Mike Irwin
Staff
That's a quintisential example of "enlightenment" coming after the loss of the position of world dominance, Gburner.
Iraqi Election....
- Thread starter Derius_T
- Start date
Benonymous
New member
Politicians rule
My point in bringing up David Lee Preston Bush was to illustrate how the family has a long and illustrious history. I'm not saying that other governments/rulers have not participated in unsavoury and criminal activities.
Good news on the troop rotation, that's good press. However, from here on, there will always be US troops in Iraq.
I'm an Aussie by the way, we have SAS and security forces in Iraq.
The elections as they stand are unrepresentative. There was a low turnout of Sunni Muslims, a large group in Iraq. In addition there were 7700 candidates. Which one would you vote for No. 6219?
The whole campaign in Iraq has been based on lies. The action sanctioned by US senators has sent the sons and daughters of regular Americans like you into a sovereign nation to fight and die in the cause of ensuring the oil supply to the USA. I don't accuse a single person o this board of being complicit in this. You patriots, who I admire, have been flim-flammed.
Bush and the Republicans have pulled off the best "shell game" ever, by constantly moving the objective and using the media with great skill to obscure the real motive of the Iraq occupation.
My point in bringing up David Lee Preston Bush was to illustrate how the family has a long and illustrious history. I'm not saying that other governments/rulers have not participated in unsavoury and criminal activities.
Good news on the troop rotation, that's good press. However, from here on, there will always be US troops in Iraq.
I'm an Aussie by the way, we have SAS and security forces in Iraq.
The elections as they stand are unrepresentative. There was a low turnout of Sunni Muslims, a large group in Iraq. In addition there were 7700 candidates. Which one would you vote for No. 6219?
The whole campaign in Iraq has been based on lies. The action sanctioned by US senators has sent the sons and daughters of regular Americans like you into a sovereign nation to fight and die in the cause of ensuring the oil supply to the USA. I don't accuse a single person o this board of being complicit in this. You patriots, who I admire, have been flim-flammed.
Bush and the Republicans have pulled off the best "shell game" ever, by constantly moving the objective and using the media with great skill to obscure the real motive of the Iraq occupation.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yawn.
Heard it all before, and still think it's a big sack of whining crap.
The detractors have for months been squawking "lies lies lies" when every major intelligence service in the world -- American, British, French, German, Russian, etc. -- believed that Iraq had either WMDs or the potential to manufacture them on short notice.
If that's the best you can do, parroting the crap you hear on BBC, CBS, CNN, NBC, etc., don't bother.
I don't accept the so-called 'fact' that Bush was lying while in full possession of factual evidence that provide that Iraq didn't have WMDs. Even the UN considered it likely that Iraq had WMDs or the potential therefore.
Am I happy that the United States invaded Iraq? No, not particularly. Am I happy that no WMDs were found? No, not particularly. Am I really all that uptight about the US having the testes to remove a very dangerous and unstable man from a position of power in the middle east? No, not at all.
Heard it all before, and still think it's a big sack of whining crap.
The detractors have for months been squawking "lies lies lies" when every major intelligence service in the world -- American, British, French, German, Russian, etc. -- believed that Iraq had either WMDs or the potential to manufacture them on short notice.
If that's the best you can do, parroting the crap you hear on BBC, CBS, CNN, NBC, etc., don't bother.
I don't accept the so-called 'fact' that Bush was lying while in full possession of factual evidence that provide that Iraq didn't have WMDs. Even the UN considered it likely that Iraq had WMDs or the potential therefore.
Am I happy that the United States invaded Iraq? No, not particularly. Am I happy that no WMDs were found? No, not particularly. Am I really all that uptight about the US having the testes to remove a very dangerous and unstable man from a position of power in the middle east? No, not at all.
sleeping dog
New member
WMD's? Who cares. Saddam never used WMD's against anyone but Iraqi's. He was a local thug, not a global threat. Not exactly a good reason to invade. But we're there now, and can't realistically leave.
Will Iraq become a client state? Maybe, but client to who? If not to the U.S., then to Iran? Syria? Turkey? Chopped up by all three?
I still think the Iraq war started when Saddam asked our permission to sieze Kuwait, and we told him "yes". Through some State Dept flunkie, can't remember her name. Obviously she didn't speak for GHWB. We've been there going on 15 years.
Will Iraq become a client state? Maybe, but client to who? If not to the U.S., then to Iran? Syria? Turkey? Chopped up by all three?
