MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around - Page 14 - 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 08-25-2005, 11:03 AM   #196
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:26 AM
The Iraq war is filled with lies. I remember in late 2002, before Bush sent in weapons inspectors to Iraq, he said that if they find weapons, and yet Iraq doesn't disarm, there will be a war. Bush was confident that he will definitely find weapons. However, the weapons inspectors found absolutely no weapons. But Bush wanted to go to war anyway. Therefore, before the war started, Bush changed his story, instead of making Iraq disarm, he said that Saddam Hussein must step down as leader within 3 days, or else the U.S. will attack. He also added another reason why the U.S. should go to war: Iraq/Al-Qaeda/9-11 relations. By giving this reason to the American people, many people supported the war.

So first Bush said that the U.S. will attack Iraq if they don't disarm. But when he found they have no weapons, he added 2 more reasons: the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator and that Iraq has relations with Al-Qaeda/9-11.

Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld all claimed that CIA found that there was definitely a relation between Iraq and al-Qaeda and that Iraq was a part of 9/11. However what the CIA actually found was that there may be a possibility of this relation, but not enough evidence to go to war with. Bush obviously didn't care what they said and went along planning for war. George Tennent, director of CIA, claimed at that time that he is doing the wrong thing, but Bush kept ignoring him. Now Tennent at the time shut his mouth because he didn't want to lose his job. Had he come out in open to the American public that Bush Administration is doing the wrong thing, they he would have been fired. However, Tennent failed to do what was right and let the Bush Administration get away with their lies. And because of this he was faced before Congress and was asked very difficult questions. This caused Tennent to resign has the head of the CIA. Many former CIA agents have claimed that they reviewed over 25,000 documents or so and found absolutely no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Condo Rice claimed that there are many documents that show a link...but apparantely they don't exist.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found absolutely no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

So all of Bush's different reasons to go to war were/are:

1) Iraq has WMD's.
2) Saddam was an evil dictator.
3) Iraq was part of 9/11.

Now, out of these 3 reasons, the first and third ones are bullshit. But Bush needed these 2 lies to get approval of the American people to go to war.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:32 PM   #197
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




sorry, STING, but each and everyone one of your posts are interchangeable. one says the same thing as the next, and you don't answer or engage a question but rather repeat the information that originally prompted my question (perfect example is your view of the 2004 election). i read each and every word, and i see virtually nothing new, and what disappoints me is that you assail my points with Coulter-isms -- i.e., they're "liberal."

i think it's a case of missing the forest for the trees.

thus, i don't see anything productive coming out of engaging you.

hence, i'm out.
Well could you name one question that I did not answer? I took a lot of time and carefully went over your entire post and tried to answer every question and comment you made. I offered my honest, informed opinion on every one.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:41 PM   #198
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
The Iraq war is filled with lies. I remember in late 2002, before Bush sent in weapons inspectors to Iraq, he said that if they find weapons, and yet Iraq doesn't disarm, there will be a war. Bush was confident that he will definitely find weapons. However, the weapons inspectors found absolutely no weapons. But Bush wanted to go to war anyway. Therefore, before the war started, Bush changed his story, instead of making Iraq disarm, he said that Saddam Hussein must step down as leader within 3 days, or else the U.S. will attack. He also added another reason why the U.S. should go to war: Iraq/Al-Qaeda/9-11 relations. By giving this reason to the American people, many people supported the war.

So first Bush said that the U.S. will attack Iraq if they don't disarm. But when he found they have no weapons, he added 2 more reasons: the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator and that Iraq has relations with Al-Qaeda/9-11.

Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld all claimed that CIA found that there was definitely a relation between Iraq and al-Qaeda and that Iraq was a part of 9/11. However what the CIA actually found was that there may be a possibility of this relation, but not enough evidence to go to war with. Bush obviously didn't care what they said and went along planning for war. George Tennent, director of CIA, claimed at that time that he is doing the wrong thing, but Bush kept ignoring him. Now Tennent at the time shut his mouth because he didn't want to lose his job. Had he come out in open to the American public that Bush Administration is doing the wrong thing, they he would have been fired. However, Tennent failed to do what was right and let the Bush Administration get away with their lies. And because of this he was faced before Congress and was asked very difficult questions. This caused Tennent to resign has the head of the CIA. Many former CIA agents have claimed that they reviewed over 25,000 documents or so and found absolutely no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Condo Rice claimed that there are many documents that show a link...but apparantely they don't exist.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found absolutely no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

So all of Bush's different reasons to go to war were/are:

1) Iraq has WMD's.
2) Saddam was an evil dictator.
3) Iraq was part of 9/11.

