Why is the US still in Iraq?

[alexruiz]

Why all the people saying that the violation of 11 or so UN resolutions deserved an invasion, but the over 60 violations to UN resolutions by an ally of the USA doesn't deserve strong action.....

If the objective was to "save the UN reputation", do it right! Make ALL the violators obey those resolutions. The argument about the UN resolutions is a weak excuse.

 

[Fencer128]

That is a tough point.... What proof would be contundent? A recorded conversation (phone or live) between dubya and the halliburton people talking about "opportunity for a very important company that is vital to the USA leadership in a new market that is not very friendly towards the country, but despite the challenges there should be a way to make it happen, specially if some other factors are weighted and A REASON is found to pursue the business......" Does it sound right?

If that proof is needed, it is not going to happen. Maybe you can call them and ask them for a declaration or acceptance. ..... BIG TICKET CORRUPTION has always been subtle, until the consequences are too big and it is too late to revert it. ENRON? MCI? I don't think those people gave proof about the scams or accpeted it.... the scams were uncovered because the consequences were already taking a hit into the corporations. Have the corporations not faced economic problems, management would have walked away with he scams......

Andy, what kinf of proof would be considered as enough?

Maybe I should have said "evidence" as opposed to "proof" - for the reasons you state. What I'm trying to get to is how you came to the decision that it's about oil. I've tried to read around extensively and haven't come to that conclusion. You obviously believe it to be true. I'd like to see the evidence that convinced you and to be sure that you were keeping an open mind when deciding - in case I'm wrong. I don't *think* I'm wrong (though I have been and will be again) on this - maybe you have some information that has eluded me? Basically I want to make sure that this is more than a "conspiracy theory" - that it is grounded in objective evidence.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Why all the people saying that the violation of 11 or so UN resolutions deserved an invasion, but the over 60 violations to UN resolutions by an ally of the USA doesn't deserve strong action.....

If the objective was to "save the UN reputation", do it right! Make ALL the violators obey those resolutions. The argument about the UN resolutions is a weak excuse.

I believe the arguement is in the wording of the resolutions. Can you show me some of those 60 resolutions that state "serious consequences" for non-compliance and that were passed by the UNSC as opposed to the general assembly? (just the pertinent parts please).

Thanks,

Andy

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.

or maybe could it be that if we left the country would return to COMPLETE chaos and the terrorists could take control of the country?

your an idiot.

LOL, look in the mirror nancy! Terrorists will take control of the country? Silly me, I forgot, terrorists have that "hidden agenda" behind all the killings, car bombs, suicide bombings.... there lies a bunch of wannabe leaders and career politicians ready and able to seize control of the ENTIRE country of Iraq.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm really wondering. Why did Bush say the war is not over yet? What else do they need to do? Don't wanna start a flame-war so flamers, take your posts somewhere else.

If you don't intend to start a flamewar then why do ask such a stupid question? And by stupid, I am being nice... moronic is more like it.

Should we just leave now and let Osama take over? Seriously, answer my question... if we leave now, what happens to the leadership of Iraq without the USA to encourage free elections?

You aren't even a good spammer.

Real nice touch, guy asks a question and you call him a moron. Another high school kid who can't yet vote who gets their political opinions from their white, upper-class Mom and Dad. USA encourage free elections = Let's hope the guy we put into power THIS time in Iraq does not use the tricks we taught him for "bad" reasons. Yawn.

 

[Fencer128]

LOL, look in the mirror nancy! Terrorists will take control of the country? Silly me, I forgot, terrorists have that "hidden agenda" behind all the killings, car bombs, suicide bombings.... there lies a bunch of wannabe leaders and career politicians ready and able to seize control of the ENTIRE country of Iraq.

Did your daddy tell you your opinions and you just myna them like a good little bird?

Could you please explain to me what you think would happen if the coalition pulled out now?

Thanks,

Andy

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm really wondering. Why did Bush say the war is not over yet? What else do they need to do? Don't wanna start a flame-war so flamers, take your posts somewhere else.

Why is the whole world asking this question, even though President Bush said our job in Iraq would last for YEARS?.

