Re: Re: Where was public opinion 10, 20 years ago!?
Dreadsox said:
I love how on these boards everyone says the United States created and allowed Saddam to continue to exist. Your facts, while partially correct, are distorted and not 100% correct. There were other nations that helped in the creation of Saddam. Other nations that had the same fears the UNited States did. Lest you forget France and Germany were major players before Rumsfeld ever took his trip. China, France and Russia, supplied a majority of his military equiptment and might.
France provided the nuclear technology and Germany provided a majority of the biological technology.
Yes, Rummy shook his hand and the United States delivered huge packages of food aid freeing up lots of cash for Iraq to spend it on weapons. We also provided some technology.
Was it the United States that helped creat him, YES. Does the responsibility rest soley on our shoulders? NO at least take the time to look at the history of the past 40 years and not just one photograph.
I am aware that the U.S. is not at all the only one to blame for leaving Saddam in power, and I should have mentioned so in my post. It particularly irks me how France enabled his nuclear program. Shit, everyone knew Saddam didn't need nuclear power, and wasn't going to use it for such - it was only a cover to jumpstart his nuclear weapons program. But the point is, he was useful to everyone then, AND we knew he was a gross abuser of human-rights, YET the world still armed him. I've just got to shake my head in confusion and ask WTF? But now the world takes the moral high-ground? Lest we forget how much we aided Saddam in the 80's to do whatever it took to either win the Iraq-Iran war or at least push a draw.
Again, you may be partially right. However, your facts are 100% wrong. The Gulf War was not about the removal of Saddam from anywhere other than Kuwait. That said, if he had dies in the attacks during the war I do not think that anyone would have cried, and yes he was a target. However, the UN RESOLUTIONS only authorized the use of force to remove the occupying army from Kuwait. We were part of a coalition and had to respect the coalition.
People are screaming today, work through the UN, work through the UN. Which do you all want. Working through the UN last time left us Saddam. Now they UN does not want to do ANYTHING.
But you blame the US. Take a look at the Security Council. They wrote the resolutions. They brokered the peace. They are in charge of enforcing the resolutions.
Good points. I will blame the U.N. along with the U.S. and others. The whole Iraq world policy has been a clusterfuck from day1. Everybody put their hands in the pot, because everyone had their own agenda - except for a handful of nations and people who recognized that what the world was doing might not be in the best interest for the future of the world. So while American corporations got rich (some of which are tied directly to Bush Sr.) arming and aiding Saddam, now the taxpayers of America a couple of decades later have to foot the bill to mop up this mess. We still think to this day that proxy wars through evil dictatorships are a good answer!
Excellent part of your post by the way. I like it . I do not agree with it and I find your imperialism comment insuulting but hey, it is a free world.
I guess in your statement above, you think the whole army is going to let us go into Bagdhad untouched? They will just let us go right in and fight the LOYAL soldiers to Saddam? I hope you are right. However there is a problem, the Iraqi's will fight because inside of the units are the al-Amn-Khas (SSO). They are in the miltary units and they are there to execute people who do not follow orders. They are directed by non other than Saddam's Son Quasayy.
But maybe the regular forces won't fight and we can do your Strategic strike. But do I think it is wise to allow an Army to remain ARMED behind us on the chance that they are not going to allow us to go fight the the Murafiqin, the al-Himaya, the al-Amn al-Qasr, and the al-Haras al-Jumhuri al-kas. And any other layer of special security force that this man is surrounded by.
If the world were looking to enforce the UN resolutions then we should have less there. And there would be more troops from other countries supporting us, since EUROPE, RUSSIA, and CHINA helped to create him.
Do you have the breakdown of the troop make up because I think you are missing major details. WE need massive amounts of troops for supplies, medical, and prisoner processing. There have already been Iraqi soldiers escaping and surrendering. Not all of the troops are there in the manner you speak of.
As an American, I am 100% for whatever action it takes to protect American and civilian lives. IF we need this many troops so be it. How many American soldiers died the last time? 150. If that is what it takes to preserve the lives of the people who put themselves on the line for us, so be it. As for using new weapons to disable their infrastructure, IT IS A WAR. Do you fight to lose?
