Topic awaiting preservation: Ok, what about Iraq now? (Page 1 of 1)

The election is over.

Let us return our attention to Iraq. I find things there very alarming.
This Hungary Joins Others in Pulling Troops From Iraq shows a very alarming trend.

quote:

---

Spain's Socialist government withdrew its 1,300 troops after it swept into power last March, reversing the commitment of the prior center-right government of Prime Minister José María Aznar. The Dominican Republic withdrew 302 soldiers, Nicaragua 115 and Honduras 370. The Philippines withdrew its 51 in July, a month early, after insurgents took hostage a Filipino truck driver working for a Saudi company. Norway withdrew 155 military engineers, keeping only 15 staff members to help NATO train and equip the Iraqi security forces.

But Poland, the fourth-largest contributor, with 2,400 troops, says it intends to withdraw by the end of next year, and the Netherlands, with 1,400 troops, said this week that the latest rotation of troops would be its last contribution to Iraq.

New Zealand is withdrawing its 60 engineers and Thailand said it wanted to bring home its 450 troops. Singapore has reduced its contingent to 33, from 191; Moldova has trimmed its force to 12, from 42. On Wednesday Bulgaria's Defense Ministry said it would reduce its 483 troops to 430 next month, Reuters reported.

---

That leaves even fewer troops in Iraq, to support our own. And what about the Iraqi's themselves? Well, this So We Win Fallujah. Then What?

quote:

---

National Public Radio's Anne Garrels, who is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, reports that of the 500 Iraqi soldiers originally deployed to go in alongside U.S. forces only 170 were still on station when the operation began. The rest had deserted?whether simply to flee for their safety or to join the other side. And these Iraqis were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion, the elite of the country's new security forces.

---

In essence, that means we are going to be bearing the load. Ok, so how does it look? We already are having troop problems. Extends of tours of duty. How long, before that dreaded word begins to be used?

When, or will the Draft be enacted?

Can anyone see a way to avoid it? We do not have enough troops to do the job, apparently. The international community appears to be largely unwilling to commit forces. The Iraqi's seem to be unwilling, or unable.

Or are we going to have to withdraw troops from hunting down Al Qaida, to help enforce Iraq? And will that even be enough? I think these are serious questions, that need to be answered.

WS, do you think France, Germany, and Russia *want* Iraq to fail?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Quite frankly, I don't know Bugs. Not knowing, when the answer should be plainly obvious, quite frankly scares the living shit out of me. I think that the ties and relations between France, Germany, Russia, on the one side, and the US on the other, are extremely strained right now. I think they are all waiting to see how Mr. Bush actually plans on doing the next four years, before making a move. They have become cautious, I think, and for good reason. One of the main reasons I voted for Kerry was because of this issue. All three countries made overtures to the tone that they would be willing to at least meet Kerry half-way. But with Mr. Bush, the icy atmosphere has remained.

I am more concerned about Iraq than I am about France, Germany and Russia. A lot of neo-cons said we could go it alone. I want to know how we are going to do this. With the present situation, I don't see how, without either a draft (assuming things in Iraq do not degenerate) or by removing troops from Afghanistan and other areas hunting for Al Qaida.

And even then, I don't see how we are going to be doing that, without again extending the duty dates again on thousands of soldiers due to seperate from the military and National Guard and Reservists.

I mean, there must be a plan, right? So what is/was the plan?

Unless conditions degenerate to unthinkable conditions their won't be a draft. Neither political party is going to destroy itself by being the one that brings back the draft. Unfortunately be it Sept. 11th or this war in Iraq the current Administration is unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that they made a mistake. There won't be any concessions toward the world to entice them to become involved. Of course if you get Donald Rumsfeld or Ramasax in here, they'll tell you how we have the "mother of coalitions" in Iraq.

Plan? There doesn't appear to be one. I imagine through extending duty Pres. Bush will keep about the same number of troops in Iraq. Personally, if I were the president I would promise France, Germany and Russia the three best oil fields in all of Iraq to become involved. If that doesn't entice them I'd up the offer to 6 best oil fields. This Administration can shut their eyes, cover their ears and shout that there is a coalition all they want. They can pretend to be highly insulted at remarks that there isn't a coalition until their blue in the face. The reality is we don't have a coalition. The United States is fighting this war.

