Oil For...Profits?? [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

jeo4

11-15-2004, 03:34 PM

Probe: Iraqi oil money estimates double
Probe alleges surcharges, kickbacks, oil-smuggling
Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 12:54 PM EST (1754 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Saddam Hussein's regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program -- more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.

"This is like an onion -- we just keep uncovering more layers and more layers," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, whose Senate Committee on Government Affairs received the new information at hearing Monday.

The new figures on Iraq's alleged surcharges, kickbacks and oil-smuggling are based on troves of new documents obtained by the committee's investigative panel, Coleman told reporters before the hearing.

The documents illustrate how Iraqi officials, foreign companies and sometimes politicians allegedly contrived to allow the Iraqi government vast illicit gains.

The findings also reflect a growing understanding by investigators of the intricate schemes Saddam used to buy support abroad for a move to lift U.N. sanctions.

Coleman said the probe is just beginning and that officials aim to discover "how this massive fraud was able to thrive for so long." He said he is angry that the United Nations has not provided documents and access to officials that investigators need to move ahead.

"Saddam Hussein attempted to manipulate the typical oil allocation process in order to gain influence throughout the world," Mark L. Greenblatt, a counsel for the Senate panel's permanent subcommittee on investigations, said in prepared testimony obtained by The Associated Press.

"Rather than giving allocations to traditional oil purchasers, Hussein gave oil allocations to foreign officials, journalists, and even terrorist entities, who then sold their allocations to the traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission."

The reference to terrorist groups referred to evidence that the regime had allocated oil to such organizations as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Mujahadeen Khalq, a group seeking to overturn the government of Iran, Greenblatt said.

Previous estimates -- one from the General Accountability Office and the other by the top U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer -- concluded that Saddam's government brought in $10 billion illicitly from 1990 to 2003, when sanctions were in place.

But congressional investigators found that vastly more oil -- totaling $13.7 billion -- was smuggled out of Iraq than previously thought. Investigators also raised the GAO's estimate of $4.4 billion in oil-for-food kickbacks by $200 million, and said the regime made $2.1 billion more through a scheme where foreign companies imported flawed goods at inflated prices.

According to the documents, the Iraqi government signed deals to import rotting food and other damaged goods with the full understanding of the exporting companies, who accepted payments for top quality products while kicking back much of the price difference to the Iraqi regime.

The panel estimated that such substandard goods accounted for 5 percent of all goods imported under the oil-for-food program, which was put in place in 1996 amid concerns that the Iraqi population was suffering from lack of food and medicines under the sanctions.

The rough estimate "is drawn from anecdotal information provide by officials of the former Iraq regime, the United Nations, and U.S. government officials," the panel said.

The total estimate of illegal revenue also includes $400 million from interest earned from hiding illicit funds in secret bank accounts. Another $400 million in illicit revenue grew out of pricing irregularities and kickbacks in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

The Senate panel is conducting one of several congressional probes into alleged illegal profiteering in the oil-for-food program after allegations of corruption came to light earlier this year when Saddam was driven from power during the U.S.-led invasion.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker heads a panel that's conducting an independent investigation.

The new documents offer examples of how Saddam's regime -- sometimes the former Iraqi president himself -- awarded lucrative oil allocations to garner political favors.

In one document, Russian ultra-nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky -- who campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq -- invites an oil company to negotiate a price for an oil allocation the Iraqi government awarded him.

Zhirinovsky and other foreign officials and political figures implicated in the scandal so far -- mostly from Russia, France and China -- deny any wrongdoing.

In Zhirinovsky's case, the Russian allegedly used his political party's letterhead to invite an international oil company to Moscow to negotiate a deal to buy oil allocated to him.

The Iraqi government allocated 80 million barrels of oil to Zhirinovsky and his party, according to the panel, at a time when the Russian politician was backing Baghdad publicly.

Source: CNN.com

free

11-16-2004, 03:41 AM

The reference to terrorist groups referred to evidence that the regime had allocated oil to such organizations as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Mujahadeen Khalq, a group seeking to overturn the government of Iran, Greenblatt said.

America isn't shy about funded groups considered terrorist with the intent of overthrowing a government, so that doesn't surprise me much.

jeo4

11-16-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by free
America isn't shy about funded groups considered terrorist with the intent of overthrowing a government, so that doesn't surprise me much.

Me neither. Especially when the Bush administration was so vocal about terrorist ties.

jeo4

11-16-2004, 10:53 AM

As of the time I wrote this, there are seventeen reads to this thread and one response. It's more than a little moronic that when Bush was re-elected President, we as a country got all kinds of shit for being "stupid, arrogant, etc." And I've heard from many publications (mostly the whiners in Europe) about how awful this war is and that Bush shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants. This board was filled with anti-Bush rhetoric, which partially I don't blame because there are some valid points in the criticism. However, when I post about this oil for food scam and how greedy Saddam Hussein is, I get ONE FUCKING RESPONSE!

Come on people. Bush is a so-called villain, yet nobody says one thing about this asshole ruining his entire nation?! I find that to be hypocritical and one-sided. Yet more proof that America can do no right in the eyes of the world.

:mad:

Criminal Rock

11-16-2004, 11:19 AM

Come on people. Bush is a so-called villain, yet nobody says one thing about this asshole ruining his entire nation?! I find that to be hypocritical and one-sided. Yet more proof that America can do no right in the eyes of the world.

...Word...

Tuukka

11-16-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
As of the time I wrote this, there are seventeen reads to this thread and one response. It's more than a little moronic that when Bush was re-elected President, we as a country got all kinds of shit for being "stupid, arrogant, etc." And I've heard from many publications (mostly the whiners in Europe) about how awful this war is and that Bush shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants. This board was filled with anti-Bush rhetoric, which partially I don't blame because there are some valid points in the criticism. However, when I post about this oil for food scam and how greedy Saddam Hussein is, I get ONE FUCKING RESPONSE!

Come on people. Bush is a so-called villain, yet nobody says one thing about this asshole ruining his entire nation?! I find that to be hypocritical and one-sided. Yet more proof that America can do no right in the eyes of the world.

:mad:

RE:

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that Saddam was a greedy, sick asshole. So I don't find this suprising at all. So what do you exactly want to me to say?

Everyone knows that Saddam was a having a rich, nice living in Iraq even after Gulf war. It was just the normal people of Iraq who suffered because of the embargo. No suprises there, either.

BTW, Zhirinovsky might be an unknown russian politician to most of you. He is well known here in Finland, mainly because he thinks Russia should conquer Finland. Everyone knows that he is an immoral asshole, along with being a bit loose in the head. He has some support in Russia from extreme right-wingers.

So no suprises in there either.

