Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Democracy in Iraq
Options
Comments
-
wiseones2cents wrote:Of coarse. Now that they see they are not wanted.
'course'
If one were to work on the assumption that the Americans have only recently figured out that they aren't welcome for a long stay (An assumption I would dispute), then surely that would preclude any further work by them on permanent facilities which are to be gifted to Iraq, no? Yet such work continues. Ergo, it would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that the construction of such facilities has nothing to do with how long they intend to stay.And what I am saying is that how long would it take them to mobilize an attack on Iraqi oil from there? The answer? too long. That is why they needed another base in Iraq. America has many multi bases in certain regions.
You are showing an evident ignorance of American power-projection capabilities. I assume that you will advocate that if there's any one thing that America is good at it's warfare? (I happen to believe that the US is good at other things as well, but that's not at issue here)Very little? Thats not what I am hearing.They were buying much electrical goodies before the Iraq/Iran war also. They had plenty of electricity back then. Though who decapacitated the Iraqi electrical systems and sanitations in the first gulf war? America. So dont tell me there is lack of power because of people buying electrical goodies.
Then you're not listening to the right people. Please research the figures on both supply and demand, prior to and after the conflict.
The figures at
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050304-050628-7922r.htm indicate that demand has gone up by some 60% since the 2003 war. This, in turn, would indicate that people are obtaining more electrical goodies resulting in creating that demand. This would be in line with the government report I linked to in another thread a week or two ago.
The Iraqis themselves claimed to have restored power back to pre 1991-war levels within 5 months. The reason being that when the Americans attacked power stations, they didn't do it using explosives but instead warheads containing conductive-carbon filaments, which shorted out the system without blowing anything up. This would indicate that it is disingenuous to claim that the current Iraqi shortfalls are the result of American attacks in 1991.Since the sewer system wasn't fixed the last time I checked. I'd say that some Iraqi's do not have easy access to clean water.
Quite true. I saw many towns that took their untreated water from the local rivers and canals. That's not contrary to any claims that a large number of programmes are in place to rectify those situations. After all, if the system was satisfactory, why have programmes to fix them?Well I have done more then a year of research on that subject. Since the slant technology was from Texas. And the Texans must have known they were going to use it to tap Iraqi oil. I'd its safe to say the Americans(Maybe Texans only) instigated the war.
I will stipulate that slant drilling technology exists. I will stipulate that it originated in Texas. I will stipulate that if the US sold such information to other powers, that American will likely have known about it. This still leaves open the question of if the Iraqi accusations which led to the 1991 invasion were true or fabricated.Really?I find that hard to believe. Its more in the thousands.Try this one on for size.http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html
That article indicates that the -top- end for the Highway of Death is one thousand. In my line of work, I tend to encounter people who were there, and their estimates are actually a little lower than that. But regardless of if you believe your article's source or mine, the 'thousands' claim appears spurious.What kind of a so called Christian army would slaughter people as they were retreating? I find it Barbaric. Do you not agree?
No, I would not agree. There are simple rules in war. You can choose to surrender, or you can choose not to surrender. Anyone who has expressed an indication or desire to surrender is entitled to quarter, and a refusal to accept a surrender is both bad practise for practical reasons, and a war crime for political reasons. Retreating/withdrawing/running-away is not an indication of surrender, it's an indication that the troops are going from A to B for purposes unknown. If they were not intending to be a threat, they could have laid down their arms and surrendered like many thousands of other Iraqi troops did.Its a rush till you get an arm or leg blown off or lose an eye. The fact that you would even make such a comment is disturbing.
I know, it is a bit odd. I think it's a similar reason people like bungee jumping or parachuting. The thrill of skirting death, and it's also a challenge. The odd thing is, I will never bungee jump, and while I tried parachuting, it's not for me.Went to work? I hope you dont mean went to war. If so, that is nothing to be proud of. Especially a war against a non aggressive nation.
At the time I was an IT technician in an outsourcing company.
Which thus means that any arguments to the extent that the Americans are a threat to the fair conduct of elections are rendered toothless, no?Actually it says that the Americans were stacking the deck but the Iraqis caught on.Each ruler is sovereign leader of its province and reins supreme(In its province)Also encouraging economic intertwining. Encouraging co-operation among them. Though they will all be responsible for the poor. Regardless of which province they dwell.
Encouraging economic co-operation is one thing. EU, NAFTA, PTA, and so on. That's a far different argument for allowing territory A to rely on territory B's resources.
NTM0 -
bonkey wrote:Who, exactly, will be on the other side of this diplomacy? The people who chose to take up arms against hte Americans because they were in Iraq? That doesn't make sense.
Or, if we go with the point I was making in the first place...if the Americans pull out like you suggest....who is going to talk? It sure as sh1t isn't the Americans, cause they'll be gone.
Can you tell me the Purpose of the United Nations?If the Americans let them do thier job, We wouldn't be in this bind and many people would be still alive and America would be half a trillion dollars richer.Seriously....at this stage all you're doing is twisting in the wind, and not making coherent sense. You want the fighting to stop. You want the Americans out. You see this being done by the Americans leaving and now by them also not leaving and starting diplomatic relationships with the people who decided to try and kill their soldiers to make them leave.
Two words. UNITED NATIONS.Rather than issuing just another tired old tirade against the USA, maybe you could outline how we get from where we are to where you suggest we should be going. How does this diplomacy start? Who is involved? Who is chosen to represent the (myriad) of factions within each of the three main cultural groupings and why?
Obviously neighbouring Arabic countries will play a vital role.Everything else I have already outlined on this thread.if you can't offer meaningful answers to such questions, then face facts - all you're doing is armchair-quarterbacking, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that you don't fully grasp either the game, nor the players.
Actually I am more like an armchair diplomate for peace. I actually sit on a red armchair at my computer.lol
And I am well aware of the game, the players and the stakes. I am also aware of many end-resulti scenarios.We've gotten that you're indignant. We don't need more spittle-spraying vehemence. You think you know how its done right, then offer more than a shiny wrapper marked "McSolution" and actually get into some detail.
I have outlined many solutions for the last few years. The first step is for the Americans to withdraw.Who cares. The question is not how we got here, nor what should have been done 4 years ago. It doesn't matter a cr@p. It changes absolutely nothing. You can rant on and on and on about how wrong the Americans were to invade (ignoring that I've already said I opposed the invasion), but until you get over yourself and start addressing where to go from here, all you're doing is pulpitting empty rhetoric.
If we dont make a big deal about it. Whats to stop the Americans from repeating this enormous blunder? War is never the answer.Civil war. Potential splitting of Iraq into three. Invasion of the resultant Kurdish state by Turkey (who have already said they would do so should a Kurdish state ensue from the American invasion of Iraq). Possible invasion of other parts by Iran, seeking to subsume more oilfields and believers to its own. Potential invasion by Kuwait, seeking revenge for the events of 15 years ago, a "reunification" on their (rather than on Iraqi) terms, and an increase in wealth. Any or all of the above could lead to utter and total destabilisation fo the Middle East.
Oh I see. Pre-emptive occupation.:rolleyes: If that is the case, Americans will never be able to leave.
American presence is the cause of total ME destability. Most of your scenarios are nonsense. If Kurds are foolish enough to set up a state and
claim Kirkuk? They will be attacked. With or without American presence.Lets also not lose sight of the fact that right now, the only people keeping the majority of foreign fighters out of Iraq is...you guessed it...the US army.
I didn't guess the us army. The foreign fighters that want to make it in Iraq are having absolutely no problem doing so. There is no physical way American can secure the Iraqi borders. So you guessed wrong.Invading was a bad idea. I've never questioned that. I've never questioned that oil was a major factor. And yet you feel the need to bring this up again and again and again and again and again as if it somehow justifies the other (unrelated) points you're making. It doesn't. None of this historical "why they've done what they've done" matters when it comes to deciding what is the best path to go on from here.
The more people say its not about Oil, the more I will say ITS ABOUT OIL.
They wont leave until they have secured the oil. So the oil does still matter.If you cannot argue for an American pullout (or any other action) based on the facts of the moment, and a reasonable projection of likelihoods, but instead remain mired in the events of several years ago as your justification, then your "solution" is doomed from the outset.
Please. I warned the Americans before they even went into Iraq they wouldn't be able to leave. So my projections are not as far off as you think.I've explained the etymology of the comment. Get over yourself.
Some things shouldn't be joked about. Some people(Maybe not me) may take your comments seriously and make things worse.0 -
So Shia is killing Sunni is killing Kurd because there's Americans about?
Please....stop and listen to what you're saying. You might realise how ridiculous it is then. American presence may have started it (in fact, its almost beyond question), but either which way, there's no shortage of factions currently making power plays. They want power. They can't get it while the Americans are there, but once the Americans are gone....they still need to beat off all the other native factions who also want power. American presence is not fuelling that fighting....its dampening it. Whether it can dampen it enough, and how....thats what we should be discussing....but I hold little hope that you can distance yourself from the tirades against what is now history in order to discuss the present and future instead.
Sunni's are killing Shiites because they see them as an extention of American Imperialsim. Shiites are killing Sunnis in retaliation. Kurds are not being targetted though they are trying to expel Arabs from Kirkuk.
Therefore the main cause of the fighting is American influence and presence. You find this notion ridiculous? I find your notions ridiculous also. There is something called Diplomacy. Neither group has the strength to take the country over by force. War would be a bloodbath. Though when it comes to American influence and presence? They see it as an abomination and will do whatever it takes to remove them.The don't know it. This is exactly what I said I have yet to hear a strong argument in favour of, and what have you offered me? "It will be better".
Maybe your definition of a strong argument is different to mine, but where I come from, "coz I said so" is generally only considered a strong argument while one's age is in single digits.