Better question... why aren't the sheep in this country asking the question.... Why are we over there in the first place? You got an answer for that? WMD? Nah. Squash terrorism? Never happen. Oil and contracts to rebuild a country we have leveled? Ding ding ding.

 

[Fencer128]

Better question... why aren't the sheep in this country asking the question.... Why are we over there in the first place? You got an answer for that? WMD? Nah. Squash terrorism? Never happen. Oil and contracts to rebuild a country we have leveled? Ding ding ding.

After you've answerd my previous post, and if you have time, could you please explain the statement in bold. Obviously terroism at the individual level can never be removed - but IMHO highly organised and large groups can be targetted in order to reduce their infrastructure - and hence their ability to co-ordinate an elaborate attack (9/11 for instance).

What do you mean exactly?

With respect to Iraq - IMHO it wasn't about "getting" the terrorists - more to do with cutting off a potential supply of resources to them, and nailing a regional threat at the same time.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Better question... why aren't the sheep in this country asking the question.... Why are we over there in the first place? You got an answer for that? WMD? Nah. Squash terrorism? Never happen. Oil and contracts to rebuild a country we have leveled? Ding ding ding.

After you've answerd my previous post, and if you have time, could you please explain the statement in bold. Obviously terroism at the individual level can never be removed - but IMHO highly organised and large groups can be targetted in order to reduce their infrastructure - and hence their ability to co-ordiante an elaborate attack (9/11 for instance).

What do you mean exactly?

With respect to Iraq - IMHO it wasn't about "getting" the terrorists - more to do with cutting off a potential supply of resources to them, and nailing a regional threat at the same time.

Cheers,

Andy

But why just Iraq? Why not the whole middle east for that matter. It amazes me that most people seem to think the root of evil is contained in the boundry lines of Iraq. My fear is this and this alone (and btw- I never said we should pull out, jesus we can't pull now!) ...

Where next?

Lot of crazy religious fundimentalists over there in the Middle East and fancy that, most of the HATE the US. Should we care? Probably not. Seems that most of the world has hated the US for quite some time now. I just don't like giving a president... ANY president carte blanche to invade any country he precieves as being a treat. When it comes to the "removing and bad man from power in another country", who is next in line here? Hell, I can think of a few rulers who we need to snuff out before or at least in the same breath as Saddam.

So really to answer your question, terrorism is global certainly. Every thing we have done in Iraq the past year will not stop one hijacker from carrying out their mission if they are THAT convicted to their plan. Since the only time we have seen terrorism in our country occured in the same location 10 or so years apart, it seem utterly ridiculous for any American to feel "safer" now that Saddam has been captured. Just a little tired of our administration playing World Police when there are so many more pressing domestic problems that could be getting air time and a XXBillion dollar boost.

 

[Fencer128]

Thanks, could you answer my prior post too.

But why just Iraq? Why not the whole middle east for that matter. It amazes me that most people seem to think the root of evil is contained in the boundry lines of Iraq. My fear is this and this alone (and btw- I never said we should pull out, jesus we can't pull now!) ...

Because Iraq had - according to the UN - massive stockpiles of unnaccounted WMD. Given the history between Iraq and the US, and the rethinking on whether such threats should be allowed following 9/11 and the obvious gains to be had if Al-Qaeda and Saddam had a shared hatred of the US, it stood out.

Where next?

Nowhere hopefully. So long as the UN gets a look in at your weapons. The exception is N. Korea - who unfortunately are far too powerful a foe to take on unless absolutely necessary.

Lot of crazy religious fundimentalists over there in the Middle East and fancy that, most of the HATE the US. Should we care? Probably not. Seems that most of the world has hated the US for quite some time now. I just don't like giving a president... ANY president carte blanche to invade any country he precieves as being a treat. When it comes to the "removing and bad man from power in another country", who is next in line here? Hell, I can think of a few rulers who we need to snuff out before or at least in the same breath as Saddam.

Well hopefully he hasn't got carte blanche. The people of the US can vote him out next election if they think he can do as he will - without the support of congress or the electorate.

