Your second link discusses US/UK claims, I don't give a rat's nutsack about those.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
Quote:
So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons ...
That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!
So were things unaccounted for? Of course. But was there a large-scale program? NO! Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.
I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council
Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?
If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.
As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.
I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.
You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?
---
jimmac:
An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...
How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?
How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.
You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?
My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?
---
ena:
Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
Ok first of all I knew he had WOMD at one time because the U.S. government knew that from the first war.
Secondly since he wasn't much of a threat ( really, it was an exuse remember ) The exuse wasn't about him being a terrible threat at all. It was all about another agenda which has been gone over by me and other people here ad infinitum.
Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.
The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means. In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future. This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).
This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
HA! CONFERMED!!! You're WRONG!!! You misspelled the word decision!!!
Everything else you post is now considered balderdash.
PS Anyone have a link to the article that states the Bush Administration is now requesting permission to control Iraq's oil funds? I posted it somewhere but can't find it.
Certainly wasn't the entire reason. I remember Bush & Blair making the humanitarian case for months.
Quote:
Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
And that matters....?
Quote:
That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!
Not a threat?
If you can provide a source that says the chemicals would be harmless at this point I'd love to see it. Please please please.
Quote:
So were things unaccounted for? Of course.
And this, to you, doesn't matter?
Quote:
But was there a large-scale program? NO!
Wouldn't really matter if Hussein already had thousands of tons of chemical agents, now would it?
Quote:
Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.
The US certainly didn't claim the Iraqi weapons were a treat. I think only France viewed it that way.
Quote:
Here's your balderdash
You're right. One Iraqi = Iraqis!
---
jimmac:
Quote:
Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.
So...
Quote:
The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means.
Iraq's oil has been in the hands of the West since 1991. Or have you forgotten about the Oil-For-Food program so soon?
Quote:
In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future.
By you? Of course not.
The last thing you want is a successful Iraqi movement to a peaceful and prosperous nation with a healthy economy and abundant freedoms. That would just be a huge political blow for you, wouldn't it?
Quote:
This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).
Kind of like killing 1.2 million Iraqi civilians with sanctions to control their oil? Oh wait... that didn't include any bombs.
Quote:
This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.
And the net result of this war is negative?
~4000 civilian casualties in a direct overthrow of one of the most brutal dictators in the world and the potential for a bright future for a nation which saw 1/6th of its population in foreign exile?
Versus what? What was going well before the war, jimmac?
The 274 dead per day from the UN's method?
Let's see... two months since the start of war:
war killed: ~4000
sanctions killed: ~16400
WHAT A HORRIBLE MONSTER BUSH IS! WHAT A HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MONSTER!
~4000 civilian casualties in a direct overthrow of one of the most brutal dictators in the world and the potential for a bright future for a nation which saw 1/6th of its population in foreign exile?
If there really was justification for going to war based on humanitarian grounds, why did Bush have to lie?
I think Bush and Blair both mentioned the humanitarian issues for months before the war. Many world organizations also documented the humanitarian crisis (that the war will cure when all is said and done) for well over a decade.
I think the lack of a humanitarian case for many speaks more of the morally repugnant position those who opposed ousting Saddam put themselves in by supporting wholesale slaughter under a system of indefinite length over a short war of liberation.
I find it sad that the humanitarian cause isn't compelling to you. How inhumane the "left" has become.
I think Bush and Blair both mentioned the humanitarian issues for months before the war. Many world organizations also documented the humanitarian crisis (that the war will cure when all is said and done) for well over a decade.
I think the lack of a humanitarian case for many speaks more of the morally repugnant position those who opposed ousting Saddam put themselves in by supporting wholesale slaughter under a system of indefinite length over a short war of liberation.
I find it sad that the humanitarian cause isn't compelling to you. How inhumane the "left" has become.
If we take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see how many undemocratic countries that treats their citizents with equal low humanitarian standards US had to become buddies with you could make the argument that the wars have had a negative impact on the humanitarian situation. And adding to the uncertainty for the future.
I´m talking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and I´m sure there are more.
