If Iraq cant defend itself, I see no problem with leaving troops in Iraq, especially at their request. L J
Im getting sick and tired of all this war, why cant we all just get along? Whats so difficult about that? Sam
This one comes quite handy for Bush. I'f Iraq is "asking" for help, the Coalition forces (theoretical) arent invaders anymore... but I'd prop. bett my a** he got told to say that...
I wonder if American tax payers and the families of American soldiers feel the same way... someone has to pay the price. Although the US government initially denied it, as early as in 2004 the US was looking to set up 14 enduring military bases in Iraq, speculated to replace the ones in Saudi Arabia. Why? Becuase Saudi Arabia has the US over an (oil) barrel, and hence can extend or withdraw its political co-operation with the US at will. And given that nobody is eager to be friends with a Western power that is pissing off Middle Eastern coutries everywhere, and is gunning for Iran, Saudi Arabia's continued co-operation is far from secure. The US simply has Iraq more by the balls, and this makes it a more secure base to operate a military presence in the Middle East from. Iran, of course, is again the scapegoat. I think it is kind of funny how Iraq is suddenly worried about Iran, when it was Iraq that started that lamented Iran-Iraq war in the first place. Some analysts point out that the US can already count on being hosted by ally states such as Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, and that permanent bases in Iraq are more trouble than they're worth in the long term. Nevertheless, serious funding (100s of millions of dollars) is taking place of US bases at Balad, north of Baghdad, al-Asad in the western Anbar province, and Tallil, in the south. All three are in line to receive substantial chunks of the 2006 emergency budget. Unless Americans get tired of footing the growing and expensive bill for occupying Iraq - now at nearly $10 Billion per month - it looks like Baghdad will be the center of operations for US presence in the Middle East. The US will thus be able to remain on top of Iraq's vast oil recources and keep a firm military presence, no matter what the other Middle Eastern states decide to do. Whether it can afford the bill in money and human casualties is another story, but the US has sort of painted itself into a corner. Going to war with Iraq meant shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power once victory was achieved. These include running the economy, keeping the domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. You see no problem in paying the price for this long-term relationship?
Could I get a source for that? But the future of Iran does look to be troublesome. Also, Saddam- not the current Iraqi government- declared war against Iran. I'm going to assume there is probbably already a military base in one of those countries you mentioned, if not, why is there a difference between setting up a base in Iraq vs. a base in Kuwait? The number of American troops in Iraq is decreasing, and the Iraqi military is getting stronger. Maintaining a couple bases in Iraq is different than not withdrawling at all. The US military is one of, if the best in the world, the bottom line is if Iraq needs defense- there is one very good candidate. You bring up the massive expense of the war, but you also bring up your belief of the war being for oil- but oil benefits the American economy. Perhaps the oil is Iraq's way of repaying for the war? But Nexxo- forget the other issues, the bottom line is what should the US do? Right now, at this day- the current best thing to do is probbably to not have a complete pull out from Iraq. L J
So you blow up their country and then expect them to pay you for the cost? Jesus man, no wonder people want to blow stuff in your country up. Personally, the second I read the word Iran there I just thought "this guy is following orders". I guess if the US gets the Iraqi's to act scared of the big bad Iranians then that fuels support...
