googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron
You forgot to mention Soccer moms and Hollywood liberals, although I think Hollywood liberals would be driving Rolls’ and Bentleys.
Actually, thanks to a tax code mistake, more and more people can purchase an SUV. Originally intended for small business owners, the tax break says that anyone who purchases an SUV can count it as a tax deductible amount. But, pretty much anyone can exploit it.
I agree, fuel efficiency is one way to go.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron
You forgot to mention Soccer moms and Hollywood liberals, although I think Hollywood liberals would be driving Rolls’ and Bentleys.
Actually, thanks to a tax code mistake, more and more people can purchase an SUV. Originally intended for small business owners, the tax break says that anyone who purchases an SUV can count it as a tax deductible amount. But, pretty much anyone can exploit it.
I agree, fuel efficiency is one way to go.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
Good points, but I think that the governments in the ME are largely due to US policies.
Take Iran- their democratically elected PM Mossadeq was ousted in a CIA operation run by Kermit Roosevelt, and the Shah was put in his place. The Shah grew increasingly repressive, and still the US supported him, despite the fact that he formed his repressive secret police, the Savak, notorious for its human rights abuses. So after the Shah was deposed by Khomeni, the US sought a balancing force in the form of Saddam Hussein. And during the Iran-Iraq war, the US had no problems selling the Iraqis all kinds of biological strains for their BC warfare program.
Saudi Arabia’s government may not have been created by the US, but the Saud family has been able to stay in power because of the strong backing of the US. Where else is the US going to get all of its oil?
Lastly, after the US war in Iraq (the upcoming one), she will force Israel to withdraw from Palestinian controlled territories and form a Palestinian state in order to give concessions to the Arabs in a sense of appeasement.
Now, who is to say that the US is not involved in shaping and creating governments in the ME?
Perhaps if we developed solar power or some alternate form of energy to oil, we could avoid all of this! 😛
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
Good points, but I think that the governments in the ME are largely due to US policies.
Take Iran- their democratically elected PM Mossadeq was ousted in a CIA operation run by Kermit Roosevelt, and the Shah was put in his place. The Shah grew increasingly repressive, and still the US supported him, despite the fact that he formed his repressive secret police, the Savak, notorious for its human rights abuses. So after the Shah was deposed by Khomeni, the US sought a balancing force in the form of Saddam Hussein. And during the Iran-Iraq war, the US had no problems selling the Iraqis all kinds of biological strains for their BC warfare program.
Saudi Arabia’s government may not have been created by the US, but the Saud family has been able to stay in power because of the strong backing of the US. Where else is the US going to get all of its oil?
Lastly, after the US war in Iraq (the upcoming one), she will force Israel to withdraw from Palestinian controlled territories and form a Palestinian state in order to give concessions to the Arabs in a sense of appeasement.
Now, who is to say that the US is not involved in shaping and creating governments in the ME?
Perhaps if we developed solar power or some alternate form of energy to oil, we could avoid all of this! 😛
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Some good thoughts on Iraq from Jane’s Foreign Report, Jan. 15 2003, yes, just more ‘lame facts’ for Mr. Sauron.
—————————————————————–
“Iraq and Bin Laden
There is still no evidence that Saddam Hussein has assisted the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, there is evidence that Bin Laden’s agenda is not that of Saddam Hussein; the Iraqi leader is a secular man who still claims to be a socialist. He may enjoy the prospect of overthrowing the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and creating havoc with US interests throughout the Middle East, but he is hardly likely to be taken by Bin Laden’s crazy ideas of an Islamic revival, or the creation of a Muslim theocracy throughout the region. But, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, this is hardly the point; people in the White House are worried about completely different things.
One is the persistent defiance of Saddam Hussein. The policy of isolating Iraq was not succeeding and had no chance of doing so. Either the Iraqi dictator was eliminated, or the sanction regime fell and Saddam would would have triumphed. He would have become the only leader who has managed to confront the USA and live to tell the story; he would have become the anointed leader of all the extremist anti-American elements throughout the Arab world. No peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be possible if Saddam remained the leader of the extremists; his survival would have cast a shadow over neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. In short, the spokesman for the Arab world would have been Saddam Hussein. Faced with such an option, it is not surprising that Washington chose war
The Saudi state is in deep crisis, and the survival of its regime is now in doubt. Sooner of later, the USA may have to face a new Saudi regime, which will be even more hostile to Western interests. This does not necessarily mean that the flow of oil would stop (after all, the Saudis cannot drink their oil, they still need to export the product in order to survive). Nevertheless, the prospect of a less-pliant Saudi regime means that the USA must look to Iraq as a potential ally in the future, a counter-balance to the rest of the Middle East. Iraq is uniquely placed to play this balance; this is the reason why Saddam himself was initially considered a Western ally. Now, the only way Iraq can return to its pivotal role as a Western ally is after the removal of its current dictator.”
