Lying to the US

[Wrawrat]

Personally, I don't think that finding WMDs is important. It was just a pretext to kick out Saddam of Iraq. It's only important for the credibility of the Bush administration. The important is that they saved a people. Sure, lying is bad... The american governments are renowed for their hypocrisy. However, I think that doing nothing to liberate an oppressed people is equally bad, if not more. Nobody's perfect. Hey, I even heard that our own government in Canada decided to stay out of this war for their own political benefits against the province of Quebec...  

[Jasper]

Wrawrat, I think you hit the nail on the head with this "Personally, I don't think that finding WMDs is important. It was just a pretext to kick out Saddam of Iraq."

I think that is exactly the point of the original poster. Bush sold the WMD thing to the public as the justification to go to war and that was the primary reason for the eventual sidestepping of the UN. So as you said, with WMD just being a "pretext to kick Saddam" it would lead me to beleive that a lie was involved.

Now knowing that there are no WMD in Iraq, or if there are certainly none that were any imminent threat (we would have found them by now if they exist (not to mention the months/years of UN weapon inspectors searching all of Iraq)), it leaves us with only one conclusion for the war: Politics, Oil, Divert attention away from domestic issues.

Of course the world is the safer place without Sadaam in power, but a diplomatic global approach would have been a much more sensible thing to do, not to mention cheaper.

If you had the money in your pocket, is that how you would have spent it?  

[Jasper]

BTW did anyone watch Bush land the fighter jet on the aircraft carrier last week?

Did anyone else get a sense of military imperialism as he stepped out of the plane in his military fighter jet uniform and waved to a huge uniform military standing before him on the carrier? Had an uncanny Sadamm like feel to the whole thing.

Yeah…we are so tough.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jasper
BTW did anyone watch Bush land the fighter jet on the aircraft carrier last week?

Did anyone else get a sense of military imperialism as he stepped out of the plane in his military fighter jet uniform and waved to a huge uniform military standing before him on the carrier? Had an uncanny Sadamm like feel to the whole thing.

Yeah…we are so tough.

Except that Bush's troops weren't goosestepping like Nazis along a promenade.  You also forgot the torture chambers...and the rape chambers...and trails of gassed Kurds...or the forced and wild chants of a populace screaming for infidel blood.

It didn't have the feel of Saddam at all  

im·pe·ri·al·ism - n.
1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests

My question to those who'd consider the US imperialistic.  If the US turns the rulership of Iraq back over to the Iraqi people, are we still Imperialists?  And if we are, does that make any country that sides with us and gains any sort of financial or protectionist benefit from it a colony of our Imperialist state?  This is an honest question.  I'm not intending to be sarcastic at all.  I think I see the causal links that people like to create when they accuse the US of being Imperialist, but I would like to clarify it.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jasper
Wrawrat, I think you hit the nail on the head with this "Personally, I don't think that finding WMDs is important. It was just a pretext to kick out Saddam of Iraq."

I think that is exactly the point of the original poster. Bush sold the WMD thing to the public as the justification to go to war and that was the primary reason for the eventual sidestepping of the UN. So as you said, with WMD just being a "pretext to kick Saddam" it would lead me to beleive that a lie was involved.

Now knowing that there are no WMD in Iraq, or if there are certainly none that were any imminent threat (we would have found them by now if they exist (not to mention the months/years of UN weapon inspectors searching all of Iraq)), it leaves us with only one conclusion for the war: Politics, Oil, Divert attention away from domestic issues.

I think it's presumptous to assume that none exist at this point.  As I said before, Bush only just declared the ground war over this week.  A little more time might be on order here.  Apparently those WMDs were not an imminent threat to our troops, but the original concern was that they would be used for terrorist purposes.  If that is the case then they wouldn't necessarily be loaded up on the front lines.  We HAVE found terrorist camps and that's important to note.

This doesn't leave me with one conclusion for the war.  If this was about oil we'd have gone to the UN security council and opened up the floodgates for the Food for Oil program and just bought all we wanted.  With the UN sanctions we already HAD control of the oil.  The Food for Oil program allowed the security council members to set the selling price of the oil.  We could have just conspired with France, Germany, etc to set the price at whatever was convenient.  We were one of the few countries lobbying to keep the caps where they were.  The oil argument just doesn't work.  The divert attention away from the economy doesn't work either.  Bush has proposed a very large tax cut plan to stimulate the economy.  Say what you will about it, but it is action on the economy.  He's not ignoring it and all he has to do is ask his dad what happens come election time if he thinks war will mask the supposed problems of the US economy.

Quote
Of course the world is the safer place without Sadaam in power, but a diplomatic global approach would have been a much more sensible thing to do, not to mention cheaper.

The basic question behind that argument is, "do you believe that Saddam could have been negotiated with to step down."  To me the answer is no.  He only understood force.

Quote
If you had the money in your pocket, is that how you would have spent it?

Yes.  It sure beats the moronic, pork barrel politics we play with the money right now.  I watched an investigation on TV while in Vegas about how the state spent a million dollars paving a highway in the middle of the desert to five lanes for no real reason.  They even put in curbs and driveways that didn't lead to buildings, just sandy desert.  

Or how about this Vieques mess.  We've been using that island for 50 years to train pilots to bomb.  A couple years ago we accidentally bombed some locals and the protests began to shut it down.  Clinton presented a moratorium and Bush finalized it when he came into office so training for bombing stops.  Problem is, there's no other reason to have the base.  As a result the Navy looks into it and decides there's absolutely no reason for it's existance and because of the major budget cuts of the last 10 years the money's better off being spent somewhere else.  Makes sense right?  No.  Now everyone's up in arms because the people of Vieques are going to lose their only real source of income, which is the military base.  So they're screaming to keep a useless base open.  

I'd say liberating a couple million people from a genocidal dictator is money well spent in comparison.

 

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jasper
[...]Now knowing that there are no WMD in Iraq, or if there are certainly none that were any imminent threat (we would have found them by now if they exist (not to mention the months/years of UN weapon inspectors searching all of Iraq)), it leaves us with only one conclusion for the war: Politics, Oil, Divert attention away from domestic issues.

...and there's only one conclusion why some countries stood against the war: politics, oil, divert attention away from their cooperation with a cruel regime...

Quote
Of course the world is the safer place without Sadaam in power, but a diplomatic global approach would have been a much more sensible thing to do, not to mention cheaper.

I fully agree with you Jasper. The problem is that every country in the current situation have their own self interests, and the UN can't do anything about this because they don't have any power. I'm sure that many, if not most countries wanted to kick Saddam out of Iraq, but they weren't doing anything about this because they had their own interests. I'm also sure that most countries that supported the US did that for the same reason. Come on, why do you think Ethiopia and Rwanda supported the US? They don't have anything to offer! I'm pretty sure they gave their support in hope of getting something in return. It's ironic that Canada gave more support than most of these countries even if we weren't supporting (directly) that war...

The world will become a better world once we learn to put aside our personal interests in certain situations to help our common cause. I may sound like a communist, but I believe it's the only way that diplomacy will work. Unfortunately, the current governments don't seem to understand this.

Talking about diplomacy... It may be a bit off-topic, but I really want to denounce the attitude of the americans. Yes, I was pro-war and I believe they did the right thing. However, I believe it's stupid, and even childish to exclude every country that were against the war from their plans (except Canada for an unknown reason). Hell, they are pushing the UN to put sanctions over France and Germany! That's ridiculous. I wonder if that's what you call "democracy" and "freedom of speech/choice". I think that these sanctions would be the worst thing to do. Yes, France did spied and gave informations to Iraq, but it's not like the americans never did that (*cough* Echelon *cough*). A sanction like this would probably rip apart the UN like tidal forces (as it would be stuck in the middle of two opposites forces... I know my astronomy and I'm showing my geekness! ) and would probably send the world in a Cold War, Part II.

Quote
If you had the money in your pocket, is that how you would have spent it?

No, I would have bought a badass folding farm to annihilate our competition.

[a000]

Scut- "Apparently those WMDs were not an imminent threat to our troops"  Well thats why we went to war.  If they werent immediate threat to our troops we shouldve just kept looking and save the lives of our troops and their and the civilians lost in the tradegy.  We couldve waited longer and Sadam wouldnt of used them.  Thats the bottom line.  We didnt have the money to spend we shouldnt of spent it.