I still think the Iraq war started when Saddam asked our permission to sieze Kuwait, and we told him "yes". Through some State Dept flunkie, can't remember her name. Obviously she didn't speak for GHWB. We've been there going on 15 years.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Sleeping Dog-
Try this one on:
Sadaam was a local thug?....tell that to the people of Kuwait. Had we not gone in, it's a good bet his plans were to expand by force. Well, we did go in, and he said "No Mas"...then he signed a Peace Treaty. Then The UN took over the enforcement of the Peace Treaty. Then he broke the Peace Treaty.....18 times.
Guess what happens when you loose a War and immediately break the Peace Treaty? The War continues.
Or am I to understand that only by dragging every citizen to the pols, kicking and screaming, can we call an election "valid"? No-one stopped the Sunni's from voting.....far more "representative" than my country, or yours, not too long ago.
Rich
Try this one on:
Sadaam was a local thug?....tell that to the people of Kuwait. Had we not gone in, it's a good bet his plans were to expand by force. Well, we did go in, and he said "No Mas"...then he signed a Peace Treaty. Then The UN took over the enforcement of the Peace Treaty. Then he broke the Peace Treaty.....18 times.
Guess what happens when you loose a War and immediately break the Peace Treaty? The War continues.
Interesting coming from a brother down under. Am I to understand that you don't have a low turnout by choice of any groups. Am I to undertsnd that there exists a representative democracy on this entire planet that has no underrepresented groups or minorities?Benonymous said:
Or am I to understand that only by dragging every citizen to the pols, kicking and screaming, can we call an election "valid"? No-one stopped the Sunni's from voting.....far more "representative" than my country, or yours, not too long ago.
Rich
Destructo6
New member
Say what? He used poison gas on his Iranian foes, during a war he started by invasion. Ten years later, he invaded two other neighboring countries, launched missiles across Jordan, into Israel and more into Saudi Arabia.
Do you honestly think a diplomat would say, "We would like to invade x country, can we?" and another diplomat would reply with a simple, "Yes"?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Wayne-
I see lots of this around here lately. Starting a sentence with "I think" (as in opinion) but having the meat of it relate to apparent "fact" with zero documentation.
It gets really ponderous sometimes. I simply can't keep the strap on my stainless mixing bowl cinched tight enough around my chin.
Rich
I see lots of this around here lately. Starting a sentence with "I think" (as in opinion) but having the meat of it relate to apparent "fact" with zero documentation.
It gets really ponderous sometimes. I simply can't keep the strap on my stainless mixing bowl cinched tight enough around my chin.
Rich
American ambassador, April Glaspie supposedly told Saddam this:
"We're watching you. We're concerned about the bellicose statements that you've been issuing. But our fundamental feeling is that we have no direct vested interest in Arab-Arab disputes, including the dispute that you're having with the Kuwaitis over the_ the mutual border that you share."
at least according to this transcript of a FRONTLINE Show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
it seems that some folks interpret this as a 'green light' from america to invade Kuwait.
"We're watching you. We're concerned about the bellicose statements that you've been issuing. But our fundamental feeling is that we have no direct vested interest in Arab-Arab disputes, including the dispute that you're having with the Kuwaitis over the_ the mutual border that you share."
at least according to this transcript of a FRONTLINE Show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
it seems that some folks interpret this as a 'green light' from america to invade Kuwait.
Well, if you are a paranoid isolationist, closet America hater it is.
If you look at it from the perspective that we expect "civilized" nations to comport themselves "civilly" and that we aren't supposed to be preemptively inserting ourselves in the affairs of other sovereign nations (isn't that the isolationist claim?) then it rather neatly fits in the category of "diplomacy".
If we "have no direct vested interest" we shouldn't be bossing Iraq around. If they then don't play by the rules (international law) then we, as a civilized nation, should then intervene to restore freedom to those oppressed.
We'll treat you like grown-up governments until you prove, by oppressing your own or other's peoples, otherwise. Then we will do as we traditionally have done and spank the living **** out of you and put the grown-ups in your country back in charge.
Call it "the carebear doctrine". And, yes, I do in fact possess the knowledge, intelligence and moral stature to determine right and wrong, good and evil in most international situations. Diplomacy ain't rocket science.
PsychoSword
Moderator
So what's the opposite of that? A swaggering extrovert? Isolationist was a favorite derogitory term used by demo's to belittle conservatives under the Clinton regime of the 90's, now it seems to be a favorite term used by the neo-cons to describe conservatives.
Great. If you love America you think that it should bankrupt itself and endanger its security by sticking its nose into the affairs of others. That's really a great idea. Why didn't I think of that. By the way, when are you signing up to be a world policeman?
You'll love this:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160599&highlight=Ron
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Saddam never used WMD's against anyone but Iraqi's."
Wrong.
Iraq used chemical weapons during its war with Iraq as well as on Iraqi insurgents.
