0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:08 am
Amigo wrote:
Does anybody here have any ideas about the real reason we attacked Iraq. I don't.

Oil?


Opinions vary, not least here, but this is how it seems to me:

1. The western presence in Saudi Arabia was becoming difficult for the House of Saud. Fundamentalist agitators are making goverment difficult for them. Western troops in the holy land (containing the holiest muslim shrines/cities of Mecca and Medina) were a continuing and growing source of unrest. So to keep the situation stable in Saudi, an alternative base for western troops is necessary.
2. Making that base in Iraq would have the additional benefits of removing Saddam and the Ba'athists, and making the Iraq reserves of oil available to, and under the control of, the west.
3. Israel would be more secure in having its main ally, USA, a bit closer in new military bases.
4. May I also mention as a rider to #1: the Bush dynasty and the royal house of Saud are business partners and family friends from way back. The neocon mad idea of attacking Iraq was therefore an easy sell to little George.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:12 am
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Does anybody here have any ideas about the real reason we attacked Iraq. I don't.

Oil?


Opinions vary, not least here, but this is how it seems to me:

1. The western presence in Saudi Arabia was becoming difficult for the House of Saud. Fundamentalist agitators are making goverment difficult for them. Western troops in the holy land (containing the holiest muslim shrines/cities of Mecca and Medina) were a continuing and growing source of unrest. So to keep the situation stable in Saudi, an alternative base for western troops is necessary.
2. Making that base in Iraq would have the additional benefits of removing Saddam and the Ba'athists, and making the Iraq reserves of oil available to, and under the control of, the west.
3. Israel would be more secure in having its main ally, USA, a bit closer in new military bases.
4. May I also mention as a rider to #1: the Bush dynasty and the royal house of Saud are business partners and family friends from way back. The neocon mad idea of attacking Iraq was therefore an easy sell to little George.
Very good take McTag. We get so cought up arguing bullshit with some of the "other people" here. We forget to have a real conversation about Iraq.

There is also this reason;

The WMD thing was to manufacture concent.
--------------------------------------------

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

-Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 14

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 08:04 am
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Does anybody here have any ideas about the real reason we attacked Iraq. I don't.

Oil?


One thing is for certain; it had nothing to do with WMD's or bringing democracy to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:40 am
Succinct reminders, McTag.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:52 am
ican also forgets why Muslims/Arabs do not trust the US: our support of Israel. People like ican continue to support an idea established by Bushco, because they don't know how to admit all the mistakes made and continue to make.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:13 am
Quote:
All of these families know we are not those who murder civilians + those who abet the murder of civilians + those who advocate the murder of civilians + those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians + those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary. Those families also know we have not declared war on civilians worldwide; not waged war on civilians worldwide; and not murdered civilians worldwide.


They most certainly do not know or believe this.

Just because we don't say 'we're going to murder a bunch of civvies today' doesn't mean that we don't proceed to do exactly that on a regular basis, through dropping ordinance or other means.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:31 am
Most certainly agree, Cy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:08 pm
parados wrote:
There is a lot of room for interpretation there. Who is to say something is intentional or not?
Those who kill civilians are to say whether it is intentional or not.

Osama in his 1996, 1998, and 2004 fatwahs told his al Qaeda youths in particular and all Muslims in general that it is their duty to kill Americans and their allies, military and civilian, wherever they can find them. The coalition on the otherhand has declared its intention to kill or incarcerate terrorists wherever it can find them, in order to save the lives of as many civilians as it can.

Who is to say either are liars?


US soldiers have murdered civilians. Who is to say it is or isn't official US policy?
If the US has not said it is official policy to intentionally kill civilians, indicts such of its soldiers that it discovers to have intentionally killed civilians, and denies it is official US policy to intentionally kill civilians, then it is not official US policy to intentionally kill civilians.

The US has not said intentionally killing civilians is its official policy. The US has denied that it is its official policy to intentionally kill civilians. The US has declared that it is its official policy to save the lives of as many civilians as it can.


