Russia-France, Reasons they dont want to go to War - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-11-2003, 05:03 PM   #46
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:19 PM
A contingent of US Veterans has written a letter to the President. They agree with Russia, France & Germany.
I doubt anyone could underestimate their patriotism.

Veterans' Letter to the President

By Veterans For Common Sense
March 11, 2003

The following letter was signed by 1,000 war veterans and given to the President on March 10, 2003.


March 10, 2003


The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President:


We, the undersigned veterans who have served our country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War and other military conflicts, respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you about the threat of war between the United States and Iraq.


Mr. President, we are patriotic citizens and veterans who respect the office of the President and the ethics and values binding us together as Americans.


As such, we feel duty-bound to share with you our serious concerns regarding issues of national security, the appropriate use of our military strength, and the health and welfare of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Those of us who are veterans of the 1991 Gulf War can offer particular insight into the ongoing troubles in the Middle East, and the likely consequences of another war in that volatile region.


A dozen years ago, we helped liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and in the course of combat operations came face to face with brutality and the consequences of modern warfare. We learned how unpredictable the nature of war can be. And we learned that war-related losses are not simply experienced on the battlefield.


Following the 1991 Gulf War, we collectively failed to prevent Saddam Hussein's violent repression of a popular uprising and the unprecedented refugee flight that ensued. As a result, tens of thousands of innocent civilians died. In addition to those deaths, the war and immediate post-war conditions resulted in the excess deaths of 46,900 children under the age of five, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (Sept. 24, 1992).


Over the long term, the 1991 Gulf War has had a lasting, detrimental impact on the health of countless people in the region, and on the health of American men and women who served there. Twelve years after the conflict, over 164,000 American Gulf War veterans are now considered disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. That number increases daily.


The possibility of large-scale war between the U.S. and Iraq looms before us once again. For this urgent reason we would like to meet with you to discuss steps the United States and its allies can take to protect U.S. soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from known and suspected hazards that would result from military operations.


We understand the risks that come with war and that there are times when such risks are necessary. However, we strongly question the need for a war at this time. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council and the testimony of others in the administration, we are not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary.


Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war.


Further, we believe the risks involved in going to war, under the unclear and shifting circumstances that confront us today, are far greater than those faced in 1991. Instead of a desert war to liberate Kuwait, combat would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam. We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East, and increase terrorism against U.S. citizens.


Our concerns about the potential human and material costs of a military conflict in Iraq are well substantiated. In the event of a war, the UN warns that 1.26 million children under the age of five in Iraq will be at risk of death. Within the initial weeks of conflict, the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 Iraqis would need immediate medical attention. Ten million Iraqis would need immediate humanitarian assistance and over two million Iraqis would be made homeless.


The scale of the crisis would be so large that the international community would be unable to prevent widespread suffering. For these reasons and more, it remains in our nation's best interest to avoid another war. The risk of excessive civilian casualties like those predicted by the UN pose a grave risk to our national security, making the U.S. more of a target of retaliatory attacks by terrorists.


Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, we recognize the immense responsibility you have to protect our homeland and keep our nation secure. As veterans who honorably served our nation in its wars, we believe that our perspectives, knowledge and expertise can aid you at this crucial time, as you continue to deliberate on whether or not to commit our nation to war.


We therefore request a meeting at your earliest possible convenience. We look forward to any opportunity to come together with you to discuss the matters we have raised.


Sincerely,


Vice Admiral Ralph Weymouth, USN, Retired
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN, Retired
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA, Retired
Colonel David H. Hackworth, USA, Retired
Colonel Larry Williams, USMC, Retired
Colonel James E Unterseher, USA, Retired
Colonel James B. Burkholder, USA, Retired
Colonel Roger F. Strand, USAF, Retired
Colonel Virginia A. Metcalf, USA, Retired
Colonel Mary H. Yeakel, USA, Retired
Colonel Henrik O. Lunde, USA, Retired
Colonel Bruce S. Jarstfer, USA, Retired
Colonel Thomas Patrick Chisholm, USA, Retired
Colonel James Steven Chandler, USA
Colonel James J. Kent, USA, Retired
Colonel Grace E. Squires, USA, Retired
Colonel Carol Anne O‚Donnell, USA, Retired
Captain Kris Kristofferson, USA, Retired
Captain Thomas C. Tindall Jr., USNR, Retired
Captain Herbert A. Blough, USN, Retired
Captain M. David Preston, USCG
Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth K. McGillicuddy, USMC, Retired
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 05:32 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Gickies Gageeze:

Germany was responsible for 2 Worldwars
After the fall of the 3rd Reich some of us learned the lesson history made for us history.