If we take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see how many undemocratic countries that treats their citizents with equal low humanitarian standards US had to become buddies with you could make the argument that the wars have had a negative impact on the humanitarian situation.
How?
We make friends with Pakistan to fight bin Laden in Afghanistan. Humanitarian situation in Afghanistan improves, Pakistan stays the same.
Or are you saying we've made the situation in Pakistan worse?
And for Iraq we got the help of... Qatar and Kuwait. People are really hurting there.
Quote:
And adding to the uncertainty for the future.
Seems like a valid argument in Afghanistan, a situation Dubya seems to have *ahem* paid less attention to than he should. Even so, I haven't seen that the humanitarian situation was anything but better overall while politically there is a weak and troubled new government.
International support would help, but we both know how the "international community" really feels about helping with no profit motive.
As far as Iraq... your argument there falls to pieces. If the most they have to worry about is how long their new government takes to take shapes then that's a night & day change for the best.
What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.
With regards to Turkmenista the leadership there have a terrible track record and sanctions were put on them for that reason. Suddenly we need airports and since it have state of the art (well... at least what was considered state of the art in USSR) landing spots there we become buddie-buddie with them just when the opposition in the country was gaining strength. Not so good either.
Turkey: Not a rough state but still a state with a bad human rights record. They want to become members of EU but are unable until they come clean (Its in our charter: there are some well defined standarts EU member states have to obey). And to tell the truth we are exploiting that position to better the situation in Turkey and it works. Then Bush needs the turkish airspace in the war agaisnt Iraq and they say "well then you have to help us get into EU". Bush grabs the phone and calls his #2 puppy in europe, the prime minister of my country and tells him to work for the acceptance of turkey in the current enlargement of EU thus working against the efforts to better the human rights in Turkey.
Bases in Saudi Arabia: Not a nice country either. But the stability of the country that has american bases is more importent than the condition of it population and especially its huge portion of foreign workers. Up until lately where US is withdrawing from the country (a good desition IMO)
The "adding to the uncertainty for the future" comment was a broad comment about the action adding to the hatred against US and the west in countries like Turkmenistan, Saudi arabia and Pakistan to name a few.
I agree that the humanitarian situation have or soon will improve in Iraq (if we keep our focus on it while restraining from making it a common colony of the west) but the way we ensured it can cause worse problems in the future.
What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.
I agree 100%, but it seems like that sort of thing is a necessary evil in international politics. That particular move was made to ensure stability during the Afghan war and it worked. I don't know (who does know?) how effective this alliance has been re: terrorism but maybe it has.
Our support of Musharraf is troubling, no doubt. Especially considering how weak Karzai's government is at this point, you wonder what you're getting out of it.
Quote:
With regards to Turkmenista the leadership there have a terrible track record and sanctions were put on them for that reason. Suddenly we need airports and since it have state of the art (well... at least what was considered state of the art in USSR) landing spots there we become buddie-buddie with them just when the opposition in the country was gaining strength. Not so good either.
I'm not up-to-date on Turkmenistan, but I don't doubt what you say for a minute.
As much as I don't like our leaders buddying-up with naughty guys I recognize it as valid if it is to achieve a greater good.
But you'll have to go into more detail about Turkmenistan, I don't know much about it.
Quote:
Then Bush needs the turkish airspace in the war agaisnt Iraq and they say "well then you have to help us get into EU". Bush grabs the phone and calls his #2 puppy in europe, the prime minister of my country and tells him to work for the acceptance of turkey in the current enlargement of EU thus working against the efforts to better the human rights in Turkey.
Wouldn't accepting Turkey make it easier for the EU to start pushing harder for human rights changes in Turkey?
Don't be exclusionary, Anders, we let Mississippi and Alabama into the US, look how much progress they've made! We've got South Carolina almost able to tolerate people who aren't white!
Quote:
The "adding to the uncertainty for the future" comment was a broad comment about the action adding to the hatred against US and the west in countries like Turkmenistan, Saudi arabia and Pakistan to name a few.
Hatred for the US was not in short supply pre-Afghan/Iraq.
