lead by a war-happy ordaned by god type US president.

It would be nice if a coalition leader could just step up and say "hey, it was illegal, i know that, everyone knows this, and for that i can only apologise, and we've made iraq an unstable hotbed thats an even bigger concern to global security stability and the supression of terrorism then it ever was under saddam, and i also know that it wasnt done for the good of the iraqi people, and more on a political whim and possibly oil.
Saying that, saddam was a bad man and now we've done what we've done, theres not a chance in hell of replacing saddam and his regime, were in for the long haul and we cannot and will not leave until iraq is stable enough to look after itself or the country falls irreparably into civil war and chaos."

Man, the day i see a competent, honest, realist, ethical human being politician, i will vote for him, i will get to a voting booth, even if i must crawl there without legs, and an advanced terminal illness, i would vote for him.



Anyway, moving on, i voted for No. :cool:


I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!
I saw a bit on the news last night about that and for the first time in a lnog while, i actually felt their might be hope for iraq, just the short interviews with iraqi people on their way to or from voting, not looknig scared of scuicide bombers or anything, looknig happy and excercising their democratic right, and they wernt picking up AK's and shouting jihad or looking for a civil war, they were happy normal people, the silent majority in iraq, voting....it was beautiful.

Ardeo
16-10-05, 16:30
mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers

Just a side note to this....the reason why that money is offered to suicide bombers by Saudi Arabia (and probably by Saddam) is that when the suicide bombers blow themselves up (and this is almost always without the knowledge or consent of the persons family) the Israeli government comes in with bulldozers and demolishes their house even though they had nothing to do with the crime.

EdZiomek
16-10-05, 22:30
Thank you all for your comments.

I have one more... and this is a hypothetical message to Osama and his buddies, if he is listening... (and why would he, I know, I know!)

The verdict is not in yet, but in my mind, the Iraqi elections demonstrated the one thing that OBL never had, nor did many of his fellow Arabs ever had...

A CHANCE TO VOTE, maybe even... A CHANCE TO STEAL THE VOTE!

OBL I think craves the opportunity to have himself as a political candidate for "King of Saudi Arabia", or "King of a United Arab Front"... or something like that.

As the 40th son of the ruler, and a person who basically lost his inheritance (in my un-educated view), he might EVEN BE ELECTED IF THERE WAS A VOTE CAPABILITY!

But it might never happen in such a country as Saudi Arabia, but why couldn't it happen?

So I have TRE-MENDOUS positive vibes by all this success within Iraq. We have given them the opportunity to VOTE ... to vote for a Shia-dominated, or Sunni dominated, or tri-power sharing government, or whatever government they want, even whatever nightmare they want, that is their right.

And the hypothetical question... if real elections were held in Saudi Arabia, with pro-ruling family candidates, and opposition candidates like OBL, tragic killer that he has become... would he give up his worldwide terror instigations?

Would he give women more equal rights? Would he negotiate with the Shia and the Persians and the Palestinians? Or would he continue in his terror ways, even as elected King of Saudi Arabia?

Am I now a heretic for asking?... please vent if you wish... I deserve it.

This Iraqi vote, whether for approval or not of the constitution, seems to be wonderful for all of the Middle East. Who else can we sincerely, sincerely thank than the very very imperfect Bush team?

Maybe the reverse Don Quisxote has changed the world?

Duo
17-10-05, 00:28
U seem to be forgetting the price the iraqi population is paying, in lives that is. Every victim angers more the locals there. Furthermore the strenous effort of US forces and resources there is severely damaging the US economically. Morever, the image of america as this beacon and pillar of freedom and democracy has been tarnished so seriously that it will take years to amend.


The war in Iraq is bringing about more radicalisation of islamic fundemantalists and is turning more people in the middle east against the western world. Gasoline prices are mounting and in an economy that is based on oil this produces undwanted consequences. I don't see the relation between obl and iraq. Iraq during sadamm was in fact a threat to Saudi Arabia... and Iraq was a secular country despite that it was a dictatorship, but now muslim fundamentalism has been introduced there as well.


Also it seems to me that US forces are not very capable to maintain the peace in Iraq as compared to the british or italian contigent or maybe it's just there is more animosity towards them... who knows... of course having 19 yr old marines out there paniked by daily road bomb attacks surely doesn't help their morale or trust between them and the population and vice versa. I'll never forget this image that i saw on tv when sm american troops forced a family outside their home and the kids were terrorized crying the father feeling very insulted and what not and the troops screaming at them in english. Those kids there will probaply have a deep anger and resentment towards America.. even though the objective that the US may have is good in the long run.

The problem is that the US is not beeing seen as liberators but as invaders. Certainly securing the oil ministry right away and letting all other civilian instutions at the free will of the people didn't help much to disprove this image. So no matter how good the system the US is trying to put there it will seem as something foreign and imposed and they local population will resist it.

you are right bout one thing though.. the world has changed.. but not for the better in my view...

PRIZMATIC
17-10-05, 02:17
:blush: I'm sorry,but - as though from time of Soviet propoganda...?
9/11 - tipical exampel of this...believe me... :blush: :wave:

Silverbackman
07-11-05, 10:18
The problem is that people, especially Americans, want simple answers to complex problems. We mouth clichs like “Tax the Rich” without understanding the economics of taxation and “Exit Strategy” without understanding the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics while pretending these and similar catch phrases have some sort of mystical power to change reality. They don’t.

The fact is this is not the time to ask if we belong in Iraq regardless of if you agree with our presence there or not. I’m not saying this for jingoistic reasons as I’m not prone to spouting platitudes like “America: Love it or leave it.” In fact I loathe that kind of unthinking commitment to any cause. However due to the overwhelmingly complex nature of the Middle East and it’s history the time to have asked this question was – before – we went in. At the time both sides of the aisle said, “yes” but now we’re starting to second-guess ourselves. This is not a good idea in any situation but this is especially true in dealing with the Middle East. Not only that but it completely screws our global reputation. We don’t want the rest of the world to say, “The US will start something but when it gets tough they’ll scomper off.” Vietnam did enough damage to our credibility we don’t need to compound it by following it up with half-measures in Iraq. It is entirely inconceivable how bad it would be to leave at this point. Essentially we’ve committed ourselves to open heart surgery and half way through the procedure we’re getting “cold feet” and want to quit. This is bad for the doctor, bad for the patient, and bad for everyone involved. As much as I hate loosing soldiers the effects of leaving would result in far more deaths in a far shorter period of time. Remember we’ve lost around 2,000 men in the years since we invaded Iraq while we lost over 3,000 people in a single day on September 11, 2001. If loosing a couple hundred people a year trying to rehabilitate the Middle East saves thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or even millions of lives in the long run then I think it is a cause that warrants our support.

The thing I love about this Iraq situation is that people in the US, much less around the world, are silly enough to think we had a choice once we got the intelligence that they were trying to build a nuke. Now I'm not a big fan of Baby Bush but you try playing president under the following circumstance:

1. 9/11/01 just happened

2. You get intelligence that Iraq is trying to purchase fissionable material that can be used in the construction of a nuclear device. (This turned out to be false but Bush didn’t know this until after we invaded – he didn’t lie – we were duped - to be honest I’m not sure which is worse).

3. You know that Uncle Ronny and Daddy Bush (idiots) sold technology to make chemical and biological weapons to Iraq back in the 80’s and Saddam used them in the Iran / Iraq war (we know they had WOMD’s because – we’re - the ones that gave them to them in the first place).

4. Iraqi reports to the UN demonstrate that even by their own estimates thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents are unaccounted for (these likely ended up being accidentally / intentionally dumped into the local water supply via the Tigris / Euphrates rivers which explains elevated levels of birth defects found down stream from these depots).

5. Saddam is putting out speeches about (paraphrase) the "heroes of 9/11" that this is "Only the beginning" and other inflammatory rhetoric designed to stoke Islamic hatred.

6. UN weapons inspectors found hundreds of shells filled with mustard gas that Iraq denied having. Tests on these shells indicated the weapons were still over 90% effective even though they were vintage shells stockpiled since World War II.

7. How any of you can want such an evil man like Saddam in power to stop "anarchy" is beyond me. Saddam is the worst type of person, he killed close to a million people. He didn't just rule with an iron fist, he killed people who were innocent. His all-time favorite idol was Joseph Stalin, as if that is anything of a suprise.

Some of you say that there is a high amount of Iraq casuality in Iraq, but the truth is it doesn't come near to the amount of people Saddam killed and the many more people he would have killed if he was still in power.

He has been killing ever since he was a kid. He killed if first man when he 10 years old believe it or not. The more you study Saddam the more you see this guy was as worse as Hitler and Stalin! Yes he did not kill as much people, but that is because he did not have the area of land that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany have. If he did he would have had as much killing IMHO. And unlike Stalin and Hitler, he actually witnessed many of the crimes he committed and almost enjoyed watching the death, sorrow, and destruction.

Right now the US is facing vile evil that is trying to threaten the peace of the Iraqis but when it is all set and done Iraq will live in peace as a democracy. It will take time but if we give up now or never tried at all many more people would have been killed under the radicals threatening or even worse, Saddam!

This is only a fraction of the situation but it will suffice. So with all this in mind and even more than I’ve outlined Bush is faced with two options:

1. Invade and make sure the WOMD’s are secured and if they don’t exist he gets egg on his face.

2. Not invade but if Baby Bush ignores all of this and Iraq walks a nuke across our exceedingly porous (essentially unpatrolled) Southern boarder and turns LA, Chicago, or some other city or cities into radioactive craters it would be what we in science call “bad.”

So he didn’t have a choice. I would have made the same call, as would anyone with a measurable IQ, so it didn’t matter who was in the White House – it had to happen. Bush, Gore, Kerry, Hilary Clinton or even Teddy F’ing Kennedy would have had to do the exact same thing and gotten the exact same egg on their face. If we’re going to kick Bush for something let’s kick him for something he actually has some control over like his F’d up domestic policies or that fact that he ignores the illegal immigration problem. Iraq is a nonsequitur.

In the scheme of things freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam is really unimportant. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is nothing but an excuse after the fact in an attempt to reduce the size of the omelet cooking on Baby Bush’s face due to the lack of WOMD’s. Now here’s the kicker. If Bush had advisors with two brain cells in their heads they would tell him to quit squirming around trying to minimize the blame and take a page out of Truman’s book by stepping up and saying, “The Buck Stops Here.” Every time he opens his mouth about Iraq he sound like a kid making excuses for getting bad grades on his report card. He needs to get that stupid smirk off of his face and talk clearly, plainly, and sincerely about the Middle East as a whole and our future in that region. We – can’t – get out of Iraq, much less the Middle East because – they won’t let us. Until someone points out this incredibly salient fact then the debate about “getting out” will continue as if it has some importance while in reality it is entirely pointless. We went in and now we’re stuck. In fact, we’ve been stuck with this since the Britt’s promised the Jews their own homeland in the Middle East after World War I and our debt has only grown since then because we’ve kept putting off the inevitable but no one has either the intelligence or intestinal fortitude to point this out so people think the superficial issues the talking heads keep yammering about are important when they’re simply a canard.