BTW, I'm not anti-Iraq-war, althought I have always been anti-Bush. I didn't like justifications Bush gave for the Iraq war, because I thought they were obviously false. There was no pro-Bush propaganda machine here in Finland, so I was aware of the fact that Iraq had no connections to terrorists, and that Iraq didn't have WOM's. But since I didn't like Saddam either, I figured out that maybe something good might come out of the war. I'm still hopeful that in the long term the outcome will be better for the people in Iraq.

I think that Bush is clearly a better person than Saddam, who is a sick, sadistic fuck. But that doesn't mean I consider Bush a good person, and I think he is more dangerous than Saddam simply because he is more powerful. Bush is capable of starting a WW3, Saddam wasn't.

jeo4

11-16-2004, 03:45 PM

Touche' on the last portion of the topic, even though I blame the intelligence sources moreso than the administration. Bush is still quite capable of starting another war before leaving office, but I highly doubt he will. At this time, the cabinet is changing. Bush's agenda is remaining focused on Iraq for now, but the obvious issues of economic stagnation and job outsourcing still need to be addressed soon. Iraq very obviously needed a change, and it got one, definitely for the better. That was the whole point of starting this thread and printing the article, was to show that America hadn't just randomly fucked up. There was a whole lot wrong with Iraq. And even the wars staunchest opponents agreed that Hussein's capture was the best thing to happen to Iraq.

Tony Blair is also encouraging Bush to mend fences with opponents of the war. We need to do this as soon as we can to make progress in foreign relations. We've been hostile toward everyone since 9/11 and we are still apprehensive about being everyone's friend again, I'm sure. But there's no need to take pot shots at one another, either.

I'm not Bush's biggest supporter, but I am getting pissed at the anti-American sentiment. We know what's going on. We aren't flippant about our choices here. We aren't about to let our country be plunged headlong into another war, either.

Personally, I would have thought twice about my vote had John Edwards been the Dems' nominee and Kerry the running mate. But it didn't work out that way. And Bush didn't do the "terrible" job everyone eluded to during the election. Plus he's GONE in four years. The slate is clean again in 2008. So does everyone want to keep poking the bee hive with a stick?

One other thing: Since 1945, America has had the ability to start World War III. We haven't yet. And I don't think we will anytime soon. I think things will settle down rather quickly once Iraq's government and military take control of the country. We can't afford to send our military to every corner of the globe.

<3mekthx

11-16-2004, 04:20 PM

However, when I post about this oil for food scam and how greedy Saddam Hussein is, I get ONE FUCKING RESPONSE!

I was going to respond, but I've been hearing about this for a few months now. I've seen many senators (D & R) giving interviews on various channels telling of how Kofi Annan has been trying to block some of our investigations and keeping some documents under wraps.

I'm very eager to see the final results of this investigation.

Tuukka

11-16-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
I'm not Bush's biggest supporter, but I am getting pissed at the anti-American sentiment. We know what's going on. We aren't flippant about our choices here. We aren't about to let our country be plunged headlong into another war, either.

One other thing: Since 1945, America has had the ability to start World War III. We haven't yet. And I don't think we will anytime soon. I think things will settle down rather quickly once Iraq's government and military take control of the country. We can't afford to send our military to every corner of the globe.

RE:

There is always going to be a heavy anti-american sentiment, since USA is the most powerful nation in the world, not only politically, but also entertainment wise (It could be argued which is more important).

I'm a bit cynical on how reasonable american people are. Fear can be used to trigger terrible things, and I think there has been a lot of fear since 9/11. The point is not that american people are stupid, similar reactions can be raised in *any* country.

I don't believe in WW3, really. But the different thing if compared to recent history is that if there will be a war, it most likely will be fought for religious reasons. Islam Vs. The Western World. So we are talking about something that hasn't been a current problem in the last 500 years or so. There used to be a war between the christian world and the islam world, and maybe it will come back some day.

darchangel

11-16-2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Touche' on the last portion of the topic, even though I blame the intelligence sources moreso than the administration. Bush is still quite capable of starting another war before leaving office, but I highly doubt he will. At this time, the cabinet is changing. Bush's agenda is remaining focused on Iraq for now, but the obvious issues of economic stagnation and job outsourcing still need to be addressed soon. Iraq very obviously needed a change, and it got one, definitely for the better. That was the whole point of starting this thread and printing the article, was to show that America hadn't just randomly fucked up. There was a whole lot wrong with Iraq. And even the wars staunchest opponents agreed that Hussein's capture was the best thing to happen to Iraq.

Tony Blair is also encouraging Bush to mend fences with opponents of the war. We need to do this as soon as we can to make progress in foreign relations. We've been hostile toward everyone since 9/11 and we are still apprehensive about being everyone's friend again, I'm sure. But there's no need to take pot shots at one another, either.

I'm not Bush's biggest supporter, but I am getting pissed at the anti-American sentiment. We know what's going on. We aren't flippant about our choices here. We aren't about to let our country be plunged headlong into another war, either.

Personally, I would have thought twice about my vote had John Edwards been the Dems' nominee and Kerry the running mate. But it didn't work out that way. And Bush didn't do the "terrible" job everyone eluded to during the election. Plus he's GONE in four years. The slate is clean again in 2008. So does everyone want to keep poking the bee hive with a stick?

One other thing: Since 1945, America has had the ability to start World War III. We haven't yet. And I don't think we will anytime soon. I think things will settle down rather quickly once Iraq's government and military take control of the country. We can't afford to send our military to every corner of the globe.

i'm not anti-American, but i am anti-war...

while Saddam Hussein was not a good man by anyone's standards, there are lots of other countries that need our help as much as if not more than Iraq...for example, China.

those people need someone to help them overthrow tyrranical leaders and stop murder and oppression...however, we're standing on the sidelines letting them be killed because 'it's none of our business'...well, why is Iraq suddenly 'our business?'

why didn't we invade China? because it's a war we knew we couldn't win.

i will agree wholeheartedly that Saddam should have been taken out...but if we're going to get in this game, we shouldn't play schoolyard bully who chooses certain people to pick on...we should play the country who cares enough to help all people gain independence, not put avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge ahead of geniune concern for the wholesale murder of innocent people by a tyrrancial government.

and yes, Saddam is still a stupidhead :cool:

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

jeo4

11-16-2004, 04:47 PM

We've mended fences with China since the Cold War. I agree they aren't great to their people, but that's another story.

We are, however, focused on the middle-east for it's terror networks. I know, I know...Iraq has no ties to al Qaeda. If that's the case though, then why are people getting captured and beheaded??

I'm hardly in a position to say that we could smoke China in combat (even if that actually is the case). But a war with China would end in disaster. both nations are nuclear powers. And to quote Geoff Tate, "Game point: nobody wins". In other words, China and America would be deep fried desert lands when we were finished with one another. So of course we aren't going to pick a fight with them. Especially since North Korea is still there picking fights and causing shit between everyone. Hell, they have everyone mad in southeast Asia. So why should we go over there and piss with China? We're still hoping to deal with them in a multi-lateral conference that will probably lead nowhere. Too many distractions mean those terrorist meanies don't get the shit knocked out of them.