Quote:
I agree that the humanitarian situation have or soon will improve in Iraq (if we keep our focus on it while restraining from making it a common colony of the west)
I think making it a colony of the West would be a good thing for the human rights situation overall. I can't imagine a US/UK authority being worse than Hussein.
Quote:
but the way we ensured it can cause worse problems in the future.
Anything is possible. Well... not *any*thing but you know what I mean.
What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.
A little context might be of some use here.
Prior to the coup, Nawaz Shariff has been using his overwhelming majority to accumulate powers, and to neuter any authoirity that could oppose his, like the presidency of the republic, or the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary, rendered toothless. However, there remained the army which is always an entity to vbe reckoned with in such countries, and its head Gen. Pervez Mussharraf. Musharraf was returning from an official visit in Sri Lanka, and was heading toward Karachi in a PIA regular commercial flight.
Shariff gave the control tower the strict order to refuse the Boeing, going low on fuel, landing authorisation anywhere in Pakistan. Landing in hostile India or chaotic Afghanistan was not possible either, Shariff simply wanted the plane to crash (along with Musharraf and some other two hundred passengers). Upon hearing this, Musharraf's direct underlings initiated a bloodless coup, and handed power to Musharraf on a plate after his plane finally landed in Karachi.
Rather than hastily trying Shariff and executing him as is usual in these situations, and as former military ruler, Gen. Zia Ul-Haq, did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (father to former PM Benazir Bhutto), Musharraf had him condemend to a fourteen-years prison sentence in an anti-terrorism court, then pardoned and exiled.
So,the apprecitation expressed by the then presidential cadidate G.W. Bush, for ?ahhh?General General? is quite understandable.
Musharraf has been the first ruler of Pakistan to initiate another direction than the political ?Islamicisation? of Pakistan, begun under aforemtioned Zia Ul-Haq in the seventies, while human rights in Pakstan are very much below that in neighbouring India, it has been thus already under Nawaz Shariff, and if anyone is to blame for liquidating whatever partial demcoracy there was in nineteen-nineties' Paksitan, it's Shariff, not Musharraf.
If Pakistan has any chance to actually get off the Shari'a regime and reform itself (and I'd be surprise if it makes it, alas), it's under Pervez Musharraf, not Shariff; and don't even get me started about Benazir Bhutto, that spilt kid had propped-up the most fanatical of all fanatical Afghan groups because as she admitted it it herself ?It was daddy's policy?, without her support the Taleban would have remained a band of local Quran-thumpers endlessly warrying against their neighbour Quran-thumping warlords.
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
None of these countries, except China from time to time, has been to the level of oppression which was found in Iraq under Saddam Hussain.
And about Turkey, with all its faults (and there many of them), that country is way more economically developed and more democratic than Slovakia or Bulgaria (Greece when it joined, circa 1981, was far less democratic or developed than Turkey today, and is still closer to Turkey in those respects than to any other EU state). Wisdom would have had it that the EU waits till these and the other former communist countries reach a relatively passable level of both democratisation and economic development, before having them join. Now the EU will have to undergo the same kind of ordeal that Germany did and does resulting of its absorbing the Länder of the former D.D.R.
Not very smart.
And not fair toward Turkey, dismissed for reasons not all that related with either its lack of sufficient democratic or economic development (given the similar and bigger such lacks in many of those accepted as new members).
Prior to the coup, Nawaz Shariff has been using his overwhelming majority to accumulate powers, and to neuter any authoirity that could oppose his, like the presidency of the republic, or the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary, rendered toothless. However, there remained the army which is always an entity to vbe reckoned with in such countries, and its head Gen. Pervez Mussharraf. Musharraf was returning from an official visit in Sri Lanka, and was heading toward Karachi in a PIA regular commercial flight.
Shariff gave the control tower the strict order to refuse the Boeing, going low on fuel, landing authorisation anywhere in Pakistan. Landing in hostile India or chaotic Afghanistan was not possible either, Shariff simply wanted the plane to crash (along with Musharraf and some other two hundred passengers). Upon hearing this, Musharraf's direct underlings initiated a bloodless coup, and handed power to Musharraf on a plate after his plane finally landed in Karachi.