pzzzz... No, the situation in Iraq is just as bad as it was when the first bomb dropped. Its pretty much civil war right now... you need to stop watching TV pzzzz... The US military is the best funded in the world.. That doesn't mean its the best. The best armies in the world have discipline, US soldiers are soo gung ho that they had to invent a new term.. "Friendly fire". The US have killed more British soldiers in Iraq than the Iraqi army ever did. The very presence of the US on Iraqi soil fuels the insurgency. Heck if you are a pissed off Arab, you dont need to take flying lessons now to engage the great satan.. you just pick up a Saudi funded missile, aim it at an american Teenager in a tin can and hey you are a hero suddenly. The best armies in the world dont win in guerrilla wars. History tells us that. The belief that the oil would benefit america (wolfovitz) turned out to be a bit like those WMDs... A pack of lies. The CIA new before hand that the Iraqi oil reserves were not capable of producing the tonage of oil that Wolfovitz spelled out when going for the vote to war. OK the war was for oil, but it was based on knowingly false promises. He perjured himself and thousand upon thousand died. The basic issue is this, Iraq has had its flow of oil curtailled over the decades. First by the British who deliberately drilled on the margins of the oil fields to restrict the amount available. Then by the Saudis, who through OPEC kept the Iraqi quotas low, believing that they could prevent a war with Iran if they restricted Saddams income. Then it was deliberately kept low by the US who through oil for food maintained the Saudis quotas, and through sanctions kept Saddam from maintaining his oil fields. It will take decades before Iraq is ready to comence any serious supply of oil. We all got taken in with this particular set of lies. We knew why they lied about WMD, so that was challenged, We knew why they lied about state sponsored terror, so that was challenged. But the peaceniks and the international comunity sorta dropped the ball on the oil predictions because we didn't see at the time what purpose there was to them lying about that. Why should Iraq pay for a war that it did everything possible to avoid. It stopped its WMD production, it allowed (eventually) UN inspection. There was never a chance that the war was not going to happen. Ironically the neocons plan for the Iraqi oil never paid off because of the Texan oil barrens. The idea in Iraq was to intoduce the oil fields to the free market. Drop the price of oil internationally and topple OPEC. The US would get gallons and gallons of uber cheap oil, the Iraqis would get nothing and Saudi Arabia would be bankrupt! Its in plan B. However the Texans had other plans. They did not see how cheap oil from Iraq was going to benefit them. They would have to work harder for slim margins. They scuppered the capture of Iraqs oil reserves, insisting instead that Iraq kept its oil fields. Then with the oil contracts safely in the bag (agreed before democracy was introduced just in case the Iraqi government opted for a better deal from elsewhere) the oil giants get to pump a little oil at high prices and minimum investment. Saudi Arabia remains in charge of oil pricing and to boot strengthened its capital, strenghened its hold over the US and still gets to pursue its favourite hobby of funding terrorism against the US. The best bit is that the US taxpayer paid for the conquest, but doesn't get even a sniff of the loot! Yep your admistration really dropped the ball there. better luck next time! How about for a start impeaching those that misled you into this folly. We know that they lied, the evidence is now in the public domain, we know that war crimes were ordered, the evidence is in the public domain, we know that they profited as indivduals.... The evidence is in the public domain. Next up is to draw a line through those dodgy contracts. Let the Iraqi government have a say in its own contracts. Next up, rip up the constitution that prevents the Iraqis protecting their own markets from subsidized US product. Then stop funding Israel miltarily and demand it stops the illegal occupation of palestine and stops threatening its neighbours. Then with a large slice of humble pie in hand approach the international comunity and ask for a peacekeeping force to go in to protect the smooth transition of Iraq to what ever form of government its people want. Sorry for answering for you Nexxo, but I think it is clear IMO that the current solutions offered are just not going to work. The US has written in to the Iraqi constitution a set of rules which will keep Iraqis in poverty for all time. They will never stop fighting the US while they are in this mess. It's the crux of the issue. People with something to lose will not gamble it, those with nothing to lose will do anything that they think will give them a gain. For the moment US teenagers with kevlar, rock music and orders will keep dying till the Iraqis get their country back.
No. Use Google. I did. Saddam started the party, we supplied the catering. Saddam was supported by us, remember? Specifically in his war against Iran. The future of Iran has been made to look troublesome. Iran had a democratically elected government up until 1953. Find out what happened next... The current regime is there for a reason, and they don't like us for a reason. Now this current regime wants to establish a nuclear programme. Why not? Israel's got one. The US has got one. The UK wants to breathe new life into its own. What right have we to tell a sovereign nation what to do? We have no evidence at all that Iran will use its nuclear powers for nefarious ends. But all of a sudden there's a problem again: Iran has a suspected WMD programme, Iran is out to use it against us... we heard it all before with Iraq. You'd think that the Bush administration would put on a new record once in a while. Iran offered full co-operation after 9/11 in the invasion of Afghanistan, only to be unexpectedly included in Bush' "axis of evil" speech two months later. It offered full co-operation after the Iraq invasion, including complete openness on its nuclear programme, and willingness to help stabilise Iraq, end its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. It was thrown back in its face by the US (since you ask for a source, read this). If we have to worry about Iran arming itself, it may be because Iran saw what we did to Iraq and Afghanistan, and to Iran itself, simply because we felt like it, and because Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have the arsenal to fight back. Countries in the Middle East have been observing our actions which are inconsistent at best, and downright deceitful at worst, and have been drawing their conclusions about us like we have about them. If Iran wants to build WMD, it is almost certainly because our actions have created that demand. And now the US is prepping to unilaterally mine the ports of Iran, do you think that might, perchance, only strengthen their resolve to defend themselves? The US doesn't control the government of Kuwait (or Qatar, or any other of these countries). As the US' policies in the Middle East, in pursuit of securing the oil resources over there, makes it increasingly unpopular, the future co-operation of those countries is doubtful at best --the US has already had to withdraw bases from Saudi Arabia. But the US controls the government of Iraq totally. As Spec says: there is a rather twisted logic in blowing up someone's country and then having them repay you for rebuilding it so you can asset-strip it more effectively. But hey, you decide how much you want to pay for that oil --in dollars and in lives. Different argument altogether. You said that you didn't see a problem with the US staying on in the long term, especially if it was invited by the new Iraq government to do so. I'm saying that you are simply not appreciating the bigger picture here. You and your children and your children's children will be paying for this one for decades --and you won't be the ones reaping any benefits. Your elected officials have effectively used your country to effect a hostile business takeover of two other countries, and are plotting a third. You are just the equivalent of some lowly employees that will be left bankrupt and destitute when the whole enterprise becomes unprofitable and collapses, and the board members at the top take the money and run. Enron has nothing on this. No worries, you're doing fine.
Sorry about the delay in my response, work and class do keep my schedule rather full. Problem is the odds of me finding the same article are very low. However, Google does tell me the primary reason for the removal of the bases in Saudi Arabai is because the bases were there because Iraq was seen as a threat. Funny how details can change the whole view of a subject. I would like to point out the removal of a corrupt government and blowing up a country are two competely different subjects- I really don't understand why you could possibly oppose the removal of Saddam. As for oil, the US needs oil Iraq has a good supply- the fact that the US might be recieving some oil is really not a bad thing. You cant claim "the US is asset stripping Iraq" because there is a new government in Iraq. At the present time, there is probbably some US influence in the Iraqi government- right now neither you or I have any idea as to what extent there is American influence. You can continue to assume the worst case, I'll continue to assume the middle to best scenario. What about the benefits of security, about doing what is right at this time instead of what is wrong? Full withdrawl of Iraq = bad, and wether or not the UK encouraged the US to overthrow the Iranian government back in '53 has very little to do with the current problem. You claim this is a "business takeover" when the Us is slowly leaving Iraq. Iraq is probbably going to send some oil to the US- war debts do exist, Saddam could have prevented his removal- he didn't even attempt to stop this. Saddam could have stopped murdering his people, quit being a tyranical dictator, and ceased manufacturing of WMDs when he was ordered to stop, he then could have allowed decent inspections to verfiy his lack of WMDs- Saddam could still be in power today if he had paid attention to what he was told after Dessert Storm. Do you know how many different sources all told the US that they believe Saddam was manufacturing WMDs? And now this is a "hostile business takeover" because you use future evidence which was not known at the time to judge past decisions- that is where you consistantly fail. Serious Discussion is a waste of my time so long as you, Nexxo are in here. I put a simple statement to address a current problem and you start a lecture about the past, you often leave out important details which do not favor your opinion (like the removal of the bases in Saudi Arabia because of the lack of a threat from Iraq) and you fail to judge the present situation. Fact is Iran probbably doesn't like Iraq, probbably will not like Iraq- there is not much that can be done about the past, and when Iraq request American presence in their country, a full withdrawl of Iraq would probbably be a bad idea. L J
Sorry if I seem reluctant to do other people's homework for them. But you can always Google for, say, "14 US bases in Iraq". OK, let's talk details, because you are right --that's where the Devil is. On February 27, 2003, it was announced that the US would be allowed to launch warplanes from its bases inside Saudi Arabia, to support the Iraq War - and would in turn begin a phased withdrawal from the country. On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden, whose key demand throughout ongoing Al-Qaeda attacks was that the US must withdraw its forces from the region. Now the key question is, why did the US feel their soldiers were less safe from terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, a stable friendly monarchy, than in Iraq, an unstable country teetering on the edge of civil war? The answer is that Saudi Arabia and the US don't really get on so well. While Saudi Arabia is officially one of the US' closest allies in the Middle East, Muslim opposition forces and other Middle Eastern countries have been openly critical of these close ties. In recognition of this sentiment, the Saudi government has been reluctant to host American troops or stockpile American military equipment. There are the religious tensions in having a US base on Saudi soil. Also, 11 of the 15 9/11 Highjackers were Saudi nationals, and Saudi Arabia has been uncooperative in investigating not only this terrorist attack, but two others perpetrated against Americans on Saudi soil: the November 1995 bombing of the Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh, which killed five Americans, and the June 25, 1996, attack outside the U.S. Air Force housing facility in Dhahran that killed 19 Americans. As an aside, a NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents in Iraq came from Saudi Arabia. I don't want to make this post too long, but let's say that the US would like to see the end of OPEC and that the only reason that Saudi Arabia gets away with funding terrorism (as Israel repeatedly asserts) is that it controls the price of oil (through OPEC and through the fact that most of the world's key oil distribution infrastructure is based in Saudi Arabia). If it decides to turn open the taps, the price of oil drops, and American oil business is on its ass. If it closes the taps, prices skyrocket, and within six months the whole US economy (and that of the world as a whole) grinds to a halt. Saudi Arabia plays the tune and the US has to dance to it... But now the US controls Iraq, it controls the second largest oil reserves in the world, by extension a large chunk of OPEC, and bypasses a lot of Saudi's crap. Nice one. The reason I oppose is simple: - We put him there, and we supported him for years, regardless of how this made his people suffer. We then removed him, again out of our self-interest, regardless how that power vacuum would affect the country. We may have done the right thing, but since the quality of an outcome is always determined by the quality of the process by which it was achieved, as we did it for the wrong reasons, it has had devastating results. Don't take my word for it --ask the Iraqi. In a recent poll 60% felt that terrorist attacks against the Allied forces are justified. - Iraq's oil is not ours. It is theirs. We have no entitlement to it. But we act as if it is ours. - My "asset stripping" comment has nothing to do with the government --in fact, the infrastructure to do this was carefully put in place well before then. I suggest you read Paul Bremer's 100 Orders, i.e. "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people that create penal consequences or have a direct bearing on the way Iraqis are regulated, including changes to Iraqi law". Particularly #39 states: 1. privatisation of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; 2. 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; 3. national treatment of foreign firms (i.e. local Iraqi firms get no priority in dealing out contracts); 4. unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and 40-year ownership licenses. Foreign companies can export all profits they make from Iraq, without paying taxes to Iraq, and without re-investing in Iraq. Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks. Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%. Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods. Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws (I mean, really think about that one). Order # 81 prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The common worldwide practice of saving heirloom seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq. - This has nothing to do with security (and just for the record, Bush admitted that Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11). - This has nothing to do with "doing right". - What happened in 1953 has everything to do with the current problem. You just can't see it --or won't --because you don't connect the facts. - We could have not helped a man which practically had HOMICIDAL DICTATOR written on his forehead in power, and kept him there, for a decade. He was murdering people then --we knew. He wanted WMD then --we sold them to him, even after using them on his own people. We didn't give a damn. Don't pretend any different. - One repeated myth that really pisses off the NSA by now is that the Bush administration was told Saddam had WMD. Intelligence had quite clearly told Bush before the invasion that there were no WMD. He chose to ignore it. There are many sources that corroborate this. - Read Paul Bremer's 100 Orders. Then come back and talk. That's sort of your problem: simple statements, simple views. But the situation is NOT simple. Life never is. And you cannot disregard the past, because when you do, you just end up repeating the same mistakes (as history shows again and again). Those who forget the past, remember? You think I leave out important details --I don't. I just (mistakenly, as it turns out every time --I guess I should have learned by now too) assume you knew. But apparently you don't know many of the facts and details because you are sort of quite happy with your simple personal view on the whole Iraq war as it is, so why question a good thing? Moreover, and no offence meant here, but I don't think you really understand a lot of what is going on there. I suspect you don't really get things like how democracy works, or world economies or people or any of that complex crap. I am