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Some good thoughts on Iraq from Jane’s Foreign Report, Jan. 15 2003, yes, just more ‘lame facts’ for Mr. Sauron.
—————————————————————–
“Iraq and Bin Laden
There is still no evidence that Saddam Hussein has assisted the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, there is evidence that Bin Laden’s agenda is not that of Saddam Hussein; the Iraqi leader is a secular man who still claims to be a socialist. He may enjoy the prospect of overthrowing the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and creating havoc with US interests throughout the Middle East, but he is hardly likely to be taken by Bin Laden’s crazy ideas of an Islamic revival, or the creation of a Muslim theocracy throughout the region. But, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, this is hardly the point; people in the White House are worried about completely different things.
One is the persistent defiance of Saddam Hussein. The policy of isolating Iraq was not succeeding and had no chance of doing so. Either the Iraqi dictator was eliminated, or the sanction regime fell and Saddam would would have triumphed. He would have become the only leader who has managed to confront the USA and live to tell the story; he would have become the anointed leader of all the extremist anti-American elements throughout the Arab world. No peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be possible if Saddam remained the leader of the extremists; his survival would have cast a shadow over neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. In short, the spokesman for the Arab world would have been Saddam Hussein. Faced with such an option, it is not surprising that Washington chose war
The Saudi state is in deep crisis, and the survival of its regime is now in doubt. Sooner of later, the USA may have to face a new Saudi regime, which will be even more hostile to Western interests. This does not necessarily mean that the flow of oil would stop (after all, the Saudis cannot drink their oil, they still need to export the product in order to survive). Nevertheless, the prospect of a less-pliant Saudi regime means that the USA must look to Iraq as a potential ally in the future, a counter-balance to the rest of the Middle East. Iraq is uniquely placed to play this balance; this is the reason why Saddam himself was initially considered a Western ally. Now, the only way Iraq can return to its pivotal role as a Western ally is after the removal of its current dictator.”
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Well,Kev35, I think that there are Kurds in N. Iraq who are being organized into a resistance movement by US SpecOps there. However, I do not know how successful such an organization will be, afterall, Bush Senior abandoned the Kurds in 1991 and left them to be slaughtered, and we give arms and F-16s to the Turks to napalm Kurdish villages.
But I wonder why the Iraqi army is still loyal to Saddam- certainly they fear the retribution of Saddam, but I guess they hate the US even more for killing most of their friends.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Well,Kev35, I think that there are Kurds in N. Iraq who are being organized into a resistance movement by US SpecOps there. However, I do not know how successful such an organization will be, afterall, Bush Senior abandoned the Kurds in 1991 and left them to be slaughtered, and we give arms and F-16s to the Turks to napalm Kurdish villages.
But I wonder why the Iraqi army is still loyal to Saddam- certainly they fear the retribution of Saddam, but I guess they hate the US even more for killing most of their friends.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
Lame stuff eh? Since you offer no rebuttal, I assume you concede that those facts are accurate.
Cheers,
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
Lame stuff eh? Since you offer no rebuttal, I assume you concede that those facts are accurate.
Cheers,
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
No facts you say?
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon DOES NOT EXIST. “There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency” the Washington Times(Sep. 30, 2002) reported Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, saying.
The Washington Times, an extremely conservative paper, reported this.
Even the CIA under huge pressure from the White House, could not come up with anything respectable. They say Iraq might be able to use nukes by 2010. As for the President Bush’s concern over Iraq developing UAV bombers, the CIA says their max range is 100 miles or so. “It doesn’t make any sense to me if he meant United States territory,” said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defense Information.
What about the supposed link between Al-Qaida and SH?
Although its a good ghost story, everyone knows the decidedly secular ruling Baath party and the Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda have long been in vehement opposition to one another.