So really to answer your question, terrorism is global certainly. Every thing we have done in Iraq the past year will not stop one hijacker from carrying out their mission if they are THAT convicted to their plan. Since the only time we have seen terrorism in our country occured in the same location 10 or so years apart, it seem utterly ridiculous for any American to feel "safer" now that Saddam has been captured. Just a little tired of our administration playing World Police when there are so many more pressing domestic problems that could be getting air time and a XXBillion dollar boost.

One less supply of a multitude of chemical, biological and potentially nuclear technologies though. One less financier of terrorism in the middle-east and perhaps beyond.

EDIT: I'd be interested as to how - short of a bomb threat - any hijacking could work. Certainly suicide attacks from trained pilots will be out.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Antebios]

VOTE FOR BUSH!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Antebios
VOTE FOR BUSH!

Are you going to post that in every thread? Or do you have a deeper point to make?

Andy

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Maybe I should have said "evidence" as opposed to "proof" - for the reasons you state. What I'm trying to get to is how you came to the decision that it's about oil. I've tried to read around extensively and haven't come to that conclusion. You obviously believe it to be true. I'd like to see the evidence that convinced you and to be sure that you were keeping an open mind when deciding - in case I'm wrong. I don't *think* I'm wrong (though I have been and will be again) on this - maybe you have some information that has eluded me? Basically I want to make sure that this is more than a "conspiracy theory" - that it is grounded in objective evidence.

Cheers,

Andy

Well, some "evidence"

- While building the "coallition", Dubya REJECTED the petition from the countries that were owed money by Iraq to respect those debts. If the interest is in "security and forbidden weapons" making a very little commitment is a very minor step to guarante the figh against "terror" goes smooth.
- On the same line, go a little further. If you need to show CREDIBILITY, was it that hard to say that the current contracts would be RESPECTED? I am pretty sure the heads of state of the involved countries PROPOSED that to dubya in ther meetings prior to the invasion. Why didn't it happen?
Finally, you see the contract given to halliburton without a proper bid process? Some say it is a consequence, but is it that hard to think it was in fact planned to be that way since the beginning...

If you are the strongest, you can do whatever you want, but it doesn;t mean it is RIGHT. As Salvador Allende would say "To place into the ignominy of history those who have the brute force, but not the reason" If the reason is there, SHOW IT and PROVE it. Iraq and al-quaida connection has not been found, and unless a rusty AK-47 is a WMD, those forbidden devices have NOT been found.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Why all the people saying that the violation of 11 or so UN resolutions deserved an invasion, but the over 60 violations to UN resolutions by an ally of the USA doesn't deserve strong action.....

If the objective was to "save the UN reputation", do it right! Make ALL the violators obey those resolutions. The argument about the UN resolutions is a weak excuse.

I believe the arguement is in the wording of the resolutions. Can you show me some of those 60 resolutions that state "serious consequences" for non-compliance and that were passed by the UNSC as opposed to the general assembly? (just the pertinent parts please).

Thanks,

Andy

I'll look for them, but in the infamous 1441 I don't see it authorizes the USA to enforce it..... It was up to the UN, so the decision had to come from the UN, right?

Alex

 

[Fencer128]

Thanks

Well, some "evidence"

- While building the "coallition", Dubya REJECTED the petition from the countries that were owed money by Iraq to respect those debts. If the interest is in "security and forbidden weapons" making a very little commitment is a very minor step to guarante the figh against "terror" goes smooth.

So if I read this right - the imlpication is that France and co would have got onboard if we'd allowed them to make Iraq homour it's financial debt? A debt negotiated run up by a dictator, which the existance thereof will take money from the rebuilding of Iraq.

- On the same line, go a little further. If you need to show CREDIBILITY, was it that hard to say that the current contracts would be RESPECTED? I am pretty sure the heads of state of the involved countries PROPOSED that to dubya in ther meetings prior to the invasion. Why didn't it happen?

So, in your opinion, the reason its about oil is because Bush did not allow exisiting oil contracts to be respected? See above for my understanding of that.

