WMD? Who needs WMD?

[Justintime]

As far as i see, it was WMD being the mass tune, then all of a sudden its liberate iraq, now its bring on the retired general or whatever and lets rule Iraq, fuck the UN, but still, let em pay but get no say in the way things are gonna run.

 

[Justintime]

Btw i agree on the fact that saddam had to be taken out, but its the way things were done, and the motives behind it that lead me to question this whole thing.

 

[Gato_Solo]

As far as i see, it was WMD being the mass tune, then all of a sudden its liberate iraq, now its bring on the retired general or whatever and lets rule Iraq, fuck the UN, but still, let em pay but get no say in the way things are gonna run.

You know. I have one problem with the way the UN handeled this whole fiasco. They were against any military action at all, and France even stated that they would veto any resolution that had military force in it. Seems to me, now that the US is almost finished cleaning out the outhouse, the UN comes calling to present a bill. ?( If they didn't want to take any risk, then why are they so hot to get any benefit from the rebuilding process? The way I personally see it is that only those willing to come in to do the work should be allowed to assist in the rebuilding process. Too many people now smell money, which the UN has said the US and our coalition partners must pa for this reconstruction, and want to join in. Two words...Fuck them. They knew from the beginning that we were going to do this, and they had their chance to do something, and they sat on their hands, weeping and moaning about how the US and our allies were making a big mistake, refused to help out in any way, and now want us to pay for their indecisions. Riiight... Come on down...

 

[A.B.Normal]

If we forget for a moment its the U.S. and say its country "X".Country X goes into country "Y" without International support and insists that they alone get the Spoils of War,do you really think this would or should be allowed.Just because its the U.S. it still sets a "bad" precident .If others are allowed to rebuild it removes the future incentive for others to try something similar ,but not necesarily with the same reasons behind them.

 

[Gato_Solo]

If we forget for a moment its the U.S. and say its country "X".Country X goes into country "Y" without International support and insists that they alone get the Spoils of War,do you really think this would or should be allowed.Just because its the U.S. it still sets a "bad" precident .If others are allowed to rebuild it removes the future incentive for others to try something similar ,but not necesarily with the same reasons behind them.

Depends upon the circumstances. Bottom line is, if you don't want to join the party, then you shouldn't complain if you don't get beer.

One more thing...

If the world was so dead-set against us invading Iraq, then why didn't anybody ally themselves with Saddam Hussein? Not even China and Russia wanted to be associated with him and his cronies. Of course, they paid lip service to the whole idea, but where are their troops?

Let's be for real here. Nobody outside of a few radical muslim clerics likes Saddam's Iraq. The only reason nobody did anything to stop the coalition from entering Iraq's sovereign borders is because, deep down, the rest of the world's leaders wanted this to happen. Especially in Europe...the place with so many peace marches and anti-war demonstrations. They knew that, if Saddam actually got his hands on chemical,
biological, or, God forbid, nuclear weapons, that Europe, not the US, would have the big problem. Continental Europe saw a way of getting rid of their Saddam problem and without having to get their hands dirty, so they took it. Any other thoughts about this?

 

[ris]

i think the french played a bad game of brinksmanship. the us and uk said that if the un didn't give support then there was a strong likelyhood they would go in without a new resolution [not explicitly necessary but still the preferred option]. i am sure many countries saw that as 'we going to do it anyway' and felt somewhat disgruntled that the un processes were being pressured.

my feelig is that france tried to play a equal game of 'we will block anything' in an attempt to stand as strongly opposed as the us/uk/spain were for a conflict. sadly it merely accelerated an already fractuous situation and now the rifts within the un and eu are deeper that perhaps were necessary.

i think the way that both sides handled it were unfortunate. there are those, inlcuding hans blix, who felt that the un route was more for show and the us/uk had already made their minds, regardless of what happened with the inspectors. but the actions of those opposed to the conflict served only to widen divisions that do nobody any favours in the long term.

as for the spoils of war, the us has taken control of all the contracts and told the uk government that it will not be administristating or awarding any to uk companies. then rumsfeld's old company get the most lucrative. its caused a lot of resentment give the support we've provided both politically, diplomatically and militarily.

