Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 10:13 AM       
Listen, if our foreign policy is awesome enough for a bycycling Afghani Dentist and creates economic opportunity for India, I'm all for it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:02 AM       
Baghdad was at one time a progressive region of the Middle East. Currently there is no sign of progression anywhere. It is run by a power hungry lunatic whoi is in his last moments of control and is desparate.

"Iraq under Saddam’s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam’s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."

Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice


As for carrying on a consitent argument, Herbivore, I was addressing many previous points in the thread.

On other related subjects:

Do I believe our military is perfect and is only out to save the people?

Absolutely not. However, I do believe that, overall, as a country, the United States makes a very conscientious effort to remain as civil as one can in times of war. The reality of the situation is that no war is going to be a smooth operation performed with the surgical precision that opponents seem to believe is attainable in their eutopian visions.

Do I believe we are going into Iraq, with the primary goal of liberating the country and establishing a democracy?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe we do indeed wish to establish a democratic (even remotely democratic) government. Do I believe it is to help the Iraqi people? Somewhat, perhaps. I do not believe we wish them further suffering. However, that is absolutely not our goal. Our goal, as I have earlier stated, and will now reiterate is IMO to create a widespread pressure throughout the region which will motivate and encourage the people throughout the Middle East to rise up and force progression. Theocracy is NOT an answer, and these countries will never be able to function in the world to come, let alone the current world economy. It is critical that this region is stabilized and move forth with the rest of the world. Basic human rights, enhanced education, and international trade outside of oil will clearly set them on a path to a better life, which in turn, will provide stability throughout the region and give the U.S and other countries room to breathe and not worry about isolated terrorist cells and religious movements being funded by oil-rich governments.

Do I believe the UN is acting in anyone's best interest?

Absolutely not. The United Nations has always been filled with alterior motives and money driven decisions. Current unrelated situations drive opposition to anything the United States wants.

Here are some fun facts:

France

According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.

French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.

France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.

Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.

France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

Germany

Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.

During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.

In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.

German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.

Russia

According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.

Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.

In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.

In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.

The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.

Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

China

According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.

In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.

CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.

Just some fun reading..... more to come throughout the day
Reply With Quote
  #28  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:09 AM       
Hey, do me a quick favor, will you? Check the CIA factbook for Turkey Pakistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:23 AM       
Let's check the CIA fact book for all our Middle East information needs. Because, Lord knows, the CIA is the place to go for concrete truth. No disinformation there, ever, nosiree.

Now, Pantydude, lest you get your undies in a twist, I happily concede that France and Russia and Germany have vested interests in the current regime. That's been public knowledge for a while. I'm not silly enough to think that these countries are protesting war out of concern for the Iraqi people any more than I think we're really going in there to 'liberate' them. They're just on the opposite side of the bullshit spectrum. We want what Iraq has. These other countries are making money off Iraq, and we're going to fuck up their profits.

My point is, the only people that are truly concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, are the Iraqi people.
________
DIGITAL VAPORIZERS

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:32 AM       
Correction:

We do not want, not do we need anything Iraq has. Rather, it is in our best interest to ensure that what Iraq has is not used for malice toward the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:34 AM       
Just to let you know kids.... a VERY small percentage of thos facts was from the CIA World Factbook - so why don't you get started on discrediting ALL of these sources -

[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[2]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle”, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[3]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[6]Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002.

[7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I..._1982-2001.pdf.

[8]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[9]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[10]“Africa Analysis—Trade Points Way to Peace”, The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.

[11]Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.

[12]“Helping Saddam Rearm,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.

[13]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[14]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, “Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests,” February 26, 2003.

[15]Nelli Sharushkina, “Russia Plays the Field in Iraq—Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad,” Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.

[16]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[17]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[18]Scott Peterson, “Russia’s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month,” Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.

[19]“Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi–Russian Signing,” Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.

[20]Dmitry Zhdannikov, “Russian’s Grim About Working Under Saddam,” The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.

[21]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I..._1982-2001.pdf.

[22]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[23]Trish Saywell, “Oil: The Danger of Deals with Iraq,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 6, 2003.

