Home News Reviews Forums Shop


Should the US attack Iraq?

What was that?

Should the US attack Iraq?

1: Yes
13
37%
2: No
18
51%
3: Not Sure \ Don't know
4
11%
 
Total votes : 35

Postby Tubtanic on Mon Jan 20, 2003 12:15 pm

Hello Jase

Why did Tony Blair act like a lapdog? That's simple. It's called lobbying,
for a 20 billion dollar contract, for Harrier. It worked.

Although Boeing put all it's eggs in one basket and finally came up with a much improved version of the Harrier, it lost the contract. Everyone in the industry knew Boeing was about to get the deal. It was a no brainer.

In order for Bush to correct his blunder, he awarded a 28 billion dollar contract to Boeing. This included the purchase of Boeing aircraft and allowing Boeing to converted the aircraft for the military. High ranking military officials were extremely upset. If the air-force had done the conversions themselves total cost would have been 8 billion dollars.

See! The US is nice to the UK. True. Bush is generous with other folks money (tax payers) but as embarrassing as it must have been for Blair to get on all fours, it was worth it for the UK military. When was the last time America gave 20 billion dollars to another country?

Look. In the end, .... I don't mean Blair's. What it all boils down to, is finding or creating bad guys to keep the entire military maching humming.
I'm amazed Clinton wasn't knocked off for saving billions by cutting defense spending. That in turn allowed billions to flow into the economy. When you spend on the millitary the vast majority of that cash does not circulate into the economy. Where does it go? Yes, it pays salaries but the majority ciruclates within a well knit, closed loop body of manufactures that rarely produce the goods the tax payers pay for, in the first place.

For each generation, it always appears like they live a new and dangerous threat, but it's an old game the military machine forces the politicians and populations to take part in.

Don't forget 1919. The UK divided Iraq and created Kuwait in order to control the rich oil reserves. Maybe the US should send the bill to the UK once it's settled.

Allies are extremely important to get things done. Unfortunately, like most of us, America only comes calling when it needs allies. Nothing unusual about that. When you think about it. Isn't that how everyone wants it? Imagine if America came calling on the UK everytime something was going wrong. The UK would run out of money, for starters.

Clinton wanted to go after Ladden but guess which countries told him "Hands Off"? He did try two covert operations to kill Ladden but suspiciously, Ladden was warned and moved out of the area on each attempt. The second attempt missing him by less than one hour.

About Clinton being knocked off? Well, US justice did spend 50 million dollars to get him on the Monika deal. Gotta wonder who pushed to get that huge investigation going.

Jase. Concerning the tarrifs, I understand your frustration.

Alright! Let me have it.

Tubtanic.
Tubtanic
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:45 am

Postby jase on Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:10 pm

Oh dear.

The underlying fear behind my previous post seems to be becoming reality sadly.

I knew this was going to happen. The majority of Brits do not want Britain involved in a war against Iraq without UN backing, and it now seems that the UN are going to turn it down (this has been accepted now by the US/UK, with Rumsfeld commenting that the US are ready to go it alone without Britain's help).

So basically Blair is f*cked. He'll look like the biggest clown going if he doesn't go with America alone now, and if he does he'll tear his political party apart -- he'll end up being challenged for and defeated at a leadership challenge for sure, triggering an election which he is very likely to lose.

But he won't lose outright. Basically the Conservative Party (Maggie Thatcher's party, currently led by quite the most uncharismatic man ever to have walked the face of the earth, and there are murmurings of a leadership challenge in their camp as well due to his poor performance) are f*cked as well. They can't agree on anything at the moment. Result -- most likely a hung parliament -- no-one will win outright. Two severely weakened political parties tussling for power, being held to ransom by small parties because of our lame electoral system which, like the US model, is unproportional and therefore coalitions are difficult if not impossible.

So the country goes down the toilet.

Mark my words. This is HIGHLY LIKELY now.