And what does that say about France, Germany, and Russia? Do they want to see the rebuilding of Iraq fail?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Come on Bugimus, Germany, Russia and France don't want the Iraq to fall in civil war or who knows what. Anyone thinking otherwise is nut and understood nothing about the will of these countries to act with the UN and in accord to internationnal rights to solve the problem of Saddam Hussein.

A military expert said that if we take for example the operation in Kosovo and extrapolate the number of troops accordingly to the size and population of Iraq, the military operations in Iraq require ~500.000 soldiers to handle the fights in the country, control the frontiers and maintain the calm in less heated areas.

Jestah: Good 'joke' about Donald Rumsfeld
Still I seriously doubt a promise of oil fields would decide the 3 most prominent countries of the pro-diplomatic solution to send some troops in Iraq. At least such proposition wouldn't work if made publicly. There's some rotten fruits everywhere, so I can't be sure that such a proposition wouldn't tease some apetites. Anyhow the US has absolutely no control nor guarantees that such a promise could be kept. What these countries want before sending their soldiers there is that the Iraqi people ask for their intervention and that the UN leads the operations.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

And what does that say about France, Germany, and Russia? Do they want to see the rebuilding of Iraq fail?

---

I feel like I should be on the verge of crying, fortunately the media removed the last bit of my capacity to think yesterday, and now I feel free to stand behind my leaders decision, regardless of who or how many people carefully explain to me why the war in iraq was ever started, or more to the point, why it shouldnt have.

my my my, I love these silly expressions, 'The rebuilding of Iraq' - 'Free Iraq' - 'hunting for Al Qaida'

I have a great Idea... The United States, could perhaps, go about 'The Rebuilding of Rewanda' - 'Free Brazil from Debt' - 'Hunting for a cure for HIV'

Perhaps Americans should lobby their government to attack Saudi Arabia, where there is the largest amount of funding for terrorist organisations, shheshh... that would be a bright idea, but unfortunately, alot of american dollars, are well, Suadi dollars... really... and you cant go attacking yourself now can you.... wait, but maybe you can, maybe you can demonstrate your cunningness by reducing funding for education, increasing spending on propaganda campaigns, and brainwash the majority of your own people... I like to call it the 'Colder War'

well.. now its time to give everyone a chance to flame me for being 'anti-american', but before you do, there is only two groups of americans that i would put in my anti box, The bush administration and the businessmen that pay them todo what they do.

Cheers,
Henry

I'm glad you don't put me into that box

Henry_uk, regardless of the motives of us being in Iraq, it will either be rebuilt or left to fall into civil war. Do you agree with that? If so, then it comes down to a very simple equation, either the governments of the world will help or not help in that effort.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Asylum but many of us who supported the war know very well all of the things you mentioned and we *still* thought it was a good idea. I understand exactly what you mean about the media attempting to brainwash their audience. But when you look past that, you are still left to decide what needs to be done in this world, and never forget that choosing to do nothing is actually doing something.

poi, each country of this planet works according to their own self interest. Sometimes, just sometimes, things are done according to that self interest *and* a greater good. Some countries do this more often than others. A free and democratic Iraq would work towards a greater good and I would just hope that France, Germany, and Russia could see past their lost revenues from Saddam Hussein just long enough to find a way to support the effort. That's really all I'm talking about above.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I don't know if it is that simple, Bugs. I suspect that they are letting Mr. Bush reap what he sowed. I do suspect, that were Mr. Bush to offer an olive branch, it might be received, if cooly.

Hard to say. Mr. Bush really has done a lot of damage to our relations with those lands.

Bugimus:
" A free and democratic Iraq would work towards a greater good ". That's really I'm talking about too in my previous post.

" I would just hope that France, Germany, and Russia could see past their lost revenues from Saddam Hussein just long enough to find a way to support the effort. ". Talking about revenues is border-line in regard of the no-bid contracts.

WebShaman: Of course the olive branch thing is a metaphor, but it describes well this whole mess and a reasonnable solution. Actually an olive branch/tree should be offered to the Iraqi people crying 100,000+ civils and to the many countries disagreeing with the reasons why and/or ways the war in Iraq happens whose voice has not been listened to carefully by the Bush administration.



(Edited by poi on 11-10-2004 20:39)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I suspect that they are letting Mr. Bush reap what he sowed.

---

That speaks very poorly of them if that is true.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Mr. Bush really has done a lot of damage to our relations with those lands.