Before someone brings up “US greed for Oil” it has nothing to do with “US greed for Oil.” We get around 10% of our oil from the Middle East and we could easily cover this loss using domestic sources (around 50% of US oil consumption) or with imports from Canada and Latin America (around 30% of US oil consumption). On the other hand Europe gets around 35% of its oil from the Middle East while Japan gets around 75% (maybe more) of it’s oil from the Middle East. Now for those not keeping up on current events Japan and Germany make up the second and third largest economies on Earth. What happens if these economies loose access to oil on such a grand scale? Here’s a clue: Global Economic Disaster. So it isn’t just the US that benefits from stability in the Middle East. Is it “altruism” that leads the US to take a stand? Nope. Just a healthy dose of self-interest since we’re the ones that are going to have to pull everyone’s fat out of the fire after the fact if we allow things to fall into the crapper. It appears that World War II finally taught the US that it is better to take a proactive approach than a reactive one. Thank the Supreme Being, whoever he (she?) is. If Europe doesn’t like it, screw them. The last intelligent idea that came out of Europe predates Constantine (with the notable exception of England electing Churchill Prime Minster – see they can make a good decision). This isn’t a case of “Manifest Destiny.” The US doesn’t want Iraq we just want to send a message to the Islamic nutters that every time you F with us we’re going to invade a Muslim nation and turn the Mosques into McDonalds. If they want to fight a cultural war we’re going to win because our culture is more appealing and they know it, which is why they hate us so much. Give a kid the choice between a pair of loose fit Blue Jeans and a Burqua the answer is guaranteed 99.99% of the time with the other .01% representing the suicide bomber demographic. The war on terror isn’t going to be won with weapons; it is going to be won by indoctrinating them into the global socioeconomic culture that is currently run by Europe and the US. Why do you think Osama chose the World Trade Center? Do you think he’s is an idiot? He may be a fanatic but he’s a damned smart fanatic. Never underestimate the enemy.

For those that want to pull out of Iraq the fact is that we can’t without making the situation worse. All it will do is embolden the terrorist fringe by giving them a “victory.” The only way we can win in Iraq is to turn it into a paradise that other countries in the region aspire to duplicate while also sending a clear message to the region that when you kick the US we’ll cut off your head and maybe someone else’s while we’re at it. Two Islamic centers of power were crushed after 9/11. What do you think Osama’s opinions are on the matter? Do you think he feels better or worse? Sure he dealt a blow to the “Great Satan” but the “Great Satan” evicted the Taliban from control of Afghanistan and installed a friendly government as well as getting rid of Saddam and enforcing our influence on Iraq while just about every other nation in the region is doing Olympic level political gymnastics to make us happy. He did far more to damage fundamentalist Islamic control in the Middle East by initiating 9/11 than he did to the US by blowing up a couple of buildings. Did anyone see Yasser Arafat on 9/12? He looked like someone had kicked him in the nads. He’s also one of the few Islamic leaders that admonished his people not to celebrate the attack. Guess why? Because he knew what was coming. He spent his entire life kicking the crap out of Israel while tying the hands of the US in a Gordian knot in the UN and Osama showed up and cut through all his work in a single stroke. The Israeli’s should build a shrine to him. As long as the Muslims were blowing up inside of Israel the US and the rest of the world really didn’t care but once 9/11 happened it gave the US Carte Blanch to do whatever we damn well pleased. Yasser didn’t want the Palestinians to be part of the collateral damage but it was too late. By removing US pressure on Israel not to retaliate in force when some Palestinian suicide bomber blew up it gave the Israeli’s an excuse to invade Palestine (which is why Yasser spent the last months of his life hiding under a desk with Israeli tanks surrounding his compound), build the “Great Wall of Judea”, and pretty much justify anything they want to do in the name of “security against terrorist action.” The “funny” thing will be if these Islamic nutters actually do manage to do something substantive such as setting off a nuke somewhere. At that point it will galvanize the world to such a point that just about any counter atrocity will be justified. What happens after that? I’m thinking pretty much every flavor of bad there is.

As to World War II, Churchill was worried about the Germans until the US got into the war which is why he spent a great deal of time from 1939 to 1941 pestering Roosevelt to come up with an excuse – any excuse – to get into the war. As it was even Churchill said it was a near thing and he was happy to see Hitler attack Russia rather than crossing the channel. While you can point to many lucky breaks we got over the course of the war, one of the biggest was Hitler abandoning Sea Lion and initiating Barbarosa. If you don’t agree all you need to do is come up with a source that would be considered better informed about the British situation than Winston Churchill. Strangely, I can’t think of anyone that I would consider more authoritative in regard to that particular topic.

If the Russians had decided to put an end to the Allies in Western Europe things would have been bad. In the short term Russia likely could have overwhelmed Allied forces in Continental Europe but I don’t think they could have taken out England since they didn’t have a navy worth discussing and the allied air force was far superior to anything Russia could have mustered. Meanwhile the US was out producing the rest of the world combined and only had a fraction of the number of men under arms that we could have put on the field. I think we had something like 16 million men under arms by the end of the war (most of which never saw action) but under duress I see no reason that the US couldn’t have conscripted multiples of this number if they were needed. By the time Russia became a problem we were already mopping up the Japanese so they wouldn’t have been a concern. However the US supplying China with weapons would certainly have been very bad news for the Russians (I’m also wondering what it would have done to the internal struggle against Mao’s communists? Who knows what the world would look like if that had happened?). It seems likely to me that if the Russians had proven to be a serious threat rather than testing Little Boy on Hiroshima, Moscow would have been the preferred target. I leave it to you to decide what this would have done to Russian morale but I’m thinking the loss of the capital along with Joey Stalin in addition to their inability to defend against such an attack while lacking such a devastating weapon in their own arsenal would have put an end to any expansionistic aspirations the Red Army might have held. It is quite possible that if Stalin had made this decision that it would have resulted in the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union and / or the strengthening of the Democratic government in China thus preventing Mao from taking control. I wonder what the world would look like in such an alternate reality? One can only wonder.

senseiman
07-11-05, 23:42
The problem is that people, especially Americans, want simple answers to complex problems. We mouth clichs like gTax the Richh without understanding the economics of taxation and gExit Strategyh without understanding the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics while pretending these and similar catch phrases have some sort of mystical power to change reality. They donft.

I find the Bush administration's continued use of catch phrases like "stay the course" to be much the same, made even worse when you consider the status of the person making it.


The fact is this is not the time to ask if we belong in Iraq regardless of if you agree with our presence there or not.


ER...so when American troops are in Iraq is not the time to ask if American troops should be in Iraq? When would be the appropriate time then? When American troops are in Sweden?


However due to the overwhelmingly complex nature of the Middle East and itfs history the time to have asked this question was – before – we went in. At the time both sides of the aisle said, gyesh but now wefre starting to second-guess ourselves. This is not a good idea in any situation but this is especially true in dealing with the Middle East.

I disagree with this completely. When it becomes apparant that you have made a collosal error in judgment second guessing yourself (or to use a less loaded phrase, 're-thinking your position') makes perfect sense. If your thinking was wrong in the past, then why just stubbornly stick to the same course of action without questioning whether, given the unexpected change in situation, it makes sense to do so anymore?


Not only that but it completely screws our global reputation.

Not to be rude, but America's global reputation got flushed down the crapper a long time ago.


Vietnam did enough damage to our credibility we donft need to compound it by following it up with half-measures in Iraq.

If that were even remotely true then you would expect that the old 'domino theory' would have been actualized. But it wasn't, the biggest damage to American credibility in Vietnam was its stubborn insistence on drawing out the conflict years after it had become apparent it was a loosing cause.


It is entirely inconceivable how bad it would be to leave at this point. Essentially wefve committed ourselves to open heart surgery and half way through the procedure wefre getting gcold feeth and want to quit. This is bad for the doctor, bad for the patient, and bad for everyone involved.

Yes, but if the doctor is using infected instruments that not only aren't improving the condition of the patient but risk making his condition much worse, then what good is being done?


As much as I hate loosing soldiers the effects of leaving would result in far more deaths in a far shorter period of time. Remember wefve lost around 2,000 men in the years since we invaded Iraq while we lost over 3,000 people in a single day on September 11, 2001. If loosing a couple hundred people a year trying to rehabilitate the Middle East saves thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or even millions of lives in the long run then I think it is a cause that warrants our support.

yes, but that is all hypothesizing and there isn't much reason to believe that the violence Iraqis will suffer from an American withdrawal is going to be any worse than the violence Iraqis will suffer from America staying in Iraq.


1. 9/11/01 just happened

A year and a half previous and in no way related to Iraq.


2. You get intelligence that Iraq is trying to purchase fissionable material that can be used in the construction of a nuclear device. (This turned out to be false but Bush didnft know this until after we invaded – he didnft lie – we were duped - to be honest Ifm not sure which is worse).

Only they didn't "get" intelligence, they just looked through the same old intelligence they'd had lying around for years and cherry-picked the stuff that made Iraq look dangerous while ignoring the much more convincing intelligence that suggested Iraq posed no threat. That is as good as lying by any objective standard.



4. Iraqi reports to the UN demonstrate that even by their own estimates thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents are unaccounted for (these likely ended up being accidentally / intentionally dumped into the local water supply via the Tigris / Euphrates rivers which explains elevated levels of birth defects found down stream from these depots).

Pretty big leap to say that because they can't be accounted for they must not only still exist but also pose a threat to the US. Especially when you've got convincing reasons to believe that A) most of them have in fact been disposed of and B) Even if some haven't you KNOW that Saddam has absolutely no way of using them against you or his neighbors to his advantage.


5. Saddam is putting out speeches about (paraphrase) the "heroes of 9/11" that this is "Only the beginning" and other inflammatory rhetoric designed to stoke Islamic hatred.

Empty rhetoric spews out of people's mouths everyday, it is hardly a reasonable excuse for starting a war.


6. UN weapons inspectors found hundreds of shells filled with mustard gas that Iraq denied having. Tests on these shells indicated the weapons were still over 90% effective even though they were vintage shells stockpiled since World War II.