Rather than hastily trying Shariff and executing him as is usual in these situations, and as former military ruler, Gen. Zia Ul-Haq, did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (father to former PM Benazir Bhutto), Musharraf had him condemend to a fourteen-years prison sentence in an anti-terrorism court, then pardoned and exiled.
So,the apprecitation expressed by the then presidential cadidate G.W. Bush, for ?ahhh?General General? is quite understandable.
.
No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy? Its the grand dilemma in many teories about democracy that florish in the maerican political circles: They can be contrasts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
None of these countries, except China from time to time, has been to the level of oppression which was found in Iraq under Saddam Hussain.
Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country. Here is a link from the state department (2000):
And here is a letter from Niyazov (proudly hosted at the US embassy server) at the anniversary of 9/11 thanking Bush for the great collaboration between US and Turkmenistan:
And if you look for it you will be able to find speaches held by Powell thanking Niyazov for the coorporation between the two countries.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And about Turkey, with all its faults (and there many of them), that country is way more economically developed and more democratic than Slovakia or Bulgaria (Greece when it joined, circa 1981, was far less democratic or developed than Turkey today, and is still closer to Turkey in those respects than to any other EU state). Wisdom would have had it that the EU waits till these and the other former communist countries reach a relatively passable level of both democratisation and economic development, before having them join. Now the EU will have to undergo the same kind of ordeal that Germany did and does resulting of its absorbing the Länder of the former D.D.R.
Not very smart.
And not fair toward Turkey, dismissed for reasons not all that related with either its lack of sufficient democratic or economic development (given the similar and bigger such lacks in many of those accepted as new members).
If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:
1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.
2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.
3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.
4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country. But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.
If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it. You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
No. Those countries was becoming more and more isolated from the interenational society. No one was buddies with these countries before the war. And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
At least we agreed that while what US did in Iraq may in the future give them a brighter life it have potentially done harm in other countries (to make an omelet...)
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true. The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan. Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy?
If Immanuel is representing Shariff's efforts fairly it doesn't seem like that was the exact choice. Seemed like Shariff was eroding the democracy.
Not to say that what happened was good or "right", but it's not so black and white.
Quote:
And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
And the terror attacks in SA came *after* we announced we were leaving. Kind of makes you question the terrorist motives.
Quote:
At least we agreed that while what US did in Iraq may in the future give them a brighter life it have potentially done harm in other countries (to make an omelet...)
Like what?
Quote:
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true. The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan. Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
Wait... so stability isn't worth suppressing rebellion for now?
Wasn't that why we let Saddam brutally crush the Shi'ia rebellion in 1991? Wasn't that a HUGE reason for oppossing the ouster of Saddam, destabilization? Wasn't "containment" the preferred route to war?
And beside that, I don't think all rebellions are good for the people.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Your second link discusses US/UK claims, I don't give a rat's nutsack about those.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons ...
That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!
So were things unaccounted for? Of course. But was there a large-scale program? NO! Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.
Stop playing games.
Originally posted by ena
....what about the tractor-trailers WMD labs? Doesn't that mitigate some of this alleged lying?
Hi ena!
No.
Originally posted by groverat
midwinter:
Or e) just haven't been found yet within Iraq.
Most likely a mix of most of those.
Trying to move the goalposts, eh?
Your statement:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.
I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council
Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?
If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.
As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.
I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.
You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?
---
jimmac:
An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...
How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?
How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.
You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?
My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?
---
ena:
Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
Ok first of all I knew he had WOMD at one time because the U.S. government knew that from the first war.
Secondly since he wasn't much of a threat ( really, it was an exuse remember ) The exuse wasn't about him being a terrible threat at all. It was all about another agenda which has been gone over by me and other people here ad infinitum.
Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.
The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means. In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future. This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).
This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.
Originally posted by giant
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
HA! CONFERMED!!! You're WRONG!!! You misspelled the word decision!!!
Everything else you post is now considered balderdash.
PS Anyone have a link to the article that states the Bush Administration is now requesting permission to control Iraq's oil funds? I posted it somewhere but can't find it.