 

[Gato_Solo]

as for the spoils of war, the us has taken control of all the contracts and told the uk government that it will not be administristating or awarding any to uk companies. then rumsfeld's old company get the most lucrative. its caused a lot of resentment give the support we've provided both politically, diplomatically and militarily.

For that, I am ashamed. I would comment further, but this is a government computer.

 

[ol' man]

as for the spoils of war, the us has taken control of all the contracts and told the uk government that it will not be administristating or awarding any to uk companies. then rumsfeld's old company get the most lucrative. its caused a lot of resentment give the support we've provided both politically, diplomatically and militarily.

Could you give us some links or something explaining this better.

 

[ris]

a correction on my part - it was not rumsfeld but cheney's old company, halliburton, which had a subsidiary [kbr] was awarded a government contract without competitve tender for oil well fire extinguishing. it has since not been shortlisted for a further contract, the largest of the reconstruction awards, of which british firms were not even invited to bid.

the us has a policy of awarding contracts only to us companies, which has drawn criticism from overseas goverments and companies. a recent contract to rebuild iraq's only deep sea port at umm qasr was awarded to a us company, after uk troops took the port and it is currently under uk military control.

bbc

 

[Ardsgaine]

i think perhaps statements of others are being confused with gonz's in the debate.

There are a lot of 'they's' being thrown around. I don't think the statement...

[quote="Squiggy']
You've seen how vehemently some of the right wingers proclaimed the left idiots for not having blind faith in Bush. Now, they are suddenly covering themselves in case nothing of the gravity of WMD is found. Its all a game to them.[/quote]

applies to anyone. I never said that anyone should have blind faith in Bush, and I doubt very seriously that Gonz said it either. Whoever did say it isn't the one who posted the article above. I posted it for the purpose of showing that support for the war isn't soley dependent on the issue of WMD. There are a whole host of good reasons for overthrowing Saddam, and WMD is just one part of the "mosaic."

These things are beyond question:

1) Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past.
2) Saddam was amassing a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
3) Saddam was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
4) As part of the peace treaty that ended the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to the complete disarmament of his WMDs.
5) The UN set an inspections regime to insure that Saddam complied with the terms of that treaty.
6) The UN passed numerous resolutions calling on Saddam to cooperate with the inspectors.
7) In the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has played a shell game with his WMDs to elude the inspectors.
8) The regime has been caught lying about its possession of WMDs on numerous occasions.
9) Prior to the beginning of the current war, there was no one outside Saddam's regime who could seriously maintain that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions compelling him to disarm, nor was he fully cooperating with the inspectors.
10) Saddam made a show of partially complying with some of the resolution requirements prior to the war, but it was only under duress, with US troops massing on his border and the threat of imminent war.
11) In the past, Saddam has made similar gestures at compliance, but when the threat of force was removed he went right back to playing games.

From all this, I conclude that Saddam will never willingly disarm, and that even if we could completely scour the country and remove all his WMDs-- which we can't with him in power-- he would go right back to amassing them once we left. We will find WMDs in the country once we have a chance to really start looking, but even if we didn't, my support for the war wouldn't be affected. This was the only way to be certain that he had disarmed, and disarmament was only one part of my reason for advocating the war.

 

[Squiggy]

like I said, make all the excuses you want. If they don't find the WMDs that Bush swears he has undeniable evidence of, then he lied. And Americans are DEAD because of it. But as long as Ards and Gonz feel like they won, all is well.

 

[Ardsgaine]

the us has a policy of awarding contracts only to us companies, which has drawn criticism from overseas goverments and companies. a recent contract to rebuild iraq's only deep sea port at umm qasr was awarded to a us company, after uk troops took the port and it is currently under uk military control.

Well, I don't think that's right. Companies from the UK and other Coalition countries should be in the running for such contracts. From my perspective, it shouldn't be about giving the money to any particular country, it should be about giving the contract to the company that will do the best job for the least amount of money.

