Because we eat babies.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
Printable View
Because we eat babies.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
It is, I think, fair to mention the last large nation's attempt at supressing terrorism when Putin describes exactly how he wants to do the same.
This will, of course, lead to the last allied coalition's collective foreign policy; which includes the America as well as Britain, Spain, Italy and others. I suppose that Bush is mentioned as he voluntarily 'lead' the coalition.
If you are in government you should be expected to be criticised. I wonder if GWB reads this web-site?
(I liked the 70's and 80's when we just sent special force troops in and supressed the press - no-one complained then)
It was the only nation actively interested in invading Iraq. I can't understand why Blair joined in but the reasons obviously are other than the intelligence. Therefore the US is the only major factor in the Iraq invasion. Even though you may call it a coalition of forces, practically all the decisions seem to be taken only by the US authorities, while the rest of the countries, including Britain, are only obeying orders. You may try to justify it, but whatever the reason, the fact remains that unless the US were there, none of the others would be there.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
And if you guys are so pissed because I keep blaming the US, can any one of you tell me what happened to the WMDs in Iraq? Before the invasion existence of WMDs was one of the major reasons (the other being the Al Qaeda link) for justifying the war. After the war, both the WMDs and the Al Qaeda link have taken a backseat and other issues are being presented as the justification for the war. Doesn't any one of you feel the need to find out why? Maybe the simple answer being the war was never based on any of these reasons.
24/7 electricity and water supply and easy availability of fuel were some characteristics of the Saddam regime which are notably absent from the post-Saddam era. Surely a common Iraqi needs these things more than a democratic (read: US stooge) government. Or maybe because you people take them for granted because you never have to suffer without them, so you think there are some things more important than the basic amenities, or the life itself.
.
Blair wants the u.s. as an ally, so does Spain.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I can't understand why Blair joined in but the reasons obviously are other than the intelligence.
Who knows,we didnt know where saddom was until we found him in a hole in the ground.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
And if you guys are so pissed because I keep blaming the US, can any one of you tell me what happened to the WMDs in Iraq?
Where were you during the Iraq - Iran war?
http://img48.exs.cx/img48/6572/scud6.jpg
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Even though you may call it a coalition of forces, practically all the decisions seem to be taken only by the US authorities, while the rest of the countries, including Britain, are only obeying orders.
Sources? You don't need sources to conclude that. All over the news about Iraq it's the US officials everywhere. I think there was a British official in Iraq in a similar capacity as Paul Bremmer, but since nothing has been heard of it for many weeks, I guess he has left too. From all the news about Iraq, I can only conclude the US and not the coalition is running the show there. Nowhere do you see Tony Blair or John Howard suggesting or initiating any measures in Iraq. It's a US show and the other nations are just following the US. Whether they can or not, they don't have any role to play in it. Whatever role they have is limited to increasing the number of troops and making minor decisions within areas of their actual work. I don't see anyone other than the US influencing the strategy and plan for Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.
Corona Beer, doesn't your post simply reiterate my point? None of the coalition joined in because they knew Iraq had WMDs or had links with Al Qaeda. They joined in simply because they wanted to side with the US.
You found Saddam, but you haven't still found WMDs. There have been investigations into the Iraq-Al Qaeda link and it has been proved that they don't exist. Which undermines the whole basis of the war. Which also means the purpose for war was anything other than what's being told.
.
Here's something:Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.
I am quoting off the BBC, but if you want you can check any other major news agency:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3655622.stm
This article discusses two reports within the US government and ministry which paint a grim picture of Iraq. While discussing the problems and suggested measures, you will notice the word "US" has been used where it should have been "Coalition".
There are numerous other examples of it. In fact I doubt if there are any official reports or news articles where the right word "Coalition" has been used. Even if there are such reports, they will be so rare they will just form an exception, which proves the rule.
If you think it was a real coalition, why do you think the word US has been used instead of coalition? Why is it that only the US officials and representatives get to say everything on Iraq and not others?
If you think it's just the numbers, I guess every time there has been a difference in the views between Blair and Bush, Blair has fast made reconciliatory remarks or clarified that he will always stand by the US, which means the US will have its way in Iraq.
.
My dispute isn't that the US isnt the major force. Its that we dont take orders from the USA. The british forces in Iraq are under british control.
I dont care what you guess as you are not in a position to.
They indeed are under British control. But who decides where they will go, which areas they will patrol and police? In the whole plan about the so-called reconstruction and the security arrengements and the counter-insurgency operations, do you really think the British get to decide their own priorities of work in terms of strategy?Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
My dispute isn't that the US isnt the major force. Its that we dont take orders from the USA. The british forces in Iraq are under british control.