Thus proving the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors the Bush administration was so eager to displace in favor of war.


7. How any of you can want such an evil man like Saddam in power to stop "anarchy" is beyond me. Saddam is the worst type of person, he killed close to a million people. He didn't just rule with an iron fist, he killed people who were innocent. His all-time favorite idol was Joseph Stalin, as if that is anything of a suprise.

Some of you say that there is a high amount of Iraq casuality in Iraq, but the truth is it doesn't come near to the amount of people Saddam killed and the many more people he would have killed if he was still in power.

This ignores a lot. Saddam killed lots of people, but the last time he had done (or been in a position to do) anything overly horrendous was over a decade before the invasion. IN 2003 he wasn't commiting massacres nor was there any ground or fear to believe that he could or would do so anytime soon. True, he was killing political opponents and torturing people, but not on a level that would have differentiated him from any other regime in that region. If the humanitarian excuse for the war is to have any validity, you must be able to show that the situation now in Iraq is probably better than it would have been had Saddam stayed in power. The tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in this was are way more than any reasonable estimate of what Saddam's vicims would have numbered over the same period- and that isn't counting the future victims as the number of Iraqis killed in violence continues to spiral upwards.



1. Invade and make sure the WOMDfs are secured and if they donft exist he gets egg on his face.

2. Not invade but if Baby Bush ignores all of this and Iraq walks a nuke across our exceedingly porous (essentially unpatrolled) Southern boarder and turns LA, Chicago, or some other city or cities into radioactive craters it would be what we in science call gbad.h

There is just absolutely ZERO basis in reality for this scenario. The logic fails on so many levels. Lets ignore for the moment the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. THe fact remains that its not easy to make nukes and there wasn't any real danger that he would produce them after 1991. The process would have taken years (probably decades), required technical skills and facilities Iraq didn't have, required resources Iraq didn't have and would have no way of acquiring and would have had to be undetectable to 24 hour US surveillance. Then the bomb would have to be somehow smuggled out of Iraq - no easy task -and into the US -again no easy task.

But even that isn't the end of the ludicrousness of the scenario. What the hell would Saddam have to gain by doing this? NOTHING, and the only foreseeable consequence would be his instant annhiliation by US retaliation. Then there is the even further point that even in the one in a billion chance that Saddam ever were able to produce a nuclear weapon the only possible situation in which he would use it would be if the US invaded, so how the hell invasion can be justified along the lines of preventing an Iraqi attack just confounds me.


So he didnft have a choice. I would have made the same call, as would anyone with a measurable IQ, so it didnft matter who was in the White House – it had to happen. Bush, Gore, Kerry, Hilary Clinton or even Teddy Ffing Kennedy would have had to do the exact same thing and gotten the exact same egg on their face. If wefre going to kick Bush for something letfs kick him for something he actually has some control over like his Ffd up domestic policies or that fact that he ignores the illegal immigration problem. Iraq is a nonsequitur.

Like hell he didn't have a choice. He had a choice, he made it and now people are paying the consequences. He isn't going to get off the hook on that one.



Before someone brings up gUS greed for Oilh it has nothing to do with gUS greed for Oil.h We get around 10% of our oil from the Middle East and we could easily cover this loss using domestic sources (around 50% of US oil consumption) or with imports from Canada and Latin America (around 30% of US oil consumption). On the other hand Europe gets around 35% of its oil from the Middle East while Japan gets around 75% (maybe more) of itfs oil from the Middle East. Now for those not keeping up on current events Japan and Germany make up the second and third largest economies on Earth. What happens if these economies loose access to oil on such a grand scale? Herefs a clue: Global Economic Disaster.

Of course its the oil, for reasons you've just explained but failed to notice. The US doesn't need middle east oil but the rest of the world does, making control of the middle east undoubtedly the largest focus of American foreign policy for the past 50 years. The political and economic power American dominance of the region creates is immense and would be greatly enhanced by the permanent establishment of US military facilities in Iraq, which is one of the planners of the war's main objectives.

senseiman
08-11-05, 01:44
The US doesnft want Iraq we just want to send a message to the Islamic nutters that every time you F with us wefre going to invade a Muslim nation and turn the Mosques into McDonalds. If they want to fight a cultural war wefre going to win because our culture is more appealing and they know it, which is why they hate us so much.

Turning mosques into McDonalds? This is going to be America's contribution to the "Cultural war"?


Give a kid the choice between a pair of loose fit Blue Jeans and a Burqua the answer is guaranteed 99.99% of the time with the other .01% representing the suicide bomber demographic.

Our clothes are better than theirs? What are you, 10,11 years old?


For those that want to pull out of Iraq the fact is that we canft without making the situation worse.

Maybe, but there has also been a trend that has seen the violence increase the longer US troops remain and there isn't much reason to think that trend is going to reverse itself anytime soon.


All it will do is embolden the terrorist fringe by giving them a gvictory.h

Every time they blow up another humvee they get a victory. Its way too late to be worrying about denying them the wins, every day they get dozens.



The only way we can win in Iraq is to turn it into a paradise that other countries in the region aspire to duplicate while also sending a clear message to the region that when you kick the US wefll cut off your head and maybe someone elsefs while wefre at it.

Well the war has already been a complete and utter failure on that count. Even in the highly unlikely event that the US does turn Iraq into a "Paradise" as you put it, the fact that it will have taken years of bloody mayhem, tens (probably hundreds by the time its over) of thousands of lives and economic devastation that will take an entire generation to overcome to get there will be more than enough to dissuade anyone from trying to follow the Iraqi 'example".


Two Islamic centers of power were crushed after 9/11.

1. Iraq had a secular, not Islamic government. 2. Afghanistan is one of the poorest, weakest countries in the world and by no stretch of anyone's imagination counts as a "Center of power".

senseiman
08-11-05, 01:55
What do you think Osamafs opinions are on the matter? Do you think he feels better or worse? Sure he dealt a blow to the gGreat Satanh but the gGreat Satanh evicted the Taliban from control of Afghanistan and installed a friendly government as well as getting rid of Saddam and enforcing our influence on Iraq while just about every other nation in the region is doing Olympic level political gymnastics to make us happy.

Which countries exactly are doing olympic gymnastics to make America happy? Now that the US military is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq they know that the Americans won't be invading their countries anytime soon, so I think they would breathe a lot easier. Iran especially. They are the ones who have the most influence in Iraq today, now that the Shi'ite look set to dominate the country. Thats a pretty big ace up their sleeve for the Iranians when dealing with the US, as they can make things a lot more difficult in Iraq anytime they want.


He did far more to damage fundamentalist Islamic control in the Middle East by initiating 9/11 than he did to the US by blowing up a couple of buildings.

I agree with you here but would add that Bush has done more to advance Islamic radicalism and damage American prestige by invading Iraq than anything any Islamic radical could dream of doing.


Did anyone see Yasser Arafat on 9/12? He looked like someone had kicked him in the nads. Hefs also one of the few Islamic leaders that admonished his people not to celebrate the attack.

The fact that Arafat was a Muslim does not make him an "Islamic leader" anymore than, say, Tony Blair's being a Christian makes him a "Christian leader". The PLO is a secular organization that includes Christians and has fought some bloody battles with the Islamic radicals.



The gfunnyh thing will be if these Islamic nutters actually do manage to do something substantive such as setting off a nuke somewhere. At that point it will galvanize the world to such a point that just about any counter atrocity will be justified.

I fail to see the humor.

Ardeo
08-11-05, 08:18
The US doesn't need middle east oil but the rest of the world does, making control of the middle east undoubtedly the largest focus of American foreign policy for the past 50 years

And you, sir, hit the nail on the head with that one.

PRIZMATIC
14-11-05, 01:36
P.S. I have writtenn 9/11...as wrote about the same film...

PRIZMATIC
14-11-05, 04:01
P.S.-2:blush: Carelessness - the reason of many misunderstanding...:blush:
I have written 9/11 - and only...It could be and date and simple figures...
The Conscious innuendo...For a polysemy...
But "someone" has replaced my smailies...:box::blush:
If people could more attentive to Saddam Hussein he not receive in due time the chemical weapon and world be another today...
So,that now about it to speak...
The reasons give to consequences...
And the fear kills soul...
It is our world...:blush:

EdZiomek
24-11-05, 19:49
I hope we are seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel".

The Iraqi Parliament has voted for America to state a timetable for withdrawel.

The Pentagon has hinted at a probable major withdrawel of troops, starting after the December 15 election.

Representative Murtha, Democratic Party from Pennsylvania, has tabled the proposition that America withdraw its troops, starting within 6 months. A Republican proposal for an IMMEDIATE, unconditional withdrawel, was voted down...??? 97 to 3 however.

Ex-President Bill Clinton has admitted to an Arab audience that invading Iraq was wrong, ill-advised.

I think the world is voting overwhelmingly... America must set a timetable for withdrawel, then leave.

So was it legal or illegal, with a tyrant in place like Saddam Hussein, I voted it was probably "Legal" based on the information we thought we knew and the mass-killer that Saddam was, but now it is time to wind down and leave.

Will it be the end of wars in the middle east, or the world?

Nobody believes that. But do I praise American troops who fought based on bad information, and bad political decisions, yes, I absolutely do, if their conduct was with integrity.

Is America safer now because of their sacrifice? Yes, I believe it is.

Could Iraq also be safer, if they "agree to agree"?

Yes, I believe it is.

Carlson
24-11-05, 21:24
there is no end. if not iraq something else or someplace else....

war will go on long after were just a memory...

yakutatazu
24-12-05, 22:35
I've heard rumors about there being secret group who decides things about USA, like, "there should be a war now", "yeah, it'd do the economy good, guns can be sold and it would get the army to do something".

also there was supposed to be a group that only if you're a member, you can get to be president. would explain a lot, seeing bush.
http://gprime.net/video.php/presidentialspeechalist
brilliance

EdZiomek
28-12-05, 19:39
Yakutatuza... I happen to agree with you.

60% of the world's fossil fuel consumption is the United States, though that percentage is dropping.

Cut the oil? Western economies would collapse, followed by Eastern economies.

Therefore, you are a Western political executive, and your primary interest is survival. Forget rules, forget laws, forget civil nicities... your primary goal is for your country to survive. Physically, then financially. Period.

Compound that with other countries, say, second-tier countries, vowing to physically destroy other countries, depending on their own political agendas. No rational reason, but overwhelming greed.