Finally, you see the contract given to halliburton without a proper bid process? Some say it is a consequence, but is it that hard to think it was in fact planned to be that way since the beginning...

So, the US government deliberately played it so that some countries didn't play ball --> could "fairly" be ruled out of receiving building contracts --> Haliburton could get the work? Surely if other governements had been on board the US would still get a lot of work, and the cost of the war plus the temporary administartion would also be shared, and thus less?

If you are the strongest, you can do whatever you want, but it doesn;t mean it is RIGHT. As Salvador Allende would say "To place into the ignominy of history those who have the brute force, but not the reason"

Not quite sure how that backs up your case.

If the reason is there, SHOW IT and PROVE it. Iraq and al-quaida connection has not been found, and unless a rusty AK-47 is a WMD, those forbidden devices have NOT been found.

The question isn't whether they are there. The question is was it right to believe/assume they were there - given that the UN stated massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons from '91 were unnaccounted for, Saddam is a liar and that he's pretty good at giving the UN weapons inspectors the run around. What conclusion sounds the most reasonable?

I don't see how you can reasonably come to the conclusion "it's about oil" from what you have said. I am trying.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Why all the people saying that the violation of 11 or so UN resolutions deserved an invasion, but the over 60 violations to UN resolutions by an ally of the USA doesn't deserve strong action.....

If the objective was to "save the UN reputation", do it right! Make ALL the violators obey those resolutions. The argument about the UN resolutions is a weak excuse.

I believe the arguement is in the wording of the resolutions. Can you show me some of those 60 resolutions that state "serious consequences" for non-compliance and that were passed by the UNSC as opposed to the general assembly? (just the pertinent parts please).

Thanks,

Andy

I'll look for them, but in the infamous 1441 I don't see it authorizes the USA to enforce it..... It was up to the UN, so the decision had to come from the UN, right?

Alex

Yes - it authorises the UN. The action taken was outside of the UN since, in the minds of the US/UK, the UN refused to enforce its resolutions. I don't think anyone would argue that the recent war was not a US/UK/coalition action.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11

Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.

No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.

Dari calling someone "closeted"?!?

Ohhhh the irony...

 

[alexruiz]

Andy, you are NOT trying hard enough to be critical and look for more of what the eye meets. I don't know how you can get convinced that there was premeditation to invade a sovereign nation, and that an EXCUSE was needed.

You are talking about "taking away money needed for the reconstruction", but overlook the fact that such reconstruction could have had FAR more involvement form other countries if WILLINGNESS was demosntrated. What if they decided to reduce the debt BECAUSE there is WILLINGNESS to show that the MAIN search is for forbidden weapons. I don't think they would have supported the invasion anyway, but a simple FACT of ETHICS shows integrity...... It doesn't matter if the debt and contracts were awarded by a dictator, after all, they were awarded in the name of the country... so if they are not awarded to the USA they are wrong.

Let's not forget ALL the bogus information that was FORGED to make Iraq appear as "on track with WMD". You are menitoning about "unaccounted amounts" of missing wepaons, so I am pretty sure you can SHOW and POINT those parts in the documents where weapons are missing.... The inspectors were working hard, and getting MORE and MORE cooperation. They needed time, and the occupation has PROVED it.

 

[Strk]

Ever think France, Russia and Germany didn't join because the war was never really justified?

Was Iraq involved in 9/11? No.
Did Iraq attack us? No.
Are there WMD? No

Yes, Iraq was oppressed by a terrible individual with the support of many just as horrible, if not worse, as he is. The fact remains that Iraq is/was not the only country to be under the control of a ruthless dictator.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Andy, you are NOT trying hard enough to be critical and look for more of what the eye meets. I don't know how you can get convinced that there was premeditation to invade a sovereign nation, and that an EXCUSE was needed.

I am trying. There's a thin line between "looking between the lines" and "seeing what you want to see" (what a sentence! ).

Seriously though, I am convinced there was premeditation - after all it was talked about for months (am I missing your meaning here?)