I dont care what you guess as you are not in a position to.
Let's take an example. The US is going to divert a major amount of funds from the reconstruction to the security. I don't believe the British would be in a position to differ. Take another example: It may or may not be practical to hold elections in Iraq in January. Again I don't think Blair's opinion counts.
You may not be taking orders directly from a US commander, but the British commander in Iraq must be taking orders from the US authority there, or if from Blair, then Blair is following in Bush's footsteps so my point is still valid.
.
We all know Blair and Bush are cuddly poodles sharing the basket.Quote:
Blair is following in Bush's footsteps
. . . green peas in a pod
. . . cheese sandwiches in a picnic
. . . apples on an appletree
. . . rhythm and melody on a love song
. . .
these are American funds granted from the 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations, as the american taxpayer has provided them it is up to them to decide how to pay spend them.
If Bush decides to divert his own funds Blair cant really argue.
I suggest you re-read your post where you whine about people googling their opinions as you havent a clue what you are talking about.
see the details of the appropriations here:
http://www.************.com/p/articl...7/ai_104438394
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"
Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"
Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"
Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"
LOLOL :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"
Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"
Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"
Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"
Honeybee - I think that's why it's called the "US Led Coalition", but it is a coalition nonetheless. Some of our troops in Afghanistan are actually under the command of a Pakistani general. Does that mean Pakistan is calling the shots there?
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility
Bush gave me herpies!
Dubya gave me the clap
That was Clinton.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Dubya gave me the clap
No!
Clinton gave me an odd tropical disease that remains as yet undiagnosed.
Makes for a sore bum, though.
HE reminds me of J4U.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility
How was he proved wrong? I didn't see much opinion, let alone proof. Wasn't the argument about who commanded which troops?Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility
The politicians do the strategic command, while the normal military chain handles tactical command. Those two chains blur at the top of the military chain. Since Britain is responding to the overall lead of the American's, I would say America is in strategic control, Britain is in tactical control, and whoever is in nominal control really doesn't matter.
Indirectly that means it's America's war, nobody else's. Because no other nation is putting money into rebuilding Iraq, at least not a significant amount. Which goes to prove my point indirectly.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
these are American funds granted from the 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations, as the american taxpayer has provided them it is up to them to decide how to pay spend them.
If Bush decides to divert his own funds Blair cant really argue.
I suggest you re-read your post where you whine about people googling their opinions as you havent a clue what you are talking about.
see the details of the appropriations here:
http://www.************.com/p/articl...7/ai_104438394
And even if they are American taxpayers' funds, aren't they going to be used for the "Coalition" plan? Or is America only using the other countries' troops to guard its spoils in the war? If it really was a Coalition war, no matter who paid money, it would have to be appropriated by a coalition authority not the US congress. The funds are supposed to be used for bringing peace and stability in Iraq, not to serve America's own priorities. And America alone cannot decide where the funds should be spent to better bring stability and security in Iraq. If she is let to do this choice, again it proves that it's not a coalition, because no other coalition partner has any say in it.
This whole argument about it being the US taxpayers' money so they can spend it however they want is completely ridiculous. If America alone can decide how these funds should be used in Iraq, it means it treats the whole Iraq war as just another investment.
Yep, and the troop commanders take orders from whom, I wonder?
.
Britain in tactical control? I guess it would only be for the towns and cities which they are policing. I doubt if they can even choose between duties. Something like they are ordered by the US commanders to do a particular job, if they don't approve of it they complain to the British military authorities and are told to go along with the US orders. Yes, that's my guess. I would like to see some "proof" to prove it wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
How was he proved wrong? I didn't see much opinion, let alone proof. Wasn't the argument about who commanded which troops?
The politicians do the strategic command, while the normal military chain handles tactical command. Those two chains blur at the top of the military chain. Since Britain is responding to the overall lead of the American's, I would say America is in strategic control, Britain is in tactical control, and whoever is in nominal control really doesn't matter.
.
I would have to say so, at least for the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
LOLOL :lol: :lol:
Honeybee - I think that's why it's called the "US Led Coalition", but it is a coalition nonetheless. Some of our troops in Afghanistan are actually under the command of a Pakistani general. Does that mean Pakistan is calling the shots there?
The situation is completely different to Iraq, because Pakistani forces are more closely aquainted to the Afghan terrain than the coalition troops are. So when it comes to choose between the US and the Pakistani forces, the Pakistani are obvious choice to command, lead and coordinate.