And I don't think we are a "schoolyard bully". What we are doing may be reactionary, it sure looks like a war without provocation. But I hardly classify what the US is doing as "bullying".

You are correct, however, that we need to help all nations in need, not just a few. In attempts to do this peacefully though, as opposed to going to war, we aren't getting anywhere. And we have spent decades trying to be diplomatic with nations that should never have been given free reign over their own people for the simple fact that they aabuse them.

So how do we come to a peaceful solution here? Either we look like cowards or we look like bullies. The Paper Tiger label sure stuck around until we bombed the shit ot of Iraq the first time. Now we are bullies because we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq within three years time. And there are nations living in both fear and hatred of the US because we reacted so strongly after 9/11. How should we react, then?

<3mekthx

11-16-2004, 04:55 PM

not put avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge ahead of geniune concern for the wholesale murder of innocent people by a tyrrancial government

I'm definately not trying to get into a (iraq war good, iraq war bad) pissing contest, but I think the main reason we went into Iraq was WMD. I think 'liberating the iraqi people and taking Hussein down' was on down the list. WMD was reason #1. It was the biggest reason. It was the most important reason. I believe that we would not have went into Iraq if we didn't 'know' they had WMD. I know you hear spin everyday saying "we still would have went in knowing he didnt have WMD". I dont buy it. I also don't buy the 'avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge' theories. Bush is evil! :rolleyes:

darchangel

11-16-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
We've mended fences with China since the Cold War. I agree they aren't great to their people, but that's another story.

We are, however, focused on the middle-east for it's terror networks. I know, I know...Iraq has no ties to al Qaeda. If that's the case though, then why are people getting captured and beheaded??

I'm hardly in a position to say that we could smoke China in combat (even if that actually is the case). But a war with China would end in disaster. both nations are nuclear powers. And to quote Geoff Tate, "Game point: nobody wins". In other words, China and America would be deep fried desert lands when we were finished with one another. So of course we aren't going to pick a fight with them. Especially since North Korea is still there picking fights and causing shit between everyone. Hell, they have everyone mad in southeast Asia. So why should we go over there and piss with China? We're still hoping to deal with them in a multi-lateral conference that will probably lead nowhere. Too many distractions mean those terrorist meanies don't get the shit knocked out of them.

And I don't think we are a "schoolyard bully". What we are doing may be reactionary, it sure looks like a war without provocation. But I hardly classify what the US is doing as "bullying".

You are correct, however, that we need to help all nations in need, not just a few. In attempts to do this peacefully though, as opposed to going to war, we aren't getting anywhere. And we have spent decades trying to be diplomatic with nations that should never have been given free reign over their own people for the simple fact that they aabuse them.

So how do we come to a peaceful solution here? Either we look like cowards or we look like bullies. The Paper Tiger label sure stuck around until we bombed the shit ot of Iraq the first time. Now we are bullies because we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq within three years time. And there are nations living in both fear and hatred of the US because we reacted so strongly after 9/11. How should we react, then?

the Iraquis who have been beheading journalists have made their intentions and demands very clear: they're not stopping till they get their POWs back.

i just think that we went to Iraq for the wrong reasons: we were still in heat over 9/11 and we decided to go mess with a country that hadn't done anything to us in 10 years. While i stress that Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and he'd been evading UN inspections, he had been doing so for 10 years...why did we suddenly find it necessary to go punish him for it now, when we should be focusing on decimating Al-Quaeda and bringing Bin Laden to a speedy death?

you said that invading China would have allowed the bad guys to get away...but the point is, they still got away...we haven't found Bin Laden, and now new Iraqui terrorist groups are pledging allegiance to him while our troops and Iraquis who empathize with America are in the country, still at huge risk to their own lives.

i agree we shouldn't sit on our hands and do nothing after a devastating attack like 9/11...but i do believe we bullied Iraq. i wanted justice as much as anyone else in this country after 9/11...i remember crying as i watched those people jump from the towers. but that doesn't mean we should go pick a fight with a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist actions at hand.

we should find Bin Laden and kill him, shut down the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and all possible terrorist figureheads associated with them. i can't think of a country in this world (except maybe Iran) that would judge us for that, after the loss we suffered in 9/11. however, that loss didn't justify the losses Iraq suffered as a result of us.

i saw the pictures of civilians who were killed by a U.S. bombing in Basra...i saw an 11-year-old boy with his head in shreds...i cried just as much as i did for the 9/11 video of the people jumping. and while i'm not naive, i think those kinds of losses are unacceptable in a war that shouldn't have been started.

we Americans wanted revenge...and we got the worst kind.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Tuukka

11-16-2004, 05:03 PM

We are, however, focused on the middle-east for it's terror networks. I know, I know...Iraq has no ties to al Qaeda. If that's the case though, then why are people getting captured and beheaded??

RE:

It's worth noting that people got captured and beheaded AFTER Saddam was put out of power. Saddam is an atheist and Iraq was an atheist nation. It's also a well known fact that Saddam and Osama pretty much hated each other. In fact the entire muslim world hated Saddam.

But after USA took over Iraq became a great breeding country for muslim terrorists.

"I'm hardly in a position to say that we could smoke China in combat (even if that actually is the case). But a war with China would end in disaster. both nations are nuclear powers. And to quote Geoff Tate, "Game point: nobody wins". In other words, China and America would be deep fried desert lands when we were finished with one another. So of course we aren't going to pick a fight with them. Especially since North Korea is still there picking fights and causing shit between everyone. Hell, they have everyone mad in southeast Asia. So why should we go over there and piss with China? We're still hoping to deal with them in a multi-lateral conference that will probably lead nowhere. Too many distractions mean those terrorist meanies don't get the shit knocked out of them.

And I don't think we are a "schoolyard bully". What we are doing may be reactionary, it sure looks like a war without provocation. But I hardly classify what the US is doing as "bullying".

RE:

I agree that it would be stupid to take military action against China. But the Bully attitude comes from that fact that USA constantly interferes with other's business. In worst cases USA has practically overthrown democratically chosen goverments and replaced them with terrible dictatorships - Only because it suited the needs of USA at the time.

Sometimes it's amusing when americans say that rest of the world shouldn't even comment on their internal business. Like presidential elections. Well, if USA wouldn't messing around with the rest of the world so much, I'm sure people wouldn't comment to much.

"You are correct, however, that we need to help all nations in need, not just a few. In attempts to do this peacefully though, as opposed to going to war, we aren't getting anywhere. And we have spent decades trying to be diplomatic with nations that should never have been given free reign over their own people for the simple fact that they aabuse them.

RE:

I don't this is a very accurate way of seing things. USA is generally not interested in helping others. USA is interesting in it's own interests. If USA really hates horrible dictators so much, then why does USA support them so much? Dictators like Saddam, who was USA's best friend for a long time, despite all the things he did to the people he opressed. He wasn't any better in the 80's, you know.

