The debate on Iraq

[WiKiDJeFF]

What is it about this war on Iraq that has everyone so bumfuzzled? All this finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. It's simply distracting the world from the growing threats we now face around the globe. How about we come back to whether or not Bush lied after we deal with N. Korea's nuclear program, world hunger, poverty, crumbling schools, troubling crime rates, and the many problems that plague Africa?

[Maven]

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
What is it about this war on Iraq that has everyone so bumfuzzled? All this finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. It's simply distracting the world from the growing threats we now face around the globe. How about we come back to whether or not Bush lied after we deal with N. Korea's nuclear program, world hunger, poverty, crumbling schools, troubling crime rates, and the many problems that plague Africa?

Iraq is a better debate, lotta people love conspiracy theories. North korea will be a HUGE debate later on if we continue down this road we are on. It'll be a scary one too lol

[WiKiDJeFF]

The problem with N. Korea is that it has the potential to easily become a real war, not just a debate.

[tpfkanep]

... and the many problems that plague Africa

Please stay out of Africa.

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by tpfkanep
Please stay out of Africa.

[please]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tpfkanep
Please stay out of Africa.

And please stay out of my country too.

Everywhere you put your dirty boots on, is havoc.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by please
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tpfkanep
Please stay out of Africa.

And please stay out of my country too.

Everywhere you put your dirty boots on, is havoc.

Yeah your right France and the whole of Europe is really a mess today

X

[please]

France, Italy, Germany, Japan...
The merit is of their people and years of sacrifice. Not US merit.
And sure not Bush's merit.
You better take a look at Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Afghanistan, just to name a few.
And Irak, off course.

[NotLKH]

Guess what.

You start with crap, you sculpt it, mold it, paint it, guess what you end up with.

crap.

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Guess what.

You start with crap, you sculpt it, mold it, paint it, guess what you end up with.

crap.

What if you add on to it???

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah your right France and the whole of Europe is really a mess today

X

Absolutely not at all. The US of A is.

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by KayJay
Absolutely not at all. The US of A is.

I don't see how??? You see that is the good thing about the US...If we have a president that comes in and ****s everything up...then 4 years later we can vote his ass out of office.

I however, feel that Bush did the right thing with Iraq and Afghanistan. I am tired of bull**** negotiations and sit downs with ***** government leaders who make empty promises. It's time people started paying for their misdeeds in blood. As a matter of fact, I think the US should adopt the same policy as Israel. You **** with us...we'll **** with you!

[KayJay]

Iraq copulated, in a derogatory sense, with the US of A? Thats new! Afghanistan, fair enough. Al-Qaeda, quite very fair enough. Taliban, same news. Saddam Hussein? What did he do apart from saying NO to the International Community? In that sense, he was brethren to the US of A. So why decapitate him?

On a larger context, the US of A has a very unsuccessful Foreign Policy implentation in the what the current administration terms, albeit by implication, "the uncivilised world". Her actions and more often inaction have led to disasters all over. The list provided by "please" should be enough of a wake up call for some serious introspection. The gist of the Foreign Policy (as percieved) is as follows

1) Assign party A the label of "enemy". Associative (1940's Germany), Ideological (USSR), Security (Afghanistan), Regional-Political (Central America), etc. Whatever be the cause, the US of A, since the fall of the British Empire has not been without explicitly declared "Enemies".

2) Use party B as a comrade in arms against party A. Party B being a close geographic/ethnic neighbour of party A.

3) Destroy or make impotent party A.

4) Ignore and/or turn into "enemy' party B

5) Goto (1)

It is step 4 and 5 that's being vehemently opposed and/or spat at by the "uncivilised world". All the time, despite the 4 yearly change of the guard. Just read Non-American newspapers in the past 50 years to appreciate, if not accept, the above sentiment.

Today, the US of A is being faced with the unforeseen situation of handling post-conflict Iraq with very different ideological and political partners playing the role of the party B above. In effect being told by the world east of Amman, "you have to clean your own excrements". Thats why I say, the US of A is in a mess. Germany, France, South Korea, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, India, Indonesia, Japan, Uzbekistan, East Timor, we are all fine and well, thank you. Please clean up after yourselves. It stinks.

Africa is vulnerable. No doubt. The US of A can and most probably will effect "regime change", control the "people's resources for their own good" and take over the task of providing "security" from "external" aggressors. It is extremely unfortunate that when a considerable portion of the whole world stood shoulder to shoulder in the effort to combat radical and violent communism with the US of A, there is now a need to combat radical and violent "peace-making' against the US of A. Africa, the birthplace of humanity should not become the war zone against the middle-aged and the reckless. It will if the current tainted hands of the US Administration is not laid off the womb of mankind.

