Has the US anything to hide? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2003, 08:56 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Klaus,

The war in Iraq was about much more than terrorism! Often the sources are governments that have been in power to long. Poverty could be a contributing factor but then why don't we have more Africans using terrorism? In any event, going after terrorist, whether they be Al Quada or a government hiding terrorist like the Taliban is absolutely necessary and justified.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 04:07 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 PM
STING2:

it was much more than about terrorism it was much more than about WMDs and it was much more than about Democracy?

Mr Bush said:
Quote:
"The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose.
now mr. rumsfeld says "except a cleric one"

While i understand mr rumsfeld (and me and some others here were talking about the danger of a upcoming cleric power even before the war started) a in a democracy the mayority decides who the leader of a country is.
I hope we don't se a "flipfop" democracy/dictature thing like in Pakistan where people regulary vote for a stop of the democracy.

What was the war about? Influense in the middle east and about important resources crontroled by antiamerican governments?

Don't tell me it was manly for humanitarian reasons. I don't believe that the US, Great Britain, France, Russia or Germany would start a war because of that

If we take a look at the history that we see that in the most cruel times of saddam he got support from US/GB/Germany/France
And if we take a look at the present we see that our governments give a sh** about child-soldiers, genocide and mass slaughtering in Congo

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 04:39 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Klaus,

Yes it was a little more than just WMD, it also included Saddam's behavior and his proximity to most the worlds supply of energy. Those are excellent reasons in my view for intervention.


"If we take a look at the history that we see that in the most cruel times of saddam he got support from US/GB/Germany/France"

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION OUT OF THIS STATEMENT?

Why do you put the USA ahead of countries like France and Germany that gave more support to Saddam than the USA did during those times? In fact, France and Germany having been helping Saddam after sanctions were placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Your list of countries supporting Saddam in order of level of support should read:

SOVIET UNION, China, France, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany, UAE, Qatar, Barain, South Africa, USA.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 04:56 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 PM
Quote:
Yes it was a little more than just WMD, it also included Saddam's behavior and his proximity to most the worlds supply of energy. Those are excellent reasons in my view for intervention.
didn't you say before the war it wasn't about oil (i guess we can say iraqs part in worlds supply of engergy = oil). Did you change your mind?

Well i guess if Bush had said that it's about Saddams behaviour and the control of the engergy resources - his honesty would have impressed me.
But it might be that he wouldn't have gotten support for this war in congres or in US public then.

i mentioned the soviet union a few lines before and forgot them again..
if i don't mention a country i don't want to proclaim that they are innocent.
I don't think a ranking is a good idea, because they didn't sell all the same stuff and it's different to compare how many kalashnikovs (russia) should be compared to a uran centrifuge(germany) or a satelite photo (USA)

And they were just examples flying to my head, neither the worst ones of each country nor the morst important ones in their support.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 10:30 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Klaus,

The first Gulf War certainly was about the threat to the worlds energy supplies in the Gulf. This Gulf War was primarily about Saddam's WMD's capability that in the short term could be used for terrorism. The long term threat of Saddam, threatening the worlds energy supplies could have grown again, had Saddam been able to get Nuclear Weapons. In its current state though, the only threat was WMD essentially used for terrorism. Saddam had the potential to become a threat again to the worlds energy supplies even though it was not immediate as in this month or the next.

Saddam without WMD or WMD programs would be no threat to the region or the Worlds energy supplies. Without any WMD program, plus military embargo, it would be impossible for him to threaten world energy supplies in the future.

Ensuring that Saddam was disarmed of WMD and unable to now, or ever threaten the worlds energy supplies was the objective. IT was discovered that peaceful inspections could never achieve that objective. Saddam was never going to peacefully disarm 100%. That is why military force had to be used in the current Gulf War.

I have never stated that one of the USA's chief national security concerns is not the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. This has been a chief US Security concern for nearly 60 years. Keeping the supply of energy available at low prices is vital to the entire global economy. When the price of energy goes up, the people that get hurt first or those that live in poverty or just above the poverty line.

Ensuring that Iraqi oil is widely available on the market will mean lower oil prices, lower cost of energy. Revenue from this Iraqi oil will come into Iraq and be able to be used to build up the infrastructure of the country that has been so negleted and damaged under Saddam Hussien.


"I don't think a ranking is a good idea, because they didn't sell all the same stuff and it's different to compare how many kalashnikovs (russia) should be compared to a uran centrifuge(germany) or a satelite photo (USA)"

"And they were just examples flying to my head, neither the worst ones of each country nor the morst important ones in their support."

Klaus,

I don't think you understand fully the value of what the Soviet Union supplied to Iraq. I think I am going to have to put up that huge weapons table and explain it in detail. Ranking is an excellent idea cause I can explain in detail the type of weapons that were supplied and the capability it gave Saddam.

When we speak of the Soviet Union, were talking Mig 29 Jet Fighters, T-72 tanks(1 million dollars for each), BMP Armored Personal Carriers, AT-5 Spandral Anti-Tank Missiles, 152 mm Self Propelled Artillery, Scud Balistic Missiles, Hind Attack Helicopters.