"I still think the Iraq war started when Saddam asked our permission to sieze Kuwait, and we told him "yes". Through some State Dept flunkie, can't remember her name."
Apparently there's one hell of a lot that you don't remember, then.
Around about July 1990 Saddam Hussein told American Ambassador April Glaspie that he intended to "solve" his numerous disputes with Kuwait; Glaspie took this to mean through negotiation, NOT invasion.
The Iraqis were told on numbers occasions via Ambassador Glaspie that while the US wanted closer ties with Iraq, the United States would defend the rights of ALL of its friends in the Persian Gulf region.
Hussein also said, numerous times in the Iraqi press, that he had no intention of resorting to force to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait.
In the intervening years there has been much debate over the diplomatic flow between Iraq and the United States in the days and weeks leading up to the invasion of Kuwait.
No serious assessment, however, has ever claimed that the United States gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait, and then used that as an impetus to go to war, and to claim that is sheer fantasy.
The language of diplomacy is often vague and open to interpretation.
Another good case in point is John Foster Dulles speech on American spheres of influence in the Pacific region prior to the outbreak of the Korean War.
Dulles never mentioned South Korea, which led the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians to believe that the United States wouldn't fight to protect the south.
Wrong.
Iraq used chemical weapons during its war with Iraq as well as on Iraqi insurgents.
"I still think the Iraq war started when Saddam asked our permission to sieze Kuwait, and we told him "yes". Through some State Dept flunkie, can't remember her name."
Apparently there's one hell of a lot that you don't remember, then.
Around about July 1990 Saddam Hussein told American Ambassador April Glaspie that he intended to "solve" his numerous disputes with Kuwait; Glaspie took this to mean through negotiation, NOT invasion.
The Iraqis were told on numbers occasions via Ambassador Glaspie that while the US wanted closer ties with Iraq, the United States would defend the rights of ALL of its friends in the Persian Gulf region.
Hussein also said, numerous times in the Iraqi press, that he had no intention of resorting to force to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait.
In the intervening years there has been much debate over the diplomatic flow between Iraq and the United States in the days and weeks leading up to the invasion of Kuwait.
No serious assessment, however, has ever claimed that the United States gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait, and then used that as an impetus to go to war, and to claim that is sheer fantasy.
The language of diplomacy is often vague and open to interpretation.
Another good case in point is John Foster Dulles speech on American spheres of influence in the Pacific region prior to the outbreak of the Korean War.
Dulles never mentioned South Korea, which led the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians to believe that the United States wouldn't fight to protect the south.
You are correct, I shouldn't name call. I have no way of knowing the reasoning being used by any particular poster.
It does seem though that, instead of simply taking say, that particular diplomatic exchange on its face, it is now popular with many people to immediately apply a worst case "hidden evil purpose" to every statement or action by this administration. The same seemed to happen with the previous one as well so it is hardly limited by political affiliation.
Truth be told, I'm getting rather bored with how trendy (not implying trendiness on anyone in particular here) it is to be so ultra cool and cynical about current events. Sometimes a cigar, like it or not, is just a cigar, bothe in psychotherapy and world affairs.
Great. If you love America you think that it should bankrupt itself and endanger its security by sticking its nose into the affairs of others. That's really a great idea. Why didn't I think of that. By the way, when are you signing up to be a world policeman?
QUOTE]
There is a practical middle ground in there, between bankrupt imperialism and strict isolationism, ya know...
As far asgoes...
That is all completely irrelevent both in aim and underlying motive to what I'm talking about.
My feelings on our intervention in world affairs are driven strictly by moral and ethical reasoning, perhaps tempered a bit by pragmatism.
So implying an economic or imperialistic motive to me would be both incorrect and unjust.
Doubting my word on it would be to call me a liar. which should always only be done to a person's face.
PsychoSword
Moderator
He may have used it against Iraqi's, but not the ones they show on the nightly news. According to a U.S. Army War College study to better understand the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and Iran, they were killed by a blood agent (cyanide based gas) that was given to the Iranians by the Soviets. But later it's blamed on Saddam because it suits the propaganda machine.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Not at all. You said that other governments should behave as anglo-saxon moraled "adults" and if they don't we should go and slap them around. That's pretty much the definition of world policeman, is it not.
If you want the world's governments and people to be like we are, how is that not imperialistic? Or at the very least trying to be the world's policeman? Not to pick bones here, but you did say:
In the context it sounded like you meant that all foreign governments behaving exactly like we want them to was a vested interest of ours and should be backed by threat of force if they step out of line with our will. Which brings us back to the whole imperialism thing.