So, to echo the sentiment, Please stay out of Africa.

[Memnoch1207]

What the **** are you talking about????
Talk about being long winded and saying nothing...you remind me of my calculus instructor, who could make tying your shoes a 15 step process.

[KayJay]

LOL

1) The Iraq War was unnecessary and unwarranted

2) The US of A and her "old friends, now enemies" policy is disgusting

3) In Iraq, today, not many are willing to lend a hand, 'cause "you gotta wipe your own ass".

4) Africa: Stay. Home.

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
What the **** are you talking about????
Talk about being long winded and saying nothing...you remind me of my calculus instructor, who could make tying your shoes a 15 step process.

I'm saying a lot. Just that you understand very little. My fault. I admit. If the purpose of my communicating, is your percieving. If not, well...........

[BodwadUK]

Nobody should help most of Africa because Africa needs to sort it out itself. It is perfectly capable if all the leaders come together to combat the 'problem leaders' that they have.

As to the poverty aid agencys are helping all the time and alot of governments are sending aid to these contries.

P.s if i have the wrong idea i am sorry but i am a bit dozy at the mo

[Xanith]

Lets see if I can dissect this little diatribe.

Saddam Hussein? What did he do apart from saying NO to the International Community? In that sense, he was brethren to the US of A. So why decapitate him?

So Saddam’s only crime was saying no to the international community huh? I guess attacking Iran, invading Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, slaughtering the Shiite’s, shooting skuds at Israel, torturing, raping, and murdering his own people, and defying 17 UN resolutions is nothing to you? Someone needs to open their eyes and see what a monster Saddam truly was.

5 step thing...

As far as your short sighted and simplistic layout of how US foreign policy has worked over the past 60 years I can see you are in much need of some facts to help you over come this obvious anti-American slant you have taken. Perhaps a simple example of one instance of US foreign policy that you feel fits into your little steps would have helped. In other words maybe some actual data not just simple anti-American rhetoric to back up your claims. The world is a dynamic place that is ever changing and assigning a static and simplistic 5 step “plan” of the route of 60 years of US foreign policy is inconceivable and short-sighted.

Today, the US of A is being faced with the unforeseen situation of handling post-conflict Iraq with very different ideological and political partners playing the role of the party B above. In effect being told by the world east of Amman, "you have to clean your own excrements". Thats why I say, the US of A is in a mess. Germany, France, South Korea, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, India, Indonesia, Japan, Uzbekistan, East Timor, we are all fine and well, thank you. Please clean up after yourselves. It stinks.

The US doesn’t need any help from anyone in dealing with Iraq. I see the rest of the world saying, well you got into this yourselves you can get out of it yourselves. That’s fine by me. I do think however that as long as we are taking care of things in Iraq we also might as well take control of that nations oil supply so it can feed a hungry US economy to help it grow even larger. After all Iraq is the US’s problem no? No need for the rest of the world to concern itself with what the US does in Iraq. After all we got into it, what we get out of it is none of the rest of the worlds concern seeing as they obviously don’t care about the Iraqi people anyway.

Africa is vulnerable. No doubt. The US of A can and most probably will effect "regime change", control the "people's resources for their own good" and take over the task of providing "security" from "external" aggressors. It is extremely unfortunate that when a considerable portion of the whole world stood shoulder to shoulder in the effort to combat radical and violent communism with the US of A, there is now a need to combat radical and violent "peace-making' against the US of A. Africa, the birthplace of humanity should not become the war zone against the middle-aged and the reckless. It will if the current tainted hands of the US Administration is not laid off the womb of mankind.

Africa should not become a war zone? Are you living with your head in the sand? Africa is a war zone. There are currently over 50 wars and conflicts going on in Africa even as we speak. AIDS is currently ravaging the continent. Starvation and famine are commonplace. Thanks to the French, Belgians, and other Europeans for screwing up that continent and leaving it in the mess its currently in. I don’t even know what you are alluding to when you say that the US should stay out of Africa. I suppose the 15 billion dollars given to help fight AIDS should be taken back? The peacekeeping forces sent into Liberia should be removed? What is the UN’s role in Africa? Should the UN stay away as well? Well perhaps the UN should stay away given their total failure in regards to Rwanda…or should I say the French backed slaughter in Rwanda.

What you fail to see is that Africa is already a mess. All I see in your words is the fear of world domination by the United States of America. But what you fail to see is that the US has never been into colonizing like the Europeans were or in taking over and controlling nations like the former Soviet Union used to do. The US goes in then gets out as soon as possible. The same thing will happen with Iraq.

