Topic awaiting preservation: Are we really SO bad? (Page 2 of 2)

quote:

---

Do I think we've gotten what we deserved? What type of question is that?

---

The kind of question felt forced to ask based on your arguments. Maybe you should look at why I felt I needed to ask that question.

Secondly... We haven't gone after Iraq... yet. We're prepared to do what's necessary to stop Saddam from having these weapons he's purported to have. We (the US) stated as much. We don't want to go into this alone, but we will if we have to. It's a sacrifice we're willing to make to ensure that Saddam, a general who has blatently stated that he wants to attack and destroy us, has proven that he's willing to use weapons of mass destruction by his actions (i.e. USING weapons of mass destruction), doesn't have those weapons of mass destruction. It isn't a percieved threat, it IS a threat.

quote:

---

The effort the United States put into helping Japan become what it is today? We dropped two atomic weapons on a country to avoid sharing it with Russia and you view it a positive for the United States! You must think Hitler did wonders for the Jews ...

---

You have got to be kidding me. DO NOT mistake me for someone who eats their own rhetoric for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I'll leave that to you. Your relentless reaffirmation of your own point of view shows me that you refuse to listen. I choose to look at the world around me, filter the information given to me by the media, and understand what's going on rather than formulate half baked opinions that I reinforce by telling them to myself until they feel like the truth. Do you forget Pearl Harbor? Do you forget that those two bombs, as terrible an action as it was, STOPPED the war from killing millions more? No, I don't condone it. Yes, I understand that there are issues because of it. The US deals with it and so does Japan. I deal with it too and so does most everyone else, why don't you?

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

DL - I've acknowleged every post thats been posted towards me so far. Acknowledging something is different then argreeing with it. I'm well aware that there exists a very popular argument that other countries hate the United States because they're jealous of us. I've read many articles wheres its been questioned whether or not there even is a reason to the hatred towards the United States, whether its just because we're the most visable country. I acknowledge now, just as I have before, that these arguments exist. I've just never seen anyone when interviewed why the hate the United States say anything along the lines of "they're rich" or "just because". I've only watched US citizens and those very friendly to the United States make these claims. There are very real reasons why there is a low global opinion of the United States. Creating false reasons to make ourselves feel better do little but ensure that future attacks against the United States will continue.

Krets - I know plenty of what the United States has done for the Japanese. I'm also well aware of what the United States has done to them. I wish we did live in your dream world of countries forgiving others, but we don't. Things don't work this way which is precisely the reason we need to change our foreign policies.

GD - Have I made any false claims against the United States in any of my arguments above? Have I lied about the United States' actions? You made reference that my statements were unpatriotic. Specifically which ones and why do you believe so? Most importantly which portion of my argument made you believe I felt Sept. 11th to be justice?

I've listened loud and clear at your points GD. I've been accused several times of not acknowledging & ignoring you, but that hasn't been the case. You simply haven't put up a very compelling case. You claim that your views are from looking at the world around you. You filter information given to you by the media to understand whats going on. Prove your case. Cite specific information - and please take some consideration into your sources.

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 01-09-2003).]

Yes, but you see, what you say you acknowledge, isn't what was said.

=)

But like I said...walking in circles seems to be your thing. Latch on to that one argument with all you've got! Don't ever let common sense or ideas you hadn't thought of get in your way You the man...



There's never any point in discussing things with you, since all you ever want to do is argue to the death that you're right, no matter what the facts.

~Cue the snide, pointless, self righteous retort~

Acknowledging that someone has posted isn't equivalent to addressing what they said.

Why isn't it about forgivness? There doesn't seem to be any particular ire between Japan and the United States. Nor does the world at large seem to have issues with it anymore. It isn't brought up in arguments against the United States efforts in the world at all from my understanding. So how is it that the bombing of Japan is still an issue. The world has moved beyond that. Your like a parent or a girlfriend who brings up things you did three years ago in an argument. The past is the past. We can only try and be better in the future. While we may not have stated it explicitly, we've all agreed with you that the United States needs to modify its foreign policy. That much is obvious. What you haven't been listening to is that that won't help us wth the problems now. It MIGHT help us later, but it does little now. We can change our foreign policy, great. Now we still have to deal with the problems that are facing us now. To which it is becoming more evident is going to require a military solution.

As I said when I made that statement several posts above. Your shameless, repeated support of the hatred against the United States is what prompted me to question your patriotism. Believing that we didn't deserve it isn't the same thing as being proud that you're American. Its about having faith in the govermental system that is around us and trying to change it when it doesn't work the way you would like it too. AND if your changes don't happen either keep trying, shut up, or leave.

Never in my posts above have I said that you lied or were false. Never in my posts above did I say that I think other countries are jealous of us. All I stated was that that thought isn't born of ignorance. It's a thought that STILL stems from the cold war era and tends to be wrung out of people because it's been taught to them by their parents or grandparents. It isn't their reason... its their parents or grandparents reason. The same reasons why the people that hate us actually have no reasons of their own. It's their parents reasons or their grandparents reasons that are driving them.

Some of the things that the United States wants to do, the world doesn't like. Have you sat down and thought about whether of not we have a choice anymore? Do we have to wait for the worlds approval before we're allowed to remove threats against us? I find that to be a ridiculous thought. We need to be able to defend ourselves against threats we know are there. AND we need to trust that these threats are real as they are told to us by the president. That is what we did when we put him in office. We said, "I want you to take care of this country, for good or ill, while you are in office." And when he does something you don't like? You vote him out. It's rather simple. Do you have faith that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for this country, even though you don't agree with it? I do. I didn't even vote for him, but I have ot believe that about him or I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be an American if the American way of life didn't suit me. So again I ask you; Does the American way of doing things go against your beliefs so much? Have you tried to change it? Will you continue to try to change it if you fail? Will you have faith that the government is doing the best it can for the United States? Without these basic understanding you do't show a lot of patriotism in my eyes. You don't have to agree with the governemnt to be patriotic. You have to understand and use the system that's in place to try and change things to how you think they should be. patriotism is taking the freedoms that are granted you by the Constitution in both hands and using them to their fullest extent to make yourself heard as a citizen of this country. I haven't seen that yet. All I've seen is someone repeatedly stating that we are terrible and that these people are right in their hatred. While you have stated that the attacks on Sept. 11 weren't justified, I don't necessarily find that redeeming. Just as you don't find the good actions of the United States redeeming. If you really think that these things need to be changed, really want to avoid the war in Iraq, start lobbying against it. Start lobbying for changes to the US foreign policy. Which is really to say developing a US foreign policy. It is your right to do that.

Prove my case? I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm trying to do is get you to conceed that our point is true just as we've conceeded that your point is true. Your dogged hold on your point seems to be blinding you to the fact that some people can hate us for real reasons, and some people can hate us out of bigotry. They can both happen at the same time you know. The intent of this thread was to find out what the views of people around the world were towards America and why they felt that way. Until we have some concrete reasons that people don't like us we won't be able to try and repair the damage that has been done. I want to know where this angst against America comes from. Sure the action or inaction of America drives some of it, I just don't see that as being the only reason.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 01-09-2003).]

Want to know why they hate us? Read this.

This is how they see us...

I maintain, that there is a grave amount of mis-communication, and distrust, on both sides.

Thanks for the link, WS. I'm actually trying to get at the reasons for other peoples of the world having issues about us. I have been inundated by information on why the arabic countries have issues with us so, while the link was useful, it isn't the information I was looking for. Thanks again though.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

May I?
I have no interest in getting into a debate right now, but I'd be happy to share with you the world as I see it.

