8th April 2003, 7:02 PM
First, I'll discuss the situation as it is now (again). We are currently at war. We can't just leave now that we are in... we have to finish this. Once its over we'll see how truthful those statements that the Iraqis will choose their own leaders are... and how long it takes for him to give out the oil rights...
Note the last part... I'd say that the inspections were doing a decent job of shutting down Sadaam's ability to do just that... and in the end could have succeeded if given both chance and time and more strength.
I read a while ago... don't remember exactly where... but I DID read it in the news.
And I think the point is that it isn't right...
Of course we are always the biggest one... after all, the US's military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined... but that is really irrelevant to my point, as I thought I made clear. My point isn't about numbers, or strength. Its about trying to foster international goodwill, and not making everyone hate us. We have done the exact opposite of that, and the result is a world that has gone from being pro-American (after 9/11) to VERY strongly anti-American in many, many places... and almost all because of this stupid imperialist war. Good job.
Oh, and yes, without us the UN would be in big trouble. That is why we should do all we can to work within it to get it to work... if we go out of it like this all we do is make the rest of the nations more annoyed at us and sabotage any chances of future success in the UN... which for Bush becomes a self-fuffilling prophecy about the UN being irrelevant.
I didn't say popular opinion should be the right thing always, or that popular support makes something legal. I said that its a major factor and that smart leaders do listen to some extent to it...and when in almost all nations they hate this war I somehow think that that will make them likely to not support the war. Some do, but most of those are nations that do it to try to get more foreign aid out of us (for being in this "cooalition")...
Umm... he has the biggest talkshow because there are a lot of conservatives out there who like what he says... it has nothing to do with any sembelance of truth... because there is none in that show...
I do watch CNN all the time...
Look. Sadaam hates the US and so does Bin Laden. Sure. But do they agree on much of anything except Israel and the US? NO! Religion? Sadaam uses it as a tool to try to get more support. Note how he built huge numbers of mosques and started talking about holy wars and stuff a few years ago as his position got more desperate to try to drum up support... he's at heart a brutal, SECULAR dictator.
Bin Laden? He's a religious figure. He wants to rid the world of the evil of the West and all it stands for and keep them away from his Holy Land (ie Saudi Arabia). He follows a extremely twisted kind of religion, but it IS religion. And he hates Sadaam from everything I've heard... and its mutual. Their political and control views are opposite eachother on the scale they are on...
Look. Sadaam does hate the US. A lot. So I'm hardly surprised that they found that mural with Iraqi Airlines planes crashing into towers, or some 737 to train suicide plane bombers... they probably got the idea after 9/11, I expect. They sure wouldn't have had any contact with Bin Laden beforehand... because they didn't have any.
You say Powell's presentation said there was a connection? I read plenty about it and never once saw anything say that... or even imply that... I have no idea where you got that idea from but it is false. The closest they have gotten is saying that the Iraqis support "Al-Quaida-type" terrorists" because there is just no proof (because it never happened) that Bin Laden and Sadaam were helping eachother.
The US Government is doing its best to get people to think exactly like you are, but if you look really closely at how they word it, you'll see that they never actually say a word of what you say there. They get close... but don't say it because they know that would be lying. And you shouldn't lie in official reports like that...
Oh, and as for Bush I can't think of one relevant policy decision he has made that I agree with in any way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/opinion/04FRI4.html
Very interesting... you should read the rest too... but also...
Huh, I was thinking of all the people who shoot at us when the troops arrive as a sideline, but mainly was talking about the rest of the Arab world. Note how big the peace demonstrations there are? See how vast majorities of them now detest us?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/weekin...6BANE.html
Read that article... interesting. It says how we will have to appoint a Oil Czar and make US oil companies the main factor in rebuilding their oil industry... and by doing that we will confirm the Arab world's worst fears... and it'll just go even further downhill from there...
And anti-American sentiments are at least that high in those parts of the world. This is not good for us in any way you look at it... unless you don't care, which people like you evidently don't. And that just makes no sense at all to me, because they are important to our intrests and having the entire Arab world infuriated at us isn't a good thing.
And it will get worse if this continues on course. Why you don't care is beyond me.
Again from that article I linked.
Oh, and the Iraqis are hardly welcoming the Americans with open arms... some do, but ost are VERY wary. And once we take over and give their oil to our companies, they'll definitely not be very friendly... they will be happy Sadaam is gone, but the anti-Americanism so dominant since we started this war in the rest of the Middle East is sure to quickly turn them against us... and some will genuinely miss Saddaam. In 35 years even brutal dictators like that get loved by some people...
I watched a documentary on PBS a few weeks ago... don't remember exactly, but I do think it didn't say that he wanted to invade Iraq from the start. It was something he could do of course (because of how it humiliated his father), and he surely had pressure to find an excuse (since Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld were, in the first Gulf War, two of the biggest 'lets get Sadaam' hawks), but actually do it? He probably didn't think he'd be able to until 9/11 came along, and suddenly he had the perfect reason in this nebulous War on Terror. Suddenly, actually being a real threat to the US isn't necessary. Only being a "threat" in the eyes of its leader is... and Sadaam met the second of those, but most certainly not the first. He has no nuclear weapons program. Inspections keep that from happening. his army was pathetic. As for SCUDs and chemical/biological weapons, he clearly had some but couldn't do anything with them except hide them in his deepest bunkers... until some or all of of them might have been eventually found...