The reason the rest of the world stood toe to toe with the US against communism is that it threatened everyone. It’s easy to get behind something that you have a stake in. This time however the threat of terrorism has been directed at the US alone and the rest of the world can’t seem to handle the US trying to defend itself.

Being from India I would hope you would understand the threat of Islamic terrorism. Why just the other day you had bombing inside of India by Islamic terrorists. How does that make you feel? Do you think you have a right to defend yourself against such a thing? Or you should just take it because the rest of the world feels you shouldn’t crack down on terrorists because it could harm some innocent people and maybe start a war? Who do you feel should tell India what’s best for India? The UN? You seem to think they are the best at telling the US how to handle its business I suppose you would defer your national security to the UN as well? Let me know how you feel

X

[BodwadUK]

I am surprised that India didnt blame Pakistan they usually do.

That is currently one of the more volatile areas in the world as both have nukes and its a stronge belief that neither will be afraid to use them

[KayJay]

Lets see if I can dissect this little diatribe.


So Saddam’s only crime was saying no to the international community huh? I guess attacking Iran, invading Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, slaughtering the Shiite’s, shooting skuds at Israel, torturing, raping, and murdering his own people, and defying 17 UN resolutions is nothing to you? Someone needs to open their eyes and see what a monster Saddam truly was.


Attacking Iran: The US of A as of 1979 to 1989. Enough said.

Invading Kuwait: I do agree on the assistance (I repeat, assistance. Invaluable. Incalculable. But, only assistance. It was Iraq vs Kuwait. Not Iraq vs US of A) My full support on Gulf War I. I've never said anything to the contrary on that, on these boards at least.

Shiite and Kurd Massacres: The US of A as of 1980 to 1999. Enough said.

Raping and torturing his own people: Valid argument. But invasion of a Sovereign Nation? Even that, on whose behest?

You see, my point is the US of A did nothing, and most often expressed active support and less often passive, at the time of the actual execution of monstrosities and absurdities, though fully and wholly aware of the implications of such crimes against humanity.

As far as your short sighted and simplistic layout of how US foreign policy has worked over the past 60 years I can see you are in much need of some facts to help you over come this obvious anti-American slant you have taken. Perhaps a simple example of one instance of US foreign policy that you feel fits into your little steps would have helped. In other words maybe some actual data not just simple anti-American rhetoric to back up your claims. The world is a dynamic place that is ever changing and assigning a static and simplistic 5 step “plan” of the route of 60 years of US foreign policy is inconceivable and short-sighted.

(Friend > Foe)
USSR - US of A > Germany
Germany (ok, a part of Germany) - US of A > USSR

Korea - US of A > Japan
Japan - US of A > Korea (ok, again a only a part)

'Nam!

....and so on and so forth

Pakistan - US of A > Afghanistan
Iraq - US of A > Iran

Let's see when the tables turn on Pakistan, the Iraqi table being totally capsized now.


The US doesn’t need any help from anyone in dealing with Iraq. I see the rest of the world saying, well you got into this yourselves you can get out of it yourselves. That’s fine by me. I do think however that as long as we are taking care of things in Iraq we also might as well take control of that nations oil supply so it can feed a hungry US economy to help it grow even larger. After all Iraq is the US’s problem no? No need for the rest of the world to concern itself with what the US does in Iraq. After all we got into it, what we get out of it is none of the rest of the worlds concern seeing as they obviously don’t care about the Iraqi people anyway.

Take the oil, if you want. Leave Humans alone.

Care and concern for the Iraqi people? C'mon!


Africa should not become a war zone? Are you living with your head in the sand? Africa is a war zone. There are currently over 50 wars and conflicts going on in Africa even as we speak. AIDS is currently ravaging the continent. Starvation and famine are commonplace. Thanks to the French, Belgians, and other Europeans for screwing up that continent and leaving it in the mess its currently in. I don’t even know what you are alluding to when you say that the US should stay out of Africa. I suppose the 15 billion dollars given to help fight AIDS should be taken back? The peacekeeping forces sent into Liberia should be removed? What is the UN’s role in Africa? Should the UN stay away as well? Well perhaps the UN should stay away given their total failure in regards to Rwanda…or should I say the French backed slaughter in Rwanda.

What you fail to see is that Africa is already a mess. All I see in your words is the fear of world domination by the United States of America. But what you fail to see is that the US has never been into colonizing like the Europeans were or in taking over and controlling nations like the former Soviet Union used to do. The US goes in then gets out as soon as possible. The same thing will happen with Iraq.