There are people in the world who hate the US and there are people in the world that love the US. Sometimes those people are the same people, at different times. A lot of these people have very legitimate bitches and very legitimate praise. Some of these also have very unlegitimate bitches and unlegitimate praise.

As I understand it, the people who hate us do so for, lets say, 4 different reasons. Some may break it up differently...let 'em write their own essay.

Reason #1 - We talk about democracy and freedom and, through our foreign policy, encourage brutal dictatorships.
Hondorus
Nicaragua
Chile
El Salvador
Argentina
Guatamala
Indonesia in East Timor
Aparteid in South Africa
Columbia
and some additional documents, just for good measure

I've purposely left off Middle East references. I hope I understand what it is you are looking for.

Reason #2 - Our armies occupy many many nations. Imagine a foreign soldier walking in to your corner bar or supermarket. This could not possibly make you happy. At best, if you were the owner of the establishment, you would feel a mild hostile tolerance...they are paying you.
I understand that most, a huge majority, of our soldiers, sailors and pilots are just regular Joes and Janes trying to do a job as good and as respectfully as they possibly can. That being said, in any large group there are ass holes -- rude, beligerent pricks who occasianally go out to get into trouble, wherever they are. They would get into trouble, in a fight, or in jail anywhere in the world...they just happen to be in a place that doesn't like them straight away. Of course those stories get all the press.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong or anything...except easy to understand it the tables were turned. Just ask Suho or Webshaman or any of our other US expatriates.

Reason #3 - We are economically and militarily strong, and we often use our power to bully other nations when it is beneficial to us.
Not unlike the Opium Wars...it is a continuation of that same kind of policy. We force tobacco on Indonesia, this series of documents on NAFTA is enlightening, sweatshops in China, maquiladoras in Mexico.

Combine that with not signing key treaties like Kyoto or the Rights of the Child. Add to that not paying UN dues and then dismissing international law (read here, here, and here) when it is convienant. It's no wonder a lot of the world doesn't consider the US to be a global partner.

Reason #4 - American/Western secular commericalism is spreading rapidly. Our own ultra-conservatives are pissed off about it. Other countries' ultra-conservatives are doubly pissed off about it. That's just the way it goes.

That's how I see it. Each of those reasons could have been accompanied by many more links and even more newspaper articles, magazines, books, etc. I gave you plenty of reading to do. If you want more, just ask. I'm always happy to share.

I hope this answers your question...or, at least sends you in the right direction toward answering your questions.
Good day
mobrul



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 01-13-2003).]

Hmm...these here are excepts from what is broadcast on TV

quote:

---

. Palestinian Television- Friday Sermon
Sheikh 'Iljin Mosque, Gaza
October 4, 2002
Sheik Ahmad Abd Al-Razek

Worshippers of Allah: This journey [of the Prophet Muhammad, from Mecca to Jerusalem] guides us and causes us to scrupulously defend Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, and urges all the countries of the Arab world and all the Islamic countries to sharply reject and condemn what Bush has done, this crazy man, who with his signature cancelled the UN [resolution] stating that Jerusalem is an occupied city and that the occupied territories must be returned to their owners and that the city of Jerusalem is an occupied city, and what applies to Jerusalem as well, but what he cancelled with that decision and said that Jerusalem is united and it is the capital of the Jews contradicts all the international norms, all the moral standards in the world. I call on the Muslims, Christians, and free men in the world to stand against this oppressing decision. This is an oppressing decision, and it must not be made exclusively by a crazy man who will, with the stroke of a pen, give the Jews a city that does not belong to the Jews. Allah, avenge us and do not take vengeance upon us. Allah, wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans.

II. Qatari Television- Friday Sermon
Qatar
November 1, 2002
Sheikh Yousef Al-Qardhawi

There is no alternative to continuing the path of the boycott, which we have called to implement, a boycott of Zionist and American goods. There is no alternative to continuing with it, and not despairing. It amazes me how children monitor their fathers and mothers, saying: "No, my father, no, my mother, these are American goods..." There is no alternative to continuing our boycott. This is a subject from which there is no escape, and it is reeducating the nation. This issue is not only economic; the issue is economic, moral, psychological, educational, and political. Thus, I call on the sons of this nation. Allah, bring us the victory over your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Thus, I call on the sons of this nation. Allah, bring us the victory over your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Allah, remove their trap from us, weaken them, eradicate their countries and banish their regimes from your land. Do not let them reach any of your believers. Allah, deal with the aggressive and treacherous Jews. Allah, deal with the aggressive Americans. Allah, deal with the extremist pagans. Allah, deal with the oppressing Crusaders.

III. Iraqi Television- Friday Sermon,
Um Al-Ma'arek (Mother of All Wars) Mosque, Baghdad
October 18, 2002
Sheikh Bakr Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Samarai

The Iraqi leadership and people, as one man, held this forceful position, with worthy determination, and brought to the knowledge of everyone new garments with which the Jews and the Crusaders covered themselves, [garments] whose color is like the color of the chameleon, in American, British, and loathsome Zionist colors, [those] sons of apes and pigs, upon whom is [Allah's] wrath, as mentioned in the Koran and who are accursed everywhere. Know that the Jihad exits within us, against all the enemies in every place and every time, until they stop their corruption and greed? Oh brothers! Oh Muslims! The danger is imminent. This spark that Bush and the British Prime Minister and Ariel Sharon and their supporters have ignited - is war on Islam, which targets not only Iraq and Palestine but the Arabs and Muslims and every honorable nation that takes pride in its sovereignty, its freedom, and its independence. Oh brothers! The criminal declared that the land of Al-Isra and Al-Mi'rage [Jerusalem], the blessed land of honor and heroism, the land of Jihad, the land of heroic children of the stones, the land of the proud men and glorious women, our sisters in Palestine - the criminal Bush has turned Jerusalem into the capital of Israel. Everyone must know that the most honorable death is martyrdom for the sake of Allah, because it is a transition from the prison of this world to the expanses of the Hereafter. It is eternal life, with Muhammad and his companions, with the beloved and with our Lord who under his grace and compassion?

IV. Qatari Television- Friday Sermon
Qatar
October 18, 2002
Sheikh Yousef Al-Qardhawi

Israel has nuclear weapons, and it has 200 or more atom bombs, while the Arabs, from the East to the West and from the teeming Gulf to the raging ocean; these are 300 million Arabs, who do not possess this nuclear weapon. Sheikh Ayed made no mistake when he said that the Muslims must posses this weapon, but not use it. This weapon must be in our hands, but using it is not permitted, unless it [is aimed] at deterrence and threat, and by means of it you frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy. This [situation] is called armed peace, such that you possess what deters and frightens your enemy, so your enemy will not be able to launch aggression or attack against you. This we have seen - America did not attack the USSR, and the USSR did not attack America, when each of them possessed nuclear weapons because if one of them were to strike [with this weapon] then the other would be destroyed, and thus destruction would come upon the world. The same is true for India and Pakistan, each of which possesses this weapon. Despite the occasional tension and blazing relations between them, there was no possibility that one would attack the other, because this is destruction for all. Therefore, the Muslims must possess this weapon, and the Arabs must posses this weapon.