Iraqis want U.N. to control oil cash
By Nadim Ladki
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis have welcomed U.S. and British moves to lift U.N. economic sanctions but are calling for the United Nations
or an Iraqi interim government to take charge of the nation's oil wealth, not Washington.
The United States and Britain are pushing a proposal to lift nearly 13 years of sanctions and give them control of the Iraq's oil revenues for
at least a year.
"It is a good initiative that should have taken place a long time ago," said Ragheb Naaman, 43. "But we don't accept that the revenues be
controlled by the United States and Britain."
Naaman, an employee at Iraq's Military Industrialisation Commission in charge of developing weapons, said: "The regime (of President
Saddam Hussein) is gone, why are they staying? This shows that they are occupiers not liberators."
The sanctions, imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, have crippled the economy of the oil-rich country, pushing a majority of Iraq's 26
million people around the poverty line.
"These sanctions should've been lifted long time ago, look at our situation now," said a man who named Ali. "But, I guess, better late than
never."
The U.S.-British proposal would relegate the United Nations and other international institutions to an advisory role and phase out over four
months the existing U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian programme.
The United States and Britain, who sponsored the proposal along with Spain, want a vote at the U.N. Security Council by June 3, when that
programme, which gives the United Nations control over the oil revenues, needs to be renewed.
Without adoption of the resolution, no Iraqi, U.S. or U.N. entity in Baghdad has the legal authority to export oil.
"We should run ourselves, not be controlled by Washington or London," Ali Hamad said.
"The whole of Iraq is now theirs so the sanctions should be lifted. They are taking Iraq's wealth," Ahmad Dulaimi said. "The United Nations
and not the United States should run the country until we have our own government."
According to the proposed resolution, decisions on where to spend the money would be made mainly by the United States and Britain.
They would make those decisions in consultation with an Iraqi interim authority Washington is now setting up until a new elected Iraqi
government is formed, which could take years.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissin...43&sid=1846282
Originally posted by Harald
Hi ena!
No.
"Serves me right for asking a direct question"
--Claude Rains, Casablanca
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!!
Certainly wasn't the entire reason. I remember Bush & Blair making the humanitarian case for months.
Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
And that matters....?
That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!
Not a threat?
If you can provide a source that says the chemicals would be harmless at this point I'd love to see it. Please please please.
So were things unaccounted for? Of course.
And this, to you, doesn't matter?
But was there a large-scale program? NO!
Wouldn't really matter if Hussein already had thousands of tons of chemical agents, now would it?
Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.
The US certainly didn't claim the Iraqi weapons were a treat. I think only France viewed it that way.
Here's your balderdash
You're right. One Iraqi = Iraqis!
---
jimmac:
Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.
So...
The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means.
Iraq's oil has been in the hands of the West since 1991. Or have you forgotten about the Oil-For-Food program so soon?
In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future.
By you? Of course not.
The last thing you want is a successful Iraqi movement to a peaceful and prosperous nation with a healthy economy and abundant freedoms. That would just be a huge political blow for you, wouldn't it?
This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).
Kind of like killing 1.2 million Iraqi civilians with sanctions to control their oil? Oh wait... that didn't include any bombs.
This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.
And the net result of this war is negative?
~4000 civilian casualties in a direct overthrow of one of the most brutal dictators in the world and the potential for a bright future for a nation which saw 1/6th of its population in foreign exile?
Versus what? What was going well before the war, jimmac?
The 274 dead per day from the UN's method?
Let's see... two months since the start of war:
war killed: ~4000
sanctions killed: ~16400
WHAT A HORRIBLE MONSTER BUSH IS! WHAT A HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MONSTER!
Originally posted by groverat
And the net result of this war is negative?
~4000 civilian casualties in a direct overthrow of one of the most brutal dictators in the world and the potential for a bright future for a nation which saw 1/6th of its population in foreign exile?
You're dumb.
If there really was justification for going to war based on humanitarian grounds, why did Bush have to lie?