happy to be wrong on this, but I don't think I am. And then you get really bent out of shape because someone like me comes along to disagree and challenge that tidy, self-righteous, self-satisfied, feel-good picture and shows you that things are way more complicated than you think; and that just because the terrorists are the Bad Guys, this does not make us the Good Guys by a long stretch. Sucks, doesn't it? Get used though, because that is how the whole world feels about the US at the moment. Hey, as Oscar Wilde said: "There is nothing pure and simple about the truth". Now, about the present situation. Current polls show that 75% of the Iraqi population wants the US to leave within a year, please. This conflicts directly with the request by the Iraqi government, and the US setting up more permanent bases. So regardless of how valid the Iraqi's government's request is, continued US presence is very likely to piss off the local Muslim population like it did in Saudi Arabia, particularly if the US continues its asset stripping exercise which, although you may not see it, is a fact of life for these people. They were promised a better life, and they didn't get it. If anything, latest reports suggest that torture and terrorism in Iraq has increased. They feel betrayed, and no matter how nice the US plays, they are seen as foreigners and non-Muslims. Under Saddam's distinctly secular rule that was not a big deal, but it is now. Now if the US withdraws, this is hardly going to stop the local in-fighting, but I don't think it will make things worse either. Also, if the US would stop trying to blatantly provoke Iran into a fight and take up their offer made in 2003 to stop arming the Hezbollah and Palestinians, and support stabilisation of Iraq and be totally open about their nuclear programme (you know, that offer that the US simply ignored at the time), then perhaps Iran is not such a worry after all. For the rest of "what else can we do, then?", I refer to justblair:
Oh Oh.... I do I do! Its the same number that told the British that he was doing it... Its in the Hutton report.... It was 1... One source that was described by British Intelligence as unreliable. That was one of the caveats that Tony Blair forgot to tell parliment when he said that they had definate advice. See the problem was that the UK told all the other intelligence agencies this. Including the CIA. Then when all these sources reported they believed that WMD was being manufactured they were all quoting the same source. So those multiple sources were all quoting second hand advice. A more pertinent question was how many sources there were that said he was not manufacturing WMD... There were tons of them, and loads of them were experts.. Hans Blix ring a bell? I dont see how you can justify the removal of a corrupt government when it is replaced by a far more corrupt occupying force. 8 billion dollars of Iraqs reconstruction money was brought over to the country from the US. 6.5 billion of that is unaccounted for. Thats money that was suppoed to be used for rebuilding that simply disapeared. Saddam for all that he was did in fact do a fair bit for his people in social programs that they dont get any more. Read Dhilip Hiro's "Iraq" if you want a very well respected and accurate run down of what life was like under Saddam Hussain. He was a bit of a socialist in terms of his politics. He believed in a non-secular state, provided food rations to his people, believed in state owned industry etc. That doesn't mean he was a good man, but he wasn't much worse in terms of his deeds than the current (and several previous) US administration. That is a pretty niave comment.... Bless. As nexxo has pointed out with just a few examples of the 100 directives that were put in place before elections. I mentioned in an earlier post "plan B" That was 101 pages of plans for the invasion of Iraq. None of them covering reconstruction or security or free elections rather than a list of demands from industry that became the 100 directives. It was always a corporate takeover, the corporates wrote the whole invasion. The administration tailored the lies to facilitate it. He did stop manufacturing WMDs. Have you not been watching the news... They didn't find any... There were none there! He did allow inspections... A move the US did everything in its power to try to halt in the months prior to the invasion. Hans Blix was villified for demanding they continue, and further villified when he stated that he did not believe a program existed... Who was right? Saddam could never of stayed in power, he did what he was told after Dessert Storm, He tried playing ball. And any relaxation of the sanctions was vetoed by the US. That is a pretty dumb comment when Nexxo has clearly demonstrated a far more in depth knowledge than you currently hold. How is Civil war more secure than before? For the Iraqis the situation is far from secure. 20,000 people have died at a conservative estimate this year alone! And for the US the situation is far less secure also. The CIA recently released a report stating this clearly. Thats not to mention the UK and Spain who became victims for the first time of Islamic terrorists. I can assure you we in the UK no longer feel secure. I'm sorry if I have been a bit hard on you Sanders, but your arguements are merely repeats of Bush's propaganda. He lies! Sorry to burst your bubble, but he has lied, been found out and continued to lie on every aspect of the invasion. Stop watching TV! Stop it today! start reading books on the subject, deepen your knowledge a bit. All of your arguements in your post are based on stuff that has already been proven to be false. Its not a matter of opinion either, it is all well documentated and in the public domain to be read. The dodgy dossiers, the WMDs the support of terrorists, the yellowcake enrichment program.... It was all lies, not one bit of it was true.