Now, out of these 3 reasons, the first and third ones are bullshit. But Bush needed these 2 lies to get approval of the American people to go to war.
The central case for war against Saddam was laid down by UN resolution 1441 which was authored by the Bush administration and passed by the United Nations Security Council.

Saddam was required in United Nations resolution 1441 to verifiably disarm of all WMD. To date in 2002, Saddam had still failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to United Nations Weapons inspectors. On March 22, 2003 , just prior to the start of the war, Saddam had still not verifiably disarmed of the unaccounted for WMD. He was also in violation of 17 other UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The Bush administration did list some intelligence it had on Al Quada and Iraq. Sometimes intelligence is not accurate, sometimes it is, regardless, this was never presented as the central case for war. The administration also never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 11:04 PM   #199
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The central case for war against Saddam was laid down by UN resolution 1441 which was authored by the Bush administration and passed by the United Nations Security Council.

Saddam was required in United Nations resolution 1441 to verifiably disarm of all WMD. To date in 2002, Saddam had still failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to United Nations Weapons inspectors. On March 22, 2003 , just prior to the start of the war, Saddam had still not verifiably disarmed of the unaccounted for WMD. He was also in violation of 17 other UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Befoer the war, the Bush adm. claimed that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. But the weapons inspections that ended in 2004 found that there was no evidence of the rebuilding of weapons. Even the facilities that are used to build weapons were old and out of date. There was nothing found to show that Saddam even had the intention of rebuilding weapons. The fact is that Bush claimed that Saddam was restarting his weapons program, yet the inspectors found no evidence. Thats why Bush had to bring up the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator AFTER he already decided go into Iraq.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Bush administration did list some intelligence it had on Al Quada and Iraq. Sometimes intelligence is not accurate, sometimes it is, regardless, this was never presented as the central case for war. The administration also never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
An Iraq/Al-Qaeda link WAS presented as one of the reasons for war. Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld all stated that there are various CIA reports which show strong evidence of a link between the two. However, there was nothing wrong with the intelligence, the intelligence claimed that there might be a connection between the two, however not enough to go to war for. Yet the Bush administration blew these intelligence reports out of proportion because they needed another bogus reason to go to war. The adm. may have never directly claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11; but whenever Bush gives a speech nowadays, he always says one way or another that the war on Iraq has made the U.S. safer from more "9/11's."

However, it hasn't made the U.S. any safer, in fact it may have made the U.S. more prone to attacks IMO. Look at what happened to Spain and the U.K., they were attacked by radical groups because they were involved in Iraq. I'm sure there are many radicals out there who want to attack the U.S. more so then before this war. Also, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, we may have already captured Osama bin Laden and many of his top supporters. Most probably, bin Laden is in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of the reasons we don't have him yet is because Pakistan is not allowing us into their country. Bush should be working with the Pakistani government to try to put U.S. soldiers into Pakistan. And if they still refuse, and worst comes to worst, we may have to force ourselves into Pakistan. The area of Pakistan that bin Laden is hiding is not even controlled by the government, it is controlled by radicals.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 12:16 AM   #200
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The central case for war against Saddam was laid down by UN resolution 1441..........
It just gets tiresome. It's a good political concept, framing an argument to suit your own agenda. We get it, they had the goods on Hussein. Does this by itself totally absolve EVERYTHING else that occured? They did infact build a case for war built on other factors beside 1441, maybe you should call up Hannity and ask him for the standardized response. I mean this with all due respect, honestly, it's not a personal connotation, it's directed at THIS whole line of thinking in general. Forgive my frustrations.

The case for war was essentially Powell's speech to the UN in Feb 2003.

He spent a lot of time on weapons and made an excellent case and a good amount of time talking about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.