Wrarat- "Personally, I don't think that finding WMDs is important. It was just a pretext to kick out Saddam of Iraq"
              It was the reason Bush gave the country and the UN.  The problem with Scuts argument is he never admits to that.  More of the country would support it if he wouldve said it was to liberate Iraq from an evil dictator, but thats not what Bush wanted.  He said it was to protect america from WMD.  Then when the chance of finding them decreased he changed it to liberating Iraq.  

These wars cost money.  We have the biggest deficit in the history of the US and the deficit is not counting any money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Our economy is basically licking the salt off a dead panda bear.  I just wonder when is the point when we worry about our country before other countries.  What is ironic about that last sentance is that it is what the people in the Bush administration said during the Clinton years.  We dont have the money to go frolicking through Bush's make beleive wars for make beleive reasons.  I say come up with good reasons that show heart and not show how big our barrel is and then it will make sense.  Otherwise STFU and figure out how to fix our economy.

[Arrow]

a000:

Scut- "Apparently those WMDs were not an imminent threat to our troops" Well thats why we went to war. If they werent immediate threat to our troops we shouldve just kept looking and save the lives of our troops and their and the civilians lost in the tradegy. We couldve waited longer and Sadam wouldnt of used them. Thats the bottom line. We didnt have the money to spend we shouldnt of spent it.

Oh I find this to be funny as hell. We've been waiting for Saddam to stop playing his games and stop telling his lies for eleven years. If Saddam didn't have these weapons then all he had to do was to show the documents for their destruction and allow the inspectors unfettered access to anyone they wanted to talk to; no minders and no conditions. Then he could prove beyond any doubt that the US was lying about him having WMDs, the sanctions would had be lifted and he could had restarted his WMD programs in secret.

But no, Saddam did not do that, and allowed to the belief that he WMDs remain. Personally, I know in my gut that he had them. He may had destroyed them just before the war as a last strike at US creditibility. But we've found too delivery equipment for there to have not been WMDs in Iraq recently.

These wars cost money. We have the biggest deficit in the history of the US and the deficit is not counting any money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our economy is basically licking the salt off a dead panda bear. I just wonder when is the point when we worry about our country before other countries. What is ironic about that last sentance is that it is what the people in the Bush administration said during the Clinton years. We dont have the money to go frolicking through Bush's make beleive wars for make beleive reasons. I say come up with good reasons that show heart and not show how big our barrel is and then it will make sense. Otherwise STFU and figure out how to fix our economy.

I don't agree with Bush's tax cut because of the deficit, but on the other hand it is wrong to expect any adminstration to 'fix' the economy. The economy runs on a cycle. Government interference usually results in either a longer recovery time or a quicker failure next time around. The best thing Bush can do for the economy is keep hunting down al Quada and quickly resolve the NK crisis, which would make the companies and consumers feel safer, encouraging them to save money.



Wrawrat:

While it maybe ugly, but a lot of americans (including myself) are very upset with France and Germany, who have spent the past couple of years bashing the US at every turn. That's the sort of thing I expect out of Russia or China. If France and Germany want to have differences with the US, that's fine as long as all sides are willing to work together. And I also expect nations to spy on each other, including allies. But when your ally spies on you and then gives the information over your enemy, the nation is no longer your ally. France should pay a price and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq.  

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: Another guy named Arrow
Wrawrat:
While it maybe ugly, but a lot of americans (including myself) are very upset with France and Germany, who have spent the past couple of years bashing the US at every turn.

And I guess your people never did that towards them? *cough*

Quote
[...]If France and Germany want to have differences with the US, that's fine as long as all sides are willing to work together.

You sound like they should get all the blame. I'm sorry, but you are as unflexible as they are.

Quote
And I also expect nations to spy on each other, including allies. But when your ally spies on you and then gives the information over your enemy, the nation is no longer your ally.

I must admit you're right, but you don't even know the nature of that information. Perhaps it was false propaganda, who knows.

Quote
France should pay a price and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq.

But what price? Don't you realise that France is not Iraq, Syria or Iran? Don't you realise that you want to put sanctions to a nation possessing an big influence in Europe, but most importantly nuclear power? Don't you realise that more and more people will start hating your nation? Is that what you really want? We already talked about this before, and I'll say it again... You don't have the moral right to lead the world.

Btw, the US is not renowed to be willing to work together...  

