Originally posted by usmc7257If the slightest scrap of evidence relating to 'weapons of mass distruction' (I'm really sick of that term) has been found it would be all over the news in minutes. You only have to look at how quickly the army tipped off the media every time they thought they had stumbled apon something to see that's true.
we attacked iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. everyone raise a big stink about not finding any...well the media doesnt know everything. there is alot more going on then cnn knows. there is a reason for everything and as for the war in iraq...that reason was not oil.
The region is important because of the oil. It's not the only reason they went in, but it would have been a strong influence.
Not trying to irritate anyone but here's my opinion:
1)The war on Terrorism cannot be won - It is a war against an enemy that cannot be found. If you kill osama or the next in line, they'll just get someone else to take charge. It's a difficult situation and maybe afghanistan was needed. but what now, they scatter and disperse and then get back together when things cool off. it's an ideal that cannot be fought with guns.
2)Iraq was a bad idea - Iraq is not 911 and Iraq has nothing to do with al queda. There are loads of evil dictators,why this one? And more importantly why now? I think, and i may be wrong, that the US administration used the confusion and anger that the public felt about whole 911 to justify the war. Things aren't better there. And you may say that in a couple of years things'll be better.But things could have got better through peaceful measures too, humanity must at least try to evolve.
3)Why is the UN so inept - i dunno, i give up on this lot!!!
Originally posted by Black LungBecause they are a collection of nations and have to agree on what is right. and this takes time. It is called democracy. They also have a problem with the security council and the ability of a single nation to veto the wishes of the majority.
Not trying to irritate anyone but here's my opinion:
3)Why is the UN so inept - i dunno, i give up on this lot!!!
East Timor is a recent example of successful action - perhaps you can give an example of another nation which has done so well?
I personnaly feel that America shouldn't have invaded Iraq. But, they have, and to leave now would be an even bigger mistake. Look at what happened after the last Gulf War yes they invaded, but, they didn't stop long enough to set things up to be a better place. As someone stated earlier 2/3 iraqi's want the troops there, and wanted Saddam out. If all the troops pulled out from Iraq now, someone of the same ilk as Saddam will just take over. The country is crawling with people just like Saddam, in positions of power, because saddam put them there. If the country is not left with the strength to take care of these problems then it will end up just as bad as before.
I know this subject has been put to rest. But, I feel that the problem in gauntanamo bay should be resolved, not necessarily by releasing the prisoners, not at all. But, by bringing in some sort of formality and actual international law to the proceedings. (if anyone wants to comment on that then could they please PM me rather than replying, as it has been said, quite rightly so, that that is a bit of a risky subject)
the war on terrorism will never really be solved as there is always going to be fundamentalists with a grudge against someone or something. I just hope that these things can be resolved more peacefully than they have been on some occasions.
Jim
On another note. Iraq was a problem, it did need to be solved like other countries, the human rights infringements have been of note, the swamp arabs and the Kurds were victims of mass murder at the hands of Saddam. However, I feel that more killing was probably not the answer, atleast not without other courses being considered. Weapons of mass distruction, in my opinion aren't something that you can use for a logical reason to go to war. Is anyone going to invade America or Great Britain, maybe Russia or China, no. Granted Saddam was far more agressive and he did run a dictatorship, but you can't really say that just because he had weapons of mass distruction he was of more risk than, say, Japan. There were many reasons to go to war. At least, after other options were exhausted, but WMD weren't one of them.
Jim
Originally posted by jimmi tWhy not invade Japan then? Why shouldn't China invade Taiwan or Pakistan invade Kashmir?
...he had weapons of mass distruction he was of more risk than, say, Japan..
Jim
Slippery moral slopes. Countries gives all sort of reasons for invasion - living space, to guard borders, to protect people of their own nationality from persecution. International law says a county may only attack in self defence, where it is under immediate threat. This is the justification for the war given by Bush -Iraq through its WMD programme was a threat to the US. I leave to you to decide whether this was a lie, incompetence of the intelligence agencies or the weapons are yet to be found after six months searching by over a 100 000 troops.
Without WMD there is no moral justification for the war. Saddam was a tyrant and mass murderer and no-one regrets his loss of power - but this war in flouting international law has made the world more dangerous. What has been demonstrated is that the powerful can invade any county they disapprove of - not just the US, but a dozen other countries can do so. The war has also added to proliferation of WMD - the US invaded Iraq, not North Korea because the Koreans possibly have nuclear weapons. If they don't, they will be building them as fast and secretly as they can -as will Iran, Libya and many others.