Don't pretend this was all about enforcing a UN resolution, that is selective memory if I've ever seen it. They wanted the American people and possibly even the UN to beleive that there was a deep seeded fear of what Iraq may do, with their own weapons or by working with Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.
The case for the weapons violations was a lay-up, it was ready-made, why did they go further?

In subsequent speeches and appearances, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, possibly Ari Fleischer grouped and worded IRaq and 9/11-Afghansitan all together, as if it were all one and the same fight/same reasons. There are a bevy of quotes on this, I am sure you have seen them before during the election period. Why is this? Why the constant grouping and quilt by association?

Because it was easier to make the case to the masses.
In post 9/11 America, people were scratching their head asking "why Iraq? why now?" They put out feelers and made it clear that the case was building beginning just after the 9/11 anniversary. People weren't buying it. The UN resolutions and "Sadaam is a bad guy" routine weren't really catching on.

I beleive they trumped up the case, adding to the weapons and UN resolution violations to sell it, using the fear of the masses in a post 9/11 world. I believe that THIS is the most aggregious thing the Bush Administration has done, logistically invading Iraq and toppling Hussein may not have been the worst thing in the world but the execution has been highly questionable. They trumped up the case to go, in Bob Woodwards book he said that Bush wanted Hussein in Spring 2001 before 9/11. The White House didn't dispute anything in his book, he worked with them.

There was a poll right before the election last year that had over 50% of the people polled believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Do you think they beleived this by osmosis or sheer ignorance, or was this the way the whole case was framed?
They wanted Hussein, and if it took 10 reasons to get him, they'd give 10 reasons if George Tenet had to fabricate it, Colin Powell had to go against his better instinct, they were going to MAKE the case. They had the case of the weapons, this is all I see in defense of their actions. Who the fuck disputes the UN violations?
The case for war was right there, as you said, why did they go further? Because people weren't buying it.

I've asked a few questions, maybe you can answer those without quoting UN resolutions over and over. That case is easy, it's a lay-up, who really disputes the broken record retorts? You can't, it's not designed for dialogue, which is precisely why it's framed that way. "We got the goods on Hussein" end of story. Unfortunately that is not the end of the story for those trying to be at all objective.

It's the package it took to "sell" this to the public that troubles me, does it bother you? It wasn't outright honest, which is not a surprise from a poltician of any stripe, but to do this on the backs of the 9/11 victims, why aren't more yellow ribboned car sticker families more outraged? I don't think they know the difference. I think they bought the fear that was sold to them.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 04:33 AM   #201
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:26 AM
To say this is selective memory on the part of Sting is unfair. If you go into the search of this forum, there are plenty of PRE PRe war threads in which STING presented the case.

Sting has also reserached and read other books on the topic. One of the BEST prewar cases for WAR was written by a member of the CIA under Bill Clinton. A book STING and I have referenced many times.

THere was plenty of intelligence provided by other nations that indicated the SAME thing the US Gov't thought. The difference was the timetable. How long do we let inspections go on. The man had 12 years to comply. At one point in the twelve years, he HAD MANAGED to restart his nuke program, and if not for his son in-law defecting, we would not have known.

It bothers me that so many nations had it wrong. IT bothers me that we have not found anything.

I still stand by the decision to go to war. In the twelve years if there had been compliance, it never would have been an issue.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:09 AM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well could you name one question that I did not answer? I took a lot of time and carefully went over your entire post and tried to answer every question and comment you made. I offered my honest, informed opinion on every one.


you repeat the same information that prompted the question. that is not answering the question, that is covering your ears and repeating yoruself.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:14 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Hey everyone, would it be asking too much that this thread get back to the original topic, which was (I believe) Cindy Sheehan's demand to talk to Bush? We could probably continue the UN resolution debate until the troops come home, but if this thread continues to spiral as it has, I will move it into the appropriate sub-form, War.