[a000]

Arrow- I understand your points, but they are very one sided.  You've watched to much war coverage.  You say Sadam let everyone beleive he had WMD.  I never saw that, hes been saying for a long time that he doesnt have any.  He let the inspectors in with basically access to everything.   Do you really expect him to open up his complete gov't for the fun of the US?  Have we ever let anyone look at our private files.  Hell, our own president isnt allowed to look at all the documents we have.  

". Personally, I know in my gut that he had them"  I am afraid thats how Bush felt as well.  I'm glad his gut costs the lives of so many.  I hope we find the weapons so he doesnt have to live with that.

"and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq. "  I see you dont beleive in freedom of speech for the world, just the US.  They spoke up what they thought.  Theres a good portion of the country that was against the war too, should they be punished for their actions.   Everyone has reasons not to go to war, yes sometimes they are shady.  If France had reason to attack Isreal, would we let them? no

Wrarat-  I agree with your points.  We spy on every country in the world its silly to think they dont spy on us.  Just a year or so ago we convicted a guy with treason for being a double agent between the US and Russia

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Arrow- I understand your points, but they are very one sided.  You've watched to much war coverage.

I think that Arrow knows what he's talking about... I've discutted with him enough to know that he don't have that opinion because he watched too much war coverage... I don't always agree with him, but I respect him.

Quote
"and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq. "  I see you dont beleive in freedom of speech for the world, just the US.  They spoke up what they thought.

Well, I agree that they should be excluded from reconstruction, as they clearly voiced that opinion because of their own interests in Iraq. They didn't wanted to help the Iraqi people because they had big deals with Saddam. Anyway, who bombed the country? I think it's their job to rebuild the country. However, putting sanctions on these countries would only had oil to the fire... Yes, they violated treaties, but it's not like the US never did that. We don't need a Cold War II.

Quote
Everyone has reasons not to go to war, yes sometimes they are shady.

I totally agree with you, as I'm living in one of those countries.

Quote
Wrarat-  I agree with your points.  We spy on every country in the world its silly to think they dont spy on us.  Just a year or so ago we convicted a guy with treason for being a double agent between the US and Russia

Well, that's normal. Spying is illegal in most countries. The problem is... how can you judge a country like France when you don't know the nature of the information that was traded? Hell, maybe they only told Saddam that Bush wants to open a McDo in Bagdad. Maybe they divulged false information. That would explain the weak opposition from the Republican Guards.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Arrow- I understand your points, but they are very one sided.  You've watched to much war coverage.  You say Sadam let everyone beleive he had WMD.  I never saw that, hes been saying for a long time that he doesnt have any.  He let the inspectors in with basically access to everything.   Do you really expect him to open up his complete gov't for the fun of the US?  Have we ever let anyone look at our private files.  Hell, our own president isnt allowed to look at all the documents we have.  

"Actions speak louder than words" and that was Saddam's main problem.  He could say all he wanted that he didn't have this and he didn't have that, but he acted like a liar each time the weapons inspectors felt like they were onto something or each time they proposed to look in a suspicious area and I think that was Arrow's point.  

Quote
". Personally, I know in my gut that he had them"  I am afraid thats how Bush felt as well.  I'm glad his gut costs the lives of so many.  I hope we find the weapons so he doesnt have to live with that.

The US handed over top secret documents from our intellegence services that showed where some of these WMDs might have been and now Blix is saying that they were made up and falsified.  That doesn't make any sense to me.  Why would we hand Blix something like that?  To send him on a wild goose chase so he doesn't find what we want him to find?  

Quote
"and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq. "  I see you dont beleive in freedom of speech for the world, just the US.  They spoke up what they thought.  Theres a good portion of the country that was against the war too, should they be punished for their actions.   Everyone has reasons not to go to war, yes sometimes they are shady.  If France had reason to attack Isreal, would we let them? no

The UN posts resolutions of condemnations against Israel often enough.  In fact, they do it against US protests as well.  The difference is that Israel has history on their side.  They don't attack, they are attacked.  Iraq attacks.  

Quote
Wrarat-  I agree with your points.  We spy on every country in the world its silly to think they dont spy on us.  Just a year or so ago we convicted a guy with treason for being a double agent between the US and Russia

We've caught our allies spying on us during the cold war plenty of times.  It causes a few ruffled feathers and eventually everything settles down.  There's a difference between spying for documents and France and Germany selling UN banned weapons and chemical agents to our sworn enemy.