I don't think the Brits realise just how much this country is screwed now because we went along with America blindly. The asses.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby Turkeyscore.com on Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:55 am

I know this is after attacking Iraq but I just read this and I saw that some people think it is all about oil.
I completely disagree, the only use for the oil is for rebuilding the country after the US and allies are done with the job. Sadaam has the weapons, why do you think it took so long for him to let the inspectors in? If the US did reveal that weapons of mass destruction were found, what would happen to the source? Sadaam is a threat to many, he proved that he would use these weapons when he murdered his own people with them. The US pretty much wants to throw out the old government there that does not work well and put in one that works better and is a lot better for the people.
Show support for your troops and our leaders, Bush is not getting nearly the credit he deserves. He is better than the alternative. (I know this may offend people but I am just stating what I believe.)
User avatar
Turkeyscore.com
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:45 pm
Location: Refrigerator

Postby Matt on Mon Mar 24, 2003 12:32 pm

I personally hate it when people start throwing conspiracy theories around, and/or speak for other people as group or a whole.

There are a million things wrong with the world, you can't fix them all. I believe the Bush administration has reason to believe the Sadam Hussein Regime poses an immediate danger to our National saftey.

Everyone calls Bush dumb, or ignorant, but if this is the case he's obviously pulling the wool over millions of peoples eyes if it is all about the oil. I have more faith in our goverment than that so I digress.

As for posting a political subject on this forum, ehhhh I dunno. We don't really have an OT forum so whatever. I've found most "computer geeks" tend to have rather strong opinions about everything even if they do not know the entire background on the subject. Judging from the original posters comments then followups, he does not appear interested in a discussion rather than starting an argument about conspiracy theories which is TROLLING in my book.
User avatar
Matt
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby jase on Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:59 am

Well Matt, even though I am not convinced of the argument that this is all about oil, there are some definite facts that would suggest that oil is a contributing factor.

Firstly, in 2000, Donald Rumsfeld is on record calling for a war on Iraq before Sept 11th, reasoning that if Saddam develops weapons of mass destruction, it'll limit Western access to oil, and therefore we should act without delay. Something which he fails to mention now he's trying to sweet-talk us all.

Secondly, oil production will shortly go into terminal decline. All the experts agree that the world will go into depression within the next 10-20 years due to virtually all the existing oil-fields drying up. The US is already a net importer of oil, the UK is self-sufficient but this will change in the next 5 years or so and across the world oil is becoming scarcer. It isn't helped by problems in Venezuela since late last year which have effectively cut off the US's main supply of oil.

This only leaves the Middle East. Since Iraq nationalised the oil fields in the 1970s, the production has been very low, and the Western oil companies cannot control it (the contracts were torn up). Iraq will soon be the potential largest oil producer in the world very soon, at a time when there is a shortage. And let's not forget that oil is probably the single most important commodity to our Western way of life. The stakes are incredibly high here.

Bush himself wanted to invade Iraq in 2001 just after the terrorist attacks (it was seen as a convenient opportunity despite there being no evidence to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda, and there still isn't), egged on by Rumsfeld. Don't forget that virtually all of the senior figures in the US government have very close links to the oil companies. This was, we were told, shelved when Bush talked to his allies and other world leaders.

We must also look at the two main opposition countries to war on Iraq, France and Russia. They have large oil companies (Total in France and Luxoil (sp?) in Russia) which have signed multi-$bn contracts with Saddam, which would be ripped up if Saddam were removed from power. Makes you think.

Now, does this all mean that this war is about oil? I'm not so sure. The fact remains that we could sign an agreement with Saddam tomorrow and get the oil quite easily. This would of course be politically difficult to justify.

My personal opinion is that oil is not the exclusive reasoning behind this conflict, but given that ONLY UK and US companies are being allowed to bid for the "reconstruction" of Iraq post-war, it is clear that our governments are using it to take advantage of the oil situation, for sure.