Talking in circles makes me dizzy, I guess that's why I'm not a neo-con.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"that was given to the Iranians by the Soviets."
Say what?
I'd love to see a link to that report.
The Soviets and Iran were experiencing extremely... fridgid... relations at the time of the Iran-Iraq war due to Moscow's continuing military support of Iraq.
To the best of my knowledge Iran received no military support of any kind from the Soviet Union during the Iran-Iraq war.
Say what?
I'd love to see a link to that report.
The Soviets and Iran were experiencing extremely... fridgid... relations at the time of the Iran-Iraq war due to Moscow's continuing military support of Iraq.
To the best of my knowledge Iran received no military support of any kind from the Soviet Union during the Iran-Iraq war.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Many nations obtained chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union. I didn't say Iran got them during the war. It's widely believed they got them from the Soviets though.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I didn't say Iran got them during the war. It's widely believed they got them from the Soviets though."
Really?
Once again, a SOURCE, please. Despite this apparently widely believed fact, I've yet to turn up a single source on the web that supports that claim.
Let me let you in on a little time line...
From 1956 to 1979, Iran was firmly in the American sphere of influence. The Iranian military was armed solely with American weapons.
In the turmoil following the outser of the Shah in July 1979, the Soviet Union attempted overtures to Kohameni (sp?), and were completely rebuffed. During the same time, the Soviets were funneling arms to Iraq. The arms flows to Iraq apparently stopped for a short period of time between late 1980 and early 1982, but resumed in full force in the summer of 1982, and continued until the war eventually died out in 1988.
The only possible Soviet vector for poison gas would have been through another nation, such as Libya, China, or North Korea, but I've not been able to find any sort of backing for a chemweps connection from that direction, either.
Really?
Once again, a SOURCE, please. Despite this apparently widely believed fact, I've yet to turn up a single source on the web that supports that claim.
Let me let you in on a little time line...
From 1956 to 1979, Iran was firmly in the American sphere of influence. The Iranian military was armed solely with American weapons.
In the turmoil following the outser of the Shah in July 1979, the Soviet Union attempted overtures to Kohameni (sp?), and were completely rebuffed. During the same time, the Soviets were funneling arms to Iraq. The arms flows to Iraq apparently stopped for a short period of time between late 1980 and early 1982, but resumed in full force in the summer of 1982, and continued until the war eventually died out in 1988.
The only possible Soviet vector for poison gas would have been through another nation, such as Libya, China, or North Korea, but I've not been able to find any sort of backing for a chemweps connection from that direction, either.
PsychoSword
Moderator
According to what I understand Iran's chemical weapons program started in 1983. That's just the official version though. They had WMD programs that predated the revolution. They got their start with help from the Soviets. If it was funneled through a third party, that is irrelevant as it originally came from them. Even though their soldiers were getting gased they refused help because "they were on bad terms" with the ones offering help, please....
Perhaps Saddam gave the CIA video of dead Kurds killed by him? That's pretty laughable.
Perhaps Saddam gave the CIA video of dead Kurds killed by him? That's pretty laughable.
First, the essay you posted talked about economic and geo-political aims being the rationale behind neo-con interventionism. Since I am not a "neo-con" and those aren't my rationale, as I stated, that essay has no relation to my position. You saying it is is directly both telling me what I really meant, which you are patently unqualified to do, and in essence calling me a liar.
As far as "anglo-saxon moraled(sic) adults" I don't believe those were my terms. As I said "civilized" I believe the more logical inference would perhaps be accepting the generalized body of international law that has developed over the past few centuries. Unless you honestly believe that all the nations now signatory to those agreements are either anglo-saxon stooges or are adopting values they actually can't independently comprehend i would suggest you are projecting your beliefs onto me in order to support your own argument. Again, I get to say what I mean, so quit trying to stuff me in your little mold.
Again, I didn't say "be like we are", and, once again, in an attempt to discredit my position you are claiming it is something it is not.
Signatories to international law and treaties have agreed, in a broad way, on what is acceptable treatment of their own people and their neighbors. Certain systems have been put in place to deal with those who transgress those agreements. Not sure why you are so seemingly hung up on a "white man's burden" view of the world but I hardly view utilizing our current position as the lone superpower to attempt in some small way to hold the body of nations accountable for their actions using international law and those values which are generally agreed upon to constitute basic human rights.
Are we perfect? No, obviously not. Are we currently uniquely placed in history to actually live up to those values upon which we were founded and to help enforce those agreements we helped bring into being? Yes, we are.
Does that constitute "imperialism"? No, not unless you are determined to stretch the very meaning of the word and are willing to look at events through the most cynical and negative of viewpoints.