I have offered many scenarios. Maybe your not listening?And neither of them are Americans. And they are attacking. hence, Sunni are threatened by Shia....and a lack of American presence isn't going to change that....other than give violence a freer hand.
I have already explained this above. It is American presence. If they form a government. The SUnni's will not lose their power. the Only difference is they will be sharing it with Shiites and Kurds. Though there must be EQUAL POWER
for it to work. That is why I propose a United council(Preferable relisious in nature). No Single Prime minister.I mean...who's gonna keep the peace? the Shia- and Sunni- members of the Iraqi armed forces? The Kurds, so we make it a triple-header? The Iranians? The Turks?
See aboveYes. Exactly my point. Destabillisation.
And who caused that destabilization. The American Invasion. What can destabilize the situation? DIPLOMACY.You followed the war closely, you say...so you'll well remember the frequent statements that Turkey made that they would only support US action if given assurances that no Kurdish state would ensue from these actions, and that they would be obligated to interfere in the creation of any such state. Yes? No?
EXACTLY. And Americans agreed. Though many Kurds are still considering it.Though the Kurds would have to be foolish to try it with or without any foreign help.Thats as credible as suggesting that Al Qaeda and Iraq would work together to bring about the downfall of the Great Satan.
Isn't that what is happening?lol Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunni's have joined forces.Initiating war is never the answer. Once war is initiated, the question changes to how one can end the war most effectively. Pulling out and allowing the nation (and potentially the region) to collapse into a war of its own isn't ending anything. Its simply changing the cast-list.
Well can America stay there indefinately? The new Iraqi government will never be able to protect itself from the new type of warfare that has evolved.
And Whats to say after America withdraws the Kurds wont ask for thier own state?Diplomacy is, was, and always has been the only answer.
This is a useless argument because the reason for the instability is American presence.And once more with the "I offer no reason, just state an empty belief that I'm unwilling or unable to back up" rhetoric.
If what I am saying is rhetoric? You can classify george bush's comments as rhetoric also can you not? You could propably classify everything be said as rhetoric because we will never know until America withdraws no?Are you trying to copy the US Administration in the tactic of "if I repeat it often enough it will become believed to be true"?
You keep on asking the same questions and I'll keep on giving the same responses.0 -
wiseones2cents wrote:Can you tell me the Purpose of the United Nations?If the Americans let them do thier job, We wouldn't be in this bind and many people would be still alive and America would be half a trillion dollars richer.
Two words. UNITED NATIONS.
Look...hang on a sec.
I put it to you that at the moment there is fighting. If the US pull out there will be fighting. I said there is no forseeable path to stop the fighting. You suggested that this thing called "diplomacy" be tried, and now you're trying to avoid explaining who will discuss what with whom, and how we will get them all to put their guns down in the first place....both those included in this diplopmatic process you advocate and those who are not.
The UN can have nothing to do with it unless the Americans are involved, as otherwise it is an internal affair - which is outside the remit of the UN. You are the one suggesting the Americans neither want diplomacy nor are interested in carrying it out.
So now you want the UN involved. And yet again, your vision of how things should be done is utterly devoid of content. Its about as detailed as "why don't they all just make peace, and then everything will be solved".
then qwhy are you ignoring them? Why aren't you explaining why your chosen outcomes are the one which should occur?And I am well aware of the game, the players and the stakes. I am also aware of many end-resulti scenarios.
this is becomign a well-established pattern. You insist you know and understand the issues, but you still cannot exlpain why your outcomes will/should be the ones that come about...you just insist that they will.
Thats not a solution....it is, as you say...a first step. Then what? Once the Americans withdraw, its an Iraqi-only internal affair? I thought you wanted the UN involved (as you mentioned at the top of this post I'm replying to)? How will you get the Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other?I have outlined many solutions for the last few years. The first step is for the Americans to withdraw.
Nothing, other than the fact that further destabilisation of Iraq doesn't actually benefit the Americans.Whats to stop the Americans from repeating this enormous blunder?
But pulling out and allowing the country to devolve into full-on civil war with or without neighbourly intervention is just as equally likely to be an enormous blunder.....but apparently one you're fully in support of.
So you also recognise that civil war in Iraq is not the answer? So you can coherently argue why civil war will not occur subsequent to an American withdrawal? Then please do....War is never the answer.
Roll your eyes all you like. As I said....Turkey has staked its position clearly since before the initial invasion. You, as a self-professed follower of the events of the time must be aware of this. So who, exactly, are you rollnig your eyes at? The Turks for making this statement? Me for believing them? SHould I just decide that any nation or faction making comments which contradict your world-view are just lying?Oh I see. Pre-emptive occupation.:rolleyes: If that is the case, Americans will never be able to leave.
They're not mine. Over recent months, there's been huge amounts of discussion about what the potential impacts of a premature American withdrawal would be. You, as someone who claims to be closely following the events cannot but be aware of this.Most of your scenarios are nonsense.
But thank you for the detailed and comprehensive refutation of the points. Its in line with the well-reasoned "because I say so" arguments you've posted hithertofore.
Where the **** did I even suggest its not about oil. This is yet another one of your "I'll answer your comments with a totally unrelated point" moments, from what I can see.The more people say its not about Oil, the more I will say ITS ABOUT OIL.
They wont leave until they have secured the oil. So the oil does still matter.
lol. Sure you did. Got a hotline to Bush, do you? Or was it a full-page ad in the NYT?Please. I warned the Americans
Woah there. A moment ago you drew an eye-rolling conclusion that my argument must be wrong because the conclusion would be that the Americans would never be able to leave. Now you're saying that you've forseen exactly that since the start.before they even went into Iraq they wouldn't be able to leave. So my projections are not as far off as you think.
So which is it? I was right above, and your dismissal of my point was complete misdirection? Or are you wrong here? Or are you just shifting position whilst hoping no-one will notice?
You warned them they'd never be able to leave....but want them to get out???? Well thats sensible.
Make things worse? What? Do you think "The Americans" that you warned are closely reading this and basing international nuclear policy on my words, or something?Some things shouldn't be joked about. Some people(Maybe not me) may take your comments seriously and make things worse.
It was a flippant use of a movie-quote, and I've already acknowledged that it was in poor taste. Like I said...get over yourself.
Shiia Muslims - who incidentally are the predominant faction in Iran - are an extension of American imperialism???? Please....I thought you said you knew the players?wiseones2cents wrote:Sunni's are killing Shiites because they see them as an extention of American Imperialsim. Shiites are killing Sunnis in retaliation. Kurds are not being targetted though they are trying to expel Arabs from Kirkuk.
And the Kurds are trying to kick Arabs from Kirkuk? A while ago you were dismissing my scenario of Kurdish independance as nonsense, and commented that if they were foolish enough to try and take Kirkuk they'd be attacked. Now you're saying that this is exactly what they're doing.....
So my "ridiculous" theories would seem to be a match to whats happening up around Kirkuk....but they're still wrong? How can they be wrong if they match whats happening? Or, more importantly, what are the Kurds trying to do by kicking Arabs out if they're not trying to establish their own region?
Yes, I do.Therefore the main cause of the fighting is American influence and presence. You find this notion ridiculous?
The Americans caused the fighting to begin. Just like the guy who lets two cocks into the ring causes the cock-fight to begin. However, just like with said ringmaster, walking away will not cause the resultant fighting to stop....no matter how many times you insist its so.
Why, for example, will the Kurds stop trying to kick Arabs out of Kirkuk if Americans pull out, given that you've already said that American presence or the lack thereof won't protect them from attack for such actions???
Yes. I know. Like most of your other "arguments" you've stated this more than once. And like most of your other arguments, you've failed to offer an argument for it, but have instead just restated your position....the "I'm right because I say so" approach.I find your notions ridiculous also.
Who will be involved? What will happen to those factions who aren't involved? Why should anyone accept less then they can secure with force of arms? How will the diplomacy start? Why do I have to ask these questions more than once?There is something called Diplomacy.
You have none of these answers. All you have is an oft-repeated idealistic mantra that if the Americans leave, peace will somehow break out and everyone will just sit down and chat about their new country....all of which is based on what so far looks like a completely fabricated "understanding" of the motives and alignments of the major players:
So far, you've claimed...
1) Shia are aligned with america, despite the indications that the enxt government could be led by a Shia, religious (as opposed to sectarian), Iran-friendly faction who are not enamoured to the US.
2) Kurds are not trying to establish their own independance, but are trying to kick out Arabs from Kirkuk, but would stop if the Americans pulled out, even though American presence.
3) The correct solution is a religious triumverate with each having an equal share, despite the huge imbalance in population numbers and the fact that Kurdish isn't a religion. This internal solution will be achieved with help from the UN which does not get involved in internal affairs, once the US pulls out and peace just magically breaks out throughout Iraq. Lets not forget that the US is the most significant player in the UN while we're here....this won't be a problem at all.
Which is why the possibility of a partitioning is so real. The various major groups each have enough force to hold their own territories, but lack the force to oust the others.Neither group has the strength to take the country over by force.
I find it hard to listen to typed words, but other than that, I'm following you fine. You seem to be failing to grasp that supplying a scenario isn't worth a damn if you're just saying "it will be like this" and not explaining why it will be like that, or why that scenario will come about....I have offered many scenarios. Maybe your not listening?
...other than some misty-eyed belief that its all because everyone hates America, and is only fighting each other cause the Americans are on the sidelines, and that once America is gone they'll all put their guns down and find a peaceful solution by treating with (Americans in) the UN to find a solution....even though its clear that the Americans aren't interested in diplomacy.
<split>0 -
So you believe that the minorities should be given equal power with the majority? Gosh...if I was in the majority, I wouldn't see that as a very equitable solution. Why should split something equally three ways when my faction makes up far more than 1/3 of the population?Though there must be EQUAL POWER for it to work.