Compound these disruptive elements with the money elites in other countries who suppress all opposition amongst their own people, and hire mercenary armies to protect themselves against their own countrymen, so THEY CAN SURVIVE, at all costs. We are not talking millionaires here, we are talking MINIMUM billionaires, if not trillionare-ruling interests. And yes, periodic "trip-wire wars" are used to minimize the death and destruction... i.e., Saddam could have killed another million people, he does not give a damn, he is oblivious to the suffering he caused, to the Million+ Iranian dead, to the Million + Iraqi dead while he was in power. Meaningless numbers.

So on one side you have a power group getting fabulously rich, but in truth, allowing poor slobs like myself and my family to eek out a living, paycheck to paycheck.

In short, the net-net of the power game, allows myself and my family to have a life, which I enjoy. Call it "freedom", call it "socialism", call it anything you want. I am alive, generally content. Thank you.

Now, the world that I described... do you love it as best you can, or do you hate it? Glass half empty, or glass half full?

Power groups exist. Money groups exist. Oil mafias exist. I say we have to love it as best we can, and try to make it better, as best we can.

With one slight asterisk... America should NOT DECIDE what is best for YOU, or for the whole world. America should decide what is best for America, and I think we realize that. Period. As best we possibly can, we should not attempt to rebuild whole cultures, or whole societies.

That is my simple-minded opinion, and yes, I am a simple-minded person. Love, Peace, Harmony, Understanding to all people.

Your thoughts?

Ed Z

Reinaert
18-12-10, 16:22
Europe and America are natural enemies, as looked on it in a strategical way.

America tries to get European countries crossing swords with each other.
The British did that for years and years too.

Europeans want stability in Europe, and the Americans and Brits are doing the opposite. That's what is going on nowadays.

Mzungu mchagga
18-12-10, 18:33
Europe and America are natural enemies, as looked on it in a strategical way.

America tries to get European countries crossing swords with each other.
The British did that for years and years too.

Europeans want stability in Europe, and the Americans and Brits are doing the opposite. That's what is going on nowadays.

no comment

Elias2
19-12-10, 15:54
It was legal because the sadam hussain regeime made it legal, he needed to be taken from power. The resulting unrest was between religious nutcasses in Iraq. I fully support the war, and I'm glad it's a democracy now, one of the few in the region.

barbarian
19-12-10, 18:41
... and I'm glad it's a democracy now, one of the few in the region.

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq's_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_killed ,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/

barbarian
19-12-10, 19:01
this one is a small clue what US is doing there.

Iraq airlines and Boeing of US reached an agreement for Boeing 737 and Boeing 787 (and 15 more with option) the leading time is 2019- 31.03.2008

Iraq airlines is shut down - 31.05.2010

LeBrok
19-12-10, 19:48
Barbarian, try this. Let's say US after WW2 completely controls Germany and Japan, and from your previous posts we know that it totally controls Turkey too. Today Germany and Japan are 4 trillion economies each. It means that they produce a lot of shit and people are well off. Let's say that it should be a difficult thing for mighty and controlling USA to get 10% of their money. Like a good old fashion feudal tax of 10% on vassals. That gives US 800 billion dollars income a year.
Now how big is Iraq's economy? 50 billion maybe a year? How much US had spent for war in Iraq, 1 trillion? It takes 20 years of stealing ALL Iraqi's money to just brake even! What kind of investment is this??? It doesn’t make sense.
It's so much easier to make money on rich countries than the poor once. And as some here believe US controls half of the world, why the heck, being rich already, they would dick around fighting and dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and destroying their "good" image and reputation for poor of the poor of the world??? Not much money to be made their, lol, just pain and aggravation.
If you want to convince me that US is in Iraq and Afghanistan for the money, then show me the money. Right now money and math shows me otherwise.

About Boeing plain deals. You'd probably agree that the best business deals are when the business/buying is constant and repetitive. Airline stays profitable and keeps buying plains for years to come, plain manufacturers keep producing and producing for years. That's the best deal for any company including Boeing.
Did Iraq Air paid for plains in advance to Boeing, and then went bankrupt? Or Boeing invested in new production but didn't get anything because Iraq Air is gone? Do you know how the money went?

Reinaert
19-12-10, 22:51
It was legal because the sadam hussain regeime made it legal, he needed to be taken from power. The resulting unrest was between religious nutcasses in Iraq. I fully support the war, and I'm glad it's a democracy now, one of the few in the region.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh. It seems you don't have a clue about what democracy is.

America is governed by a network of companies and military, we call the military industrial complex. There are several US presidents who warned for this to happen.

Want names? Eisenhower was the last president that warned for it.

Clinton managed to get American finance back to normal, but the Bush government turned American budget deficit to an all time disaster.
And why? Several American companies are getting richer and richer every day at the cost of American taxpayers.
Obama is there to close the eyes of the John Doe Americans.

I reckon Obama is already handcuffed by the system too.

Another fact.. France always had an anti American political course.
And what do we see now? The Carlyle company (Bush) bought the French Newspaper Le Figaro some years ago. A right wing newspaper.
French media were influenced by American capitalists..
Sarkozy became president of France. And his family has interests in the American oil industry.

The same goes for the former Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, his brother has also a leading role in American oil industry.

The Dutch Royal family has also ties with the Shell company.
And Prince Bernard, was the first chairman of the Bilderberg secret meetings.

Nowadays we see a complete idiot like Geert Wilders getting a lot of attention from the BOUGHT Dutch media. No surprise that Geert Wilders is financed by a ultra conservative American group.
:angry:

barbarian
19-12-10, 23:08
Barbarian, try this. Let's say US after WW2 completely controls Germany and Japan, and from your previous posts we know that it totally controls Turkey too. Today Germany and Japan are 4 trillion economies each. It means that they produce a lot of shit and people are well off. Let's say that it should be a difficult thing for mighty and controlling USA to get 10% of their money. Like a good old fashion feudal tax of 10% on vassals. That gives US 800 billion dollars income a year.
Now how big is Iraq's economy? 50 billion maybe a year? How much US had spent for war in Iraq, 1 trillion? It takes 20 years of stealing ALL Iraqi's money to just brake even! What kind of investment is this??? It doesn’t make sense.
It's so much easier to make money on rich countries than the poor once. And as some here believe US controls half of the world, why the heck, being rich already, they would dick around fighting and dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and destroying their "good" image and reputation for poor of the poor of the world??? Not much money to be made their, lol, just pain and aggravation.
If you want to convince me that US is in Iraq and Afghanistan for the money, then show me the money. Right now money and math shows me otherwise.

About Boeing plain deals. You'd probably agree that the best business deals are when the business/buying is constant and repetitive. Airline stays profitable and keeps buying plains for years to come, plain manufacturers keep producing and producing for years. That's the best deal for any company including Boeing.
Did Iraq Air paid for plains in advance to Boeing, and then went bankrupt? Or Boeing invested in new production but didn't get anything because Iraq Air is gone? Do you know how the money went?
i hope my english will be enough to answer for this wonderfull question.

before beginning to answer i must say i like america compared to other superpowers in history and superpower candidates in present day. but still, if you are superpower, you must be evil.

i dont think US control germany economically. in contrast germany has economical power but needs political and armed force to be leading country against US dominance in the world. so they support EU to rach their aim. Why do you think they feed greece, portugal etc. to go to heaven?

After WW2 japan is addicted to US, because japan is export addicted, they need market. and the last crisis shows that US is the main market and no other country can replace them at the moment. after china replace their position in US market, i believe, japan will leave the game.

so the main question: why should US economy need Iraq? the answer: US in iraq because he wants the control of energy sources.

what can america sell? car? steel? washing machine? ... i dont think they can sell anything industrial. they can sell hamburger, movie, shoe (made in taiwan)

US spend lots of money on army to control the world they need money for this power, they have capital giants they need to feed them. since, those giants selects presidents each 6 years.

US must sell weapon (see turkey, greece, iraq, egypt etc.), control narcotic market (see afghanaistan, pakistan), and dollar (see local and global crisis). dollar is very funny "stuff" you can print whenever you want but still works. and you can force other goverments to buy it (see turkey, ukraine and many more)

lebrok, US is power, and this power is lack of real economy. it must sell weapon and dollar. any country who says no must be killed (see iran and venezuela soon). at the moment most of the middle east (or petrol and energy) is under the control of US, US wants turkey to be the leading country of region which will be under the control of US. they want to limit Russian dominance in caucasia by controlling, azerbeijan, ukraine, georgia. these regions are the energy source of the world. and EU limits themselves in the continent by leaving the control in these regions to US.

PS. the boeing deal with iraq was for 5 bill dollar and deserves what boeing invested on politicians in washington on the middle of crisis.

Elias2
20-12-10, 00:57
:laughing::laughing::laughing:

http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq's_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_killed ,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/ (http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq%27s_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_kill ed,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/)

The fighting for Iraq only lasted the first few months, the next years of chaos was caused by sectarian violence between sunni, shia, kurdish groups, and al-qaeda. To blame america for these lunatics actions is unjust. If they went through with their original plans to divide iraq three ways; sunni, shia, kurdish, things wouldn't have dragged along. This didn't go through because Turkey adn Iran fear of Kurdish seperatism and pressured america not to do it. Not to meantion Turkey made matter worse by bombing northern iraq.

Elias2
20-12-10, 01:04
Democracy? Don't make me laugh. It seems you don't have a clue about what democracy is.

America is governed by a network of companies and military, we call the military industrial complex. There are several US presidents who warned for this to happen.

Want names? Eisenhower was the last president that warned for it.

Clinton managed to get American finance back to normal, but the Bush government turned American budget deficit to an all time disaster.
And why? Several American companies are getting richer and richer every day at the cost of American taxpayers.
Obama is there to close the eyes of the John Doe Americans.

I reckon Obama is already handcuffed by the system too.

Another fact.. France always had an anti American political course.
And what do we see now? The Carlyle company (Bush) bought the French Newspaper Le Figaro some years ago. A right wing newspaper.
French media were influenced by American capitalists..
Sarkozy became president of France. And his family has interests in the American oil industry.

The same goes for the former Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, his brother has also a leading role in American oil industry.

The Dutch Royal family has also ties with the Shell company.
And Prince Bernard, was the first chairman of the Bilderberg secret meetings.

Nowadays we see a complete idiot like Geert Wilders getting a lot of attention from the BOUGHT Dutch media. No surprise that Geert Wilders is financed by a ultra conservative American group.
:angry:

You have a discourse with america because of certain money transactions which is fine, I would agree with you on the points you have made. But to say that Iraq is not more democratic now than when Saddam hussain was in power would be false. Oil was one of the reasons they entered Iraq, but not to "steal" it but to control when it goes. Having such a large monopoly of oil only nexted to the saudis was a national security intrest of america.

