Thread: The War on Iraq
06-17-2003, 09:29 AM #1
The War on Iraq
Very interesting read
06-17-2003, 09:40 AM #2
Good read, but it is obviously written by a person very biased against the admininstration or the war.
06-17-2003, 09:55 AM #3
Regardless of what the reporters beliefs are, this is simply a report based on factual evidence. I just find the amount of ignorance towards what happened and why, baffling!
Don't get me wrong, the men and woman who served were brave and deserve to be treated like heros for putting their life on the line. Even though th entire reason for the war may or may not have been fabricated (WMD) I'm EXSTATIC that Saddam is gone, he was an evil tyrant who perpetrsted unbelievable acts of cruelty on his people all in the name of money and ego.
06-17-2003, 10:02 AM #4
I agree wholeheartedly with you Pete. Personally, I believe that we did not need the WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq as there were so many violations of UN treaties. However, it is undisputed that Iraq had WMD; we just don't know what happened to them. Syria possibly? My point in the previous post was that the bias of the article takes away from the legitimacy of the polls, IMO. If it was less biased, I would be less inclined to doubt that the results have been skewed to favor a particular position on the administration.
06-17-2003, 01:56 PM #5AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
Before the war, the U.S. media often reported as a fact the assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illegal weapons.
That "assertion" was made repeatedly by the UN while Clinton was in office - does anyone remember that he bombed Iraq for that very reason? The fact that they had illegal WMD no one was in serious doubt - the russians and the french sold them the technology and the raw materials (and oops we did too at one time). Now what has happened to them since is a very good question.
The article does point out well the discrepancy of what is the public attention span - people can remember who hit 3 runs in a world series 20 yrs ago but dont have any idea of what events are happening in the world that will effect milions of people, including themselves
06-17-2003, 04:24 PM #6
Pete hit the nail on the head with one word, "Ignorance." The bottom line is America is the land of ignorance and over the top patriotism. Now I'm sure some war mongering fascist might now call me Anti - American, but thats not exactly an insult. Seemingly the only ones dubbed that term just so happen to be the only ones who are informed.
As for these weapons of mass destruction. In 1982 the US provided billions in aid to Sadam for weapons to attack Iran in 1982 and 19883, and in 1990 we gave Sadam weapons to invade Kuwait. Now in 1991 we were at war with Iraq and annihilated the country by flying 110,000 aerial sorties and dropping 88,000 tons of explosives in 42 days. This and the ground war killed at least 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians. Iraq responded with 58 Scud missiles, and U.S. forces lost only 148 personnel, one-third from friendly fire. Iraq was hardly a threat a decade ago and now with a weakened army and no weapons how can anyone seriously consider Iraq a threat today.
We are told time and time again that Iraq is dangerous and that
U.S. strategy aims at forcing Saddam Hussein to abide by United Nations resolutions and allow UNSCOM agents "unfettered access" to sites where Iraq can manufacture chemical and biological weapons. First of all, the charge is always put like a lawyer would put it, so you have to look at their words carefully. Iraq is said to have the "capacity" or the "ability" to make weapons. The weapons are "suspected." Or that Iraq has materials that could have a "dual use." They use the charge that such weapons canít be found against Iraq, rather than concluding the obvious, that such weapons donít exist. Former UNSCOM inspector Raymond Zalinskas admitted to National Public Radio that UN inspectors had already seen all reasonable weapons sites and had destroyed whatever potential existed. Only by killing all the Iraqi scientists, he said, could the U.S. do more. So itís all a ruse, used to cloak Washington's real aims in the Persian/Arabian Gulf.
Basically the only reason we have any involvement in Iraq is quite simple. Iraq's territory contains one-tenth of the earth's known oil reserves, some 100 billion barrels. Mobil, Exxon, Texaco and Shell, which are headquartered in the U.S. and Britain, want unfettered access to this oil so they can monopolize the vast profits made from pumping, delivering and refining this natural resource. Washington is merely working on behalf of Big Oil, which wants to replace the Iraqi government with a compliant puppet regime that will open the gates wide to fabulous profit.
06-17-2003, 06:45 PM #7AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
while oil is certainly a motivator - the "one big happy world" believers on the left allow themselves to be deluded into missing several of the other far more important reasons:
1. We now have a pwerful (and very threatening) presence in the ME - which stands everyone on notice - Iran, Syria, etc. that it would be bad to F with us
2. We relieve pressure by removing some troops from Saudi - part of the big gripe against the US.
3. send the fine message to other dictators that "regime change" is in.
4. send the message to all governments that hiding terrorists is a bad idea since the US will follow up and come get them if need be.
5. Stabilize the middle east - Saddam on the prowl made our allies nervous and less willing to comply to US needs
and basically - while everyone bitches about the "Imperial US", like the policeman - just imagine what would happen if he wasnt there and capable and willing to KILL wrongdoers
06-17-2003, 07:05 PM #8
Here here Cyc.
06-17-2003, 09:11 PM #9
Well I'm not a liberal, or conservative for that matter and if you see oil as merely just a motivating factor you're missing the obvious.
As for your reasons: I think monopolize would be a better word than stabilize. Your correct we do have a threatning presence in the Mid East, that is one of the problems. WE DO NOT BELONG THERE! The U.S. is the bully in the region, with its aircraft carriers, military bases, and so on. The U.S. is widely seen to be attempting to recolonize Iraq. With the exception of Kuwait, now completely dependent on the United States, no Gulf regime will publicly back a U.S. attack on Iraq. This refusal is only a pale shadow of the hatred the masses of people in the region have for Pentagon bullying of the Iraqi people. Even Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, who is completely dependent on billions of dollars in U.S. aid warned the U.S. government that if it attacked Iraq this would destabilize other countries in the region by arousing mass protests. And Iran, which fought Iraq in a war from 1980-1988, has opposed U.S. military moves in the Gulf. That in itself speaks volumes on how the people of the Gulf region see the United States and the Pentagon as the real bullies. As for terrorists I guess they're not top priority. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 last time I checked. What happened to the great hunt for Bin Laden? You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you're not like these idiots who believe he is hiding in some secret cave. Fact is he has been on dialysis for nearly two years and is on TV what seems like once a week. So unless he has some modern Afghani type bat lair I'm pretty certain we know exactly where and what city/palace he is in and we are doing nothing about it.
06-17-2003, 09:39 PM #10Originally posted by sigrabbit
Personally, I believe that we did not need the WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq as there were so many violations of UN treaties...
06-17-2003, 09:59 PM #11AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
I see oil as a motivating factor and it would not be the first time that a nation went to war to protect economic interests. I personally do not have a problem with that.
But oil was only a desert, not the main course - primary reason is because yes, we need to be a "bully" over there - again, I have no trouble with that - America will never be safe by building more walls around itself - there is no fortress that is long impregnable - the only solution is to eliminate your enemy -
and no, that doesnt mean "reason" with him - where diplomacy is viable, a solution should certainly be mediated - but those who have no interest in negotiation must be exterminated - is that nice? no - but it is our gov's job to protect our families and people and the arabs made a BIG mistake by allowing Osama and freinds to piss us off
- just think, without 9/11 we would be arguing about the deficit, the economy and healthcare - but dont blame the dragon when you piss on him and he arises and wreaks wrath and destruction on your head - blame those who woke him.
06-17-2003, 10:32 PM #12
SD11..Although I do not want to turn this into any type of heated disagreement, I do have very strong feelings on the topic at hand.
As Cycleon stated, oil interests are definitely a motivating factor for our presence. But do you really think that is the only reason we are there? Saddam has harbored, organized, and funded terrrorism for many, many years and continued to support terroristic efforts until we launched the most recent assualt on him. The man is a barbarian and has committed genocide on his own people for decades. I have seen this with my own two eyes.
I was a young Infantry Marine during the Gulf War and saw atrocities that are unspeakable. He needed to be taken out of power back then and wasn't. Now, after 10 years we have an administration that is willing to take that extra step and remove him and his regime. Until you have seen men, women, and children slaughtered for no reason other than as a means for him to display his dominance and brutality, you should spend a little more time researching why we are attempting to take him out of power.
Yes, we are the big, bad U.S, and many people in this world do not particularly care for us. We are able to enjoy the comforts that we do because we involve ourselves in issues that always don't seem to make sense to most people. It is our responsibility as one of the only TRUE Super Powers left to stick up for the people that don't have the means to do so on their own.
