U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Soooooo Sorrrrryyyyyy Saddam (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/soooooo-sorrrrryyyyyy-saddam-67771.html)

Dreadsox 11-08-2002 10:06 PM

Soooooo Sorrrrryyyyyy Saddam
 
https://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=350321


Well, it looks like the UN is now behind the United States and England about Iraq.


Sooooooo.......


How many of you will now support action against Iraq if they do not comply with the new resolutions?


Peace (To ALL)

U2Bama 11-08-2002 10:50 PM

Saddam is a fart-knocker; I don't care what anyone else here says.

diamond 11-08-2002 11:49 PM

:up:

FizzingWhizzbees 11-09-2002 08:49 AM

I voted no. I don't support attacking Iraq regardless of the opinion of the UN.

It'll be interesting to see how much opposition to an attack just melts away now France, Russia, China, the UK and US have given their support to it.

STING2 11-09-2002 05:55 PM

Funny, how many people opposed to military action here did so on the grounds that the USA did not have the support of the world community. Now that the USA does, it will be interesting to see those same people's opinions on the issue now.

Rono 11-10-2002 05:20 AM

Funny ?

Dreadsox 11-10-2002 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rono
Funny ?
Yes it is funny......

I think most people who were against the action felt that Bush was not working through the UN the way his father did. It is a different situation from when his father weas president. Not as 'clear cut" as some have pointed out.

15-0 Vote.
He has the support of the UN.....


I really wonder what evidence was shared behind the scenes to bring about the vote......That nobody thought would happen.




Peace to all.

Salome 11-10-2002 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
Funny, how many people opposed to military action here did so on the grounds that the USA did not have the support of the world community. Now that the USA does, it will be interesting to see those same people's opinions on the issue now.
almost as funny + interesting as trying to establish how many of the people who claimed that they gave a rat's ass about the UN's opinion + that Sadam has had his "last oportunity" a long time ago will now see this UN resolution as a "victory"

STING2 11-10-2002 04:12 PM

I never said that I did not give a rats ass about the UN's opinion. I have always stated that the USA was acting in accordance with the UN ceace fireagreement and UN resolutions passed in 1990/1991 unlike many of the other UN members. The USA has always had the legal right to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with its UN obligations passed under chapter 7 rules that allow for the use of military force to bring compliance. To satisfy world opinion though, without any legal need to do so, the USA had another resolution passed in the UN and it passed 15-0. Yet, it does not surprise me that there are people here and elsewhere that will not see this as approval for Bush and his policies on Iraq. They will now simply dismiss the new UN resolution which they said was required to do anything. So, yep, I do find that a bit funny.

Anthony 11-10-2002 04:25 PM

I support the UN resolution. I still do not support war.

I think the parties concerned should act in the way they claim to be acting at the moment; we see what Hussein's got, see whether he is willing to give them up, and then see what options we have as of yet. I still do not believe in disregarding all of this with war branded on our intentions. If we should act, we should act with caution. A caution, which I must confess to, has been exhibited by the Bush administration.

Ant.

Salome 11-10-2002 04:38 PM

I have problems seeing this solution as Bush his take on how the situation with Iraq should be solved

Bush started with statements such as "when you're not with us you're against us"
he has made clear from the beginning (the beginning of exactly what, I'm not sure of) that attacking Iraq is the only solution
so I have trouble seeing the UN resolution as Bush succeeding in getting his message across

that's why I think it's kind of ironic that I'm reading posts now how Bush got what he wanted from the beginning
he hasn't
he wanted to attack the axis of evil, starting with Iraq


Bush has made clear he won't take no as an answer
he will attack whether the UN agrees or not

the UN has now found a way to at least stall some time
I don't think that will help
neither do I think that bombing Iraq will help solve the problems between the Western society and the Middle East


I think the problem is far greater than the question whether it's funny or not that people at this forum posted their opinion that it is not smart to attack with no allies to back you up

Zoomerang96 11-10-2002 05:41 PM

ya you know what, if the us didnt have such huge interests in their oil, we'd never pay attention to them.

honestly, they wouldnt make the news. noone here would even know who saddam is. have they proved that theyre supporting terrorists, particularly osama bin laden and his cronies?

what about palestine? dont they have terrorists? why dont they go and clean that up? again, no oil, no reason to send americans there.

meanwhile in china and north korea, theyre the ones who have human rights groups up in arms, but because they are militairy powers, and dont possess oil, the us will abstain from attacking them. for now.

