THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Quote:

For its own good, whether they like US methods or not, whether they like the US or not, the rest of the nations of the world not currently participating, better join in the curing/killing of this cancer or we are all doomed. You are right we cannot succeed alone; we cannot succeed while so much of the rest of the world cowers in fear and senseless grousing hoping to be the last to be infected.

What are we in the US doing but "cowering in fear and senseless grousing"? Nothing this administration has done has striken one blow to the heart of terrorism. What we have done -- attack Iraq, lay it waste, and destabilize the region -- has only increased terrorist action. We have done NOTHING to stop terrorists. If we had any plan to do so, the rest of the "cowering" world would be with us in a heartbeat.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Tuesday April 27, 2004
The Guardian

Dear Prime Minister,
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. . . . et sequitur . . .

Thanks Boss, i had heard about this on the radio news this morning, and i'm glad you posted it so i could read it.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The Iraqis are terrorists in the sense that the Minutemen were terrorists in 1775.

I don't recall from my reading that the Minutemen of 1775 ever attacked the innocent, while they themselves defended themselves against and attacked King George III's soldiers.

The nazis terrorists appear to be a better analogy for the terrorists in Iraq in that they did attack and kill the innocent before as well as after they gained power, before as well as after they attacked other nations.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:
The Iraqis are terrorists in the sense that the Minutemen were terrorists in 1775.

I don't recall from my reading that the Minutemen of 1775 ever attacked the innocent, while they themselves defended themselves against and attacked King George III's soldiers.

The nazis terrorists appear to be a better analogy for the terrorists in Iraq in that they did attack and kill the innocent before as well as after they gained power, before as well as after they attacked other nations.

The Iraqis suffered crippling international sanctions, and suffered under a brutal regime, and now they're under fire from the most powerful army on the planet.

The "terrorists" GWB was authorised to go after, are in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. And Yemen and Morocco and Germany and London.
Sure the Iraqis are resisting by any means at their disposal: just like the Minutemen, they are defending themselves and attacking George II's soldiers.

But don't forget, while you are digesting that: the Americans are in Iraq to secure the oilfields and to build military bases to control the region.

0 Replies

Quote:

terrorists in Iraq..

ican, there were no terrorists in Iraq -- except for Saddam Hussein whom the description does not fit; other words would describe him better -- before we set the cat amongst the pigeons. There are terrorists operating all over the world, and we have not decreased their hatred, portability, or their funding one jot or tittle. If we have a plan for fighting terrorism, I have not heard it. If you know of one, I would be pleased to listen.

Now, if we had attacked Saudi Arabia, an observer might have found at least a tenuous connection between 9/11 and a pre-emptive attack on a nation in the middle-East.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thanks Boss, i had heard about this on the radio news this morning, and i'm glad you posted it so i could read it.

Nearly no-one noticed that I posted this already nearly 24 hours ago Crying or Very sad

Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East

0 Replies

I noticed, Walter. I just did not post to thank you. :wink:

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Quote:
terrorists in Iraq..

ican, there were no terrorists in Iraq

ROFLMAO! Just a little overly fond of your own opinion, aren't you Kara? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

But don't forget, while you are digesting that: the Americans are in Iraq to secure the oilfields and to build military bases to control the region.

No . . . . .

Ya think?

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

What are we in the US doing but "cowering in fear and senseless grousing"?

Yes, in deed some of us are! Actually, too damn many of us are!

Kara wrote:

Nothing this administration has done has striken one blow to the heart of terrorism.

Nothing

Surely, killing and/or incarcerating large numbers of terrorists and their baathist supporters is a little something and not nothing.

Is what we've done adequate? NO! It is terribly inadequate. What more then needs to be done?

We require a president who will stop doing things by halves. When terrorists and/or their baathist supporters are surrounded by our soldiers, do not negotiate with them (e.g., Fallujah); order our soldiers to kill or incarcerate them before they kill more of our soldiers. Is there anyone less awful than Bush that you care to name?

Kara wrote:

If we had any plan to do so, the rest of the "cowering" world would be with us in a heartbeat.

We have a plan. Our problem is not failure to have a plan. Our problem is failure to execute our plan. For another example, Bush did not follow the plan when he transferred responsibility to the UN's Lakhdar Brahimi for forming an Iraqi government.

