War With Iraq

[kensson]

I think part of the point is that Iraq had and used weapons of mass destruction in 1983, and the USA had no problem with it then, or with Iraq's expansionist tendencies.

As for 'only' 9% of US oil coming from Iraq, that's actually quite a hefty chunk - I'm not sure what effect sanctions have on that figure, either. Moreover, it's not simply about having access to oil for domestic use, it's also about being able to control the price of crude oil worldwide.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Emma]

In addition to conventional weaponry, Halliburton also sold Saddam Hussein the infamous 'dual-use' equipment that could be used to build a trigger for a nuclear bomb.
Name of Halliburton's CEO anyone? One Richard Cheney

[splittter]

kensson said:
Moreover, it's not simply about having access to oil for domestic use, it's also about being able to control the price of crude oil worldwide.

Indeed ... control is they key. Saudi Arabia sells most of it's oil to America, and so has an interest in keeping them sweet.

At the moment Iraq's major customer is Russia ... which is why Russia are always far less keen on intervention there. Saddam's fine by the folk he serves (which used to be us), and bad by the people he doesn't ... regardless of his actions towards his own people.

That he is a bit of a shit isn't untrue ... it's just ultimately irrelevant in deciding whether he'll get bombed or not. And the constant stream of info about the previous position of the the west on him, and on other oppressive regime's that folk like me put about seeks to show that point ... not that a world without saddam wouldn't be great ... but that the retoric coming from Bush and Blair is nothing but lies ... and when your lies are capitalising on the deaths of millions for your own gain thats pretty fucking offensive ... and you're pretty much scum.

[splittter]

sorry to go on, but Halliburton aren't only interested in War ... they also won the contracts to rebuild the oil infrastructure in Iraq/Kuwait after the last Gulf War ... the man is involved in the bombing of a country, and then profits from the rebuilding efforts!

Plus through a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown and Root ... he profits massively from american missions abroad because they get the contracts to house and feed the troops ... this has been going on since Vietnam, when Brown and Root was the major financial contributor to Johnson (a democrat!)

You can't make this shit up

But of course this is all a massive coincidence ... just like the fact that Halliburton now stand to profit from an oil pipeline that can be put through afghanistan after the removal of the taliban ... I mean the real effort there was the quashing of al-Qaida ... well done on that ... I mean we all know how many terrorist organisations have been defeated through conventional military action

[Guest]

Just an FYI, you can easily find directions on how to make an atomic even nuclear device up on the web. In fact going to your local hardware store can supply most of the parts you'll need. Selling or giving that trigger is irrelevant. The main and most deadly piece, uranium is the hard component to get.

Although Iraq has been subject to U.N. sanctions since it invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council established the oil-for-food program in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell oil to buy food and medicine. Prior to 1996 the US imported oil from other countries.

If you look at the hard numbers, it really doesn't make much sense that the US's motivation behind invading Iraq is due to its oil supply.

[Guest]

Splitter,

The Taliban was overthrown because they refused to hand over Bin-Laden, disallow al-Qaida to find a safe haven in Afghanistan as well as prevent or disallow al-Qaida from establishing multiple training camps for their terrorist organization. I’m not going to dispute the validity of the oil line nor stand up for the pathetic individuals taking advantage of the situation; just stating that oil was not the primary motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan.

-“not that a world without saddam wouldn't be great ... but that the retoric coming from Bush and Blair is nothing but lies.”

You believe that the world would be better without Saddam in power, so what rhetoric and lies are Bush and Blair telling?

I’ll tell you what isn’t rhetoric or a lie. Currently Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, establishing cease-fire (surrender) conditions by not allowing weapons inspections, continuing to repress his people and pursuing the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. I couldn’t find anything pertaining to oil or related to it in any of the statements of this act. Why should the US, better yet, why should we allow him to get away with blatant violations of this act, when we know what he is capable of doing.

[Elvis]

By the way, it was me who posted about america planning to dominate the world!!!!

[splittter]

well first up we've got the constant obsfucation that they pump out over the 'special' positon of Iraq in regards to the UN security council resolutions and their capacity for weapons of mass destruction.

as I said earlier I have no problems with accepting that Saddam is not the greatest of people ... he is in violation of the UN security Council, and I believe whole heartedly that there are things we, the international community can and should do

What I have a problem with is the language used by Bush and Blair that what they are engaged in is some sort of moral crusade ... a legitimate war involving the forces of good against those of evil.

I can't be bothered to repeat what i and others have said on this thread, but its quite clear to anyone with a vague understanding of recent history that we have not given two shits about supporting murderous regimes in the past, and continue to do so ... again when investigating why some feel our wrath and why some don't pretty much the only thing that motivates the politicians is self interest ... be it business, political gain, blatant ideaology ... whatever ... it doesn't matter.