STING2 11-11-2002 12:07 AM

If all Bush wanted to do was attack Iraq, he could have done that months ago or even a year ago.

Bushes goal has been to disarm Iraq period, with or without inspections. Bush never made clear that attacking Iraq was the only solution. He did say that if the same inspections regime was used that failed to 100% account for Iraq's WMD program from 1991-1998 that the military solution would be the only option. Bush has pushed for a tough resolution in the UN that opens all of Iraq to inspections and allows for military operations to begin if there is any stalling at any point by Iraq.

Bush has gotten exactly what he wanted, not that he needed it to legally take action against Iraq though. If the UN has vetoed the resolution or said no to it, then we would cooperate with other countries outside the UN to bring Iraq into compliance with the Gulf War ceace fire terms of 1991.

The UN vote has no effect on US preperations for military operations against Iraq. Ships filled with tanks and other equipment continue to head toward the Gulf region as they have been doing for the past month. Bush hopes that the inspections will succeed, but we are prepared go to war if Iraq returns to its cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement for the Gulf War was not set up so Iraq could decide 11 years later if they wanted to comply with the conditions of that ceacefire agreement.

The situation in Iraq is not about western society vs. the middle east. Its about Iraq's unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions brought into being because of its unprovoked aggression in the region. Iraq's behavior and weapons of mass destruction programs together, threaten international security.

When international security is threatened, its not smart to do nothing just because the opinions of others say not to. Bush has succeeded in convincing the world that only a toughened inspections regime with the potential to use force if Iraq obstructs the inspections is the only way to disarm Iraq. It is the other members of the UN that have switched to Bushes position.

Bush has never stated that the USA is going to invade North Korea or Iran, the other members of the Axis of Evil. Honestly describing their behavior cannot be translated as were going to militarily invade them.

In regards to Iraq, Bush never stated that he would never work with the UN and would invade Iraq immediately in regards to Iraq's violation of UN resolutions. If that were the case, the USA would have invaded Iraq months ago. He has doubted the ability of the old UN inspections regime to work. But he got the UN to approve a new resolution that would clearly spell out that the inspectors were allowed to go anywhere they want, and that obstruction would mean that military action could come at any time. He got that all in one resolution despite European request for two seperate resolutions.

Honestly, I never thought that Bush would be able to get the UN to go along. But he did with a 15-0 vote! Thats better than his father did when Iraq brutally invaded Kuwait. The Bush administration has always wanted UN support for disarming Iraq. It simply said though, it would not be constrained in disarming Iraq if it did not get that support. It would be absurd not defend oneself just because of a vote in the UN. The USA has demonstrated though that it is willing to listen to other countries concerns by working with the UN. Now, US military action, if needed, has the stamp of UN approval on it.

STING2 11-11-2002 12:19 AM

Zoomerang,

All countries have huge interest in oil. Its a vital part of the global economy, and a dictator cannot be allowed to toy with it and there by play with peoples standard of living around the world. But even in countries that do not have oil, like Afghanistan, if they engage or support actions that threaten the security and standard of living of people around the world, then yes the USA and other countries are going to be involved in solving that security problem posed by that country.

Palestine does not have terrorist armed with weapons of mass destruction currently. In addition, Israel has managed the terror there very well considering its size and depth of the terror movement in the area. The IDF can take care of things there without help from the USA.

Actually China does have oil. But unlike Iraq, they have not invaded and attacked 4 different countries without provication in the past 15 years like Iraq has. China is not in violation of chapter 7 security council resolutions that call for the use of force to bring about compliance.