---

Why don't you see that the French and Russians were working *behind* the UN's back by violating the agreements? Couldn't it be said that we now know they were breaking the relationship before Bush was even elected the first time?

quote:

---

poi said:

Talking about revenues is border-line in regard of the no-bid contracts.

---

That's a good point, I can see that. I must admit, I am reluctant to let them back in after what they've done too. There are very hard feelings on both sides I'm afraid to say

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

"I suspect that they are letting Mr. Bush reap what he sowed."

That speaks very poorly of them if that is true.

---

quote:

---

"Talking about revenues is border-line in regard of the no-bid contracts."

That's a good point, I can see that. I must admit, I am reluctant to let them back in after what they've done too. There are very hard feelings on both sides I'm afraid to say

---

By your own logic, that speaks very poorly of you if it is true...

You see Bugs, the problem i see most trasposed onto the public in the US is one of disassociation, from almost everything that a person would naturally assume. First of all, the shear hipocracy that is, was, and I assume will be for the next four years, displayed by the self appointed leader, come ruler of the world, in so many aspects of this 'War'. I just dont understand how an educated person can not only turn away from the harsh facts of history, presidents of the US use their positions to gain huge... HUGE... business intrests for themselves, their families, and there "friends", as if Bush Snr wasnt a recent enough example, but also the act which opened the gate for the biggest deal of all time, 9-11, the facts surronding that day, have not, and will not ever be answered by the people who were making the decisions, let alone evidence of any involvement in the attacks by the people who 'Got Freed'. 19 Saudis. For me, thats the most chilling fact of 9-11 and the history that has been written as a result.

My mobile phone broke the other day, rather, I dropped it, and it broke, I happened to be in front of a TV, and heard the news, 4 More Years.

I have not yet to this day, 3 years after the assults began, heard an esitimate of the total dead in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone the fact, I think alot of people, least of which George Bush, would have trouble sleeping at night if they knew the figures. But perhaps, even with the figure, you can still justify this through the rights of the people who live in these countries, and the relativley undisputed analysis that everything will be better for them under a democratic rule, I dont know a single person on this planet, who could look across the faces of all the dead men, women, and children, and tell me, that is was in their best intrests, that these decisions are made for the greater good of the planet as a whole.

Where is the public invesigation into why these terrorist groups, and lets just capture for the moment, that allbeit fanatical, these are just men, with minds of their own, why, are they so intent on sabotage in the US? who crossed them, who are the 'real people' who instilled with such aggression into even one man?

All I can say about the 'rebuilding of iraq' is, this is why the UN was appointented to be the Ruler of the World Body, a place where decisions are not made on their business merits, but on the merits of the effectiveness for the people of the land. That, also happens to be why this war was never accepted by the UN, not because of the countries that stood against it, but because of the glaring reasons, business reasons, why they wanted it.

George Bush, Tony Blair, and all the rest, Spat in the face of every person on the planet when they started this, and now, as the money pot spins for their buddies in the security/construction industires, I wonder if George is sitting around a table, wondering how the marketing team will let us all know about his next war...

MW, I am human and I have feelings. From my language it should have been clear that it is not a sentiment of which I am proud. It is something I can get over, especially if I knew the French were willing to come clean and work together towards a common goal.

Actually, what kind of news are you guys getting over there? Whenever the oil for food scandal is mentioned, there seems to be complete silence. You did hear about that, right? I know your news is very biased but are they not reporting it at all in the European press? Why is there not more outrage about the French, Russians, and others roles in the scandal?

Henry_uk, you are making a few very strong assumptions. Let me see if I understand them.
1. This war was solely based on getting business deals.
2. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been killed since the wars began preclude any good that can come from the wars.
3. Not a single person can say that a greater good can come from the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
4. You have no clue as to what motivates Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden and others who think like he does. But you do know for sure that they are acting in response to something we did to them.
5. You have a lot of faith in the UN in spite of its actions.
6. George Bush and Tony Blair are evil leaders.

Did I get those right?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

MW, I am human and I have feelings. From my language it should have been clear that it is not a sentiment of which I am proud.

---

I admit I was going for a cheap shot here, and came close to a personal attack - What should be understood is that, just as the US are unwilling to let countries which opposed the war profit from the rebuilding contracts, many europeans, myself included, are willing to let the united states of "we don´t need international support" face the consequences of their, in my opinion, irresponsible, and possibly futile, actions.