People like to demonize america because they are a world power, but I would be more scared if china or Russia was more powerful than america, being corrupt anti-human right countries. The EU could be a world player but it needs to implement stricter laws so countries like Greece, ireland, eastern european countires can't just do the bare minimum.

LeBrok
20-12-10, 03:38
[QUOTE=Elias2;362662]The fighting for Iraq only lasted the first few months, the next years of chaos was caused by sectarian violence between sunni, shia, kurdish groups, and al-qaeda. To blame america for these lunatics actions is unjust. If they went through with their original plans to divide iraq three ways; sunni, shia, kurdish, things wouldn't have dragged along. QUOTE]

Good point. US won war with Germany and Japan and they rebuilt very quickly to be prosperous countries. Iraq is a mess because of internal and external factions fighting there, and not because US wants to keep Iraq a mess.

US already spent a trillion dollars in Iraq, do you guys know how much oil you can buy for this money? Probably all Iraqi oil. So why would you go to the war instead of just buying? Same money and fewer people killed, right?
The problem was the stability of prices and uninterrupted supply of oil, and Saddam that already caused two wars in the region. Saddam was sadistic and cruel dictator, but this reason was just an icing on the cake, when it came to getting rid of him.

Barbarian, since WW2 US have army inside Germany and Japan, don't you think they would be the top candidates to control and benefit of them? hey are rich countries and this is where US could make the most bucks, right? Again why they would spend trillions to control poor countries, to loose money? Where is the sense of it. They could make a trillion a year taxing just Germany and Japan.

Please show me where is the money in it. Money makes most of the sense of most situations in politics and economy. You said that US is good in printing dollars and world wants it. Why US would bother spending trillions and sacrificing lives, if they could just buy oil and gold etc, right? Wouldn't you take the easy way?

LeBrok
20-12-10, 03:42
People like to demonize america because they are a world power, but I would be more scared if china or Russia was more powerful than america, being corrupt anti-human right countries. The EU could be a world player but it needs to implement stricter laws so countries like Greece, ireland, eastern european countires can't just do the bare minimum.

Good point again. World always needed and will need a policeman. Today's world is lucky that US is in this role. If it was Communist Russia or China, you wouldn't even had a chance to express a free thoughts on this forum, period.
Take a note that US won the cold war, and now Russia and China are following the successful pattern, especially in economy.

Mzungu mchagga
20-12-10, 13:10
Good point again. World always needed and will need a policeman. Today's world is lucky that US is in this role. If it was Communist Russia or China, you wouldn't even had a chance to express a free thoughts on this forum, period.
Take a note that US won the cold war, and now Russia and China are following the successful pattern, especially in economy.

I wouldn't have believed you if you had told me this a few years ago. But as years have passed by, I got older and made a lot of thoughts, this is the sad truth I have to agree upon.

barbarian
20-12-10, 16:24
The fighting for Iraq only lasted the first few months, the next years of chaos was caused by sectarian violence between sunni, shia, kurdish groups, and al-qaeda. To blame america for these lunatics actions is unjust. If they went through with their original plans to divide iraq three ways; sunni, shia, kurdish, things wouldn't have dragged along. This didn't go through because Turkey adn Iran fear of Kurdish seperatism and pressured america not to do it. Not to meantion Turkey made matter worse by bombing northern iraq.
if it was finished in few months why US is in Iraq for 7,5 years?
why US doesnt control the kurdish terrorists in north iraq?
where is the global terrorists that US came for?
Where is the nuclear weapons US talked about?
Why there was no internal ethnic problems before US invasion?
would you like US come to your country to bring democracy?
Do you think US afraid of Iran and Turkey to realize their plan?

barbarian
20-12-10, 17:07
[QUOTE=Elias2;362662]The fighting for Iraq only lasted the first few months, the next years of chaos was caused by sectarian violence between sunni, shia, kurdish groups, and al-qaeda. To blame america for these lunatics actions is unjust. If they went through with their original plans to divide iraq three ways; sunni, shia, kurdish, things wouldn't have dragged along. QUOTE]

Good point. US won war with Germany and Japan and they rebuilt very quickly to be prosperous countries. Iraq is a mess because of internal and external factions fighting there, and not because US wants to keep Iraq a mess.

US already spent a trillion dollars in Iraq, do you guys know how much oil you can buy for this money? Probably all Iraqi oil. So why would you go to the war instead of just buying? Same money and fewer people killed, right?
The problem was the stability of prices and uninterrupted supply of oil, and Saddam that already caused two wars in the region. Saddam was sadistic and cruel dictator, but this reason was just an icing on the cake, when it came to getting rid of him.

Barbarian, since WW2 US have army inside Germany and Japan, don't you think they would be the top candidates to control and benefit of them? hey are rich countries and this is where US could make the most bucks, right? Again why they would spend trillions to control poor countries, to loose money? Where is the sense of it. They could make a trillion a year taxing just Germany and Japan.

Please show me where is the money in it. Money makes most of the sense of most situations in politics and economy. You said that US is good in printing dollars and world wants it. Why US would bother spending trillions and sacrificing lives, if they could just buy oil and gold etc, right? Wouldn't you take the easy way?

lebrok,
US is controlled by companies, US goverment spent this money to their own companies. they took the money from their people and from ıraq oil and gave it to their companies.

The money on earth comes from industry or resources. US cannot sell their products because of competition issues. they prefer to sell their dollar, weapon and arrest of others goods.

Dollar is a magic, if nobody believes it disappears. saddam was saying to sell their oil with Euro. So, US showed everybody that he is the boss. And now they want to create a country that will obey their rule. just like GB created a country called kuwait that was never existed before.

About germany and japan issue: even US cannot say them to give tax each year.they are global actors.

Reinaert
20-12-10, 18:48
Hmm.. The problems in Iraq were caused by the British. They drew the map so several ethnic groups live in 1 country, like they did everywhere. Devide and rule.
So it's only logic to split Iraq in ethnic countries. Of course the Americans don't support that, because they love the Sunnies and the Sjias killing each other.
Just like they supported both Iraq and Iran with weapons when they were at war with each other. Big profit! :innocent:

Mzungu mchagga
20-12-10, 22:41
Hmm.. The problems in Iraq were caused by the British. They drew the map so several ethnic groups live in 1 country, like they did everywhere. Devide and rule.
So it's only logic to split Iraq in ethnic countries. Of course the Americans don't support that, because they love the Sunnies and the Sjias killing each other.
Just like they supported both Iraq and Iran with weapons when they were at war with each other. Big profit! :innocent:

Yes, quite contrary to the Dutch! Whether is was South Africa, Suriname, Indonesia or elsewhere, they respected the local people and cultures, drew the map according to the local ethnic groups, let them speak their language, didn't impose their language and culture on others, made locals to colonial rulers and never used violence. Of course they came only in peace and without any profit intention... :useless:

Your paranoid hatred towards the English speaking world is getting ridiculous!

Mzungu mchagga
20-12-10, 22:50
[...]
i dont think US control germany economically. in contrast germany has economical power but needs political and armed force to be leading country against US dominance in the world. so they support EU to rach their aim. Why do you think they feed greece, portugal etc. to go to heaven?
[...]


So you think that we (Germans) want to overtake the US as a superpower? Infiltrating politically and economically into all other European countries for to raise a giant army in the end that will withstand US troops?

Crazy and paranoid!

Reinaert
20-12-10, 23:01
Yes, quite contrary to the Dutch! Whether is was South Africa, Suriname, Indonesia or elsewhere, they respected the local people and cultures, drew the map according to the local ethnic groups, let them speak their language, didn't impose their language and culture on others, made locals to colonial rulers and never used violence. Of course they came only in peace and without any profit intention... :useless:

Your paranoid hatred towards the English speaking world is getting ridiculous!

The Dutch didn't have such a fascist regime like the British.
In fact, the Dutch didn't have colonies.
What you mention are parts of the same Kingdom.
The Dutch couldn't even settle in the overseas areas.

Only if they got a job offered by the VOC or WIC.

And, a lot of Germans worked for the VOC too..
So.. Pot kettle black.. :grin:

The Dutch from the beginning had only a few trading posts, a fortress and some farming for supplying the ships. That was the case in Kaapstad (South Africa) and Batavia (Djakarta Indonesia).

While the Dutch traded and bargained with the local aristocracy, the British started to conquer entire areas for mining purposes.
Gold, diamonds, oil.

Of course the Dutch started to follow the same policy like the British, but that was after 1830.

Apartheid is a Dutch word, but it was brought to South Africa by the British.
The British invented the concentration camps. Not the German Nazi's.
Those camps were used to get the Dutch Boers under control by arresting them by the thousands.
The same trick they used in Malaya to suppress left wing independence fighters after ww2.

And then we have the numerous other countries where the British rampaged.

And I don't hate them.
I just don't like they steal, and always talk like they are Santaclaus.

The British and Americans would be more sympathetic to me if they just admitted they were assholes.

You can be the strongest nation in the world, but stop whining about good intentions. Is that so difficult?

BTW..
The Dutch even respected the local languages in Indonesia.
The Dutch learned to speak Indonesian.

And another thing.. Sukarno, the first President of Indonesia, studied in The Netherlands, and was a very good lawyer. He was a bright man, I consider him in the same group of influential people like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

Reinaert
20-12-10, 23:02
So you think that we (Germans) want to overtake the US as a superpower? Infiltrating politically and economically into all other European countries for to raise a giant army in the end that will withstand US troops?

Crazy and paranoid!

Calm down, he didn't say that.

barbarian
20-12-10, 23:57
So you think that we (Germans) want to overtake the US as a superpower? Infiltrating politically and economically into all other European countries for to raise a giant army in the end that will withstand US troops?

Crazy and paranoid!

i guess, i couldnt express myself. i say that germany dont want to left the controll of the world to US. but you need not only economical power but political and strong army also. so, to create a project called EU fits to them. these days you need strong army not only for fighting but also to control some critical parts of the world. otherwise you are just a developed country not a power.

Elias2
21-12-10, 00:01
if it was finished in few months why US is in Iraq for 7,5 years?

To help rebuild the country and bring stabability against the sectarian violence which continues even today. You here Shia or Sunni groups blowing up each others mosque's or suicide bombing in market places, they arn't targeting NATO soldiers they're targetting civilians but people blame america, I don't know why.


why US doesnt control the kurdish terrorists in north iraq?

The Kurds now live in a semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq called kurdistan. Unlike the other groups they are not fighitng for religious reasons but for independance. I don't concider these people terrorists, I don't think America does either.


where is the global terrorists that US came for?

This is a misconception, they never said the 9/11 terrorists came form there, america was saying Saddam has WMD's


Where is the nuclear weapons US talked about?