In Iraq, I doubt if any of the coalition troops can be chosen in this way. All of them are new to the terrain and almost none of them, except maybe the British, have faced urban or guerrila warfare. So there's no specific reason other coalition partners should be mere spectators. So the political and other considerations come to the fore, and so the US becomes the overall dictator in Iraq.
US-led coalition? Looks more ilke US-dragged coalition. Today I can say that every other country who is part of the coalition is there just because it can't pull out of it and face the US wrath. This is because the Iraq war and participation in the coalition has become a prestige issue for the US. Which was evident from the way the US officials reacted to Phillipines' withdrawal of their troops. The reason being it's widely perceived, and is quite correct, that it's America's war and nobody else's. The reasons for war have been proved unjustified, and no other nation has any benefit from the war except a little bit more favouritism from the US government. Tidbits by way of contracts are no longer attractive because the security situation has made it impossible to conduct business in Iraq. They are there only because they can't withdraw now and fall flat on their faces. They can't go to the public saying they made a mistake. Everybody wants to protect their political careers first, before showing any signs of honesty.
.
Alright, it at least proves my point that none of the reasons given by Bush before and after the Iraq war to justify the war are the true reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"
Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"
Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"
Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"
.
Here's something to ponder.
Yes, many nations were against the US led coalitions decision to enter Iraq.
They have refused to provide any type of help when it comes to rebuilding.
But they (meaning France, Germany, et al...) are all about trying to setup new companies there to benefit from the democratic process. TeleCommunications companies, oil companies.
They didn't want to participate, but they sure as hell want to benefit don't they!
. . . and of course those who participated were not hoping to benefit in any fiscal manner at all.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, it's a big coincidence that virtually all of the multi-million reconstruction contracts are given to American companies. No profit interest whatsoever. They're only there for humanitarian reasons and all the million dollars they rake up for their effort is a neat side effect ... :rolleyes:
Actually although I agree with what I posted it was meant to be a retort to the ridiculous post just before.
Eyes, Blinkers, Wall.
What a mess.
err, mine was in the same vein yrwysummat.
I ocassionally am capable of mustering enough wit to spot the humour in threads. With considerable difficulty I'll admit ... :)
:eek2:
Dont eat at KFC, they might profit from your chicken consumption.
they do chicken wrong anyway.
The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?
Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?
If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?
You should give me a piece because if you don't:
Me and my friends will come to your home
We will accidentally (sorry we missed) kill your pets
We will leave our brothers their to make sure you share your pizza.
We will install a new head of the household (who will report to us)
We will tell the local authorities they can exist only - and only if - they comply with pizza-sharing law.
:sick:
Piess off. It's our money you commie basterd. I'm going to eat your baby and dump napalm on a herd of baby seals.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
This whole argument about it being the US taxpayers' money so they can spend it however they want is completely ridiculous. If America alone can decide how these funds should be used in Iraq, it means it treats the whole Iraq war as just another investment.
So what would you propose should happen now, Honeybee? You sound alot like US liberals - "it's all bad, everythings bad, Bush is bad, the war is bad". When asked for a solution, or an alternative the reply is usually "uh...it's just bad, bad I tell ya!"
Dude, I never thought of that, and I doubt you meant it the way it reads, but it sure makes me hesitant to try any of their chicken!:eek2:Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Dont eat at KFC, they might profit from your chicken consumption.
they do chicken wrong anyway.
Good point!Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
So what would you propose should happen now, Honeybee? You sound alot like US liberals - "it's all bad, everythings bad, Bush is bad, the war is bad". When asked for a solution, or an alternative the reply is usually "uh...it's just bad, bad I tell ya!"
I was against the war, and am still against the war. I don't think Bush was honest about why he went into it, but went into it he sure did! Now what.
Well, attacks on US forces ~6 months ago were in the order of 5-10 a day (maybe 10-15, I forget). Now the attacks are more in the order of 80 a day (according to two news reports I have heard). The situation is getting worse.
Of course as MasterB said in his typical screwy way, it sure is a great idea to let the bad guys focus on a war against America over in Iraq.
Still, there must be a solution.
We could:
1) Simply leave.
That would almost certainly lead to one of two things: Either an islamic state similar to Iran, or a dictator similar to Sadam. I suspect that if we could guarantee outcome #2, we'd be gone by now. Back to Saddam would be an improvement over the status quo.
2) Stay the course.