It comes down to the same basic principle as all things to do with governments -- ALWAYS assume there is an ulterior motive to EVERYTHING that ANY government does -- because there usually is. That's the way of the world, sadly.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby Matt on Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:53 am

jase wrote:It comes down to the same basic principle as all things to do with governments -- ALWAYS assume there is an ulterior motive to EVERYTHING that ANY government does -- because there usually is. That's the way of the world, sadly.


I agree with you 100% on this. I have no doubt that Oil was taken into consideration, as well as Israeli foreign relations, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I have no idea about. But for people who think that due to the Presidents/Vice-Presidents relation to the oil industry that some how it is the sole motivating factor for attack, is blatently misguided.

My main beef was the trolling of the forum however not neccesarily the topic at hand :)
User avatar
Matt
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby jase on Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:46 am

Matt wrote:I agree with you 100% on this. I have no doubt that Oil was taken into consideration, as well as Israeli foreign relations, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I have no idea about.


Hmmm, the Israeli question. This is so difficult, and I am in the firm belief that only a resolution of this problem which is satisfactory to both Israelis and Palestinians could even begin to kickstart a thawing in relations between the West (and the US in particular) and the Arab world. The US could begin by not being quite so unquestioning of the Israeli side, as there can be no doubt that they aren't entirely saints in this issue. I do hope this doesn't come across as anti-Semitic, because it is not intended to be. But the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land (land which Israelis have conceded is Palestinian by virtue of not including the Palestinians living there in the Israeli democratic process) cannot be justifiable. I am not trying to defend the actions of Palestinian terrorists in any way, shape or form however. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with something, the slaughter of innocents is unjustifiable no matter what (and I say this to the Israeli terrorists which do also exist).

Fixing this sore in the Middle East would prove far more rewarding than the removal of Saddam or any other tinpot dictator IMHO.

My main beef was the trolling of the forum however not neccesarily the topic at hand :)


There is a fine line between a strong opinion and trolling though!!! ;)
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby Matt on Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:56 am

Having a strong opinion if fine, but I think that it was only laid out to start an argument. IE: baiting flame wars. At least that is the definition of trolling that we use on USENET.
User avatar
Matt
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby dodecahedron on Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:37 pm

i'll keep this short, i've no interest in getting into a heated discussion.

1. Israel is no saint and that's for sure. many things are done which shouldn't. one of which is the settlements in the West Bank (but that is my opinion. many in Israel would disagree and claim them justified...)
however, i would just like to remind everyone that the other side ain't all that saintly either...
while i can't be truely objective, i do think that if we get into a comparative morality discssion, the Palestinians would end up on the shorter end of the stick.
and world opinion/international press isn't all that objective either, despite what some may say (the BBC has a particularly bad record on this issue).

2. Israel is in a state of War with Iraq. this has been going on since 1948. in 1948, the Israeli War of Independence, Israel was attacked by all of the Arab nations around it - Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq (note - not all of these countries were in existense in 1948, in which case i mean the same geographical areas/population that correspond to present-day countries). maybe i'm forgetting some other country...
and note, this is despite the fact that Iraq has no common border with Israel!!!
while all other countries eventualy came to sign peace treaties with Israel at the end of that war, only Iraq did not.
again, Iraq participated in the following wars between Israel and its neighbours in 1956, 1967, 1973. after all of these wars there were peace treaties between Israel and the Arab nations, except Iraq.
in the first Gulf war, Israel was attacked by Iraq despite absolutely no provocation or justification. with Scud missiles.

and it still remains to be seen if Iraq will attack Israel now. again with no provocation. Israel is strictly uninvolved in the present conflict. it's involvement amounts to not retaliating if attacked...