You are talking about "taking away money needed for the reconstruction", but overlook the fact that such reconstruction could have had FAR more involvement form other countries if WILLINGNESS was demosntrated.

By willingness - so far you have given the example of oil contracts not being abolished. I don't agree with that one (for reasons given previously) so can you give me another example or two of what you mean by willingness please?

What if they decided to reduce the debt BECAUSE there is WILLINGNESS to show that the MAIN search is for forbidden weapons.

Did they (no coalition members) offer up such a deal? Did they ever suggest that the invasion wasn't to search for forbidden weapons? I don't think they did. There sure was a lot of "behind the scenes" negotiating going on though.

I don't think they would have supported the invasion anyway

I'm not so sure - but that comment does undermine your previous one somewhat.

but a simple FACT of ETHICS shows integrity......

I don't know about simple facts and integrity - you'll have to elaborate for me as I see no black and white moral issues in all of this.

It doesn't matter if the debt and contracts were awarded by a dictator, after all, they were awarded in the name of the country... so if they are not awarded to the USA they are wrong.

It matters if it was a bad deal and that the country owes more than it can earn at present. That matters a lot right now IMHO. Let us not confuse contracts with debt. With resepect to any "prior to the war" debt - is the US asking for any money, this would undermine there stance on France, Russia, etc. I don't think they are though. Seems fair and ethical enough to me in that case.

Let's not forget ALL the bogus information that was FORGED to make Iraq appear as "on track with WMD".

Not sure I follow you again. Forged by whom?

You are menitoning about "unaccounted amounts" of missing wepaons, so I am pretty sure you can SHOW and POINT those parts in the documents where weapons are missing....

Well, I heard Hans Blix say his inspection team was taked with determining the status of the unnaccounted for WMD from '91 - done through inspection and interview. That's why he was there.

The inspectors were working hard, and getting MORE and MORE cooperation. They needed time

This is true. I voted for more time, though expected the same result. I couldn't be sure that Saddam didn't have them, considering that the inspectors found things off their own back that the Iraqi government had failed to make obvious.

and the occupation has PROVED it.

Proved what exactly?

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: BTW - can we do this one point at a time - the posts are getting painfully long with so many questions in each post. Cheers.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Strk
Ever think France, Russia and Germany didn't join because the war was never really justified?

Was Iraq involved in 9/11? No.
Did Iraq attack us? No.
Are there WMD? No

Yes, Iraq was oppressed by a terrible individual with the support of many just as horrible, if not worse, as he is. The fact remains that Iraq is/was not the only country to be under the control of a ruthless dictator.

I understand where you're coming from. You do need to read some of the threads around here though to see how the debate has been dissected and how each case is argued. There are plenty of valid opinions that contradict your implied assessment that the war wasn't justified in the interests of security because Saddam didn't have a hand in 9/11 as far as we know.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Strk
Ever think France, Russia and Germany didn't join because the war was never really justified?

Was Iraq involved in 9/11? No.
Did Iraq attack us? No.
Are there WMD? No

Yes, Iraq was oppressed by a terrible individual with the support of many just as horrible, if not worse, as he is. The fact remains that Iraq is/was not the only country to be under the control of a ruthless dictator.

I understand where you're coming from. You do need to read some of the threads around here though to see how the debate has been dissected and how each case is argued. There are plenty of valid opinions that contradict your implied assessment that the war wasn't justified in the interests of security because Saddam didn't have a hand in 9/11 as far as we know.

Cheers,

Andy

I'm sure there are several threads that go into much detail about what I said. However, a bunch of conspiracy theories does not substitute for the fact that the 3 statements I made are true.

 

[Fencer128]

I'm sure there are several threads that go into much detail about what I said. However, a bunch of conspiracy theories does not substitute for the fact that the 3 statements I made are true.

True yes (possibly execpting the third - which would be "highly unlikely").

The "bunch of conspiracy theories" /= reasoned debate (what I refer to) /= should not have attacked Iraq.

this is the debate I was trying to inform you of. There is more to the decision than the three points you suggest. Other reasons can be seen in the other threads.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[TooOne21]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11

Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.

No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.

:beer: