Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthedodge  Well you're entitled to your view, as am I.
I'm not sure that you're really in a position to judge how the world feels about you, your media seems to specialise in not carrying much international news, even less if it's critical of America. Go to any European capital, find a bar and hold forth about the war - you may be surprised. |
Your media seems to specialize in bashing the US, especially when conservatives are in US office and unfortunately, a lot of people gobble it up. And our media loves to parrot your media when it bashes Bush.
Quote:
|
It's not 'uninformed comment', it may not fit with your view but to damn it as uninformed is a typical right-wing response.
|
Do you deny that violations of the cease fire occurred? Or that the UN peace keeping force was thrown out of Iraq? How about denying that the Iraq rejected 14 UN resolutions? Do you deny WMDs (gas) was used against the Kurds? Do you deny that terrorist were supported by Iraq (Hamas)? If you do, you are uninformed. If you do not and you still hold your position, you are informed, but with blinders on. Blinders caused by buying into the “unbiased” European Media (not unlike US media) such as the blatantly liberal BBC.
Quote:
|
You do accept that there are different perspectives on most matters don't you?
|
I do. And in fact I listen and compare facts and determine my own opinion. I do not blindly follow any media or commentator without verifying with other sources. Incidently, I often read the BBC site.
Quote:
|
The evidence was massive, yes, but that evidence was concocted by Rumsfeld and his chums to provide justification for a course of action already decided. There's evidence Elvis has been seen on the moon - doesn't make it valid.
|
You’ve got to be kidding right? You can’t have accepted this trash. To think that Rumsfeld could have affected the French intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and UN intelligence has got to be considered ludicrous. And is, in fact, equivalent to Elvis being on the moon (oh, by the way, he isn’t, in spite of what BBC might say that they have evidence of).
These are some other politicians that said Saddam was a imminent threat to the US and must be removed. This was pre-Iraqi invasion and based on the same intelligence that Bush saw (most of which was definitely not under Rumsfeld’s control, e.g. CIA, foreign intelligence). Only military intelligence is under Rumsfeld’s control.
President Clinton (liberal president)
Hillary Clinton (liberal senator)
John Kerry (liberal senator and traitor)
Al Gore (liberal vice president and dullard)
When Bush said the same thing, and acted on it, he is called a liar. Amazing!
Quote:
Saddam gassing Kurds was met with a large wall of indifference when it actually happened, officially no-one cared. Was it used as justification for carrying on GW1? - no! Was the evidence allowed about where the gas was sourced from? - no!
Quite frankly it's typical of certain groups to dredge up a crime from a long time ago (in which the US played a part) and then use it as justification to invade. How soon we forget!
|
This was evidence that he was willing to us gas on people that threaten him, was it not? This indicated he was a dangerous man and had no compunction about using it against innocent people.
This was not part of the rationale for removing Saddam, only proof that if he had WMD, he would use them.
Quote:
|
The deal on oil revenue that has been signed fixes the oil co. revenues as twice the standard rate for the next 30 years plus a large part of the remaining revenue is taken as reparations.
|
You have some other source than BBC to support this claim? I found this on the internet.
“However, despite pressure from the US government and foreign oil companies, the current Iraqi government has not passed a national oil law. While regional governments angle for influence over the foreign oil contracts, most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.”
Note that it says “continued” control by a national company. This doesn’t sound like the US has forced anything on Iraq, does it? Obviously, US and UK companies are vying (often not to the betterment of Iraq) for piece of the action, as are all interested in oil, but apparently the Iraq government has the say. There appears that there is some justification to the accusation that US and UK companies were attempting to establish favoritism. It is also apparent that it is the US intent is that the elected Iraq government has full power over the countries oil reserves.
Quote:
|
Isn't it interesting how the Iraqis 'choose' to buy US fire trucks, jeeps etc etc? It's exploitation to benefit the US economy.
|
Can you imagine those Americans? They pump multiple billions of dollars into the Iraqi economy and expect them to buy American equipment! How selfish!
Quote:
|
You don't remember Bush linking, with weasel words, Iraq and 9/11? - you have a very short and a selective memory.
|
A couple of reported discussions on what Bush said.
“Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said.
He referred to meetings in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda and said Saddam had connections with organizations considered by the United States to be terror groups -- including Abu Nidal. That group is a spinoff from the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”
“The staff of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) issued a statement June 16 saying it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It also said "contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Whether or not that contradicts the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq is a matter of interpretation, however. Some say it does, but even the Democratic vice chair of the commission says he sees no discrepancy.”
He never used that as a reason for removing Saddam, and Iraq support of other terrorisms was not challenged.
Quote:
|
Ah the old 'Saddam was a monster' claim - of course he was a brutal man - just like many ME rulers. Have you ever seen an analysis of how many of those dug-up bodies were the casualties of normal ME-style justice?, of course not. Some were undoubtably executed for crimes - murder, rape etc but it's not in 'the west's' interests to examine that fact too closely - much better to view them all as victims of oppression - it suits the agenda.
|
I would bet that the vast majority of those bodies were non-Sunnis. Want to take that bet? So, one side kills only its opposition and that is not oppression?
Quote:
|
If the US is going to invade every country with a brutal dictator you're going to be busy boys and rack up a load of air miles - when's Zimbabwe?
|
No we won’t. Neither will the UN or the EU. Therefore hundreds of thousands die from murder and starvation and no one cares, like you. Not a good statement about the US, EU, UN, or humanity. However, of the three, the US is the one most likely to help the oppressed.
Quote:
|
Iraq was never a nice place to live but is it really any better now? On balance & considering the lack of religious freedom and the fate of women now it's very very marginal.
|
There is still glimmer of hope for a modern democratic government. The US has offered the opportunity to an oppressed society. If they take it, they benefit, if they don’t, at least it was offered to them. Yet many parts of the world think this is a terrible thing.
Quote:
|
So it was about oil all along?
|
In a way you are right. If there were no oil in the region no one would care, like in Africa. However the charge that the US went to war to secure oil has never been supported only charged. We do not use much of their oil, about 3% of our energy consumption, and if it was simple oil economy that drove us, we would have left long ago to cut our financial loses which we will never recover. The war will cost the US over $500 billion, a massive amount for the trivial amount (3% of our need) of oil Iraq provides. No one now goes to war for economic reasons, war is too expensive. This is another liberal urban legend.
Quote:
|
I think you're wrong on many of your points and think you're very wrong on history. I'm sure you can find some comforting media that'll tell you it was all justified and valliant but the balance of opinion will see it for what it was - grubby and self-serving
|
How in the world could this be self serving when we will NEVER recover, nor did we plan to recover, the money spent trying to remove a threat and stabilize the region, which, by the way, I am sure helps EU more than it does us, since you are closer.
I am entitled to my veiw. Of course, I cannot back my view up with facts, like you can.