3. the US and UK go to war on account of Israel - come on that is a load of cr*p. the US didn't go to war on Israel's account with Lebanon, when we were having trouble with Lebanon, neither with the Palestinians with whom we are at war now. nor will it attak Iran for our sakes.
and FYI, the US is not all that partial to Israel as you might think.
just one example - the US sells weaponry, including the top-notch fighter aircraft, not just to Israel but also to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi-Arabia to say the least.
if i wanted to i could come up with examples from the realm of diplomacy/international affairs too...

but i'm getting tired of this subject...
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby Matt on Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:57 pm

That was short? lol

Thanks for contributing that dodeca, I'm sure that is a sensitive subject for you... Bush likes to talk about American resolve, but I think the Israelies have 10 fold in comparison to us...
User avatar
Matt
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby jase on Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:47 pm

while i can't be truely objective, i do think that if we get into a comparative morality discssion, the Palestinians would end up on the shorter end of the stick.


The problem I personally have with the Israeli side is that dubious tactics are undertaken by an internationally-recognised, democratic government. There is something rather disturbing about this. We in the UK were guilty of this as well with our frankly disgraceful treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland, something which, as someone whose father was brought up in NI in the 1950s/60s by a Catholic mother and Protestant father, I hold my head in shame when I think about what the democratically-elected devolved NI government did back then. But we in the UK saw the light; comparative morality is extremely dangerous and only when both Israelis and Palestinians, as Loyalists and Republicans, to an extent, can put this behind them is there any hope.

3. the US and UK go to war on account of Israel - come on that is a load of cr*p.


I never said that. Indeed I don't believe for one minute that the British government would sanction it -- it would cause too much unrest across Europe which tends towards anti-Israeli attitudes. But I certainly believe that Israel/Palestine, without wishing to apportion blame, is the key factor behind unrest in the Middle East, not Saddam. You must recognise this.

the Palestinians with whom we are at war now


This is an interesting comment. By saying you're "at war" with "The Palestinians" you are implying a legitimacy to their claim to a state, something which successive Israeli, and US governments have steadfastly refused to contemplate. You can't be at war with an ethnic minority.

I hear that the US is changing its views though. They are sending $5bn in military aid to Israel due to the war on Iraq (curious if Iraq doesn't actually attack, but that's none of my business, it's US taxpayers' money so I don't care) but money will be deducted if more settlements are built.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Fri Mar 28, 2003 12:00 am

jase wrote:I certainly believe that Israel/Palestine ... is the key factor behind unrest in the Middle East, not Saddam.


true. i do admit that.
however, OK so there's unrest in the middle east. bid deal, so what?
the western world can live very well with the troubles of the third world.
need i bring up examples?
famine and AIDS in Africa.
slaughter in East Timor.
people 'disappearing' in Chile, Argentina and more South America countries.
these are just a few that first come to mind.
another one, relevant to the topic - the persecution of minorities in Iraq and their extermination with Gas.
going over the last 30 years or so, it will be easy to find many more examples.
the western world only really cares when these things affect it, for example the middle east - Oil. now i wonder how much anyone in the western world would give a damn about the middle east if not for the Oil.
i'm not even going to start about how the wetren world is the one who supplies the weapons that are used in many of these atrocities.
(sorry if it seems that my cup runneth over with cynicism...it does.)
as to the middle east - yes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the major reason for unrest.
OK so suppose there was no Israel. do you for a minute think that any of the countries around here would have been democracies? that their populations would have enjoyed civil and political freedom? that all these countries would not be ruled by dictatorships/monarchies, some of which are extremely brutal and oppressive? that there would be no conflict between the Arab world and the Christian Western world? that there would be no terror, there would be no Bin Laden?
i think not.
trying to blame the conflict between the Muslim/Arab world and the Chirstian Western world on the Israeli/Jewish-Palestinian issue is a cop-out.

jase wrote:
the Palestinians with whom we are at war now


This is an interesting comment. By saying you're "at war" with "The Palestinians" you are implying a legitimacy to their claim to a state, something which successive Israeli, and US governments have steadfastly refused to contemplate. You can't be at war with an ethnic minority.