North Korea unlike Iraq, has not invaded and attacked 4 different countries, without provication, in the past 15 years. North Korea is not in violation of chapter 7 security council resolutions that call for the use of force to bring about compliance.

ghetofabu 11-12-2002 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoomerang96
ya you know what, if the us didnt have such huge interests in their oil, we'd never pay attention to them.
I don't think this is strictly an oil thing. We do not even get a majority of our oil from there. It is the Europen community if I am not mistaken who does. *goes to dig up link to support this*

ghetofabu 11-12-2002 05:26 PM

I don't want to get off topic but.....
 
This is not the link I was looking for but it is still educational in and of itself. I think it is a easy enough read.

Sources of United States Oil

btw Much props to my maple leaf folks up north (if you read doc you will understand why.) :sexywink:

deep 11-12-2002 05:30 PM

It is an oil thing. Don't kid yourself.

The plan is have the US rely less on Saudi Arabia.

With a friendly Iraqi regime supplying oil, the US will not have to do business with the funders and supporterts of 9-11.

STING2 11-12-2002 06:37 PM

When Iraq does agree to sale oil under the UN plan of oil for humanitarian supplies program, Iraq already supplies the USA with a good chunk of oil. But the entire Persian Gulf combined only supplies the USA with 13% of its oil. But Saudia Arabia supplies the entire planet with 40% of the worlds oil used last year.

What everyone is concerned about, is not exactly where they get the oil from, but what the market price of oil will be. Even if we get only a fraction of our oil from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has the biggest effect on the Global price of oil because it is the largest supplier. Iraq is a big supplier as well, but Saudi Arabia usually makes up for Iraq(when they don't sell their oil under the UN plan) and pumps more oil to keep the price down and protect the global economy.

FizzingWhizzbees 11-13-2002 04:51 AM

Iraq has the second largest resources of oil in the world. Of course the US wants to get its hands on those resources. But it's more than just wanting access - it's a case of wanting to control who else has access to the oil.

On the original question - I don't see why someone who believed the war to be immoral when proposed only by the United States should suddenly become a supporter of war now that it's backed by some other countries. It's immoral because the last Gulf war killed over 100,000 people. It's immoral because it's unjustified. It's immoral because it's punishing innocent people for the crimes of their (unelected) leader. Are any of those factors changed by the backing of the United Nations? No - so why should anyone suddenly turn from an opponent of war into a supporter of it.

STING2 11-13-2002 06:16 PM

Fizzing,

The USA and other countries already recieves oil from Iraq through the UN oil for humanitarian supplies program. The US government does not control any other countries oil, but private US companies can partner or get involved in extracting oil from other countries territory. The USA is involved with Iraq in this conflict because of legitamite national and international security reasons in regards to Iraq's conduct in the region and the continueing unresolved aftermath of its brutal invasion of Kuwait in 1990, its violation of 16 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules, and its threat to regional and international security because of its past behavior and current stockpile of WMD.

I actually do agree with you on the point of people simply supporting the policy on the grounds that the UN does. I always thought people should support the USA's policy based on whether they thought it was the best solution to the problem, not simply because the United Nations approved it or not.

It is not immoral to engage in defensive actions that might kill others if that is the only way to liberate someone, defend someone, or insure security when another is in gross violation of international laws and resolutions. There are few wars in history that had more justification than the 1991 Gulf War. The 100,000 people that Iraq lost were primarily military personal in the course of battle and not innocent civilians. Steps were even taken to reduce losses among Iraqi troops, providing that they surrendered and left behind their equipment.

Dreadsox 11-13-2002 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Iraq has the second largest resources of oil in the world. Of course the US wants to get its hands on those resources. But it's more than just wanting access - it's a case of wanting to control who else has access to the oil. ]


Right....and we went to war 10 years ago to get the oil too. I heard that at plenty of Anti-War rallies here in Boston over the last war. "Hell no we won't go .... We won;t fight for Texaco."

Please...show me some evidence from the last war that demostrates we ware after the oil. Show me how the USA has made a profit from the last war with Iraq.


Quote:

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
On the original question - I don't see why someone who believed the war to be immoral when proposed only by the United States should suddenly become a supporter of war now that it's backed by some other countries. It's immoral because the last Gulf war killed over 100,000 people. It's immoral because it's unjustified. It's immoral because it's punishing innocent people for the crimes of their (unelected) leader. Are any of those factors changed by the backing of the United Nations? No - so why should anyone suddenly turn from an opponent of war into a supporter of it.

By your statement are you implying that the last war was unjustified? Maybe we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait? Would that have been acceptable to you? Maybe because innocent people may have been killed in WWII the United States should not have come to Europes aid.

As for the question I posed....There were many people who were upset saying Bush was acting without the authority of the UN. Despite 16 other resolutions...we had to get #17. I don't know....how much justification is necessary.....It seems that many have changed their tune...or have become quite silent on this issue.

Unelected....He was elected a month ago.....
The Iraqi legislature voted against accepting the resolution.....
Sounds like Democracy in action.

speedracer 11-15-2002 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deep
It is an oil thing. Don't kid yourself.

The plan is have the US rely less on Saudi Arabia.

With a friendly Iraqi regime supplying oil, the US will not have to do business with the funders and supporterts of 9-11.

Well, by the same token I could argue that the only reason France and Russia oppose an attack on Iraq is because oil and defense interests in France and Russia don't want the US or other countries to gain an upper hand in business dealings with the new Iraq. But I won't.

Instead, I'll attach the following article from The New Republic. Enjoy.

--------------------------

Crude

by Peter Beinart

Post date 10.01.02 | Issue date 10.07.02

Antiwar liberals say America shouldn't attack Iraq because the world doesn't want us to. Antiwar realists say America shouldn't attack Iraq because it will destabilize the Middle East. Antiwar isolationists say America shouldn't attack Iraq because it is hasn't attacked us. And in the mainstream press, these critiques get most of the attention. But venture a little further out on the ideological grid, and the critique becomes more cynical. Antiwar leftists say America shouldn't attack Iraq because American foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by oil.

While the "this war is really about oil" thesis may be marginal in Washington, it's pervasive beyond America's shores. And American hawks haven't spent much time refuting it. At its most sophisticated, the thesis goes something like this: After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves. For most of the last eleven years, Iraq has been exporting far less oil than it did before the Gulf war. And the oil it has been pumping has largely been in conjunction with Russian, French, and Italian oil companies--not with American ones. American oil companies want to change that and make the big bucks that could accompany intensive development of Iraq's largely untapped oil fields. What's more, the United States could force a pliant post-Saddam Hussein regime to spurn OPEC's production quotas and flood the market with cheap crude. That would boost the U.S. economy, potentially wreck the international cartel that keeps oil relatively expensive, and reduce U.S. dependence on a Saudi Arabian monarchy the American right no longer trusts.

It's a seductive thesis--especially if you're inclined to believe the worst about the former oilmen who currently occupy the White House. But it has a few problems. First, many of the same leftists who say America is going to war to ensure cheap oil also warn that war with Iraq could wreck the U.S. economy by sending oil prices sky-high. At a press conference recently convened by antiwar Representative Dennis Kucinich, Miriam Pemberton of the dovish Institute for Policy Studies warned that if America attacks Iraq, "Wall Street analysts estimate that oil prices could rise to as much as fifty dollars a barrel, which would affect all business activities in the United States." Pemberton is right about Wall Street's fears. Last week, when Saddam agreed to let weapons inspectors return, raising hopes that war might be averted, the price of oil dropped. In other words, it's not the prospect of war with Saddam that drives oil prices down; it's the prospect of not going to war.

That may be accurate in the short term, acknowledge oil conspiracy theorists, but in the longer term--once the United States has replaced Saddam with a puppet government--the price of oil will plummet. And it's true that a post-Saddam regime could substantially increase production. Before the Gulf war, Iraq produced as much as 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. Some analysts think that with significant foreign investment, Iraq might eventually manage six million barrels--enough to substantially lessen American dependence on Saudi Arabia and perhaps even destroy OPEC, which keeps oil prices artificially high.

But this just raises another logical problem: If all the Bush administration wanted from Iraq were those six million daily barrels of crude--if all its talk about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons was merely a smoke screen--why wouldn't the United States simply lift sanctions? Attacking Saddam, after all, entails huge financial costs, risks American lives, and could prompt civil war in precisely those parts of Iraq where oil companies want to drill. Lifting sanctions would far more easily produce the same result--since it is sanctions that have partially prevented Iraq from importing the equipment that it needs to boost oil production. Saddam has made it clear that he'd love to pump more oil--if the world would let him use the revenue to buy palaces and Scuds. In 1995, for instance, Baghdad announced that if sanctions were lifted it would enter into agreements with foreign oil companies aimed at boosting production to between six and seven million barrels per day--roughly the same amount analysts envision under a post-Saddam regime.

And while Russian, French, and Italian oil companies would have the inside track in cutting deals with Saddam if sanctions fell, that's largely because Washington's anti-Saddam hard-line has kept American oil companies from investing in Iraq. Saddam's government, for its part, has said it would be perfectly happy to partner with American oil companies. And even under sanctions, it has knowingly sold substantial quantities of oil--through middlemen--to U.S. energy behemoths like ChevronTexaco and Valero.

In fact, it isn't war that the American oil industry has been lobbying for all these years; it's the end of sanctions. As late as October 2001, after Bush administration hawks had already begun talking about war with Iraq, the American Petroleum Institute was still focused on trying to lift sanctions. In an interview with Energy Day, an institute spokesman criticized "the roadblocks of U.S. law that unilaterally close important markets to U.S. companies while leaving the door wide open for competitors." Antiwar lefties are quick to cite Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure at Halliburton as evidence that the oil industry is behind America's rush to war. But when Cheney ran Halliburton, he wasn't calling for an invasion of Iraq; and, while for personal reasons more supportive of Iraqi sanctions than most, he nonetheless railed against the sanctions that America imposed everywhere in the Middle East.

Indeed, for their first nine months in office, Cheney and the Bush team didn't propose invading Iraq; they proposed scaling back the U.N. sanctions regime. The Bush administration changed its mind not because of oil but because of terrorism. September 11 made the terrorist threat a reality, and the more American policymakers began worrying about that threat, the more they began worrying about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons--which seems to be how they arrived at war with Iraq.

If the timing of this potential war doesn't fit the oil thesis, neither does the diplomatic maneuvering going on around it. If oil were the Bush administration's top priority, it wouldn't be promising to protect Russia's and France's oil interests in a post-Saddam Iraq in exchange for their votes at the Security Council (see "Asking Price," by Asla Aydintasbas, page 12). If oil was what the Bush team wanted most, it would be encouraging Paris and Moscow to oppose the war, thus clearing the field for U.S. oil companies once Saddam fell.

Whatever you think of the Bushies, September 11, 2001, changed their view of the world. And it is that changed view that has brought America to the brink of war. The left can call that new outlook reckless or arrogant or dumb. But they should at least admit that it's sincere.

Dreadsox 11-15-2002 04:55 PM

Good article....

Where did it come from?

Peace

Salome 11-15-2002 06:06 PM

even though The Netherlands are only a very small country we did have our Golden Age

I don't doubt that the people who lived back then have a whole different view on what exactly went on and why certain decisions were made, but when looking back at it it does seem quite clear that every war we waged (and it's by far the most messy part of our history) did help us along economically

that is how that period of our history will be remembered

The Netherlands wouldn't be what it is now if that hadn't happened
one might even argue that we had some influence on how trade has developed in the world since then - so it might even have (had) some educational values

but even though some positive results and side-effects are clear to all there's no denying we were only looking out for our own best interest

not that there's a lot wrong with that
but it does take some time until we could admit it

U2Bama 11-15-2002 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
Good article....

Where did it come from?

The New Republic, the liberal version of National Review, yet I am sure many of their readers have been disappointed in their post-9/11 support for the War on Terrorism.

~U2Alabama


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com