View Poll Results: What's it about anyway?
Freeing the Iraqi people/spreading democracy 0 0%
Removal of Saddam Hussein 4 11.11%
9/11 and/or Terrorism in the United States 0 0%
Oil 26 72.22%
WMDs 1 2.78%
Other 5 13.89%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

What do you think the war in Iraq is about?

Seems to me that the US does have WMD's. Having them is not the problem, using them is. We have WMD's, but we don't have mass graves, where people are thrown in there like garbage. Like they were never human to begin with.

I'm not sure what the exact connection is between Saddam and Jordan. The Prince of Jordan refuses to talk to American media about the training camps, and he is open about most everything else. Dare I say, flamboyant? I'm not saying that Saddam having the money is proof of anything, it's just very suspicious that he had a bank's worth of money from the Bank of Jordan in one of his vaults.

They don't need our democracy. They need something different. Democracy is what we know and love. We are setting them up to govern themselves, once we leave, they can do what ever they want - maybe not right away . . . but after they give "our democracy" a try.

Yes, we did bomb Iraq. Intelligently. We went after hideouts, military targets and tied to avoid civilian places - which is not always possible. We didn't just bomb everything that moved. In past confrontations, Saddam was the one who surrounded his palace with women and children, knowing that we wouldn't purposely attack innocent people. We refrain from using biological warfare because it is too unpredictable, too many innocent people would die. And yes, the American people would be outraged. Even us war-monger conservatives!

I have heard/seen the media depicting soldiers as killing machines. The media was smart enough to back off from that approach a while ago. Say what you will about the war and our government, but (for the most part) leave our soldiers alone. Side note: The Marines seemed to have gotten the worst treatment because they are aggressive. Ummm, that's kind of their job. Special forces are known for being aggressive, and the Marines used to be the special forces for the Navy.

ETA - By the way, I'm not try to insult, embarrass or degrade (or anything else like that) anyone in any way! I'm just stating my point of view in hopes that maybe someone will try to see this war from a perspective they are not used to. And for the fun of it! I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind, just trying to show my view.
I'm a 2something/3something. Started modified CG routine on 6/6/05
Cut more than ten inches from my BSL hair on 8-10-05 and growing it long again
But we're STILL adjusting.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Seems to me that the US does have WMD's. Having them is not the problem, using them is. We have WMD's, but we don't have mass graves, where people are thrown in there like garbage. Like they were never human to begin with.
Originally Posted by FidoGwen
I'm confused... are you saying these mass graves are proof that Saddam used WMDs? You realize there's no proof he had WMDs, regardless of whether or not you think he did, right??

I'm not sure what the exact connection is between Saddam and Jordan. The Prince of Jordan refuses to talk to American media about the training camps, and he is open about most everything else. Dare I say, flamboyant? I'm not saying that Saddam having the money is proof of anything, it's just very suspicious that he had a bank's worth of money from the Bank of Jordan in one of his vaults.
Ok, you're just speculating...

They don't need our democracy. They need something different.
Really? What?

Democracy is what we know and love. We are setting them up to govern themselves, once we leave, they can do what ever they want - maybe not right away . . . but after they give "our democracy" a try.
If they can do whatever they want once the US, which is precisely what they were doing, then what was the point??

I could be wrong, but I think you mean they can do what they want provided they don't return to a dictatorship or similar...

Yes, we did bomb Iraq. Intelligently. We went after hideouts, military targets and tied to avoid civilian places - which is not always possible. We didn't just bomb everything that moved. In past confrontations, Saddam was the one who surrounded his palace with women and children, knowing that we wouldn't purposely attack innocent people. We refrain from using biological warfare because it is too unpredictable, too many innocent people would die. And yes, the American people would be outraged. Even us war-monger conservatives!

I have heard/seen the media depicting soldiers as killing machines. The media was smart enough to back off from that approach a while ago. Say what you will about the war and our government, but (for the most part) leave our soldiers alone. Side note: The Marines seemed to have gotten the worst treatment because they are aggressive. Ummm, that's kind of their job. Special forces are known for being aggressive, and the Marines used to be the special forces for the Navy.
Um... ok.

ETA - By the way, I'm not try to insult, embarrass or degrade (or anything else like that) anyone in any way! I'm just stating my point of view in hopes that maybe someone will try to see this war from a perspective they are not used to. And for the fun of it! I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind, just trying to show my view.
The media played much of this war from your perspective, so I'm pretty familiar with it

Don't worry - your point of view does not insult, embarrass or degrade me
FidoGwen,

I'm curious what you think America should be doing to combat the terror of drugs and poverty on our own soil?

It seems that it is much easier for conservative Republicans to try to "fix" other countries with substandard governments and cultures (this is what I've heard, not what I believe) than to work within our own culture to eradicate the terror that is drug addiction, prostitution, rape, murder, poverty, pedophilia, etc. I think we could use more special forces here trying to fix our own nation. Oh, I forgot, we have laws to protect our rapists and murderers.