I hope I´ll find time to adress the rest of your post tomorrow, It´s 3:30 am over here and I gotta get to uni tomorrow...

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
- Albert Einstein

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Henry_uk, you are making a few very strong assumptions. Let me see if I understand them.

---

Bugs, In order to minimise the chance of misunderstanding, allow me to follow your train of thought...

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

1. This war was solely based on getting business deals.

---

Bush Snr. Relations with large oil companies, in particular, those in Saudi, in particular, the Bin Ladens...
Bush Jnr. Works for/ OWNS, texas oil company.
Bush Snr. Lucrative connection with Halliburton
Bush Jnr. Loses election - Bush Snr. & Jnr. Use connections to win election
Bush Jnr. Hires old Dick
Osama Bin Laden is reinstated on FBI top ten list
9-11
Bush Jnr. Begins terror campaign
Bush Jnr. Attacks! ... ummm.... Afghanistan?!?!?! -Secures US friendly Taliban government, signs oil deal
Bush Jnr. 'Cant find' Osama, oil deal is stuck at boarder of Iraq (sanctions)
Bush Jnr. Attacks! ... ummm.... Iraq!?!?!?! to liberate the Iraqis (from their sanctions) ((since we are here))
Bush Jnr. 'Opens' Iraqi oilfields, Oil prices go up!?!?!
Bush Jnr. Writes blank cheque for Halliburton, and other 'Friends'
Bush Jnr. Heavily censors 'public' sadam hearing (because he was ready to talk about the good ole days with Bush Snr.)
Bush Co. We need more money to pay for recontruction (of our pipe that people keep wreaking)
Bush Co. The War is now over (we've got the pipe going)
Bush Jnr. Lets over 1000 soldiers die

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

2. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been killed since the wars began preclude any good that can come from the wars.

---

Does any good that comes from the wars, preclude the value of each(or any single) life that has been lost?

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

3. Not a single person can say that a greater good can come from the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Not a single one. Please Define 'Greater Good'?

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

4. You have no clue as to what motivates Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden and others who think like he does. But you do know for sure that they are acting in response to something we did to them.

---

Financial funding from CIA, and now Osama wants blood, eeerrrr, yes, I would say that would qualify it to be in the something you did to *him* box, at least.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

5. You have a lot of faith in the UN in spite of its actions.

---

The UN provides a platform from which each nation can be heard, the actions taken by the UN, are the democratic choices of the 'free' world, which is presumably the reason you want to build a democracy in Iraq, so it will be fair, and 'free'. If the UN was a computer program, it would have been forced to attack the US when they broke the 'law' that governs the saftey of all men, in that scenario, Bush Co would be the 'terrorists', I believe In democracy, but im not saying that the democratic actions are ever the most reasonable, or that I agree with them.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

6. George Bush and Tony Blair are evil leaders.

---

Corrupt, thus, evil (or Immoral, if that word has more of its real meaning left)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Did I get those right?

---

No.

But, the reason I dont put 'war-supporters' like yourself into my anti box, is because it is obvious that you genuinely believe that this is the right thing todo, thus, what I would see as a immoral view, does not make you immoral by way of association.

Im really not here to upset anyone, but it is good, if nothing else but an archive, to air these thoughts.

Cheers,
Henry

(Edited by Henry_uk on 11-11-2004 03:47)

... fixing double post madness ...

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 10:12)

quote:

---

MW said:
I admit I was going for a cheap shot here, and came close to a personal attack...

...many europeans, myself included, are willing to let the united states of "we don´t need international support" face the consequences of their, in my opinion, irresponsible, and possibly futile, actions.

---

Thanks, MW. Anyway, my concern at this stage is that now that we have a real chance of a free and democratic Iraq, should we let our disagreements get in the way of bringing it about? It's just a question. I fully understand how difficult it is to talk of getting along right now.

quote:

---

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.- Albert Einstein

---

I'm not sure in what context Einstein uttered this statement but it is absolutely false.

Henry_uk,

quote:

---

Im really not here to upset anyone, but it is good, if nothing else but an archive, to air these thoughts.

---

I couldn't agree more. Don't worry about upsetting me on this topic. We've kicked this one around quite a bit over the last couple of years and most friendships still seem to be intact.

