[mikerally]

Well it looks like America has already handed a contract out to an American based business to run the captured port of Umm Qasar for the import and export business, despite protests from the British.

The British Army wanted to train some of the Iraqi people living in Umm Qasar to set up their own business to run the port for themselves.

Now when Iraq is liberated - they will be paying an American company a minimum fee to import or export goods.

An argument has already flared up about the contract of setting up a Mobile Telephone (Wireless) Network in post war Iraq - in which many American politicians including Rumsfeld (who have no technical knowledge whatseover) are against the European GSM technology (that is used in 70% of the world and in all of Iraq's neighbouring countries) in favour of the American based CDMAone technology.

It appears that all the contracts are going to be handed out to American based businesses (why don't they open up a McDonalds in Iraq aswell?). And if you take the money those businesses will make for the American economy of the next couple of hundred years compared to the 70 billion Dollars spent on the Iraqi war, you get a substancially good long term investment with a big return.

I'm not going to even start with the oil.

That American soldier that raised the American flag in Umm Qasar briefly at the beginning of the war should have left it up.

This is British Imperialism all over again, has nobody learnt from the mistakes the British made?

[kvm_mkdb]

You beat me by 5 minutes... lol

[MPC]

We are liberating Iraq. Don't forget it. They want McDonald's. They just don't know it yet. And Wal-Mart kicks ass.

[kvm_mkdb]

It's a shame. The port was public infrastructure, owned and operated by Iraqis.

We stole it and we took away their jobs.
Don't be surprised if they see us as an evil invader poised to rob them of their riches.

[Hawkeye_a]

American soldiers arent fighting for freedom or defending their country or any idealogical crap they brainwash you with. They are fighting to secure the wallets of the rich in the west. And they say Iraqis are an oppressed people....

"They keep you doped with religion, and sex n TV
And you think your so clever and classless and free
But youre still fuking peasants as far as I can see.

A working class hero is something to be.

There's room at the top, they're telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
if you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon, "Working class hero".

[mikerally]

We are liberating Iraq. Don't forget it. They want McDonald's. They just don't know it yet. And Wal-Mart kicks ass.

I hope that was a joke.

Have you even seen the interviews with Iraqi people - even the ones that want to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

They said they do not want to be ruled by Americans either, or by their culture - They want to be independant - and America is going to take that away by making Iraq's economy reliant on their country.

Don't be surprised if they rise up against America too.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I hope that was a joke.

Don't be surprised if they rise up against America too.

I think it was sarcasm.

If there were still non-hostile Iraqis they're changing their mind now.

[MPC]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I hope that was a joke.

Have you even seen the interviews with Iraqi people - even the ones that want to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

They said they do not want to be ruled by Americans either, or by their culture - They want to be independant - and America is going to take that away by making Iraq's economy reliant on their country.

Don't be surprised if they rise up against America too.

It was total sarcasm. I forgot the This is such a bad mistake.... OMG.... Sorry you had to type all that. This is the mother of all **** ups.

[mikerally]

It was total sarcasm. I forgot the This is such a bad mistake.... OMG.... Sorry you had to type all that. This is the mother of all **** ups.

My bad, I was searching for the but didn't see it, but I suspected it was sarcasm.

It's 10 days into the war, forget this liberating Iraq bullcrap, Where are the terrorist links, where are the weapons of mass destruction?, where is the proof?

- First this war was about the rain against the Terrorists
- Then it was about the Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Now it's about liberating Iraq

I'm tired of being lied to.

[theolein]

To be honest I don't know which way this is going to go. I have deep misgivings about what is going to come out of this conflict.

But it might actually go well. Perhaps the Iraqis will start welcoming the US (the UK seems to be shafted on the sidelines already) and build up a nation that is favourable to the US, with all the trappings that make Americans feel at home.

The US/UK might win this war. I say might because it might just as well end up as a long bloody guerrilla conflict in which going to Iraq would be equivalent for an American soldier to going to Death Row.