 

[Luis G]

As far as i see, it was WMD being the mass tune, then all of a sudden its liberate iraq, now its bring on the retired general or whatever and lets rule Iraq

Next thing is "this is about oil", but let's not talk about it 'cause they are still not ready and they haven't been told a nice justification.


Chomski, how wise he is.

 

[Gonz]

If they don't find the WMDs that Bush swears he has undeniable evidence of, then he lied.

Not necessarily lied. It will look bad & there will be questions to answer he may not want to field. If that's the case, tough shit, we need answers. (We could blame it on Willies massive cuts in intel)

WMDs or not (I think there are), there are plenty of reasons to remove saddam.

 

[Squiggy]

Obviously no intel is better than bad intel. Or 'creative' intel. Or ficticious intel. Keep fooling yourselves....

 

[Ardsgaine]

like I said, make all the excuses you want.

Who in the fuck do you think I'm making excuses for? I'm not responsible for Bush. I'm only responsible for the things I have said and the things I believe.

All you're interested in, Squiggy, is whether the Democrats win the next election. You don't give a damn whether this war is the right thing to do or not. It's nothing but "Bush said this..." and "Bush claimed that..." You seem to think that this debate is about Republicans vs Democrats. It's not. If Gore were invading Iraq, I would still be in favor of it. Hell, I would be in favor of it, even if Clinton were doing it. Could you take off the partisan goggles for a bit, and try to look at this from the point of view of what's best for the US? Could you try to look at what I am saying and debate with me, instead of shadow-boxing with Bush?

 

[Aunty Em]

Then, in another thread, he says that the reason they hate Israel is because they're jealous that its a democracy.

I said something to the effect that Israel shows it works, which makes them nervous, but jealous? That isn't a term I use often.

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

How can you say democracy works when a large number of people have no rights in their own country?

...Oh yes... democracy works if you're a jew...

 

[Ardsgaine]

How can you say democracy works when a large number of people have no rights in their own country?

...Oh yes... democracy works if you're a jew...

Umm. I don't think that's entirely accurate. I believe that there are some Arabs who have Israeli citizenship. You have to remember that in 1948 there was a mass exodus of Arabs from Israel, because they didn't want to stay and give legitimacy to the Israeli government. Israel has been under constant attack by the Arabs ever since. So... how do you give citizenship to people who want you dead, and want to destroy your country?

 

[Gonz]

Aunty, if you're refering to the Palestinians, they're not Israeli & this isn't their homeland.

CIA Factbook

Israel

Population:
6,029,529 (July 2002 est.)
note: includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, more than 5,000 in the Gaza Strip, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (February 2003 est.)

Ethnic groups:
Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)

Religions:
Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)

Suffrage:
18 years of age; universal

compare suffrage to:

Kuwait
adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years or more or have resided in Kuwait since before 1920 and their male descendants at age 21
note: only 10% of all citizens are eligible to vote; in 1996, naturalized citizens who do not meet the pre-1920 qualification but have been naturalized for 30 years were eligible to vote for the first time

Oman
in Oman's most recent elections in 2000, limited to approximately 175,000 Omanis chosen by the government to vote in elections for the Majlis ash-Shura

Pakistan21 years of age; universal; separate electorates and reserved parliamentary seats for non-Muslims

 

[Aunty Em]

How would you feel if someone walked into your country and said they were taking over... sounds like an invasion to me...

Kuwait
adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years or more or have resided in Kuwait since before 1920 and their male descendants at age 21
note: only 10% of all citizens are eligible to vote; in 1996, naturalized citizens who do not meet the pre-1920 qualification but have been naturalized for 30 years were eligible to vote for the first time

Oman
in Oman's most recent elections in 2000, limited to approximately 175,000 Omanis chosen by the government to vote in elections for the Majlis ash-Shura

Pakistan21 years of age; universal; separate electorates and reserved parliamentary seats for non-Muslims

...since 2 of those are not self confessed democratic states and the third is questionable, does this even warrant an answer? I don't see what the political status of other countries has to do with Isreal. You would justify the fact that they are not as democratic as they say they are by highlighting states which aren't... hmmmm....

You obviously don't understand my point of view.