If I was one of the 60% Shiite population, I'd be dead happy seeing the 10% Kurdish population get the same amount of power, influence, access to cash/oilfields/etc. It would only mean that per-capita they were getting 6 times more than me....which is clearly nothing to complain about.
Considering that you've such a low opinion of the American occupation, you buy in to their propaganda real easy.Isn't that what is happening?lol Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunni's have joined forces.
Yes. I've noticed this. I ask you to explain the reasoning behind your position, and you offer a restatement of the position.....You keep on asking the same questions and I'll keep on giving the same responses.
"Why is it this way?"
"Its this way".
"But why?"
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
"Why won't you explain why?"
"Because if you keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving the same answer".
Did you ever see that Paxman interview, where he asked the same question 12 times, because the guy wouldn't answer it? Guess what...the guest tried more-or-less the same tactic as you...suggesting that he didn't need to offer another answer because the question hadn't changed, ignoring the fact that he never answered the question in the first place.
But I guess you're of the opinion that, unlike Michael Howard, you're somehow fooling people into thinking that you've presented the explanation you're being asked for.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
On a good note - at least things seem to be going a hell of a lot better this time, maybe, just maybe things are starting to get better there.0
-
Jimboo_Jones wrote:On a good note - at least things seem to be going a hell of a lot better this time, maybe, just maybe things are starting to get better there.
I agree.
This "invalid" (in wo2c's eyes at least) election, in which the "excluded" (in wo2c's eyes at least) Sunni's are taking part in significant numbers, appears to have gone off quite well thus far.
Obviously though, with "only" 70% of eligible voters being content/able to cast a vote, we can't take this as any sort of indication that the Iraqi's want to follow this democratic path at all and are having democracy "forced" upon them (in wo2c's eyes at least)...which will never work.
At least the various insurgents seem to have by-and-large abided by their stated intent not to interfere with this US-run, US-controlled, unacceptable, invalid election. I can't imagine why they'd do that, given that its all an American plot of some sort, and the only reason they're fighting each other in the first place is because the Americans are there.....but I'm sure wo2c can explain all of that to us by restating something or other that we should take on blind faith.
While he's at it, maybe he'll explain how so many not-friendly-to-American factions got elected in a US-controlled, fixed, false election.....or whatever its being billed as this week.
jc0 -
They did in 2002 when Saddam said he was going to let inspectors back in. In January 2003, the same inspectors were complaining that Iraq was not co-operating. Seems more like he was playing games.
As far as I recall they were not blocking inspectors in anyway during that time. The inspectors themselves just said they needed more time to confirm there were no weapons and had found no weapons to that date. The US just gave unrealistic deadlines it knew that Saddam couldn't keep to.
The only time I know of when Saddam was blocking inspectors was when the US+UK got caught having spies in the inspection teams and that was years before the Iraq invasion.
While I do recall Hans comments regarding Saddam I also remember him clearly stating that it was not a justification for a war.0 -
folk_smith wrote:ummmm - those companies are bidding on Iraqi oil .... that they will have to pay the Iraqis for just like any other oil company buying oil from any other oil producing nation. Those countries you listed are home to the largest oil companies in the world - it would make sense that they would have the most buying power. Maybe you should cut out reading Nostradamus for a while ...
Those companies are bidding on Iraqi oil because America gave them a slice of the pie to participate in the war. These are spoils of conquest. Though America will never gain absolute control of those oil fields.
Americans and allies are building the oil infastructure and will be the ones running the show. Which will allow them to control Iraqi oil and skim from profits.
Shouldn't Iraq decide who the oil should flow to? You dont go to a country and take over its Economy. Which is exactly what America has done.
As far as your Nostra damus comment? I would like to respond in the same ignorant manner but I will refrain.
Also Living as human beings? They lived like human beings for years until the Iraq/Iran war which was probably an America Idea. And the Unhumane Sanctions imposed by America.
Therefore if they want peace? They have to get American influence out of their country.0 -
Manic Moran wrote:Well, it seems that the legitimacy question is pretty well settled on this particular election: The Sunnis have turned out in large numbers as well.
I guess they figured out that if you boycott an election, you don't really end up getting much of a say in things.
NTM
I will say this. From the Beginning I was for Democracy in Iraq. I also knew if you could make it work anywhere in the ME, it would be Iraq. Since Iraq under Saddam's rule was the most westernized country in the Middle east.
Women had freedom, people were literate,ect...
So I supported Democracy even when Al-Qaeda was against it during the First election.
HOWEVER, I did NOT agree with the CONDITIONS these elections and so called democracies were forced under.
I did not see the legitimacy of an Election when a significant population of the country is showing opposition to it.
And although they had elections back then. Its legitimacy was more for the Presses than anything else. It had no real legitimacy. Which further fueled the Insurgency.
They should have negotiated BEFORE they thought about running elections.
Though Now I am concerned with American campaign funding jeopordizing the integrity of these elections. Example: Installing American puppet candidates.
Therefore the Sunni's now figure that the best way to route out American influence in Iraq is to run themselves. They want to purge the government of American Influence.
I'd also like to comment on Palestinian Elections.I am against continued aggression in Israel. It is unproductive for now. Israel is making an effort to make peace with the Palestinians. How serious Sharon is? Only time will tell. He has given them Gaza back though is still building ILLEGALLY in the West bank.
I want Palestinian pressure on the International community to Intervene. NOT Palestinian aggression.If the International community fails to act, and Sharon fails to reasonably compensate the Palestinians, then they will have to consider aggression.
Since Senior Fatah does not have a good tract record(Corupt), And Since other groups are failing to abide by the cease fire and continue aggression. The most fit to run Palestine is Junior members of Fatah. If they are for Peace and change and advancement of Palestine and for ALL of Palestines citizens.0 -
Advertisement
-
Even when Al Qaeda was against it?????wiseones2cents wrote:So I supported Democracy even when Al-Qaeda was against it during the First election.
Does this mean you normally side with Al Qaeda and their line of thinking, but made an exception in this case, or something?
The election was only ever as a precursor to enable negotiations on a provisional constitution to begin and to subsequently enable the current election to take place. That was made clear by all parties at the time. The population is not showing significant opposition to this election, so clearly they - at least retrospectively - acknowledge that the previous election has served its intended purpose.I did not see the legitimacy of an Election when a significant population of the country is showing opposition to it.
The previous elections elected an interim government, with vastly restricted powers. Its main functions were to begin negotiations on a constitution, and to pave the way for real elections (which have just occurred).And although they had elections back then. Its legitimacy was more for the Presses than anything else. It had no real legitimacy. Which further fueled the Insurgency.
That was its stated purpose from the outset, and the purpose that was carried out. The participation levels in the current elections, as well as the progress thus far on the provisional constitution show that the provisional government lived up to its remit, and didn't exceed it.
Indeed, all of these oil contracts that you're foaming about....none of them are actually legally binding until such time as a freely elected government (i.e. not the interim one) ratify them. So the Iraqis remain in control of their oil, despite all your claims otherwise.
I thought you said you followed evets closely? They did negotiate before. Indeed, the interim government was really nothing but a "proof of concept" to show that the negotiated structures of government could in fact work. The arrival at an incomplete, provisional constitution showed that it does work - no side can steam-roller the others, and they are capable of making progress together. Now, having proven the fundamental viability of the basic structure, they can go now step further and actuall implement it. The Sunni acceptance of the elections is testament to this. They held back initially because they didn't like the negotiated system and felt it disadvantaged them. Now they've seen how it can work, they're willing to partake.They should have negotiated BEFORE they thought about running elections.
Same tired, contentless old argument that was presented in the interim elections. The results then showed that its contentless. You can install "puppet candidates" all you like, but you still can't make the population choose them over the people they want in power.Though Now I am concerned with American campaign funding jeopordizing the integrity of these elections. Example: Installing American puppet candidates.
Three days ago you were ridiculing anyone who suggested the Sunni's weren't excluded. Now all of a sudden, you expect us to believe that you somehow understand their motives because you were shown to be about as wrong as you could possibly be on your previous stance????Therefore the Sunni's now figure that the best way to route out American influence in Iraq is to run themselves.
What American influence? Can you name a single power-faction in the interim government which was "American influence"?They want to purge the government of American Influence.
For now? FOR NOW????I am against continued aggression in Israel. It is unproductive for now.
You've been repeating yourself ad nauseum over the past few posts about how violence and war are not the answer, and now you're saying that aggression is only unproductive for now?????
Could these arguments be any more hypocritical with respect to each other?If the International community fails to act, and Sharon fails to reasonably compensate the Palestinians, then they will have to consider aggression.
What happened to war never being the answer?
jc0 -
Manic Moran wrote:wiseones2cents wrote:Of coarse. Now that they see they are not wanted.'course'
If one were to work on the assumption that the Americans have only recently figured out that they aren't welcome for a long stay (An assumption I would dispute), then surely that would preclude any further work by them on permanent facilities which are to be gifted to Iraq, no? Yet such work continues. Ergo, it would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that the construction of such facilities has nothing to do with how long they intend to stay.
Did they know they would not be accepted by Iraq before they invaded? They thought they would be welcomed with open Arms. Which is clearly not what happened.You are showing an evident ignorance of American power-projection capabilities. I assume that you will advocate that if there's any one thing that America is good at it's warfare? (I happen to believe that the US is good at other things as well, but that's not at issue here)
Or are you over estimating American Military capability? America good at warfare?Apparently not as good as they thought. What did they say? It would take 3 weeks to Invade iraq?lolThen you're not listening to the right people. Please research the figures on both supply and demand, prior to and after the conflict
The figures at
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050304-050628-7922r.htm indicate that demand has gone up by some 60% since the 2003 war. This, in turn, would indicate that people are obtaining more electrical goodies resulting in creating that demand. This would be in line with the government report I linked to in another thread a week or two ago.
