Originally posted by bbarrI would add that is clear this invasion is because of oil and control in that region.
I'm not sure why you say there was no alternative to this war. It wasn't widely reported in the weeks leading to the first Gulf War, but there were no less than three different treaties offered by Saddam Hussein before that conflict to fully withdraw from Kuwait. One of these treaties was in fact brokered by the Organization of Arab States. Bush Sr. cont ...[text shortened]... ion, but it requires diplomacy and foreign policy not solely shpaed by short-term self-interest.
Originally posted by UncleAdamBoby has already provided justification for this claim, and as far as I can tell, nobody has provided a counter-argument. The people of North Korea are brutally repressed, the country has weapons of mass destruction, and stands in violation of several UN resolutions. If the US is really interested in liberating oppressed people, disarming despotic regimes, and enforcing UN resolutions, then why have they not taken action against N. Korea? Saudi Arabia is a brutal monarchical society, guilty of many human rights abuses, with weapons of mass destruction. Why have we not taken action against Saudi Arabia? There are any number of despotic regimes around the world, many of which have weapons of mass destruction and are guilty of human rights abuses. So the question is: Why is Iraq deserving of our special military attention? The answer to that question is that it is in our economic interests to put into power an Iraqi regime that will be sympathetic to our need for oil. Simply claiming that we're not there for oil doesn't cut it. You need an argument to back up your claim, and regurgitating the statements made by US 'leaders' isn't sufficient.
Why, just because they have oil would we invade them? hint, were not
So what evidence is there for your claim? Notice that I'm not claiming the US will simply take over Iraqi oil production, rather, that they will put into power a regime that won't unduly limit our access to oil.
Originally posted by bbarrif we librated any other country you would have said something similer, why not start with one?
Boby has already provided justification for this claim, and as far as I can tell, nobody has provided a counter-argument. The people of North Korea are brutally repressed, the country has weapons of mass destruction, and stands in violation of several UN resolutions. If the US is really interested in liberating oppressed people, disarming despotic regimes, a ...[text shortened]... tion, rather, that they will put into power a regime that won't unduly limit our access to oil.
Originally posted by bbarrThanks for the answer I couldnt have done better!
Boby has already provided justification for this claim, and as far as I can tell, nobody has provided a counter-argument. The people of North Korea are brutally repressed, the country has weapons of mass destruction, and stands in violation of several UN resolutions. If the US is really interested in liberating oppressed people, disarming despotic regimes, a ...[text shortened]... tion, rather, that they will put into power a regime that won't unduly limit our access to oil.
Originally posted by UncleAdamNo I wouldn't have said something similar if we invaded and occupied another country. 'You gotta start somewhere' doesn't constitute an argument, it's just an excuse not to think. There are reasons behind the choice of Iraq, I given you the actual motivation behind the invasion and occupation. Unless you can come up with a reason to think that oil had nothing to do with invading Iraq, then the best explanation for our actions is that we desire the oil. This point is very easy to grasp, if you would just think about it.
if we librated any other country you would have said something similer, why not start with one?
Originally posted by bbarrIt was to finish the job that was started 12 years ago that his father should have done, have we kept the oil away from the Iraqis, no we havent, if we really whanted the oil it would be coming our way by now.
No I wouldn't have said something similar if we invaded and occupied another country. 'You gotta start somewhere' doesn't constitute an argument, it's just an excuse not to think. There are reasons behind the choice of Iraq, I given you the actual motivation behind the invasion and occupation. Unless you can come up with a reason to think that oil had n ...[text shortened]... is that we desire the oil. This point is very easy to grasp, if you would just think about it.
Originally posted by UncleAdamThat doesn't make any sense. The stated goal of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. This is why we didn't actually support the Kurdish revolt we instigated. You are simply confused about the first Gulf War.
It was to finish the job that was started 12 years ago that his father should have done, have we kept the oil away from the Iraqis, no we havent, if we really whanted the oil it would be coming our way by now.
Originally posted by bbarrI am not confused, what I ment by finish the job was that we should have taken him out then so he couldnt cause more troble in the region, I know the main goal wasnt to remove Saddam from power, but if we didnt (and we didnt) thats not finishing the job.
That doesn't make any sense. The stated goal of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. This is why we didn't actually support the Kurdish revolt we instigated. You are simply confused about the first Gulf War.
do you not agree?