This has no endpoint at this time. We never wanted a real democracy, we wanted stability. When the current 'president' was a badass, the people loved him because he was restoring order. Now the current president looks like he's a sham, and the people are losing interest. We are betting on elections, but NOBODY thinks they will solve anything.
3) Attack someone else.
Ok, I couldn't think of any other option except this, but it's not a bad idea. After all, many people thought the real reason we went into Iraq was because we found out that we couldn't win in Afghanistan. I don't believe that, but right now, Iran is looking like more trouble than Iraq. Still, this can't be done. We don't have the troops without the draft.
There is no answer. The current solution is as still-born as all the other options. Right now, the best idea that anybody has is: Stay the course and hope for a miracle.
In fairness, what did American companies contribute, so why should they benefit?Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?
Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?
If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?
It doesn't bother me at all about this whole "Only the countries that participated should get contracts" statement of Bush's, but as an American tax payer it should bother you.
You see, I was kind of involved in a bit of this and the way it played out was frightening. Here is my tale, the names have been ommitted to protect my arse.
There's a pile of Jet Engines (Gas Turbines) in Iraq used to pump gas and oil around and to generate electricity. Most of them are made by Rolls Royce or GE.
Someone (I'm not sure if the it was the US Govt, the US Military or Haliburton) asked for bid documents for major players to go in and rebuild/repair these engines. There are only two companies in the world geared up for such a task (GE or Rolls-Royce) (Pratt tend to not get involved with other peoples engines).
So both companies tender a bid. Rolls Royce are told that they can't bid because the division of their company that deals with Oil Pipeline Gas Turbines is (not suprisingly) Rolls-Royce Canada. Ah, you see, despite the fact that Canada supported the US going in to Afghanistan, because they didn't support them going into Iraq apparently they're not allowed to bid. So Rolls-Royce argue that their head office is in England, their North American headquarters are in the States, so surely they're eligable. Which makes a farce of Bush's statement as all of the big companies are truelly international, how do you decide which nation a company belongs to now. Really, it comes down to perception/image more than anything.
So, they get a message back saying yes, they can now bid, but don't put Rolls-Royce Canada on the header paper, use the US Headoffice paper. Fine, so they do that.
Then they get a letter, saying, nope, they've changed their mind again, Rolls-Royce aren't eligable to bid if any of the work is to be done by Rolls-Royce Canada. Another call, then another letter saying that provisionally they can bid, but they can't be guaranteed to be eligable. At this point Rolls-Royce pulls out of the bidding and decides that it want's nothing more to do with this, as they could spend a lot of money on the bid process only to be told that it was a waste as they won't be considered for the job under Bush's "coallition nations only" idea.
Rolls-Royce informs GE (both companies are on suprisingly friendly terms at director level) that they have withdrawn from the bidding. GE are now the only company bidding for the contract. I will quote a GE Exec on this (over a few pints of beer), "So of course, when we heard that, we stuck an extra zero on the bid price we had before sending it out. They have to pay it."
He then went on to tell us the price...... let's just say my jaw hit the deck. It get's worse....;)
Now, everything above I heard from the horses mouths involved. Much of the rest is drunken talk from GE or Rolls sales reps etc. (With the exception fo the guy who got shot up, he's a mate of my brothers).
One of the GE guys is out working on an engine in Iraq, and he gets shot at and his two guards are killed (he survived). GE pulled all of their staff out of the country, because one of the conditions they had put in was that if the military couldn't guarantee the safety of their employees they were out of there with 100% of the contract paid (they would still supply the spare parts specified, but all the commssioning was to be paid off in full).
So, the US tax payer paid GE ten times the market cost (because Bush effecively made them the sole bidder, and lets face it, who can blame them) and the job was never even 5% completed (though they do now have the spare parts sitting in a dock somewhere). And this is going to kill you, they have now approached Rolls-Royce and asked them if they would be prepared to take over the contract.....
...... If GE's price shocked, Rolls-Royces almost made me faint.... because now that GE have pulled out, they're the only bidder.....
That's an awful lot of Tax payers money that's just been given away, why? To make a silly political statement in a small minded attempt to "punish" countries that didn't do what he wanted.
Like I say, I don't mind, it's not my money, it's yours.
Nobody bought a pizza in Iraq. The pizza was forced down their throats with their arms and legs tied up behind them.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?
Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?
If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?
Who decides which companies should get contracts for what? It's the Iraqis, stupid :D. Not some "provisional coalition government" which is nothing but Paul Bremmer and the US government and nobody else.
.