There is no doubt Americans spread much Mis-information.
Do you want to hear the real facts? Before the American Invasion thwe Iraq
Power Capacity was at close to 10,000 Mega watts.(this is even after the Iraq/Iran war.)They are now producing 4000-5000 Mega watts. SO again, you are talking nonsense. ALl mis-information. Bye the way. Mine is a government source.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.htmlThe Iraqis themselves claimed to have restored power back to pre 1991-war levels within 5 months. The reason being that when the Americans attacked power stations, they didn't do it using explosives but instead warheads containing conductive-carbon filaments, which shorted out the system without blowing anything up. This would indicate that it is disingenuous to claim that the current Iraqi shortfalls are the result of American attacks in 1991.
B.S. Look above. Actually it was up after 3 months but not anywhere near full capacity.Quite true. I saw many towns that took their untreated water from the local rivers and canals. That's not contrary to any claims that a large number of programmes are in place to rectify those situations. After all, if the system was satisfactory, why have programmes to fix them?
Since the majority of its sanitation services are run by electricity. It is electrical power they should be working on. Which they have FAILED to reach projected goals. As It is stated in the link I provided above.I will stipulate that slant drilling technology exists. I will stipulate that it originated in Texas. I will stipulate that if the US sold such information to other powers, that American will likely have known about it. This still leaves open the question of if the Iraqi accusations which led to the 1991 invasion were true or fabricated.
If they were stealing Iraqi oil? Who runs the show in the Kuwaiti oil economy? American and British oil companies.
Just curious.What would America do if it caught anyone stealing its resources. hmmmmmmm. You can bet it would prepare for war.That article indicates that the -top- end for the Highway of Death is one thousand. In my line of work, I tend to encounter people who were there, and their estimates are actually a little lower than that. But regardless of if you believe your article's source or mine, the 'thousands' claim appears spurious.
It does? You didnt read all of it did you? It still higher than your claim 200-300 were killed. If you have bombs dropping on minimum 10,000 people I would think the casualties would be higher than 200-300 hundred. More than likely in the thousands.No, I would not agree. There are simple rules in war. You can choose to surrender, or you can choose not to surrender. Anyone who has expressed an indication or desire to surrender is entitled to quarter, and a refusal to accept a surrender is both bad practise for practical reasons, and a war crime for political reasons. Retreating/withdrawing/running-away is not an indication of surrender, it's an indication that the troops are going from A to B for purposes unknown. If they were not intending to be a threat, they could have laid down their arms and surrendered like many thousands of other Iraqi troops did.
retreating is an Indication of a cease fire. Which opens up channels for diplomacy. Its not like Iraq was a international threat and you couldn't take a chance on them regrouping. Thats like a protest in the streets and you disperse them and shoot them dead as they are dispersing,just incase they plan to come back. Ridiculous argument.I know, it is a bit odd. I think it's a similar reason people like bungee jumping or parachuting. The thrill of skirting death, and it's also a challenge. The odd thing is, I will never bungee jump, and while I tried parachuting, it's not for me.
Your comparing war (where probability of death or Injury is higher) to Bungee jumping and parachuting? I suggest you quit trying to justify your ridiculous statement.At the time I was an IT technician in an outsourcing company.
They let IT technicians carry pistols? You must also be a military personnel. And as I said before, it is nothing to be proud of, to go to war against a small unaggressive and defenseless country.Which thus means that any arguments to the extent that the Americans are a threat to the fair conduct of elections are rendered toothless, no?
It shows that they are interferring. You call that toothless? Your arguments in this thread of become particularly weak.Encouraging economic co-operation is one thing. EU, NAFTA, PTA, and so on. That's a far different argument for allowing territory A to rely on territory B's resources.
NAFTA? Its a failure.
Why? Is that not what Countries do? You have province/state money that help the weaker states. The only difference is that there will be NO biased president, Taking other money to hand out to his supporters and neglecting others.
Each one will have rule over their province, though the more healthy economies are obligated to help the weaker ones.0 -
Manic Moran wrote:
However, there is also little denying that the vast majority of deaths these days are Iraqis killed by insurgents.
The only comprehensive report on deaths in Iraq done by the Lancet goes a long way to debunking that assertion.The implication being that things are a little more complicated than 'Yanks out'
A little bit more...but not much.0 -
Manic Moran wrote:True. A lot has been, and a lot has not. You can't blame them for not wanting to spend loads of money on some facility that has a great chance of being blown up three days after it opens.
But u can blame for misappropriating, mismanaging and loosing billions.The fallacy though is the assumption that a lack of American presence will automatically create a nice peaceful situation where such investments can reasonably safely be made.
It's not a "fallacy". It's an assumption well based in reality and the facts on the ground.Then again, it might also get a lot worse.
How much worse could it be.Good for the judicial system. If they're found guilty, I hope they get appropriate punishments.
Not so good...considering their history of overcharging and breaking US law...especially with respect to Iraq and Iran.0 -
bonkey wrote:Look...hang on a sec.
I put it to you that at the moment there is fighting. If the US pull out there will be fighting. I said there is no forseeable path to stop the fighting. You suggested that this thing called "diplomacy" be tried, and now you're trying to avoid explaining who will discuss what with whom, and how we will get them all to put their guns down in the first place....both those included in this diplopmatic process you advocate and those who are not.
The UN can have nothing to do with it unless the Americans are involved, as otherwise it is an internal affair - which is outside the remit of the UN. You are the one suggesting the Americans neither want diplomacy nor are interested in carrying it out.
So now you want the UN involved. And yet again, your vision of how things should be done is utterly devoid of content. Its about as detailed as "why don't they all just make peace, and then everything will be solved".
:rolleyes: I dont know if you are aware of this but the UN consists of Diplomats from every country. So who would do the negotiating?hmmmm:rolleyes: That was one weak argument.then qwhy are you ignoring them? Why aren't you explaining why your chosen outcomes are the one which should occur?
I have explained. Maybe your not understanding.this is becomign a well-established pattern. You insist you know and understand the issues, but you still cannot exlpain why your outcomes will/should be the ones that come about...you just insist that they will.
I'll tell you why. Most of my projections have been failry accurate. Americas projections have been all off. Mostly because of miscalculations and because they make high goals to appease the public. There is no way they can reach their projections and they know it. Its just to make the public feel like they are actually accomplishing something.Thats not a solution....it is, as you say...a first step. Then what? Once the Americans withdraw, its an Iraqi-only internal affair? I thought you wanted the UN involved (as you mentioned at the top of this post I'm replying to)? How will you get the Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other?
Are you paying Attention? The UN takes over,together with Arab nations,together with Iraqi leaders(Sunni,Shiites and Kurds) and we get diplomacy going. American presence is the main thing feuling the insurgency.
American withdrawl will calm the flames considerably.Nothing, other than the fact that further destabilisation of Iraq doesn't actually benefit the Americans.
America does not want to see distabilization that would oust American influence and Investments in Iraq. America couldn't care less about Iraqi lives.But pulling out and allowing the country to devolve into full-on civil war with or without neighbourly intervention is just as equally likely to be an enormous blunder.....but apparently one you're fully in support of.
It is Highley unlikely. But you would prefer the Americans staying and new fronts opening up and causing a world war?Woah there. A moment ago you drew an eye-rolling conclusion that my argument must be wrong because the conclusion would be that the Americans would never be able to leave. Now you're saying that you've forseen exactly that since the start.
Actually let me correct myself.My conclusion was that America would not leave. Now they have no choice but they dont want to leave without making sure they have secured Iraqi oil. I'm sure they were planning a permanent base in Iraq though. They did not anticipate this reaction from the Sunnis.
So which is it? I was right above, and your dismissal of my point was complete misdirection? Or are you wrong here? Or are you just shifting position whilst hoping no-one will notice?Make things worse? What? Do you think "The Americans" that you warned are closely reading this and basing international nuclear policy on my words, or something?
Not the Americans but the Muslims might hear your unappropriate comment.It was a flippant use of a movie-quote, and I've already acknowledged that it was in poor taste. Like I said...get over yourself.
I just pointed out the error of your statement. It doesn't bother me but it can bother others. So I have no need to get over anything. You keep on continuing to be defensive because you know it was not the smartest thing to say.Shiia Muslims - who incidentally are the predominant faction in Iran - are an extension of American imperialism???? Please....I thought you said you knew the players?
I do know the players.And the Kurds are trying to kick Arabs from Kirkuk? A while ago you were dismissing my scenario of Kurdish independance as nonsense, and commented that if they were foolish enough to try and take Kirkuk they'd be attacked. Now you're saying that this is exactly what they're doing.....
I'm sure some Kurds are thinking about it, but the chances of it happening are highly unlikely. With or without American support.So my "ridiculous" theories would seem to be a match to whats happening up around Kirkuk....but they're still wrong? How can they be wrong if they match whats happening? Or, more importantly, what are the Kurds trying to do by kicking Arabs out if they're not trying to establish their own region?
I am well aware of that scenario. And so Is America. They are also aware of the consequences. The Kurds would be attacked on every side.Therefore the chances of that happening are slim.Yes I do.
The fact that you do not see the connection between American presence and its negative affect(Fueling the Insurgency), shows that you do not understand the situation.Yes. I know. Like most of your other "arguments" you've stated this more than once. And like most of your other arguments, you've failed to offer an argument for it, but have instead just restated your position....the "I'm right because I say so" approach.
I have proven my self on other boards to have insight. What do you offer besides I say so approach?So far, you've claimed...
1) Shia are aligned with america, despite the indications that the enxt government could be led by a Shia, religious (as opposed to sectarian), Iran-friendly faction who are not enamoured to the US.
