Oil for Food humanitarian aid?

ris

ris

New Member
the pm might be convinced but he couldn't persuade over 100 of his own party, including his ex-foreign minister, who you would figure would be pretty much the most clued-up person as to iraq as anyone out there.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
CNN said:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice
Click to expand...

Gonzo Propaganda provided by CNN
 
ris

ris

New Member
it passed at bit closer here, more like 65-35 or something, but the pm was getting full support from the opposition whcih almost never happens
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Gonz, by that reasoning, you'd think that it was justified for the roman empire, Napoleon, Hitler and such to invade other countries just because they thought it was justified.
 
ris

ris

New Member
i think the 'in our interests' thing bothers a lot of people. it was in our interests to support saddam against iran. now its in our interests to get him out. there are lots of interests out there, just because you the biggest don't make it the rightest one.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
It was in our interest to provide support for saddam against Iran, to prevent what everyone expects here, destabilization. It didn't affect the peoples of Europe or the US so most didn't pay attention.

then I'd have to pay flavio a finders fee/royalty ;)
 
ris

ris

New Member
see, capitalism does work then :headbang:

but then there are the other in our interests for dictators to be left in power or supported where others get the ick. i think its seen as unilateral action that many see as internationally destabilising or better discussed through the un or other international body. if it was in the interests to prevent destabilisation then why not now?
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
09/11 is the short answer.

Oil is the long answer. Best interests is the key. Was it? yea-if Iran onquers Iraq, who's next? nay-look where we are.

Our slogan needs to be chaged to "The enemy of my enemy is not my freind"
 
ris

ris

New Member
i've yet to be convinced of iraq's connection to international terrorism. most of the things i have picked up have been supposition and assumption. if i was a cynical enough man i'd say that saddam hussein is a target of convenience - his perpetual state of breach of 1991 resolutions makles him an ideal target at almost any time.

and i don't think that actions in the middle east such as this are improving delicate western-arab relations that are in part the cause of actions such as the attacks on the us.
 
ris

ris

New Member
oil is too obvious, as has been pointed out here many times the us gets most of its oil from sources well away from the us.

i'm not sure i know why the war is underway, antoher cynicism might say war is good for the ratings. sadly, i'm not sure this war will be a short and easy one. i fear it might be another drawn out affair with many casualties on both sides.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
ris said:
i'd say that saddam hussein is a target of convenience - his perpetual state of breach of 1991 resolutions makes him an ideal target at almost any time.
Click to expand...

Let there be no doubt. He's the handiest target, at the moment. With the downfall of Iraq & the victory over Afghanistan, it weakens Iran immensely. It's a toe hold in the ME. If we can have democracies on those places, and they work, it's a start at rebuilding the ME, from the inside.
 
ris

ris

New Member
btw - you forgot to call me a fucking idiot or somehting, its been at least 5 posts since someone did that and we can't be seen to having a civilised debate or anything ;)
 
madrin

madrin

New Member
Gonz, by that reasoning, you'd think that it was justified for the roman empire, Napoleon, Hitler and such to invade other countries just because they thought it was justified.
Click to expand...

...not necessarily so. In these cases one would probably want to take a look at WHY those actions were felt to be "justified" .

I'm pretty sure that the expansion of the Roman Empire had nothing to do with oil,liberation,terrorism(such as it is),political/state sponsored torture or any of the other 100 things people associate our current action with.

The Napoleanic wars? Which one? A failed endeavor to nick land from the Ottoman Empire and in the process screwing British trade...or later, where it was a hodge podge of notions including uniting Europe with a sort of "height of the Roman Empire" theme with the little guy at the head of it all...?...not to mention, the following concept, which takes us past WW1 and all the way to Hitler...and...

Lebenstraum....

which depending on how you look at it might or might not have been justified from the standpoint of historical lineage through Germany and to the East....

In any case I don't think our current action has anything to do with "living space" either....

...so once again, the recurring theme. You either believe that conditions exist which must be changed or you don't...but it's awfully difficult to draw intention parallels between now and the war periods you mentioned...

MADrin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top