War unleashed...

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html - why don't we go a little further back than a convenient time frame?

I would imagine that the US is stepping in.  But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press.  I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation.  Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?

Because this wasn't the reason to begin with. You can try to console yourself with it, feel very noble and Bush is counting on that to win him his next election. Regardless, it is irrelevant, it was not the cause of this war. Cuba was closer if you just needed to feel good about yourself.

It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly.  Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War?  We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat.  We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War.  They were throwing it in the worlds faces.  Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all.  Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming.  They were asking for it.  I think they wanted this war.

Two words: North Korea.  

Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'.  Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq.  I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq.  But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.

Yeah, somehow given the US history and its attitude towards the rest of the world, especially those who disagree with it, doesn't really allow me to attribute this war to thier sense of goodwill towards other peoples.  

I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you.  Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.

China is not exactly free. Yet the US has no problems whatsoever carrying on trade with them and injecting money into thier economy. This war isn't about freedom. And again, I question the appointment of the US as the arbiter of freedom for the whole world. It is absurd and it is arrogant.

I doubt most people will dislike you unless you attack them, instead of attacking the points they make. Everyone's allowed to have an opinion and most people posting anti-war here don't have a problem with you, they have a problem with the war.

I've refrained from making any personal attacks on you, I know nothing about you. The points you make however, are fair game.

[Helm]

Why anybody else can't I don't know.

No person with even basic (and unbiased) historic training would ever say such a thing. The reason the  US is the one to step in and 'liberate' parts of the world is because it's the only country which is in the position to do so, -in economic and influential terms - since the fall of the Soviet Union. There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness, since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such. This has resulted in wars in bosnia, serbia, afghanistan and now iraq (again). And in none of those countries, has there been eshtablished anything else than an 'fake' goverment after the US. intervention. Certainly no freedom has been given to the people. Merely a switch of the power structure so it's controlled by the US.

I mean, come on, let's not hide behind our collective finger.


Oh, and mister well-read historian, you said that if S.H. is removed from power, then that makes it all worth it. That's called "the end justify the means" and seems pretty totalitarian to me, esp. spoken by self-proclaimed well-read, cultivated fellow like you.

You see, I'm confused.

According to you, the absolute end is freedom, and nothing should be above it. So how come you're giving the freedom away so another end - the removal of S.H. from office - can be attained?

Isn't that a contradiction?

[Kairus]

The reason the  US is the one to step in and 'liberate' parts of the world is because it's the only country which is in the position to do so, -in economic and influential terms - since the fall of the Soviet Union. There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness,

You know... China's been gathering power lately It hasn't acted yet, but I think the US is starting to consider them the next possible real enemy. I can't really tell which of them is worse... American empire: bad... Chinese empire: ooooouh... creepy!
Nothing to do with the current war... it just came to my mind when I read your post.

since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such.

Now, will the UN punish the US for starting a war without permission with an economical block or something like they do to weaker countries, even Iraq?
Obviously it won't... now... there we could say the UN is already death, or at least it's never going to be what it was supposed to.

[Matt Brown]

nahh....not china. north korea is next. then maybe sudan or something.


haha, or france

[DGMacphee from Uni]

I doubt China will be next.

I'll be using the typical leftist "the war is about oil and power" arguement here.

China produces approx half the Gas that Iraq has and a approx a third the oil that Iraq has.

Even when compared to the US, China produces a little more oil than the US (which will change after the Iraq war) and a lot less gas than the US.


As for a nuclear threat:

Even with uranium, the US's output is higher than China's -- so not much chance for the US government to say they have the potential to make "weapons of mass destruction" more powerful than the US can make.

And I doubt the US has much need for the solar, wind and hyrdo technology.


Not only that, but (to use a more right-wing arguement here) the country's government is in no decent economic state to start buying "weapons of mass destruction".


I doubt the US government see it as either an energy target or a weapons threat.

[ratracer]

It's things like this that me suspicious...

in The Guardian today:

"A subsidiary of Halliburton, vice-president Dick Cheney's old company, has been awarded a contract by the US army to put out fires and repair damaged infrastructure in the Iraqi oil industry. The value of the deal has not been officially disclosed, but is said to be in the region of $1bn.

Mr Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton until 2000 but gave up his stake in the company on becoming US vice-president. He reportedly still gets about $1m a year "compensation" from the company."

[DGMacphee]

Funny how the company used be struggling after Cheney left and how the government practically shifted away from it when it was caught up in scandal (especially since Cheney used to be a shareholder -- but he obviously had nothig to do with that scandal, right?)

Very ironic that the government shifted so far away from it.

Until now.

Now, it's a hundred times more ironic.

And Halliburton is just the tip of the iceburg.

[jayel_]

So the US army sets Iraqi oil wells on fire, while Bush's political allies make fortune putting out the fires and building new oil wells... again.  I hate sequels with a recycled plot.