Just about everything that Saddam's military fights with, that allows Saddam to be in power and invade other countries, is built and supplied by the Soviet Union.

Kalashnikovs are only a tiny fraction of what the Soviet Union sent to Iraq.

Ranking is very important so people will understand where most of Saddams power actually came from.

Your lists which do not include the SOVIET UNION and mention the USA first produce one of the most factualy inaccurate statements I've seen on this board on a question that is asked often and not correctly answered.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-27-2003, 08:06 AM   #36
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 PM
First gulf war was also an enforcement of UN doctrines: no other country is allowed to attack another one. Only 2 exceptions:
UN security council approved it.
Self defense


To list all the weapons systems here would be too much for this thread maybe "Iraqs Weapons systems" thread? the UN paper about it has 12.000 pages! The non-internal version still 5.000 pages

I still think you can't rank it, but start a thread and i'm glad to help you to rank it. at least creating some statistics (which companies were involved, comparison of official national and official international data..)

To give an example, Germany didn't export weapons to Iraq officially.
The conventional weapons were developed in a joint-venture with france and france sold them. The chemical weapon facilities were all duel use and officially declared for furtilizer production.

back to the topic of this thread:

I think it's no good style that US dosn't allow UN weapon inspections in iraq now. wasn't that one of the reasons for the war against saddam because that regime blocked UN weapon inspectors?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-27-2003, 12:03 PM   #37
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: east lansing, michigan, usa
Posts: 249
Local Time: 03:49 PM
speaking of eliminating the symptoms of arab-led terrorism and the united states' credibility in the middle east, who's heard of these shiite clerics trying to engage their people to rally against the americans? they stage protests for the media but the vast majority of people there are happy to have the american's free them. sure, the lawlessness that overcame iraq was atrocious, destroying thousands of years of culture in what now seems to be a massive art theft planned by americans and europeans.

what a lot of the middle east can't seem to understand is how saddam fell so fast...they all thought he was so mighty, refusing the U.N. time after time, marching those soldiers down the street. but when they all starting surrendering before the war even started, you knew that the republican guard was a mess. most of the arab nations can't believe how happy the iraqi people are when they watch them on tv. please keep in mind they're watching al-jazeera, not fox news or cnn.

a lot of good has been solved by this war. sure, people were apprehensive about it. i was and i'll be the first to admit it. i don't think it's rational to not question something this large.

the iraqi's were starving, i didn't see france or germany doing anything but trading nuclear reactors and tunneling contracts in turn for oil. we shut off an illegal oil pipeline to syria, probably the same place where most of our beloved wmd's are now.

iraq and saddam has always been in violation of those silly u.n. accords. it was france, germany, russia and china that wanted to keep the iraqi people going, if it meant that the u.s. didn't get potential control over 12-14% of the world's oil reserves.

the bottom line on this war is that the iraqi people are free. we probably won't find the wmd's we used as an excuse to get into the country, but bush couldn't prothelysize on a pulpet and preach to the world how morally good it was to rescue the people of iraq. bush couldn't bring his religious convictions into this or we might not have hyped the wmd's so much.

iraq is a devastated nation after three wars in 20 odd years and no rebuilding. saddam spent billions on his palaces while his sons raped and pillaged women for shits and giggles. we'll get them.

as for allowing the u.n., france, germany and russia have a larger role in rebuilding iraq, i can't see that happening yet. not only will we search for wmd's, you know that they are searching for any proof at all that those countries aided and abetted saddam, knowing full well what was going on in that country.

several things need to happen so that we can all close this chapter for good:

-saddam and his cronies need to be caught. closure's such a nice thing.

-we need to rebuild iraq and try to prevent a few iranian backed clerics from taking over.

-fox news needs to go off the air. shepherd smith, bill o'reilly and geraldo rivera all need to rot in hell. where was their deck of cards?

-u2 needs to play a concert in bagdhad. you know it's gonna happen as soon as they can do it.
__________________
CampbellMSU is offline  
Old 04-27-2003, 06:20 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by CampbellMSU
-fox news needs to go off the air. shepherd smith, bill o'reilly and geraldo rivera all need to rot in hell. where was their deck of cards?
LOL.

Hey, works for me. .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-27-2003, 07:36 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 PM
CampbellMSU:

I was glad when Israel bombed that nuclear reactor and there was no big loss of innocent lifes.

Iraq was a tragic situation, i don't think that neither the government of USA/GB/Spain nor Germany/France/Russia were primary interested in Humanity when they decided pro or contra the war. Most of them had serious business and political interests

I think we need a elected governemnt in Iraq as soon as possible. It wouldn't be good if too many money from US/GB government for rebuilding iraq would be a indirect subvention of their countries industry (if all contracts are just for US/GB companies).

I also don't think that France or Germany deserve any special role - iraq should be able to contract the companies with best performance/price.

We are used to these dirty games but if you want to show other countries how good democracy is we shouldn't start with corruption or behaving to the UN in a way saddam did (not letting the UN insectors back in the country)

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com