Thanks,
sula
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:21 AM   #204
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The Bush administration did list some intelligence it had on Al Quada and Iraq. Sometimes intelligence is not accurate, sometimes it is, regardless, this was never presented as the central case for war. The administration also never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11.


wait ... are you kidding?

the administration continuously mentioned Saddam and 9-11 in nearly every single statement they made about the justification for the Iraq war throughout 2002, Condi referenced mushroom clouds, Bush said "i will not leave the American peopel at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons" he pointed to Saddam's "terrorist connections" as well as "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill ourcitizens, and Iraq is wehre they are making their stand" and in June he said "we went to war because we4 were attacked, and we aere at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm out co untry and hurt our citizens" and "ourtroops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

while there isn't anything as ultra-explicit as you seem to demand, it is absurdly clear to anyone that the intention is to link Iraq to 9-11 (and when 50% of Fox News viewers believed that Saddam Hussein attacked the US in 2003 then you can be sure the administation's speechwriters were complimented for doing their job very well).

STING, you've listed (over and over again) several reasons for the justification of the invasion, nearly NONE of which were presented by the administration to the American people, and with good reason: the reasons you site would never be justification enough for America to send her sons and daughters to war. what is needed is a clear, present danger to the homeland of the US, and 9-11 provided that opportunity. you can make an argument that the squemishness of the American people is an obstacle that must be overcome because the strategic necessity of removing Husseing was imperative, but that doesn't mean that a public and a volunteer army is going to buy that. but they will buy it when it is couched in terms of a direct threat to the homeland. hence, Condi and her "mushroom clouds" that could only come from Saddam's mythical WMDs.

i do not disagree with your facts -- i simply don't think they add up to a case for war.

neither would most Ameicans. and the administration knew this.

thus, 9-11 gave them the perfect opportunity to meld the deaths of 3,000 innocent people into a justification for war.

too bad the primary reason for war -- WMDs, and please see Cheney's late 2002 "meet the press" interview (i think it was in September) where he claims that Saddam had "reconstituted" his nuclear weapons program -- has blow up in their faces.

now, they're scrambilng for more justifications, none of which are the ones you present.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:29 AM   #205
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
To say this is selective memory on the part of Sting is unfair. If you go into the search of this forum, there are plenty of PRE PRe war threads in which STING presented the case.

Sting has also reserached and read other books on the topic. One of the BEST prewar cases for WAR was written by a member of the CIA under Bill Clinton. A book STING and I have referenced many times.

THere was plenty of intelligence provided by other nations that indicated the SAME thing the US Gov't thought. The difference was the timetable. How long do we let inspections go on. The man had 12 years to comply. At one point in the twelve years, he HAD MANAGED to restart his nuke program, and if not for his son in-law defecting, we would not have known.

It bothers me that so many nations had it wrong. IT bothers me that we have not found anything.

I still stand by the decision to go to war. In the twelve years if there had been compliance, it never would have been an issue.


i understand where you're coming from, but the administration never used UN resolutions as justification for war.

while they might have been justification in a legalistic sense, it would have failed to make the sale to the American people, who generally require a clear and present danger to the US, or a clear and defined mission with an exit strategy as in Kosovo and Gulf War 1.

the Bush admin knew this, and chose to create boogeymen, monsters, scary Death Star weapons, and tales of secret meetings in Prague between Mohammad Atta and some unknown Iraqi agents. was there an outright lie? no. but Senate INtelligence Committee report noted that most of the major key judgements were wrong, and that the intelligence was "eitehr overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

and it has all blown up in their faces.

the irony is that SH's treatment of his population might have been reason enough to get both the American people, and the UN, and the citizens of France and Germany and Russia, to back the invasion. instead, in a grevious miscalculation, and in typically ethnocentrist fashion, the Bushies made it all about WMDs, 9-11, and a threat to the homeland, essentially isolating the rest of the world already put off by "with us or against us comments." thus, failure was guaranteed from the start, and we are paying the cost in deaths and lost limbs (which i see every day) for this misjudgement.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:53 PM   #206
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Bush said during an Aug. 13 bike ride, " I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live, and will do so."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-27-2005, 12:24 AM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
To say this is selective memory on the part of Sting is unfair. If you go into the search of this forum, there are plenty of PRE PRe war threads in which STING presented the case.
I know this has thread has already gone off-topic, but one more post/reply because I was totally misunderstood by Dreadsox.

Selective memory in terms of repeating over and over like a broken record that the case for war was all about UN resolutions and weapons charges, when it clearly wasn't. Do I need to paste the entire text of the Colin Powell speech talking about Iraq's associations with Al Quaeda? Why did he feel the need to bring it up? Why did he later regret making that speech? Why did Cheney say what he said on Meet The Press as well as other people saying other things?