I think the US is going to have to exploit really massive military force to win this conflict and they're going to have to exploit massive military force to keep the Iraqis under control once the conflict is won. Very similar to what is happening in Afghanistan. The Taleban have started to give interviews again, and it seems as if they are in no way beaten.

I really do not see the occupation as being an easy one. I think that radical Shiites from the south will start to agitate as soon as they have a chance, and they will be supported by Iranian Shiites, which may very well tip the US into it's next war in the region with even larger loss of life.

But I feel sorry for the Kurds in the north as well. They are the only ones that could and would profit from the US presence. But they will always have to watch their backs against the Turks who will invade if they see any sign of the Kurds becoming independant.

I dunno. I think it's a fukking mess the whole thing.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by mikerally:

- First this war was about the rain against the Terrorists

I'm afraid the line is going to be blurred and the civilians resisting the occupation will be considered terrorists.

The French, Yugoslavian, etc. partisans in WWII were also called 'terrorists' and they were handled as such (no Geneva Convension).

[MPC]

Originally posted by mikerally:
My bad, I was searching for the but didn't see it, but I suspected it was sarcasm.

It's 10 days into the war, forget this liberating Iraq bullcrap, Where are the terrorist links, where are the weapons of mass destruction?, where is the proof?

- First this war was about the rain against the Terrorists
- Then it was about the Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Now it's about liberating Iraq

I'm tired of being lied to.

Exactly.. My main problem with this is the lack of honesty. It seems the main objective is shifted often to make the soundbyte friendly. Come clean and tell me why this is happening.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by mikerally:
It's 10 days into the war, forget this liberating Iraq bullcrap, Where are the terrorist links, where are the weapons of mass destruction?, where is the proof?

- First this war was about the rain against the Terrorists
- Then it was about the Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Now it's about liberating Iraq

I'm tired of being lied to.

- The Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northern Iraq has ties to Al-Qaida. I quess you ignored or chose not to hear Powell's speech at the UN.

- Saddam has chosen to mislead UN weapons inspectors about his WMD programs for 12 years. Must we really debate this more.

- Are the Iraqi civilians capable of rebuilding their country at this moment? No. Will we teach them the skills to do it? Yes. Should we force upon them the responsibility of reconstruction while the Fedayeen are still out shooting civilians and while Saddam is still in power? No. Was France liberated 10 days after D-day? No.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
- The Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northern Iraq has ties to Al-Qaida. I quess you ignored or chose not to hear Powell's speech at the UN.

The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were enemies of Saddam and he would have had them all killed. They only survived trough the protection of the US.
Powells speech was based on circumstantial evidedence, corroborated by fake reports.

- Saddam has chosen to mislead UN weapons inspectors about his WMD programs for 12 years. Must we really debate this more.

Saddam has tried to have the sanctions lifted for 12 years. The inspectors were 95% done in 1998, but the US tried to undermine their work and credibility.

- Are the Iraqi civilians capable of rebuilding their country at this moment? No.

I did not know their country is broken. They have been running it for freaking 6000 years without our help.

Will we teach them the skills to do it? Yes.

You are a preposterous supremacist.
Iraq is a fairly modern and rich country able to take care for itself. Many americans could learn a lot there - if they come in peace.

Should we force upon them the responsibility of reconstruction while the Fedayeen are still out shooting civilians and while Saddam is still in power? No. Was France liberated 10 days after D-day? No.

There is nothing to reconstruct. They have building their infrastructure themselves and can fix it too if it's broken.
The 'Fedayeen' are not shooting civilians, they're going after the US/UK invaders.
France was occupied by a foreign country. The US-UK are foreign countries invading Iraq.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
- Are the Iraqi civilians capable of rebuilding their country at this moment? No. Will we teach them the skills to do it? Yes. Should we force upon them the responsibility of reconstruction while the Fedayeen are still out shooting civilians and while Saddam is still in power? No. Was France liberated 10 days after D-day? No.