How about not going there at all. The fact that the French screwed up gives no justification for the US of A attempting to screw up. Money. Keep it. Or give it. Its yours. Land, Life, People, Freedom, Pride, they are not yours, for you to keep or give.

fear of world domination by the United States of America:
Hmm...Fear as in "I'm afraid so.."? Then yes, it is fear. It is more a feeling of unstability and monotony. All eggs in one basket. Thats the sentiment. That too in a foreign basket for 95% or more of the world.

The reason the rest of the world stood toe to toe with the US against communism is that it threatened everyone. It’s easy to get behind something that you have a stake in. This time however the threat of terrorism has been directed at the US alone and the rest of the world can’t seem to handle the US trying to defend itself.

Again, defending yourself in another's land, is offending him. The US of A is a geographic entity and only a geographic entity. Thats is its identity. As is any other Sovereign Nation. The rights of the US of A in a foreign Nation are at the pleasure of that Nation, as is the rights of that Nation in the US of A.


Being from India I would hope you would understand the threat of Islamic terrorism. Why just the other day you had bombing inside of India by Islamic terrorists. How does that make you feel? Do you think you have a right to defend yourself against such a thing? Or you should just take it because the rest of the world feels you shouldn’t crack down on terrorists because it could harm some innocent people and maybe start a war? Who do you feel should tell India what’s best for India? The UN? You seem to think they are the best at telling the US how to handle its business I suppose you would defer your national security to the UN as well? Let me know how you feel

For the umpteenth time, I do not see how a totally un-islamic, secular, fascisit-nationalist dictatorial regime such as Saddam's had anything to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and/or Terrorism, as it is understood nowadays.

[Memnoch1207]

golf clap!...Well said Xanith!

I'm saying a lot. Just that you understand very little. My fault. I admit. If the purpose of my communicating, is your percieving. If not, well

No, I understood what you said perfectly. I just thought you were being overly dramatic and wordy.

1) The Iraq War was unnecessary and unwarranted

2) The US of A and her "old friends, now enemies" policy is disgusting

3) In Iraq, today, not many are willing to lend a hand, 'cause "you gotta wipe your own ass".

4) Africa: Stay. Home.

1) Just in the off chance you might be right...Let's say we didn't go to war with Saddam, after all were not fighting Iraq, were fighting a sadistic brutal regime. We could have sat back and waited until Saddam started selling weapons to terrorists (which me may have already done). We could have waited to see what country he would have invaded next. Israel? That would have brought on an all out nuke fest. Just in case you forgot about the first gulf war. One of the reasons for the cease fire was after Saddam started launching scuds against Israel. Israel threatened to retaliate with a nuke, and turn Baghdad back into dust. Or worst case scenario he could have completed a nuclear weapon and then held the world hostage with it.

2) What policy is this??? Policies change all the time. A country may start as an ally and end up an enemy (Iraq, Iran) or they could start out an enemy and become a friend (Germany, Russia). Most of the "Policy" your complaining about was created by previous administrations anyway, not the current one.

3) That's fine with me. We started it, then we'll finish it, and when US, UK and Austrailian companies start building telecommunications facilities, rebuilding roads, housing, etc...Managing the oil. The rest of the world should just shut the **** up, they didn't want to help to begin with, then they should keep their grubby dick-beaters out of the mix!

4) The US has given more aid to Africa in the past 20 years than the rest of the world combined. Billions in food and AIDS relief. We have sacrificed our soldiers lives to save the african population from starvation. Stay home??? We're the only ****ing country doing any good in africa! While the rest of the world sits idly by and watches them kill each other over bags of grain.

[KayJay]

Being overly verbose and dramatic need not by definition take away the validity of those verbose and dramatic statements.

Africa: Why? Why do anything there at all? A Phucking good job or a Phucking bad job. Because of the sheer goodness of your heart? Thats an improvement. Aid money: Keep it and keep off. Money paid to Dictatorial regimes to line their pockets is aid for AIDS, not aid as it is meant to be.

You see, antogonism aside, my whole objection to the foreign policy of the US of A is her totally, how do i put it, uncomprehending attitude of the other nation's or people's values and mindsets. The US of A and her security at the cost of a very many nations' lives and infrastructure and pride and honour. Especially, the latter. The US of A has evovled into a nation that has become extremely dependent on the internal structure and running of other nations. A scary sort of dependency. Fear and/or desperate concern of an internal occurence in a distant land being so vital to the internal descison making process of the US of A, is even scarier. Independence, fundamnetal to the American ethos and to a certain extent founded by the US of A, is close to being eradicated from Her functioning.

Further, imposition of values, be they Islamic Fundamnetalism (Taliban), Hindutva (right wing Hindu Nationalists) or Democracy (the US of A) by force is not a fruitful way of establishing values. And Democracy and/or Islamic Fundamentalism and/or Hindutva are but forms of human government. None by itself is the form of government.