They were connecting the dots for people themselves, that's why I referenced the poll that said over 50% of the people thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11 prior to the election. THIS IS THE PROBLEM, not that no WMD"s were found. People were not buying it, people wanted to get Bin Laden they felt (rightly) that Hussein was nothing but a mere nuisance doing nothing in 12 years do warrant a full invasion and occupation (or liberation as Cheney and Wolfowitz would say)

Too many holes, too many redundant responses about weapons.
Nobody who supports the war can defend it, it's indefensable.
Why did they sell the war on the backs of the 9/11 victims?
That was what my whole post was about, conceding the weapons charges, and asking the questions about why they sold it the way they did. Yet, the first reply out ot the box is weapons, weapons, weapons, you can't frame the argument away from glaring unanswered questions. I am totally lost on your response, how is it unfair to quote Sting and ask him a question about the quote, an opinon he has repeated over and over.

what am I supposed to beleive?

Bush remarks about getting Hussein while RUNNING for President. It is reported by Woodward in his book that he said something about making the case (March 2001, I beleive).
Then after 9/11, the call is put out to get the goods on Hussein.
Right after the anniversary of 9/11, the politicking begins. The public is not buying it, so here comes the association to 9/11.
They trumped it up, do we need 8,000 other references? The Downing Street memo points to Summer 2002. The wheels were in motion and when the case was finally made, they took the legitimate case and littered it with soem bullshit to make the public scared and to buy it. Does this not bother you?

Once again A+B=C
A=the legitimate case, 1441 etc.
B=the bullshit for the sales jop
C=the case that was actually presented

The public was scared shitless and would have gotten behind the invasion of Canada had a case been made mentioning 9/11 and terrorism 8 thousand times. When all was said and done, they didn't make the legitimate case by itself. It's like the prosecutors in the Michael Jackson trial, knowing they couldnt get a conviction so they conjure up some false witnesses to sell the jury. Why people are okay with the White House doing this is totally beyond me.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-28-2005, 01:24 PM   #208
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Just thought I'd chime into this lovely conversation with some interesting statistics. These come from two moderately right-leaning U.S magazines, both excellent sources, which this avowed moderate leftie reads.

From last weeks's Newsweek:

Amount US consumes a day: 21 millions barrels.
Where the U.S gets its oil:

1)The U.S. --42% (interesting, I thought since our domestic production of oil peaked in 1970, it would be less)
*if the Alaskan Wildlife refuge is developed over the next decade, it might produce 250-800 mil bbl (barrels) a year. That's only how much we consume EVERY 12-38 DAYS. (Makes you sick don't it? Ruining the Tongass forever just for one month's worth of oil a year? Not even that! )
2)Canada 11%
3)Nigeria 7%
4)Russia 7%
5)Indonesia--6%
6)Other countries--28%
7) Mexico-11% (see the real reason for NAFTA?)
8)Venezuela-8%
9)Saudi Arabia--9% (see why this Chavez business is so important for Bush? We get almost as much oil from Venezuela as we do from Saudi Arabia. This was shocking to me! And the last time we got fed up with Cheavez, he was mysteriously ousted in a coup, and the people voted him right back in. Now I'll bet the CIA is gnashing its teeth b/c they WOULD like to "take him out" and can't do it now without looking suspicious. Not good to have an anti-American rrgime--so to speak--over there.
See the REAL reason for the just-passed CAFTA?

10)And finally, Iraq--4 %which I think is a surprisingly high, figuring the insurgents blasting oil pipleines, refineries, etc. )

Amount the US has in the Strategic Oil Reserve (for emergencies): 220 mil bbl. (or enough for only 60-70 days worth?!?!)

*************

From Businessweek, percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the world, projected from 2005-2050:

For 2005:

U.S.--28%
EU--34%
Other--20%
Japan--12%
China--4%
India--2%

For 2025:

U.S.--27%
EU:--25%
Other:--21%
Japan:--7%
China:--15%
India:--5%

For 2050:

U.S.--26%
EU--15%
Other--10%
Japan--4%
China--28%
India--17%

Now picture this. I'm just tossing conjectures out here.