It's not about human interests. It's about fulfilling the financial and political needs of USA.

I might oppose this line of thinking morally, but in a purely logical way it makes sense. I think the problem with Iraq is that it's becoming both a financial and political disaster for USA. After spending several hundreds of billions the only result might be a fundamentalistic Islamic nation with strong anti-USA attitude. Hardly a succesful war if that becomes reality.

"So how do we come to a peaceful solution here? Either we look like cowards or we look like bullies. The Paper Tiger label sure stuck around until we bombed the shit ot of Iraq the first time. Now we are bullies because we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq within three years time. And there are nations living in both fear and hatred of the US because we reacted so strongly after 9/11. How should we react, then?"

RE:

You are aware of the fact that the whole world supported the war in Afganistan, right? The world supported it because the goverment of Afganistan had direct ties to Al Qaida and was at least partially responsible for 9/11. USA had the "right" to attack them. There was a direct reason. But there wasn't any to attack Iraq.

Big difference.

Tuukka

11-16-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I'm definately not trying to get into a (iraq war good, iraq war bad) pissing contest, but I think the main reason we went into Iraq was WMD. I think 'liberating the iraqi people and taking Hussein down' was on down the list. WMD was reason #1. It was the biggest reason. It was the most important reason. I believe that we would not have went into Iraq if we didn't 'know' they had WMD. I know you hear spin everyday saying "we still would have went in knowing he didnt have WMD". I dont buy it.

RE:

This puzzles me, since at least everyone here in Finland knew that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The reason? There was no evidence of any kind. There wasn't even any real reason to *assume* that Iraq had WMD's. Before the war it felt really weird to follow american media, since the whole issue was just a bunch of pointless and badly backed up assumptions. The propaganda machine was working full time, and american people bought it.

My country (Finland) is independent of any political ties to anyone, and the media gave objective information about how things were going. There was no need for any kind of bias, unlike in USA.

jeo4

11-16-2004, 06:08 PM

Wow. And to think this morning I was pissed because nobody had responded to this forum.
:p

Darchangel:

I haven't got a much ammunition to fire back on in the "revenge" category, seeing how Bush was quoted as saying "He tried to get my father, so I'm going after him." (Paraphrasing here.) We definitely wanted to knock everyone in the middle-east for a loop. And we did to our own detriment.

I'm also in total agreement that Osama still needs to be caught and either killed or punished for his misdeeds. And that should be our sole focus.

I'm also in complete agreement with you about the civilian death toll. It is unnecessary and it really does ruin the level of trust the world should have for us. I've seen similar pictures and they are heartbreaking. I want the US out of Iraq as much as the next person, but I want us to finish the job and get them on their feet, too.

That said, Saddam and his sons can no longer bully or oppress their own people. I think we are pretty much in agreement on all points, though. I can't imagine how I could think otherwise on the points you brought up.

Tuuka:

I can only retort with the comment that America has long been a glorified babysitter. Since WWI and WWII, we have been rather busy trying to make it all work. We should have stopped decades ago, but we need allies every bit as much as they do.

I think it is flawed logic to say that we are "interfering" in other countries' business when Saddam's election was pretty much 100 percent government controlled and in the words of Tony Blair, "a sham".

I scoff at the idea that we overthrew ANY democratically elected government. So far, we've overthrown Germany twice (both were dictatorships, one was Hitler's), Italy (fascism) Japan (imperialists), Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq (dictatorship), and of course England, which was in the 1700's a monarchy.

Yep, we invaded Iraq and the terrorists partied like it was 1999. Point well taken.

Again, we have been allies with some bad leaders over the notion of trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with them and to try and effect changes. I disagree completely that America is in any relationship solely for profit or political gain, but the relationships we build definitely have their advantages in the long run. Either we can play nice or we can be perpetually at war and thus financial ruin, as you mentioned. We can't do both. Yet again, America is damned if we do, damned if we don't. We shouldn't be expected to fix every problem this planet has, either. I agree that backing out of world affairs is a good idea. Then people can't complain about our "interference".

You are aware that the world was NOT behind the Afghan war 100 percent, right? There were protestors of this war just as there are now for Iraq. Although they were fewer and farther between.

I agree that the difference between this war and the Afghan war is huge. Nobody wants this war to end more than America, I think. The best we can do is hope for a peaceful solution and support our troops.

Tuukka

11-16-2004, 07:25 PM

I think it is flawed logic to say that we are "interfering" in other countries' business when Saddam's election was pretty much 100 percent government controlled and in the words of Tony Blair, "a sham".

RE:

How is it flawed logic? Is it OK to conquer totalitarian countries? If so, why wasn't it OK for Iraq to conquer Kuwait, which is also a totalitarian country?

I scoff at the idea that we overthrew ANY democratically elected government. So far, we've overthrown Germany twice (both were dictatorships, one was Hitler's), Italy (fascism) Japan (imperialists), Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq (dictatorship), and of course England, which was in the 1700's a monarchy.

RE:

Guatemala is the first to come to mind.

Yep, we invaded Iraq and the terrorists partied like it was 1999. Point well taken.

RE:

Not sure if you are being sarcastic here. If you are, then please try to give out proper arguments instead.

Again, we have been allies with some bad leaders over the notion of trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with them and to try and effect changes.

RE:

Nonsense. USA has supported countless of dictators. In fact USA has often refused to condemn dictatorships along with the rest of the world, because USA benefited from those dictators.

Do you REALLY want me to give a list? It's going to be a long one, mainly dealing with latin america.

I disagree completely that America is in any relationship solely for profit or political gain,

RE:

Again, nonsense, and totally ignorant statement concerning history. Why has USA supported terrible dictatorships if not to gain benefits out of it? Did USA really support the regime of Saddam just out of good heart? Because Saddam was such a good guy despite killing and torturing people he opressed? Or you sure that USA wasn't thinking of financial (=Oil) and political (=Keeping the fundamentalistic Iran in check)benefit?

Also, I'm sure you remember how USA had close oil deals with Iran in the 40's. When oil companies were nationalized, USA as a result overthrew the monarch and replaced him with the Shah. Shah was a terrible dictator, but this didn't matter to USA, since the oil income was in check again. In 1971 Iran conquers lands from Iraq, but this is OK because Shah is USA's buddy. But in 1979 there is a muslim revolution and another dictator comes: Khomeini. Since he wasn't USA friendly, USA turned against him. When Iraq conquered lands from Iran in 1980, it's OK because Saddam, a horrible dictator, is now USA's buddy. USA supports him with money and weapons, including WMD's(!). In 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait, another dictatorship, which opresses it's people. But since Kuwait is USA's buddy, USA turns against Iraq.

...A short history about some Middle-East policies. Are you *really* trying to claim that all the morally inconsistent flip-flopping USA has done on the area is not politically and financially motivated? It's pretty easy to see why all those things were done:

OIL.