I think Bush and Blair both mentioned the humanitarian issues for months before the war. Many world organizations also documented the humanitarian crisis (that the war will cure when all is said and done) for well over a decade.
I think the lack of a humanitarian case for many speaks more of the morally repugnant position those who opposed ousting Saddam put themselves in by supporting wholesale slaughter under a system of indefinite length over a short war of liberation.
I find it sad that the humanitarian cause isn't compelling to you. How inhumane the "left" has become.
Originally posted by groverat
tonton:
I think Bush and Blair both mentioned the humanitarian issues for months before the war. Many world organizations also documented the humanitarian crisis (that the war will cure when all is said and done) for well over a decade.
I think the lack of a humanitarian case for many speaks more of the morally repugnant position those who opposed ousting Saddam put themselves in by supporting wholesale slaughter under a system of indefinite length over a short war of liberation.
I find it sad that the humanitarian cause isn't compelling to you. How inhumane the "left" has become.
If we take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see how many undemocratic countries that treats their citizents with equal low humanitarian standards US had to become buddies with you could make the argument that the wars have had a negative impact on the humanitarian situation. And adding to the uncertainty for the future.
I´m talking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and I´m sure there are more.
If we take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see how many undemocratic countries that treats their citizents with equal low humanitarian standards US had to become buddies with you could make the argument that the wars have had a negative impact on the humanitarian situation.
How?
We make friends with Pakistan to fight bin Laden in Afghanistan. Humanitarian situation in Afghanistan improves, Pakistan stays the same.
Or are you saying we've made the situation in Pakistan worse?
And for Iraq we got the help of... Qatar and Kuwait. People are really hurting there.
And adding to the uncertainty for the future.
Seems like a valid argument in Afghanistan, a situation Dubya seems to have *ahem* paid less attention to than he should. Even so, I haven't seen that the humanitarian situation was anything but better overall while politically there is a weak and troubled new government.
International support would help, but we both know how the "international community" really feels about helping with no profit motive.
As far as Iraq... your argument there falls to pieces. If the most they have to worry about is how long their new government takes to take shapes then that's a night & day change for the best.
With regards to Turkmenista the leadership there have a terrible track record and sanctions were put on them for that reason. Suddenly we need airports and since it have state of the art (well... at least what was considered state of the art in USSR) landing spots there we become buddie-buddie with them just when the opposition in the country was gaining strength. Not so good either.
Turkey: Not a rough state but still a state with a bad human rights record. They want to become members of EU but are unable until they come clean (Its in our charter: there are some well defined standarts EU member states have to obey). And to tell the truth we are exploiting that position to better the situation in Turkey and it works. Then Bush needs the turkish airspace in the war agaisnt Iraq and they say "well then you have to help us get into EU". Bush grabs the phone and calls his #2 puppy in europe, the prime minister of my country and tells him to work for the acceptance of turkey in the current enlargement of EU thus working against the efforts to better the human rights in Turkey.
Bases in Saudi Arabia: Not a nice country either. But the stability of the country that has american bases is more importent than the condition of it population and especially its huge portion of foreign workers. Up until lately where US is withdrawing from the country (a good desition IMO)
The "adding to the uncertainty for the future" comment was a broad comment about the action adding to the hatred against US and the west in countries like Turkmenistan, Saudi arabia and Pakistan to name a few.
I agree that the humanitarian situation have or soon will improve in Iraq (if we keep our focus on it while restraining from making it a common colony of the west) but the way we ensured it can cause worse problems in the future.
What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.
I agree 100%, but it seems like that sort of thing is a necessary evil in international politics. That particular move was made to ensure stability during the Afghan war and it worked. I don't know (who does know?) how effective this alliance has been re: terrorism but maybe it has.
Our support of Musharraf is troubling, no doubt. Especially considering how weak Karzai's government is at this point, you wonder what you're getting out of it.
With regards to Turkmenista the leadership there have a terrible track record and sanctions were put on them for that reason. Suddenly we need airports and since it have state of the art (well... at least what was considered state of the art in USSR) landing spots there we become buddie-buddie with them just when the opposition in the country was gaining strength. Not so good either.