Klaus
Austria-Hungary was responsible for the first one, though.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 05:37 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:19 PM
Re: Economic Factors? This is a Banking War.

Quote:
Originally posted by elfyx
Okay, nobody's innocent here. *Everybody* stands to gain and/or lose in this war, including the French, Germans, Russia, and definitely the U.S.

I do think there are some moral positions in all of this, but lets not delude ourselves either. The economic factor is overwhelming. In fact, it is my opinion that along with the obvious zionist agenda, the main reason for this war is economic, and economic globalism. I briefly detailed some of this in another post a while back. Basically, the U.S. economy is in a world of hurt; more than the financial guys are letting on (though Greenspan is starting to let hints slip through). It is no secret financial topbrass are playing financial collapse games with the FED and the Council on Foregin Relations in NY right now. The world all over, from China to Russia and more are dropping the U.S. dollar from their holdings like there's no tomorrow. They are all moving towards the Euro. OPEC is moving to the Euro. Iraq already has. The U.S. can't simply print Euros. Many financial analysts simply don't see the Federal Reserve System surviving a financial collapse. The FED is a house of cards; a ponzai scheme if you will, which has essentially played itself out. Only more massive debt can prop this system up. Of course we are seeing this in Bush's insane economic planning. Nevertheless, the U.S. will go bankrupt if this isn't changed soon, or it doesn't achieve worldwide economic dominance. And I hate Bush for this; he's betting the future of an entire country on his Pax Americana ambitions. We won't have much to worry about if the U.S. dominates the world economy, which is, of course, very much tied to the U.S. economy. The very heart of governments and financial institutions worldwide are jockeying for position in this banking war. The U.S. and Britain are on one side of it. The first step towards this goal is the control of Iraq. It's been documented, folks. France, Germany, and Russia are on the other side of this banking war and want no part of world-wide American capotolistic dominance. Oil plays a key role in all of this, of course, which is one reason why Iraq is so key to PNAC's ambitions. The world is currently stretched at peak capacity. When the numbers are added up, the evidence indicates that such a peak for conventional oil will arrive around 2005, and about five years later for all hydrocarbons, assuming no radical change in demand. Uh oh.

Yes, Russia and France have long-term oil contract with Iraq. So do many French, British, and other international companies. They shouldn't have to worry about thier contracts, however, they know what the U.S. was essentially told by an ex-Iraqi (defector I believe): That, should there be regime change in Iraq, all existing oil contracts can be null and voided, and war restitutions can be appropriated from Iraqi oil. Of course, just GUESS who is all lined up for this various array of new contracts? Could it maybe, perhaps, just >possibly< be Bush, his father, Cheney, the rest of his administration which is steeped in the oil industry, his corporate "friends", and other interests? This is a no brainer, is in fact, documented, and the rest of the freaking world sees it. France and Russia are pretty miffed about seeing their contracts essentially stolen right from underneath of them, while already having invested billions. We should not forget all of the financial incentives the Bush administration, his friends, and family will make off this war. The answer is that they will make millions upon millions. The whole thing is so sickeningly corrupt, it's not even in the slightest funny.