[Arrow]

a000:
Arrow- I understand your points, but they are very one sided. You've watched to much war coverage. You say Sadam let everyone beleive he had WMD. I never saw that, hes been saying for a long time that he doesnt have any. He let the inspectors in with basically access to everything. Do you really expect him to open up his complete gov't for the fun of the US? Have we ever let anyone look at our private files. Hell, our own president isnt allowed to look at all the documents we have.

The first inspectors told Iraq that they needed complete and total cooperation - unrestricted access to all files and people related to WMDs. Saddam never did that. He did not back up his words with action. He lost the 1991 war, and this was part of the terms that he agreed to. So yes, I expected him to open up his government. You can say I have a double standard if you wish.

"and Germany and Russia should be excluded from rebuilding Iraq. " I see you dont beleive in freedom of speech for the world, just the US. They spoke up what they thought. Theres a good portion of the country that was against the war too, should they be punished for their actions. Everyone has reasons not to go to war, yes sometimes they are shady. If France had reason to attack Isreal, would we let them? no

I have no problems with honest disagreement. But the smear campaigns France, Russia and Germany have pulled is taking things too far. If someone wants to disagree with me, I'll still work with them. When they insult me, they can STFU, FO and drive off a cliff. And Russians have really pissed me off. They've taken footage of the war and twisted to suit their agenda. So much for freedom of speech.

Wrawrat:
And I guess your people never did that towards them? *cough*

While many people have made French and German jokes, I can't recall our government making fun of them.

You sound like they should get all the blame. I'm sorry, but you are as unflexible as they are.

It was France that became unflexible first. When they did that, there was no longer any point in dealing with them.

But what price? Don't you realise that France is not Iraq, Syria or Iran? Don't you realise that you want to put sanctions to a nation possessing an big influence in Europe, but most importantly nuclear power? Don't you realise that more and more people will start hating your nation? Is that what you really want? We already talked about this before, and I'll say it again... You don't have the moral right to lead the world.

France should lose any say in the rebuilding of Iraq, as they backed the wrong side. They should lose all contracts with the US government due the bashing the French government has done (you know, I can't recall a single example of Bush doing the type of smear job against France the they've done to us. Please correct me if I'm wrong). And if US citizens and organizations want to boycott French products, fine with me. As for France's big influence, I doubt they are that big and influence. Especially after Chirac told the new EU members to "shut up." Most European nations sided with US. And if France wants to pull some crap with their nukes, you can bet the rest of Europe will act against them.

This is all realpolitik. Right now we've got the power, which France, Russia and Germany all want to get back. Iraq was the issue they chose to use for their attempt. This isn't the cold war. This is 19th century politics. If you say that the US doesn't have the moral right to lead the world, then no one else does.

[Wrawrat]

While many people have made French and German jokes, I can't recall our government making fun of them.
I don't recall the French and German governments making fun of americans either.

It was France that became unflexible first. When they did that, there was no longer any point in dealing with them.
Eh? What the hell are you talking about? You wanted a war from the very beginning! Weapon inspections were only a diversion to your goal.

France should lose any say in the rebuilding of Iraq, as they backed the wrong side. They should lose all contracts with the US government due the bashing the French government has done (you know, I can't recall a single example of Bush doing the type of smear job against France the they've done to us. Please correct me if I'm wrong).
I agree with you, but what about the UN? They respected their laws, after all.

And if US citizens and organizations want to boycott French products, fine with me.
Indeed, but that's childish.

As for France's big influence, I doubt they are that big and influence. Especially after Chirac told the new EU members to "shut up." Most European nations sided with US. And if France wants to pull some crap with their nukes, you can bet the rest of Europe will act against them.
Yes, but what if they are allying with Russia, Germany, China, etc? I'm sure you don't want them to plot together against you. Don't understimate them.

This is all realpolitik. Right now we've got the power, which France, Russia and Germany all want to get back. Iraq was the issue they chose to use for their attempt. This isn't the cold war. This is 19th century politics. If you say that the US doesn't have the moral right to lead the world, then no one else does. [my emphasis]
*Exactly*: no one does. Are you promoting democracy or dictatorship? You CAN'T lead the world and promote democracy. 64M people can't decide the fate of the entire world. (Why 64M? You're ~260M in the US, about 130M voted in the last elections (correct me if I'm wrong), 48% voted for Republicans, that gives roughly 64M).

