A strike on Iraq

[CrashedCarDriver]

hmm

well i was just reading up on this on my radiohead msg board, and radiohead along with Massive Attack were ALL OPPOSED on a strike against Iraq

for one it seems like everyone is playing the fool when they are acting like soulless drones in following any of america's commands

for one everyone is going 'you command we obey' to president bush, a man with the so-called 'most power in the world', yet its so obvious he wants to carry on his dad's agenda of bombing Iraq (a key factor why his dad ONLY served one term). for one, you americans sure cant let go of ANYTHING, like, what gives? its ancient history.

who cares about saddam hussain? he will die, he will go to hell, i dont care, he has done nothing to me, and along with that he has done nothing to the american people, yet you americans want to just attack iraq simply because you want to get your kicks like playing a virtual reality game

hmmm in many ways it feels like that stupid game in the playground 'simon says', only this time president bush- a man who in my view is someone that barely draws any inspiration from me, plays simon

the question is, where has democracy gone? it feels like communism still prevails in a way. if it was a true democracy, some leader of a country in the world like england or australia should say 'NO', but no! lets all just play 'you command we obey'

if you americans want to carry out attacking the countries of world, do it by yourself, dont bring everyone else in, for one, america is just another country in the world, it is not the world itself

[brettig]

Comment - The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil

Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region

Mo Mowlam
Thursday September 5, 2002
The Guardian

I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack. The response of the British government seems equally confused, but I just hope that the determination to ultimately attack Iraq does not form the bedrock of their policy. It is hard now to see how George Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world.
What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.

The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality.

But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.

Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable.

The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.

This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it?

- Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001

Don't necessarily agree with this, but think its an interesting viewpoint.

[Tizer]

She makes a lot of sense.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Tizer
She makes a lot of sense.

Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?

[Tizer]

What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the previous passage.

[BAW]

Please don't label all Americans as blind followers of Bush who want to bomb Iraq. There are plenty of us who don't support an attack on Iraq and who aren't really comfortable being the "police of the world." America is a nation of many different viewpoints and we don't all automatically bow down to our leader and blindly accept the decisions he makes.

I love my country but at times its not easy being an American when people make these kind of assumptions. We are NOT all war happy tyrants who want to take over the world.

[Basstrap]

Originally posted by speedracer


Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?

US has no business interferring in other countries politics, they are NOT the UN, though they sometimes act like they are. They are a part of the UN.

There are dozens of rulers in africa at this moment who are just as corrupt or more than Suddam. There have been hundreds all over the world in the 20th century who were just as bad or worse. Why did the US not ever interfer there? why did the US idly sit by as 800,000 tutsies were slaughtered in Rwanda - even the UN did nothing there? why did they not help during any of the other many genocides which occurred in africa?

why did they practically ALLIE themselves with Mobutu, one of the most corrupt leader of the 20th century?

Key: only interfer when there is gain. i.e. free up oil-lines

this may anger you but it is TOO often true.
I have nothing against americans, but politicians are almost never with blemish. Since the american government is always put so intensely under the spotlight people just pick on them more, but there are no blameless governments. The love of money and power corrupts too many.

[Salome]

Originally posted by Basstrap
Since the american government is always put so intensely under the spotlight people just pick on them more, but there are no blameless governments. The love of money and power corrupts too many.

I agree

I don't even mind it that much that governments only do what seems best for them in the short future, but can't they at least admit to that?

[pax]

Watch yourself with generalizing Americans. Not all of us are pro-war, and even those of us who are do not necessarily unilaterally support Bush and the war against Iraq. Bono's American Wife is right.

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by Salome

I don't even mind it that much that governments only do what seems best for them in the short future, but can't they at least admit to that?

I couldn't agree more.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Basstrap



Key: only interfer when there is gain. i.e. free up oil-lines

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

Just because the US has something to gain from toppling Saddam Hussein does *not* automatically make it immoral.

[Basstrap]

Originally posted by speedracer


You say this as if it is a bad thing.

Just because the US has something to gain from toppling Saddam Hussein does *not* automatically make it immoral.