[DGMacphee]

But it's such entertaining TV viewing!

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

I realise the war is 'over', whatever that means but I found the link to be interesting: http://www.xeni.net/images/boingboing/barlowfriendz_88_pox_americana.htm

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

20 million Russians who died in WWII and 9.5 million who died in WWI must be very restless in their graves now because they saved everyone else's ass. My great granfather was one of them. he died in Belgium the day Berlin was taken.  UN are warmongers. France has a right to have it's own opinion on things.

[DGMacphee]

Beautifully stated, Sasha.


I was interested to see both France and Germany joined together in opposition against the unsupported Iraqi War.

It's amazing what changes in 50 or 60 years.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

In my short lifetime, I remember 3 wars, 2 of them American. That's not counting the gulf war.  One was the war on Yougoslavia, the other is the Iraqi war now. USA have taken part in most of the armed conflicts in this century. They want peace and yet they bomb the world to pieces. oh, the irony!

[DGMacphee]

I like the irony the late Bill Hicks expressed:

"We arm these littlel countries, then we send troops to blow the shit out of them! We're like the bullies of the world right now! We're like Jack palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet!"

[Las Naranjas]

My life time, going backwards

Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Bosnia, Croatia et al
Gulf 1
Panama
Afghanistan (again)

plus those that started before I was born and continued

Columbia
Chechnya
West Papua
East timor
Aceh
Nepal
N. Ireland
Kashmir
Bougainville
the Koreas are still at an official state of war
Iran-Iraq
the two intifatas
Kurds v Iraq and Turkey
The Congo (including 7 nations and the massacres of Rwanda and elsewhere. It's somewhat comparable to WW1, but they're only black)
countless seperatist wars on western China we don't get to hear about
Tamils in Sri Lanka
Western Sahara
the basques

etc. et.c etc.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=463562003

This 'war' gets more ludicrous by the minute. I'm sure they'll come up with proof of these weapons, given a few more months to put them there.

The Washington Post said Britain was encouraging its experts working for Mr Blix to resist America's invitations to jump ship and join an American-led inspection team.

Corporate warfare in all its glory.

"If the facts don't match the theory - change the facts." (Albert Einstein).

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

In small countries in Africa it is common for a tribe to kill 200 of an another tribe for no reason. The US knows. Why don't they stop it, them beeing so noble and just? Because those people have nothing.

[Las Naranjas]

200? Try 400,000

And that was just in '94.

The whole quasi cold war, nationalistic, ethnic, post colonialist mess that's in South Central republic has taken millions upon millions since the 60's.

It's still the largest scale conflict in the world, and has been wince the Vietnam war ended.

But they're black.

[Bob The Hun]

In small countries in Africa it is common for a tribe to kill 200 of an another tribe for no reason. The US knows. Why don't they stop it, them beeing so noble and just? Because those people have nothing.

So you're saying that we should get involved in every little conflict around the globe? If you're admitting that, you're admitting that we had a right to be in Vietnam.
I've been gone for quite a while, so most of you don't remember me. If anybody does, you might remember that I'm a conservative. Since a majority of this discussion seems to be on the left, I decided I'd post my opinions.
As I was saying, we shouldn't get into every little conflict around the world. I realize that every death is a horrible event, and 200 is worse. But over the course of his regime, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million people.
Also, remember that after we won the first Gulf War (after Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait) Saddam had to follow all of these UN resolutions.
However, he broke those resolutions, all the while killing more of his own people.

20 million Russians who died in WWII

Think of not only these deaths, but how many more deaths could of been avoided if the League of Nations had enforced the treaty of Versailles when Hitler broke it. That's why the League of Nations had it's credibility destroyed: because it did not enforce it's treaties.
I'm starting to see some parallels, here.
Also, what's with all the stuff about the US fighting the war for Iraq's oil?

So the US army sets Iraqi oil wells on fire, while Bush's political allies make fortune putting out the fires and building new oil wells... again.

First off, the US army put out the oil fires. It was the Iraqi troops, under command of Saddam, who lit them on fire. Same thing happened in the first Gulf war, if you'll remember. And I'd like to clear this up: Are we taking oil from the wells? No. Are we taking the oil for ourself? No.
The Iraqi government and people are going to be profiting from the oil.

China produces a little more oil than the US (which will change after the Iraq war)

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

The oil is going to be sold to pay for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq, which involves nice lucrative government contracts to Fortune 500 companies. And I am very convinced now this is all about the money, which the oil factors into. But come back in a month, we'll see.

And there are no links between him and any terrorists, he and Bin Laden are enemies.
Might I also point out the US had links with these same terrorists when it was in its interest to do so?

Where are these great Weapons of Mass Destructions? If they are there, why don't they want the inspectors to return?

Don't believe all that propaganda you hear.