V. Iraqi Television- Friday Sermon, November 8, 2002
Um Al-Ma'arek (Mother of All Wars) Mosque, Baghdad
Sheikh Bakr Abdelrazzak Samaraei

Oh brothers, we need today, more than ever, the grace of Jihad of the soul, primarily during this difficult hour of the Islamic nation- an hour when it is challenged by [the forces of] unbelief and the unbelievers, the Jews and the Crusaders, the Americans and the British; they are challenging Allah, because they challenge the book of Allah; they are challenging the Prophet of Allah; they are challenging you, the believers. They think that their fortresses will protect them from Allah; they think that with these bombs and airplanes, missiles and advanced technology, they will terrorize us. No, by Allah. You are the true terrorists, but we will terrorize you, with Allah's power, we are steadfast. "Allah will not permit the unbelievers to overcome the believers," who are you, oh vagabonds?! Who are you, the sons of apes and pigs, to threaten Muhammad, whose Lord is Allah, and also Gabriel and the angels?! Who are you, oh Bush, you little dwarf, to threaten Muhammad, and the sons of Muhammad?! We challenge you with our words, even before our weapons. Who are you to threaten us, our feelings, and our holy sites?!

---

Pretty nasty, isn't it? Imagine this type of stuff being broadcast on American TV...but with a twist - instead of Muslems, Christians...if all you are seeing, day in, day out, is stuff like this...well, how is that going to shape the way you think, and feel?

No kidding. The thing that irks me about this is that there is no way to prove that it isn't a war against Islam or Arabs. Especially when any affront to their person is an affront to their faith. There is some credence to their armed peace thoughts but unfortunately for them, Sheikh Ayed isn't the one pushing for nuclear weapons. I hold fast that this cannot be avoided. Maybe this time... but not the next time.

Out of curiosity, now that I think of it, if these people are killing in the name of their faith and we're fighting back, ISN'T that a war against Islam. Their version of it anyway? By their actions according to their faith this is a holy war started by them. My worry is that, in their inaction, the more moderate (as in truer to what Islam is supposed to be according to what I heard when the leaders of said faiths spoke out against 9-11 before falling silent) Islamic faiths will fall to the wayside of the loud and 'oppressed' fanatics and we will be in a true war against Islam. A sorry day for the world and America. A shameful day.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

Well...this is what is actually being broadcast on public Television...so, is it really just the fringe? I'm not sure...I don't have access to Middle-east TV, so I can't say, if this is normal, or not.

It would seem to me, that the west is being lied to...for these stuff is being publically broadcasted...but to the western press, they say different stuff.

It is somewhat worrying...because it does appear that they are declaring a Holy War on us...and are inciting the masses, with all means at thier disposal, to accomplish that...you got TV, the press, and

It is allowed, under Islam, to lie, cheat, and steal, from an Infidel.

What I really hate is that the Bush Administration seems intent on starting WW3, no matter what the inspectors find. I'm getting scared.

Why do you use that language? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. Please explain why you think removing Hussein would come anything close to a WW3. I don't see how the military action to remove him would last more than a month. The time needed to stabilize the resulting hole will drag on and on but not the initial part. A multinational force can certainly support the peacekeeping tasks.

Hmmm...Bugs, maybe he was referring to the looming Belief clash...Christianity vs Islam...it does seem like there are movements in this direction...and people that are trying to incite such a clash...a lot of recent attacks have been done against christians...I find that somewhat strange, don't you?

If this kind of dribble is really being broadcast on public TV over there...that's kinda sobering...don't you think? It takes the issue from the fringe, and places it in the mainstream...I find that somewhat concerning, actually...and Mr. Bush is not helping matters, either...in fact, I think the issue on our side is being largely ignored...or not being taken seriously.

I think the other side is taking the issue seriously...and slowly, I think we need to, as well...

The hatred and violence against Xians in these countries has been going on for years. It gets a passing glance from most people in our societies. It's almost as if we expect Xian workers to get wasted like martyrdom is part of the role. When it comes to that, sure, but we hardly need to be seeking it out... not good. In many Islamic countries, it is literally a death sentence to get baptized into Christ.

You would think that all the relief work that Xian groups do would be well received but even that is hated by the more radical elements. They see it as the Xian "crusaders" and infidels using kindness to infiltrate and corrupt the sacred religion of their precious prophet.

I do think the "west" is largely clueless to the reality of Islamic culture. We are being eurocentric without even realizing it. We assume that all cultures have our values and so we say things like Jestah does concerning just being nice to them and they will not hate us anymore. The clash goes far deeper than that. I've been playing catch up on this and trying to read up on the specifics of some of what is going on in this struggle.

So I agree with you about that aspect of all of it but I still don't think this will begin WW3. We can, and are, winning this. Iran is ready to move away from the fundamentalists. The Taliban have been toppled. Saudi Arabia knows they are on notice. This will take many years to play out but we either stand up for our ideals or we take the road of appeasement. I honestly think the latter has been proven a bad choice from my read of history.

I know we are not perfect. I know we act in our self interest as a matter of course. But I don't believe that utopia is possible in this realm so I don't expect it from governments, either ours or anyone else's. What I do expect is governments that allow for the greatest amount of freedom to their citizens such that they are allowed to live according to morals and ethics. Unfortunately the entire Middle East, with precious few exceptions, are monarchies, dictatorships, or theocracies.

I have no compunction about believing we should try to spread our better ideals to the rest of the world. I don't live in the ivory towers of academia and enjoy the luxury of communist wet dreams while real people die and are held down everyday in these piss holes some of which we prop up like the Saudis. Why shouldn't we push for regime changes? Like I said elsewhere, it's either bombs or burkas in many of these cases.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-20-2003).]

Hmmm...nice to see that you are 'arming' yourself with knowledge...I, too, have been researching the region...and it's becoming alarming, IMHO.

this article caught my interest...I'm not so sure on how accurate it really is...but it does make some interesting points

quote:

---

North Korea provides the most obvious evidence. Their misbehavior is far more egregious than Iraq's. They are in cahoots with the likes of Pakistan and others in a proliferation club that could pose very genuine dangers all over the world. They probably do not have nuclear weapons but are not far away, and are much closer than Saddam is. The internal repression and deprivation are unspeakable. If ever there were a case for "liberation" this would be it. But the Bushies are talking instead of shooting. Why?


One obvious reason is that the United States does not want to conduct two major wars at once, though capability is not the issue. More significantly, our longtime ally, South Korea, is in effect telling us that we must deal or leave. Japan is quietly backing them up. China and Russia – two of our great-power rivals of the coming decades – are involved and will take a leading role if we were to remain belligerent. If Bush did not pursue a negotiating strategy, our friends and allies would squeeze us out of the "American lake". Unmistakably, this is a case of declining influence.

---

Also, these two articles really shook me Egypt rethinks Nuclear program 1 and Egypt rethinks Nuclear program 2 especially this from part 1

quote:

---

At this moment, in Egypt and the entire Middle East, all eyes are upon the international community's attitude towards North Korea, which violated its nuclear commitments and recently declared that it was withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The initial Egyptian response, reflected in an editorial in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, was that "the North Korea-U.S. crisis clearly proves that small and medium-sized countries are capable of steadfastness in the face of the pressures that desecrate their sovereignty from countries whose strength is greater – provided that these [small and medium-sized] countries use their domestic and regional resources wisely and skillfully... This crisis proves that the world has not yet become a single sphere of influence entirely subject to a single superpower, and that there is still ability to resist."(1)

---

That is an alarming signal, in my eyes...and one of the reasons why I was so dissapointed in Mr. Bush's apparent miscalculation of threats...I feel that North Korea presents a much higher threat than Iraq...and these articles only confirm my feelings...because it sets a precidence. A precidence, that there are no 'penalties' for withdrawing from signed treaties, and developing nuclear weapons...