USA was always trying to secure the oil. Only if you look at it from that perspective, the USA policies on the area make some sense. If you are trying to claim that USA was just trying to be the good guy, then you are not making any sense. If you are claiming that USA was trying to secure the safety of americans, then you are not making any sense either.

but the relationships we build definitely have their advantages in the long run. Either we can play nice or we can be perpetually at war and thus financial ruin, as you mentioned. We can't do both. Yet again, America is damned if we do, damned if we don't. We shouldn't be expected to fix every problem this planet has, either. I agree that backing out of world affairs is a good idea. Then people can't complain about our "interference".

RE:

Not sure what you are talking about in here. But about interfering with others: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you mess with others, they are going to mess with you.

You are aware that the world was NOT behind the Afghan war 100 percent, right? There were protestors of this war just as there are now for Iraq. Although they were fewer and farther between.

RE:

Well, I thought it was unnecessary to point out that *every* war in history has someone opposing it. I'm speaking about overwhelming majority, as opposed to the overwhelming minority of Iraq war.

jeo4

11-17-2004, 10:47 AM

How is it flawed logic? Is it OK to conquer totalitarian countries? If so, why wasn't it OK for Iraq to conquer Kuwait, which is also a totalitarian country?

We weren't talking about "conquering countries". We were talking about interference in other countries. And to be clear, we aren't really in the habit of "conquering countries". Kuwait asked for help and America was one of a UN coalition of several nations involved in the first Gulf War. To say otherwise is distorting the facts.

Guatemala is the first to come to mind.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Can you clarify that for me??

Not sure if you are being sarcastic here. If you are, then please try to give out proper arguments instead.

There was no sarcasm at all. It's called a cliche'. And I thought it was appropriate. I was agreeing with you on that point completely. No need to elaborate further.

Nonsense. USA has supported countless of dictators. In fact USA has often refused to condemn dictatorships along with the rest of the world, because USA benefited from those dictators.

Do you REALLY want me to give a list? It's going to be a long one, mainly dealing with latin america.

You can list nations into doomsday and I still can't sit here and agree that America is simply in its world relationships for profit or gain. See, this is the kind of thing that makes me crazy. America is allegedly this tyrannical monster out to rule the whole world. And it comes across as complete bullshit. America founded the UN so other nations COULD run themselves and so dictators would be accountable for their actions. It was meant so that other nations couldn't run over one another. So the notion that America is trying to run the world is way off the mark. Hell, when it boils down to it, the UN SHOULD be running global affairs, as opposed to us doing all the dirty work.

Again, nonsense, and totally ignorant statement concerning history. Why has USA supported terrible dictatorships if not to gain benefits out of it? Did USA really support the regime of Saddam just out of good heart? Because Saddam was such a good guy despite killing and torturing people he opressed? Or you sure that USA wasn't thinking of financial (=Oil) and political (=Keeping the fundamentalistic Iran in check)benefit?

Also, I'm sure you remember how USA had close oil deals with Iran in the 40's. When oil companies were nationalized, USA as a result overthrew the monarch and replaced him with the Shah. Shah was a terrible dictator, but this didn't matter to USA, since the oil income was in check again. In 1971 Iran conquers lands from Iraq, but this is OK because Shah is USA's buddy. But in 1979 there is a muslim revolution and another dictator comes: Khomeini. Since he wasn't USA friendly, USA turned against him. When Iraq conquered lands from Iran in 1980, it's OK because Saddam, a horrible dictator, is now USA's buddy. USA supports him with money and weapons, including WMD's(!). In 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait, another dictatorship, which opresses it's people. But since Kuwait is USA's buddy, USA turns against Iraq.

...A short history about some Middle-East policies. Are you *really* trying to claim that all the morally inconsistent flip-flopping USA has done on the area is not politically and financially motivated? It's pretty easy to see why all those things were done:

OIL.

USA was always trying to secure the oil. Only if you look at it from that perspective, the USA policies on the area make some sense. If you are trying to claim that USA was just trying to be the good guy, then you are not making any sense. If you are claiming that USA was trying to secure the safety of americans, then you are not making any sense either.

Bullshit.

And where do you get the idea that America is "flip-flopping"? That's ridiculous. Also, I said it before and I'll say it again. The first Gulf War was a UN action, and the US was simply a willing participant. To say otherwise is ridiculous. And what the fuck is all the OIL talk? This is again the European mindset that the US can do nothing right, we are evil tyrants, etc. I'm seriously offended by it because it's a lie conjured up by people who hated America in the first place.

Yes, the Shah was the US's bad decision. This was undoubtedly a political move, but look at what happened on the other side of the coin here...consider this the other part of the history lesson you're giving.

After World War II, Europe was to be rebuilt from the west by America and from the east by Communist Russia, then the USSR. The USSR took over and blocked off Eastern Europe and LITERALLY FORCED them to become Communist. This was a scary time for America, because nations were pushed into Communism. And it meant we were threatened as a country. This was a legitimate fear, not some bullshit we conjured up. Our government was of the mindset that ANYTHING was better than Communist rule. Not entirely unfounded considering the mess that Russia is in financially from decades of Communist rule and abuse. So rather than have a Communist rule, the US placed the Shah in power. How Europe gets the idea that everything we do in the middle east is for oil is just narrow minded thinking without facts to back it up.

Not sure what you are talking about in here. But about interfering with others: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you mess with others, they are going to mess with you.

I say we shouldn't. We should let whatever is going to happen just happen. We CAN handle the heat and have been since the beginning of the 20th Century. I say it needs to stop because people don't appreciate what they receive in aid. Again, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We did NOTHING to al Qaeda or Afghanistan, and we still got attacked. We have a right to have peaceful relationships with nations like Israel. Yet according to these terrorist fucks, we are in the wrong for protecting them and recognizing them as a country. According to them, it's Muslim land. According to them, it's their religion, their land, their way or the highway. That America would maintain ties with Israel and offer aid is pretty selfless to me, considering the hell we catch from the rest of the world. These people deserve a home, too. And we have been working toward a Palestinian state and peace between Israel and Palestine, with little to no success. But we keep trying. What profit is there in this effort?

Well, I thought it was unnecessary to point out that *every* war in history has someone opposing it. I'm speaking about overwhelming majority, as opposed to the overwhelming minority of Iraq war.

