Why is Spain supporting war?

Originally posted by Jonesy
But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11.

Nope. Deriving statistics from Reuters, AP wire, Agence France Presse, the BBC, and several UK broadsheets the most authoritative calculated death toll I’ve seen has been between 1000-1300 directly related to the US strikes. Less than a third that killed in 9/11 although undoubtedly still a tragically large number. Is a thousand dead Iraqi civillians too high a price to pay for the rest of them to be able to live free of persecution, censure and government organised rape and torture I don’t know and I’m not really qualified to make that determination. My personal view would be that yes it would, however I have the luxury sat here of not being able to empathise with the lot of the average Iraqi citizen.

Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even know who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!

They’re probably poor examples to use – both are authors that have written fairly well known spy fiction novels though. Le Carre is a bit old hat but “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and “Smiley’s People” are kind of classics. Ian Flemings work you’ll probably be a bit more familiar with – the main character in his novels is a former RN Commander by the name of Bond………James Bond!. 😀

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

But at present the oil is the property of Saddam Hussein.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts

I would not like to emphasise on the infrastructure…that definately can be re-built……i was emphasising upon the people who will suffer in this war.

No Mixtec. Iraq is easily doable. Korea IS NOT. That is the difference. Moggy got it right.

Mixtec…

how selfish is that….you do know that there are over 10,000 barrels aiming at Seoul, which happens to be one of the most heavily populated city in the world….If Cuba have 10,000 super long range cannons aiming at Mexico City what would you want the US to do? Don’t be so selfish. 10,000 missiles will register 10,000 hits, 10,000 barrels will easily register hundreds of thousands of hits. Assuming it takes two shells to kill 1 person (how likely is that?), you’ll still have tens of thousands of deaths in the first few MINUTES. How are you going to stop that preemptively along a hundres of miles long border short of something seriously destructive…nukes? All this talk of which is greater evil is pointless anyways….so if the FBI #1 most wanted is still free, does that mean we don’t do anything about any other criminals?

Originally posted by Sauron
Mixtec

And your solution to the fact that the North Korean government is starving it’s people is?

:confused:

Sauron

If there should be any military action taken, it should be against N Korea. However I believe N Korea could be approached with some kind of ecomomic cooperation package that would detain its building of WMD capability. The point is, the fact we want war with Iraq and not N Korea shows the US is not fighting this for all the many reasons folks have enumerated on this thread sofar, but for selfish and even cowardly reasons.

But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11.

Nope. Deriving statistics from Reuters, AP wire, Agence France Presse, the BBC, and several UK broadsheets the most authoritative calculated death toll I’ve seen has been between 1000-1300 directly related to the US strikes. Less than a third that killed in 9/11 although undoubtedly still a tragically large number. Is a thousand dead Iraqi civillians too high a price to pay for the rest of them to be able to live free of persecution, censure and government organised rape and torture I don’t know and I’m not really qualified to make that determination. My personal view would be that yes it would, however I have the luxury sat here of not being able to empathise with the lot of the average Iraqi citizen.

Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even know who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!

They’re probably poor examples to use – both are authors that have written fairly well known spy fiction novels though. Le Carre is a bit old hat but “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and “Smiley’s People” are kind of classics. Ian Flemings work you’ll probably be a bit more familiar with – the main character in his novels is a former RN Commander by the name of Bond………James Bond!. 😀

Originally posted by ELP
So you are affraid of being a target? I would say Spanish law enforcement is doing a pretty good job of routing out terrorists.
If you want to appease the Arab world because you are affraid of going after terrorists I guess that is you own business.

As you have pointed we have been doing a good job arresting terrorists, and I don´t change that for my safety. But supporting an attack to a whole country is something quite different. We would achieve more arresting guys, than combating it with guns. Terrorism is a hidden enemy with no face. I am sure if they are in Iraq, they´ll move to other country.