Though I agree with you on the state of affairs in Iraq, and that Saddam is certainly a terror...both to his neighbors, and to his own people, he is not as clearly a threat to the world as that of North Korea, IMHO. Were there no oil there, I think that this current state of affairs would not be happening. Thus, my statement on the Iraq/Mr. Bush conflict in earlier threads...I just don't trust Mr. Bush...neither the man, nor his intent. I am not alone in this...many of my war comrades have spoken out here. This especially rings true to heart

quote:

---

Now, 12 years later, it is time for the country to sit up and listen to its veterans – starting with figures including Generals Anthony Zinni and Norman Schwarzkopf who have consistently urged caution, certified war heroes such as Col. David Hackworth, and the hundreds of veterans who have signed petitions for Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans against the Iraq War.


As veterans who have served in wartime, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that those who serve in uniform today are not sent into battle without just cause. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that they don't needlessly die in a faraway desert for motivations that are unclear. Hold no illusions: Hundreds, possible thousands of Americans will die in the coming war. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die in the coming war.


All across America, hundreds of thousands of citizens are marching this week, calling out to their government to listen to the people, and in many cases they are joined or led by veterans. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who has had a friend die in his arms. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who lives with the memory of having killed another human being.


The tide is turning. Today, the majority of Americans see war against Iraq as unwarranted and unnecessary. But we must keep at it, keep talking, keep putting up signs, until Bush's war on America and Iraq is brought to a halt.

---

In conclusion, I see the pending conflict with Iraq as being very damaging to the US...not to mention our boys and girls in uniform. Also, I see it as a farce, in light of what we know about North Korea...and that we are following the wrong path...one that may very well lead to a greater conflict...as the hotspots left over from the cold war have shown us. However, the cold war had very good reasons for being 'fought' (IMHO)...I just don't see Mr. Bush as the great moral leader...rather a pawn and pundit of economic resources...namely oil. Thus, though I agree that Saddam should go, I don't see any plan to embetter the region for the people of Iraq...only a plan to make cheap, easily-accessable oil available for American Oil companies...damned be the costs to both the Iraqi people, our own boys and girls in uniform, and the international influence and face of the US.

Is the cost worth it here? I think not.

I have a question about this "oil" charge being thrown out all the time. Why is it about oil when we could drop all sanctions and simply buy it from Hussein like France and Russia do? We are interested in oil, certainly, but why does that automatically mean we are interested in going to war?

Also to be clear, I don't hate well thought out and reasoned arguments against the coming war like Hackworth and friends like mobrul have offered. While I disagree, I respect them. Arguments from people who just spout rhetoric and have never devoted 2 seconds of brain power to the issue are a different matter.

I sincerely hope you are not including me in that group, Bugs...as for the oil, well, I do have some interesting information on that, as well...

It'll take me awhile to dig it up...I'm at home right now...and most of my research notes are at work...so give me a bit of time on that one...

Not at all, WS, you clearly put a lot of thought into these topics No worries.

Ok...Oil and Iraq...an interesting subject.

First is this. Especially this part

quote:

---

The US economy needs oil like a junkie needs heroin. The US is the world’s biggest consumer of oil, guzzling more than 10 million barrels a day. Over the last two decades, it’s own oil production has significantly declined and it now imports over 60 per cent of its requirements, mostly from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but also some from Iraq (under the UN food-for-oil programme) and now also from Russia, which is currently the second-biggest producer after Saudi Arabia.

But Canada’s and Mexico’s oil reserves are fast declining, and Venezuela (which until recently supplied about 10 per cent of US needs) is in the grip of political turmoil, as demonstrations against the nationalist government of President Hugo Chavez have brought the country’s oil industry to a virtual standstill. Anti-Chavez sentiment has been brewing for nearly a year, and spilled over in April last year to a coup against him by the Venezuelan military that was said to have had Washington’s tacit support.

To Washington’s chagrin, however, populist support for Chavez brought him back to power only two days after the coup. Now, the US appears to be backing another attempt to get rid of him, but it is still unclear whether the current anti-Chavez movement will succeed.

Saudi Arabia remains a Washington ally and a major supplier of oil to the US but this could change if growing anti-American sentiment in the kingdom spills over into the streets. Even if that doesn’t happen, the US would still like to have a second Middle East string to its bow when it comes to sources of oil. Which is where Iraq with its huge untapped reserves comes into the scenario now brewing in Washington.

---

lays the foundation for uneasiness...for it is a possible motive...and followed by this

quote:

---

The talk on Wall Street is that US oil companies have already had discussions with the Bush administration about how to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry, which has been badly damaged by a decade of US-led economic sanctions. But it’s not just the Americans who are interested in Iraq’s oil.

It’s a topic no one wants to discuss publicly. But from the Middle East to Washington and Houston, everyone is speculating about Iraqi oil.

---

, one begins to see a pattern, here...

Followed by this...I've always wondered why England is so vigorously supporting the US on the Iraqi war threat...and this is interesting

quote:

---

BRITISH troops will seize control of Iraq's oilfields under a secret invasion plan already agreed with America.

Yesterday the government ordered another 26,000 soldiers to the Gulf, taking the total towards 40,000.

It could mean the biggest land operation since Suez in 1956.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon continued to insist war with Saddam Hussein was "not inevitable".

But a battleground blueprint has already been drawn up, the Daily Mirror has learned, with Britain earmarked to secure Saddam's fuel supplies and squash suggestions of a US "oil grab".

---

I would call that a pretty good incentive, for England...

And then comes this...which provides evidence for the motive...especially this

quote:

---

Beyond its immediate benefits, the Saudi decision is a further reminder of how closely our fortunes are tied to the good offices of the big producers three decades after the oil shocks of the 1970's. That the Saudis and other Middle East producers have had to come to America's rescue in the wake of Venezuela's political crisis is rich in irony. Venezuela was counted on as a buffer against disruptions in deliveries from the Persian Gulf.

America's current predicament — it confronts the possibility of losing both Venezuelan and Iraqi oil at the same time — is thus instructive on two counts. It provides another powerful incentive, if any more were needed, to tighten fuel efficiency standards and to push more aggressively for the long-term development of alternative fuels. Since the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, the only sure road to greater self-sufficiency is through reduced consumption and new technology.

The other lesson is that the importance to the global economy of the big Persian Gulf suppliers, especially the Saudis, has not been diminished, however much we like to regard ourselves as "buffered" by Mexico, Venezuela or even Russia and the other former Soviet republics. Like it or not, the Saudis retain as much leverage as they ever have over global energy markets. Their share of current output may have declined, but the Persian Gulf area still claims two-thirds of the world's known reserves. And because it commands the bulk of the world's spare capacity in the near term, Saudi Arabia acts as a central banker when it comes to oil, determining the market's liquidity.

---

Ok...so the Oil question is a plausable one...in light of the above given information...but what about before the whole thing started? Why would Mr. Bush want to attack Iraq for Oil?

First we need to go back in time...and understand what went on before...here. This especially

quote:

---

In earlier times, Iraq's oil was completely owned by US, British, and other Western companies. In 1958 there was a popular revolution in Iraq. Ten years later, the rightwing of the Ba'ath party took power, with Saddam Hussein serving as point man for the CIA. His assignment was to undo the bourgeois-democratic revolution, as I have already noted. But instead of acting as a compradore collaborator to Western investors in the style of Nicaragua's Somoza, Chile's Pinochet, Peru's Fujimora, and numerous others, Saddam and his cohorts nationalized the Iraqi oil industry in 1972, ejected the Western profiteers, and pursued policies of public development and economic nationalism. By 1990, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East (which may not be saying all that much), and it was evident that the US had failed to rollback the gains of the 1958 revolution. But the awful destruction delivered upon Iraq both by the Gulf War and the subsequent decade of economic sanctions did achieve a kind of counterrevolutionary rollback from afar.

---

So, the Oil interest was there before...but what about Mr. Bush? Well, interesting enough, he (and a lot of his cabinet) are Oil men

quote:

---

The present White House leadership is composed of oil men who are both sorely tempted and threatened by Iraq's oil reserve, one of the largest in the world. With 113 billion barrels at $25 a barrel, Iraq's supply comes to over $2.8 trillion dollars. But not a drop of it belongs to the US oil cartel; it is all state owned. Baghdad has offered exploratory concessions to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. But with a US takeover of Iraq and a new puppet regime in place, all these agreements may be subject to cancellation. We may soon witness the biggest oil grab in the history of Third World colonialism by US oil companies aided and abetted by the US government.

---

But that isn't really enough, is it? We need to establish direct links, and see how this thing got started...here...with this tidbit here

quote:

---

In the hours immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked for plans to be drawn up for an American assault on Iraq. The following day, in a cabinet meeting at the White House, Rumsfeld again insisted that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism."(1) The president allegedly replied that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible," and instead chose Afghanistan as a much softer target.


These statements and their timing, are noteworthy because the United States had not even determined that the suicide bombers came from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and it has never published any evidence that al-Qaeda had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 2001 edition of the U.S. Department of State's annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism does not list any acts of global terrorism linked to the government of Iraq. It was not until September 22, 2001 that Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to release to the press proof that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were guilty of planning and executing the attacks on New York and Washington, and that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN, "Clearly, we do have evidence, historical and otherwise, about the relationship of the al-Qaeda network to what happened on September 11." But such evidence has never been forthcoming. Until passenger manifests revealed that the airliner hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, I myself thought that the attacks could be blowback from American policies in any number of places. Rumsfeld's early targeting of Iraq therefore suggests that the Bush administration has had a hidden agenda.

---

Ok, now this thing is starting to shape up...but we need more...and

quote:

---

One prominent theory concerns Iraq's oil. Its reserves are the second largest on earth after those of Saudi Arabia. Given that both the president and vice president are former oil company executives and that the president's father, also a former president, was the founder, in 1954, of the Zapata Offshore Oil Company, it is reasonable to assume that these men are very familiar with Iraq's oil wealth. The Zapata Company drilled the first well off Kuwait. In 1963, Bush père merged Zapata with another firm to create the oil giant, Pennzoil, and in 1966, he sold off his share, becoming a millionaire in the process. During 1998 and 1999, when Cheney was president of the Halliburton Company of Houston, Halliburton sold Saddam some $23.8 million of oil field equipment. Perhaps the reason Bush junior is obsessed with Iraq, according to this line of thought, is that he wants to seize its oil. The United States needs a lot of oil for its huge automotive sector and also has an interest in controlling other countries whose industrial life is equally dependent on imported petroleum. As Anthony Sampson, the oil expert and author of the classic book on the major oil companies, The Seven Sisters, observes, "Western oil interests closely influence military and diplomatic policies, and it is no accident that while American companies are competing for access to oil in Central Asia, the U.S. is building up military bases across the region." (11)


The U.S. may be able to oust Saddam, but seizing Iraq's oil is quite another matter. In any war the U.S. risks seeing Saddam order his oil fields set ablaze, as he did to Kuwait's in 1991. This would have a powerful effect on short-term oil prices and on the economy of the United States. Perhaps more serious in the long run, France, Russia, China and other countries have multibillion dollar contracts with Saddam that entitle them to drill in Iraq's oil fields. These contracts are currently in abeyance because of UN sanctions, but the countries holding them clearly want to protect their investments. They would not look kindly on the prospect that the U.S. might freeze them out. Perhaps there is nothing they can do in the face of an American military fait accompli, but extensive litigation, not extensive drilling, is certain if the U.S. does not accommodate their interests. The oil moguls in the White House are probably not giving much attention to this issue. They are mesmerized by thoughts of world domination based on their control of the main sources of oil.

---

there it is...the ties. However, has the Oil industry actually had direct ties with Mr. Bush and his presidency bid? Time to take a look...

quote:

---

A former oilman in Midland, Texas, Bush has been a favorite of the industry for years. His presidential campaign, which has raised more than $90 million, has received $1.5 million from oil and energy interests, compared to $100,000 by the Gore campaign.

Among the largest contributors to Bush's campaign are Enron Corp., the huge gas enterprise; Koch Industries, a major pipeline and refining company; and Exxon Mobil and BP Amoco, two of the world's largest oil companies. More than a dozen Bush fund-raisers also have industry ties.

---

from here.

Hmmm...interesting, isn't it?

And to the question of the current 'tensions', if you will, between the Christian world and the Islamic world, this

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reliable statistics on the increase of violence against Christians by Islamics on a global scale...I find that...dismaying...for I know that it is going on...I just don't see anyone putting 1 and 1 together and coming up with 2. I see people identifying the threat (as in the above link)...but no-one seems to be taking the other side seriously...anyone have a reliable link?

This is also good...especially this

quote:

---

The most volatile system, of course, is traditional Islam and its aggressively intolerant and expansionist wing, militant Islam, which has mobilized anti-Western activists in large parts of Africa and Asia. Inspired by visions of a stern God of the kind that once animated Western societies, its goal is to create a world of true believers governed by a strict Islamic code. Mosques, madrassas (Islamic schools), and the media are its centers of education and indoctrination, and Mecca is its spiritual center.

As is well known, militant Islam represents a set of values that are almost the precise opposite of the values held dear in the West. In Afghanistan, it imposed a state of virtual slavery on women and a system of oppressive social control on everyone else. It also used Afghanistan as a base of operations for Islamic terrorists who believe mass murder and suicide are spiritual acts.

The question is, how extensive can this system become? President George W. Bush, among others, claims that it represents only a small group of people amid a sea of moderate Muslims. But a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press paints a very different picture. It found that a large number of Muslim respondents in many nations with significant Muslim populations "believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies". In Pakistan, which is America's nominal ally in the war on terror, 33 percent said suicide bombings are justifiable, while 43 percent said they aren't. In Nigeria, 47 percent said they are justifiable while 45 percent said they aren't. In Bangladesh, it was 44 to 37 percent. Even in Indonesia, while 70 percent said suicide bombings aren't justifiable, a sizeable 27 percent said they are. These are all nations with large populations that make up a significant portion of the Islamic world. In two frontline states in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon and Jordan, the percentage saying suicide bombings are justifiable was 73 percent (!) and 43 percent.

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-21-2003).]

(I'm surprised anyone hasn't thought of this yet)

Yes

WS, so let's say this is really just an "oil grab". Why wouldn't we simply take the entire region? Why stop with Iraq? Who could oppose us?

Well, for one, the international community...

Do you think they would just stand by, and let the US secure all the easily available Oil in the world? Do you really think that europe, and China would meekly say 'Oh, just go ahead and take it...no problem'?

Also, I'm not saying it's 'just' about Oil...but it's apparently a huge interest...the evidence is seemingly overwhelming...but doesn't mean it is true...the plans to attack Iraq where drawn up in the Pentagon long before Mr. Bush came into office...the Pentagon tried to convice Pres. C*****n to attack Iraq...without success...

I just find it strange, that shortly after Sept. 11, we had plans to go into Iraq...before the idea of going into Afghanistan...

And North Korea was largely ignored...

But Iraq was given terms of surrender and year after year they violated those terms. I thought it was obvious we would have to go back in eventually. If not soon after the Gulf War, then certainly in 1998 when they kicked out the inspectors. The Pentagon has plans for obliterating North Korea but that doesn't mean there is any conspiracy involved.

And just as you are not saying it *just* about oil, I am in no way saying it isn't one of the top reasons we're going in. But have you asked yourself why that is wrong? Oil doesn't just allow road hogs to drive SUVs but fuels the US economy which in turn fuels the global economy. If the US falls into another serious depression the world will be hit that much harder. I just don't see how that works towards the greater good.

I remember the first time I encountered mobrul on foreign policy issues. I kept trying to make the point about it being unavoidably "messy". There is no free lunch and every action even the correct ones are far from painless. It is because we live in a fallen world and utopia is *not* possible here that we have to make these crappy and most detestable choices to prevent people like Hussein from making an even bigger pig's breakfast out of it all.

. . : slicePuzzle

But not for Oil, Bugs...you don't kill people for oil. That's wrong, I don't care how one chooses to put it. I actually fought in the Gulf War...and I killed lots, and lost some comrades, and dear friends there...not to speak of the friends who 'wasted away' from illness afterwards...

Now, this has got me a bit riled, so I'll share some information with you, that you won't find in the Media...back then, we knew Saddam was going into Kuwait...we had reports, we could see the troop movements gathering on the border...and other signals. We were not allowed to act on this information, on orders from higher up. We also were not allowed to relay the information from our Ambassador in Kuwait on the looming threat further up the line (also orders from higher up). At the time, we all thought it was a joke...though it appeared quite serious. We also did not warn Kuwait of this. Then it happened...Saddam invaded Kuwait...at this time, many orders came down the line...and I must say, they came much to fast, and precise, to not have been planned before hand...

You do know who was President back then, right? Now, we could have stopped the invasion before it began...and we at least could have warned our ally, Kuwait. Why were such orders in place not to? And why didn't we stop it before it happened?

I went to war, along with my fellows. We did a really good job. But why did we even have to do this? Why didn't we stop it before it went so far?

To this day, I wonder...

Then along comes Mr. Bush...and back we go...but this time, I'm not so young and idealistic. Yes, I do believe that Saddam is a problem, and needs to go. As I have said countless times before, I do not trust Mr. Bush's motives. He has danced around the issue, instead of coming out with a clear message on the why. Also, he hasn't well addressed what happens after. And after researching, I was appalled, at the conclusive results of my research. I didn't just go out there with the opinion that this was about Oil, Bugs. I just wanted to find out why we are doing this. There could be many reasons...but my research shows that the the mostly likely reason is, indeed, Oil. And that, quite frankly, pisses me off.

Now, I am very well aware of the situation with Iraq. I aware of the things that have happened between the Gulf War, and now. I in no way, shape, or form, have sympathy for Mr. Saddam. But I am telling you, that I do not think the Iraqi people deserve a war. We brought them to this before...and even 'promised' to help them...and left them cold. I do not want a repeat of that. If Mr. Bush is really concerned about the Iraqi people, then where is the plan to re-build Iraq? Where is a coalition of international partners to do this? Why isn't this the driving force? Why isn't the UN on baord with such a plan? Too many open questions...I see plans to re-instate Oil companies, yes. I even hear of a plan to 'rebuild' Iraq with money from the Oil sold...but nothing concrete. If we are going to send our boys and girls in uniform into harms way, then I think they (and we) need to know why.

I was duped once...I will not be duped again. I have blood on my hands that will not wash off. So do many of my comrades. We do not want it to happen again, without a real reason.

Also, this

quote:

---

Why wouldn't we simply take the entire region? Why stop with Iraq? Who could oppose us?

---

just sends chills down my spine, to hear you say something like this. I have never envisioned the US as a conquering Nation, and I will not support a US as one. Keep in mind, that should we attack Iraq, that we are acting like a conquering nation...and that clear purpose needs to be declared, for all to understand. Also, I think that any further action should be decided by the UN...so another Security Council vote should be done. We need to do this, to avoid the 'Conquering Nation' label. It will fail, of course...for France and Germany are bowing out on this one. Please keep in mind that these are members of NATO, as well. I do not support a US that runs roughshod over the UN, and it's NATO allies, when things don't go the way the US wants (or, should I say, the way Mr. Bush wants).

But still, we haven't yet gone to war. It's still not too late...you know, even General Schwarzkopf is against a war with Iraq...now, I served under him, he's a pretty good General, IMHO...and he probably knows a whole hell of a lot more than I (or you) do...maybe we should listen, for a change. What can that hurt?

Oh, there it is...ok. *Whew!*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-22-2003).]

There's another reason we don't just take the entire region -- it's expensive. It's very expensive to fight, it's even more expensive to keep troops on foreign soil, it's the most expensive to occupy.
Expensive in money, political effort, lives.

It's far easier and cheaper to control with a dictator in your pocket and the local armies. That's the way we've done it in Central America (American soldiers didn't rape nuns and kill teachers...we just taught our buddies how to do it, gave them some money and let them run the show. Pinochet was about as brutal as it gets, but he was 'our guy'. We even had Salvador Allende assassinated to put Pinochet in power. There is an entirely too long post on this topic alone. I'll leave it for some other time.)

It is the way we've done it in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Iraq (and more) are all run by brutal, unpopular dictators who (except in the case of Iraq) are great allies of the US. In Iraq's case, Hussein was a great ally until recently.

Sure, every once in a while one of these leaders steps away from the 'party line', but in general they keep their population in order, dutifully funnel the oil out at agreed upon prices, and collect their 'paycheck'. Of course this all depends on making sure the PEOPLE of their nations don't get their paycheck.

That's why we don't just take the entire region. It's better to make an example of one, and let the others stay in line. It's also the reason I don't think we're going to do anything to promote democracy in Iraq when this is finished. We're going to install another dictator. Probably a military general type. Someone who has shown in the past that he is 'iron-fisted' enough to handle the locals.

Bugs: Its nice of you to say it so explicitly:

quote:

---

Oil doesn't just allow road hogs to drive SUVs but fuels the US economy which in turn fuels the global economy.

---

The Saudis (who formed the backbone of Al Qaeda) are too unstable to rely on to provide an uninteruptted supply of oil and you do need a new client state. Granted the US consumes vast amounts of a finite resource but while the president is in the pocket of the oil companies (and cutting taxes to encourage wasteful consumption) then there will be no actual move to address the far more serious issue and there will be no movement on things like renewable biofuels, pollution, global warming, etc.

And as WebShaman has (possibly) alluded to we were lied to last time we went into the Gulf War:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,853885,00.html

and as the US and UK leaders seem hellbent on doing Gulf War II how do we know they aren't prepared to bend facts and promote half baked data to suit their own ends?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This is also worth a read on the oil front:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880443,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Jesus!

quote:

---

US administration's foot on the gas

George W Bush

Unsuccessful Texas oilman. His prospecting company, Arbusto, was on the point of going bankrupt when it was bought out by another company, Spectrum, which in turn was bought out by another oil firm, Harken, which kept Bush on the board for his contacts, primarily with his father.

Dick Cheney

Before becoming vice-president, Cheney, below, was the chief executive of Halliburton, the world's largest oilfield services company. Halliburton does not drill for oil but it sells everything to the corporations that do the drilling. It also provides housing and services for the US military.

Condoleezza Rice

Before coming to the White House the national security adviser sat on the board of Chevron. They were clearly happy with her strategic advice and Bush family contacts as they named an oil tanker after her.

