U.S.A. To Invade Iraq -- Part II (Official Iraq thread)

Interesting how no one has countered by argument about a new US-installed dictatorship...

 

EDIT: I'm an idiot - next time I should actually read the most more carefully next time.

I think it's my bedtime now.

 

Of course I understand what "per capita" means. What it does not mean is that you can trivialize the hundreds of billions of dollars that the United States and her citizen's pump into foreign countries, via governmental and private funding. It's far and away more than any other country gives, even when broken down per capita.

Sorry, i've been away. Giving foreign aid to countries that buy back US products(mainly military) is not what we are talking about here. Norway gives the most foreign aid. The US allocates the majority of its foreign aid to countries like Israel.

Also the deals that he US have made in African countries and developiong nations means that the US economy prospers whilst the african one remains stagnant. But that's a point for another thread.

 

I can't remember who won the Australian-American war...

 

long winded address to parliament on the reasons for his blind following of the American foreign policy

That's real funny. Everyone who's supporting us must be blindly following us, and must be a puppet.

 

Just like the USA must be going to war for "oil".

 

And anyone who criticizes the U.S. at home must be unpatriotic and hate their own country and anyone who crticizes the U.S. abraod must be an idiot.

Seriously, do any of you think this war with Iraq would even be an issue or a problem if another Republican had stolen the election? I mean, what about if John McCain were President, do any of you think he'd be hellbent on pursuing Iraq?

 

I can't remember who won the Australian-American war...

New Zealanders won that war.

 

I mean, what about if John McCain were President, do any of you think he'd be hellbent on pursuing Iraq?

Yes, if McCain had won the election instead of Bush winning it, then he would be going after Iraq as much as Bush.

BTW, why is the default of all anti-Bush arguments to drag out Florida? Is it because you don't have anything else?

Get the hell over it.

 

Alright, we found more warheads in Iraq!

But I'm sure that Saddam will have a perfectly plausible excuse for that too.

 

Alright, we found more warheads in Iraq!

What did you sneak them in?

 

What did you sneak them in?

What's that supposed to mean?

 

To gain better perspective, perhaps you should read more about those warheads; what they were used for, what they are capable of, what condition they are in, etc.

Don't post half-truths.

 

So, tell me the truth oh wise and powerful cheveyo.

Don't patronize me.

The fact that he has them, and the fact that he never declared them, no matter what their condition, is a breach.

Unless their used to make ice cream, I don't care what excuse he has for having them.

 

Janson i was kidding besides you never know what lengths Bush will go to to get the war he wants.

Personally this is a waste of time, you want to pick on someone go after North Korea, they have the possibility of Nuclear capability and yet you're going after someone who has what? 5% or even less of his weapons left.

Anyway the US can go to war, its just a smoke screen for the failures of the Bush administration and his proposed war on terror.

 

Janson i was kidding besides you never know what lengths Bush will go to to get the war he wants.

Please. He's not evil enough or stupid enough to even try that.

Personally this is a waste of time, you want to pick on someone go after North Korea, they have the possibility of Nuclear capability and yet you're going after someone who has what? 5% or even less of his weapons left.

A few reasons why Iraq is first.
1) We already had troops in th region. It makes sense from a logistical point of view.
2) We were already building up troops in the Middle East when N. Korea started trouble again. It is too difficult to suddenly shift all of those forces to S. Korea.
3) Saddam has already used WMD on his people, the N. Koreans have not.

Anyway the US can go to war, its just a smoke screen for the failures of the Bush administration and his proposed war on terror.

I say he's doing a good job. The economy is starting to turn around, Al-Qaeda is in shambles, Bin Laden (if he's still alive) is in hiding. Looks like he's done a lot.

Also, what was your view on Kosovo or Operation Desert Fox?

 

If Bush can:

a)Totally destroy Saddam and his evil regime. Install a good regime and finally bring peace to Iraq.

b)Successfully stop North Korea from producing any nuclear weapons and destroy the current ones.

c)Destroy all remaining Taliban/Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

d)Keep the economy up and decrease unemployment.

If Bush can do all of these things, his administration will go down as complete success.

If Bush can do all of these things by November 2004, don't expect a new administration until 2008.

 

So, tell me the truth oh wise and powerful cheveyo.
Don't patronize me.
The fact that he has them, and the fact that he never declared them, no matter what their condition, is a breach.
Unless their used to make ice cream, I don't care what excuse he has for having them.

Wise and powerful? at last, we agree on something. Who's patronizing who here?

Where is that fact you keep mentioning? I don't see it anywhere in the news.

Allow me to quote for you direct from cnn.com about the latest "found warhead":

In addition, the team found a damaged warhead belonging to a Lunar missile, which has a range of 42 miles, the agency said.

"The team leader was informed that this warhead is [a] leftover and has nothing to do with past proscribed programs," it added.

The warhead was mentioned in Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations last year, the agency said.

Hmmm, so not only was it declared already, but is damaged, old, and nowhere near potent enough to pose a threat to the United States.