The oil is just a part of the puzzle and unfortunately so many people want to believe that is the only reason we are involving ourselves in Iraq. And yes, we have directly linked Iraq to providing funds that were used in the planning of 9/11. If you don't believe Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other small countries in the region are not threats, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. In fact, I have a suggestion for you. Buy a plane ticket and fly over to the region and see just how well you are received. It won't be pleasant. Three years ago I went to the ME with Doctors without borders for 3 months and we were shot at, spit on, and generally harassed everywhere we wnet and we were there to provide medical assistance. The bottom line is these people, not all of them, but a small dedicated group, are very intent on harming US citizens and our interests.
06-17-2003, 10:34 PM #13
Cyc ... thats an honest assessment of what I see in Irak... and you know what? I agree and approve of taking actions based on that.
I just find the disinformation and political bullshit put out by the governmental propaganda machine such crap. How stupid do they think people are???
Whats wrong with saying "Look, XYZ country is threatening our economic interests, and it's time we put our foot down to make sure these people understand we are NOT to be messed with. Enough talk.
I'm sure had the government openly told the truth, I am sure they would have had just as much support from inside AND they would have had a LOT more support from the rest of the world.
Besides, knowing the USA and allies intelligence community (specially since 9-11) in the middle east, I have a VERY hard time believing their stories about weapons of mass dest, and come on... can't find Osama? Can't find Saddam? Gimme a break. I have no doubt they know exactly where they are, but they aren't stupid... a saddam or osama cowering somewhere is a lot easier to control than making a martyr of them (remember, most Islamic cultures respects and honours martyrs but has little tolerance for cowards)
I think a little honesty from our politicians and medias would go a long way... (yeah I know, I am dreaming! got better chances seeing the moon turn into cottage cheese!)
06-17-2003, 11:16 PM #14AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
Red - I am sad to say that people are pretty stupid - otherwise Al Sharpton wouldnt have a constituancy - and those who arent totally stupid are usually blissfully ignorant and wish to stay so - the moment a brave pol tells the truth, peole call him racist, a demogoge, etc. So of course, like in sales, they often feed people what they want to hear, to get done what must be done - very sad but completely the US public's fault - to some degree tho, it is a product of vietnam and watergate where the gov used to be more open about what they were doing because no one opposed it, now its quite different.
06-18-2003, 08:52 AM #15
after listening to all of this I figure Ill chime in. the WMD that we "know" he had. i have a problem with this. Bush claimed that he could use them in 45 minutes. both before and during the war as we closed on Baghdad. well where are they? 45 minutes means a few things: 1) they are ready. you arent gonna be mixing binary chemical in this amount of time. 2) they are weapinzed. you arent gonna be filling canisters in this time. 3) they are deployable. meaning at or near forces to use them. you arent gonna be digging them up. so where are they? destroyed not likely, we would have found the residue, or if not you need a large facilty. moved? if we are talking tons then you need a convoy of trucks heading to syria why didnt we bomb them? the likelyhood is that either a) the intelligence community lied (which reports indicate lower level operatives tried to give good data like saying the 45 minute estimate was not reliable) or b) Bush lied to justify the war in an expedieent manner which is impeachable. This aint lying over sex. People died cause of this decision. It comes down to this. If you believe that we should have taken him out, then lay the facts on the table and either take the heat for a decision or do what the people want. his political maneuvering was over the top.
next. as for taking him out becuase hes a bad dude and terrorism. the us supported him. also the us supported other terrorists , we just didnt call them that. how about the shah? how about the sandanistas? how about pinochet? (killed a million) How about indonesia? (who asked us to look the other way while they killed a million ethnic chinese. thats why we didnt even get involved in that spat over the island. even the aussies had to do something). how about mobutu sese seko of zaire? (killed about 1 million ethnic minorities) all these people we have given money, weapons, and support. we even listed the KLA at one time as terroists and delisted them specifically to support them. They who said it was they duty of every kosovar albanian to RAPE a serbian woman. the US does not do things to help others only to help ourselves .