Good Grief! this is the MOST arrogant, condescending piece of tripe I've ever seen in this debate.
I'm ashamed very deeply if you are american. You are a disgrace to the nationality.

obviously, the Iraqis have done quite well for themselves since before Plymouth Rock was ever landed upon.

sheesh! I can't decide whether you're a blind nationalist or if your basis for the condescension is a racial one.

btw: don't really care if this offends you, what you wrote deeply offends me, and I'm a WASP.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were enemies of Saddam and he would have had them all killed. They only survived trough the protection of the US.
Powells speech was based on circumstantial evidedence, corroborated by fake reports.

No he would not have had them killed because there's not much he can do in the north and there is no proof they are truely Saddam's enemy, but they are our enemy. Ironic you say they only survived through the protection of the US because we've been bombing the hell out of their camps since this war began.

Saddam has tried to have the sanctions lifted for 12 years. The inspectors were 95% done in 1998, but the US tried to undermine their work and credibility.

Tone down your rhetoric. The reason the US wanted the inspections to continue was from the information gained when Saddam's son-in-law, who was in charge of hiding Saddam's WMD, defected to Jordan and told the world/UN you haven't found everything, there is much more, and I can prove it. And of course Saddam has tried to get the UN sanctions lifted, because his goal has been to start all over after the first Gulf War, but don't confuse that with trying to help the Iraqi people.

I did not know their country is broken. They have been running it for freaking 6000 years without our help.

You obviously aren't looking at the same pictures I'm looking at. Iraq has been broken since the Iran/Iraq war was started by Saddam in 1980 and has never recovered since. The only real resource Iraq has is oil and production has fallen throughout most of Saddam's time in power, and yet, most of that money has gone to Saddam and not Iraq's infrastructure. The only way to get Iraq and it's people back on their feet is to bring in a responsible gov't and bring Iraq's oil production back up to pre-1979 levels. To do that we must get rid of Saddam and repair/upgrade Iraq's oil production facilities and industries to handle the increase in production. That takes time, money, and training for the Iraqi citizens, and it means bringing foreign companies back into Iraq, once it's safe, to help in this process.

You are a preposterous supremacist.
Iraq is a fairly modern and rich country able to take care for itself. Many americans could learn a lot there - if they come in peace.

Read my comment above.

There is nothing to reconstruct. They have building their infrastructure themselves and can fix it too if it's broken.
The 'Fedayeen' are not shooting civilians, they're going after the US/UK invaders.
France was occupied by a foreign country. The US-UK are foreign countries invading Iraq.

For the first part of your statement, reffer to my previous comments.

"The 'Fedayeen' are not shooting civilians" ...you're joking right?

France was under the control of a brutal regime, so is Iraq. France was liberated from that regime, so will Iraq be liberated from it's. Since WWI, America and Britian have done this sort of thing and in return all we ask is for a little piece of dirt to bury our dead. If you want to know what an invading force is, look at what Stalin did as the Russian army came through and "liberated" Eastern Europe from the Nazi's.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
...you're joking right?

No

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
The 'Fedayeen' are not shooting civilians

FYI: He has also claimed that a farmer in a field with a wooden rifle could very well have shot down an Apache helicopter.

[spacefreak]

Does anyone care to provide a link to the source of this story?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
... You obviously aren't looking at the same pictures I'm looking at. Iraq has been broken since the Iran/Iraq war was started by Saddam in 1980 and has never recovered since...

Which is why he invaded Kuwait in the first place.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Which is why he invaded Kuwait in the first place.

It invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was cross-drilling and refused to stop. The US said it had no objecton to Iraq invading Kuwait.

BTW: The invasion of Kuwait was almost bloodless (they just surrendered).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
The invasion of Kuwait was almost bloodless .

Being that you hate the US so much, and defend Saddam Hussein to the death, why don't you just go live there. You'd probably be a lot happier.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
It invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was cross-drilling and refused to stop.

That was Iraq's story anyway.

The US said it had no objecton to Iraq invading Kuwait.

No, what the US ambassador said was "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." Clearly, this was a blunder. She said this, however, unaware of Saddam's intentions to invade Kuwait.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Which is why he invaded Kuwait in the first place.

