Was the war on Iraq right?

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I would like you to go more in detail about your "belgium" argument. some prove, conections,...

Elf-Total-Fina is a Franco-Belgian merged company, is it not? One of the three was a Belgian company previously, I'm sure of that.

Anyway, they had a contract with Iraqi oil producers worth billions which they obviously lose.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

And the usa wins?

Nope. The contract was worthwhile to them because they negotiated a great price because the Iraqi oil producers were selling more oil than they were allowed to legally under the UN regulations. Those obviously didn't bind Elf-Total-Fina so they were free to buy the oil cheaply.

Plus neither France nor Belgium had to invest billions to even get that contract...the US spent so much on the war that a contract that size wouldn't even make a dent. Not to mention the fact that many oil fields were destroyed in the invasion which need investment to be made productive again.

[Foeni]

You're as stubborn as a dwarf Flightfreak. But that's allright, you probably say the same thing about us

[Foeni]

It has been answered earlier... So that's why you're so "stubborn", you didn't read what we posted, huh?

[Hazzle]

The same tools could NOT have been used to make medicines. The tools could ONLY be used to breed viruses, could this have been used for a medical process? Sure, but more likely, given the lack of other equipment that would normally be used when replicating viruses for medical purposes, it was for biological warfare.

The US went to war to back up a UN resolution that was not being followed. Saddam WAS in contravention of the UN resolution because he had scud missiles. To hell with the WMD argument, he wasn't even supposed to have long-range missiles and yet we KNOW he did because we SAW him use them.

The fact that the UN pussied out of it and wouldn't back military action wasn't surprising when you look at the countries that voted against; China (which always opposes the US), Russia (oil), France (oil), Germany (always opposes war, actually opposed the first gulf war and the war in Kosovo) and a bunch of former French colonies...wonder what motivated them :err:

Y'see...the US isn't the ONLY super power that controls the UN and ironically, the French have more control over the UN right now than the US ever have done. How many former French colonies still rely on their links with France to maintain their economies? EXACTLY.

The French are devious bastards. Perfect example is how much they loved the EU whilst it favoured them, but now with the accession of the new Eastern European countries, who will now need the same sort of financial aid that France needed after WWII, they oppose the EU consitution which will allow them to get the financial aid they need (at the expense of France, of course). The French loved the EU whilst they dominated it...they're afraid of losing control.

Thankfully for them the UN is still their lapdog...

[Rob The BLack Douglas]

As I said, they said they had evidence, not proof. The terms are not interchangeable, even if the media do use them as such. Fox News are as bad as anyone but the rest of the media are hardly blameless for their left-win nonsense either.





Actually they did say they had proof but that it was classified. Not evidence. Proof. Proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaida prior to 9/11. The administration used the word proof on all the talk shows when they were trying to build up support for the invasion.

This is a personal topic to me because I have lost kin in the US and British military.


By the way here is an excellent site that does great analasys:

http://billmon.org/

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Rob The BLack Douglas

Actually they did say they had proof but that it was classified. Not evidence. Proof. Proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaida prior to 9/11. The administration used the word proof on all the talk shows when they were trying to build up support for the invasion.

Meh, administrations are as stupid as anyone. And so what? We have nothing to disprove that theory. If they have the proof, who are you to say they don't? We have no proof that there was no relationship there, do we?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

It is an all know fact that Iraq made chemical weapons and used them (1988). The ‘prove’ they’ve found are what’s left of the old factories used to make those weapons.

So? Even the UN inspectors conceded that Iraq probably DID possess SOME WMDs.

I am also wondering what if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What is it that the usa are trying to protect? The world? Are they scared Saddam would try to invade the US? Or would it maybe be about the Black Gold? Maybe about the huge strategically oil supplies in the area?

The fear was that weapons could not only be launched against the East Coast of the US, but even if that were not the case, the US has many strategic bases in the area, as well as embassies etc. Given the embassy bombings and USS Cole it was logical to worry about those sorts of things too. And so what if the fear was that a fuck off chemical war in the Middle East would deprive the world of oil? Do you WANT to live in a world where business all grinds to a halt, where production disappears, and we all starve to death? Believe it or not but we all need there to be oil for us to survive.

Oh now they invaded them for long-range missiles?
Israel is ignoring UN resolutions him self, I don’t see the USA bitching about that.

FINALLY you picked up on an argument I already threw out. The UN resolutions with regard to Israel are, imho, spurious. Israel is doing nothing wrong, merely defending itself against what is technically an invading force. You support the Iraqi's rights to fight back, why not the Israeli's? And yes, they invaded them for long-range missiles, don't pull a face like that, only an idiot who believes the press spin would believe it was all about WMDs. It was about breaching the resolution, which covered BOTH WMDs and missiles.

I saw a documentary once about how Jacques Chirac is addicted to money. It was pretty interesting.
what’s the point? France was against that war because there were economical strings attached. Lovely, now we all know that.

I am sure if you would look at the USA their reasons to invade that you would find as much economical reasons as france had to be against that war.

You'd find some, but not as many. For the simple reason that you forget that GOING to war actually costs money, whereas NOT going to war is free. So there can't possibly be as many convincing reasons to go to war for financial reasons because it actually COSTS to make that decision.

[Foeni]

Polls show that the majority of the Iraqi people is glad we removed Saddam.
Isn't brad missing in this thread?