Shia's are not aligned with America. Though certain Shia candidates are.2) Kurds are not trying to establish their own independance, but are trying to kick out Arabs from Kirkuk, but would stop if the Americans pulled out, even though American presence.
The fact that they have absolutely no chance of reaching their objectives through force.3) The correct solution is a religious triumverate with each having an equal share, despite the huge imbalance in population numbers and the fact that Kurdish isn't a religion. This internal solution will be achieved with help from the UN which does not get involved in internal affairs, once the US pulls out and peace just magically breaks out throughout Iraq. Lets not forget that the US is the most significant player in the UN while we're here....this won't be a problem at all.
Kurds may not be a religion but there are many Muslim Kurds. After this debacle, America has lost all respect in the global community and its influences are diminuishing.Which is why the possibility of a partitioning is so real. The various major groups each have enough force to hold their own territories, but lack the force to oust the others.
I am for partition. Though NOT SEPERATION FROM IRAQ. The Kurds do NOT have enough force to hold thier own territory if they choose to take it by force. They will be attacked from all sides.
p.s. 50% of your post was repitition that I chose not to answer.0 -
bonkey wrote:So you believe that the minorities should be given equal power with the majority? Gosh...if I was in the majority, I wouldn't see that as a very equitable solution. Why should split something equally three ways when my faction makes up far more than 1/3 of the population?
If I was one of the 60% Shiite population, I'd be dead happy seeing the 10% Kurdish population get the same amount of power, influence, access to cash/oilfields/etc. It would only mean that per-capita they were getting 6 times more than me....which is clearly nothing to complain about.
Actually its about 60% Shiites. 20%Kurds and 20% Sunnis. That give the Shiites over 50% of the population. Even though they are the largest group, they are far from the Strongest. Therefore in the name of peace. Compromises have to be made. Also My Idea would Leave the Sunni's and the Kurd's responsible for the well being of the Shiites also. Therefore balance.
And remember their economies will be intertwined so Shiites have an advantage right off the bat due to advantage in Population there for the largest markets.Considering that you've such a low opinion of the American occupation, you buy in to their propaganda real easy.
Buying into their propaganda?Now your really talking nonsense. Everyone knows the American Invasion brought together Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgents.
Yes. I've noticed this. I ask you to explain the reasoning behind your position, and you offer a restatement of the position.....
P.S. the rest is repetitive and not worth answering.
jc[/QUOTE]0 -
Hobbes wrote:As far as I recall they were not blocking inspectors in anyway during that time. The inspectors themselves just said they needed more time to confirm there were no weapons and had found no weapons to that date. The US just gave unrealistic deadlines it knew that Saddam couldn't keep to.
The only time I know of when Saddam was blocking inspectors was when the US+UK got caught having spies in the inspection teams and that was years before the Iraq invasion.
While I do recall Hans comments regarding Saddam I also remember him clearly stating that it was not a justification for a war.
Exactly. And I have even supplied links to back our position. They are just ignoring the facts. America rushed this war, Did not give diplomacy a chance,
And this war is ILLEGAL. Might does nopt make right!0 -
I think most of the people you are arguing with wiseones2cents would actualy agree with you that the war was, if not illegal, then stated on very shakey ground. We could talk forever about the rights and wrongs about going to war, but that would probably be better suited to another topic.
What the topic is about is democracy in Iraq.
I personaly doubt it will work in the long term, short term I think that there will be a period of quiet which will enable the US and UK to bring out their troops. Long term I can see Iraq splitting up into three parts.
It will also be interesting if a very religious party ever gets voted into power. It could turn out that as a result of democracy Iraq ends up with a less secular government and women end up with fewer rights.0 -
bonkey wrote:Even when Al Qaeda was against it?????
Does this mean you normally side with Al Qaeda and their line of thinking, but made an exception in this case, or something?
That is correct. I recognize the legitimacy of their resistence to American occupation and Imperial influence in Iraq and abroad.
Although I disagreed with beheadings, I disagreed with their stance against Democracy, I did not want innocent civilians dragged into this, and I did not want Mosques targetting of innocent civilians praying.The election was only ever as a precursor to enable negotiations on a provisional constitution to begin and to subsequently enable the current election to take place. That was made clear by all parties at the time. The population is not showing significant opposition to this election, so clearly they - at least retrospectively - acknowledge that the previous election has served its intended purpose.
Many are participating in elections just to speed up American withdrawl.
We know the Sunni's dont want America there. We know a very Influencial Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers wants America out.The previous elections elected an interim government, with vastly restricted powers. Its main functions were to begin negotiations on a constitution, and to pave the way for real elections (which have just occurred).
Of coarse. There was constant infighting.They could not come to an agreement. I dont think they have yet. How can it be taken seriously?Indeed, all of these oil contracts that you're foaming about....none of them are actually legally binding until such time as a freely elected government (i.e. not the interim one) ratify them. So the Iraqis remain in control of their oil, despite all your claims otherwise.
Its part of the Constitution isnt it? I hope its reversable. America doesn't deserve a hand in Iraqi oil for its aggression. They could have done it without
war. In the Gilespie conversations. Saddam was more than willing to negotiate with America.I thought you said you followed evets closely? They did negotiate before. Indeed, the interim government was really nothing but a "proof of concept" to show that the negotiated structures of government could in fact work. The arrival at an incomplete, provisional constitution showed that it does work - no side can steam-roller the others, and they are capable of making progress together. Now, having proven the fundamental viability of the basic structure, they can go now step further and actuall implement it. The Sunni acceptance of the elections is testament to this. They held back initially because they didn't like the negotiated system and felt it disadvantaged them. Now they've seen how it can work, they're willing to partake.
A constitution is only valid if All the leaders of the nation agree to it. Other wise it is Invalid. That hasn't happened yet. The Suunis are willing to partake to hurry American withdrawl. They didnt want to participate because they did not see the legitimacy of a democracy under American occupation.Same tired, contentless old argument that was presented in the interim elections. The results then showed that its contentless. You can install "puppet candidates" all you like, but you still can't make the population choose them over the people they want in power.
And how do they know who are conspiring with the Americans behind the scenes may I ask? Most people do have a price.Three days ago you were ridiculing anyone who suggested the Sunni's weren't excluded. Now all of a sudden, you expect us to believe that you somehow understand their motives because you were shown to be about as wrong as you could possibly be on your previous stance????
I will repeat myself in this case. I said the Sunni's did not recognize the Legitimacy of Elections under American occupation. Nor did I recognize the legitimacy of the elections.What American influence? Can you name a single power-faction in the interim government which was "American influence"?
Allawi is the most obvious.For now? FOR NOW????
yes for NOW. If Israel continues to violate international law it must be held accountable for it. Either through International means or other.You've been repeating yourself ad nauseum over the past few posts about how violence and war are not the answer, and now you're saying that aggression is only unproductive for now?????
Could these arguments be any more hypocritical with respect to each other?
Wars of aggression are unproductive. Though internal resistence to remove oppressors or occupation is valid.
Which is the case in Iraq against American Aggression.
And which WAS valid in Palestinian aggression due to Israel's Aggressive/provoking policies and actions.
Though If Israel is willing to negotiate reasonably,Palestinian aggression is no longer valid.What happened to war never being the answer?
I never mentioned war. There are other ways to punish a nation. Especially a nation that survives solely on International aid. Though if the International community fails to act? I can see the Israelis being forced out. Lets hope it doesnt come to that.
If you invite someone to your house to stay a few days and then he stays longer and then starts to take over your house and invite his friends to live with him and you repeatedly tell him to respect the rules of your house and he refuses. What will you do? Put up with him until there is no room for you to live there?0 -
Jimboo_Jones wrote:I think most of the people you are arguing with wiseones2cents would actualy agree with you that the war was, if not illegal, then stated on very shakey ground. We could talk forever about the rights and wrongs about going to war, but that would probably be better suited to another topic.
What the topic is about is democracy in Iraq.
I personaly doubt it will work in the long term, short term I think that there will be a period of quiet which will enable the US and UK to bring out their troops. Long term I can see Iraq splitting up into three parts.
It will also be interesting if a very religious party ever gets voted into power. It could turn out that as a result of democracy Iraq ends up with a less secular government and women end up with fewer rights.
Whether it works or not is yet to be seen. Though I do not think America's vision of democracy will work out. American influence will be routed out.
A very religious party is already voted into power. Regardless of which Shiite is elected. Al-Sistani (for now) is running the show. Americans will try to increase their influence.0 -
Advertisement
-
wiseones2cents wrote:Shouldn't Iraq decide who the oil should flow to?
I'm fairly sure it will. After all, Iraq can control what ships arrive at its ports, and whether or not the pipelines to other countries can remain open. At first glance, and no, I've not investigated in detail, the oil contracts signed thus far are service agreements: Iraqppays the companies to extract the oil out of the ground. There is no indication that they are providing ownership rights to that oil as well.
Not the inhumane sactions imposed by the diplomats at the United Nations?And the Unhumane Sanctions imposed by America.They should have negotiated BEFORE they thought about running elections
Who would have done the negotiations? Isn't that what the January elections were about? So that the people would have a say in the determination of just who would be sitting around the table constructing the new framework for Iraq? Or do you submit that allowing the people to choose their own negotiators is a bad idea? If not, what other reasonable alternatives might there be, particularly given that no other countries not already involved in the occupation seemed to have a great interest in going to Iraq to run things instead of the Americans?
All indications are that whilst this is a valid concern, it has not come to fruition and has proven to be an un-necessary concern as well. The Iraqis have evidently seen through this and chosen their own people anyway. (And the Americans have allowed this to happen)Though Now I am concerned with American campaign funding jeopordizing the integrity of these elections. Example: Installing American puppet candidates.
Well, if one wants to be picky, they were, albeit qualified. The general response seemed to be "Thank you for getting rid of Saddam. We appreciate it. We would also appreciate your going home as soon as possible." The British reported a similar reception.Did they know they would not be accepted by Iraq before they invaded? They thought they would be welcomed with open Arms. Which is clearly not what happened.
I doubt it. As I mentioned on the Bush thread, I may not always get the political scene right (And I will conceed that the March 7 statements in the UN were more positive than I had previously understood), I do know my militaria.Or are you over estimating American Military capability?
I realise I wasn't able to follow events of the time as closely as I would like, but wasn't it about three weeks that a mere two division's worth of troops took to go from stationing in Kuwait to kicking the incumbent government out of power, with troops all over the country? Sounds like a successful invasion to me. The occupation, on the other hand, has been more troublesome. I'm not entirely sure that that is a major comfort for Saddam as he sits in his cell, however.What did they say? It would take 3 weeks to Invade iraq?
From that same government source, you will note that power levels it quotes shortly after the 1991 war were higher than those generally quoted for the levels of just before the 2003 war. It would appear that the generating capability declined considerably in the intervening years, without the need for anyone to bomb anything. Ultimately, the short answers are 1991 war: America disables electrical infrastructure, Iraqi electricity levels shortly therafter return to similar levels of a year previously. 2003 war, America doesn't go after the electrical infrastructure much at all, and power levels are shortly back to a similar level to a year previously.Mine is a government source.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
I am not a construction engineer, but it seems to me that major services like that probably should have their own dedicated generators for should the grid fail. If I can think of that, I'm sure the engineers can as well. Is there any indication that the sanitation systems currently in place are lacking in electricity? Particularly those recently installed?Since the majority of its sanitation services are run by electricity.
Even if one were to admit that the Western oil companies had control over a pretty autocratic country (which I do not), that still does not address the issue of if the Iraqi allegations of slant drilling were true or fabricated.If they were stealing Iraqi oil? Who runs the show in the Kuwaiti oil economy? American and British oil companies.
Hang on, I did. I even said I did. I mentioned their figures (of a top end of 1000) and my own figures (2-300). I then said that even if you took the source's figure, that is still less than the multiple thousands that you advocate.You didnt read all of it did you?
No it's not. As mentioned before, it is an indication of going from A to B, in a direction away from the forward edge of the battle area. It does not indicate that there is no intention of forming another defensive position further to the rear, say at a river. There was a very similar flap in 1982.retreating is an Indication of a cease fire.
Umm.. They invaded Kuwait, and then when the bombing started, they invaded Saudi. I consider that rather international. As a British Sea Lord put it almost a hundred years ago, "Moderation in war is imbecility." i.e., once the decision to fight is made, it is irresponsible to let those who have not expressed a wish to surrender go unengaged if there is a means not to do so. If you wish to debate the rules of warfare, we can start another thread.Its not like Iraq was a international threat
In terms of the physiological adrenaline rush? Sure. In fact, the rush is probably greater -because- of the increased risk of injury or death. I'm not saying that that's idealisticly a good thing, but it is human nature. That's the origin of the concept of the 'Combat Junkie.'Your comparing war (where probability of death or Injury is higher) to Bungee jumping and parachuting?
Most of the US permits private citizens to be armed in daily life. The majority choose not to do so, but many do. If a debate on the merits of American firearms legislation has not already been created in another thread, I can happily debate you on a new thread on that as well.They let IT technicians carry pistols?
As it happens, I am. The uniform I mentioned at the time was a military one.You must also be a military personnel.
What, like Kuwait?is nothing to be proud of, to go to war against a small unaggressive and defenseless country.
NTM0 -
sovtek wrote:The only comprehensive report on deaths in Iraq done by the Lancet goes a long way to debunking that assertion.
http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf
A pretty detailed study which analyses civilians killed between March 03 and March 05. One third are attributable to Coalition military action, of which two thirds of that were caused during the initial invasion. This means that some 10% of the Iraqi civilian deaths during the occupation have been caused by the coalition, and 90% due to other factors. The indications on the media are that the proportion of civilians killed by insurgent/terrorist bombing is on the increase in recent months since that report was compiled.But u can blame for misappropriating, mismanaging and loosing billions.
I can indeed. But surely if Americans lose American money that's their own affair, no? Something for the internal structures to take care of.
Is it? Given that Saddam appeared to require the use of brutal suppression to remain in power, to include dealing with the odd uprising by Kurds and Shias (And ethnic relocation), I think it's a questionable assumption that all parties will automatically revert to peaceful means. It's a heck of a gamble.It's not a "fallacy". It's an assumption well based in reality and the facts on the ground.
A couple of different ethnic groups in the same general area? "Srebrenicza" is the first word that comes to mind. Rwanda is probably beyond what is likely in Iraq, but you did ask for a worst case.How much worse could it be.
Back to WO2C:
Every country except for the three parties who really need to be there. Germany can negotiate with China and Senegal and whoever else all they want at the UN, but without the Iraqi Sunnis, Shias and Kurds represented, it seems a bit moot. And they still have to decide who the representatives of those three parties are going to be. Which brings us right back to the January elections.dont know if you are aware of this but the UN consists of Diplomats from every country. So who would do the negotiating?The UN takes over,together with Arab nations
There is some dispute over who would actually provide the security forces in event of a UN takeover. Partly it would be taint by association. Many non-Arabic governments want to be seen to have nothing to do with the American-led invasion, and will not provide troops. Even the nearby countries are not overly enthralled. For example, Jordan can't send any troops over for fear of being branded a nation looking to re-establish its Hashemite empire. Israel is obviously out. Iran would not be acceptable to the Saudis or Americans. Turkey isn't going to be acceptable to half the locals. Israel and America wouldn't accept Sryria on the ground. Neutral countries that frequently provide forces to the UN, such as Sweden and Ireland haven't a hope of providing enough.
Being a Science Fiction afficianado, I didn't find the Aliens quote to be particularly distasteful at all, but that's just me.
Many Sunnis are not. That's why many of them weren't overly keen on the draft constitution, they considered it the beginnings of a federalist state with three somewhat autonomous provinces. The provinces generally Sunni-dominated are lacking in most financial resources (Read: Oil). If a partition were to occur, they would have less control over that resource.I am for partition
Well, it wasn't quite to the extent of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Shortly before the Samarra op, we just sat back and watched the different insurgent groups shoot it out between themselves. Indeed, the only common goal between most Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda appears to be the death of American soldiers. Otherwise, they have generally few ideological areas of common ground.Everyone knows the American Invasion brought together Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgents.
YES!!! We have a common ground! Saints be praised! The Americans want the locals participating in elections so that they can get the hell out of the country as well! Everyone is finally working to the same goal!Many are participating in elections just to speed up American withdrawl.
What, that Iraqis control their oil? It's article 108. Why would you hope that's reversible?Its part of the Constitution isnt it? I hope its reversableAnd how do they know who are conspiring with the Americans behind the scenes may I ask?
You seem to. Why should the people on the ground be any less informed?
But do you accept that yesterday's elections appear to have given that legitimacy now, considering the numbers that they turned out in?I said the Sunni's did not recognize the Legitimacy of Elections under American occupation.
We need another thread for this one.Though If Israel is willing to negotiate reasonably,Palestinian aggression is no longer valid
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote:I'm fairly sure it will. After all, Iraq can control what ships arrive at its ports, and whether or not the pipelines to other countries can remain open. At first glance, and no, I've not investigated in detail, the oil contracts signed thus far are service agreements: Iraqppays the companies to extract the oil out of the ground. There is no indication that they are providing ownership rights to that oil as well.
Who decided on who the oil companies were to extract oil out of the ground? The Americans decided.
Your sure they will? You mean before or after the Imperialists have built up the Iraqi oil infastructure? Do you think Exxon Mobile is investing in Iraq for charity? The American administration dont give unless they recieve twice in return.Not the inhumane sactions imposed by the diplomats at the United Nations?
Every one knows that the UN was a US tool. America PRESSURED the UN to impose sanctions. And since America pays most of the UN's bill and is the Home of the UN. They have been successful up till now to manipulating the UN.
Though because of America's illegal war,the UN grew a set of balls and went and spoke out against America's actions. In which case America retaliated by attacking the UN's relevance. And threatening to cut funding to the UN and removing them from American soil.
Clear behaviour of a Dictator!
Side note:I personally believe eventually the UN headquarters will end up in Israel/Palestine. And I am in total agreeance with this. Though some changes have to come about in Israel/Palestine.Who would have done the negotiations? Isn't that what the January elections were about? So that the people would have a say in the determination of just who would be sitting around the table constructing the new framework for Iraq? Or do you submit that allowing the people to choose their own negotiators is a bad idea? If not, what other reasonable alternatives might there be, particularly given that no other countries not already involved in the occupation seemed to have a great interest in going to Iraq to run things instead of the Americans?
(I must have said this 20 times)The UN and neighboring Arab leaders, with Iraqi leaders would have done the negotiating. January elections served absolutely no purpose other than press coverage to masquerade as progress for bush.
Americans are seen as biased so is not fit for negotiating. Americans dont negotiate with Occupation resisters? Occupation resisters dont negotiate with American occupationAll indications are that whilst this is a valid concern, it has not come to fruition and has proven to be an un-necessary concern as well. The Iraqis have evidently seen through this and chosen their own people anyway. (And the Americans have allowed this to happen)
Like I said. There is no way to prove your assertion. Everyone has a price. So the likely hood of American interference is very probable if not certain in a Democratic Iraq. Those are the facts.Well, if one wants to be picky, they were, albeit qualified. The general response seemed to be "Thank you for getting rid of Saddam. We appreciate it. We would also appreciate your going home as soon as possible." The British reported a similar reception.
General response?I'm sure many Shiites and some Kurds felt that way. Though I am KNOW some Shiites and most Sunnis weren't so thrilled. But the America Administration media puppets(Like FOX) are skilled at propaganda. They only Show you positive images. Of coarse. Britain has to gain public approval as does America for justification to invade.I doubt it. As I mentioned on the Bush thread, I may not always get the political scene right (And I will conceed that the March 7 statements in the UN were more positive than I had previously understood), I do know my militaria.
Ok. How long would it take American troops to get from Kuwait to Kirkuk, if they oil fields were attacked? The Answer? Too long.I realise I wasn't able to follow events of the time as closely as I would like, but wasn't it about three weeks that a mere two division's worth of troops took to go from stationing in Kuwait to kicking the incumbent government out of power, with troops all over the country? Sounds like a successful invasion to me. The occupation, on the other hand, has been more troublesome. I'm not entirely sure that that is a major comfort for Saddam as he sits in his cell, however.
I followed it very closely and yes it was pretty quickly that bush put up the sign mission accomplished. Although it was a little premature. Dont you think?
Succesful Invasion?What did they do? Secure an Airport and some areas of Baghdad.
I guess its all in how you define successful.:rolleyes:
Thats not a regime change. There are still thousands of Saddam's Loyalists left. Thats why America is having problems.
Honestly? I find it hard to believe(although possible) that, it is Saddam in that cell. First of all. he reffers to himself as a third person when speaking.
Second Saddam is way more articulate. 3rd a man of Saddam's prestige and wealth would NEVER put himself in a hole. 4th. Saddam had built a multi billion dollar bunker that as nuclear proof that can house over 10,000 troops and him self and enough food and supplies to live the life of luxury indefinately. And he chose a hole? Also we all know that Saddam had MANY doubles because of fear of CIA assassinations. So frankly? That may not be Saddam.
If I were him, I would have not been captured that easily.0 -
From that same government source, you will note that power levels it quotes shortly after the 1991 war were higher than those generally quoted for the levels of just before the 2003 war. It would appear that the generating capability declined considerably in the intervening years, without the need for anyone to bomb anything. Ultimately, the short answers are 1991 war: America disables electrical infrastructure, Iraqi electricity levels shortly therafter return to similar levels of a year previously. 2003 war, America doesn't go after the electrical infrastructure much at all, and power levels are shortly back to a similar level to a year previously.
Got back and reread it. It say exactly what I claimed. BEFORE the 1991 invasion they had close to 10,000 mega watts of power(This is even AFTER the Iraq/Iran war.) Now they have 4000-5000 mega watts. Also It CLEARLY SAYS that AMERICA targetted their Electricity and shut it dowen COMPLETELY, though it was up after a few months but NOT at full capacity. But nice try.I am not a construction engineer, but it seems to me that major services like that probably should have their own dedicated generators for should the grid fail. If I can think of that, I'm sure the engineers can as well. Is there any indication that the sanitation systems currently in place are lacking in electricity? Particularly those recently installed?
They do hage back up generaters but they cant stay on indefinately.
If Electricity is lacking, it is safe to say that the Sanitation System is lacking since over 80% of it is run by electricity.Even if one were to admit that the Western oil companies had control over a pretty autocratic country (which I do not), that still does not address the issue of if the Iraqi allegations of slant drilling were true or fabricated.
I have seen NUMEROUS documentation all from government sources that verify this actual claim.WHich for some reason we have no longer access to. And the technology from texas was made for this sole purpose. So yes the Americans knew.
Here's a link:http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Go to tensions with kuwait. You will see the Kuwaitis were slant drilling for a long time and Saddam was complaining about it.
I also found something new. Britain set the borders and cut off Iraq from the sea. Which is UNFAIR in my opinion. So Americans and British could exploit its oil.Hang on, I did. I even said I did. I mentioned their figures (of a top end of 1000) and my own figures (2-300). I then said that even if you took the source's figure, that is still less than the multiple thousands that you advocate.
And I explained to you that It is more than likely higher than 1,000. Since we weren't there we will never know so We'll call it a stale mate. BUT this does not take away the fact that America was trying to bomb 10,000 poeple as they were retreating. What kind of a military does that? An out of control Military.No it's not. As mentioned before, it is an indication of going from A to B, in a direction away from the forward edge of the battle area. It does not indicate that there is no intention of forming another defensive position further to the rear, say at a river. There was a very similar flap in 1982.
Nonsense. If someone tells you to Leave Kuwait and you do? You have complied. They could have set up defensive positions inside Kuwait if they wanted to remain.Umm.. They invaded Kuwait, and then when the bombing started, they invaded Saudi. I consider that rather international. As a British Sea Lord put it almost a hundred years ago, "Moderation in war is imbecility." i.e., once the decision to fight is made, it is irresponsible to let those who have not expressed a wish to surrender go unengaged if there is a means not to do so. If you wish to debate the rules of warfare, we can start another thread.
They invaded Saudi Arabia? Thats funny. I have not heard no such thing.
We are taking about Iraq. Not a country like Germany.lolIn terms of the physiological adrenaline rush? Sure. In fact, the rush is probably greater -because- of the increased risk of injury or death. I'm not saying that that's idealisticly a good thing, but it is human nature. That's the origin of the concept of the 'Combat Junkie.'
Is that what they call it there? Human nature?Here in Canada we call it stupidity or foolishness. I dont know too many Humans that have this human nature of wanting to be injured or die.
Human nature is the opposite. It is the will to live.Most of the US permits private citizens to be armed in daily life. The majority choose not to do so, but many do. If a debate on the merits of American firearms legislation has not already been created in another thread, I can happily debate you on a new thread on that as well.
What carry pistols in public? I doubt you will ever be able to convince me of the merits of American firearms legislation.lol They tried that all ready and it didnt work. Remember the wild west?lol
Whats next. Legalizing shoot outs?:rolleyes:0 -
wiseones2cents wrote:Got back and reread it. It say exactly what I claimed. BEFORE the 1991 invasion they had close to 10,000 mega watts of power(This is even AFTER the Iraq/Iran war.) Now they have 4000-5000 mega watts. Also It CLEARLY SAYS that AMERICA targetted their Electricity and shut it dowen COMPLETELY, though it was up after a few months but NOT at full capacity. But nice try.
The figure quoted in the article was something like 75% of pre-1991 war power within five months. It is probably safe to assume that they added on a bit more after that period of time, but we'll ignore that for now. So we're dealing with somewhere around 7,500MW of power available after the post-1991 reconstruction. Somewhere between there, and the start of the 2003 war, where quoted figures tend to be between 4,000 and 5,000MW capacity, Iraq lost somewhere between a third and half its capacity without the US dropping any bombs whatsoever. At least, on electrical components, there was the odd raid on military facilities. Thus I put it to you that it is highly disingenuous to blame Iraq's current shortfall of electricity (Currently estimated at demands of about 15,000MW if my memory from browsing around serves) on American military action.I have seen NUMEROUS documentation all from government sources that verify this actual claim.WHich for some reason we have no longer access to.
What, all of them? That's a bit inconvenient of them.Here's a link:http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Go to tensions with kuwait. You will see the Kuwaitis were slant drilling for a long time and Saddam was complaining about it.
The Wiki is a great system, and has astonishing coverage, but I would be reluctant to rely on whichever member of the Internet public last edited the page as an authorative source on internationally disputed facts.I also found something new. Britain set the borders and cut off Iraq from the sea.
Actually, you might want to look at the Ottoman Turks on that one. The history of Kuwait is rather convoluted, particularly between the Arabs, British and Turks, but there is some rationale for the argument that Kuwait is situated exactly where it should be, and blaming anyone for restricting Iraq to about 40 miles of coastline is like blaming Italy for Austria being landlocked.this does not take away the fact that America was trying to bomb 10,000 poeple as they were retreating. What kind of a military does that? An out of control Military.
Umm. No. One doing its job. If it was out of control it would either be breaking various conventions of conduct in warfare, or it would not be responding to the instructions of its civilian authority. Neither situation applies.Nonsense. If someone tells you to Leave Kuwait and you do? You have complied. They could have set up defensive positions inside Kuwait if they wanted to remain.
They -did- set up defensive positions inside Kuwait. They built berms, and filled moats with oil that they could burn. They laid minefields. They dug vehicle fighting positions. They fought for various locations inside Kuwait such as the airport, even after a month's worth of bombardment. Face it. They got their arses kicked and were given one of three options. Surrender, die in place, or redeploy in the hopes of survival. This is, of course, long after the fact that the Kuwaitis fought until they ran out of ammunition in order to resist the invasion was an indicator that they weren't too enamored of the idea of the Iraqi army paying a courtesy visit.They invaded Saudi Arabia? Thats funny. I have not heard no such thing.
Yes, well, I think we have already concluded that your knowledge of military history is somewhat lacking. For what it's worth, military historians have categorised Khafji as the defining moment of the 1991 Gulf War.
To fill you in on things a bit, 29 January 1991, after some two weeks of compliantly withdrawing at 0mph and being bombed while they did it, the peaceloving and considerate Iraqi III Corps withdrew back to Iraq in a three-pronged land/land/sea movement in a Southward direction and found themselves occupying the town of Ras Al-Khafji, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indicators that they might have taken a wrong direction might have been that the amphibious task force was sunk by the Royal Navy, the diversionary Western withdrawl force got beaten up by a Qatari tank battalion, and to get into Al Khafji itself they had to ask directions of a couple of platoons of US Marines who attempted to redirect them with the use of gunfire and high explosives. (There are those who advocate that Saddam had instructed more than just III Corps to withdraw via Saudi, but were either too scared or incapable of doing so). To the great distress of King Fahd, the Iraqis chose not to reverse direction, and instead set up residence in the town, no doubt trying to figure out why they weren't in Basra. The good Monarch decreed that this could not stand, and that if the Iraqis remained then he would destroy his own town in order to stop the public announcements by Saddam that his forces had taken up residence there. Polite requests by the Saudis, supported by other arab military ground forces, and generally US air power for the Iraqis to leave were rudely ignored for three further days, until the last Iraqis surrendered, were killed, or forced out on Feb 2nd. Post-war analyses of the incursion indicate that the six divisions that did move South were more than likely aiming for the Damman oil fields, which would have been a propoganda coup for Saddam, and allowed him to negotiate from a position of some strength.Human nature is the opposite. It is the will to live.