Exactly. He needed their oil production, because his oil production capabilities were in ruin and still are, to pay for the debt he owed from the Iran/Iraq war to various countries.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
That was Iraq's story anyway.

It doesn't make it false.

No, what the US ambassador said was "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." Clearly, this was a blunder. She said this, however, unaware of Saddam's intentions to invade Kuwait.

The Iraqi ambassador had threatened an invasion...

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
Exactly. He needed their oil production, because his oil production capabilities were in ruin and still are, to pay for the debt he owed from the Iran/Iraq war to various countries.

Iraqs oil production capabilities were low, but not in ruin. Kuwaits cross-drilling made it worse.

BTW: Both Iraq and Iran bought their (chemical) weapons from US and UK when they were at war with each other.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
The Iraqi ambassador had threatened an invasion...

The conversation wasn't with the Iraqi ambassador. It was with Saddam Hussein and the US ambassador's blunder came before she said this, "And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not in the spirit of confrontation - regarding your intentions." If she knew Iraq was going to invade, then why did she ask Saddam what his intentions were?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The conversation wasn't with the Iraqi ambassador. It was with Saddam Hussein and the US ambassador's blunder came before she said this, "And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not in the spirit of confrontation - regarding your intentions." If she knew Iraq was going to invade, then why did she ask Saddam what his intentions were?

You're right - it was Saddam himself; but you are getting the order in the dialog wrong - it was quite clear what the argument of the conversation was:


Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

[Zimphire]

kvm I find your slant on things to be a tad bit fictitious and self serving. Had the US known they were going to attack Kuwait, we woul dhave probably bombed them first. I mean come on, it's the US we do that sort of thing remember?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
kvm I find your slant on things to be a tad bit fictitious and self serving. Had the US known they were going to attack Kuwait, we woul dhave probably bombed them first. I mean come on, it's the US we do that sort of thing remember?

How can this transcript be ficticious? It is after all documenting an actual conversation?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
You're right - it was Saddam himself; but you are getting the order in the dialog wrong...

No I didn't. My source is a transcript published on september 23, 1990 in The New York Times. Ambassador Glaspie's comments arose within the context of a discussion of the price of oil.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
How can this transcript be ficticious? It is after all documenting an actual conversation?

Not the conversation, but his motivations behind it. In no way did that show we knew exactly what Iraq was planning to do. So saying we supported their actions is based on a falsehood.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No I didn't. My source is a transcript published on september 23, 1990 in The New York Times. Ambassador Glaspie's comments arose within the context of a discussion of the price of oil.

That's very interesting - there appear to be slightly different versions of the dialog, but the order is different from your source.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
BTW: Both Iraq and Iran bought their (chemical) weapons from US and UK when they were at war with each other.

Throughout the 1970's the West gave Iraq what it wanted because they wanted to pry Iraq away from the USSR. In the 80's reasons changed when Khomeini arrived on the scene, and the West found Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. And because Saddam and Khomeini were both evil, the West never wanted either side to win, so they would help them both out whenever it suited them. However, we never sold to Iraq or Iran directly. Saddam used contries like Jordan and Saudia Arabi to front for him and Khomeini used Syria and Lybia to front for him. So, what's your point?

BTW/ Where do you think all those Russian T-72 tanks Saddam has came from? (pssst...the USSR)

EDIT: I don't think we ever sold him actual chemical or biological munitions. It's documented that American and/or British companies sold Saddam the blueprints and what not, but never the actual munitions. That point needs to be brought up.

[voodoo]

1980

[finboy]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I hope that was a joke.

After reading the posts in this forum, why would you think it was a joke?

I don't think the Iraqi people will get much of a chance to hate America, because I don't think that it will take much to get the country up and running again after the war ends. Not on the scale of occupied Europe or Japan, at least. I think there are plenty of folks already in the region who would love to help Iraq rebuild once they get a jump start.

As for American companies being contracted to do all this stuff afterwards, consider that in some cases (the oil contracts) they may be the best qualified companies or one of the two or three only companies to fill that role in the whole world. I don't know about the port operations case, but that's certainly the case with Halliburton. If anyone ELSE could do the job that Halliburton can do with the oil fields after the war, I think any sane politician would want to steer clear of his ex-firm as much as possible.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by finboy:
As for American companies being contracted to do all this stuff afterwards, consider that in some cases (the oil contracts) they may be the best qualified companies....I think any sane politician would want to steer clear of his ex-firm as much as possible.

Who'da thunk? Nah, it's a conspiracy!

[mikerally]

As for American companies being contracted to do all this stuff afterwards, consider that in some cases (the oil contracts) they may be the best qualified companies or one of the two or three only companies to fill that role in the whole world. I don't know about the port operations case, but that's certainly the case with Halliburton. If anyone ELSE could do the job that Halliburton can do with the oil fields after the war, I think any sane politician would want to steer clear of his ex-firm as much as possible.

I don't dispute whether the American companies any good...

But it's America who is giving out these contracts... and not the reformed Iraqi government - and they're only going to give it to American companies - all the politicians were arguing for that, including Rumsfeld.

Like they say, "If you give a man a fish for a day, you feed him for one day, if you teach him how to fish, he will eat for life".

As far as the weapons of Mass Destruction is concerned, I want to see some substancial proof (I don't give a flying f**k how confidential they are), let make Saddam make the first move, if you hold a gun to his head, you can keep him contained for life - just like we did for the past 12 years.

[GiacomoSeingalt]

Originally posted by MPC:
Exactly.. My main problem with this is the lack of honesty. It seems the main objective is shifted often to make the soundbyte friendly. Come clean and tell me why this is happening.

Maybe the authorities fear to tell us the real reasons:

- To give American oil companies the opporunities to Iraq oil sources
- To weaken the EU as an economical concurrent
- To prevent the OPEC to switch the oil currancy to the euro
- To demonstrate the world that the US is strong enough to be the only superpower and that it is dangerous to endanger their interests

[cpt kangarooski]

eVil_kEybOarD--

You obviously aren't looking at the same pictures I'm looking at. Iraq has been broken since the Iran/Iraq war was started by Saddam in 1980 and has never recovered since. The only real resource Iraq has is oil and production has fallen throughout most of Saddam's time in power, and yet, most of that money has gone to Saddam and not Iraq's infrastructure. The only way to get Iraq and it's people back on their feet is to bring in a responsible gov't and bring Iraq's oil production back up to pre-1979 levels. To do that we must get rid of Saddam and repair/upgrade Iraq's oil production facilities and industries to handle the increase in production. That takes time, money, and training for the Iraqi citizens, and it means bringing foreign companies back into Iraq, once it's safe, to help in this process.

It's not production. It's shipping. The Iran/Iraq war was at least in part fought over access to the Gulf. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was fought for the same reason, plus the slant-drilling allegations, and that Kuwait used to be part of Iraq until the British cut things up when they were in control of the area.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Does anyone care to provide a link to the source of this story?

Still no link to the original story.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Kuwait used to be part of Iraq until the British cut things up when they were in control of the area.

Kuwait never 'used to be part of Iraq' because before we (the British) sliced up the area into the geo political map you see today there was no Iraq. We 'drew lines in the sand' to make 'countries' out of the land we were occupying. This is why modern Iraq has 3 groups of distinct peoples (Curds in the North, Sadams lot in the centere and the Shiites in the South, who have more in common with people in Iran) that all hate each other.

P.S. The problem of a 'free' Iraq, is that it could turn into another Yugoslavia after the Comunists left.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by mikerally:
As far as the weapons of Mass Destruction is concerned, I want to see some substancial proof (I don't give a flying f**k how confidential they are), let make Saddam make the first move, if you hold a gun to his head, you can keep him contained for life - just like we did for the past 12 years.

Why don't people realize that this is just wrong.