Don Evans

Old Bush friend from Texas oil days. Evans stayed in the oil business. Before becoming commerce secretary, he was the chairman of Tom Brown Inc, a $1.2bn oil and gas company based in Denver, and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation.

Gale Norton

Environmentalists objected to her appointment as interior secretary because of her oil links. As a lawyer she had represented Delta Petroleum. She also ran an organisation called the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, co-funded by BP Amoco.

· Source: Centre for Responsive Politics

---

Who else? Man...that's insane. Condoleezza Rice even has a tanker named after her...

Thanks for posting those links, Emps.

I'm sort of busy, so I didn't read all of the posts....yadda yadda...Webshaman you can axe me....

Anyway,

Has anyone noticed that everyone who has rights to Iraq's oil supply says there should be no war,
and everyone with no rights to the oil (USA, etc.) says there should be a war.

Hummm.

Cell 816~ teamEarth ~Asylum Quotes

Whoa! Why is this all hitting you as a surprise? WS, I thought the oil thing was fairly common knowledge... especially to people who are interested in global politics.

Emps,

quote:

---

how do we know they aren't prepared to bend facts and promote half baked data to suit their own ends?

---

The simple answer is that we don't. I can't believe that propoganda like that has been absent in *any* war *ever* fought.

Here's some more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html

Our need for oil and our need to remove Hussein are linked but hardly one for one. To believe that would require us to ignore his record of expansionism. Can you imagine what we would be doing right now if he had the means to nuke our forces and/or his neighbors?

It wouldn't matter if we had actually installed him and even if the president himself had played golf with the guy, we would still be needing to do something today. Those arguments speak to choices that were made then but do *not* speak to the current situation.

[edit]
You'll have to forgive the right wing name calling in this but notice oil works for "both sides" sometimes http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/
[/edit]


[edit 2]
Here are some words of wisdom from a personal hero of mine. If you really don't want this war to continue then we must get serious about what *must* happen to avoid it. Sticking our collective heads in the sand would be irresponsible, IMHO.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/jk20030122.shtml

quote:

---

The next step should be to give U.N. inspectors all of the intelligence information we can to help in their search. We should open direct communications with Iraq, as we have with North Korea, but not to negotiate or offer Hussein a carrot of some kind - quite the contrary. Now is the time to sit down across the table from the Iraqis, eyeball to eyeball, and tell them precisely what they must do to avoid war. Give Iraq a detailed checklist of items and actions we demand before we will stand down militarily.

Are there specific stocks of chemical weapons we know they once had that they cannot account for? Account for them or else, and here specifically is what we will accept as evidence. Do we insist that Hussein and his top lieutenants go into exile? Put it on the list. What about Iraq's WMD scientists? We learned with Germany and Japan after World War II that the only sure way to ensure that a country doesn't develop a nuclear weapons capability in the future is to remove its nuke scientists. Why not insist that all Iraqi scientists capable of working on WMD be relocated to Crete or some other acceptable locations? Bush has dealt himself a winning hand, and he can have victory without war if he plays his cards right.

---

[/edit2]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-24-2003).]

Ok...if I'm understanding you correctly, Bugs, you say that it isn't mainly about Oil (despite the overwhelming evidenc thereof), but that it is about Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?

quote:

---

The Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, said yesterday: "The charge that our motive is greed - to control Iraq's oil supply - is nonsense, pure and simple. It is not about greed: it is about fear [about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction]."

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the Boston Globe yesterday: "If there is a conflict with Iraq, the leader ship of the coalition [will] take control of Iraq. The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is ... it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose."

Asked whether US companies would operate the oilfields, Mr Powell said: "I don't have an answer to that question. If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months.

The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed. The state and justice departments, meanwhile, have insisted that the money be held in trust.

---

quote:

---

The next step should be to give U.N. inspectors all of the intelligence information we can to help in their search. We should open direct communications with Iraq, as we have with North Korea, but not to negotiate or offer Hussein a carrot of some kind - quite the contrary. Now is the time to sit down across the table from the Iraqis, eyeball to eyeball, and tell them precisely what they must do to avoid war. Give Iraq a detailed checklist of items and actions we demand before we will stand down militarily.

Are there specific stocks of chemical weapons we know they once had that they cannot account for? Account for them or else, and here specifically is what we will accept as evidence. Do we insist that Hussein and his top lieutenants go into exile? Put it on the list. What about Iraq's WMD scientists? We learned with Germany and Japan after World War II that the only sure way to ensure that a country doesn't develop a nuclear weapons capability in the future is to remove its nuke scientists. Why not insist that all Iraqi scientists capable of working on WMD be relocated to Crete or some other acceptable locations? Bush has dealt himself a winning hand, and he can have victory without war if he plays his cards right.

---

If this is really about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then we need to do some checking on the other countries in the region...to find out if this is really true.

Ok...so let's take a look at a couple of other countries in the region, shall we? We can start with...

Isreal

Well, they have Weapons of Mass Destruction...so we don't need to really bore into it there...funny, haven't really heard of the US demanding, and threatening war, for them to get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction...but ok, maybe the Isrealis aren't considered 'a threat' to the US...so on to...

Iran

And now we need to take a closer look here. Especially this

quote:

---

Washington, Jan 24 - The U.S. wants Russia to limit its assistance to Iran in the nuclear field to construction of only one reactor in Bushehr and not to extend it beyond this project, a possibility discussed by Moscow and Tehran, a high-ranking U.S. administration official told reporters on Thursday.

---

Hmmm, looks like they are developing something...and they are definitely not friendly to the US...but no threats of war. Why is that? Ok, maybe they aren't considered a 'Major Threat', because they haven't invaded anyone, or used such weapons before...though they do spawn terrorism around the Globe. And then there is this little gem. Yes, read the list, esp. this

quote:

---

"Having thought long and hard about war with Iraq," Hackworth told me, measuring his words carefully, "I cannot find justification. I don't see a threat. They are not Nazi Germany. This is not the Wehrmacht. In no way does the situation in Iraq affect my nation's security. That is the bottom line of analyzing threats. 'Does this country threaten my country's security?' In this case, absolutely not."

The awesome risks of this war, he said, far outweigh the potential rewards.

"Focus on protecting the American homeland, which is not adequately defended," Hack said. "Nine-eleven proved that. All of the machinations that have gone on since then are more lip service and crowd-pleasing than real. Our borders are still wide open. Our ports are vulnerable, too. And there are plenty of sleeper cells - Middle Eastern terrorists living among us, waiting to do their thing."

Compared to that dark picture, Saddam Hussein should be an afterthought.

"I don't think militarily it will be a big deal to smack this little broken pussycat out of the way," Hackworth said. "Four weeks, he's history. He'll be tacked up on the barracks wall. Iraq is not a tiger that is roaring with nuclear weapons in each paw like North Korea.

"If you want to look at enemies facing our country, No. 1 is international terrorism, the folks that brought us 9/11. No. 2 is North Korea, which has a huge Army, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons - and ability to deliver them. The third is Iran."

---

. And I think that this just about sums that up nicely.

Next up...

Egypt

Yes, the ancient land of the Pharaohs...what about them? Well, let's take a look here. Yup. They got Weapons of Mass Destruction, too...but no nuclear ones. Hey, they even used them before! And they are even re-considering re-activating their Nuclear Program here. This, esp., is worrying

quote:

---

"The question that arises now is whether it wouldn't be better for the Arabs to obtain nuclear weapons that will guarantee them a degree of balance with Israel... whether it would not be better for us to advance, at an early stage, towards obtaining Arab nuclear weapons - not in order to use them, but in order to create a measure of strategic balance that will not permit Israel to run wild in the region as it did on many occasions?... The Arabs must search for alternative tools that they can use in hostilities. I am not referring strictly to military conflict, in the event that Israel forces it on the Middle East. I want to point out also the means that has been neutralized in the history of this conflict."