There were no WMD's, this was a lie, or bad intelligence on the CIA part, dunno which one.


Why there was no internal ethnic problems before US invasion?

Ignorance, the Sadam Hussain regime was killing of Kurds off by the thousands in Northern Iraq, you being a turk and the situation with kurds in Turkey you probably don't mind but the civilized people do.


would you like US come to your country to bring democracy?

If my dictator was Saddam I would, or any dictator for that matter, wether or not I would be educated enough under this regime to realise this fact is a different matter.


Do you think US afraid of Iran and Turkey to realize their plan?

Scared? No, took into consideration? yes. I know Turkey is very scared of the prospect of kurdish seccesion I don't know how Iran feels about it.

barbarian
21-12-10, 09:32
To help rebuild the country and bring stabability against the sectarian violence which continues even today. You here Shia or Sunni groups blowing up each others mosque's or suicide bombing in market places, they arn't targeting NATO soldiers they're targetting civilians but people blame america, I don't know why.

People blame US because millions of people have killed after US decided to bring democracy there. in saddam era there was a christian minister in the goverment, now muslims kills each other. it is a good way to divide and rule.


The Kurds now live in a semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq called kurdistan. Unlike the other groups they are not fighitng for religious reasons but for independance. I don't concider these people terrorists, I don't think America does either.

US calls them as terrorist, because they come to turkey to kill kurdish people that does not support PKK and turkish soldiers and go back to ıraq again. You must firstly search before writing.

This is a misconception, they never said the 9/11 terrorists came form there, america was saying Saddam has WMD's. There were no WMD's, this was a lie, or bad intelligence on the CIA part, dunno which one.

so what was the reason US came to Iraq. Do you think US spend trillions (?) for democracy in iraq? i hope there is no bad intelligence about your country.

Ignorance, the Sadam Hussain regime was killing of Kurds off by the thousands in Northern Iraq, you being a turk and the situation with kurds in Turkey you probably don't mind but the civilized people do.

you are the one as a "civilized person" to defend an invasion and dictatorship here.

If my dictator was Saddam I would, or any dictator for that matter, wether or not I would be educated enough under this regime to realise this fact is a different matter.

who will decide that your governors are dictator or not? america?


Scared? No, took into consideration? yes. I know Turkey is very scared of the prospect of kurdish seccesion I don't know how Iran feels about it.

So, you believe that US came to this land, stay there 7,5 years, spend trillions but take poor turkeys desire in to consideration not to do what he wants to do. you must be comedian.

Mzungu mchagga
21-12-10, 13:25
The Dutch didn't have such a fascist regime like the British.
In fact, the Dutch didn't have colonies.
What you mention are parts of the same Kingdom.

So, does this make a difference?



And, a lot of Germans worked for the VOC too..
So.. Pot kettle black.. :grin:

Did you seriously think I wanted to protect Germany from it's historical activities?


Of course the Dutch started to follow the same policy like the British, but that was after 1830.

Ah I see, that makes everything ok then!


Apartheid is a Dutch word, but it was brought to South Africa by the British.
The British invented the concentration camps. Not the German Nazi's.
Those camps were used to get the Dutch Boers under control by arresting them by the thousands.
The same trick they used in Malaya to suppress left wing independence fighters after ww2.

I already know now that Afrikaaners and Nazi Germans were British victims in reality. You don't have to go any further!


And I don't hate them.
I just don't like they steal, and always talk like they are Santaclaus.

The British and Americans would be more sympathetic to me if they just admitted they were assholes.

:good_job:
Regulus can come in now!



And another thing.. Sukarno, the first President of Indonesia, studied in The Netherlands, and was a very good lawyer. He was a bright man, I consider him in the same group of influential people like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

Here is the Wikipedia quote of Sukarno:
Sukarno was the leader of his country's struggle for independence from the Netherlands (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Netherlands) and was Indonesia's first President from 1945 to 1967.

Huh? Struggle? Independence? Why and of what? :laughing:


Listen, I don't want to debate about colonialism with you now as we are getting off-topic! I just want to make clear that no European country acted or acts better than any other!

Mzungu mchagga
21-12-10, 13:29
i guess, i couldnt express myself. i say that germany dont want to left the controll of the world to US. but you need not only economical power but political and strong army also. so, to create a project called EU fits to them. these days you need strong army not only for fighting but also to control some critical parts of the world. otherwise you are just a developed country not a power.

What is wrong with being only a developed country and not a superpower? You shouldn't conclude from the aims of your country on others.

Elias2
21-12-10, 16:29
People blame US because millions of people have killed after US decided to bring democracy there. in saddam era there was a christian minister in the goverment, now muslims kills each other. it is a good way to divide and rule.

Like I said before, islamic sectarian violence caused the chaos in Iraq because of old hated between sunni and shia muslims. Blamming the US is rather an uneducated responce, and just anti-american sentiment.




US calls them as terrorist, because they come to turkey to kill kurdish people that does not support PKK and turkish soldiers and go back to ıraq again. You must firstly search before writing.

They call them terrorists only formally to appease Turkey while America uses your country for its own geopolitical purposes. If they really thought they were terrorists you would have seen ground offensives in the north over the 7 years but there wasn't. America and Isreal might actually be helping the PKK by sending them weapons, these are only rumors.



so what was the reason US came to Iraq. Do you think US spend trillions (?) for democracy in iraq? i hope there is no bad intelligence about your country.

America came to Iraq so urgently after Afghanistan because of oil. Iraq has huge amounts of oil reserves in the hands of the Hussain regeme, this was a national security issue for America, Saddam could have took the world economy hostage through blackmail. Of course you never heard about it because you're not aloud to talk about Oil in the media but it was. Him being a dictator, his invasion of Quwait, his killings against the kurds, his suppport for terrorism in the region, made the war very legal.



you are the one as a "civilized person" to defend an invasion and dictatorship here.

I defend that iraq is now a democracy and Iraqis have more freedoms than it ever did with Saddam. I don't defend the actions of the Islamic sectarian terrorists who kill people in the name of Allah who doesn't exsist, and only reason for being is to cause chaos.



who will decide that your governors are dictator or not? america?

Its pretty clear what governments are dictatorships or not. If they kill and suppress their own people they are dictatorships.



So, you believe that US came to this land, stay there 7,5 years, spend trillions but take poor turkeys desire in to consideration not to do what he wants to do. you must be comedian.

Well Americas relationship with turkey was much different and I would agrue much better 7 years ago. Events that happened since then have changed things, we'll see how much more they change in the future.

barbarian
21-12-10, 16:50
What is wrong with being only a developed country and not a superpower? You shouldn't conclude from the aims of your country on others.

nothing wrong for me and for you. but goverments work different, all countries want to move to next level.

so, do you think that turkey aims to be superpower, but not germany? remember the wars in last century. was it for a gold medal.

barbarian
21-12-10, 17:13
Like I said before, islamic sectarian violence caused the chaos in Iraq because of old hated between sunni and shia muslims. Blamming the US is rather an uneducated responce, and just anti-american sentiment.





They call them terrorists only formally to appease Turkey while America uses your country for its own geopolitical purposes. If they really thought they were terrorists you would have seen ground offensives in the north over the 7 years but there wasn't. America and Isreal might actually be helping the PKK by sending them weapons, these are only rumors.




America came to Iraq so urgently after Afghanistan because of oil. Iraq has huge amounts of oil reserves in the hands of the Hussain regeme, this was a national security issue for America, Saddam could have took the world economy hostage through blackmail. Of course you never heard about it because you're not aloud to talk about Oil in the media but it was. Him being a dictator, his invasion of Quwait, his killings against the kurds, his suppport for terrorism in the region, made the war very legal.




I defend that iraq is now a democracy and Iraqis have more freedoms than it ever did with Saddam. I don't defend the actions of the Islamic sectarian terrorists who kill people in the name of Allah who doesn't exsist, and only reason for being is to cause chaos.




Its pretty clear what governments are dictatorships or not. If they kill and suppress their own people they are dictatorships.




Well Americas relationship with turkey was much different and I would agrue much better 7 years ago. Events that happened since then have changed things, we'll see how much more they change in the future.
it is impossible to understand you.
you say that you are civilized but defend a country who invaded another country without the permission of UN.
you say that US wanted to bring democracy and peace to this country but everyday people are dying there and a totatl uncontrolled area called as northern ıraq or kurdistan.
you say that turkey and US are allied but at the same time US is supporting kurds (?).
you claim there is democracy in iraq. it is funny. read this again: http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq's_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_killed ,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/

Mzungu mchagga
21-12-10, 18:26
nothing wrong for me and for you. but goverments work different, all countries want to move to next level.

so, do you think that turkey aims to be superpower, but not germany? remember the wars in last century. was it for a gold medal.


Why does Erdogan want to join the Fourth Reich then? :rolleyes2::rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
Or is it Turkey's "next level"?

Elias2
21-12-10, 18:27
it is impossible to understand you.
you say that you are civilized but defend a country who invaded another country without the permission of UN.
you say that US wanted to bring democracy and peace to this country but everyday people are dying there and a totatl uncontrolled area called as northern ıraq or kurdistan.
you say that turkey and US are allied but at the same time US is supporting kurds (?).
you claim there is democracy in iraq. it is funny. read this again: http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq's_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_killed ,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/ (http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/iraq%27s_shocking_human_toll:_about_1_million_kill ed,_4.5_million_displaced,_1-2_million_widows,_5_million_orphans/)

You don't understand my perspective because its been clear in my other discussions with you, you don't understand what human rights are. You think that the iraqis are victims of america, they are not, they are the victims of islamic sectarian violence and of the saddam regeme, and your link you provide just proves this.

The United Nations is slowing losing its importance in the world. It was ok when America and Europe was in control because they understand what human rights are. It has gotten to the point in the UN where countries in the middle east and east asia can have influence over decisions, these same places which do not understand or respect human rights.

Let me put it in black and white for you. There are the good guys and there are the bad guys. The good guys want freedom and human rights for everyone. The Bad guys are the ones who don't, they use whatever means they can to stop the good guys from doing this. Put that into the context of geopolitics, are you a good guy or bad guy barbarian?

Iraq democracy, a peaceful and lasting solution to Iraq, enjoy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12047721

barbarian
21-12-10, 23:36
You don't understand my perspective because its been clear in my other discussions with you, you don't understand what human rights are. You think that the iraqis are victims of america, they are not, they are the victims of islamic sectarian violence and of the saddam regeme, and your link you provide just proves this.