Containment has NOT worked. In 1998, we lost our ability to gain official knowledge and intelligence on Iraq. Hussein kicked the inspectors out. After doing so, he publicly announced his possession of WMD programs from the start. He proclaimed certain amounts of botullin, sarin, etc, etc. He claimed production facilities to make more. Clinton bombed some of those facilities, I suppose. Our inspections did not work, at all!

After 1998, I seriously doubt that he stopped doing what he took pains to do while we were inspecting the country. In fact, it should be assumed that he did continue the programs, even extended them.

In addition, China, Russia, France, and others have been violating the trade sanctions all along.

Furthermore, any new developments in Hussein's contacts with terrorists would diminish the role of deterrence. If we can't detain him, then deter him from using WMD's right? Hold out the carrot of decreased containment to deter his aggression and bad behavior.

No, as soon as he can deliver a WMD through Al Qaida, other terrorist groups, or even his own agents, he will do so. We won't be able to tell that they were his agents or that it was his WMDs because China, Russia, France, and the US have sold him the plans and the materials in the past. The WMD residues will incriminate other countries, if any.

So, no, containment and deterrence are not options.

[simonjames]

Back to the topic

Just goes to show that the US is there and always has been for it's own good ONLY. As if American companies are the best to run oil fields - there are plenty of UK and Australian companies that do exactly the same job. But do they get preferrential treatment in the assigning of Iraqi contracts? No - they all go to the US.

Actually - this disgusts me. The bottom line of this whole charade is America has invaded another country to take complete control of their natural resources.

Which country is next?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Which is why he invaded Kuwait in the first place.

He invaided Kuwait because Kuwait broke an agreement that forbid them from drilling and pumping oil so close to the border.

They made the agreement to avoid border disputes over who's oil is who's, intentionally to avoid conflict. Kuwait ignored the agreement so Iraq invaded.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Back to the topic

Still no link to the original story.

[mikerally]

Still no link to the original story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2884701.stm

I'm very wary of the media, especially when I heard someone from the U.S. Military on a phonecall interview on TV started laughing at the mention at the mention of Fox News, he mentioned that they jumpred the gun and blew things out of proportion - particulary when they started reporting that Scud Missiles were landing in Kuwait City on the first day of the war (he claimed they were anything but Scud).

Very recently the Whitehouse had to put a lid on the media as they were starting to overeact again, trying to play down the possible find of a chemical weapons factory - which infact turned out to be anything but (the Whitehouse was right to play it down).

I think anybody that takes the word of the media as "fact" or the "final word" needs to step back a bit - just take a look at all the Mac vs. PC articles in the media over the past years, and tell me how much you trust the journalist's opinion there - the same goes for politics. Even if it does look like they're just reporting the facts, if you're very clever with words and statistics you can actually make the facts say anything - I've seen it done before.

[mikerally]

Containment has NOT worked. In 1998, we lost our ability to gain official knowledge and intelligence on Iraq. Hussein kicked the inspectors out. After doing so, he publicly announced his possession of WMD programs from the start. He proclaimed certain amounts of botullin, sarin, etc, etc. He claimed production facilities to make more. Clinton bombed some of those facilities, I suppose. Our inspections did not work, at all!

There are different approaches to containing him...

We essentially had him under our thumb right before the war started - we held a gun to his head and put inspectors back in the country.

So what do you do? You make his job difficult!

You keep hawk eyes on him, watch his every move, keep him at the centre of attention in the world spot light - hold a gun to his head put troops outside his borders - threaten to go to war with him for as long as you like - put back in weapons inspectors to get in his way, threaten to shoot if he doesn't let you put them back in - corner him on his every move - and then wait for him to make small mistake and then go in for the kill - because he has been caught red handed even consider entrapment - set him up.

That's a better approach to containing him - and that is certainly not how you've been containing him for the past 12 years.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Being that you hate the US so much, and defend Saddam Hussein to the death, why don't you just go live there. You'd probably be a lot happier.

Are you 12?

[pooka]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Are you 12?

WOO WOO. One more year and he'll be old enough to party with Roman Polanski!