Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq, again
-
And now for more, as the Iraqi government says, “faked evidence” from our friendly IKONOS(see below) satellite …
IKONOS, for those of you who may express disbelief in Limbaugh,
is an independent satellite operations company. -
Nobody should take rush limbaugh seriously (nobody should listen to him better yet). There are a few sayings that come to mind when his name pops up. Through enough mud and some will stick to the wall. Even a broken clock has the right time twice per day…
F_alk, I’m afraid you’re totally wrong about the US agricultural subsidies. There is nothing secret or hidden about it. The US just in the last year passed the largest agricultural subsidy bill ever. We’re talking 180 Billion over 10 years. 18 Billion a year is a heck of a GDP for a third world country. Nothing secret about it! The secret stuff is when they provide loans to the thirld world countries to buy the wheat from the US that is below fair market price so the third world countries farms fail and they have to import what they used to grow. How nice we provide them with loans too… Mind you the EU is the most guilty. They spend more than 100 Billion/year.
http://www.kisanwatch.org/eng/analysis/may2002/an_US_FARM_BILL_2002_1.htm
BB -
@Xi:
@F_alk:
I think the “Coalition” has no facts. They had to use faked evidence …
You think? Reads like you’ve dismissed evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) We are all limited in our arguments to be confronted with the “faked evidence”(a constant Iraq Government complaint) accusation.
It has been proven that the “evidence for the Iraq attempting to get nuclear material from Niger” (Niger is AFAIR) has been a fake, and that the weapn inspectors were surprised that the secret services of the US and the UK could fall for these rather blatant fakes.
@F_alk:
… the US will not tolerate any gov’t except a western-style democracy.
After that they can choose any form of government they wish. But
if they start with socialism, communism or a dictatorship
they will have little or no choice.Choice on what? Do you notice that you say “let them be free, but not that free?”
F_alk, I’m afraid you’re totally wrong about the US agricultural subsidies. There is nothing secret or hidden about it. The US just in the last year passed the largest agricultural subsidy bill ever. We’re talking 180 Billion over 10 years. 18 Billion a year is a heck of a GDP for a third world country. Nothing secret about it! The secret stuff is when they provide loans to the thirld world countries to buy the wheat from the US that is below fair market price so the third world countries farms fail and they have to import what they used to grow. How nice we provide them with loans too… Mind you the EU is the most guilty. They spend more than 100 Billion/year.
Thatnks for the evidence. And i know, the EU is even worse in the amount of subsidies…
SUD, should you be back and read this: Please consider the following,
you say that multilateralism is less effective than bilateralism. On the other hand, in your examples of failed multilateral treaties, one side you call the “EU”. The EU is not a unit, it’s several countries who found together by multilateral treaties.
So, to prove that multilateralism doesn’t work, you use the “greatest” example of multilaterlism working. -
F_alk, I agree that the ‘evidence’ of the attempt to get uranium from africa was false. However, this does not imply that all evidence is false. It is not a logical conclusion, suspician of evidence is, automatic dismissal of all subsequent evidence is not. Intelligence agencies make mistakes and will continue to do so, I cite 9/11 as one error in judgement.
Iraq has spent about 10 billion dollars over the years on trying to build an atom bomb, they had an atom bomb before desert storm but it was too big to deliver. The French were friendly enough to ensure the uranium they supplies had a good mix of U-235 and U-238 so Iraq could extract weapons grade uranium from the reactor grade uranium thus saving them the time to use a breeder reactor to get plutonium which is not mined out of the ground like uranium but rather is ‘man-made’ so to speak.
As for governments, there are a whack of forms and I suspect anything save dictatorship or communism (little difference in the practical sense) is fine with the US. Nothing wrong with socialism as long as the representation is representative in some way.
BB
-
Big Blocky, why do you assume that the US has some kind of problem with dictatorships ? Saudi-arabia and Kuwait aren’t exactly democracies you know. And Israel is led by a guy responsible for the massacre of refuges.
So democracy and respect for human rights is clearly not the most important factor for the US when they deal with other countries.
-
MC, I’m not saying the US won’t deal with dictatorys. ‘President’ Mushariff of Pakistan is a dictator who ceased control by a military coup. One can argue as to whether or not Pakistan is better for this, I think it is but it too needs Democracy. The Israeli prime-minster is the leader of a democratic government. But this is all off-topic really.