Of course now in the war note how there hasn't been a single chemical weapon used by the Iraqis? Interesting... :)
Because at the last minuite Tony Blair and Colin Powell, who both wanted a resolution that actually acthorize force (if you think 1441 did that why would Blair say that one that authorized force would have helped him a lot?), convinced him to try it... but it was a farce from the beginning. I never believed for a second that he meant it a single time when he said that he wasnted "peace first"... it was so false that it was laughable...
Quote:"It is in our interest and in the interests of people all around the world. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again
if permitted to develop them."
Note the last part... I'd say that the inspections were doing a decent job of shutting down Sadaam's ability to do just that... and in the end could have succeeded if given both chance and time and more strength.
Quote:Show me a link to that poll.
What does popular opinion mean in the face of doing what is right? Nothing.
I read a while ago... don't remember exactly where... but I DID read it in the news.
And I think the point is that it isn't right...
Quote:I can't believe you. EVERY single time the UN does anything, the United States makes up 70% or more of the military forces and monetary contribution. Of course as the strongest nation in the world, shoulders the biggest responsibility. Without the United States, the UN would collapse.
Of course we are always the biggest one... after all, the US's military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined... but that is really irrelevant to my point, as I thought I made clear. My point isn't about numbers, or strength. Its about trying to foster international goodwill, and not making everyone hate us. We have done the exact opposite of that, and the result is a world that has gone from being pro-American (after 9/11) to VERY strongly anti-American in many, many places... and almost all because of this stupid imperialist war. Good job.
Oh, and yes, without us the UN would be in big trouble. That is why we should do all we can to work within it to get it to work... if we go out of it like this all we do is make the rest of the nations more annoyed at us and sabotage any chances of future success in the UN... which for Bush becomes a self-fuffilling prophecy about the UN being irrelevant.
Quote:If the people should always be right (and you have made the argument that popular opinion should decide our countries actions) then why shouldn't we be doing this? Don't tell me that Americans have to get permission from a bunch of countries like Libya, France, Russia, or China to protect Unites States citizens and our homeland.
I didn't say popular opinion should be the right thing always, or that popular support makes something legal. I said that its a major factor and that smart leaders do listen to some extent to it...and when in almost all nations they hate this war I somehow think that that will make them likely to not support the war. Some do, but most of those are nations that do it to try to get more foreign aid out of us (for being in this "cooalition")...
Quote:Ahh, another person you hate, so obviously anything he does HAS to be wrong (similar to your view of Bush). There is no way that he would have the largest talk show (20,000,000 listeners) in America if he wasn't right more than he was wrong.
Umm... he has the biggest talkshow because there are a lot of conservatives out there who like what he says... it has nothing to do with any sembelance of truth... because there is none in that show...
Quote:WATCH THE DAMN NEWS!
American and British Troops have found a few different Terrorist camps in IRAQ, one of them had a fuselage of a 737 which was being used to teach people how to hijack airplanes.
How about that Bin Laden tape released today, in it Osama urged Arabs to suicide bomb American targets to avenge the Iraqi people. Osama hates Jews, Saddam hates Jews. How is that the opposite end of the spectrum?
I do watch CNN all the time...
Look. Sadaam hates the US and so does Bin Laden. Sure. But do they agree on much of anything except Israel and the US? NO! Religion? Sadaam uses it as a tool to try to get more support. Note how he built huge numbers of mosques and started talking about holy wars and stuff a few years ago as his position got more desperate to try to drum up support... he's at heart a brutal, SECULAR dictator.
Bin Laden? He's a religious figure. He wants to rid the world of the evil of the West and all it stands for and keep them away from his Holy Land (ie Saudi Arabia). He follows a extremely twisted kind of religion, but it IS religion. And he hates Sadaam from everything I've heard... and its mutual. Their political and control views are opposite eachother on the scale they are on...
Look. Sadaam does hate the US. A lot. So I'm hardly surprised that they found that mural with Iraqi Airlines planes crashing into towers, or some 737 to train suicide plane bombers... they probably got the idea after 9/11, I expect. They sure wouldn't have had any contact with Bin Laden beforehand... because they didn't have any.
You say Powell's presentation said there was a connection? I read plenty about it and never once saw anything say that... or even imply that... I have no idea where you got that idea from but it is false. The closest they have gotten is saying that the Iraqis support "Al-Quaida-type" terrorists" because there is just no proof (because it never happened) that Bin Laden and Sadaam were helping eachother.
The US Government is doing its best to get people to think exactly like you are, but if you look really closely at how they word it, you'll see that they never actually say a word of what you say there. They get close... but don't say it because they know that would be lying. And you shouldn't lie in official reports like that...