[BodwadUK]

Germany, France and the rest of Europe are always said to be right on this matter then why the f*** do they never agree to do anything. You accuse America of standing by when it is the foreplayer in peace negotiations in the middle east.

The problem is how far can somebody go. Do we let somebody like Saddam have Nukes and even on the off chance that they have them that they dont use them. Or do we try and stop them.

There is no real answer to this because Saddam may never have had them but if he did would he have used them?? No answer exists in reality and a decision was made to prevent instead of negotiate a way out (Probably because Saddam is not known as a reliable negotiator).

[KayJay]

It makes no sense in attempting something for the sheer stance of "At least we did something. We tried". The means do not justify the ends. What happened to the attempt called the "Road Map"? Its getting frayed around the edges with all signs of it ending up in tatters.

Me accusing (which I am not. Who am I to accuse the government of the US of A. I have no right for that. I have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever in the descision-makingprocess of the formation or the running of the government of the US of A. I am commenting, observing, feeling, thinking, etc. as a foreigner, the core thing in common between me and the Iraqis) the US of A and not Europe (which I do) should have no bearing on my "accusations" of the US of A. They are two separate entities with separate involvements and result in separate, granted related, consequences. They are mutually exclusive in this context.

Iraq is still in a state of War. Daily killings, no infrastructure, foreign administration. I beg your indulgence for the following statement. I most sincerely do. I am no racist and am not making any derogatory comments here. You see, for many in the world, it is repulsive to see a foreigner political administrator of a local constituency standing with a loin cloth around his neck, addressing natives with the words "I have..."

WMD and Saddam Hussein: I'll leave that for now. Though I am confident of their absence in his possession, I am now ready to admit that absence of proof is not proof of absence. I will grant that the jury is still out on that.

To repeat myself, having a sense of History is linked to a sense of Geography, without both of which, Current Affairs cannot be managed favourably. A State with an established and identified Military capabilities is by definition a geographic entity. And a geographic entity calling itself a State, has no "right" outside its geographical boundaries.

[Xanith]

It makes no sense in attempting something for the sheer stance of "At least we did something. We tried". The means do not justify the ends. What happened to the attempt called the "Road Map"? Its getting frayed around the edges with all signs of it ending up in tatters.

So much I have heard from you type of people throughout History. The “lets do nothing and hope it goes away” crowd. I can see you cheering Neville Chamberlain as he came back from Germany with a peace treaty in his hands from Adolf Hitler. Would a preemptive strike on Germany and actually attempting to hold them to the treaty they signed to end World War I actually have stopped the deaths of millions? You people never learn do you? The evils of the world do not simply go away if you wait long enough or sign useless peace treaties. You all lament and ring your hands about the US going in to stop Iraq before they can become a major threat but are the first to complain about how the US could have done something but didn’t if all of a sudden a nuke blows up in your back yard.

As far as the road map for peace goes the only thing the US can do is lay out the framework and the rest is up to the 2 other parties involved. I see no prospect for peace when one side’s goal is not simply a separate state but the total destruction and removal of all of a certain people. The only way there can be peace is if the majority of the Palestinians that want peace turn on the radicals that are blowing themselves and killing innocent woman and children on busses and in cafes.

Me accusing (which I am not. Who am I to accuse the government of the US of A. I have no right for that. I have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever in the descision-makingprocess of the formation or the running of the government of the US of A. I am commenting, observing, feeling, thinking, etc. as a foreigner, the core thing in common between me and the Iraqis) the US of A and not Europe (which I do) should have no bearing on my "accusations" of the US of A. They are two separate entities with separate involvements and result in separate, granted related, consequences. They are mutually exclusive in this context.

Your observations are inherently flawed because you are not looking at the entire picture. You are only looking at things from one perspective. Not only that your media sources are so slanted towards being anti-American that they are nothing but propaganda rather than facts. I have read stories from the BBC, The Indian Times, and even the New York Times here in the US that have been complete fabrications and outright lies just to promote a certain political agenda. People want to believe these lies and fabrications so much that they don’t even question where the supposed “facts” came from. My advice to you is to broaden your perspective and open your mind. Seek the truth instead of wallowing in your comfort zone.

Iraq is still in a state of War. Daily killings, no infrastructure, foreign administration. I beg your indulgence for the following statement. I most sincerely do. I am no racist and am not making any derogatory comments here. You see, for many in the world, it is repulsive to see a foreigner political administrator of a local constituency standing with a loin cloth around his neck, addressing natives with the words "I have..."