Nor, I think, should we forget all of the economic "incentives" the U.S. are paying countries for their support. Of course, we are essentially buying out the support of states, and even would try the votes of the security council. When approached by this, Ari Fleischer was literally laughed off stage by the press when he insisted Bush would do no thing. Hehe.
Good, interesting post.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 06:02 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 08:19 PM
I will state the reasons I don't trust the administration line on this war



1.) the SAME ppl who said not to invade iraq the first time...are begging to do it now....it's not basement ping pong...you dont' get a "redo"


2.) the president wasn't in a rush to do this pre 9/11




3.) the administration line is never consistent is it al qaeda...is it WMD's...is it to free the iraqi ppl????....is it cos of oil???....who knows....the administration hasn't done much to convince me that THEY have any clue why they are invading iraq.


4.) Also...the exit strategy is unclear at one point they said we could liberate iraq with minimal effort and that reissitances within would do most of the work...now it's a US led occupation.


5.)...none of the iraqi war plans include WMD contigencies being used on US troops...you'd think if he had them we'd be a little hesitant to go with this

6>) inconsistency....pakistan suplied nuclear technology to N korea...yet...they are our "ally"..and they are goign to recieve a loan write off from the US...iraq has not particiapted in any arms proliferation and is about to get invaded


7.) I do believe that at least airstrikes ar warranted...but not an invasion/groud war





these are the reasons I dont' agree with france and germany



1.) france has a horrible history of percieving global threats...and an even worse history of acting on them


2.) the german government thinks that if they never support another war...ppl will forget their post modern history.


3.)the rise of the right in europe...including the rise of anti semitism in france I feel is clouding the french governments ability to handle this situation reasoanably







I think that both sides need to calm down...iraq is like a kid pitting his parents againt each other to get away with something and it's working.


Bush jumped the gun...he needed to get the entire alliance to set CLEAR dates for iraq to disarm....and make sure that all the bickering was done behind closed doors and a united front was presented to iraq..instead we have this mess and iraq thinks they can get away with whatever they want.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 06:03 PM   #50
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 754
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
A contingent of US Veterans has written a letter to the President. They agree with Russia, France & Germany.
I doubt anyone could underestimate their patriotism.
That was a really eloquent letter, and really does debunk the whole illogical fallacy of unquestioning Patriotism.

I take a moment to honor all of our veterans and current servicemen and women. True Patriots.




...




There are many good reasons to go to war. There are also many good reasons against it. I just wish there weren't so many hidden agendas, corruption, and special interests involved by so many of the world's parties.

.. I'm sick of hearing, again and again ... that there's never gonna be - peace on earth. u2 - a tribute to heroes
__________________
elfyx is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 06:37 PM   #51
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 754
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
I will state the reasons I don't trust the administration line on this war
-- I have many of my own reasons, but I won't list them here, now. I will respond to your thoughts though, because they are good thoughs to think about.


Quote:
1.) the SAME ppl who said not to invade iraq the first time...are begging to do it now....it's not basement ping pong...you dont' get a "redo"
-- I'm not too knowledge about this. Can you elaborate more? I'd like to know more about this.

Quote:
2.) the president wasn't in a rush to do this pre 9/11
-- The Iraqi war has been planned since at least 1997, and as Melon suggested probably since before even then.


Quote:
3.) the administration line is never consistent is it al qaeda...is it WMD's...is it to free the iraqi ppl????....is it cos of oil???....who knows....the administration hasn't done much to convince me that THEY have any clue why they are invading iraq.
-- I'm afraid there might be other agendas at stake here. See my other post for the economic factors. Just my opinion.

Quote:
4.) Also...the exit strategy is unclear at one point they said we could liberate iraq with minimal effort and that reissitances within would do most of the work...now it's a US led occupation.
-- I'm very, very worried about our exit strategy. I'm very worried about the selection of Chalabi to lead a post-saddam Iraq. History has shown that proxy-wars have a horrible track-record, especially in unstable, anti-american regions.


Quote:
5.)...none of the iraqi war plans include WMD contigencies being used on US troops...you'd think if he had them we'd be a little hesitant to go with this
-- I'm triply worried about this! Who was it, dread I think, who posted the article from the Iraqi defector who basically confirmed to all of us that Saddam will use his WMD when backed into a corner. I do think the U.S. are making *some* preparations for chem/bio weapons, but a lot of them are horribly pessimistic. For instance, the Pentagon let it loose on us not too long ago that should there be bio/chem attacks, they are considering using field creamatoriums for our troops! Yes, controversial, and what a sad day it will be if this plan is ever put to use.