Every time one of those politicians gets up there and tells us he's doing it to make the world a better place ... that he's doing it in the name of the people who died on 9/11, or saddams internal repression or whatever they are by their own painfully transparent actions a liar.

If we really cared about people ... about stopping violence ... would we have sent delegations to an arms fair in the middle east yesterday ... would we have funded the Taliban in May 2002 for their anti-drug work ... would the words 'collateral damage' have ever entered our language etc etc etc ...

The main lie that they've got over this time ... and they do it with every one of their military interventions ... is to hijack the public debate and convince everyone that there are only one way ... that we could only bomb Afghanistan to clear up 9/11 ... that we can only attack Iraq to safeguard against Saddam ... military intervention may sometimes be forced by events ... but it is that, 'forced' ... not talked up recklessly through a bypassing of the only authority from whom it should be legitimately forced.

If the UN is skeptical about Iraq's claims to comply with the weapon's inspectors, then it for them to say so ... not bush or blair ... if in their name they believe any action should be taken, then they should authorise it, not our leaders in their name.

And to those who want to throw their hands in the air, and dismiss me as a pathetic liberal who refuses to see when we have to use force ... I ask you this, why aren't we up in arms over the recent news that N Korea has been nuclear testing for years ... they too are a dictatorship with a history of both expansionist desire and internal repression ... they've been in a stand off with the south for years ... negotiations have constantly broken down between the two countries ... why are we content to trust to peaceful means via the international community there?

Because our leaders haven't had a self-serving reason to talk up a war ... and in the absence of hysteria from people hooked on big empty gestures we're trying, quietly, to do some good.

Prophet ... I accept that my rantings earlier about the connections between Cheny/oil etc came across as a bit wild ... I just get a little angry sometimes

Phew ... I just missed the second half of Detroit Rock City to type that ... lets just hope the moderators decide to post it

[splittter]

apologies ... my above post is in response to 'unregistered user' ... not Prophet someone who just started the whole thread ... its late, my eyes hurt

[Guest]

I think Splitter heading down an interesting argument there...

You have to look at the bigger picture - then Saddam is a mere catalyst.

Someone mentioned the fact that Iraq currently supplies the US with 'just' 9% of it's oil market. That's a lot as it is, but imagine the increase of that figure with a government in charge of Iraq that is, let's say, favourable to America.

Now everyone knows that oil is key to life in the developed world.
No oil = No industry and no transport = total collapse of western society as we know it. With America in control of almost the entire Middle-Eastern oil reserve (I include Saudi Arabia in this), essentially it can dictate its terms to the rest of the world.

I know this sounds ridiculously prophetic and over the top, but bear in mind that it's a fact of history that the biggest changes in the world are noticed more often in hindsight than in foresight. I will be interested to see how it pans out in the next 50 years.

[Guest]

-“as I said earlier I have no problems with accepting that Saddam is not the greatest of people ... he is in violation of the UN security Council, and I believe whole heartedly that there are things we, the international community can and should do”

What do you suppose we do at this point? He has dodged, made excuses, and lied about his weapons research for the past 6 years. Weapons inspectors haven’t been in there since 1996 because he denounced the treaty that he signed in his unconditional surrender. How many chances do we give this guy, and how long do we wait? I think 6 years if an offly long time don’t you? Did you know that during inspections that took place prior to 1996 he use to bug inspectors rooms to find out where they were headed in the following days so he could plan accordingly. There are many things that are not divulged to the public for various reasons. Most of the times its beneficial to the public.

-“What I have a problem with is the language used by Bush and Blair that what they are engaged in is some sort of moral crusade ... a legitimate war involving the forces of good against those of evil.”

You must really hate al-Qaida then, because that’s all they do. They claim everything is a holy war and how the west is pure evil whose main purpose is to repress the Muslim people. That makes me extremely angry, especially since one of my best friends is Muslim.

-“The main lie that they've got over this time ... and they do it with every one of their military interventions ... is to hijack the public debate and convince everyone that there are only one way ... that we could only bomb Afghanistan to clear up 9/11”

The UN negotiated with the Taliban for over a month before the UN invaded Afghanistan. They refused to hand over Bin Laden and prohibit al-Qaida from living and training their terrorist organization. And yes it was the UN not the US that invaded Afghanistan.

-“ If the UN is skeptical about Iraq's claims to comply with the weapon's inspectors, then it for them to say so ... not bush or blair ... if in their name they believe any action should be taken, then they should authorise it, not our leaders in their name.”

Last I checked no military action had been made by the UK or US. In fact, they have been in negotiations with the UN for months now.

-“And to those who want to throw their hands in the air, and dismiss me as a pathetic liberal who refuses to see when we have to use force ... I ask you this, why aren't we up in arms over the recent news that N Korea has been nuclear testing for years”

Most of the posts on this site are liberal based, I choose to make my posts based on facts. For example: N. Korea actually has hidden their weapons program from everyone. North Korea had acknowledged, during bilateral talks earlier this month, not years, that it was attempting to develop nuclear weapons. China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are just as stunned as the UK and US. In fact everyone is up and arms about it. North Korea’s main trade partner China is considering setting up trade sanctions against them.

-“Someone mentioned the fact that Iraq currently supplies the US with 'just' 9% of it's oil market. That's a lot as it is, but imagine the increase of that figure with a government in charge of Iraq that is, let's say, favourable to America.”

I mentioned it; I also mentioned that the US bought oil from other countries rather than Iraq between 1991 and 1996. Did you read my post in its entirety?

-“ I know this sounds ridiculously prophetic and over the top”

Enough said

I’m not going to sit here and defend the BS that goes on in governments. It would be naive to think that the US, UK in fact any governments are perfect and do no wrong. I too don’t always agree with the wording and actions nations use. Propaganda plays a big part in the Psychological games of today’s world, we need to accept that and research certain facts for ourselves. I don’t know what the next 50 years will bring; I can only prey for peace and happiness. Unfortunately, I can only be somewhat skeptical about that. What I do know is that Saddam has a very violent and uncompassionate past. He’s been playing games with the UN for far to long. It’s been 6 years since inspectors have been there, who knows what he has now. I prefer a diplomatic approach, but this diplomatic approach doesn’t seem to be getting us very far.

[Guest]

Well Said.

[splittter]

I don't have much time, and in some ways I'm not sure it benfefits anyone to continue this ... but whatever ... a few points

I'm well aware that Sadamm has not co-operated with the weapons inspectors ... and I do not think that he ever will completely ... I do know however that it was an imperfect process, that was getting results ... even the dossier from Blair et al agree that his capacity is reduced from the end of the gulf war as a result of the inspections, and we will be able to restart them if we seriously negotiate ... we are already containing saddam ... not perfectly, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Military action is the one thing that will provoke him to use them ... will lead to him using the population that he controls as a human shield ... will create great resentment both within Iraq and the surrounding area ... no regime installed by us will last, and the latest plans for the aftermath of invasion are in no way democratic ... of two imperfect options the war is the worse ... we aren't forces of good who can make the world better in a single swipe ... to talk as though we can is dangerous and stupid.

As for going through the UN the attack on Afghanistan was neither authorised nor carried out by the UN ... at best it was tolerated because the US acted in such a way as to make it totally clear it was not going to back down. Negotiations had not produced Bin Laden in a month ... but they had already made significant progress with pakistan, the only gov who had any influence on the taliban and were progressing ... sadly such efforts are hard and take time, and require such things as comprimise and humility.

Todays headline on Guardian online is that we are making it clear we'll do it through the UN or our own way.

I accept N Korea is a sudden shock, and the way forward is not clear yet ... but we are not, now will we talk seriously of a military attack there.

Finally I'm not sure where you are going when you comment that I must also hate al-qaida as well as bush and blair ... but if your only defense of them is that other people do it too, its not much of one.

You prefer the diplomatic approach, but its not gotten us very far ... I agree totally ... but launching a war in iraq would be a step backwards.

[Guest]

-“ Military action is the one thing that will provoke him to use them”

That’s the point; we need to remove him from power before he has the chance to finish developing and use them. His motives are extremely clear, he is determined to develop weapons of mass destruction and will continue to be illusive about such a program.

Lets put this in perspective for you. We are talking about a man that ordered the iotola, a political opposition, to watch his sister be raped countless times and his beard lit on fire. A man who ordered hundreds of thousands of Kurdish men, women, and children exterminated. A man that ordered the invasion of Iran, Kuwait and the attack on Isreal. A man that stated that if he couldn’t have Kuwait no one would and proceeded to light half the country on fire. A man who doesn’t think twice about decapitating his closest relatives. A man that financially backs terrorist groups and allows them safe haven within his country.

He is a dictator that willingly oppresses and kills thousands of his own people and refuses to step down for the benefit of his country. If he is capable of committing atrocious acts on his own people, do you think for a moment he would ever question using weapons of mass destruction on innocent people or allow terrorists to do so?

You agree that our diplomatic effort has failed. So I ask you again, what do you suggest we do?