Osama spent several years denying involvement in terrorist activity. He never personally killed any civilians. He financed operations that killed civilians but then the US has financed operations that have killed civilians too. Is financing the killing of civilians enough?
Osama has declared that he has, does and will continue to abet and advocate murdering civilians. That is enough for me!

Bush has not declared that he has, does, and will abet and advocate murdering civilians. That too is enough for me!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Tell that to the Iraqis that knows about the US military man that raped then killed her and her family. I'm sure you have many good reasons you can provide them that we are not the terrorists.

US military who commit crimes are criminals. When there is sufficient evidence to indict such criminals, they are indicted. When there is sufficient evidence to convict such criminals, they are convicted and incarcerated or executed.

I believe it pure bigotry to indict all the US military for crimes committed by some US military.

It is pure bigotry to think that because some US military are terrorists, then all US military are terrorists.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:57 pm
I don't need to indict all the US military; the Arabs are doing that all by themselves when they see/hear/experience the atrocities perpetrated to them by the US.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:58 pm
ican, It's not bigotry; if you were in their shoes, you'd prolly come up with the same conclusion.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 08:21 pm
revel wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Quote:
Yes, these revolutions against tyranny are different -- very different. The US revolution had the help of the French, and there were little or noitm itm in the colonies. So our problem though extremely difficult was easier than the Iraqis' problem. But it took us 12 years, 8 months to establish a workable government. So far it's only been 3 years, 3 months since the Iraqis had US, UK et al help and began to establish a workable government in the midst of itm.

Should we have quit our revolution after 3 years 3 months? I think not! We required resolve to win! The Iraqis now require resolve to win. More than anything else the Iraqis require our resolve now in addition to their own to win.


Again there is a difference between the French coming over and helping us with our revolution and the US invading Iraq and expecting everyone there to join in under our terms.

In our revolution, the people in the colonies who lived there started the revolution and the French just came over to help after we already started but had no say in how things were going to be accomplished nor did they have a say on the government was going to be set up after victory.
I believe your above statements are true!

On the other hand, we invaded Iraq then we set up a provisional government that outlined how they were going to set up their government. Either the Iraqis went along with it or they were imprisoned and termed insurgents. Now the Iraqis are having trouble with the way we set up their country because of the immunity we gave ourselves which protected us from being imprisoned in the event one of our troops committed crimes against the Iraqis. This is whole thing is completely different and if you were honest you would admit it.
Yes, I agree Iraq is completely different in that it is confronted by far different and greater problems than was our country at its beginning (I thought I already acknowledged that). But then why should we conclude that the Iraqi government confronted by all these additional different and greater problems should have developed a stable government within 3 years, 3 months, when it took us 12 years, 8 months to develop our stable government although we were confronted by much simpler and different problems?

And yes we know the offered plan from the US which has not changed since this thing started and which has not worked yet. If something is not working then the smart thing to do is to change strategies.

I know the new PM offered a plan but it is just more of the same rhetoric of statements of end goals but no real strategies on how to get there. In other words, copying after Bush.

The only way this is going to work is if all three factions decide once and for all that they want to be united so that they can independent from the US and force the US out of Iraq and start doing things the way a majority of the people vote to do things rather than this crazy way they have it set up with super majorities with no one really ever being in power. There has got to be a central power or else no one really has any power and so the country remains in chaos.

But we didn't set up their government that way because we wanted to make sure that the majority would not turn Iraq into Iran. Now the result is that everybody is basically equally powerless so they all fight trying to be the head power.
I think your analysis about what is inadequate about the current plan is reasonable. I differ only in that there is indeed a central power, but it is too weak at present to do what is required.

The US with much simpler problems to solve also first set up a too weak central government before it setup a strong one.

In the US, Articles of Confederation were signed by all 13 states except Maryland by 1779, about 3 years after the US Declaration of Independence. The defeat of the British in the battle at Yorktown didn't occur until 1781, 6 years after the Declaration. Our revolution wasn't officially concluded until 1783 at THE PARIS PEACE TREATY, 7 years after we declared our independence.