The United Nations is slowing losing its importance in the world. It was ok when America and Europe was in control because they understand what human rights are. It has gotten to the point in the UN where countries in the middle east and east asia can have influence over decisions, these same places which do not understand or respect human rights.

Let me put it in black and white for you. There are the good guys and there are the bad guys. The good guys want freedom and human rights for everyone. The Bad guys are the ones who don't, they use whatever means they can to stop the good guys from doing this. Put that into the context of geopolitics, are you a good guy or bad guy barbarian?

Iraq democracy, a peaceful and lasting solution to Iraq, enjoy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12047721

so, as a son of a country who created democracy, you prefer US desicion over common desicion of countries. as a barbarian i dont. and i am not bad guy.

barbarian
21-12-10, 23:40
Why does Erdogan want to join the Fourth Reich then? :rolleyes2::rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
Or is it Turkey's "next level"?

although erdogan do not want to join EU, at least half of the country wants to join EU. because they think they will have better standards.

you must think about "why US wants turkey join EU desparately"

Elias2
22-12-10, 00:00
so, as a son of a country who created democracy, you prefer US desicion over common desicion of countries. as a barbarian i dont. and i am not bad guy.

Um, its precily that that I side with the United States. These dictators and islamic fundmentalists are 100% against democracy. I think you like the concept of democracy more than dictatorship, you said you were a good guy, so you should be happy Iraq is moving foward. There was a high price to pay, there always is for freedoms, Greeks back in the 1820`s can attest to that ;)

Elias2
22-12-10, 00:07
although erdogan do not want to join EU, at least half of the country wants to join EU. because they think they will have better standards.

you must think about "why US wants turkey join EU desparately"

That's an easy question to answer, so Turkey doesn't align itself with other asian powers like Iran, china, Russia. American and british diplomats already said this in interviews, it's not a secret.

barbarian
22-12-10, 00:41
That's an easy question to answer, so Turkey doesn't align itself with other asian powers like Iran, china, Russia. American and british diplomats already said this in interviews, it's not a secret.
US do not divide iraq because of turkey. they want to put us in EU to prevent we align with asians. if we are such an important country why EU doesnt want turkey. because turkey everytime obeys what US wants. and EU doesnot want to give a powerfull position in EU to "little US". tha is also you can hear from diplomats.

Turkey can never align with china or russia, because turkish people hated communism (it was a US proboganda during cold war). and for this reason they are still our natural competitors. iran is too radical even for turkey.

barbarian
22-12-10, 00:44
you said you were a good guy, so you should be happy Iraq is moving foward.

:confused2:

i guess you said all and i did so. so, see you in another topic.:rolleyes2:

Reinaert
22-12-10, 21:27
Um, its precily that that I side with the United States. These dictators and islamic fundmentalists are 100% against democracy. I think you like the concept of democracy more than dictatorship, you said you were a good guy, so you should be happy Iraq is moving foward. There was a high price to pay, there always is for freedoms, Greeks back in the 1820`s can attest to that ;)

You still don't get it!!'
Dictators in a lot of countries were/are put into their position by the British and/or American secret services.
A dictator is easy to deal with. The problem arises, when a dictator gets smart, and no longer wants to be used as a puppet by the Brits and/or Americans.
Just like Saddam Hussein. Then he get's the blame for all the shit in the country, caused by Al Qaeda, a group of CIA agents that take care of a pretext for war.

The Bush and Bin Laden dynasties had common interests.
It's not very difficult to add things up.

BTW.. Barbarian.. The real reason why Europeans can't accept Turkey being member of the EU is that Turkey doesn't admit the genocide on Armenians and also Greeks.
It's as simple as that.

And the British fooled your people in the Krim war.
The British attacked Gallipoli during WWI just for the same reason.
They wanted to control the Russian fleet, and Turks and Australians died for that.
It was a second version of the battle of Troy.

How stupid!

barbarian
24-12-10, 00:09
....

BTW.. Barbarian.. The real reason why Europeans can't accept Turkey being member of the EU is that Turkey doesn't admit the genocide on Armenians and also Greeks.
It's as simple as that.

And the British fooled your people in the Krim war.
The British attacked Gallipoli during WWI just for the same reason.
They wanted to control the Russian fleet, and Turks and Australians died for that.
It was a second version of the battle of Troy.

How stupid!

i dont think eu care about genocide too much. may be cyprus can be a good reason. because it has a political meaning, while armenia stuff is history. i believe eu care about economy, political stability or toughness and culturel commons which are disadvantages for turkey.

additionally, turkey cannot share its hegemony inside the country which is a characteristic barrier for turkey, if eu would even let in turkey in to the community.

can you explain greece genocide, never heard about it?

i also did not get "
And the British fooled your people in the Krim war.
The British attacked Gallipoli during WWI just for the same reason."

this part. although i know that kirim war was a stick by GB.

Minty
03-01-11, 01:58
i dont think eu care about genocide too much. may be cyprus can be a good reason. because it has a political meaning, while armenia stuff is history. i believe eu care about economy, political stability or toughness and culturel commons which are disadvantages for turkey.

additionally, turkey cannot share its hegemony inside the country which is a characteristic barrier for turkey, if eu would even let in turkey in to the community.



I think for the EU their biggest concerns would be the fact that Turkey is a muslim country and it is right next to Iran.

Nobody cares about genocides except there is petrol, look at the Bosnian war, the Rwanda Genocide, perfect examples! Sad really!

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 16:24
Illegal Aggression. Send Bush and Cheney to The Hague for war crimes, crimes against humanity and severe human rights violations, in particular torture. Same applies to others involved in the joint criminal enterprise, that is, Rumsfeld, Blair, Geoff Hoon et cetera.

Reinaert
18-07-11, 19:33
Illegal agression!

NATO is a defense treaty between the USA, Canada and a lot of European countries.
It's a defense treaty! Not an offensive one!

Some leaders like Bush and Blair abused the treaty by portraying an idiotic attack on the WTC and the Pentagon as an attack on the USA. Until today we still don't have the answers how that could happen!

You don't believe it!
Egyptians and Saudies walking across the USA, study to fly a crop duster, and then know how to fly a Boeing?
Even in a bad C movie, they wouldn't come up with such a scenario. Too bloody ridiculous!

I know however, that some high ranking American military brass was pissed because Saddam Hussein burnt a lot of oil wells.
That was the reason why Dubya had to go for it. An order from his father.
And he did it so clumsy that he will be the dumbest jackass in history.

Antigone
19-07-11, 06:38
I agree, it was an unprovoked attack by the "coalition of the willing" on a sovereign state, therefore illegal. Imo, the invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal.

Although, I don't think oil was the reason, just a fortunate conincidence that it is there. The main reason for both invasions was to isolate Iran.

iapetoc
19-07-11, 10:04
I agree, it was an unprovoked attack by the "coalition of the willing" on a sovereign state, therefore illegal. Imo, the invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal.

Although, I don't think oil was the reason, just a fortunate conincidence that it is there. The main reason for both invasions was to isolate Iran.

hmmm interesting,

so they have army in both east and west of persia, afganistn and iraque, and offcourse the naval forces in India ocean,
iran claims of a nuclear projects, hmmm.

comparing with modern Syria and Libya, where civil wars are in loose, but not an action is going on......

Reinaert
19-07-11, 10:48
It's a simple strategic plan. USA wants a stronghold in the Middle East.
Think of any bizarre excuse. WHAMMM!

That's what happened.
I guess their are American basis in Iraq now, stuffed with sensors and weapons to keep the fuzzy wuzzies out.
Some giant airbase. Always comes in handy for the CIA.

The same works for Afghanistan.
Pay some local warlord, and you can set up the same.
Hmm.. Only the logistics.. Tough nut to crack..
Hmm.. Let's see.. Do we have friends there?
....... Errr.. No Mr. President...

Ok, let's talk with the Taliban... :startled:

Antigone
20-07-11, 06:31
hmmm interesting,

so they have army in both east and west of persia, afganistn and iraque, and offcourse the naval forces in India ocean,
iran claims of a nuclear projects, hmmm.......

Yes, it explains why Iran is going nuclear, understandably (and quite rightly) they are feeling very threatened right now. And the explanation that Iran is going to "wipe Israel off the map" is typical US fear mongering and BS, the same tactic was used when it was alleged that Saddam could strike Europe in 45mins.

seemann
01-08-11, 15:19
In my opinion, it was illegal because the UN did not accept it and approve of it...

I think Kofi Annan is a wise man... :wave:

Ok- then- what about the bombing of Yugoslavia? Wasn't supported in UN and- will ever somebody end up in the War Criminal Court in Den Haag for that?

seemann
01-08-11, 15:34
I didn't vote in this poll because I am not sure whether this war is legal or not, but I am happy for the Iraqi people today. They are allowed to vote for their own government! Oversea Iraqis can have a say too. This morning there're over a thousand Iraqis in Ontario have already casted their vote in the ballots.

Oh, my naive and innocent countryman! ... :rolleyes2:
Today... After over a million deaths in Iraq...
The other day I saw a car here in Toronto with NY plates and the sticker on it:

"Be good to America or we'll bring democracy to your country"...

seemann
01-08-11, 15:38
The Dutch didn't have such a fascist regime like the British.
In fact, the Dutch didn't have colonies.
What you mention are parts of the same Kingdom.
The Dutch couldn't even settle in the overseas areas.

Only if they got a job offered by the VOC or WIC.

And, a lot of Germans worked for the VOC too..
So.. Pot kettle black.. :grin:

The Dutch from the beginning had only a few trading posts, a fortress and some farming for supplying the ships. That was the case in Kaapstad (South Africa) and Batavia (Djakarta Indonesia).

While the Dutch traded and bargained with the local aristocracy, the British started to conquer entire areas for mining purposes.
Gold, diamonds, oil.

Of course the Dutch started to follow the same policy like the British, but that was after 1830.

Apartheid is a Dutch word, but it was brought to South Africa by the British.
The British invented the concentration camps. Not the German Nazi's.
Those camps were used to get the Dutch Boers under control by arresting them by the thousands.
The same trick they used in Malaya to suppress left wing independence fighters after ww2.

And then we have the numerous other countries where the British rampaged.

And I don't hate them.
I just don't like they steal, and always talk like they are Santaclaus.

The British and Americans would be more sympathetic to me if they just admitted they were assholes.

You can be the strongest nation in the world, but stop whining about good intentions. Is that so difficult?

BTW..
The Dutch even respected the local languages in Indonesia.
The Dutch learned to speak Indonesian.