Quote:
6>) inconsistency....pakistan suplied nuclear technology to N korea...yet...they are our "ally"..and they are goign to recieve a loan write off from the US...iraq has not particiapted in any arms proliferation and is about to get invaded
-- I don't get this either. The U.S. (and other nation states, too) inconsistency with other dangerous nations is unsettling. I truly believe that N. Korea is a *far* more dangerous rogue state to the world than Iraq. It also disturbs me how the U.S. deals with these gross violators of human rights and international law. I'm very worried, and I'm not alone on this analysis, that N.Korea, if not properly contained, will make an opportunistic move against S. Korea once the U.S. is in the throws of Iraqi war. This could set off China, god-forbid. Pakistan may crumble, and Mushariff overthrown. Should that happen, we'd have to move FAST and HARD against Pakistan to stop nuclear proliferation throughout the mideast. It's not that this will all happen, but there's a good probablity that it could, and spin out of control.


Quote:
7.) I do believe that at least airstrikes ar warranted...but not an invasion/groud war

-- unfortunately, airstrikes may not be enough. This may, indeed, have to be drawn into an ugly street and/or urban war - at least in Baghdad. I tend to think we could do this via intense dimplomatic/other pressure combined with a more tactical extraction type of warfare instead of the over-the-top "shock-and-awe" strategy the Pentagon is planning. Multiple theatre-wars are documented in PNAC's plan for American dominance. But, who knows, this could get real ugly real fast. I am worried for all the civilian and "collateral damage" deaths though.


Quote:
these are the reasons I dont' agree with france and germany

1.) france has a horrible history of percieving global threats...and an even worse history of acting on them
-- True, maybe they've learned their lesson and want no part of a Pax Americana? I'm not trying to say their completely innocent, however...

Quote:
2.) the german government thinks that if they never support another war...ppl will forget their post modern history.
-- I don't blame them for being hesitant, but the current pres. ran on an anti-war platform so there are politics involved.

Quote:
3.)the rise of the right in europe...including the rise of anti semitism in france I feel is clouding the french governments ability to handle this situation reasoanably
Anti-semetism is so very dangerous. So is Zionism. Unfortunately, the ground is littered with soft mines like anti-semitism=anti-zionism, which is just untrue. But, you're right, there are a lot of factors clouding the judgement of governments...


Quote:
I think that both sides need to calm down...iraq is like a kid pitting his parents againt each other to get away with something and it's working.

-- I agree with this. I see it as two sides playing the middle. And that is highly destructive.
__________________
elfyx is offline  
Old 03-11-2003, 09:24 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 02:19 PM
BACK TO THE TOPIC

My words are summaries of what I have learned from reading Ken Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm.

from p 204:

France is owed 4.5 Billon Dollars from before the Gulf War.
France is one of Iraq's biggest trqding partners.
France Supported violations of Un resolutions by "REINTERPRETING" resolutions about commercial flight bans.
France received a tremendous amount of food for oil contracts because of this.
France will oppose shoring up sanctions because of the Food Contracts of which they have been the #1 or #2 recipient of contracts.
RElaxing sanctions will benefit France monetarily because of their trading relationships.
They are opposed to regime change because Saddam has treated them so well.



p 205

Russia is owed 8 Billion in pre-Gulf War sales.
Russia is currently the leading nation with contracts to develop Iraqi Oil Fields and Infra structure.
Russia is a prime candidate to rearm Iraq if sanctions are lifted.
Another country with large food for oil contracts
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-13-2003, 02:34 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by elfyx


That was a really eloquent letter, and really does debunk the whole illogical fallacy of unquestioning Patriotism.

I take a moment to honor all of our veterans and current servicemen and women. True Patriots.


There are many good reasons to go to war. There are also many good reasons against it. I just wish there weren't so many hidden agendas, corruption, and special interests involved by so many of the world's parties.

.. I'm sick of hearing, again and again ... that there's never gonna be - peace on earth. u2 - a tribute to heroes

Agreed. I'm tired of all of this on the part of sleazy political figures and business people all over the globe.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-13-2003, 03:08 PM   #54
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: 08:19 PM
Dreadsox:

I'm still curious why legal contracts or debts should change because of a regime change. If the US will change that with their installed regime, it's a war because of economy. And just because of that thinking that everyone who's against war just wants to protect their economy - that's a strange way to proof their "oil interests"

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 12:24 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Klaus..I'm curious why you can say that changing of teh financial structure of iraq post regime change would prove this war was made for economic reasons....all it shows is that we've consolidated iraq financially...we can't make a regime change and leave it witha lame duck economy that's not conducive to teh goal of giving the iraqi ppl a sovereign nation in which they can prosper.






like I said..I'm not for this war...but...there is a lot of BS that's getting thrown around by both sides..and I'm sick of it...I just wish someone would talk straight
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 02:27 AM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V

I'm talking about claims that are far more inciendiary.

All I have to do is point out the history of africa and india to point out where europe has failed in the past.

Exactly. I support those two sentences 100%.

Africans who live in constant poverty, can´t afford food and only can dream of getting HIV drugs, have to bring their claims to the court.

United Kingdom, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Portugal and other nations who benefitted from slave trade, one of the biggest crimes in worldwide history, have to pay big time+interests.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 10:47 AM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Exactly...the trend in europe these days seems to want to point out the US's mistakes over the past half century


but let's examine this history.




Africa .....almost 100 percent european created problem..dividing nations along artificial borders and plundering natural resources..this was also done in the middle east.....


ppl accuse the US of waging an oil war...well that's nothign compared to what europe has done in the last half century

The US may have created saddam...but europe created IRAQ by carving the mid east up under artifical borders.


now...Pakistan India....created by teh british...and perhaps the hottest conflict around in that it ahs teh ability to kill so many ppl so quickly



Israel palestine....need i say more???



Europe's idea of a "diplomatic" solution seems to throughout history involve the oppression of other races....So forgive me if I fail to believe in teh innocence of europe in these matters....they are in fact responsible for the situation in africa which will result in more deaths than anything the human race has seen yet.


Europes politcial track record may in fact prove to be the largest killer in the history of mankind.....so forgve me If I cut my own country a little slack.



People just dont' understand..The US didn't create this mess....we mostly inherited it.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 10:56 AM   #58
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: 08:19 PM
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

I guess there can be more than 1 responsible for it.

Arun V:
Stoping the embargo and raising the Oil production from 5% -> 100% again is a good start without violating old contracts. This would make the new system also more reliable, don't you think so?

If the winner says that old contracts are not gonna be fullfild and "surpise surprise" the new contracts will be done with the invadors - well it gets a bad taste for me.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 11:02 AM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

I guess there can be more than 1 responsible for it.

Arun V:
Stoping the embargo and raising the Oil production from 5% -> 100% again is a good start without violating old contracts. This would make the new system also more reliable, don't you think so?

If the winner says that old contracts are not gonna be fullfild and "surpise surprise" the new contracts will be done with the invadors - well it gets a bad taste for me.

Klaus
Klaus,


At one point france and germany were selling iraq equipment at 4 x the standard price..why..because it was the only deal iraq could get....if the structure of these other deals are so onesided it is in fact unfair for the new government of iraq to bear them. \



at the very least these deals should be restructured

Also sanctions will be lifted once regime change or disarmement are accomplished.


Listen...I think this administration resembles a circus more than anything else...I"m not a fan of it.


But restructuring deals in a post saddam iraq does make sense.




Also similar arrangements were done after WW2 with germany and japan.....and those worked out more than fine.



also...in fact it was NOt restructuring germany's economy after WW1..and in fact making it worse that led to the rise of hitler and WW2...and that versaille treaty was another brilliant european innovation in foreign policy....
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 11:34 AM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:19 PM
a circus?
__________________

__________________
diamond 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 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com