In response to my point #1 above you listed several items that all presuppose that the wars were fought for business deals. They actually read very much like a script for Moore's movie. But you have to support the premise better than that by taking into account all the other factors involved. Respond to these if you care to in light of your premise:

1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

quote:

---

Does any good that comes from the wars, preclude the value of each(or any single) life that has been lost?

---

No.

Were you concerned about the lives being lost by our inaction? You mentioned Rwanda earlier, would you have killed innocents to save innocents there?

quote:

---

Please Define 'Greater Good'

---

In my view, greater good refers to more people on the planet enjoying civil rights, more prosperity, more liberty, better health, and living in some form of representative democratic society. There are several governments on this planet who are very much opposed to those ideals. Two of them *were* headed by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

quote:

---

Financial funding from CIA, and now Osama wants blood, eeerrrr, yes, I would say that would qualify it to be in the something you did to *him* box, at least.

---

We did not create Osama Bin Laden. We did not cause him to become who he is. He is trying to bring about something very great in his estimation, namely the return to its former glory of a unified Islamic empire in the Middle East. He attacks us because we are enemies of God, it is really just that simple and he even says so himself. In one of his letters to the US, he says that all we have to do is submit to the will of God and live according to His divine law and there would be no need for this struggle. All of the actions of Al Qaeda and similar groups *must* be seen with this agenda in mind to have any chance of understanding their motivations.

quote:

---

The UN provides a platform from which each nation can be heard, the actions taken by the UN, are the democratic choices of the 'free' world...

---

That is what the UN was to be. But it is not that. When most of the nations are not 'free', it is nothing more than a tool for corrupt governments to work against 'freedom'. Very few of the people of the world have a voice in the United Nations therefore it should be renamed the United Governments. The UN will either need an extreme makeover or it will fade away. I don't care which as long as we get back to the ideals upon which it was founded, that 'greater good' concept mentioned above.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 07:36)

quote:

---

Anyway, my concern at this stage is that now that we have a real chance of a free and democratic Iraq, should we let our disagreements get in the way of bringing it about? It's just a question.

---

What if we fail, Bugs? Don't you think that that sentence is awefully similar to those used for Vietnam? Just that it was the other way around, really. Back then, we wanted to stop the "Domino effect", and in Iraq, we are trying to put it into place.

Already, Fallujah looks like it is winding down...and three other areas ignite. Like the proverbial Hydra of ancient legends.

Should we let disagreements get in the way? No. Are we letting disagreements get in the way? Yes. And Mr. Bush is as much at fault as the others. The only difference being, that we need their help, not the other way around. That means, tzhe Mr. Bush needs to grit his teeth together, and reach out that proverbial olive branch.

And Bugs, get off the "morality" kick on the backdeals. You know well enough that dirty dealings are business as usual. I find that in poor taste coming from you. You know better. We both went through the Cold War, and all the dirty things that the US did, to win it. I mean, the dealings the US has right now with Pakistan is pretty sleezy as well.

You point out that National Security and Economics (self-interest) govern countries first. That said, then you really cannot blame France and Germany for following that which all countries do, can you?

quote:

---

1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

---

All these reasons you give (exception is oil in North Korea), apply doubly so to Iran and North Korea. I explained this to Ram, and I am shocked and dismayed to see the same words in your mouth. This is terribly disappointing.

I need to think about this for awhile.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And Bugs, get off the "morality" kick on the backdeals. You know well enough that dirty dealings are business as usual.

---

*I* know that, but I don't know if some of the other participants here do. I'm simply probing to find out how they view the scandal.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

All these reasons you give (exception is oil in North Korea), apply doubly so to
Iran and North Korea. I explained this to Ram, and I am shocked and dismayed to
see the same words in your mouth. This is terribly disappointing.

---

What's disappointing? Where have I disagreed with you about Iran and North Korea being terrible problems?

edit: How the heck did I get double posts up there?!? Me fix.

edit2: What if we fail? You know just how disasterous that would be. Not only would it mean horrible things for the Iraqis but it would be a huge victory for Islamists everywhere. If you think opposing them has increased recruitment, pulling out will really pump them up.

You know how I feel about Vietnam.


: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 10:19)

Bugs,

every time I read one of your posts in this thread my hands start waving around in the air...

What we all surely agree on, must be equality... Each time we have talked about rights, you have retorted with comments that lead me to believe that any iraqi who is killed in Iraq are yesterdays news. While Im fairly sure that you dont think the same way about your fellow counrtyman, a solider that dies 'honourably'.