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Scut- "Apparently those WMDs were not an imminent threat to our troops"  Well thats why we went to war.  If they werent immediate threat to our troops we shouldve just kept looking and save the lives of our troops and their and the civilians lost in the tradegy.  We couldve waited longer and Sadam wouldnt of used them.  Thats the bottom line.  We didnt have the money to spend we shouldnt of spent it.

You're getting your facts wrong.  The US went to war because Bush believes that Saddam has WMDs that he would use on American civilians, not troops.  We stop supporting the UN inspections because Saddam was just playing cat and mouse with the inspectors and the UN was unwilling to do anything to solve the problem.

Quote
Wrarat- "Personally, I don't think that finding WMDs is important. It was just a pretext to kick out Saddam of Iraq"  It was the reason Bush gave the country and the UN.  The problem with Scuts argument is he never admits to that.

I don't admit that because I don't believe it.  

Quote
More of the country would support it if he wouldve said it was to liberate Iraq from an evil dictator, but thats not what Bush wanted.  He said it was to protect america from WMD.  Then when the chance of finding them decreased he changed it to liberating Iraq.  

First of all, is it a bad thing that we liberated Iraq?  To me that alone was enough to go into Iraq.  Secondly, Bush added that and a couple of other things as reasons before we moved into Iraq.  The UN was never going to remove Saddam from power if we found WMDs, so what's the point of making that part of the argument?

Quote
These wars cost money.  We have the biggest deficit in the history of the US and the deficit is not counting any money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Our economy is basically licking the salt off a dead panda bear.  I just wonder when is the point when we worry about our country before other countries.  What is ironic about that last sentance is that it is what the people in the Bush administration said during the Clinton years.  We dont have the money to go frolicking through Bush's make beleive wars for make beleive reasons.  I say come up with good reasons that show heart and not show how big our barrel is and then it will make sense.  Otherwise STFU and figure out how to fix our economy.

First of all, accounting for inflation our deficit was larger under Reagan and the country didn't fall apart.  Secondly, our economy is on a 10 year cycle and this sort of correction is normal.  Third, I was watching CNN last week and our unemployment is the worst its been in four years.  Just four years, that's all.  No the worst in ten years or 20 or 30.  It's been worse in our recent past and somehow we've found a way to overcome.  (/sarcasm)  The US economy will be fine.

What did people in the Bush administration say during the Clinton years?  Are you refering to the open letter that many member's of Bush's cabinet sent to Clinton warning him about the threat that several nations, including Iraq, posed to our national security?  Urging him to take action before something catastrophic happened?  Well Clinton ignored it and now it's happened.  Surprise, surprise.  Now the antiwar/conspiracy theorists out there will tell you that Rumsfeld et al. just wanted to start a war for the sake of war, but that's just a lovely way to spin this issue for their own political gain, IMO.  Couldn't it just be that Rumsfeld has been entrenched in this issue for a long enough time to know how Saddam and Iraq work.  He's the man that helped offer the olive branch of peace to Saddam in the 80s when the Reagan administration supported Saddam and Iraq.  Sounds to me like Rumsfeld has plenty of history to know how duplicitous and treacherous Saddam was.  You may also notice that the report I linked was written back in 2000 before the elections that put Bush into office.

The fact of the matter is that our country's destiny is tied to the rest of the world.  We can't hole up in our little corner and ignore it.  We tried that several times in our history and a couple of world wars broke out, plus two horrible depressions.  Politically and economically we have no choice than to be engaged in the world stage.  

[Jasper]

Scut, I think most people will agree with you. I think where there is disagreement is on the approach. It was a perfect opportunity for a world to unite in peace and reason and for the U.S. to set the tone and be an example to look up to for negotation and peace. Instead we accomplished our goals through force and fear.  

[Arrow]

Quote
It was France that became unflexible first. When they did that, there was no longer any point in dealing with them.
Eh? What the hell are you talking about? You wanted a war from the very beginning! Weapon inspections were only a diversion to your goal.

"Prepare for war, hope for peace." If France and Russia had actually pressured Saddam into true cooperation, the war wouldn't had happen. But since both Russia and France had promised to help Saddam, that didn't happen. Hey, this could gone very differently and just about everyone would be happy. Had France and Russia actually pressured Saddam (no under the table deals and such), Saddam would had to face a world that was united against him. He would had caved in and give up his weapons. We wouldn't have to go to war, Saddam would still be in power and the French and the Russians would still have their deals with Saddam, include control of his oil. EDIT: I forgot to state that instead of doing this, France said it veto any resolutions to punish Saddam and that it wanted to give Saddam more time to play his games with the Inspectors.

