0
   

Iraqi Obssession?

 
 
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2002 10:29 pm
Tonight I heard Colin Powell say that North Korea does not represent a threat. But Iraq is another subject. Has Iraq become an obssession ? We are sending more troops, more planes, and now a hospital ship.

In the discussions about what will happen to Iraq after our war, several of the Iraqi Congress were questioned. And several said that while they would maintain a residence in the country, they would not necessarily live there. The U.S. keeps pressing for defectors who will "tell the truth," but so far none have come forth. So far no damning evidence has turned up.
I am beginning to get the feeling that there is almost a desperate effort being made to ratchet up more interest in this thing. It's looking more and more like the administration is obssessed with the notion that this is the only thing that matters.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,476 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2002 11:33 pm
I have yet to see Powell's statement, but am very surprised to discover it is not a threat. I have long regarded North/South Korea, India/Pakistan, and even China/Taiwan to be greater threats to world peace than Iraq/World.
0 Replies
 
Anonymous
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2002 11:48 pm
Mamaj:

Iraq has oil, almighty oil!! That's why they need yo be conquered!! Did you notice now that we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan, we have a shiny new agreement for a caspian pipeline.

Bushes fondest dreams coming true, only Osama is still at large and looking for a nuke. No worries though, he's not important anymore. Just ask anyone in the Bush Administration!! Far as they are concerned, they have him neutralized!! I'll remember that when the next American city goes up in dust!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 01:19 am
In my opinion there are 2 reasons. #1. This is Bush opening up an old can of worms like picking an old scab that won't heal and he won't stop until he gets his "Revenge"!. #2. Anon is right on the button. It's about the oil and lets not forget the "super power".

From where I sit, it sure looks like the US Government is trying to take over the world and that is one scary thought!!!!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 01:56 am
I don't agree that this is about oil. I think it's a semi-valid casus belli that is an easy sell due to the fact that Sadaam has long been infamous almost to the level of Hitler. It's also an easy conflict and the factors that make the war look attractive are making the factors that make it unattractive less important in the eyes of an administration whose greatest success' (including political ones) are deeply rooted in military campaigns.

I think this is more about war than oil. ANY war (that can be won easily) on an Arab nation helps this administration, we don't need Iraqi oil that much.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 02:06 am
I DID see the Powell interview, strangely enough, or part of it, and a masterly interviewee he is. Very much saying let us not ratchet tension up in Korea - America is a peaceful state, not wanting to make threats and bellicosity a first port of call etc etc.

Still looked an odd contrast to the Iraq response - but he was saying that Iraq had never observed the conditions of the peace treaty properly - had been in violation for 11 years - good front man he is - very soothing.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 02:16 am
He would be my first choice for president. I suspect he doesn't like the Iraq fuss but is going about it loyally and supporting the wishes of his boss.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 02:31 am
Well, if that is so, I hope he is making his real thoughts and feelings, whatever they are, known in no uncertain way to his boss!

Do American cabinets have the same tradition of anything goes within four walls, but solidarity outside once a decision has been taken, as Oz ones do? We have recently had a very prominent cabinet minister, Carmen Lawrence, leave shadow cabinet in protest over refugees and such..... but sorry, this is off thread.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 02:33 am
I think so, but of course leaks are a way of giving public dissent "a high ranking source said that the president is an idiot.." etc.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 02:38 am
LOL - soon to be low-ranking!
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 01:07 pm
Below is the link to the New York Times article on this in today's paper. Some of it sounds very lame, and Powell is undoubtedly the best and only one they have who can speak to thhis issue for the administration. I think it is about oil, but not only about oil. Mostly I think that somewhere it is beginning to dawn on the WH that they are losing ground, and the biggest asset they have is Bush as hero CinC, and even that is beginning to diminish. It must be frustrating as all get out that the U.N. inspectors have not yet come up with anything that says get in there and have your war. And we're only seeing Powell - not Bush, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice. I think Iraq has become an obsession because they have nothing else at present. And it will be interesting to see how united they are on this. Not eveerybody thinks it's such a winning strategy. Rolling Eyes








Rolling Eyes http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/international/30DIPL.html
0 Replies
 
Anonymous
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 01:36 pm
Craven:

Explain to me the successes of our war against Afghanistan. Other than the inking of the highly desireable Caspian Sea Pipeline Agreement which was just signed by three Mid-East States making the Administrations favorite subject come true! Heroin again is being grown and harvested, guess where that is going. Tribal warlords are reentering the powerful struggle. Schools for the women are coming under increased attack by the male dominated society that thinks women are nothing more than spit! We haven't helped them. Meanwhile it costs us a million a day so our troops can play soldier!!

We paid 40 Billion Dollars to Pakisatn to be our newest best friend, only to have them slyly allowing Osama quiet passage between the borders, as well as a secure hideout on the Afghan/Pakistan Border. He is at large, well, and looking for a nuke. Administration officials say Bin Laden is no problem now, and we now need to attack Iraq. It's true that a war time economy is the Republicans wildest dreams, because the war machine cashes in big time. That by the way has the added benefit of lining the pockets of the Bush contributors.