Quote:
from Our Nation's Archive, THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES IN DOCUMENTS, edited by Erik Bruun and Jay Crosby:
"Although the deficiencies of the Articles would help lead to disorder in the 1780s, as a whole, the Articles provided a foundation that was strong enough to keep the country united through the American Revolution. The document later served as a jumping off point from which to build a stronger, more permanent national government as determined by the Constitution."


I think the Iraqis deserve our support for at least as much time as it took us to set up a strong central government. The Iraqi problems today are clearly much more complicated in 2003 to 2006 than ours were way back in 1776 to 1779 and on to 1789.

In short, give the Iraqis a break!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 08:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, It's not bigotry; if you were in their shoes, you'd prolly come up with the same conclusion.

Yes it is bigotry. It is bigotry whether or not: if "I were in their shoes" I would probably come up with the same conclusion as some of the arabs.

More importantly right now, is that it is bigotry for Americans like yourself to conclude that all the US military are criminals when only a small minority of them are criminals.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 08:41 pm
ican, Quit quoting words for me I never spoke; you righties are good at speaking for us even though we never speak the words. Where in the world did you get your education? Republican school? LOL
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:28 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Quit quoting words for me I never spoke; you righties are good at speaking for us even though we never speak the words. Where in the world did you get your education? Republican school? LOL


What are you babbling about, c.i.? He quoted you correctly.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 06:07 am
Yup, typical conservative, if ya ain't with us your again us. Kill em all.

Quote:
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Iraqis who cheer attacks on Americans deserve shooting | Print |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Herald
Your paper carried two articles fanning the flames of shock and indignation that 24 Iraqis were killed by U.S. Marines last November in Haditha after one of their number had been killed by a roadside bomb.

One story told of a nine year old girl's demand that the Americans be executed for the brutal deed. Another stated that soldiers are never justified in a retaliatory act no matter how traumatic their treatment at the hands of the enemy.

Let me guess: The 24 Iraqis were probably only doing what Iraqis so often do when the Marines are attacked by RPGs or a roadside bomb; they cheer, applaud, celebrate and throw rocks at the burning vehicles that have been the tombs or some unlucky American(s).

If Iraqis cheer and taunt the U.S. Marines in a war zone when such attacks occur, they are showing clearly that they are the enemy. They should not be surprised and indignant to be treated like the enemy.

It seems so simple actually.

Ernest Bramwell,

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 06:19 am
Ican wrote:
Quote:
I think your analysis about what is inadequate about the current plan is reasonable. I differ only in that there is indeed a central power, but it is too weak at present to do what is required.


It is too weak because of the way we set up the way the government would work requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority the way our elections work.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 06:20 am
Bush's fight for democracy.
Quote:
U.S. Plants Seeds of Disaster in Kazakhstan

By Ted Rall

07/06/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Each summer, America's financial elite head for the Hamptons. But bold men who lust for power have an agenda far more ambitious than the seduction of Botox babes at cocktail parties where grown men wear pastels. They go where the real action is: the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, home to the world's largest untapped oil reserves.

Dick Cheney has been spending a lot of time in the huge Central Asian republic, so much so that its windswept steppes have become his new Secret Undisclosed Location. Mostly the Acting President hangs out in Kazakhstan's landlocked hinterlands wooing a reviled dictator, the only ruler the nation has known since being evicted by the USSR in 1991. Thanks in part to more than $50 million a year in U.S. taxpayer money and ever-soaring bundles of military aid, Cheney hopes to secure "total energy dominance" via lucrative oil pipeline deals on behalf of GOP-connected energy companies.

Cheney is also sending a terrible message to the world's most repressive regimes: the United States still cares more about oil than democracy.

The Bush Administration has unleashed a full-court press of shuttle diplomacy in an effort to keep Nursultan Nazarbayev out of the orbit of Russia and China, America's rivals in the region. On May 5 Cheney appeared in the capital city of Astana with Nazarbayev at his side, hailing Kazakhstan's supposed political and economic liberalization. Declaring the police state America's "strategic partner," the veep invited Nazarbeyev to the White House this September for an official state visit with Bush--an honor recently denied to the president of China on human rights grounds. "I think the [Kazakh] record speaks for itself," Cheney said.