For Iraq, the US will not tolerate anything but some form of representative government, it was not meant as a blanket statement for US relations with all other countries. Iraq is in effect a state with no government and is not like any other state outside of Africa. Democracy and respect for human rights is clearly going to be the focus of NEW governments that the US will pay to help build.
BB
-
F_alk, I agree that the ‘evidence’ of the attempt to get uranium from africa was false. However, this does not imply that all evidence is false. It is not a logical conclusion, suspician of evidence is, automatic dismissal of all subsequent evidence is not. Intelligence agencies make mistakes and will continue to do so, I cite 9/11 as one error in judgement.
True, but if it comes to extremes (and it does here), you are kind of forced to take positions like “it is all true” or “i don’t believe it is right… “(here you usually are interrupted before you can say)”… until it’s further examined”.
You are absolutely correct, not everything is right, not everything is wrong. But the way the “proofs” were prestented made me highly suspicious of anything presented as “proof”. It’s just that too much has later shown to be false, they have made too many mistakes (or lied too often, depending on your stance, mine is a mix)… probably because they themself wanted to believe.As for governments, there are a whack of forms and I suspect anything save dictatorship or communism (little difference in the practical sense) is fine with the US. Nothing wrong with socialism as long as the representation is representative in some way.
Here you show that you are not from the US quite clearly :).
But just for the record: socialism in its (marxist-leninist) definition is a dictatorship (needed to prepare the society for communism, which then again is democratic). -
@F_alk:
It has been proven … a fake, and that the weapn inspectors were surprised that the secret services of the US and the UK could fall for these rather blatant fakes.
Hmm … seems like a good peace of propaganda to me. I repeat … Reads like you’ve dismissed other evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) Were you there?
You trust your sources and I’ll trust mine.
@F_alk:Choice on what? Do you notice that you say “let them be free, but not that free?”
… and you want them to choose what? A male dominated, religious fundamentalist theocracy maybe? You want to leave the region in the 14th century?
If so, I’m glad it’s not up to you.
I believe the Iraqi people and we’ll work toward something like the government of Turkey. -
F_alk doesn’t want them to choose a theocracy, but maybe they want.
The Germans democratically chose a pacifist governement, the Turks democratically choose a moderate religious governement, the Americans, or at least some of them, choose a religious, militant president.
Deomocracy doesn’t garanty, that people choose the best, but it makes it easier to corect mistakes. -
Algeria democratically elected a religiously fundamenalist governement. Of course the military steped in and cancelled the elections. Indeed democracy doesn’t guarantee a good choice. Look at the French for instance…. tongue in cheed
BB
-
@Xi:
Reads like you’ve dismissed other evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) Were you there?
You trust your sources and I’ll trust mine.I was refering to the “Uranium trade”-documents between Niger and Iraq.
And you should know thet old saying “you don’t trust the one who lied once”, the same saying that is (absolutely correctly) applied on SH. Why are other gov’t exempt from that saying?… and you want them to choose what? A male dominated, religious fundamentalist theocracy maybe? You want to leave the region in the 14th century?
If so, I’m glad it’s not up to you.
I believe the Iraqi people and we’ll work toward something like the government of Turkey.As Meijing already said:
I want them to choose what they want. That is the way democracy in its basis works. If they want the theocracy, let them have it. It will change (like the Iran) sooner or later. I don’t want them to take my choice, because it is my choice: i would never try to “force” my will onto them.
For your “leaving the region in the 14th century”: you sound like you are pretty convinced that “our system” is the best in the world, aren’t you? -
Did you know….
the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war, is about…
… 1.5 times the worlds annual money spent on development projects (50 billions)
… 50 times the UN’s World Food Program (1.74 billion)
… 3 times the total sum of all goods delivered to Iraq in the “Food for Oil” program since 1996 (25 billions)
… 1.5 times the budget of the US-gov’t department of education (54 billions)
… 13 times the money of Bill Gates (5.9 billion)
… 375 times the production cost of “Titanic” (200 millions)
Just to think about it
-
As for choice of governmental systems … I’d say Japan and Germany(though Germany still has political/diplomatic problems) worked out fairly well, so let’s see what comes.
Looky, looky who wants to come back and play :roll: ! Why it’s France and Germany. Left out of the game and afraid their free-agent(sports analogy)status will put their salaries on the downspin.
For the post-Gulf War world what will the US do? Maybe …
-
Did you know….
the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war…
…will save the lives of millions of future Iraqi generations
…is paltry when compared to our entire GDP
…is entirely worth it to save American lives
…is what Americans are willing to spend to prevent a future 9/11.