Quote
I agree with you, but what about the UN? They respected their laws, after all.

If the UN respected their resolutions, they would enforce them. However, they don't. The UN has no teeth. At its best, its a forum for world opinion and a place to debate and settle issues. Its the governments and militaries that make things happen, not an internation club.

Quote
As for France's big influence, I doubt they are that big and influence. Especially after Chirac told the new EU members to "shut up." Most European nations sided with US. And if France wants to pull some crap with their nukes, you can bet the rest of Europe will act against them.
Yes, but what if they are allying with Russia, Germany, China, etc? I'm sure you don't want them to plot together against you. Don't understimate them.

China ally with Russia? That's not gonna happen. China doesn't like to ally with anyone, especially the Russians. All it took to turn China against the Soviet Union was one visit from Nixon. France and Russia are historical allies. I doubt Germany will stay with them for very long.  

[Wrawrat]

"Prepare for war, hope for peace." If France and Russia had actually pressured Saddam into true cooperation, the war wouldn't had happen. But since both Russia and France had promised to help Saddam, that didn't happen. Hey, this could gone very differently and just about everyone would be happy. Had France and Russia actually pressured Saddam (no under the table deals and such), Saddam would had to face a world that was united against him. He would had caved in and give up his weapons. We wouldn't have to go to war, Saddam would still be in power and the French and the Russians would still have their deals with Saddam, include control of his oil. EDIT: I forgot to state that instead of doing this, France said it veto any resolutions to punish Saddam and that it wanted to give Saddam more time to play his games with the Inspectors.
...I'm not sure about this. I'm sure that your govt would have found another pretext to attack them. Note that I don't see that as bad, as it's a good thing that Saddam's regime has come to an end... But don't give them all the blame on them. Your idea (well, your govt's idea) was already set before any negociation.

If the UN respected their resolutions, they would enforce them. However, they don't. The UN has no teeth. At its best, its a forum for world opinion and a place to debate and settle issues. Its the governments and militaries that make things happen, not an internation club.
So what's your solution? We should ditch them and we should let the US impose God's power over the world?
Anyway, you don't seem to know what is the UN. It's only an international body. They don't have any troops: member nations are lending them the military force they need. They can't enforce resolutions if they don't have support. They have to care about the opinion of everybody if they don't want to lose support and becoming irrevelant. Yes, I know, you'll say they already become irrevelant, but I fear we'll never get a better international system. If you have an idea that would be better and would serve the entire world, please let me know.

China ally with Russia? That's not gonna happen. China doesn't like to ally with anyone, especially the Russians. All it took to turn China against the Soviet Union was one visit from Nixon. France and Russia are historical allies. I doubt Germany will stay with them for very long.
That could change!

[Arrow]

Quote
Anyway, you don't seem to know what is the UN. It's only an international body. They don't have any troops: member nations are lending them the military force they need. They can't enforce resolutions if they don't have support. They have to care about the opinion of everybody if they don't want to lose support and becoming irrevelant. Yes, I know, you'll say they already become irrevelant, but I fear we'll never get a better international system. If you have an idea that would be better and would serve the entire world, please let me know.

Exactly. The only difference between now and this time last year is that now everyone, not just those in power, realizes the UN (or at least the Security Council) is just as weak as the league of nations. The only reason the Cold War didn't turn into WWIII is because both the US and USSR knew that no one would win. The only reason anything got done is Kosovo is because Clinton finally got fed up. The only reason Sirra Leone (sp?) quieted down was because its government hired mercenaries to finish off the rebels and bring the peace the UN had promised.

And speaking of peace keeping operations, the UN puts so many restrictions on troops that they basically can't take action, not even to defend themselves (why do you think so many peace keepers are kidnapped?).

The UN is an organization that belongs to political era that has yet to exist. The only difference in today's internation politics and those of hundreds and even thousands of years ago is the names.