One last thing, on top of removing Saddam and his sons, you will have to do something about the Ba'ath party and the cities that re loyal to Saddam. Yes, not all Iraqi's are looking to be liberated. He has done an excellent job at keeping the cities loyal to him well fed, with great medical supplies, and other nice perks.
PEACE [/B]
Dreadsox, I think you are an intelligent and caring person, and I respect your opinions a lot. I apologize for insulting you. I will try to expound upon my reasoning in a respectful manner.
You're right - we all say work through the U.N.! But there are some serious problems with the U.N. resolutions, and there are some insidious undercurrents going on with respect to the U.N. security council right now. France and Germany in particular are taking the "moral high ground" as they say, but I see more selfish and calculated reasons. Russia, too. The 1997 Cheney report, which supported regime change in Iraq, quoted a senior Iraqi official (defector I believe) as saying that should regime change happen, then current oil contracts can legally be null and voided, and war restitutions can be appropriated through Iraqi oil. Tensions between our longtime allies are tense, and the U.S. is considering pulling all troops out of Germany. Rumseld was quoted as offhandedly dismissing France and Germany as "Old Europe." Well, he is either encredibly stupid or shortsighted. What we are seeing is the rise of the European Union, and the U.S. and U.K. are desperately trying to maintain its standing as the top world powers. In a very real sense, this *is* about U.S./U.K. imperialism - especially economic - and globalism. You see, the U.S. is in for a world of hurt economically right now. Major banking heads, wall-street and investment bank heads are sitting on E68th street right now playing financial collapse games with the Council on Foreign Relations. The general American doesn't have a notion of what is about to happen to us economically. In the last 20-30+ years we've turned from a production-based economy to a consumer-based economy. It's just simply not self-sustaining. We've deliberately exported most of our production jobs through trade-agreements and trading blocks. Child/Slave labor is cheap afterall, and Americans sure do love their NIKEs. The Federal Reserve fiat system is on the verge of collapse. How does this relate to Iraq? Well you see, nations across the world are dumping the Dollar for the Euro like there's no tomorrow. This only makes sense, when you see how Federal Reserve Notes are backed by at best U.S. confidence and at worst absolutely nothing. Euro's are backed by gold, and it was announced recently even more precious metals were on the way. And now OPEC has stated it's going to move to the Euro for the standard oil currency. Read that again. One oil-producing nation has already done this. Iraq. The U.S. is freaking out. We can't simply print Euros. This move to Euros in the world and in the oil sector has some seriously profound implications around the world. It's very likely that the U.S. is going to be knocked down a notch or three on the world-o'-power-meter. Further, many analysists simply don't see the Fed surving a collapse should the U.S. not go to war and try to stablize its economic Dollar. And, should the Fed collapse, guess who (and with what currency) will be there to bail out the U.S.? OPEC and the U.S. have a tenuous relationship, and they have indicated they would back down from a move to the Euro should Iraq change it's position. France and Germany have positioned themselves very well (and selfishly). They have everything to gain, and the U.S./U.K everything to lose.
I sense that if the U.N. and the world was *seriously* interested in removing Saddam without all this complication, it would be done. Instead, we have this wishywashy crap coming out of the U.N. Everybody is playing up their own interests, and it's a sad state of affairs to witness. Regardless, perhaps that is why we are seeing such a huge build-up, because we are NOT receiving the full multilateral cooperation-without-interference from the U.N. and the U.S./U.K. knows it has to do this the hard way. Even if it means possibly destabalizing the region. But, I just don't buy that this is all about removing a threat to the world and solving a huge humanitarian crisis. Let's not forget about Israel - and their agenda. There's more going on in the undercurrent of the world stage, and I think we're seing that reflected.
I am not against the use of new weapons. We have new weapons that are so fantastic, they're scary. But a selective use of electromagnetic weaponry combined with precision warheads is MUCH better than a shock-and-awe strategy. You're right though, there is a lot to consider, with the Baath party etc ...
I am scared, though. A lot of people are. We can see the potential complications and problems arise out of this. I fear nation building gone terribly wrong. I look at Afghanistan and my heart sinks. I fear we will install a puppet dictatorship, our own military leaders, or god forbid a democracy. I wish upon hope that we could just all come together as a world for the sole purpose of ridding Saddam and leave all of our self-serving special agendas behind.