[Guest]

I don't understand your reasoning Splitter, you agree Saddam is tyrant and the world would be a better place without him. You go on and agree the diplomatic approach has gotton us little results, but you don't give us any resolution for the problem. Are we to just wish Saddam away and all our problems will be solved?

He wasn't provoked to attack Iran, Kuwait or Isreal, what makes you think he needs to be provoked to use these weapons when he finishes developing them?

I too agree a diplomatic approach should be used first. It was and didn't work. What next?

[splittter]

the reasoning is quite simple ... saddams major evils were commited at a time when he recieved military aid from lots of people ... he attacked Israel when we attacked him.

we're supposed to want to minimise future suffering ... we can either contain him, and not offer tyrants military and financial support in the future ... or we can attack. Kill thousands in our attack ... destabalise the region further and piss all over our chances of being credible peace negoitators in the middle east.

further if we're serious about beating the wider islamic terortist threat then, given we're never going to convince the ring leaders ... we can only make sure that our message carries more weight with young moslems across the world than theirs ... what better way of playing into their hands than actually being the military agressor they make us out to be.

[kensson]

During the last Gulf War, Israel was attacked by Iraq. You can call that unprovoked if you like, but I can see some kind of link between the US and Israel. That's not the important thing here.

Attacking Israel was, in any case, a pretty clever move on Saddam Hussein's part: goad Israel into retaliation and suddenly the Arab states aren't quite so prepared to be fighting on Israel's side against their Arabic neighbours.

Israel, themselves not being stupid, knew this was the case and stayed their hand, despite dissent from just one member of the cabinet. Who he?

Ariel Sharon.

Israel has nuclear weapons. There's no way of being sure Iraq would use the same tactics again, and there's no way of being sure Israel would use their nukes in retaliation, but given the current administration, I feel it's a pretty safe bet.

[hr]

Iraq could use chemical weapons with 45 minutes notice. Apparently the best way to stop their use is to invade.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Israel and the US enjoy a far better relationship than the UK and US, IMO and the real reason for that is the powerful and influential Jewish lobby, which does a lot more than Tony's toadying and hollow words.

The US wonders why the Arab world hates it so much - Israel would probably be a good point to work from. It's all part of the irony of the US being a very interfering isolationist state and when someone comes along and smacks them in the ass for pissing off, they act all surprised.

As to the current Israeli administration doing something very stupid - they've already demnostrated that they're more than capable of doing such, I suppose we'll just have to hope for dumb luck.

[Guest]

Don’t confuse military aid for humanitarian; he is famous for accepting humanitarian aid and using it for other things. In either case, why are you defending Saddam? Does that justify his attacks?

-“we're supposed to want to minimize future suffering ... we can either contain him, and not offer tyrants military and financial support in the future”

Exactly! Minimize future suffering. How is this going to happen when we have a tyrant dictator in power with an extremely violent past who is developing weapons of mass destruction? How can we contain him? It would be great if we could, but we’ve been trying for the past six years and yet he still has a weapons program.

-“ destabalise the region further and piss all over our chances of being credible peace negoitators in the middle east.”

I may be wrong, but the last time the UN invaded Iraq the region did not experience any major destabilization. Furthermore, why do you care more about what Middle Eastern countries think of us over the direct and immediate safety of your own countrymen/women?

-“ further if we're serious about beating the wider islamic terortist threat then, given we're never going to convince the ring leaders ... we can only make sure that our message carries more weight with young moslems across the world than theirs ... what better way of playing into their hands than actually being the military agressor they make us out to be.”

Sure maybe going forward that approach has some viability, but how is this going to help us with Saddam? And don’t make the mistake of equating all terrorists to Muslims.

Call me selfish but I would rather see some innocent Iraqi’s suffer an invasion than us or one of our allies suffer a small pox outbreak or even worse a nuclear warhead.

I’ve stated it before you have to look at this as a lesser evil. We can’t afford to keep a selfish, violent dictator in power that’s soul motivation is to develop weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think you would disagree when I say, if he were to develop these weapons, he would not hesitate for a second to use them for his own personal gain. He has made it clear that he doesn’t care about his people, why would he care about you or I?

[kensson]

Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant, as I've said before, and may not care about his people or anyone else. But he is extremely shrewd.

I believe the one thing he cares about is clinging on to power. The last thing he'll want to do is give the USA a proper reason to invade Iraq.

There are no proven links between Iraq and al-Qa'eda. If this ill-considered war against terrorism is to continue, surely it should be against bona fide terrorist organisations?

My knowledge of recent history may be quite poor, but I don't recall the daily death toll in Israel and the Palestine in 1991 being anything like the current carnage; attacking Iraq will do nothing to subdue an already volatile situation.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change