Again, you'll get no argument from me that we are wasting our time in Iraq. And I won't bring up the protests of the Afghan war since the subject has been talked out and you've pretty much got an agreement with me.

darchangel

11-17-2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I'm definately not trying to get into a (iraq war good, iraq war bad) pissing contest, but I think the main reason we went into Iraq was WMD. I think 'liberating the iraqi people and taking Hussein down' was on down the list. WMD was reason #1. It was the biggest reason. It was the most important reason. I believe that we would not have went into Iraq if we didn't 'know' they had WMD. I know you hear spin everyday saying "we still would have went in knowing he didnt have WMD". I dont buy it. I also don't buy the 'avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge' theories. Bush is evil! :rolleyes:

i never said Bush was evil, nor do i think he is, so please stop writing things i never said.

furthermore, we never found WMDs in Iraq and we never had proof they existed, seeing as the UN wanted to do a thorough search but we jumped into the war with both feet against the UN's decision.

so i ask you: why is it okay for us to go against the UN (going into Iraq without allowing a WMD search) but it's not okay that Iraq went against the UN (not allowing inspections)...what's the difference there?

also, Bush's administration admitted there were other reasons for the war other than WMDs...there was actually a thread on this forum about it, if you care to look it up.

as far as avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge, i believe it so; we were frustrated we couldn't find Bin Laden, so we decided to go after people that look enough like him so that maybe the American public won't know the difference.

and the sad thing is, they didn't.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

EVILxxx

11-17-2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by darchangel

as far as avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge, i believe it so; we were frustrated we couldn't find Bin Laden, so we decided to go after people that look enough like him so that maybe the American public won't know the difference.

and the sad thing is, they didn't.

This is a pretty wreckless statement. You really think that the American public wanted to go to war with Iraq because we couldn't find Bin Laden, so we decided to go after people that look enough like him so that maybe the American public won't know the difference.
I really hope you have alittle more faith in the American people than that. We as Americans aren't taking chances anymore. Sadaam supported terrorism plain and simple (maybe not Alqueda but it is well documented that he supported the Palestinian terrorism).

as far as avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge, i believe it so
With all respect, give me a fucking break.

<3mekthx

11-17-2004, 11:55 PM

i never said Bush was evil, nor do i think he is, so please stop writing things i never said.

Never did this.

furthermore, we never found WMDs in Iraq and we never had proof they existed, seeing as the UN wanted to do a thorough search but we jumped into the war with both feet against the UN's decision.

We did NOT find WMD. There WASN'T any WMD. Bad Intelligence. American, British, Russian Intelligence. Going against the UN doesn't bother me.

so i ask you: why is it okay for us to go against the UN (going into Iraq without allowing a WMD search) but it's not okay that Iraq went against the UN (not allowing inspections)...what's the difference there?

I have no problem with Saddam going against the UN. Why give them what they want (weapon searches) if there is no consequence when you don't?

also, Bush's administration admitted there were other reasons for the war other than WMDs...there was actually a thread on this forum about it, if you care to look it up.

No need to look it up. Of course there were other reasons, none as important as WMD. Setting up a democracy in the mid east. Offing Saddam and his sons. Democracy could spread to other countries. A democratic Iraq could help in hard intelligence. *Perks* Getting the guy that tried to kill your dad, oil. You could argue 20 other reasons. My point was that if we didn't have the WMD 'case', then all the other reasons put together wouldn't have put us in Iraq.(IMO)

as far as avaricious desires and discriminatory revenge, i believe it so; we were frustrated we couldn't find Bin Laden, so we decided to go after people that look enough like him so that maybe the American public won't know the difference. and the sad thing is, they didn't.

I thought we went for OIL! :P

Families of Palestinian suicide bombers paid for by UN oil for food. Sad

darchangel

11-18-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by EVILxxx

I really hope you have alittle more faith in the American people than that. We as Americans aren't taking chances anymore. Sadaam supported terrorism plain and simple (maybe not Alqueda but it is well documented that he supported the Palestinian terrorism).

With all respect, give me a fucking break.

so 'Americans aren't taking chance anymore' is an excuse to go into a civilian airport and blow up Iraqui children?

i have no problem w/finding the people responsible for 9/11, and by your own admission, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! i've stated over and over again that i don't believe Saddam Hussein was a good man by any means; however, there are other countries that needed our help more (like China), yet now for some unknown reason we're associating Saddam with 9/11.

i'd also like to remind you that the rules of this board state we're supposed to engage in civil conversation...i don't think 'give me a fucking break' applies here.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

EVILxxx

11-18-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
so 'Americans aren't taking chance anymore' is an excuse to go into a civilian airport and blow up Iraqui children?

i have no problem w/finding the people responsible for 9/11, and by your own admission, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! i've stated over and over again that i don't believe Saddam Hussein was a good man by any means; however, there are other countries that needed our help more (like China), yet now for some unknown reason we're associating Saddam with 9/11.

i'd also like to remind you that the rules of this board state we're supposed to engage in civil conversation...i don't think 'give me a fucking break' applies here.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

It is all so clear to me now. The only terrorist we should go after are the ones responsible for 9/11. It is not a war on Alqueda it is a war on terrorism. All terrorism. If you are a terrorist you are on America's shit list. Oh and give me a *bleeping* break.

Criminal Rock

11-19-2004, 01:45 AM

Jeo4's last post

I'm so pleased I didn’t have to write all that information that you explained, thanks for putting the responsibility on yourself, kudos to you my friend… It’s precisely what I would have said.

so 'Americans aren't taking chance anymore' is an excuse to go into a civilian airport and blow up Iraqui children?

You’re not only giving the impression that what you suggested is not only our first priority, but our only priority as the leader in the war in Iraq. It's no excuse, mainly because we never use it as one and we never will.

Not to rationalize anything, but imagine how many countless children murdered diametrically from the directive of Saddam when compared to the U.S. invasion. Sure, innocent children are going to die, and I’m not going to say that it doesn’t suck, but it’s not like were doing it as a hobby, or as a black escapade (and I know your not saying that or implying it whatsoever, I’m just saying). And were not the ones who strap innocent kids with bombs and make them blow themselves up in the name of their “God,” who, according to the grapevine, permits that type of obsession to happen. You’re accusing wickedness in the wrong people here.

You might know this by now, but if you don’t, every human being in the world who doesn’t be of the same mind with the Islamic terrorists’ religious agenda, has a better chance of being a victim of their demise. I’m not trying to “scare” you, it’s the truth… the threat is as real as getting hit by a car while walking by or on the road. And they don’t say it to scare you, they say it because the threat is there and it is very real.

darchangel

11-19-2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
It is all so clear to me now. The only terrorist we should go after are the ones responsible for 9/11. It is not a war on Alqueda it is a war on terrorism. All terrorism. If you are a terrorist you are on America's shit list. Oh and give me a *bleeping* break.

gah...i don't even know what to say to that, but i'll try.

we originally started the 'War on Terror' because of the terrorist actions on 9/11. why shouldn't we take them out first? they killed hundreds of American citizens for no reason, and i have absolutely no qualms with torturing and killing all those involved in that attack.

however, of all the terrorist threats in the world after the obvious choice of Al-Quaeda, why the hell would we choose Iraq as our next 'terrorist conquest'?