What other "proof" do you have?

a)Totally destroy Saddam and his evil regime. Install a good regime and finally bring peace to Iraq.
b)Successfully stop North Korea from producing any nuclear weapons and destroy the current ones.
c)Destroy all remaining Taliban/Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
d)Keep the economy up and decrease unemployment.

EDIT: eclipseSD, items a through d are unachievable by 2004. First, item A requires not only a drawn-out war, but an implementaion of a new government, which could take years in and of itself to stabilize. Item B (again an issue for the UN, not just the US cowboy Administration) also will take years of political and diplomatic posturing, most of which our President will not play to (he holds himself higher than that), and thus will likely instigate war there, as well (IMO). Item C has already been identified as a "sustained, long-term effort". There is no way it can be completed in two years. Item D... well, item D is a false statement altogether. The economy is not up right ow, so how can he keep it up? In fact, economists indicate that we are on a downward spiral... it's only going to get worse in the coming years.

 

Alright, I'll give you that one cheveyo. I couldn't find any new info on it aside from what CNN and FoxNews were saying, because my comp is crapping out on me....again. I'm glad that I now have more info.

 

Glad to help, JFT.

 

FYI







Subject: FW: Letter from Iraq

Thorne Anderson was a journalism professor at AUBG ..... has a graduate
degree from the University of Missouri in photojournalism and has lived
and
worked in the U.S., Far East and Eastern Europe. He is now living in
Belgrade with .... Kael Alford who is also a photojournalist. They have
both been published widely in publications ranging from charity
newsletters
to Newsweek to the New York Times. I give you this background mainly to
show that he is not just some lefty liberal who doesn't know what he is
talking about and/or is easily led by Iraqi propaganda.

Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:44:08 +0100
Subject: home in belgrade
From: Thorne Anderson

Sorry to unload just one long letter on all of you. I didn't intend it
that
way, but this is what spilled out.

Thorne

I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
after spending a month in Iraq . Kael was in Belgrade with me last
week.
She just returned from 10 days in Albania with the NY Times. Before
that,
she was in Bosnia with US News. We were lucky we could both be home at
the
same time. She's back in Bosnia with the NY Times this weekend.

I don't plan to return to Iraq until late December or early January --
perhaps earlier if it appears that there will be an attack. I'm really
committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even think about other work in
other places until there is some kind of resolution to the crisis in
Iraq .

Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq ,
but
this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my
time
in Iraq , in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an
impending
attack by the United States , I never met a single Iraqi who had a
harsh
word for me. Iraqis are very good at distinguishing between the U.S.
government and a U.S. citizen. Some friends and family are also already
wondering why I would want to go back to Iraq , as I am committed and
already anxious to do. It just seems to me that as a photojournalist,
Iraq
is where I might best play a role in making a small difference.

I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines while in Iraq , but
that
kind of work has really become secondary for me. I do what I can to
influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of stories those big
magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly worthless at
confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the Middle
East .
I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other
corporate
media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of my
efforts
are now going into reaching alternative media and in supporting
anti-war
groups in the states. I hope I can find some time soon to come to the
states for a speaking tour of sorts.

There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S.

 

a)Totally destroy Saddam and his evil regime. Install a good regime and finally bring peace to Iraq.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP WITH THIS BS!!! Nobody in Washington really gives a flying **** about the freedom of the Iraqi people! It's a nice little soundbite to snare the naive, but that's it. Because, as Cheveyo posted earlier, what if by some miracle Saddam disarms fully? If America backs down the Iraqi people are screwed, right? And if not, it proves war was always the intent.

The fact that he has them, and the fact that he never declared them, no matter what their condition, is a breach.

Jansons_Funny_Twin posted the reason we're after Saddam. He's in material breach of the conditions of surrender in the 1991 War. Simple as that. It is not, nor will it ever be, about the freedom of the Iraqi people and do not insult mine or anyone elses intelligence by suggesting otherwise. If you wish to believe that, fine, that's your loss and keep it to yourself. But we're wasting good, old fashioned debating time with this silly aside about the evils of Saddam's regime and the inherent goodness and compassion of American action.

J_F_T, our PM is pretty much blindly following Bush. You have to understand our position here - he's the leader of the main conservative party who is interesting in preserving the Anglo-American defence ties we need, being geopolitically isolated. We need the US a hell of alot more than you need us. And I guess the PM thinks by standing shoulder-to-shoulder here, that it will work in our favour. However, it's also true that most Australians are opposed to the war.

E_S

 

The main objective may be to remove the chemical weapons and not to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. However, the Iraqi people becoming free will be an eventual result of us removing Saddam.

 

Former British MP Tony Benn had an interview with Saddam Hussein that was broadcast on Channel Four.

Here's some of what he had to say:

"There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever."

"If we look at the representatives of two super powers - America and Britain - and look at their conduct and their language, we would notice that they are more motivated by war than their responsibility for peace. And when they talk about peace all they do is accuse others they wish to destroy in the name of peace."

You can read the whole interview over at the BBC news website.

 

"There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever."

How the Hell does he know this?

Seriously, UN inspectors knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before they were kicked out in 1998.

Is this schmuck trying to tell us that Saddam disarmed between now and then?

On his own?

Without telling the UN so the sanctions could be lifted?

It's asinine.