[24]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[25]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[26]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I..._1982-2001.pdf.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 11:50 AM       
Quote:
Correction:

We do not want, not do we need anything Iraq has. Rather, it is in our best interest to ensure that what Iraq has is not used for malice toward the United States.
I can sum up a reply to that in two words: "BULL" and "SHIT." This can't be emphasized enough. I don't think the fact that we're the biggest oil consumers in the world by far, we have an oil man in the White House, and the fact that Iraq has the world's second largest oil deposits, are all just a big happy coincidence. Iraq is not a fuckin' threat to us AT ALL, and hasn't been, definitely since 1991, and probably ever. Those missiles they're destroying? Maximum range, 120 miles. They can barely get outside of their own country. This whole thing is a lie, a fuckin' scam, and guys like you are swallowing the whole thing.
________
Weed Vaporizer

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 12:09 PM       
What a display of blind ignorance. That is the most pathetic party-line hard stance i have seen on this board yet.

1.) We are already working with multiple other sources for oil. We have a large supply ourselves, and currently pull a very heavy load from Venezuela and Nigeria. There is always more oil. If Bush is such a heavy "Oil Man" - then explain this to me. How, in your infinite wisdom, do you suppose saturating the market with such a large amount of oil will benefit the top secret oil connections Bush has? Do you understand the theory of supply and demand. The supply is more than being met currently. The demand is not growing at any abnormal pace. So how can oversaturation of the oil market benefit American companies?

2.) Saddam is not, nor has he ever been a threat??? Where are your facts. Show me even a shred of evidence or a theory by a valid source that this statement is true. He is clearly connected to terrorism against this country. Read jayna Davis for starters then I will move onto more specific sources which VERY CLEARLY verify this. Perhaps your source is Dan Rather and his puppet "translator" or do you prefer Chrissy Hynde... or maybe Sean Penn? What is the foundation for your argument?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 12:34 PM       
I'm going to say this one more time, since you just started coming to this particular forum: I HAVE NO FUCKING PARTY AFFILIATION. NONE. But I think the Bush administration is lying to us.

Quote:
Saddam is not, nor has he ever been a threat??? Where are your facts. Show me even a shred of evidence or a theory by a valid source that this statement is true. He is clearly connected to terrorism against this country. Read jayna Davis for starters then I will move onto more specific sources which VERY CLEARLY verify this. Perhaps your source is Dan Rather and his puppet "translator" or do you prefer Chrissy Hynde... or maybe Sean Penn? What is the foundation for your argument?
Where are the facts that he is a threat? Inconclusive satellite photos? What about CIA director George Tenet's repeated statements that there is NO EVIDENCE of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

Here's a little breakdown of how I've seen it play out........

BUSH: We need to attack Iraq.
REST OF WORLD WITH COMMON SENSE: Why?

BUSH: He has weapons of mass destruction.
R.O.W.: We should have some inspectors go in and find the weapons first.

BUSH: Listen, we really need to attack these guys.
R.O.W.: Look, they're searching for the weapons. What's the problem?
BUSH: Well, he used those weapons against his own people.
R.O.W.: Yeah, well, that was a long time ago, and you turned a blind eye to it. Let them find the weapons.

BUSH: Hey, we can attck them now! They have ties to Al-Qaeda!
ROW: When did this happen? Where's the evidence?
BUSH: Well, we don't have any. But we have good reason to think so.
ROW: OK, get back to us with some evidence.

BUSH: OK, we found something! Can we attack now?
R.O.W.: What now?
BUSH: Well, some missiles that can go 120 miles.
R.O.W.: Oh, so he might be able to bomb Kuwait or something. Big fuckin' deal.
BUSH: But they violate the UN resolution!
R.O.W.: Your gov't violated shitloads of them, and no one ever bombed you.
BUSH: But he gassed his own people!
R.O.W.: You already said that.
BUSH: Oh yeah. Well, he has ties to Al-Qaeda.
R.O.W.: You already said that too. Evidence?
BUSH: Well, we still don't have any.

This is how it has been for the last eight fucking months or so. They can't garner support for this war because it's a bullshit effort, and anyone who's paid even casual attention can see that. They are lying to us.

I'll check the sources you've cited here. Until I see something that concretely demonstrates we have a reason to be over there, while in the meantime N Korea is saying, "We have nukes, motherfuckers! And we'll use 'em!" and intercepting commercial airliners, and basically saying "Come and get it, you cracker bitches!" then I say you've swallowed another load of Grade-A Government Brand Bullshit (TM).