Syria? North Korea? China? anyone? Bueller?

it just seems to me like an obvious bait and switch on behalf of our government. we've killed thousands of Iraqui civilians (don't get me wrong, i know civilian casualities happen in every war) and because of our presence in Iraq, we've caused new terrorist groups who are pledging their allegiance to Bin Laden.

Speaking of Bin Laden, did we ever find him? <looks to U.S. government, who shrugs>

see what i mean? the U.S.' most imminent terror threat (Bin Laden) is still on the loose and we're screwing around in Iraq creating new enemies.

seems kind of self-defeating to the 'War on Terror' if you ask me.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

EVILxxx

11-19-2004, 02:09 PM

I believe the American government thought that Iraq would not only be the easiest to take, but the one that would get the most approval. We won't attack China or Korea for the simple fact that they have nukes. If all else fails they can just blow us up. Iraq was weak from all the limitations put on them after the Gulf. Unfortunatly America underestimated the resistence the militarty would recieve after victory was "achieved."

we originally started the 'War on Terror' because of the terrorist actions on 9/11.

Tue but we aren't limitating ourselves to just those terrorist. There are dozens of terrorist groups whose soul purpose is destroy the western world.

Speaking of Bin Laden, did we ever find him?

As far as I know he is being protected in Pakistan. The US can not violate Pakistans sovereighty by crossing into their territory. We have to wait until the Pakistanies apprehend Bin-Laden.

<3mekthx

11-19-2004, 03:00 PM

I've heard that he is in Iran.

*sings* Where in the world is Usama Bin Laden?

Thrizzle

11-19-2004, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I believe the American government thought that Iraq would not only be the easiest to take, but the one that would get the most approval. We won't attack China or Korea for the simple fact that they have nukes. If all else fails they can just blow us up. Iraq was weak from all the limitations put on them after the Gulf. Unfortunatly America underestimated the resistence the militarty would recieve after victory was "achieved."

Bingo. Moderate in terms of religion. Full of oil. Fairly modernized country (on par with greece pre-Bush I, sanctions weakened Iraq considerably), Iraq seemed like the perfect target for this administration.

JCR

11-20-2004, 07:28 PM

EVILxxx

11-20-2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Heh as a loyal brit I would point out that americans for years paid for the IRA (a terrorist group) to bomb people and deal drugs here, while making stupidly sentimental movies about the issue (the devils own etc.) based on the fact that you all seemed to get tears in you're eyes on the grounds you're great great great grandfathers (or whatever) were from the old country. One good thing about 9/11- it seems to have put a stop to that practice.

I have no information on America dealing with the IRA so i won't get into that(although I've never heard anything about that). As far as movies go I don't think there is any "etc.". 'The Devil's Own' is the only one I can think of. And what does the making of this movie have to do with America anyway? Some movie studio made a movie, not the American people. I'm from Irish decent, and i don't really care about the IRA. Go figure.

jeo4

11-21-2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by JCR
Heh as a loyal brit I would point out that americans for years paid for the IRA (a terrorist group) to bomb people and deal drugs here, while making stupidly sentimental movies about the issue (the devils own etc.) based on the fact that you all seemed to get tears in you're eyes on the grounds you're great great great grandfathers (or whatever) were from the old country. One good thing about 9/11- it seems to have put a stop to that practice.

You have ZERO proof to support this post. Never mind your own shortcomings as a nation to address the IRA issues. It's easier to blame anyone but yourselves for your own nation's fucking stupidity, so while you're at it, blame AMERICA. Nice move. This may be the most fact-free insult ever said about the US. Oh and thanks for coming up with a way to jab us about 9/11, too.

:mad:

darchangel

11-22-2004, 09:37 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EVILxxx
I believe the American government thought that Iraq would not only be the easiest to take, but the one that would get the most approval. We won't attack China or Korea for the simple fact that they have nukes. If all else fails they can just blow us up. Iraq was weak from all the limitations put on them after the Gulf. [/QUOTE

by your own admission, we wouldn't attack places such as China and N. Korea because 'they have nukes', and Iraq was already weakened.

however, our government told us that there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq when this war started.

as i've said before, obviously this shows there were never WMDs in Iraq (and the U.S. government never really believed there were any) and we haven't been in places in China, Syria or N. Korea because it's a war we knew we couldn't win because they actually DID have WMDs.

however, these governments are just as cruel and merciless to their people as Saddam Hussein has ever been.

once again, i think we should be finding Bin Laden and if we're truly in Iraq to help 'liberate the people' we should be helping other countries who need assistance as well.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

jeo4

11-22-2004, 10:53 AM

While darchangel has some opinions which differ from my own, I agree completely that Osama bin Laden must be found and either captured or killed. I also agree that if we are helping Iraq to build a democracy and rebuild its own economy, then we need to do so with other impoverished nations where the governing body is obviously not working for its own people. Many third world nations could benefit from our assistance and become more stable both economically and physically.

I reiterate, though, that nobody wins if we fight against an angry nuclear opponent.

MacReady

11-22-2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
You have ZERO proof to support this post. Never mind your own shortcomings as a nation to address the IRA issues. It's easier to blame anyone but yourselves for your own nation's fucking stupidity, so while you're at it, blame AMERICA. Nice move. This may be the most fact-free insult ever said about the US. Oh and thanks for coming up with a way to jab us about 9/11, too.

:mad:

Althought I won't say you shouldn't be offended by JCR, since I don't know much about the subject, I will say that when someone here spoke about how even thought any terrorist in Iraq still should of been taken out regardless of wether or not he was an anti-American terrorist (I gues this was in an effort to justify the war on Iraq), I, along with JCR felt it was important to remind folks in the states that terrorist still exist around the world. Known ones, like the IRA whic I heard does do some bombing from time to time along with the bastards who blew up that train in Madrid not too long ago. Althought I'm certain it America offered to park it's army in places like the U.K. or Spanin it would't be welcomed, but why dosen't Bush offer millions of dollars and such to help them squash em' out? I'm just asking for some consistency.

jeo4

11-22-2004, 12:56 PM

You'll get no argument about consistency from me, Mac. I agree completely. I say if any of it needs to be eliminated, then it all needs to be eliminated, regardless of where it happens or who does it.

Law enforcement should be a prime topic for every government. This is where so many nations are lacking. Hell, nations could create an influx of jobs worldwide and stimulate economic growth, plus it would give nations the manpower to fight back against terrorism on multiple levels.

MacReady

11-23-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Not to rationalize anything, but imagine how many countless children murdered diametrically from the directive of Saddam when compared to the U.S. invasion. Sure, innocent children are going to die, and I’m not going to say that it doesn’t suck, but it’s not like were doing it as a hobby, or as a black escapade (and I know your not saying that or implying it whatsoever, I’m just saying). And were not the ones who strap innocent kids with bombs and make them blow themselves up in the name of their “God,” who, according to the grapevine, permits that type of obsession to happen. You’re accusing wickedness in the wrong people here.