Just to think about it.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Did you know….
the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war…
…will save the lives of millions of future Iraqi generations
…is paltry when compared to our entire GDP
…is entirely worth it to save American lives
…is what Americans are willing to spend to prevent a future 9/11.
Just to think about it.
don’t forget:
will be worth it to kick-start a stalled economy
will demonstrate America’s might to all of her enemies, and should frighten them into submission to America’s demands
will yeild many times this amount in oil fortunes
will tell the world “now does this make up for the 3 years we sat out of WWII while your sons died for freedom?”
is approximately what Bush is prepared to pay to kick-start a flailing ego/libido -
Oh c’mon CC, you’re not really gonna use the “jumpstart the economy” argument are you? That’s almost as bad as the “war for oil.”
The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond.
By the way, what exactly are “America’s demands”?
-
@Xi:
(though Germany still has political/diplomatic problems)
Do we?
I think your political (GWB election) and diplomatic (Iraq conflict) problems are worse :)@D:S:
The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond
Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Oh c’mon CC, you’re not really gonna use the “jumpstart the economy” argument are you? That’s almost as bad as the “war for oil.”
How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond.
By the way, what exactly are “America’s demands”?
Whatever they think they can get away with a few weeks after they are finished plundering Iraq . . . .
(being mildly facetious) -
Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…
Acts in our own interests only? Now that’s very wrong.
Rogue nations with WMD’s are only a US problem?
A dictator killing millions of Iraqi’s is a US problem?
A man paying suicide bombers targeting Israel is a US problem?F_alk, the larger agreements do not neccessarily make them right. There are many examples to prove this, but I’d rather not get into that. The point is, believe it or not, the world will be a better place when Saddam is gone. Believe it or not, Iraqi people’s lives will be saved by forcing a regime change in that country. Believe it or not, American lives will be under less of a threat by forcing removal of WMD rather than dragging this on for another 12 years.
And once we finish what we started, I have a feeling yours and a couple other countries out there, are going to have some egg on their face…
How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
They’re bad becuase they’re wrong. :(
Do you want to start a thread on either of these? Be my guest…
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…
Acts in our own interests only? Now that’s very wrong.
Rogue nations with WMD’s are only a US problem?
A dictator killing millions of Iraqi’s is a US problem?
A man paying suicide bombers targeting Israel is a US problem?F_alk, the larger agreements do not neccessarily make them right. There are many examples to prove this, but I’d rather not get into that. The point is, believe it or not, the world will be a better place when Saddam is gone. Believe it or not, Iraqi people’s lives will be saved by forcing a regime change in that country. Believe it or not, American lives will be under less of a threat by forcing removal of WMD rather than dragging this on for another 12 years.
And once we finish what we started, I have a feeling yours and a couple other countries out there, are going to have some egg on their face…
well, we’ll never know now will we? No one desputes that Saddam’s regime is evil. They still have not found any WMD and in fact resolution 1441 has taken a back seat to “unseating the regime”, so this is not a great argument. Also the dictator killing millions of iraqi’s is a problem, and as for the funding of suicide bombers - well, i think that Iraq is near the end of a very long list there.
The rest of the world is not arguing that something should not be done. I think even the pariahs of the western world (France, Canada, Germany) would agree that something needs to be done. The question to be asked is “was war necessary”? Of course now that we are seeing that war is working (at the expense of many thousands of lives, billions of dollars in blown up infrastructure, etc.) however there will never be a chance for us to say “yes, a peaceful diplomatic solution worked”. Certainly people might argue “well, it didn’t work for 12 years”, but i don’t believe that the approach was appropriate in the first place.
For example, what would have happened in 1860’s America if the Chinese said “well, things are not working in your country, so we’ll apply Chinese-style methods to resolve things”? The whole thing was mishandled from 1991, and just as Winnipeg needs a good rain in the spring to clean up the sand and crap from the winter roads, apparently Iraq needs a good war to clean up the sand and crap from the last upteen years.
The point of this rant is that we agree something needed to be done.
We disagree that iraq needed the snot bombed out of it and a full-scale invasion.How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
They’re bad becuase they’re wrong. :(
Do you want to start a thread on either of these? Be my guest…
well, no point to a separate thread given that this point has been discussed before. It’s just funny that Americans refuse to believe that which is so obvious to the rest of the world. I mean come on! When i’m on a date with a woman, i am so much more subtle about my intentions than Jr. is - the seduce vs. rape methods, i guess . . . .
Suggested Topics