EDIT: By the way, what the fuck is wrong with Chrissie Hynde or Sean Penn having opinions? Does their status as celebrities automatically invalidate their beliefs? I'll bet they probably have internet access too, you know. They're probably just as capable of looking up nifty links as you are. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you're more intelligent or more informed than these people just because they're famous and you're not? What a load of shit.

While I don't know much about Penn's politics, and would tend to reflexively disagree with Chrissie Hynde because she's an ardent supporter of PETA, but I applaud them both for voicing opposition to an administration that is currently up to a lot of harmful shit, both domestically and internationally.
________
ZX14 VS HAYABUSA

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 12:42 PM       
To steal from Burbank here...

ROW: Wow, I always knew that Bush was a fucking sack of crap.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #36  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 12:45 PM       
I don't know Panty. Last time I checked your sources I found a byscycling Afghani dentists and India. Would it be more worth my while this time?

"There is always more oil."
Actually, it's a finite resource. Aside from the fact that we use more than anyone, everyone ele on the planet needs it too. Controlling a big chunk of it is a very powerful thing. I'm pleased you beleiev the "Iraqi People" will get to decidee who gts it and where the profits end up. I'm kinda thinking we're going to decide which Iraqi People make those decisions. Do you think that once we get through throwing down over there if the Iraqi oil industry (like there will be one) said "We have decided to give all our business to the French." We'd let that fly? The cool thing about this question is, time will almost certainly tell.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 12:55 PM       
1. You can not argue the fact that intelligence exists, which, in the interest of national security, we are not, nor should we be privy to.

2. We have plenty of support. 18 countries in Europe, Australia, and a majority of Asia could be considered support.

3. The U.N. is one organization we should not be listening to. The U.N. is so polluted with political maneuverings, it is impossible to get a clear, decisive call from them on any issue.

4. I never said you had a party affiliation. I claimed you took a party line hard stance. Whether or not that be for a specific party or because you are against one is irrelevant. I am merely stating that your argument that this is all about oil is cliche.

5. Your view of what has gone down in the past few months, IMO, is primarily from mainstream sources. Dig deeper, and you may or may not see it differently. What the United states presents publicly to the U.N. is utterly incomplete. You stated you would check the sources. I would recommend reading http://www.jaynadavis.com to everyone who at least wants to read both sides of the connections argument. She is a reporter and she has put together one hell of a case over the last decade.


As for North Korea, they are clearly a problem. I would hope we are preventing another North Korea from emerging with the removal of threat in the Middle East, not only in Iran, but in Iraq as well.

In addition, I don't swallow what the government tells me. I form my opinions by thinking through, and litening to all sides of the story from hundreds of sources. My opinions are formulated only after extensive reading and understanding of all the data that is readily available to me. By looking at not only that, but judging Saddam Hussein on historical patterns, I would bet everything on the fact that he is in fact a threat. Without being inside his head, that is the best anyone can do, be it right or wrong - Make a call and act on it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 01:03 PM       
MY GOD, YOU'RE RIGHT!!! IRAQ IS A THREAT! WHY, I THINK I SEE THEIR NAVY COMING OVER THE HORIZON NOW!!
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 01:05 PM       
Their navy disguises itself in the form of container ships concealing dirty nukes and other pleasant forms of attack..... or didn't NPR fill you in on that?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 01:34 PM       
The US has weapons of mass destruction too, but now, they're not in the Axis of Evul, are they?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 01:46 PM       
The proper spelling is Evil.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:20 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by HNICPantitude
Baghdad was at one time a progressive region of the Middle East. Currently there is no sign of progression anywhere. It is run by a power hungry lunatic whoi is in his last moments of control and is desparate.
Do his people have more freedom than those in Qatar? How about the women in Saudi Arabia? Jordan? When do we over throw these regimes for the sake of democracy???

Quote:
"Iraq under Saddam’s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam’s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."

Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice
Did he gas his own people? Were they Kurds? Were they enemy guerillas during the Iran-Iraq war?? Can you even BEGIN to answer any of these questions??


Quote:
Do I believe our military is perfect and is only out to save the people?