Would the rest of the world "be with us in a heartbeat" if we actually executed our plan Question

I think not. Crying or Very sad

The rest of the world's continuing dellusion (and distraction) that Saddam's terrorist state was not a sponsor of terrorists outside his state mentally parallyzes them. OK, if they don't want to mess with Iraq, Iran and Syria, why don't they join the search for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

OK, if they don't want to mess with Iraq, Iran and Syria, why don't they join the search for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

There are momentarily 6,500 troops from 35 NATO and non-NATO nations in Afghanistan, additionally some hundreds of policemen (can't find an actual all-over number, but about 250 are CID and uniformed policemen from Germany).

As far as I know, Pakistan didn't ask any other nation for help.

0 Replies

The problem is, although I would like to think that USUK is in Iraq for reasons NOT JUST concerning oil, I can't think what they might be anymore.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The Iraqis suffered crippling international sanctions, and suffered under a brutal regime, and now they're under fire from the most powerful army on the planet.

Yes, they did and are! But what has that got to do with the terrorists in Iraq local and from elsewhere being Minutemen?

McTag wrote:

Sure the Iraqis are resisting by any means at their disposal: just like the Minutemen, they are defending themselves and attacking George II's soldiers

Defending themselves against what? They are defending themselves against the terrorists from Syria and Iran that have invaded their country and are attacking innocent Iraqies and coalition soldiers. George II is striving to help the Iraqi people establish an independent republic. King George III was striving to prevent Americans from establishing an independent republic.

McTag wrote:

the Americans are in Iraq to secure the oilfields and to build military bases to control the region.

That too, now! If those oilfields are not secured by someone, then the worldwide prices of gasoline and electricity will go still higher. When Saddam was in charge, those oilfields were secure enough to satisfy France, Germany, Russia, and many of the UN's staff. We in the US paid lower prices per barrel then than now. I think securing the Iraqi oil wells now is all about helping Iraqies finance their own recovery.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

When Saddam was in charge, those oilfields were secure enough to satisfy France, Germany, Russia, and many of the UN's staff. We in the US paid lower prices per barrel then than now. I think securing the Iraqi oil wells now is all about helping Iraqies finance their own recovery.

a) France and Germany buy their oil as most all European states at Rotterdam.

b) Prices at the Rotterdam spot market are more or less the same than the US-prices.

c) Good to hear that the Iraquies get all the money from their oil wells.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

There are momentarily 6,500 troops from 35 NATO and non-NATO nations in Afghanistan, additionally some hundreds of policemen (can't find an actual all-over number, but about 250 are CID and uniformed policemen from Germany).

That's ok for the nations participating in Afghanistan (many of which are also participating in Iraq)! What about all the other nations that are not participating in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

As far as I know, Pakistan didn't ask any other nation for help.

As far as I know they got the help they are geting from the US by accepting our offer. Probably, if other nations likewise offered to help, Pakistan would be greatful (sic, grateful).

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

That's ok for the nations participating in Afghanistan (many of which are also participating in Iraq)! What about all the other nations that are not participating in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

You obviously don't know much about who is participating and who is doing what in Afghnaistan.

ican711nm wrote:
[As far as I know they got the help they are geting from the US by accepting our offer.
Quote:

LOL to "accepting offer".

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The problem is, although I would like to think that USUK is in Iraq for reasons NOT JUST concerning oil, I can't think what they might be anymore.

Think harder!

When a representative republic is established and secured in Iraq, tyrannical regimes in neighboring nations will more likely be replaced by the people of those nations and those nations will be less likely to spawn more terrorists.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You obviously don't know much about who is participating and who is doing what in Afghnaistan.

True! What did I write that you disagree with?

0 Replies

Perhaps the Iraqis don't want a "representative republic" forced on them. Perhaps they want to be left alone to forge their own post Saddam government in their own way.

Iraqis are only fighting Americans because America has invaded and occupied their country.

0 Replies

Quote:

But don't forget, while you are digesting that: the Americans are in Iraq to secure the oilfields and to build military bases to control the region.

I'm not saying the US doesn't have mega interest in Iraq, but don't confuse the US with the UN who was definitely there for the oil.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know