Oh, and as for Bush I can't think of one relevant policy decision he has made that I agree with in any way.
Quote:HELLO?!? DO YOU WATCH TV? THE IRAQI's CHEER OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY ARRIVE!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/opinion/04FRI4.html
Quote: Since the start of the current American-led war, it has been widely noted that celebration by Iraqis has been muted. The most common explanation is that Iraqis are afraid — both of government goon squads and of the possibility that we will withdraw prematurely, leaving them at the mercy of whoever comes next.
This is clearly true. But what I found during my visits is that many Iraqis, perhaps a majority, seemed to believe in and identify with Mr. Hussein. While they feared their ruthless leader, what they feared even more was life without him. I know this seems unfathomable. How could any people support a leader of such cruelty and megalomania? Don't Iraqis, like other people, thirst for freedom?
Maybe, but political freedom is such a foreign concept that most Iraqis have no context in which to thirst for it. The contours of debate within Iraq are so narrow that there is no meaningful way to discuss negative feelings about Mr. Hussein. Indeed, the language of Iraqi politics has been so degraded that it provides no framework for opposition, let alone for what might be imagined as an alternative. It is, as one diplomat put it to me, "like a church — people don't stop to ask if the God they are praying to is good."
This is not to say that Iraqis would not want to live one day in an honest, decent, free society. But it is to suggest that they are likely to misinterpret everything about such a plan, at least in the short term. They believe that the United States, which has led the international boycott of their country, has been keeping them down for the past 12 years. Tell them the same country has decided to spend billions and risk its young people to liberate them, and they will probably have no idea of what you might be talking about.
Very interesting... you should read the rest too... but also...
Huh, I was thinking of all the people who shoot at us when the troops arrive as a sideline, but mainly was talking about the rest of the Arab world. Note how big the peace demonstrations there are? See how vast majorities of them now detest us?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/weekin...6BANE.html
Quote: If popular opinion in the Middle East is united on anything, it is that oil — not terrorism, not regional stability and not any intention to bring democracy to the Iraq — is the real reason the United States decided to oust Saddam Hussein. In Jordan, a longtime ally of Washington, a recent poll showed that 83 percent of people there think that the United States wants to control Iraq's oil.
Read that article... interesting. It says how we will have to appoint a Oil Czar and make US oil companies the main factor in rebuilding their oil industry... and by doing that we will confirm the Arab world's worst fears... and it'll just go even further downhill from there...
And anti-American sentiments are at least that high in those parts of the world. This is not good for us in any way you look at it... unless you don't care, which people like you evidently don't. And that just makes no sense at all to me, because they are important to our intrests and having the entire Arab world infuriated at us isn't a good thing.
And it will get worse if this continues on course. Why you don't care is beyond me.
Again from that article I linked.
Quote: The impact of this on the Middle East could be "an increase in fundamentalism and increased threats to governments that have been friendly to us in the past," Mr. Walker said. "Some of those governments could pull back from us," he added. "We might have difficulty getting help in the war on terrorism or there might be an uptick in acts of terrorism."
Oh, and the Iraqis are hardly welcoming the Americans with open arms... some do, but ost are VERY wary. And once we take over and give their oil to our companies, they'll definitely not be very friendly... they will be happy Sadaam is gone, but the anti-Americanism so dominant since we started this war in the rest of the Middle East is sure to quickly turn them against us... and some will genuinely miss Saddaam. In 35 years even brutal dictators like that get loved by some people...
Quote:PROVE to me that this war is CLEARLY something he really wanted to do before 9/11. Go ahead, show me news articles, or some other form of proof...not just your opinion. I want CONCRETE evidence.
I watched a documentary on PBS a few weeks ago... don't remember exactly, but I do think it didn't say that he wanted to invade Iraq from the start. It was something he could do of course (because of how it humiliated his father), and he surely had pressure to find an excuse (since Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld were, in the first Gulf War, two of the biggest 'lets get Sadaam' hawks), but actually do it? He probably didn't think he'd be able to until 9/11 came along, and suddenly he had the perfect reason in this nebulous War on Terror. Suddenly, actually being a real threat to the US isn't necessary. Only being a "threat" in the eyes of its leader is... and Sadaam met the second of those, but most certainly not the first. He has no nuclear weapons program. Inspections keep that from happening. his army was pathetic. As for SCUDs and chemical/biological weapons, he clearly had some but couldn't do anything with them except hide them in his deepest bunkers... until some or all of of them might have been eventually found...
Of course now in the war note how there hasn't been a single chemical weapon used by the Iraqis? Interesting... :)
Quote:If that were really true, why didn't we just attack Iraq in September of 2002, instead of spending months and months in the UN security council?
Because at the last minuite Tony Blair and Colin Powell, who both wanted a resolution that actually acthorize force (if you think 1441 did that why would Blair say that one that authorized force would have helped him a lot?), convinced him to try it... but it was a farce from the beginning. I never believed for a second that he meant it a single time when he said that he wasnted "peace first"... it was so false that it was laughable...