Absolutely not. However, I do believe that, overall, as a country, the United States makes a very conscientious effort to remain as civil as one can in times of war. The reality of the situation is that no war is going to be a smooth operation performed with the surgical precision that opponents seem to believe is attainable in their eutopian visions.
Fine, and what I argued is that it is the American PEOPLE, whom the military works for as stated in the U.S. Constitution, are the reason for this. Our soldiers have proven in the past to be just as ruthless as anybody else, but it is the mores and rules of the American populous that keeps those occurences exceptional.

Quote:
Do I believe we are going into Iraq, with the primary goal of liberating the country and establishing a democracy?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe we do indeed wish to establish a democratic (even remotely democratic) government. Do I believe it is to help the Iraqi people? Somewhat, perhaps. I do not believe we wish them further suffering.
Over 10 years of misguided sanctions argue otherwise.

Quote:
However, that is absolutely not our goal. Our goal, as I have earlier stated, and will now reiterate is IMO to create a widespread pressure throughout the region which will motivate and encourage the people throughout the Middle East to rise up and force progression. Theocracy is NOT an answer, and these countries will never be able to function in the world to come, let alone the current world economy.
Do you not see at all how slightly elitist and arrogant it is to assume that the U.S. has the global cure for every other nation in the world...?

I don't like Saddam. I don't want him in power. Although I know Iraq isn't all the unsubstantiated things you say it is (running off a list of essays and boks you haven't read doesn't impress me), I too want life to improve there. But this goesback to my question: Why have we reacted in a completely contrary fashion in Red China? Why has the solution for China, AND Iran for the matter, been the "democratic market," as opposed to sanctions and war...?


Quote:
It is critical that this region is stabilized and move forth with the rest of the world. Basic human rights, enhanced education, and international trade outside of oil will clearly set them on a path to a better life, which in turn, will provide stability throughout the region and give the U.S and other countries room to breathe and not worry about isolated terrorist cells and religious movements being funded by oil-rich governments.
Where is the "rest" of the world? Over 40 million AMERICANS have little or no health coverage, we have the highest child poverty rate out of ANY of the industrialized nations, and we have more people in prison than many of these horrible regimes you have mentioned. Are we truly worth emulating, or should they perhaps advance and develope on their OWN terms...? With an open market, transparency, and free information, do you think the Iraqi people will still choose Saddam...?


Quote:
Here are some fun facts:
On the French investment: Certainly, the French have economic reasons to avoid this war, much like we have economic reasons to PERPETUATE this war, and see, that's where your problem lies. You hate France, so you can see their hypocrisy. But you could NEVER imagine the U.S. of A. EVER doing something out of economic interest.

AND, you have incorrectly stated that the U.S. has no economic interest in Iraq. Haliburton, which was then run by DICK CHENEY, sold oil drilling equipment to Iraq, and made millions. They did this THROUGH a French subsidiary of theirs. So you see, some of the investment you are citing against big, bad France has ALSO benefited American corporations.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, Iraq is STILL one of the top 10 sources of American oil, and one reason we get more oil from places like Russia and Venezuela is that Iraq controls so much of their plenty. When we take out the Saddam regime, the largest untapped oil reserve in the world will be free for all (especially those who helped "liberate" it).



On German investment: Germany supported the war on terror in Afghanistan. Germany has repeatedly said they will continue to do so, but they don't see the connection with Iraq (with good reason). A big reason Germany has turned completely against war is the influence of the Green Party in their government. This Party opposes oil dependency, and likewise isn't in the pockets of the oil and automobile firms. It isn't ALL about the oil.

Quote:
According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.
A free Iraq, with control of ALL its oil, would undoubtedly benefit Russia, still. Russia, as I have said, also gives us oil. Why not support war then?

Quote:
The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.
Was the war in Afghanistan about an oil pipeline? If you say absolutely not, then you are a hypocrite, and you've sabotaged your own argument.

Quote:
Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.
Again, Americans are invested in Iraq as well, and we likewise sold them some naughty stuff during that war. There isn't a corporate conspiracy against this war, no more than there is one in FAVOR of this war.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:29 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
EDIT: By the way, what the fuck is wrong with Chrissie Hynde or Sean Penn having opinions? Does their status as celebrities automatically invalidate their beliefs? I'll bet they probably have internet access too, you know. They're probably just as capable of looking up nifty links as you are. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you're more intelligent or more informed than these people just because they're famous and you're not? What a load of shit.