Indeed it does.

Kazakh opposition leader Galymzhan Zhakiyanov was scheduled to meet with Cheney in Astana. "I wanted to tell him about the problems we've faced building freedom and democracy here in Kazakhstan," he said, "and I wanted to remind Cheney of what President Bush said in his second inauguration speech--that the freedom and prosperity of citizens in the U.S. depends on the freedom and democracy of other countries in the world." But he never got to deliver that message, having been arrested by Kazakhstan's notorious militsia military police. Cheney didn't make a peep about Zhakiyanov's missed appointment.

"In reality," reports the Chicago Tribune, "most analysts agree Kazakhstan remains an authoritarian regime where opposition parties are banned without cause, independent media outlets are routinely shut down and corruption is rife throughout the government. In recent months, merely belonging to the opposition movement has become dangerous. Two prominent critics of the Kazakh government have been found shot to death since last fall. The death of one of those men, Zamanbek Nurkadilov, was ruled a suicide even though he had been shot three times, twice in the chest and once in the head."

Nurkadilov's body was discovered shortly after Bush wrote Nazarbayev to ask him "to make sure that economic reforms are backed up with bold democratic reforms" in time for the upcoming 2005 presidential election. Even though Nazarbayev won a Saddam-esque 91 percent of the vote in polling universally declared fraudulent by international observers, Bush didn't say a word.

After the "election," the bodies of outspoken former minister Altynbek Sarsenbaev and four members of his Nagyz Ak Zhol Party, reported Radio Free Europe, "were discovered on a desolate stretch of road outside Almaty on February 13, [2006], their bodies riddled with bullets and their hands bound behind their backs." As I write in my upcoming book about U.S. involvement in Central Asia, Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?, the Kazakh NSC (former KGB) "pinned the blame on Erzhan Utembaev, a former deputy prime minister then serving as head of administration of the Kazakh Senate, but political opponents and some militsia sources say Nazarbayev personally paid sixty thousand dollars to have him silenced." Again, there was no condemnation from the White House.

Cheney showed up to kiss up less than three months after the killings. The Bush Administration, hoping to convince the ruthless Nazarbayev to join its U.S.-backed Baku-Ceyhan Trans-Caucasus oil pipeline, remained silent about the Kazakh tyrant's unpleasant practice of dispatching his political critics.

"Since Cheney's May 5 visit with Nazarbayev," writes the Tribune, "opposition leaders pushing for democratic change in Kazakhstan are beginning to wonder about the Bush administration's commitment to the president's inauguration rhetoric."

Sergei Duvanov, deputy director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, accuses the U.S. of siding with vicious dictators against the millions of people they oppress. "Nazarbayev was very glad to hear what Cheney had to say, and understood it as carte blanche to come down harder on the opposition," Duvanov, a former journalist who spent a year and a half in a Kazakh prison on rape charges trumped up to silence his pro-democracy reporting, said. "He now understands that building democracy is not as important as oil and economic stability."

At first glance Kazakhstan appears to be booming. The country is "overrun with construction cranes," reports the New York Times. Almaty has its first French restaurant. There's even a Kazakh edition of Cosmopolitan magazine. But there are two economies, one for a tiny portion of wealthy elites, the other for everyone else. The Red Cross says that "three-quarters of Kazakhstan's 15.7 million population [lives] below the poverty line." Poverty is getting worse as spending by corrupt government officials and their oil-connected benefactors fuels inflation.

Someday, inevitably, those millions of Kazakhs will liberate themselves from Nazarbayev's rule. They, not him, will control the world's largest untapped oil reserves. And they won't forget America's role in prolonging their agony.

Ted Rall is the author of "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East? ," an analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. www.tedrall.com
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 08:02 am
Disastrous news regarding Cheney activities.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 10:20 am
What bothers me more is the simple fact that the media giants like the NYT and Washington Post are not telling the whole story about these "behind the door" Cheney excursions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:14:04