Years after Germany was taken over in WWII there were still killings going on. The war has only been over for a few months and you expect infrastructure and a government to spring up over night? I love it how everyone thinks you can wave a magic wand and years of infrastructure degradation can be rebuilt in a matter of months. Wave that same magic wand and in a simple few months a culture that is used to being under a brutal dictator is supposed to take up democracy. The war is over and the majority of the people want a shot at a better life. The final remnants of a dead regime is still attempting to hold on to what dwindling power they have. Most of the people taking shots at US and British troops are not even Iraqi citizens but foreign fighters that have infiltrated Iraq. Whatever happens the Iraqi people will still have a shot at freedom. Even if it doesn’t work at least they have a chance to make it work which is more than they had living under Saddam.

WMD and Saddam Hussein: I'll leave that for now. Though I am confident of their absence in his possession, I am now ready to admit that absence of proof is not proof of absence. I will grant that the jury is still out on that.

Confident huh? I guess when he admitted to having these weapons after the first Gulf War and provided no proof of their destruction to avoid war. There has already been documentation about ongoing weapons programs. I guess I can lump you in with the rest of the naive and gullible who actually believe these weapons didn’t exist.

To repeat myself, having a sense of History is linked to a sense of Geography, without both of which, Current Affairs cannot be managed favourably. A State with an established and identified Military capabilities is by definition a geographic entity. And a geographic entity calling itself a State, has no "right" outside its geographical boundaries.

Any State or Nation has a right to defend itself. Every State or Nation has a right to act when global and personal interests are at stake. In the case of Iraq they are the ones that set themselves on a path to war. They are the ones that defied 17 UN resolutions granted to them in the cease-fire. If you fail to comply with a cease-fire and a resolution that calls for “serious consequences” to occur because of that failure then you best be prepared for resumption of hostilities.

If the UN had the guts to stand up for its own resolutions there would be no problem here but because of political back door deals such as Frances skimming of money off the Oil for Food Program, the illegal sale of weapons to Iraq by Germany, France, and Russia in defiance of UN sanctions, providing intelligence and advisors on the ground by Russia inside Iraq, the total and complete buyout of support by a brutal dictator by offering oil deals and drilling rights to France, Russia, and Germany.

These same 3 countries blocked any and all action in Iraq due to being bought off by defense and oil deals. If you ask me the countries that were trying to do the right thing was the United States of America and the UK. And the 3 countries that chose to align themselves with the most brutal dictator still alive on the planet who was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people were France, Russia, and Germany. This is why the UN doesn’t work because countries of this ilk can be bought off so easily.

X

[KayJay]

The US of A supports a brutal dictatorship with money, equipment and political support for "strategic" geo-political reasons. She then slaps that dictatorship for doing precisely what She supported in the first place. Invasion and/or military action against a neighbour. She then stops slapping and goes on to beat the hell out of that dicatoriship. And you expect people to clap their hands in joy?

What you feel is appreciated and even admitted to be valid only with a clear understanding that you have an American affinity prior to any of this happening coupled with vested interests in the US of A. Protecting the US of A may be a valid reason for you to support, if not actively advocate, US military action in the Maldives and/or Jordan or for that matter in Uruguay or Luxemburg.

But you must also understand that for a very large number of people, protecting the US of A is nowhere on the agenda. Its just another country. And any violence in favour of the US of A is not by definition "good". It just does not matter in any manner whatsoever at all. The US of A has no special place in the hearts and minds of the people of the world. People can ignore the US of A, hate the US of A, love the US of A or just be plain indifferent towards Her. Just as the attitude towards Iraq by the US of A. Which leaves the option of speaking out and hitting back open. I speak out, someone else might hit back.

The long and short of it is that if the US of A thinks She can buy or bulldoze or bomb her way around the world She is free to do so. And so is any other Nation or State. If the US of A can think that nuclear detterent are effective, so will other states. After all, the other states are also made of human beings, some more intelligent than others. What She is not free to do is to ignore people when they cry "foul".

[BodwadUK]

I think in all context the Iraq war has been blown up into somthing bigger than it was.

America thought Iraq had WMD's and exercised the right to defend itself. So far none have been found but i will not condemn America becuase i hated Saddam and beleive he should have been removed from power long ago. He caused pain and suffering to his own people.

The priority should be to find out if any WMD's are in unsafe hands and also to bring Saddam in to stand for the crimes he committed against humanity.



IMHO the UN has failed to prevent the war occuring and should be reviewing its powers. After all they are responsible for attempting to avoid war AND preventing Saddam from breaking resolutions and agreements. They achieved neither and it was all down to the latter of the two.