GWB is making up lies to support his war that he hasn’t even bothered to prove in public. If the US invades Iraq, it will only cause more Arabs to hate the US, and undoubtedly another repeat of 9/11. All this for what? We should aim to be a respected and integrous country, not some country always declaring war on pitiful non-nuclear states.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
No facts you say?
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon DOES NOT EXIST. “There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency” the Washington Times(Sep. 30, 2002) reported Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, saying.
The Washington Times, an extremely conservative paper, reported this.
Even the CIA under huge pressure from the White House, could not come up with anything respectable. They say Iraq might be able to use nukes by 2010. As for the President Bush’s concern over Iraq developing UAV bombers, the CIA says their max range is 100 miles or so. “It doesn’t make any sense to me if he meant United States territory,” said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defense Information.
What about the supposed link between Al-Qaida and SH?
Although its a good ghost story, everyone knows the decidedly secular ruling Baath party and the Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda have long been in vehement opposition to one another.
GWB is making up lies to support his war that he hasn’t even bothered to prove in public. If the US invades Iraq, it will only cause more Arabs to hate the US, and undoubtedly another repeat of 9/11. All this for what? We should aim to be a respected and integrous country, not some country always declaring war on pitiful non-nuclear states.
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
First of all, how do you know that the Iraqi people do not like living under SH? Did you take a poll of all Iraq? IMO, they would prefer to live under SH than being invaded by the US. Afterall, how many civilians died in the last Gulf War?
Second, where is the evidence that Iraq possesses WMD? Why is it a problem if he has WMD? The US has WMD, so does Israel. The US used it before, they used sarin gas in Vietnam and the A-bomb over Japan, and quite possibly biochemical agents in Korea. The Western powers used chlorine gas in WWI, and Churchill advocated using gas and other means against the Kurds. The West is no stranger to WMD, I don’t see why they point fingers.
I think Iraq does deserve better, and it would have been better had the US not supported SH until he invaded Kuwait. Why is it that the US always supports the dictator even when he is clearly against democracy? The Shah, Castillo, Ngo Dien Diem, Park, Chiang Kai Shek to name a few.
We haven’t even finished our job in Afghanistan, and GWB wants to distract attention from our @#^%#@ economy with a war in Iraq that will deal some serious damage to our economy.
Regards,
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Sauron,
First of all, how do you know that the Iraqi people do not like living under SH? Did you take a poll of all Iraq? IMO, they would prefer to live under SH than being invaded by the US. Afterall, how many civilians died in the last Gulf War?
Second, where is the evidence that Iraq possesses WMD? Why is it a problem if he has WMD? The US has WMD, so does Israel. The US used it before, they used sarin gas in Vietnam and the A-bomb over Japan, and quite possibly biochemical agents in Korea. The Western powers used chlorine gas in WWI, and Churchill advocated using gas and other means against the Kurds. The West is no stranger to WMD, I don’t see why they point fingers.
I think Iraq does deserve better, and it would have been better had the US not supported SH until he invaded Kuwait. Why is it that the US always supports the dictator even when he is clearly against democracy? The Shah, Castillo, Ngo Dien Diem, Park, Chiang Kai Shek to name a few.
We haven’t even finished our job in Afghanistan, and GWB wants to distract attention from our @#^%#@ economy with a war in Iraq that will deal some serious damage to our economy.
Regards,
googleRE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-01-03 AT 10:24Â AM (GMT)]Sauron,
Frankly, I think that SH is a jerk, but it’s not up to the US to remove him. That should be done by the Iraqis themselves. Also, SH was largely supported by the actions of the CIA, throughout his rise to power and crackdowns on the Kurds. Why do we accuse him of human rights violations when we, and other Western nations, supported him and provided him the equipment to make the gas that rained down on the Iranians, and to a lesser extent, the Kurds.
GWB’s whole premise of going to war is based on the fact that he supposedly has WMD< or is within 6 motnhs of developing a nuke. The report for the latter from the IEAC ( I think that’s the right acronym) doesn’t even exist, and the inspectors can’t even find a damn thing. WHere’s the evidence?
If GWB’s daughters or Daschle’s kids were in the Army, this wouldn’t be happening. I feel that we treat human life too carelessly.
Cheers,
Sign In