I'm not up-to-date on Turkmenistan, but I don't doubt what you say for a minute.
As much as I don't like our leaders buddying-up with naughty guys I recognize it as valid if it is to achieve a greater good.
But you'll have to go into more detail about Turkmenistan, I don't know much about it.
Then Bush needs the turkish airspace in the war agaisnt Iraq and they say "well then you have to help us get into EU". Bush grabs the phone and calls his #2 puppy in europe, the prime minister of my country and tells him to work for the acceptance of turkey in the current enlargement of EU thus working against the efforts to better the human rights in Turkey.
Wouldn't accepting Turkey make it easier for the EU to start pushing harder for human rights changes in Turkey?
Don't be exclusionary, Anders, we let Mississippi and Alabama into the US, look how much progress they've made! We've got South Carolina almost able to tolerate people who aren't white!
The "adding to the uncertainty for the future" comment was a broad comment about the action adding to the hatred against US and the west in countries like Turkmenistan, Saudi arabia and Pakistan to name a few.
Hatred for the US was not in short supply pre-Afghan/Iraq.
I agree that the humanitarian situation have or soon will improve in Iraq (if we keep our focus on it while restraining from making it a common colony of the west)
I think making it a colony of the West would be a good thing for the human rights situation overall. I can't imagine a US/UK authority being worse than Hussein.
but the way we ensured it can cause worse problems in the future.
Anything is possible. Well... not *any*thing but you know what I mean.
Originally posted by Anders the White
What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.
A little context might be of some use here.
Prior to the coup, Nawaz Shariff has been using his overwhelming majority to accumulate powers, and to neuter any authoirity that could oppose his, like the presidency of the republic, or the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary, rendered toothless. However, there remained the army which is always an entity to vbe reckoned with in such countries, and its head Gen. Pervez Mussharraf. Musharraf was returning from an official visit in Sri Lanka, and was heading toward Karachi in a PIA regular commercial flight.
Shariff gave the control tower the strict order to refuse the Boeing, going low on fuel, landing authorisation anywhere in Pakistan. Landing in hostile India or chaotic Afghanistan was not possible either, Shariff simply wanted the plane to crash (along with Musharraf and some other two hundred passengers). Upon hearing this, Musharraf's direct underlings initiated a bloodless coup, and handed power to Musharraf on a plate after his plane finally landed in Karachi.
Rather than hastily trying Shariff and executing him as is usual in these situations, and as former military ruler, Gen. Zia Ul-Haq, did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (father to former PM Benazir Bhutto), Musharraf had him condemend to a fourteen-years prison sentence in an anti-terrorism court, then pardoned and exiled.
So,the apprecitation expressed by the then presidential cadidate G.W. Bush, for ?ahhh?General General? is quite understandable.
Musharraf has been the first ruler of Pakistan to initiate another direction than the political ?Islamicisation? of Pakistan, begun under aforemtioned Zia Ul-Haq in the seventies, while human rights in Pakstan are very much below that in neighbouring India, it has been thus already under Nawaz Shariff, and if anyone is to blame for liquidating whatever partial demcoracy there was in nineteen-nineties' Paksitan, it's Shariff, not Musharraf.
If Pakistan has any chance to actually get off the Shari'a regime and reform itself (and I'd be surprise if it makes it, alas), it's under Pervez Musharraf, not Shariff; and don't even get me started about Benazir Bhutto, that spilt kid had propped-up the most fanatical of all fanatical Afghan groups because as she admitted it it herself ?It was daddy's policy?, without her support the Taleban would have remained a band of local Quran-thumpers endlessly warrying against their neighbour Quran-thumping warlords.
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
None of these countries, except China from time to time, has been to the level of oppression which was found in Iraq under Saddam Hussain.
And about Turkey, with all its faults (and there many of them), that country is way more economically developed and more democratic than Slovakia or Bulgaria (Greece when it joined, circa 1981, was far less democratic or developed than Turkey today, and is still closer to Turkey in those respects than to any other EU state). Wisdom would have had it that the EU waits till these and the other former communist countries reach a relatively passable level of both democratisation and economic development, before having them join. Now the EU will have to undergo the same kind of ordeal that Germany did and does resulting of its absorbing the Länder of the former D.D.R.