Say a civil war begins in Iraq, or even if it doesn't, the security situation remains precarious for another 5 yrs, (as is likely with Iran's infleunce over the country, or Sunni anger.) The projected cost of the war reaches a trillion dollars over the next decade--as has been recently projected. Who is finding this? How can the US economy keep this up?

This is not 1970, when we were awash in domestic oil profits, nobody's else's economy measured up to ours in terms of GDP, we had a booming manufacturing center, we were a creditor nation whose citizens saved, and had stable, lifetime jobs or jobs that provided a decent living wage, and health care was mostly covered by employers and most of it was fee-for-service. Back then , we were so rich we we could literally throw obscene amounts of money at both Vietnam AND the Apollo Space Program at the same time and the economy would barely hiccup. And oh yes, more than half the poulation was under 30. Now, the country is getting older, healthcare costs are rsing, and the kinds of jobs that would support the retirees are being outsourced....the jobs left are unhstable and there will be far fewer workers to support them. By contrast, India's population is 60% under 19, and they'll surpass China and have a population of 1.6 bil by 2050. I'm getting OT..the point is, a lot of this war is being funded by China. China has a roaring trade surplus in its coffers and its citizens don't spend their time on Gameboys or watching TiVo. They're in what we call "geek and nerd school"--math, science, and engineering--millions of them. And they SAVE. THis 60 bil a yr is not coming from the US! Not all of it!

If we pull out of Iraq, guess who is waiting in the wings. China, insatiable in her thirst for oil to fuel her explosive economy. I'm sure they are watching what we're doing in Iraq very carefully. If they were to go into Iraq in out place, they would I am sure NOT make our mistakes. Every country with warring factions is ultimately pacifiable, as Marshall Tito proved with Yugoslavia. They'd saturate Iraq with a million troops, if necessary, with a population of 1.3 bil, a million is just peanuts, and turn the country into an armed camp. And they'd not have our (relative) squemishness about human rights violations, they'd commit them right out in the open. China has a history of ruthless Emperors and brutal supression of rebellions, the Boxer rebellion, etc, they've never been ruled by a democracy. Hate to sound like this, but it IS aprt of their culture. They're similar to Japan. Most of today's Japanese came from China anyway. They're the ones sucking Sudan's oil out with a giant straw right now, turning a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur, aren't they?) They'd beat the country into submission, and Iran be right now and get away with it--China is the only country we can't tell what to do, they coukd thimb their nose at us if they wanted. US corporations are scared stiff of having bad relations with China and souring business relationships. And not having gone through something like Vietnam, the Chinese would not care about casualties either. They'd be patriotic about it ("for China's greatness!" etc. The unspoken message being a sort of COld-war with Russia- like Challenge to the U.S. for global dominance.)

You can talk about having beaten "the Vietnam syndrome" all you want, but the fact even the White House knows is, we never will. Every war now is fought with casualties in mind, and public opinion won't tolerate thiusands of casualties. Every war before Vietnam, except for the little ones like the "splendid little war" in Panama in 1897), we had tens and even hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the people suffered in silence, it was for good of the country. No more....the public won't "suffer" so again....

Right now, al big topic in the Chinese military is the Strait of Malacca, a narrow passage between two small islands in the Indonesian archipelago, where all the Pacific's oil tanker traffic must pass. The U.S. patrols it and has control of the area. Needless to say, whoever controls Malacca controls most of the world's oil supply. It's like the Suez canal 100 yrs ago. Why the miltary buildup of China? Is it to invade Iraq if we leave? To invade Taiwan? To challenge CINCPAC in the Pacific, as eventualy it must, in its need for oil? Honestly, I don't know if (God forbid) WWIII comes, who we'll fight..some Radical Islamic wacko with a nuke in his pocket, or if we'll be spoilsports about having to share economic dominance with China. And remember, China has a huge grudge against the West,, for 19th-century donestic meddling (the opium wars, etc). What if they decide it's payback time? What if Iraq is the first skirmish in a Sino-US war?

Those of yopu in the US, you should really puck up the China and India Businessweek issue, it should be required reading. It should still be on store shelves right now.

Eventually, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it is going to put a strain on the American way of life. And the Chinese will be desperate for alternative sources of oil by 2010==remember, they're 4 times bigger than we are, both in terms of goegrpahy and population, they're going to be like 4 Americas burning up more oil. Eventually, Whoever is President then is going to have to get rid of the bulls*** and tell the American people just what the REAL story is. It would have been SOOOO much easier if Bush would ease the future strain on his sucessors in the White House and just UP AND LEVEL with the American people, as to why all this blood we cannot afford to lose and treasure that isn't ours is being spent. This "democracy" BS is pointless, I am sure they are looking at the situation on the ground and the text of the Constitution; they know Iran is the real projected winner here.

Unless we really ARE prepared to spend a trillion dollars ro guaruntee Israel's stability..I doubt it. Bush knows Iraq didn't attack us either. And Queda is already opating there right now..so much for keeping them out, they're already in.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:37 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




wait ... are you kidding?

the administration continuously mentioned Saddam and 9-11 in nearly every single statement they made about the justification for the Iraq war throughout 2002, Condi referenced mushroom clouds, Bush said "i will not leave the American peopel at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons" he pointed to Saddam's "terrorist connections" as well as "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill ourcitizens, and Iraq is wehre they are making their stand" and in June he said "we went to war because we4 were attacked, and we aere at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm out co untry and hurt our citizens" and "ourtroops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

while there isn't anything as ultra-explicit as you seem to demand, it is absurdly clear to anyone that the intention is to link Iraq to 9-11 (and when 50% of Fox News viewers believed that Saddam Hussein attacked the US in 2003 then you can be sure the administation's speechwriters were complimented for doing their job very well).

STING, you've listed (over and over again) several reasons for the justification of the invasion, nearly NONE of which were presented by the administration to the American people, and with good reason: the reasons you site would never be justification enough for America to send her sons and daughters to war. what is needed is a clear, present danger to the homeland of the US, and 9-11 provided that opportunity. you can make an argument that the squemishness of the American people is an obstacle that must be overcome because the strategic necessity of removing Husseing was imperative, but that doesn't mean that a public and a volunteer army is going to buy that. but they will buy it when it is couched in terms of a direct threat to the homeland. hence, Condi and her "mushroom clouds" that could only come from Saddam's mythical WMDs.

i do not disagree with your facts -- i simply don't think they add up to a case for war.

neither would most Ameicans. and the administration knew this.

thus, 9-11 gave them the perfect opportunity to meld the deaths of 3,000 innocent people into a justification for war.

too bad the primary reason for war -- WMDs, and please see Cheney's late 2002 "meet the press" interview (i think it was in September) where he claims that Saddam had "reconstituted" his nuclear weapons program -- has blow up in their faces.

now, they're scrambilng for more justifications, none of which are the ones you present.
The administration never stated that Saddam Hussien and his regime were responsible for 9/11 and the murder of 3,000 Americans and people of other nationalities. Thats a fact. Yes, the Bush administration did talk about the threats of WMD and Saddam as well as the danger of Saddam's capabilities being made available to terrorist in the future. But he never stated that Saddam was responsible for what happened on 9/11.

I think what is obvious is that the opposition in the United States to president Bush has done everything they could to try and lable the President as misleading America, regardless of the facts. It is their cherry Picking of the Presidents statements as well as ignoring other facts, that they have neatly packaged their "he lied, are soldiers died" campaign for 2004 which the American people rejected.


ALL of the reasons I have listed as the justification for the invasion of Iraq have been presented by the administration and your assertion that nearly NONE of them were presented is simply false.

For the past 60 years, the seizure and sabotage of most of the Persian Gulf Oil supply has been "A Clear and Present Danger to the United States and the Planet". The Persian Gulf as 2/3s of the Planets proven oil reserves and production of oil in the Persian Gulf is done far more cheaply there than any where else in the world. The price everyone pays around the world for Energy is directly impacted by the supply available from the Persian Gulf. If the planet is cut off from the supply of oil in the Persian Gulf, the global economy would completely collapse. The reduction in supply from the Persian Gulf would create a massive surge in price for the remaining oil produced in other parts of the planet. Within months, the planet would be experiencing the worst global economic depression in the history of the planet with incaculable effects on every country.

This is why the United States and the rest of the planets survival or at the very least economic survival depends on the stable free flow of Oil from the Persian Gulf. So the question of what threat Saddam poses to the United States begins and ends with his ability to seize and or sabotage the oil fields in Kuwait and more importantly Saudi Arabia. WMD could significantly aid Saddam in any future adventure he had in mind in the Persian Gulf. This is WHY in the 1991 GULF WAR ceacefire agreement, Saddam was forced to Verfiably Disarm of all WMD. Saddam's continued possession of any WMD or WMD programs was determined by the international community to be a clear and present danger to the planet. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of this WMD or face renewed military action to insure that he was disarmed.

The need for Saddam to cooperate with the disarmament process or face military action is not anything new created by George W. Bush's administration.

It remains a fact today in August of 2005, that Saddam NEVER verifiably disarmed of his entire WMD program. Currently thousands of stocks of Saddam's WMD program remain unaccounted for.

The American people and the rest of the worlds governments supported the 1991 Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait. They also supported the containment measures put in place which required Saddam's cooperation on disarmament issues after that war, but authorized military action if Saddam failed to meet his obligations which was vital the security of the region, the United States and the world.

Saddam completely stopped all cooperation in November of 1998 and the Inspectors were forced out. Despite large bombing campaigns, No Fly Zones where US and coalition fighters planes were shot at every day with the planes bombing in return, Saddam would not let the inspectors back in. Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, key and necessary components of any containment strategy were falling apart. Saddam was now profiting to the tune of Billions of dollars from the blackmarket of goods that passed across the Iraqi border.

No inspectors on the ground, Saddam having failed to comply with any of the resolutions in respect to disarmament, Sanctions falling apart, the Weapons embargo falling apart, all of the key aspects of containment were gone or soon to totally come apart. Limited airstrikes, also apart of the containment policy was now being undermind by opposition from the governments where US planes would fly from.

It is debatable whether the containment strategy could have worked in the long run even if all of the aspects of it were being fully enforced. The fact that most of the containment startegy and policy had fallen apart was another reason why military action to remove Saddam was the only way to insure the security of the region.

The central case for military action to remove Saddam did not rest on bits and pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate after the coalition had removed Saddam and for the first time ever had the opportunity to examine the entire country in a way that was not possible while Saddam was still in power.

The central case for military action against Saddam is found in resolution 1441. On September 12, 2002 , George Bush went to the UN and stated the case against Saddam at UN HQ in New York. One week later on September 19, he asked Congress for the authority to use military force to meet US security needs in the Persian Gulf if Saddam continued to fail to comply with his obligation. The Congress deliberated and discuss given the President authorization and after several weeks of debate, it gave the President the authorization to go to war against Saddam if Saddam failed to comply with his obligations. The vote took place on October 11, 2002. Virtually all Republicans voted for the approval and a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to give the President approval as well. This is in stark contrast to the vote to give Bush's father the authority to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Then the resolution in Congress only past by a few votes. After October 11, 2002, the debate was OVER in the United States. The President had the authority he needed to prosecute a war against Saddam. Certainly the debate within the media would continue as it always does and the President would continue to give speechs on the issue to counter critics of administration policy. The debate then went to the UN and the UN passed UN resolution 1441 authorizing the use of force against Saddam if he failed to comply which he did. This resolution was passed in November 2002.

The central justification for the war was always Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of WMD as well as cooperate with the international community on many issues related to the disarmament and security issues in the region justification. The justification for the war has never been what the Democrats would or the Presidents critics would like to believe was the justification because of the political points they think they can score by claiming the president mis-led the public because intelligence sample b turned out to be inaccurate.

Bits and pieces of intelligence prior to the first Gulf War in 1991 claimed that Saddam was still years away from building a nuclear weapon. To the shock in horror of the intelligence community, it was discovered only a few months after the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam was only months away from getting a Nuclear weapon. That is the nature of intelligence, which is why the central case for war never rested on any particular piece of intelligence information, but rather on Saddam's failure to cooperate with the international community with respect to the verifiable disarmament of his entire WMD program.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:39 PM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you repeat the same information that prompted the question. that is not answering the question, that is covering your ears and repeating yoruself.
Show me one example of where I did not answer a question of yours.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 08:26 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