And, I agree with Cherish on the WMD point. America is quite pompous to think that we should be the only country qualified to own WMDs, or even that we should get to decide which other countries possess them. I'm not sure, but this God complex our government, and some of our citizens, seems to have surely can't help with our separation of church and state stance.


I am not against aid to other countries in need. I am against us only giving aid when it suits our political needs or projections, and when the countries receiving help are forced to dance on our puppet strings to get it.
People rise to the standard expected of them. GC
The war on drugs was lost a long time ago. Going after the two-bit dealers on the streets looks good on the evening news, but it does nothing. There is no real will to fight this battle.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
The war on drugs was lost a long time ago. Going after the two-bit dealers on the streets looks good on the evening news, but it does nothing. There is no real will to fight this battle.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
ITA!

I'm just wondering if it's because we're such a wonderful nation that we're fighting "other people's" wars and not concerning ourselves with the pillage happening in our own society. Where's the war against the countries who smuggle these drugs into our nation, or the guns that gang members use to terrorize inner city streets?
People rise to the standard expected of them. GC
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Where's FidoGwen...?
Yes, we did bomb Iraq. Intelligently.
Originally Posted by FidoGwen
This HAS to win the award for Oxymoron of the Year.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Sorry, I've been having problems with my connection to the internet.

First, let me say that America is corrupt. Our government is corrupt - I don't mean by any party or specific school of thought, just generally corrupted by corrupt poeple.

FidoGwen wrote:

Yes, we did bomb Iraq. Intelligently.


This HAS to win the award for Oxymoron of the Year
Yeah, not one of the best things I've ever said. My point still stands, but I could have said it better.

Where's the war against the countries who smuggle these drugs into our nation, or the guns that gang members use to terrorize inner city streets?
Not that I think it's right, but here (in Arizona) we aren't really going after the "supplying country" because we share the border with them. We are trying to have good relations with Mexico while keeping 'contraband' out of our country. I think we should tighten the borders . . . . but that's off subject. Another part of the reason we don't fight the supplying countries is because that would start World War Three.

I grew up in the ghetto. Seriously, when our living quarters were shot up, I slept through it - as did the rest of my family. Later, we were told that there were about five shots fired and then a car squealed it's tires as it fled, not to mention the car alarms that set off. We were so used to hearing that crap that it didn't even wake us up. In that same neighborhood, my brother would be a runner for drug deals (we moved from there when he was about twelve) and prostitutes were all over the place. It was a slum that was owned by the mob.
Having had that experience I can tell you that no one "fix" will ever work. Some hookers will be hookers no matter what you do for them or what you tell them. Drug users won't stop until they hit bottom. A lot of users die hitting bottom. Drug dealers won't go away until people are no longer willing to spend big bucks on their drugs. Because that's the way people are. If you can find some sort of formula that works, I will personally help you form a grassroots movement to get the government to adopt it!
Oh, I forgot, we have laws to protect our rapists and murderers.
What's sad is that we aslo have laws protecting pedophiles. And organizations willing to support them all the way. NAMBLA comes to mind. The organizations are usually what get the protective laws in place.

America is quite pompous to think that we should be the only country qualified to own WMDs, or even that we should get to decide which other countries possess them.
I agree, but what other checks and balances are there? It is very arrogant of America to think that we have all the answers to the world's problems. We don't have the answers. And to be honest, I don't think the government as a whole has a God complex. Most politicians, yes, the government as a whole . . . . just arrogant. At some point, America may need to seem arrogant to everyone. We are currently the most powerful nation, the big sister, if you will. The big sister - or brother if you prefer - is supposed to help take care of the "little siblings." Not that they can't take care of themselves, but sometimes they need help. Sometimes they can't take care of themselves. And that is a very fine line. We, on a human to human level don't get it right. How can we expect the goverment (just of bunch of powerful humans) to get it right? Besides, everyone has a different idea of what is right. That's how we can have this awesome thread going.

Ok, you're just speculating...
Yep. I'm not Saddam, I never was. All I have is what our government is allowing the public to know. (For the record, I appreciate that the gov. isn't telling us everything. We don't need to know it all, and America doesn't need to be tipping it's hand, so to speak.) I cannot say, as fact, that Saddam had WMD's and was using them on his own people. I can say, as fact, that he was allowing his people to be mass murdered and their bodies to be dumped in mass graves. America does not tolerate that kind of sadism very well.

Quote:

They don't need our democracy. They need something different.



Really? What?
If I knew I would tell you, the government, the media . . . . I would stand on my roof and scream it to my neighborhood.

If they can do whatever they want once the US, which is precisely what they were doing, then what was the point??
Letting them choose if they want to be under another dictator or if they want to form some other kind of government. Giving them democracy is our way of giving them a clean slate. Like I said before, it's what we know and love.
I'm a 2something/3something. Started modified CG routine on 6/6/05
Cut more than ten inches from my BSL hair on 8-10-05 and growing it long again
But we're STILL adjusting.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
FidoGwen, you should read this thread:

War...killer of culture...and spirit
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
For future reference:

Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.


We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK.

You can also watch the programme online - available for 24 hours after broadcast - from the Newsnight website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com