I don't think I implied that
and you're changing the subject

you talked like the US is considering it to get rid of a tyrant, when it seems to me this is obviously not the main objective. Otherwise they would be continually at war with the hosts of other tyrant rulers who are just as bad as Saddam
perhaps you should read my post again

[Hi Bias]

Originally posted by speedracer


Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?

Are you talking about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Both could apply here.

[melon]

Here comes some good questions for everyone:

-- Are you opposed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein?

-- Are you opposed to America toppling Saddam Hussein?

-- Are you opposed to Bush toppling Saddam Hussein?

Answer away...

Melon

[Salome]

I am opposed to anyone toppling of Saddam Hussein without having a real idea what to do when that has happened:
- how will the people of Iraq react?
- how will the other countries in the area react?
- who should be put in power?
- what are we going to do to help Iraq economically?

if we just remove Sadam and leave there is no doubt in my mind that further hatred towards the West has been fuelled
- are we wiiling to risk that?
- can we prevent that?

in conclusion:
do we exactly know what we're getting ourselves into?

what I've read/heard about this topic so far suggests that a real answer to that question isn't yet available

[BAW]

Originally posted by Salome
do we exactly know what we're getting ourselves into?

That pretty much sums up my feelings about the subject.

[Spyplane]

Originally posted by Basstrap


US has no business interferring in other countries politics, they are NOT the UN, though they sometimes act like they are. They are a part of the UN.

What?
If not the US then whom?
We have no business in other countries policies? The truth is we are the only ones with the balls to interviene and put a stop to terrorism, tyrants, dictators, genocide, etc.

The UN?
We are the UN buddy!
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!

There are dozens of rulers in africa at this moment who are just as corrupt or more than Suddam.

Really? Have they invaded Kuwait too?

There have been hundreds all over the world in the 20th century who were just as bad or worse. Why did the US not ever interfer there?

Oh like who ?

If you ask Fizzing Whizzbees she will give you her list of how the evil interferring US got involved when we had no business, repeatedly.

why did the US idly sit by as 800,000 tutsies were slaughtered in Rwanda - even the UN did nothing there? why did they not help during any of the other many genocides which occurred in africa?

Anyway, we did go to Rwanda. And in fact I was SUPPOSED to go when we suddenly went to Saudi instead.


But SO WHAT? Forget the US, what about YOU?

Why didn't YOU go to Rwanda? What about anyone else? Oh I forgot, there isn't anybody else. Just us, yet our inaction leads to your protests.

Key: only interfer when there is gain. i.e. free up oil-lines

As someone who has risked my own life for the better part of the last decade, I take extreme offense to this accusation.

Tell me then; what should we do? Since we are the only ones in the world who stand up and take action (yes you guys follow our example from time to time as do others but you never initiate action on your own) we have so many battles (as you pointed out too) that we have to pick and choose.

ANd we always rebuild damaged nations yet if we somehow are percieved to profit then we are evil? Any idea how much money we have spent rebuilding? Or how many of our sons and daughters have perished?

this may anger you but it is TOO often true.
I have nothing against americans, but politicians are almost never with blemish. Since the american government is always put so intensely under the spotlight people just pick on them more, but there are no blameless governments. The love of money and power corrupts too many.

Thats very nice, but rather than constantly bicker about America while hiding in the security of our back pocket why don't you do something about it yourself????

( I guess it is just safer in the shadows)

[Spyplane]

Originally posted by paxetaurora
Watch yourself with generalizing Americans. Not all of us are pro-war, and even those of us who are do not necessarily unilaterally support Bush and the war against Iraq. Bono's American Wife is right.

Am I correct in assuming from you and BAW's post that you are implying not all Americans are bad (just the ones that support war)?

[Spyplane]

Originally posted by Hi Bias




Are you talking about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Both could apply here.

You make a good point here. Pakistan is actually helping us as of recent, or at least their govt. was. HOwever, they need their ass kicked.

But we need to take the WAR to Saudi and Iran, where terror seems to originate

[pax]

I've already warned people about rampant anti-Americanism in this thread. Many, many people here are American and fed up.

I'm also going to warn people against strident pro-Americanism. People are allowed to think that the U.S. is wrong--even other Americans. Let's keep at as rational and intellectual as possible.