I have stuidied quite a bit of NLP (Neuro Linguistics Programing), which I like to think of as 'Active State Psychology', I would like to explain something to you about the 'colder war' (the properganda campaign on Americans).

In the begining there were facts. People use these facts to create 'Logical Paths', say the facts are all on a table with 7 people around it, each of those people have a target 'logical path', depending on their objective, and the audience that their 'logical paths' in aimed at, the goal of couse is to cover as many people as you can, and make your 'logical path' 'common sense'. When you have, as in this case, a cause for people to think something on mass, 9-11, a great tragedy, this is the ultimate starting ground for 'logical paths' everybody in america felt terrible, and didnt know what todo, they were given a selection of logical paths to follow, not just from the Bush admin, but the businessmen who saw dollar signs coming in the wake, and anyone else who had an interest in controlling the public. Including film makers, such as mike moore, but unfortunately for him, he obviously dosent really understand this either, because once 'common sense' has prevailed in a human, it takes an awful amount of deprogramming to dissolve the 'rationality', because, you KNOW what you think is right, youve been hearing all the reasons why your right for years now, you probably even thought a few up for yourself.

Now, no amount of similar properganda has any hope of changing anyones perspective, someone who sees sense in the mike moore film, will never understand how you could watch that film and vote for bush, and someone who is pro 'rebuilding', will never see the sense in the moore film. The only thing people can really do to test the legitamacy of their opitions and perspective, is first, accept that we all live in a society where intense psychological manipulation is common place, and then to look at the people who are responsible for for the logical path they have taken, and examine their reasons for offering you this logical path.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

---

1. Who gave you that information, and what purpose did that serve?
2. I know the US has WMD, and they are actually using them?!?!?
3. This is what Bush Snr. paid him todo, he provided the wepons and the cash, at the time the US had serious problems dealing with Iran, and it would have been another huge deal, unfortunately, they gave this mission to a lunatic, and he botched it completely, now bush has pulled the old 'if you want something done right' line...
4. Oil is Oil!!!! the black stuff, why do we need it? because big business would lose money if we went to renewable energy, and they are not prepared to stop making the money untill every last drop of oil has been consumed, the world could have won two fold if we all moved to renewable energy, and provided the technology in places like the middle east, saddams oil would have once again been just oil, cheap, run of the mill, oil. while on topic here, who has the most oil... the saudis, and what % of america do they own, hmm makes good sense for them to make sure you keep using oil.
5. I think 12 years isnt really much, if you think about it, how long will the countless dead be missed?
6. Get with the news man, this is not an isolated case, I will bet my life that he dosent do the same 'favour' for anywhere he cant get good business from, would you dissagree?
7. I take it you have seen, F-9-11, who was bush having dinner with the day after 9-11? That is a link to terrorism... his high powered buddies all over saudi arabia are links to terrorists.

Cheers,
Henry

Bugs,

quote:

---

What's disappointing? Where have I disagreed with you about Iran and North Korea being terrible problems?

---

You haven't disagreed. It is disappointing to me, to see you use the reasons to go into Iran or North Korea on Iraq. If we use just the reasons given

quote:

---

1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

---

, it makes no sense. Iran and North Korea are more pressing concerns if based soley on that.

So using these reasons are just hogwash. Propaganda. They can't be the only reasons, unless someone decided to put all the names of such countries in a hat, and drew one. And you don't go to war because of a name-drawing!

But it is now too late for such. As you pointed out, Iraq is now, it is real, and the consequences for failure are as you have noted. Mr. Bush MUST reach out to those allies who have supported us time and again, like real friends do. I believe that France and Germany are still America's true allies. I start to comprehend, that maybe they are teaching us something. That we shouldn't blindly follow the propaganda of a President. I think that if Mr. Bush reached out, they would help us. He has to make the first move here. If Mr. Bush was smart, as I said, he would do everything required, leave no stone unturned, in the recruiting of our allies to Iraq, and through that, a UN mandate for Iraq.

Unfortunately, I think that he will wait until the situation further deteriorates, and the situation between us and our allies will get worse. If he does, the prospects of the US failing in Iraq become a thinkable scenario. Combine that with Iran and nuclear power, and I think that any chance of accomplishing anything in the region will disappear forever.