The Bush Administration attacked the California Dot.Com economy, and made things worse than they should be by allowing the "energy crises" to be executed with such force. Enron officials running the FERC, where the regulation should have been enforced. The bottom line was to further crush the Californian economy as well as move our industries, such as Intel, to the great state of Texas! Convenient, wouldn't you say!!

Most true, Republicans love a wartime state, and a wartime economy, it's big money, for them!!

The main key is the holy oil though, don't ever doubt it. The holy oil is what the Bush State and their benefactors run on!!

Have you ever read Dune? Are you familiar with the concept that the power to destroy something means you can control that thing? Saddam is a smart boy! Crazy, but certainly not stupid! Do you think he is going down without leaving a scorched earth policy? As a civilian, I can think of a perfect way to make sure that these oil wells are never used again. I'de crater these wells by a 50 foot margin, and then I'd poisen the area around them so badly they couldn't be worked. Too Easy!! If he did that, and quickly, how long do you think we'de be interested in saving the world by killing Saddam!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 05:57 pm
Mamajuana:

You have said it correctly...Iraq is an obsession. Look at the son...the one that was least likely to succeed. The son that mom and dad were really worried about. He MUST not disappoint the father that failed to get Saddam Hussein and riled the neo-conservatives with this failure. It would be a disgrace and a loss of face. Yes, it is oil, and it is male machismo, and politics all rolled into this. The idea that North Korea is not a crisis is ludicrous!
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 06:01 pm
Anon:

I have conservative Republican friends that think that by going to war the economy will come back and everything will be JUST FINE! Why Lockhead Martin stock will go WAY up and the whole country will benefit. I sit there in disbelief that they think that they will reap benefits from all this. As someone who has been there....they don't have a clue!
0 Replies
 
Anonymous
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2002 07:14 pm
VNN:

People like this who want to cash in on the killing and destruction of others are the problem themselves. These are the people who need to be destroyed in order to protect the rest of mankind!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 01:59 pm
Anon wrote:

Explain to me the successes of our war against Afghanistan.


I don't think the average Afghani thinks it was a smashing success.

Anon wrote:
We paid 40 Billion Dollars to Pakisatn to be our newest best friend, only to have them slyly allowing Osama quiet passage between the borders, as well as a secure hideout on the Afghan/Pakistan Border.


I dunno if they LET him across or even if he did cross. And I think we should cut Musharraf (sp?) some slack, he has a tough job.

Anon wrote:
It's true that a war time economy is the Republicans wildest dreams, because the war machine cashes in big time. That by the way has the added benefit of lining the pockets of the Bush contributors.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do feel that this administration benefits politically from war rhetoric. Focusing on war is a better strategy for them than to let the Democrats switch the focus to domestic issues.


Anon wrote:
Have you ever read Dune? Are you familiar with the concept that the power to destroy something means you can control that thing?


Haven't read it but am familiar with the plot and the concept you speak of. I just don't think Iraqi oil is worth waging war and am not convinced the administration is doing so because of oil.

I think we have some administration people who think our military muscle is there to be flexed and their eyes get big when they think of all theyt can do with out military might. Mr Rumsfield is at the top of my head when I say this as is Mr Cheney.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 05:11 pm
And tonight, on Yahoo news (sorry, Roger, I'll try to get the link) I read that Bush said, in Crawford, that if Iraq or an ally attacks us, it will cripple our economy. Now, Saddam Hussein said last week that Bush was trying to force Iraq to attack.

I translate that to mean that the Bush league is finally beginning to realize that they have to acknowledge that the economy is - so far - in a three year slump. But he belongs to the party who never says "we are responsible," so he is taking it into a place where, whatever happens, it will not be his fault. He said again that he is very unhappy with the results (not) showing from Iraq.

Iraq seems to be all this poor man has. And I know it's not him. It's Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney with the biggest ambitions and the most to win or lose. And Bush is just a front man, who does not know for real which end is east and which is west.

I was at a party the other night, talking with some young republicans. Since I was the old lady in the crowd, we didn't have to waste time on flirting, but instead could get to the main point, which was arguing. They all believe Bush is a one-term president, and blame it on Iraq and his handling of the economy. But they are conflicted. They will not vote for him again, because they no longer trust his leadership, but does that mean they vote democratic? I was the only one laughing.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 09:31 pm
Oh, mamajuana, I don't demand links for everything under the sun, you know. The comment from Powell was from out of the blue and I wanted to see what was behind it.

Actually, blatham posted a link to Warren Christopher's commentary this a.m. that was quite informative, and on the subject.
0 Replies
 
JoanLee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 02:50 pm
ok, mamajuana, I got here but don't know exactly how to proceed. I should also look for Anon. Think I could use some tips. Thanks, Joan AKA Jo
0 Replies
 
Anonymous
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 03:04 pm
PUP Group
Joanie:

We've had some PUP signups. It isn't ready for closed discussions, but it we can start. I just had a war with Maxsdadeo, so they have me standing in the corner right now Smile Welcome to A2k. There is a practice area here to play with the interface!

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraqi Obssession?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 11:57:39