-Adam
bbar has an interesting point about American double standards. No support for an international criminal court, but now they are hunting for Iraqi war ciminals to put on trial. It would be interesting to see if any US soldiers go on trial for war crimes after this.
The US supports the UN until it disagrees with US foreign policy then disregards it, supports international environmental conventions until they tell the US to lower emission levels then disregards them. Before this war I was afraid of terrorists but now I'm afraid of a superpower that can do what it wants. If anything, this war has shown me that the USA is the aggressor. I used to think of them as the hero, the big peacekeeper, but suddenly I see the other side, the resentment from so many people that the US can dictate to the world. This whole argument that peaceful means failed is complete crap. They hadn't reached their conclusion. The argument that America can't stand by and let innocents die is also complete rubbish. What about Tibet? The USA stood by then and is still standing by. Do you think it would ever put any pressure on China over Tibet, a place where women are sterilised to wipe out the local inhabitants and allow repopulation with Chinese nationals?
And a final note about CNN. I don't know what kind of reputation CNN has in the US but it seemed to be an American propaganda machine during this war. Other stations were showing US troops breaking down doors and swearing at people, slapping them, etc but CNN has constantly interviewed "experts" about why the war is great, on schedule, whatever. While other networks were showing the results of war CNN was showing cheering crowds and how to build a bridge or drive a tank. Be the first to know? Only if the Pentagon's confirmed it.
Originally posted by shougiThank you for confirming what I have been trying to convey for some time. Any media outlet that has a political agenda can NOT be trusted to relay accurate and unbiased information. Free press? I should think not!
bbar has an interesting point about American double standards. No support for an international criminal court, but now they are hunting for Iraqi war ciminals to put on trial. It would be interesting to see if any US soldiers go on trial for war crimes after this.
The US supports the UN until it disagrees with US foreign policy then disregards it, supports ...[text shortened]... w to build a bridge or drive a tank. Be the first to know? Only if the Pentagon's confirmed it.
For what it's worth shougi, some of us in the US don't buy into the propaganda. My government shames me.
Originally posted by OmnislashI agree with the free press, but I'm still pro-war, we only get 2 major news stations here in my small town, CNN and MSNBC I'v found that MSNBC has less propaganda but still alot, and I can tell what is propaganda and whats not, but there is lots of propaganda in any war😞
Thank you for confirming what I have been trying to convey for some time. Any media outlet that has a political agenda can NOT be trusted to relay accurate and unbiased information. Free press? I should think not!
For what it's worth shougi, some of us in the US don't buy into the propaganda. My government shames me.
ive been busy this weakend, it looks like there a lot of new stuff to talk about.
Sorry UncleAdam i maybe the only other pro-GW2 here, but i beleive this war is about oil. America wanted the war so it could get the oil righs, france was anti war because it knew it would loose the contracts IT had with Saddam.
As I have said before, every action has more than one reaction so long as we free Iraq and help it's people, i dont care what else we achieve.
bbarr, the protests you talk about, were weak at best since they fail to have any political or economic effects (except for Rage Against The Machines protest), the marches didnt gain any real voice until the month before the war began.
The US blocked the international criminal courts, and lumped massive, crippling sanctions on the people, at the same time Saddam tortured his people, and gave as much physical and moral resistance to americas disarmorment programme, by about 2000, it became clear that Saddam would not help his people peacefully. He resisted all peaceful atempts of helping his people, and refused to stand down, his people were suffering and dying every day, this is why the war became necissary to oust Saddam.
The Aim use humanitarian, but the drive was economic.
Originally posted by nktwildWhy I dont think that its about oil is because Bush and Blair would be hated be most people in the world, and have no chance for a re-election, they might even be throwen out of office, there would be nothing in it for them and they arent dum enough to take a risk like that.
......Sorry [b]UncleAdam i maybe the only other pro-GW2 here, but i beleive this war is about oil........
[/b]
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by UncleAdamAll war is a political risk, even Churchill lost the election after WW2. It is about oil though, the energy sector bankrolled the whole Bush election campaign.
Why I dont think that its about oil is because Bush and Blair would be hated be most people in the world, and have no chance for a re-election, they might even be throwen out of office, there would be nothing in it for them and they arent dum enough to take a risk like that.
Andrew