First off, you can't say Saddam is evil for doing somthing you guys do as well only because it's too a lesser degree.

Second, of course people will die in a war but it's why they die that makes people upset. Nobody seems to have a good answer on it and to me it cheapens their deaths dramatically.

Another thing: people here spoke about how North Korea and China will be let off the hook since they actually have Nukes and could pose a threat. I find this to be quite hypocritcal. It's like if a petty crook tried to steal money from a love one in broad daylight but was captured ny the police. You'd be grateful, but imagine if a little later on a powerful crime lord with tons of men and ammo killed somebody you loved and the police said "Fat chance. He's too dangerous for our taste."? Isn't that selective prosectution?

EVILxxx

11-23-2004, 11:46 PM

First off, you can't say Saddam is evil for doing somthing you guys do as well only because it's too a lesser degree.

That would be true since you are completely disregarding intent.

by your own admission, we wouldn't attack places such as China and N. Korea because 'they have nukes', and Iraq was already weakened .however, our government told us that there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq when this war started.

Our intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence. The UN stated that Iraq was to have no more WMDs. We got word that they had them so we took action. The only reason why the UN didn't want us to go in is because it is a severly corrupt institution (I'm looking at you France). I think it is odd that No one seems to care about N. Korea or China except the US, Britian, and a few other close allies. No one cares. Why isn't the finger pointed at any other country. other countries bitch about America having too much power yet when the chips are down they want us to take care of everything.
N. Korea and China were not as opportune targets. They are too strong to just attack. Certain sanctions have to be put in place to see if they would budge. The sanctions were already on Iraq and they STILL wouldn't allow the UN inspecters to go where they pleased. So right there they were violating a mandate by the UN. If they had othing to hide why not let the inspecters do there thing. It raises a whole bunch of red flags.

Criminal Rock

11-24-2004, 07:03 PM

First off, you can't say Saddam is evil for doing something you guys do as well only because it's too a lesser degree.

Like Evil said, it would only be true unless you completely disregard intent. I wish I could have said it before he did, but what can I do?

Second, of course people will die in a war but it's why they die that makes people upset. Nobody seems to have a good answer on it and to me it cheapens their deaths dramatically.

I agree that numerous people are infuriated at this war, the majority of the people who are do not agree with what we are trying to accomplish, and they appear not to understand the basis of their deaths, or in some certain situations, they choose not to. I believe that the people who are responsible for deliberate deaths of innocent people, will get their punishment that they deserve, on both sides. I can’t give any reasons to anyone that would justify those innocent children’s death, and neither can anyone else. But I can say that we, as Americans and as a country, do not deliberately kill innocent people as the Islamic terrorists have, and we do not justify innocent victimized deaths as the Islamic terrorists do.

And as for justifying the war, its almost worthless, I would shout that Saddam Hessian is an evil individual who executed over three hundred thousand of his own citizens, DELIBERATELY, and deserves to die, and the Iraqis deserve a healthier life then what they once had. But people don’t like war, and those people are convinced that the leaders of this coalition went to war for dissimilar reasons then what they have stated before. And their minds are set like my mind is set, I’d just like to stay away from that argument because, like I said, it’s almost worthless, and is pointless.

free

11-25-2004, 02:43 AM

...DP...

free

11-25-2004, 02:50 AM

This letter that one soldier sent Michael Moore says exactly why I am against the Iraqi war, and what I think about the American military in general. This is the audio form of the letter (followed by another letter).

For REAL player. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/books-films/MMWarSlaves.rm)

For Windows Media player. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/books-films/MMWarSlaves.wma)

MacReady

11-25-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
That would be true since you are completely disregarding intent.

Your original intent was to stop a potentially dangerous country from using WMDs you claimed it had. Since those people died on false charges I feel it's still evil.

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
But I can say that we, as Americans and as a country, do not deliberately kill innocent people as the Islamic terrorists have, and we do not justify innocent victimized deaths as the Islamic terrorists do.

What about your carpet bombings?

EVILxxx

11-25-2004, 08:24 PM

Your original intent was to stop a potentially dangerous country from using WMDs you claimed it had. Since those people died on false charges I feel it's still evil.

I have said time and time again that British, Russian, and our own intelligence have stated that they had these WMDs. To loop the US and Saddam in the same catergory is insane. You can quote me on that.

What about your carpet bombings?

We aren't bombing any old neighborhoods. These are terrorist strongholds that would cost many American soldiers lives, if house to house fighting was the course of action.

MacReady

11-27-2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
N. Korea and China were not as opportune targets. They are too strong to just attack. Certain sanctions have to be put in place to see if they would budge.

Are you suggesting that sanctions be passed from the UN so that China and N. Korea will settle or such stuff like that? Isn't N. Korea's army better than Iraq? What's to stop them from violating it? (Let's not get into China. Forget the fact that Iraq disobeyed those sanctions, how do you think a country that's population is several time larger than yours will react to them?)

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I have said time and time again that British, Russian, and our own intelligence have stated that they had these WMDs. To loop the US and Saddam in the same catergory is insane. You can quote me on that.

But it's still a mistake, one that costs many people their lives and somethng Bush refuses to even admit was a mistake in the first place, henceforth, I feel those who've lost thier lives have lost it in an especially pathethic situation.

Originally posted by EVILxxx
We aren't bombing any old neighborhoods. These are terrorist strongholds that would cost many American soldiers lives, if house to house fighting was the course of action.

Then how do explain the fact that Iraqi civilian casualties are almost 5 times as much as the amount of Americans lost on 9/11?

EVILxxx

11-27-2004, 02:06 AM

Are you suggesting that sanctions be passed from the UN so that China and N. Korea will settle or such stuff like that? Isn't N. Korea's army better than Iraq? What's to stop them from violating it? (Let's not get into China. Forget the fact that Iraq disobeyed those sanctions, how do you think a country that's population is several time larger than yours will react to them?)

I am mainly refering to Economic sanctions, trade restrictions and so forth. It worked for the apartheid is can work again.

But it's still a mistake, one that costs many people their lives and somethng Bush refuses to even admit was a mistake in the first place, henceforth, I feel those who've lost thier lives have lost it in an especially pathethic situation.

Ok well you are changing what you said earlier. You said First off, you can't say Saddam is evil for doing something you guys do as well only because it's too a lesser degree. Now to me it comes off as America is just as evil as Sadaam, we just kill less people.
Look Bush said there was faulty intelligence. People have been fired over it. But I highly doubt he is gonna apologize for overthrowing a ruler who slaughters his own country men.

Then how do explain the fact that Iraqi civilian casualties are almost 5 times as much as the amount of Americans lost on 9/11?

Iraq is at war. It isn't being fought in the desert or some distant battlefield. It is being fought house to house. Peoples houses. I think the fact that the government underestimated resistance to the liberation is responsible for many of these casualities for both the soldiers and the civilians. It isn't a pretty situation, but it is, what it is.