"We are a nation that volunteered to halt all development programs and its democratic process in waiting for peace that has tarried greatly, and perhaps will not arrive soon. This comes at a time when economic supremacy and technological progress were meant to lead us to a much better situation than [our situation] today... I am not calling for preparation for military action... What I do want is to close the gap [on the] technological level and economic achievements in a way that guarantees some degree of strategic balance that will bring peace and stability..."

"The way is not blocked to us, and options are still open. Israel is not the same incredible and invincible power [it once was]; it is only a despotic power that does not implement the resolutions on international legitimacy [i.e. the UN] and does not honor international law... There is an Israeli decision from decades ago to deny any Arab country the possibility of attaining [the ability] to produce an atom bomb - which is no longer a scientific secret that is difficult to obtain, since the technology for using [atomic means] for peaceful purposes can be preparation for other uses. However, what is required is material means and professional knowledge. We have both. The Arabs have enough money to buy the components for nuclear production, and we have scientists on a high level. It is enough for us to know that Egypt alone has ten scientists working as international inspectors at the Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, which is headed by an Egyptian diplomat. However, what is more important [now] than years ago is the factor of political will to move ahead in an integrative nuclear program - not for the sake of aggression towards others, or threatening them, but in order to create a strategic balance in the region that will defend the rights and the holy places..."(2) In an article that appeared in Al-Ahram a month and a half later, Al-Faqi added: "We need to begin a strategic nuclear and deterrence program that will constitute an incentive to raise the standard of education and security."(3)

---

Well, that doesn't sound so promising, now does it? In fact, Egypt has attacked countries in the past. Hmmm...

So how about...

Libya

Ohhh, those Libyans! Well, read here for details...yes, they have been a thorn in the side of the US for awhile now, haven't they. And what a surprise, they have Weapons of Mass Destruction, as well, and have even used them. But they don't have nuclear ones, at least, not that we know of...and if there was ever someone who really wanted to get back at the US, it's Libya. Why aren't we threatening them with war?

Ok...how about

Syria?

Well, here you go...this is really just too much

quote:

---

Largest and most advanced CW capability in the Middle East.
Reported to have chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles, and chemical gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft.
Estimated CW stockpile in hundreds of tons.
Agents believed to include Sarin, VX, and mustard gas.
Major production facilities near Damascus and Homs, with hundreds of tons of agents produced annually.
Program remains dependent on foreign chemicals and equipment.
Not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

---

Ouch! And they have a Nuclear Research Facility, too. And they were the instigators of a war, as well...hmmm.

You see, I could go on, and on, and on, with this...but I think I've made my point. It's not mainly about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bugs. Otherwise, these other lands, some of which pose a much greater threat to the US, would have been threatened first.

Don't believe the hype. Research, logic, and investigation.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-24-2003).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-24-2003).]

Who said that Iran and Syria aren't going to be seriously rethinking their actions if they believe we're fed up with their support of terror? Everything is related when it comes to this stuff.

But I just wanted to get your opinion about this piece. [edit]forgot to link it but I already got your reaction here [/edit] I posted it in the main forum too so either way is good.

Also, think about this. If oil is the main reason, and as mobrul points out it is much cheaper not to go to war, then why don't we simply buy it? If we care far more about the oil than the Iraqi people's condition and the security of our allies in the region, we could simply buy oil that Hussein would be more than happy to sell to us. Let me know your thoughts on that.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-31-2003).]

Ok...I think the question is really two, IMHO.

One - I think there is a great need for Saddam Hussein to be removed. I also do not think that he can be removed with peaceful efforts. I have the opinion that most of the world agrees with this.

Two - Mr. Bush may (or may not) be doing this for that reason. And that is one of the points. Mr. Bush has screwed the points around so much, that I'm really suspicious about why he's doing this. Look, he could have just come out and said 'This is why we are pressuring Iraq.' Ok. Then I at least know why. However, he first trapped himself with the 'Axis of Evil' remark...that didn't help...and he also doesn't seem to be remotely interested in peaceful means to solve problems...again, my opinion. 'Talk softly, and carry a big stick' is one thing...but sounding off loudly, and threatening everyone with war is not what I call as responsible actions for a man that is head of the most powerful nation that has ever existed...that prompts fear and loathing in many...not a good way (IMHO) to present oneself to the world. Also, the statement 'Whoever is not with us, is against us'...and then plunge from one war into the next...hell, if it were another land that was doing this (think China, for a minute), do you really think we would just passively sit there and do (or say) nothing? Also, what kind of message is that sending? Obey, or we'll grind your country into the dust? Frankly, that scares the living hell out of me...and I'm American! I hate to think what other countries are secretly thinking right now...and just because Germany and France don't want to join in on a war with Iraq, that means they, too, are no longer friends? Mr. Bush is making this much to personal, for my tastes...and without a solid, definite reason why we are doing it, I frankly begin to question Mr. Bush's competency as Leader of the United States, and Leader of the free world...because he leaves me with the opinion, a free world only under his conditions...which is not free, not really. That is namely not what America stands for, and I hope it never will.

I am slowly getting the impression, that Mr. Bush is out of control...an ego-maniac leading the most powerful nation on earth...can we afford that? Can the world? I think not...he has lead us to a point, where we cannot back down without losing face, and therefore prestige...and a good leader never does such, without good and just cause. I find that...tastes rather bitter, in my mouth. I am somewhat ashamed, to be an American at the moment...or rather, that such a man is allowed to do what he is doing...for all the Americans that have born sacrifice for Freedom, this is indeed, a bitter moment in our history...I just hope to hell that cooler heads prevail...but I think that is sadly, too late...

You know, our otherwise staunch allies (Germany, France) have their reasons why they do not wish to participate...why? I think that one needs to really consider why they are bowing out of this one...maybe they are alarmed, and shocked, by Mr. Bush's stance, and words...and are slowly coming back to sanity...my question is...where does this all end? And why does it need to be now? What is a bit of time? We've waited 10 years on the Iraq issue...a few months makes no real difference. And finding that 'smoking gun', if it indeed does exist, would do much to strengthen Bush's stance, I think...and would actually be in his favor, to wait...to show the world (and our allies), that he is not a warmongering, egoistical bully. And to compare the situation with a 'rerun of a bad film'...frankly, I'm at a loss for words...we are talking about WAR, for christ's sake! That means real people dying...on both sides. One shouldn't take such an action casually...or compare such a situation to TV.

Also, I'm not quite clear on Mr. Bush's stance regarding what would be America's reaction to the use of Weapons of Mass destruction by Iraq in the proposed conflict. I have very uneasy feelings of a possible nuclear response on behalf of the US. I know that it has even been proposed...and that sickens, and scares the beejeebies out of me...

As you can see, I have grave (and I am sure I am not alone on this, but I can only speak for myself, really) reservations to Mr. Bush doing what he is doing, and why he is doing it. It's a queasy, uneasy feeling, deep in my gut. The feeling, that maybe this is wrong. That Mr. Bush is wrong. That we may be being lead by a madman...and who knows where that could lead to.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-31-2003).]

So much toil, destruction and death over one freak who gained power...


the anarchists have been right all along...

"Salting the back of a snail... My turkish prison is knowing that i fit in...."- Glassjaw