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Pols kept by who?
They got a civil war instead of suppression. Oh they must sure love it.

Brad can only check kkw during the week at his work.

Polls conducted by lots of people mate.

Incidentally...where was the oil in Kosovo?

[Rob The BLack Douglas]

Meh, administrations are as stupid as anyone. And so what? We have nothing to disprove that theory. If they have the proof, who are you to say they don't? We have no proof that there was no relationship there, do we?



Actually the documents captured by coalition forces prove at this point that there was no relationship.

Nothing available to date will prove that invading Iraq was the right thing to do at this time. Osama is and should be the number 1 priority. Anything, and I mean anything that takes away from that is a waste of resources and does nothing to make the world safer from terrorists.

Rob

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Polls conducted by lots of people mate.

Incidentally...where was the oil in Kosovo?

Did Bush send troops to Kosovo?

Edit: Oh and there's oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

Did Bush send troops to Kosovo?

Edit: Oh and there's oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

No, but this idea that Bush went to war alone is ludicrous. Many of the same people are involved in both conflicts...Blair for example?

To say Bush didn't send troops to Kosovo is just plain fucking stupid as he wasn't president and in no position to do so...can you say he wouldn't have? EXACTLY.

The Caspian Sea isn't controlled by Kosovo. Hell Kosovo is a weak country in the region. Russia is the real power broker in the area...

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Polls by who? as far as I know all humanitarian organisation left Iraq, who's left? coalition troops? Important Iraqi’s who want to stay friends with the states? Those polls must sure be correct.

Western media groups. As well as Al Jazeera...you know...those lapdogs of Bin Laden? EXACTLY. Al Jazeera's OWN polls show a decline in support for Bin Laden.

And no, the Red Cross is still in Iraq.

Like Jet said,
As good as no Oil and Kosovo isn’t strategic important in the regio either. For that reason the UN troop are there and not the USA playing it on its own.

The US still went to war there. The idea that the US only goes to war where oil and strategic importance are crucial is stupid. The US, incidentally, along with Britain, LED the UN to send troops there...and the initial attacks were NOT UN ones, because the UN is only involved in peace-keeping. The war in Kosovo was waged by the US, Britain and, to a lesser degree, France.

[hasselbrad]

If you were going to have a party on your back deck, would you...

...run around during your party with a fly swatter smashing the mosquitos as they began biting your guests?

*** or ***

...hang a bug zapper in the far corner of the yard, and let the bugs busy themselves there?

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

If you were going to have a party on your back deck, would you...

...run around during your party with a fly swatter smashing the mosquitos as they began biting your guests?

*** or ***

...hang a bug zapper in the far corner of the yard, and let the bugs busy themselves there?

Cool. Explains dropping nuclear bombs everywhere.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

Cool. Explains dropping nuclear bombs everywhere.

Errr, Japan doesn't qualify as "everywhere".

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Errr, Japan doesn't qualify as "everywhere".

Errr, my comment means, basing on Brad's post (in an extreme case), it's alright to drop nuclear bombs to prevent any future trouble (using the fly analogy).

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

Errr, my comment means, basing on Brad's post (in an extreme case), it's alright to drop nuclear bombs to prevent any future trouble (using the fly analogy).

***whiff***

You know what that was? That was the sound of you completely missing my point.
Like bugs to the zapper, the war in Iraq has attracted scumbag, terrorist jihadists from all over the globe to martyr themselves. And, in their zeal to show what good muslims they are, they are beginning to alienate the more moderate muslims. Folks over there are slowly beginning to realize that these jihadists are willing to kill anyone, anywhere to further their cause...regardless of whether they are infidels or not. This explains the falling poll numbers. When muslims see terrorists targeting other muslims, it starts to hit home that maybe these jihadists are simply waging a personal war.

[deviljet88]

Isn't it Sunnis and Sufis... Reminds me of Protestants and Catholics back in the old days.

And so is your lamp thingy to... uh... attract flies to kill each other? Huh?

*does another **whiff** *

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

Isn't it Sunnis and Sufis... Reminds me of Protestants and Catholics back in the old days.

And so is your lamp thingy to... uh... attract flies to kill each other? Huh?

*does another **whiff** *

Do y'all not have bug-zappers in Australia? Sheee-it...a six-pack of beer and a bug zapper is all the entertainment you need.

Seriously, the blue light attracts the bugs. They fly into the light and ZAP!, they die.

Think of the war as the blue light and our military as the electical current.

Most of the "insurgents" are militants from other countries. They are pouring into Iraq to prevent a democracy from taking hold, because they know that freedom and personal liberty run counter to their islamic totalitarianism. It's these same islamic totalitarianist regimes that support terrorism. They would rather see a government like Iran's, run by extremist imams, because it's easier to get funds from a government like this than it is a democratic government that is accountable to voters.

[chewwie]

I think it was the right move upon those countries who agreed to it! There was a dictatorship that was in need of difusing. Sadam was subplanted and for that it will become a better and more stabalized economy, which will play host to human and civilised laws, not those of execution and torture. I know there is the whole argument on the case for WMD but still, there were many other reasons why it was required. Obviously no one likes war, or wants confrontations between nations (and if they do they are sick) but sometimes it is needed in such gruesome circumstances - as was evident in Iraq before the war. And i believe the only reason why the Iraqis are stilled scared, is because there are Sadam loyaltists who continue to blow themselves and others up! Not because another nation is attempting to help them!