but you know what.. Im cool with that. we should just take our heads out the sand and admit it. not try to act high and mighty. like Red ketchup says for econmics ok
with iraq. was it because of WMD. no. iran, syria, N. korea, israel... all have them and we don't invade. was it cause of terrorism. see the previous point. was it cause of trying to kill bush senior. well we tried to kill saddam during 91. was it cause he already gassed people. that was in the 80's and we approved. cheney even went to iraq and shook saddam's hand afterward to improve ties. was it cause of ignoring the UN. no Israel and N. Korea do it all the time. plain and simple it was likely: to send a message, oil, and to gain a better foothole on the reagion as the saudies are unreliable.
now before anyof you say I am just a peacenik hippy. I advocated that we should of annihilated saddam in '86? whem he blew up the USS Stark. Anybody remember that? then again I think if you shoot at our boats we should eliminate your navy. same thing for everybody. I dont' care if you are iraq or israel . both have shot at us naval vessels in international water and are only allies of convenience.
06-18-2003, 04:37 PM #16
I too don't want to turn this into a heated arguement and I hope I didn't come off confrontational in anyway. This is of course a very touchy subject and everyone has their own views on the matter at hand. Everyone is in fact entitled to their own opinion and regardless if I disagree with them or not I respect everyones views on the subject.
Doc M though I am of American descent and look entirely like an American I was actually born in Riyadh in 1981 while my parents were working in the field of international banking. I have also been back to the region on 2 separate occasions so I understand how Americans can be received at times. I would agrue however that it would be no different if the the sides were reversed. I don't know what type of community you live in, but where I live if 2 or 3 men of mid eastern descent in their typical dress walked down a street in my community they would get more than just harrased in most instances. The point is, perhaps I'm in harms way as an American in the Mid East, but I'm not nor is any other American in the type of danger our government claims. Countries like Iraq are only a threat to our economic interests. I will not talk anymore about oil, but however many pieces there are to this puzzle oil is by far the largest.
As far as the terrorist issue. The US has funded, installed, and backed numerous terrorist organizations and dictators. We have also over thrown countless democratically elected officials and installed dictators. For crying out loud we trained Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists in the early 80's to kill Soviets, they were provided with 3 billion dollars from the C.I.A. Even worse was the 245 million dollars in aid we provided to the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in 2001.
Now as for the genocide, I really don't feel like giving a history lecture, but if we were so concerned about genocide in other nations there are many many more worse case scenarios in the last half century than what occured in Iraq. If we indeed care that much about the Iraqi people why have we been bombing them on a weekly basis since 1991. I believe it is estimated that nearly 700,000 children have died as a result.
06-19-2003, 01:33 AM #17
Peace...through superior fire power.
06-19-2003, 12:25 PM #18
SD..So, since we obviously have different opinions on this matter, what do you think the US should do? Do we sit here in our self contained world and hope nothing bad happens? They aren't going to let that happen anymore just as 9/11 illustrated. As the only country that has the military, finanacial, and personnel capabilities as we do, I feel it is our responsibility to stick our noses into matters that don't always directly affect the US. Some agree, some disagree.
You are right, everyone shares a different idea of what we should be doing in the ME and abroad. Based on my personal experiences and things I have seen over the years, I have come to feel quite strongly about these a matters. Doesn't mean I am absolutely right.
And I could not dispute the facts that you stated above. The US did in fact provide funding to a lot of these radicals and their causes. But, from a military standpoint this action is a great way to manipulate and control these groups because without funding they are at a sticking point. In the case of Bin Laden it simply backfired on the US Govt. and there is no arguing that fact. And as far as the genocide issue, we have always gotten involved in these types of matters. Not always as public as it should have been, but we have intervened many times. In fact, we are attempting to intervene in North Korea and the crisis that is taking place over in that region. Once further international support is gathered, you can look for us to start applying great pressure to Kim Jong and his cronies.
Don't get me wrong and think I am saying that the US is always right. We're not! But I would rather see our nation involve itself in matters, whether they are human rights or economic, if it means protecting our way of life and our interests. Just my opinion.
Last edited by Doc M; 06-19-2003 at 01:52 PM.
06-19-2003, 01:26 PM #19
We have the power. We should use it. Not like we are overly abusing it. If any other country had our power, they would be using it too. Middle east is jacked up. Everyone turns to the US for help so we are helping.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)