[yrwyddfa]

It seems to me to be like this:

(i)Saddam was evil
(ii)The justification to go to war on the part of the US/UK was misguided (ie they did a very bad job of convincing their people)

The first means nothing on the grand diplomatic scale of things. There a plenty of evil dictators around the world who should not be allowed to continue. So what's the trigger point for war? How far does someone have to go before the moral big brothers intervene with a self-determining nation? One death? Two deaths? A Million Deaths? The point is simply; if you justify war with Iraq on this basis - then you should go to war with an awful lot of other countries as well.

Both the US, and the UK mislead their people to get to war. The facts are now becoming public - the information available to the security services of both nations was sketchy at best.

Now this leaves one question: why did we go to war? Although US foreign policy is abhorred around the world (which everyone seems to accept apart from Americans - it is a fact - whether or not the policy is right or wrong - most of the world don't like it - the mathematics is simple 200 million Americans, 6 billion other residents of the world - autocracy at it's best - but then the US has the largest stockpile of WMD in the world - which makes them scary!!), I doubt that this is the case. There are plenty of other 'better' targets to gain political, financial and moral gain; and besides the UK has historical and close links with many Arab nations (so why would the UK join in a war that would jeopodise those links?)

Could it be oil? Both the UK, and US have their own oil supplies (albeit the UK is very small - although they've just found a big well somewhere, I believe) Nope, don't believe it's oil.

Financial: Must be joking - it costs a fortune to go to war, and there are not real immediate financial benefits to UK/US companies anyway. The US only 'manages' the rebuilding; it uses local (Iraqi) companies to actually do the work.

WMD: err in case no one remembers both UK, and US used chemical and biological weapons to kill an awful lot of people througout the 20th century (ie more than a million people) And both countries hold stocks of WMD (for their own protection?) And lest we forget that the US is the only country that has actually nuked a country (so can we forget about history lessons when it comes to Iraq, please)

So we must be left with one thing: Moral. For some reason, the UK and the US believed it was the moral thing to do - remember Blair's speech in Congress?

This is no accident of foreign policy. This is no act of greed. This is no flexing of political will. This is a 'moral' act.

Unfortunately the world agreed early in the 20th century that no nation has the right to interfere or intervene with the self-determination of another nation.

Iraq was self-determining (as specified by the UN) The UK/US invaded.

(An afterthought: The US constitution gives a 'right to bear arms' I guess this doesn't include the other 6 billion people in the world)

[KayJay]

And I think the US of A is immature and ill-informed, which IMO is worse than owning WMD. So may I please invade and "set-right" the situation?

Funny thing that in the past year or so the US of A has spoken and still is speaking of the UN as a separate entity. If the UN has failed (which its has not, only the Security Council did) then the fault lies with the US of A, just as much as it lies with France or China or Germany or Syria. The UN is a poilitcal body made of Member States with no super-national authority or responsibilities. And the UN failing is no blank cheque for any single, individual and identifiably separate State to take on its chores.

Yes, the US of A has guns and will shoot. Yes, She is a mega-power. Yes, She is the super-power. No, She has no carte blanche.

If one is incomptent to be a part of a team, kindly please get out.

[yrwyddfa]

Let's have a quick American foreign policy history lesson. Here's an edited list of USA vetoes at the UN:

1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK,France,China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and Individuals is a human right.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests
in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical
and biological weapons.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in
Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
[bold]1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment. [/b]
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing
countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics,
and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the
occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade
and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and
neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to
observe international law.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese
civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human
rights, trade, media bias, the environment and
development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the
League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court
of Justice concerning military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua and a call to end
the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study
the underlying political and economic causes of
terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism
and to differentiate it from the struggle of people
from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of
mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence
of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to
the occupied territories.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

From the UN website.

The US have been busy 'helping' the world out, haven't they! Oh - this list is edited there are many many more vetoes (mainly regarding Israel) for you to dwell upon.

[BodwadUK]

America is very much sidlined in the UN because of constant differing opinions (this has nothing to do with Iraq) so i am not surprised America had little concern for the UN in the build up to the war.

America is at the front end of any terrorist attacks because it is seen as the main country in the west. They didnt choose this title and as little as they admit it they fear any attacks as extremely damaging. The west needs to work together to solve this problem but first ALL sides must put aside their petty differences.

[yrwyddfa]

America is at the front end of any terrorist attacks because it is seen as the main country in the west.

America did not recognise the IRA as a terrorist organisation until after 9/11

Other countries have been experiencing terrorism longer than the USA.

Incidentally, what do you mean by 'main country of the West' The USA is of only 200 million people - Europe's population is 375 million.

Perhaps you meant 'individual, self-determining state'

[KayJay]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
.........Other countries have been experiencing terrorism longer than the USA.

In a far, far, far, far, far greater scale over far, far, far, far, far grater periods with far, far, far, far, far frequency.