well, this isn't the official position of the government of course, but this is what is commonly thought by the people. and not only, this is also discussed in the media etc.
and it depends on what kind of "war" your'e talking about.
maybe guerilla warfare?
nobody's at war with an ethnic minority. and while the official position of the government is that the West Bank is part of the state of Israel, everyone realizes the some sort of settlement with the Palestinians is inevitable, they will have some sort of self rule, if not their own country. Israel is "at war" with the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not with the Moslem (sic!) minority in the state of Israel.
or i should state it more accurately: with the violent, terorrist organizations of the Palestinians. not with the Palestinian population as such.

jase wrote:I hear that the US is changing its views though. They are sending $5bn in military aid to Israel due to the war on Iraq

i guess that's part of the "price" for Israel promising to not retaliate if attacked by Iraq...
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby jase on Fri Mar 28, 2003 8:16 am

true. i do admit that.
however, OK so there's unrest in the middle east. bid deal, so what?
the western world can live very well with the troubles of the third world.
need i bring up examples?
famine and AIDS in Africa.
slaughter in East Timor.
people 'disappearing' in Chile, Argentina and more South America countries.
these are just a few that first come to mind.


Hey, I totally agree with you. It's one of the reasons I'm so suspicious of the motives behind this war. It disgusts me that a so-called "enlightened" West still makes decisions that cause strife across the world, for their own ends (Thatcher supporting Pinochet in Chile, a succession of removals of leftist democratic governments quashed in South America and replaced by dictatorships supported by the US and other states, supporting Saddam in the first place when we knew what he was like, tolerating the Taleban in Afghanistan because they got rid of the Opium fields there and ended Russian interference etc). Then we wonder why these nations don't trust us. It's vile and it's dirty and we in the west have no reason to be proud. That goes for the US, Europe, Russia, all of us.

the western world only really cares when these things affect it, for example the middle east - Oil. now i wonder how much anyone in the western world would give a damn about the middle east if not for the Oil.


Quite. The fact that we DON'T care about problems across Africa proves your point.

i'm not even going to start about how the wetren world is the one who supplies the weapons that are used in many of these atrocities.
(sorry if it seems that my cup runneth over with cynicism...it does.)


I don't think you are being cynical. What you are saying is an accurate, if damning, indictment of Western governments, and I completely agree with you.

OK so suppose there was no Israel. do you for a minute think that any of the countries around here would have been democracies? that their populations would have enjoyed civil and political freedom? that all these countries would not be ruled by dictatorships/monarchies, some of which are extremely brutal and oppressive? that there would be no conflict between the Arab world and the Christian Western world? that there would be no terror, there would be no Bin Laden?
i think not.


No, no, no, not sure. As to the last question, would there be terrorists in the Middle East who attacked Western countries if we hadn't put our noses into a whole load of hornet's nests in the Middle East, no I don't think there would. This last point of yours is, I assume, a result of understandable intransigence from the Israeli point of view. I completely acknowledge the reasons for this; I have seen the same attitudes (the other side are evil and can't be reasoned with) in Northern Ireland. My grandparents were spat at on the street, sh*t pushed through their letterbox, verbally abused, my father and uncles/aunt were beaten up by both sides, all for the terrible crime of an Orangeman marrying a Catholic. It's awful, but understandable -- fear is the cause behind it. Palestinians are terrified of Israelis and Israelis are terrified of Palestinians, leading to hostility and intolerance on both sides. It's a tragedy for both of your people in your country, and my heart really does go out for the ordinary civilians of both cultures.

Trying to blame the conflict between the Muslim/Arab world and the Chirstian Western world on the Israeli/Jewish-Palestinian issue is a cop-out.


Not entirely. The Israeli/Palestinian problem is the fault of the West in effect anyway; our evil dictators and inability to deal with them, and clumsy, selfish partitioning of the Middle East area is responsible in no small amount for the various problems in the Middle East today.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Previous

Return to Rants n' Raves

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2021 CDRLabs Inc.