The by-product of the will to live is adrenaline. It sharpens the senses, increases reflex rates and allows the blood to pump faster, so as to better react to potentially dangerous situations. Back when it evolved (Or was designed by God/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, take your pick), it was mainly a survival mechanism to try to avoid getting eaten by large furry animals. Whilst this is less of a danger these days since we can now shoot said large furry animals instead of slapping them ineffectually or running away, the biological response to stress still exists in our bodies. Hence, near-death will result in an andrenaline rush.
Gotta love this thread. We've gone from diplomacy to evolution of the species.
Yes. Carry pistols in public. Or revolvers, should you be inclined towards wheelguns.What carry pistols in public?I doubt you will ever be able to convince me of the merits of American firearms legislation.
Well, so be it.They tried that all ready and it didnt work.
[straining]Must..not...argue...firearms...on...this...thread...[/straining]
NTM0 -
Oh right. So international violence carried out in the name of one nation against another is alright, as long as we don't call it war?I never mentioned war.
Convenient.
<edit>
I also reference you to your own earlier comment that Violence only breeds violence. Its not a very hard concept to understand.When will we learn?
But if the international community fails Palestine, you are advocating the use of violence.
</edit>0 -
some really long posts in there, but I managed to stick it out..phwew.
I think wo2c's has made a valiant argument and one which over time has been put on the back burner, it becomes very acceptable to take these issues for granted after a little while. It's nice to have a reminder.0 -
is nothing to be proud of, to go to war against a small unaggressive and defenseless country.
What, like Kuwait?
The comparision of both the wars are quite close - infact the difference in might between America and Iraq was even greater than the differences between Iraq and Kuwait. Neither armies can be shocked or impressed by the way they managed to conquering such a weaker force.
That said, if the army of my contry goes to war, I would want them to go with their full might, regardless on how pitiful the opposition is.0 -
Manic Moran wrote:The figure quoted in the article was something like 75% of pre-1991 war power within five months. It is probably safe to assume that they added on a bit more after that period of time, but we'll ignore that for now. So we're dealing with somewhere around 7,500MW of power available after the post-1991 reconstruction. Somewhere between there, and the start of the 2003 war, where quoted figures tend to be between 4,000 and 5,000MW capacity, Iraq lost somewhere between a third and half its capacity without the US dropping any bombs whatsoever. At least, on electrical components, there was the odd raid on military facilities. Thus I put it to you that it is highly disingenuous to blame Iraq's current shortfall of electricity (Currently estimated at demands of about 15,000MW if my memory from browsing around serves) on American military action.
Pulling numbers out of the air means nothing.It Specifically gives you a number it Was Almost 10,999Mega watts. Your memory needs some evidence backing it up. In July it was at 4000-5000 Mega Watts. Their target was 7500. They didn't reach their target. Though if you have new info I'd like to see it.The Wiki is a great system, and has astonishing coverage, but I would be reluctant to rely on whichever member of the Internet public last edited the page as an authorative source on internationally disputed facts.
If people didnt agree wouldn't they be able to Re-edit it? I had a pretty large library of data that I had to delete most because my computer's capacity was getting too full. I had actual government PDF documents claiming so.
Though I've decided to access some. And I will bring you some things you might find interesting.
Here is some stuff you will find Interesting.
1982 US FBI chief William Webster meets with the Emir of Kuwait and plots the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies would steal $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil, and which provided one of the main incentives for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
1983It was recently revealed that a purpose of Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam in '83 was to negotiate a deal for an oil pipeline to be built by the company Bechtel (now in line for post-war construction contracts) through Iraq. Despite much work and dirty-dealing by US officials, the plan would later by rejected by Saddam in '85.
You will also find this Link VERY Interesting(first paragraph). http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/iraqgate.htm
though if you want slanting information go down to Iraggate- the story so far and go down the Dick Cheney in red. There are sources for the links below the paragraphs. Also Just do a internet search Kuwait slant drilling.Actually, you might want to look at the Ottoman Turks on that one. The history of Kuwait is rather convoluted, particularly between the Arabs, British and Turks, but there is some rationale for the argument that Kuwait is situated exactly where it should be, and blaming anyone for restricting Iraq to about 40 miles of coastline is like blaming Italy for Austria being landlocked.
Austria NEVER had access to the mediteranean. So therefore your example is unfit. Also why should 2,000,000 Citizens sit on all that wealth?
In 1899, growing British influence led to Kuwait becoming a British protectorate. Oil transformed Kuwait into one of the richest countries in the Arab peninsula; in 1953 the country became the largest exporter of oil in the Persian Gulf. In 1961 they claimed independence for Britain.
Though you are correct. Kuwait seems to have been seperated from Iraq in the 1700's. Iraq Still has access to the sea. Therefore the State is legitimate though I'd still prefer they Unite and/or share their wealth with Iraq.Umm. No. One doing its job. If it was out of control it would either be breaking various conventions of conduct in warfare, or it would not be responding to the instructions of its civilian authority. Neither situation applies.
Bombing 10,000 people as they were retreating as doing its job?Its job was to
remove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Not wage war in another country.They -did- set up defensive positions inside Kuwait. They built berms, and filled moats with oil that they could burn. They laid minefields. They dug vehicle fighting positions. They fought for various locations inside Kuwait such as the airport, even after a month's worth of bombardment. Face it. They got their arses kicked and were given one of three options. Surrender, die in place, or redeploy in the hopes of survival. This is, of course, long after the fact that the Kuwaitis fought until they ran out of ammunition in order to resist the invasion was an indicator that they weren't too enamored of the idea of the Iraqi army paying a courtesy visit.
Were talking about why they were bombing people outside of Kuwait. They got their arse kicked? The Iraqi's had just finished a war with Iran. Not to mention America's technology is more advanced. Especially with Air power.
Thats like me beating somone up with a bat or numb chucks or a machine gun and then bragging about what a tough guy I am. Americans are pathetic that way.
They weren't given the option to withdraw? Thats pretty odd dont you think?Yes, well, I think we have already concluded that your knowledge of military history is somewhat lacking. For what it's worth, military historians have categorised Khafji as the defining moment of the 1991 Gulf War.
Or is your version of history made up in your own mind by twisting facts?I've read your definition of Iraq invading Saudi Arabia and it is laughable. It says that 1 division while retreating went into Saudi Arabia. That does not constitue Invasion of Saudi Arabia. pathetic.The by-product of the will to live is adrenaline. It sharpens the senses, increases reflex rates and allows the blood to pump faster, so as to better react to potentially dangerous situations. Back when it evolved (Or was designed by God/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, take your pick), it was mainly a survival mechanism to try to avoid getting eaten by large furry animals. Whilst this is less of a danger these days since we can now shoot said large furry animals instead of slapping them ineffectually or running away, the biological response to stress still exists in our bodies. Hence, near-death will result in an andrenaline rush.
The By product of the will to live is Adrenaline? What Science books are you reading from? That is ridiculous. FEAR of death causes adrenalin which sharpens the senses increases reflex rates and allows the blood to pump faster, so as to better react to potentially dangerous situations.
It is not Human nature to enjoy people shooting at you though. Though some people do. It doesn't say much about people that enjpoy confrontation. They are far from the normal, therefore it is NOT a human nature.
The will to live is a survival mechanism.
Your Arguments get worse and worse with every post.[straining]Must..not...argue...firearms...on...this...thread...[/straining]
Yes you must not. You would lose.Your argument has been proven a failure already or you would still be living the wild west.Gotta love this thread. We've gone from diplomacy to evolution of the species.
Ok. Lets get back on Subject. American Democracy in Iraq.
As I said I haven't fully read up the latest constitution however the first constitution allowed forigen businesses to own 100% iraqi assets and remove up to 100% profits from the country without being taxed (no other country in the world allows this). It also disallowed any later governments recinding certain laws.
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...udedesigns.htm http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
bonkey wrote:Oh right. So international violence carried out in the name of one nation against another is alright, as long as we don't call it war?
??????????I also reference you to your own earlier comment that Violence only breeds violence. Its not a very hard concept to understand.When will we learn?
But if the international community fails Palestine, you are advocating the use of violence.
</edit>
The International Community has failed Palestine in the past because the Zionists have alot of Influence in America and therefore the UN.
Though the UN and the International Community is Finally Standing up to America.
Now Bonkey. I know that If America left after they Invaded. Civil war was more than certain to follow. Though they could have installed UN or Arab Peace keepers. NOW the chances of civil war are slim if America leaves. if Amercia stays violence is more than likely to continue. Though America doesn't want to leave Iraq because they believe that NOW that they screwed up and Invaded Iraq. Iraq has become a Terrorisdt breeding ground. The fact of the Matter is America has made enemies all over the world for its stupidity. Staying in Iraq would breed even more resentment in the Muslim community.
Now Russia Suugested UN troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5460454,00.html
Europe Suggested UN troops,UK Skeptical. http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/165603/eu_lawmaker_urges_un_force_for_iraq_uk_skeptical/index.html
Though America did not want to leave its conquered oil fields alone.0
Advertisement