 

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Exactly. The only difference between now and this time last year is that now everyone, not just those in power, realizes the UN (or at least the Security Council) is just as weak as the league of nations. The only reason the Cold War didn't turn into WWIII is because both the US and USSR knew that no one would win. The only reason anything got done is Kosovo is because Clinton finally got fed up. The only reason Sirra Leone (sp?) quieted down was because its government hired mercenaries to finish off the rebels and bring the peace the UN had promised.

Yes, I know... Btw, that's Sierra Leone.

Quote
And speaking of peace keeping operations, the UN puts so many restrictions on troops that they basically can't take action, not even to defend themselves (why do you think so many peace keepers are kidnapped?).

Quote
The UN is an organization that belongs to political era that has yet to exist. The only difference in today's internation politics and those of hundreds and even thousands of years ago is the names.

True, so true... But I'm not a part of one of those powers, so I hope you understand why I don't want that any of them becomes THE power. Anyway, that era will never exist if we don't make efforts...

EDIT: We're off-topic in an off-topic topic.
 

[Arrow]

If you can't go off-topic in off-topic, whats the point in going off-topic?

[a000]

"What did people in the Bush administration say during the Clinton years? Are you refering to the open letter that many member's of Bush's cabinet sent to Clinton warning him about the threat that several nations, including Iraq, posed to our national security? Urging him to take action before something catastrophic happened? Well Clinton ignored it and now it's happened. Surprise, surprise. Now the antiwar/conspiracy theorists out there will tell you that Rumsfeld et al. just wanted to start a war for the sake of war, but that's just a lovely way to spin this issue for their own political gain, IMO. Couldn't it just be that Rumsfeld has been entrenched in this issue for a long enough time to know how Saddam and Iraq work. He's the man that helped offer the olive branch of peace to Saddam in the 80s when the Reagan administration supported Saddam and Iraq. Sounds to me like Rumsfeld has plenty of history to know how duplicitous and treacherous Saddam was. You may also notice that the report I linked was written back in 2000 before the elections that put Bush into office."

Scut- the people in the first bush administration screwed up.  Unfortunately they are still in the new Bush administration and like to blame others for not fixing their first mistakes.  We can point fingers about different leads the country had.  The bush administration knew about the Al-Queda problem and didnt do anythign about it.  Does anyone blame Bush for not acting before 9/11, no.  There are lots of bad people and threats in the world there is no telling who we should and who we shouldnt attack.

We went to war because of WMD, you dont seem to get that.  Bush liked to add reasons along the way after our troops were there because he realized that he might not find the WMD.  It was smart of him and its what he shouldve told everyone in the first place, but it wasnt.  The reason we went to war was wrong, the results of the war I agree with, I just wish we wouldnt of told the world to kiss our ass.  Tired of one sided american propaganda.  I know every country does it, but we should be better than that.  Im glad you beleive it, makes me more confident in my realism.

[Xenos]

Quote
Originally posted by: crosscourt
They did find large stores of cyanide at that terrorist camp in Northern Iraq and the captured experts said they did exist but were buried prior to the inspections and war.

If we dont find them was the war wrong or a waste,of course not. Terrorist links have been proved and the Iraqi people deserve a chance to have their country under their control.

Lying is a bit off base and I agree with Wdb it will take a long time to search for the many buried assets and check neighboring countries to see if they were in fact moved.

Their were also confirmed reports of Cyanide residue in the Euphrates river along with trace parts of other chemicals usually associated with Serin a deadly nerve agent. They could have been dumped to avoid them being found.

Chemical tanks were found in Northern Iraq and drones fitted with nozzles for chemical agent release were also found along with artillery shells designed for biological or chemical agent use.

What would be gained having American soldiers killed over nothing. Bush simply isnt that type of person and was indeed tormented at the losses in the war.

Lets try to be objective and not jump to conclusions,CC

Come on, CrossCourt. We all know that stuff was planted by the CIA, the NSA and NRA coordinated the looting, the FBI and AARP were really using Saddam as their puppet, and Bin Laden and Saddam are great guys while Bush is the Anti-Christ. Never forget before he died Col. Sanders put an addictive chemical in his fried chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly and will be used by Americans to take over the world. Col. Sanders was from Texas; Bush is from Texas. Coincidence?! I don't think so....

[Wrawrat]

Xenos, I ate some KFC recently, perhaps that's why I'm pro-war now...

[wdb1966]

Mmmmmm...fried chicken...hungry now.