While I don't know much about Penn's politics, and would tend to reflexively disagree with Chrissie Hynde because she's an ardent supporter of PETA, but I applaud them both for voicing opposition to an administration that is currently up to a lot of harmful shit, both domestically and internationally.
Hmmmm.....

When did I say there was something wrong with them having opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:44 PM       
Quote:
2. We have plenty of support. 18 countries in Europe, Australia, and a majority of Asia could be considered support.
I wasn't clear on whether you meant 18 countries in Europe, or 18 countries in total - but it's 8 countries in Europe, no more at this time.

Quote:
3. The U.N. is one organization we should not be listening to. The U.N. is so polluted with political maneuverings, it is impossible to get a clear, decisive call from them on any issue.
Better yet, why not cut contact alltogether with non-America. Why not build a wall around the edges and line the harbors with armed vessels. Safety and freedom for all! You're an idiot. The UN is often not as effective as it should be, but America is just as much to blame for that as any other major country. To spit in the face of the UN now would be the greatest crime against national security in the US ever, because as much as you'd like to think so, you can't take on the entire world by yourself.

Quote:
5. Your view of what has gone down in the past few months, IMO, is primarily from mainstream sources. Dig deeper, and you may or may not see it differently. What the United states presents publicly to the U.N. is utterly incomplete.
Uh, yeah, why is that? The US seems rather bent on getting this war through, so why don't they just show this ground-breaking, rock solid evidence to the UN and get their permission slip? Oh, let me guess. "Safety reasons". "National security". "Bullshit".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:48 PM       
Your tone plainly implies that these people's opinions are somehow worth less than others, and you know it. Quit playing dumb. It's not much of a stretch.
________
The Cigar Boss

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:54 PM       
No FS,

Primarily because we don't want countries to know we have that intelligence, nor do we want them to know how we obtain it.

Secondly, if the rest of the world wants to be represented equally by the United Nations, a.k.a. (Please America, give us your money), then each and EVERY country involved should put in the EXACT same amount of money, and EVERY country should commit the EXACT same amount of resources to each and EVERY one of the socialistic organizations efforts. Additionally, if you listen to Blix, and value the United Nations, you would know that Iraq is CLEARLY in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 adn by the UN not reatcting appropriately, they, by default, diminish their own value. like a parent never reprimanding their child.

Dont do that again or youll be grounded.

Child does it again.

Ok, dont do that again, or you'll REALLY be grounded

Child does it again.

Ok, this is it this time, get ready.

The reality of the situation is that if the rest of the world doesnt have the balls to step up and deal with it as an authoritative force, then the United States has the responsibility to take care of it, in the best interest of not only world peace, but safety of it's own citizens.

Oh, by the way, if all Europeans share that attitude - next time the assholes on your side of the Atlantic decide to start a World War, don't come crying to us to bail your pansy asses out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 02:57 PM       
Yeah, what I said. "Safety reasons". "National security." "Bullshit".

Quote:
Oh, by the way, if all Europeans share that attitude - next time the assholes on your side of the Atlantic decide to start a World War, don't come crying to us to bail your pansy asses out of it.
You pathetic chauvinist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 03:07 PM       
Chauvinist... no.

Realist... yes.

Not everyone can be scared of war. There are times when it is necessary. There are countries bent on destroying not only the United States, but European and Asian countries as well.

When cooperation and negotiation are no longer an option, and there is a blatant disregard for international peacekeeping efforts, then war becomes more and more appropriate.

This asshole has had 11 years to clean up his act. Rather, he continues his same patterns over and over again.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 03:12 PM       
This guy has been so far under our thumb for the last 12 years, he hasn't been able to wipe without us knowing about it. I guarant-fucking-tee you the CIA has been watching him so closely, he hasn't done anything substantial without us knowing about it. That's why the inspectors can't seem to find anything- because there's nothing to be found. A handful of minor weapons- misslies that violate the UN maximum range limit by about 20 miles. That's it. We are being lied to.
________
Essential vaaapp

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
BombsBurstingInAir is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2003, 03:21 PM       
ohhh the bitter.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.