so common…

this “common” threat of people misusing data…..
Why does it matter with or without a simple hand raising in the UNSC to make people to change from 60-70% against a war to 70-80% if not more FOR war? Isn’t the bottom line on what’s right and what’s wrong? Getting rid of Saddam ultimately is not an issue of how many votes in the UN, but how dangerous he is to the world given his past records. So far, for the last 50 years, the evil N.Korean leaderships have not invaded anybody or gassed their own with chemicals PURPOSELY (don’t give me that crap of Agent Orange….most country used DDTs and some still do so are you saying there’s a conspiracy there…total idiots who have no clue on the reality…even now there are arguable needs for DDT in certain countries even KNOWING the side effects). Why the big difference in opinion? Because the majority of the western/free world’s people are rather peaceful but also naive in avoiding war. Obviously, without deep and detail knowledge, if you ask me i would say “war as last resort”. But with much more knowledge of the details, i say “now is the time for last resort”. Why? Because this guy is not serious and we gave him over 12 years. The UN weapons inspection is NOT at all about running around finding weapons like a Easter egg hunt. NO, if UN is to be relavent, it’s resolutions must carry full weight. The Iraqis are supposed to show documents with absolute certainty on the WMD programs and related items. Much like Americans and Soviets/Russians did for each other to show nuke arms reduction and much like S.Africa directly showing UN without doubt what they did with their nukes. When talking about UN resolutions, some would like to point to Israel…then again, such blame of “then what about Israel” already points to the fact that UN in the past is quite irrelevant. Here the US is giving the UN a chance to be relevant, and it failed miserably. Note that the recent comment from the White House is that, ironically to what some of you are suggesting, next is Israel must follow past UN resolutions when this Iraq mess is cleaned….obviously beceause Iraq has consistently been an instigator and financier of terror in Israel, giving the Israelies an excuse to not follow the UN resolutions. If you think about it Iraq has been seriously instigating against peace in Palestine/Israel for the last 12 years during the peace processes….even Syrian supported terrorists (or freedom fighters, call it what ever you want it really doesn’t matter from the whole picture) didn’t get involved seriously until much after the intifada.
Some like to feel great after saying “I’m for peace”…i just want to get the job done.

Spanish Forces

Our prime minister Aznar has told to the parlament that we are going to send about 900 troops to the zone, in this contingent we will send the L-51 Galicia and LPD, an FFG (supposedly a Santa Maria frigate -OHP-) and a oiler, our Marqués de la Ensenada, the rest of the troops are 120 Infantes de Marina (Marines) and some Engineers, EOD and NBQ units of the Army, our prime minister also talked about a possible force to Turkey of 6 EF-18 and a Kc-130.

All we in Spain knowed that we never send a combat unit (Legión, Infanteria de Marina, Brunete Division or any other like the Brigada Paracaidista) to Kuwait….

Mixtec

And your solution to the fact that the North Korean government is starving it’s people is?

:confused:

Sauron

Iraq is not the only country trying to build WMD. Iran has been recently trying in earnest to join the nuclear club which means sooner or later the US will have to invade them too. The US will have to get around to invading Libya also which means the US will control all the large oil producing nations of the mideast except for Saudi Arabia. Never mind that the citizens of N Korea are dying due to an oppressive government and that theyre building WMD and the missles to fire them, they dont have oil, so its not worth the trouble.

Re: To Kabir

Originally posted by Jonesy
Hmmm dont like this new forum structure….can’t respond to sub-threads like the old one…anyone any ideas on when VB might support that as, IMO, its a big backwards step for the forum.

Kabir,

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…

I say again….how?. Assasination of Saddam Hussein has been officially sanctioned by the US govt for a while now, I think, and unoffically a process to overthrow Saddam has been kept over low heat presumably since 1991. Leastwise reports surfacing every few years of failed military coups resulting in the execution of another couple of dozen middle-ranking officers seem to insinuate that someone’s had their fingers in certain pies over the years.

The fact that, in 12 years, even with internal cooperation, no-one’s been able to get a bead on Hussein must give you some clear indication of the difficulty level of the operation you’d like brush off as the most trivial of matters. To be honest Kabir I’d stop reading John le Carre or Ian Fleming novels for a while if I were you.

Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

I dont think you should discount the desire for Bush to hardcode his Presidency into the annals of history either. The “President that solved the Arab-Israeli conflict” does have a certain ring to it. What your saying though does have a ring of truth in it. Using Iraq as a lever to a more proactive stance over the Palestinian issue will go a long way to backing up Blair at a time when he may be glad of it. That said though the net result could be very beneficial for the ME region….would you begrudge the Israeli’s and Palestinians a chance at peace and prosperity just because Blair and Bush will gain from the reflected political glory?

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

__________________

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11. Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even kow who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zippo

Since when someone needs “guts” to carpet bomb peasants from 20.000 feet?And what is the difficult time for our US allies?

There you go again.

Nobody is suggesting carpet bombing peasants, but you simply have to overstate things to bolster your somewhat weak assertions don’t you?