Not very smart.
And not fair toward Turkey, dismissed for reasons not all that related with either its lack of sufficient democratic or economic development (given the similar and bigger such lacks in many of those accepted as new members).
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
A little context might be of some use here.
Prior to the coup, Nawaz Shariff has been using his overwhelming majority to accumulate powers, and to neuter any authoirity that could oppose his, like the presidency of the republic, or the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary, rendered toothless. However, there remained the army which is always an entity to vbe reckoned with in such countries, and its head Gen. Pervez Mussharraf. Musharraf was returning from an official visit in Sri Lanka, and was heading toward Karachi in a PIA regular commercial flight.
Shariff gave the control tower the strict order to refuse the Boeing, going low on fuel, landing authorisation anywhere in Pakistan. Landing in hostile India or chaotic Afghanistan was not possible either, Shariff simply wanted the plane to crash (along with Musharraf and some other two hundred passengers). Upon hearing this, Musharraf's direct underlings initiated a bloodless coup, and handed power to Musharraf on a plate after his plane finally landed in Karachi.
Rather than hastily trying Shariff and executing him as is usual in these situations, and as former military ruler, Gen. Zia Ul-Haq, did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (father to former PM Benazir Bhutto), Musharraf had him condemend to a fourteen-years prison sentence in an anti-terrorism court, then pardoned and exiled.
So,the apprecitation expressed by the then presidential cadidate G.W. Bush, for ?ahhh?General General? is quite understandable.
.
No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy? Its the grand dilemma in many teories about democracy that florish in the maerican political circles: They can be contrasts.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
None of these countries, except China from time to time, has been to the level of oppression which was found in Iraq under Saddam Hussain.
Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country. Here is a link from the state department (2000):
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/europe/turkmenistan.html
And here is a letter from Niyazov (proudly hosted at the US embassy server) at the anniversary of 9/11 thanking Bush for the great collaboration between US and Turkmenistan:
http://www.usemb-ashgabat.rpo.at/911letter.html
And if you look for it you will be able to find speaches held by Powell thanking Niyazov for the coorporation between the two countries.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And about Turkey, with all its faults (and there many of them), that country is way more economically developed and more democratic than Slovakia or Bulgaria (Greece when it joined, circa 1981, was far less democratic or developed than Turkey today, and is still closer to Turkey in those respects than to any other EU state). Wisdom would have had it that the EU waits till these and the other former communist countries reach a relatively passable level of both democratisation and economic development, before having them join. Now the EU will have to undergo the same kind of ordeal that Germany did and does resulting of its absorbing the Länder of the former D.D.R.
Not very smart.
And not fair toward Turkey, dismissed for reasons not all that related with either its lack of sufficient democratic or economic development (given the similar and bigger such lacks in many of those accepted as new members).
If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:
1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.
2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.
3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.
4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country. But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.
If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it. You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
No. Those countries was becoming more and more isolated from the interenational society. No one was buddies with these countries before the war. And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
Originally posted by groverat
Excellent post.
At least we agreed that while what US did in Iraq may in the future give them a brighter life it have potentially done harm in other countries (to make an omelet...)
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true. The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan. Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy?
If Immanuel is representing Shariff's efforts fairly it doesn't seem like that was the exact choice. Seemed like Shariff was eroding the democracy.
Not to say that what happened was good or "right", but it's not so black and white.
And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
And the terror attacks in SA came *after* we announced we were leaving. Kind of makes you question the terrorist motives.
At least we agreed that while what US did in Iraq may in the future give them a brighter life it have potentially done harm in other countries (to make an omelet...)
Like what?
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true. The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan. Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
Wait... so stability isn't worth suppressing rebellion for now?
Wasn't that why we let Saddam brutally crush the Shi'ia rebellion in 1991? Wasn't that a HUGE reason for oppossing the ouster of Saddam, destabilization? Wasn't "containment" the preferred route to war?
And beside that, I don't think all rebellions are good for the people.