And another thing.. Sukarno, the first President of Indonesia, studied in The Netherlands, and was a very good lawyer. He was a bright man, I consider him in the same group of influential people like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

My dear friend,
Dutch invented first concentration camps in the world (in South Africa)...
You should speak with some of the First Nations here in Canada- Dutch were the ones who were twisting the testicles of young First Nation's boys in order to prevent their "multiplying"...
Who was worse in the past- Dutch or British- it's a dead race...

Reinaert
01-08-11, 16:38
My dear friend,
Dutch invented first concentration camps in the world (in South Africa)...
You should speak with some of the First Nations here in Canada- Dutch were the ones who were twisting the testicles of young First Nation's boys in order to prevent their "multiplying"...
Who was worse in the past- Dutch or British- it's a dead race...

That is BS!

The British invented those concentration camps in South Africa, because they couldn't defeat the Boers!
So they took their women and children and put them in concentration camps.

You simply fall for English propaganda.

And screwing the balls of young American natives?
It's ridiculous! The Dutch nearly survived.
In fact the Dutch adventure in America was a plain disaster!

You simply fall for English propaganda.

Another account of Canek?

sparkey
01-08-11, 18:05
Something that I didn't see pointed out upon skimming this thread (I could have missed it): the Iraq War was essentially illegal under the United States' own laws. The idea that the war was commenced by unconstitutional means was basically rejected by the US First Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush, although they didn't actually rule, they just rejected the authority of the judiciary to address the case because Congress and the President weren't actually in disagreement. I think that under an actual (just and fair) trial of the commencement of the Iraq War would prove it to be illegal.

The precedent of requiring the Congress and not the President to declare preemptive war (as opposed to react to attacks, which is authorized to the President) was established as early as 1787 during the Madison Debates.


Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."
On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md.
ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.


Yet the only thing that the Congress passed with respect to the Iraq War was the Iraq Resolution, which was a resolution of support and encouragement for the President's actions, not a declaration of war. The President commenced the war without a Congressional declaration. That is illegal.

The same thing happened for Afghanistan and Libya (except President Obama, not Bush, was the one who commenced war with Gaddafi). And Libya may be especially egregious, because it's not clear that the Congress would have declared war if Obama had requested it.

Reinaert
01-08-11, 18:26
Some old noob drew first blood.

The intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and also Libya are illegal.

The cynicism of the leaders is, to only operate against tyrants if the country has important assets.
Syria has none but fruits, and so they let the people over there shot to pieces.

JamesWalker
10-07-13, 16:29
Completely ilegal!

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 23:55
What did america do poorly in the iraq war.

we took done sadam a dictator who was oppressing his people and a threat to the world(does not matter if he did not have wepons of mass destruction)

we tried to help everyday iraqis from terrorist who are constintley killing them.

people make up myths we tried to take oil

the media puts a negative idea of the Iraq war in our minds. God bless the brave american solder's who kicked Iraqi butt they did the right thing don't any of u dare criticize them. America was built on justice, equal rights(even though it was where not given to non whites for a while), and fair government. we where built to not make the mistakes of evil monarchs oin Europe and basically what all human leaders have been like.

We attempted to safe the south Vietnamese from evil communist. We freakin destroyed the north veitmanese we had tougher and smarter soldiers. i get sick of it when media and movies make it seem like our soldiers lost the war our government lost the war. American soldeiers killed many more north veitmanese than they killed us we won nearly every major battle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties)

I Think americas instict to help south veitnam was good but we could not invade because it would start world war 3. So what was the use of hoing in it is hard to watch inccoent people being conquered but sending in our army in my opinon would just cause more deaths including american deaths. If i was put in 1963 i would defintkey say the war is just but then i would realize we cant win because it would cause world war 3.

the Vietnam war brought anti american feelings in our country and Europe which it should not have. now hippies lead our country and control or media it sickens me how biased they are. Before the Vietnam war Americans where much more patriotic and have u noticed america has gone down since the 60's most lil;ey because america became less patriotic and much more libearl. many socail changes in the 60's where good but some where extreme. i think america will come back and see the good and bad from the 60's and in the next decades come back as a more unified and powerful country.

Hopfully Europe will back us up the next time we want to help the world. pretty soon there will be a iran war and i am pretty sure i will sign up for the army at that time if i am old enough. THe world need to realize the western world is are the bad guys anymore it is the muslim extremist who rule the muslim world, communist)including russia, gangs, african dictators.

the good guys are europe(not counting russia) and America.

LeBrok
19-07-13, 17:25
There won't be war in Iran (except perhaps strategic bombings). There is no money for it in US budget, just big pile of debt.
One or two trillion dollars are needed for a war, if the war is similar to Iraq's war.

Fire Haired
20-07-13, 23:43
There won't be war in Iran (except perhaps strategic bombings). There is no money for it in US budget, just big pile of debt.
One or two trillion dollars are needed for a war, if the war is similar to Iraq's war.

If Iran gets a nuke that is one of the worst things that can happen. They say they want to kill all jews u know they want to kill all Americans. Why do u think russia is helping them get a nuke i dont think russia is any better than the soviet union when it comes to american relations and saftey. We need to stop iran fro getting a nuke no matter what i say Europe should help us. There are some rich and strong militaries in Europe if they help us we can spread out the money issues. This is about the survival of humans we can not let Iran get nukes.

Right now we are in a waore situation than in the cold war. Russia is defintley not a better ally they might lie and trade with us and stuff but their military is just as ready to blow us up as they where in the 1960's. U know that north korea is radical and say they will destroy america they are actulley speaking for China, Russia, and the Muslim world. China is north Korea big brother North Korea why do u think China trys to hack into our military systems yet Americans still see them as a okay country. Russia i think is in with them too and i am sure they cooruperate with the muslim world.

the Comunist(including Russia) and the Muslims are planning to destroy the western world. They have no good reason to hate us maybe it is because our governments where made for justice and equal rights unlike their's. and all we try to do is help them. right now america is in the most dangerous situation but it seems most dont know it.

we have a president making race issues with the whole zimmerman thing when there is absoultly no race issue with Zimmerman just people are accusing him of being raciest. Obama is a joke in my opinion i don't know that much about economics but when it comes down to a good guy he is a -5. Why the heck is he making a race issue it sickens me. Obama has a dark side that the media hides he really gets on my nerves.'

people like Obama and our liberal media want us to think it is the western world that is the bad guy. They are trying to completely change the western world socially. We need to wake up and realize where not the bad guys it is the muslim world and communist.

LeBrok
21-07-13, 00:31
If Iran gets a nuke that is one of the worst things that can happen. They say they want to kill all jews u know they want to kill all Americans. Why do u think russia is helping them get a nuke i dont think russia is any better than the soviet union when it comes to american relations and saftey. We need to stop iran fro getting a nuke no matter what i say Europe should help us. There are some rich and strong militaries in Europe if they help us we can spread out the money issues. This is about the survival of humans we can not let Iran get nukes.
North Korea got nukes and nobody did nothing. Now South Korea lives in nuclear shadow, and S Korea is a big friend of US.
Besides, there is no money for war, and priority for US is to fix economy anyway.

Fire Haired
21-07-13, 00:56
North Korea got nukes and nobody did nothing. Now South Korea lives in nuclear shadow, and S Korea is a big friend of US.
Besides, there is no money for war, and priority for US is to fix economy anyway.

Iran is diff radical terrioist can get nukes form the Iranian government and they will bomb people. We know that Muslim governments in the mid east are friendly towards terriost when both of them want the same goal which is destroy america. We should have stopped north Korea in my opinion why let iran get a nuke that is terrible no matter what. We have the power and yes we do have the money and if Europe helps that would be even better we need to stop Iran. Hopfully isreal does if our government chooses not too.

tivali
05-11-17, 12:18
The Iraqi government was complying with UN demands about stopping any work on developing nuclear weapons, and UN inspectors attested to their compliance. At a certain point, however, it became apparent that the US administration was only using compliance as an excuse to attack Iraq, and it was a mere fig leaf to cover Bush’s decisions to invade. Bush and his supporters have since made great efforts to shift blame to faulty US inteligence agencies, but they are only a scape goat. The true source of the unjust invasion was Bush and his top advisiors.

Wheal
12-11-17, 16:13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

I do not like war. I do not like unnecessary loss of life. You have to remember, that even the intelligence agencies thought there were WMD's. Of course the question is, why should a country pay for the actions of a group of terrorists.

Salzburg
08-07-19, 14:36
Every war is illegal. The americans make it look legal

Joker
08-07-19, 14:48
Depends on one's perspective.

No more illegal than China's occupation and barbaric subjugation of Tibet.
But of course China is a Communist nation, and it's far from hip and trendy for leftists to criticize them.
Not a in thing to do on a college campus.

Was the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the occupation of the North illegal?
Never hear a peep from the usual "human rights" advocates on this one, either...

Angela
08-07-19, 15:44
Imo, to say every war is illegal is an exaggeration.

What about when one's country is attacked? Germany invaded country after country in the late thirties and early forties, with the expressed intention of conquering perhaps not only all of Europe but beyond? Was England wrong to declare war on Germany? Was America wrong to declare war on Germany?

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. They, like the Germans, wanted to expand their empire. In their case they wanted to conquer all of East and Southeast Asia and on into India if possible. Their biggest competitor for raw materials in the East was the U.S., and so they believed eventually the U.S. might get involved. Therefore, they bombed Hawaii where most of our Pacific fleet and aircraft were located. Was the U.S. wrong to declare war on Japan?

What about wars for independence? Was the U.S., and Mexico and all the South American countries wrong to go to war against England and Spain. Were they wrong not to want to be ruled any longer by extremely distant countries who wanted only cheap raw materials from them and a place to dump their goods, and also taxed the hell out of them for doing absolutely nothing for them?

Wanderer
20-07-19, 17:40
Illegal and never weapons of mass destruction

Joey37
20-07-19, 18:56
There is no such thing as an illegal war, that's a leftist fantasy. Wars are either wrong or right, and this one was wrong. I opposed wars in Libya and Syria because of what happened in Iraq, removing a secular regime for a weak multiparty democracy or Islamist state, or both, for a civil war on top. The only justified war in the Middle East was the one we didn't do, in 1979, and now look where that got us.

brittney.smith
21-07-19, 11:22
yeah, illegal, the US invaded the place without support from UN, NAT(T)O, or me so its bad (im in a hurry)... I loved Annan's responce, it was so good: you could just see he new his answer would start a big ass argument, but he was ready for it...

bigsnake49
21-07-19, 15:35
The first Iraq war was justified, the second one, not! The second one was prompted by the neocons' desire to eliminate a thorn on the side of Israel. While I approve giving Israel military aid, I do not want to fight their wars for them. We are about to enter another one unjustified war to eliminate another thorn on their side.