It is far to early to judge the impact of the invasion. Even in Iraq, the prospects of a democratic and western leaning county appear bleak. What is clear is the position of France and Germany was justified - Saddam was contained and UN inspections had prevented WMD development.
There was definitely some alterior motives in the invasion of Iraq, although to what extent these motives permeate throughout the Bush-Blair administrations is debatable and subjective. The "official" line that it was primarily relieving Iraqi citizens from an evil dictatorship is certainly a viable argument. However, if this is the case, in my opinion the situation in Zimbabwe with Mugabe warrants international attention more than Iraq did. Now if only Zimbabwe had huge oil reserves...
Mark
Originally posted by mmanuelremoving Saddam for the people of Iraq may have been the official line but I certainly got the impression that they did it for the WMD. I agree with you though that there were alterior motives.
There was definitely some alterior motives in the invasion of Iraq, although to what extent these motives permeate throughout the Bush-Blair administrations is debatable and subjective. The "official" line that it was primarily relieving Iraqi citizens from an evil dictatorship is certainly a viable argument. However, if this is the case, in my opinion the ...[text shortened]... nternational attention more than Iraq did. Now if only Zimbabwe had huge oil reserves...
Mark
And really don't get me started on Zimbabwe, we'd certainly be here some time.😛
Jim.
Originally posted by steerpikeIn general I think you are right, but there is another justification for military intervention under international law - the prevention of imminent humanitarian disaster. Humanitarianism brought about the actions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone and should have seen us intervene in Rwanda, if anyone had woken up to the slaughter sooner.
Why not invade Japan then? Why shouldn't China invade Taiwan or Pakistan invade Kashmir?
Slippery moral slopes. Countries gives all sort of reasons for invasion - living space, to guard borders, to protect people of their own nationa ...[text shortened]... was contained and UN inspections had prevented WMD development.
Now humanitarian intervention is only legal with specific UN approval - or at least, as in Kosovo, a very broad international consensus - and there's no way it can be cited post hoc to justify the Iraq invasion. But if at some point over the last 10 years someone had presented a case for action on humanitarian grounds, with no trumped up charges of WMD, no forced timetable and no bullying, heavy-handed diplomacy, I think the UN might have said yes. Of course, such action should really have happened years and years ago, when the initial attrocities were being committed, but Sadaam was a fully paid up friend of the West back then.
Rich.
Months before it started misslead got slated because she saw all this misery and campaigned to talk talk talk.But before the conflct the view was we could go in do a job and come home.misslead said it was about oil not about weapons of mass destruction.misslead said if we go to war it won't be fun.misslead takes no comfort in "I told you so"When will we learn.
Originally posted by missleadmisslead, i remember. War does not end with teh delcaration of surrender or the declaration of 'the end of hostilities'.
Months before it started misslead got slated because she saw all this misery and campaigned to talk talk talk.But before the conflct the view was we could go in do a job and come home.misslead said it was about oil not about weapons of mass destruction.misslead said if we go to war it won't be fun.misslead takes no comfort in "I told you so"When will we learn.
War ends when the country is rebuilt, when people have work, when the destruction scars the minds and hearts but not the streets.
Wars have no happy ending. There are no winners in battle, only losers. The only 'winner' in this war is the oil companies who will now get free acess to the oil fields.
What about the Iraqi's who are suffering now, through lack of work, food and the basics of human life. My heart goes out to them. They are dying, and suffering but we never see them on CNN.
Originally posted by usmc7257Yes and guess who is going to be first in line to take up the contracts. Iraq is definitely going to have to sell contracts to get the oil out of the ground, they have neither the money or resources to do it themselves.
there is no free access to iraq's oil. after this is all over they are going to make a killing on the sale of it. not america but iraq. why can you not see that.
I wonder could it be Jordan, or Syria, or Yemen, or Russia or China, or France or Germany.
NO none of them, the GOOD OL' USA will be number 1, 2, 3....
you still dont see it. to everybody here the iraqi war was just a big oil campaign. you all have your opinions and thats fine i am not going to try to convince you of somethig you choose not to believe. i'm just saying there is more here than what meets the eye. i can't say any more so good luck with all of your oil theories.
sincerely
mike