Oh! And the Other Countries are not inherently feeble and/or incompetent to deal with it in the manner that its is being dealt with now. Just that they/we think of everything before pressing buttons and pulling triggers.

[yrwyddfa]

Just that they/we think of everything before pressing buttons and pulling triggers.

It takes courage, intelligence, and a modicom of wit to think about a political solution as oppose to a military one.

It also takes patience.

It takes money and a whim to invade.

[BodwadUK]

ok first i said

America is at the front end of any terrorist attacks because it is seen as the main country in the west

SEEN AS not IS read before you complain

America did not recognise the IRA as a terrorist organisation until after 9/11

Not true America had concerns with the IRA they just didnt understand the true damage a terrorist organisation can cause


POLITICS ONLY WORKS FOR A SHORT TIME. There is no point attempting to negitiate with someone who has repeatedly broken all promises and has very little concern with listening to politics.

Iraq has been one constant political battle since before the first gulf war and what did it achieve

NOTHIING!!!!!!!!

[yrwyddfa]

Not true America had concerns with the IRA they just didnt understand the true damage a terrorist organisation can cause

I wonder why? Could it be a lack of concern for anything else outside it's borders. BTW - America only outlawed the financing of the IRA (essentially denoting it a terrorist organisation) after the 9/11 tragedy. Please read:.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

There is no point attempting to negitiate with someone who has repeatedly broken all promises and has very little concern with listening to politics.

I hope we're not going to enter into discussions about America's involvement in various global ecology treaties are we? If we are we should start with the Kyoto Protocol and America's blatant disregard for everyone elses well-being on this planet we call home.

I understand the notion of protecting one's self-interest, and I understand the necessity to protect one's own country. But surely objectivity is in order here. America is a great country that has given the world many many things. It lacks in discipline, and political motivation to make the world a better place.

If you were to product historical facts about Britain, Europe etc I would agree with you (if they were accurate) That's the difference, you see. Most of the rest of world accept that they are not perfect (although they haven't always - take the British Empire)

When you teach people martial arts you do not teach people how to kill right away. You instruct them on discipline, and respect for all things around them. Eventually the student will learn how to kill people very effectively, but by the time that they have this knowledge the student will be mature enough to rarely, rarely use this skill.

America is a new nation. By most standards America is a very new nation. It has enormous geographic wealth which it has used to build itself into a financial, and military superpower; which incidentally is fair enough.

What America lacks is the political power and will to live peacefully with the rest of the world - it seems that most other nations conflict with the American self-interests.

When America (and a lot of the rest of the world - including Britain) realise that it is mankinds self-interest to get along a little better the world will be a more peaceful place for it (and terrorists will begin to get marginalised)

[yrwyddfa]

And that's a little naive, on my part

[BodwadUK]

America is trying to help in the middle east and dont forget that

The fact is America has done very little to provoke terrorists its the extremists who indoctirinate young people into doing stupid things. Many terrorists have no real reason to attack the US but they see the US as a dangerous Cristian Country that their god wants removed.

The IRA was taken off the terrorist list because peoce seemed to be working. The money funding was claimed to be humanitarian so the American government could do nothing about it

Its should all be stopped now

[yrwyddfa]

America is trying to help in the middle east and dont forget that

That's a cheap shot. If I argue the middle-east case I will end up being accused of anti-semitism (which is not the case) But let's face it, the USA is pretty one sided. Look above at the UN resolutions that the USA have vetoed.

Besides how the hell can I forget that America has it's grubby little hands in the middle-east? I see the result of that 'policy' everyday on the evening news. It always seems to cost somebody - just never an American.

At the end of the day:

American foreign policy is alienating many peoples of the world. This is not an argument an American can fight (unless he becomes non-American) Whether or not their foreign policies are right or wrong; this is a fact. There is a growing trend for anti-Americanism throughout the world today and it is a result of their PERCEIVED foreign policies.

However ineloquently put by myself and others: America is upsetting many people of many countries of the world because of their foregin policies. The people arguing here are pointing out various incidents (etc) of policy failings. Yes, other countries have poor foreign policies (Britain for one - third world debt!!) But here, we are talking about America.

Whether or not it was right or wrong to go to war with Iraq is irrelevant - many of the people in the world deem it to be wrong. America (and Britain) have now upset these people. Justification, juxtaposition however you want - you cannot change this. Discombobulate until you are blue in the face - you cannot change this.

The deed has been done.

THIS IS THE POINT. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. IT'S SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY

Get used to it.

[BodwadUK]

Ah dont worry many of the big European's hate Britain anyway because they dont play into there gruby Euro hands. Single currency my arse!!!!


THATS IT LET IT REST