Polls look about what I’d expect. People don’t like wars, most would rather they didn’t happen.

Doesn’t alter the fact that nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative.

Moggy

I may have missed something, but has Spain committed any troops to the war?

The only countries that have committed ground forces are USA, UK, and about 2,000 Aussies.

Is Spain likely to send troops?

Cheers,
Alepou 340MB

To Kabir

Hmmm dont like this new forum structure….can’t respond to sub-threads like the old one…anyone any ideas on when VB might support that as, IMO, its a big backwards step for the forum.

Kabir,

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…

I say again….how?. Assasination of Saddam Hussein has been officially sanctioned by the US govt for a while now, I think, and unoffically a process to overthrow Saddam has been kept over low heat presumably since 1991. Leastwise reports surfacing every few years of failed military coups resulting in the execution of another couple of dozen middle-ranking officers seem to insinuate that someone’s had their fingers in certain pies over the years.

The fact that, in 12 years, even with internal cooperation, no-one’s been able to get a bead on Hussein must give you some clear indication of the difficulty level of the operation you’d like brush off as the most trivial of matters. To be honest Kabir I’d stop reading John le Carre or Ian Fleming novels for a while if I were you.

Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

I dont think you should discount the desire for Bush to hardcode his Presidency into the annals of history either. The “President that solved the Arab-Israeli conflict” does have a certain ring to it. What your saying though does have a ring of truth in it. Using Iraq as a lever to a more proactive stance over the Palestinian issue will go a long way to backing up Blair at a time when he may be glad of it. That said though the net result could be very beneficial for the ME region….would you begrudge the Israeli’s and Palestinians a chance at peace and prosperity just because Blair and Bush will gain from the reflected political glory?

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

__________________

Nicely put Moggy. Agree with you 100%

Well reasoned argument but…

“WHY THE WHOLE WORLD IS OPPOSED TO IT?”

They aren’t.

And merely by saying this on an internet forum does not make it true.

A large and vociferous section of the world is opposed to it, and are making a lot of fuss, assuming some moral high ground without offering any solutions whatsoever.

But there is a considerable volume of opinion, amongst which I am proud to count myself, who applaud the fact that one country has the guts to take action, and that Spain, the UK and now Australia are at least offering their support at a difficult time to our US allies.

I hate loose quoting of statistics at the best of time, but your “Whole World” is just ridiculous hyperbole.

Moggy

IN MY NAME PLEASE

Originally posted by Jonesy
How?

With the weight of the whole damned UN in Iraq for 7 years not being sufficient to get everything he was hanging on to how is the US meant to accomplish this task? Wave a magic wand?

They could try and turn Iraq into something like the “Truman Show” and have camera’s tuned in on every part of Iraq at all times – hmmm they may have to launch any additional 3000 or so Keyhole spysats which might be a tad tricky operationally, financially and might actually block the sun from ever reaching Iraq but hey its better than war isnt it Kabir!:) 😀

I’m not turning on you personally Kabir its just I’ve heard lots of people talking about “peaceful means” to disarm Saddam and not one single person say how it could actually be achieved and your comment that the US isnt a superpower if it cant produce and frantically wave this magic wand….well….you dont honestly mean that do you?

Regards,
Steve

OH PLEASE!

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…they have the power…they can assasinate the man easily in my oppinion…but they are hungary…they want a good control over the midle east and stop the leftist-muslim parties in the middle east…..one war many hit areas.

Jonesy yes i believe that by the wave of a magic wand they can get Saddam…..you may criticise my view point but honestly i stick by my thought. Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives

So you are affraid of being a target? I would say Spanish law enforcement is doing a pretty good job of routing out terrorists.
If you want to appease the Arab world because you are affraid of going after terrorists I guess that is you own business.

Betrayed them by getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

Boy, that makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by TTP
Zippo,

, these scum hate all of us including Spain, .

There´s a clear link between Spain and the Arab world, due to our common history. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately, these psycos, and I remark Bin Ladden words, think Spain is the “lost brother” which needs to come back to the arab world, or Al-andalus as they call us. Bin Ladden used to have a house in the South of Spain when he was politically correct. In any case, I don´t want these type of “friends”. Now and due to Aznar alighment with Bush the arab world feels that we have betrayed them (we had played a key role as mediators between the arab world, israel and the west) and I am affraid we´ll have just become another target for these thugs. That´s what I meant by being quiet. :confused: