America, Bully or Policeman?

Éomer of Rohan

Bully: There have been arms embargoes on Iraq for 13 years nearly but still the US threatens war. Especially when we consider the Israeli strike that reduced Iraq's nuclear plant to rubble, this sounds increasingly like an excuse to take Iraq's oil (or the child's dinner money if you wish to continue with the analogy). Of course we have seen arguments which suggest that the US/UK is attacking Iraq as part of the 'War on Terrorism' or of humanitarian cause. Where was US humanitarianism when half a million (estimated by the UN) Iraqi children died due to sanctions??? And please understand that there is no link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam - Colin Powell himself stated this directly after Sept 11th 2001 - but now they try and convince us otherwise. Is that an excuse for war? Furthermore when we consider the contrast between the action taken against North Korea, which has stated publicly it's intention to develop (further develop?) nuclear weapons in breach of it's 1994 agreement (which by the way the US breached first) with ROK and the US, we can see that the US is unwilling to deal with a rogue state if there is a chance it will hit back - the NKPR have enough artillery to flatten most of South Korea's important cities not to mention the US troops based there. This behavious would suggest that the US engages in world affairs only to see what it can get - why else maintain the largest standing army in the world??

Policeman: The Balkans. Simply put NATO intervened to stop the carnage and 'ethnic cleansing' which the Western policy of destabilization of Yugoslavia (because it was a communist state - according to them there is no better reason even though the government in Yugoslavia was the most popular government in the region).

Contrast these most recent actions and look at the belligerent speeches emanating from Washington DC and puppy dog Blair. IS the US an armed bully or is it using it's military responsibly in the modern world?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
...this sounds increasingly like an excuse to take Iraq's oil (or the child's dinner money if you wish to continue with the analogy).

How will America manage to "take" Iraq's oil?

Where was US humanitarianism when half a million (estimated by the UN) Iraqi children died due to sanctions???

No Iraqi children died due to sanctions. They died due to Saddam Hussein refusing to buy enough food and medicine for them as Iraq was entitled to do under the oil-for-food program.

And please understand that there is no link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam - Colin Powell himself stated this directly after Sept 11th 2001 - but now they try and convince us otherwise. Is that an excuse for war?

I personally don't find the evidence of a link very convincing, so on it's own, no it's not an excuse for war.

Furthermore when we consider the contrast between the action taken against North Korea, which has stated publicly it's intention to develop (further develop?) nuclear weapons in breach of it's 1994 agreement (which by the way the US breached first) with ROK and the US, we can see that the US is unwilling to deal with a rogue state if there is a chance it will hit back - the NKPR have enough artillery to flatten most of South Korea's important cities not to mention the US troops based there. This behavious would suggest that the US engages in world affairs only to see what it can get - why else maintain the largest standing army in the world??

It just suggests they have to have different policies for different situations. If North Korea has a ballistic missile capable of hitting the US then of course they are going to be a bit more circumspect in their policy towards them.

Policeman: The Balkans. Simply put NATO intervened to stop the carnage and 'ethnic cleansing' which the Western policy of destabilization of Yugoslavia (because it was a communist state - according to them there is no better reason even though the government in Yugoslavia was the most popular government in the region).

Yugoslavia hardly fell apart because of any Western policy of destabilisation. Of course, it was the US who had to step in and defend human rights in the region.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jd

There is an interesting documetary on RTE1 , Tuesday at 10.10pm called Chavez: inside the coup. (Venezuela)
Remember State Dept. officials welcoming the "more democratic" regime to follow?
Isn't Venezuela one of the most oil rich countries in the world.
The Usa won't necessarily put Democracy/Human Rights first in 2nd/3rd world countries when it may conflict with its own economic interests.

As said Franklin D. Roosevelt once
He (Somoza) may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch

therecklessone

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
How will America manage to "take" Iraq's oil?

Quite simple. A post-war US administration will decide how best to make us of Iraq's energy resources. The stated aim will be to earn revenue to rebuild a devastated Iraqi economy and infrastructure. The means? Iraqi oil will be privatised, more than likely involving US oil companies (surprise, surprise). That way the US will maintain an element of control over Iraqi oil.

Powell himself has said that the US will hold Iraqi oil in trust for the Iraqi people, but has declined to say how that will be done.

I sincerely doubt that will be by nationalising the resources and allowing the Iraqi people decide themselves how best to spend the revenue.

Let me guess whats on the post-war infrastructure shopping list secreted somewhere in the Pentagon...rebuilt port facilities with a convenient pipeline leading directly from the oil-fields directly to said port?

Éomer of Rohan

The US had to step in and defend human rights. Hmmm. Yes. And I am sure we are all aware which country has the worst human rights record in the worls with regard to both domestic and international affairs. Yes, China isn't it? Wrong! According to Amnesty International, it is in fact the US. Fit that into your argument.

DiscoStu

Just an example of 'progressive thinking' from the US.

i dont belive that they are the worst though. north korea is up there. closest thing in the world to a true orwellian society.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to Disco Stu and the link he posted - that is horrific. It is a disgusting example of the US corrupt judicial system and the disrespect for human rights we face from the world's most powerful bull...i mean superpower.

Cactus Col

Saddam is a bad man.

Fact of the matter is that he has to go. The real reasons that the U.S. are waging war on Iraq may be the wrong ones but if it results in a better place to live for the people of Iraq then ultimately the war is a good thing.

I think people have forgotten that saddam is not a nice chap, how can anybody argue that his people would not be better off without him.

Éomer of Rohan

I agree with the previous post in theory. Saddam is indeed a bad man, simplistically put. However how are his people going to benefit if they are bombed repeatedly by US/UK warplanes? How will they benefit if their only major natural resource is set alight by retreating Iraqi soldiers? How will the benefit when Baghdad is laid waste just as Stalingrad was - that is the scale of devastation they face - street fighting and so forth. Thousands of innocent Iraqi people will die. And still we hear the clichés that Saddam must go. Any use of force in that region could have dangerous consequences for millions of other innocent people, for example if Saddam, in the death throes of his regime decide to take anyone they can with them - using scuds and so on to devastate major cities. Realistically speaking there is no way to remove Saddam until an alternative is found - there is no alternative popular government at the moment - even plans published by the Pentagon reveal that the only solution as yet formulated is that a MacArthurian style regime be employed short term until (and here follows my own interpretation) a US poodle government can be formed from bribable Generals willing to prostitute Iraqi oil to the Toxic Texan and Co.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cactus Col


I think people have forgotten that saddam is not a nice chap, how can anybody argue that his people would not be better off without him.

No we haven't. Nor have we forgotten that Kim Il Mad Ba***rd is a lunatic as well. But what you are not reminding us is Saddam was "our" bad man for long enough. Anyone aware that one of the few UN Security Council members to support the US push for war is Angola, itself hardly a paragon of virtue. When the US says it will proceed with an Alliance Of The Willing, what it means is "we'll take help from whatever tin-pot dictator is prepared to give us landing/over-flight rights, or allow us to station troops in their country."

Anti-war protesters keep being told we need to learn the lessons of history, i.e. WW II and appeasement. I got an A1 in that lesson, but I think we may need to revise a bit harder on who the US has put in power, and supported, over the years...Saddam himself, Suharto in Indonesia, Pol Pot (you heard me!), numerous corrupt South Vietnamese murderers (sorry, slip of the tounge there, legitimate leaders), Noriega (he trained in the US School Of The Americas, THE largest school of terrorism the world has ever known), various unelected military leaders in Pakistan, OSAMA BIN LADEN (thats in upper case for emphasis). The list is exhausting...

You want to learn a lesson of history? Don't replace one compliant (for a time anyway) dictator with another, or we will be bask in there 30 years from now, only then oil will be far more scarce, and the UN will be told to f**k off by the US so that they can obliterate any opposition that exists to their dictates.

BanjoDanjo

Just thought i'ld check to see who here knows what they are talking about?
Has anyone ever even been to Iraq.
My girlfriend has. From what she tells me, some Iraqis support Saddam, most do not, but in public they ALL do.
I wonder what is the cause of that.
Seems to me something needs to be done to help people who cannot in any way shape or form help themselves.
Americans point of view is that they need to take the stick out of the bullies hand before the stick grows big enough to reach them.
Definitely the wrong reason for a war (depending on your point of view of course) but the Iraqis on the street will support them in this i'm told, only in private tho.
Anyway sorry about the rant, i'm just tired of hearing people
sh?te on about things as if they know what they're talking about when quite clearly they have no idea of what its like from either side of the fence which divides the 2 countries. Sitting on the fence shouting at the grass doesn't help one bit. It just shows the shouters for the eejits they are.
If you want to make an informed comment, go there or talk to someone who has been there.
Anyway, sorry for ranting again.
Time to go to bed.

DiscoStu

I feel like a snake eating its own tail :rolleyes:

Do the ends justify the means?

Is it right to kill civilians for purely economic reasons?

If the war is not for purely economic reasons and America are going to play the worlds moral policeman should they not do it even handedly and invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, China, Russia, Israel, Sudan and on and on.......?

Oh wait! some of those countries
1. Have human rights records that saddam would be envious of.
2. Have "proven" weapons Weapons of Mass Destruction.
3. Have shown even more disregard to the UN than Iraq.

and most importantly

4. are US allies.

makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside dosent it, knowing that as long as you play ball like a nice kiddy the US will disregard what you do in your spare time to your own people and your neigbours.

Éomer of Rohan

Banjo, no offence but from what I gather you base your opinions on hearsay from your girlfriend. Well let me enlighten you to the basis of my argument against war. I helped to organise the recent demonstration (sat 15 Feb) against the war. One of the groups involved is the Belfast Islamic Foundation - this deals with all Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants to this state. Thus when a foundation which deal with Iraqis every day of their lives say no to war, surely you will concede that they should know what they are talking about in terms of the support they can gather from firsthand sources?

Éomer of Rohan

Disco, again I am glad that some people have sense. And lets not forget if they are going to deal with all countries on moral grounds, maybe, as their Christian Fundamentalists are so fond of quoting an irrelevent text..."Cast the mote out of thine own eye"..et cetera. In fact ALL nation states today (with the exception of Switzerland??? lol) are guilty of some infringement on the rights of their people - including Eire for the record.

therecklessone

Originally posted by BanjoDanjo

My girlfriend has. From what she tells me, some Iraqis support Saddam, most do not, but in public they ALL do.
I wonder what is the cause of that...

Anyway sorry about the rant, i'm just tired of hearing people
sh?te on about things as if they know what they're talking about when quite clearly they have no idea of what its like from either side of the fence which divides the 2 countries. Sitting on the fence shouting at the grass doesn't help one bit. It just shows the shouters for the eejits they are.

As one of those "shouters" as you so eloquently put it (please excuse my spelling, but right now I can hardly see the keyboard I'm so tired), I love to hear people rant against what I and others have had to say. For the record, I have just returned from a weekend in Stockholm where I had an interesting chat with a Swede about the time he spent in Syria. He told me, quite honestly, that while he was there he was advised to never speak to the natives. Why you ask? Because they (the Syrians) were terrified that anything they said would be overheard by the numerous undercover Secret Police agents who operated in the cities. Fairly similar to the situation you have just described regarding Iraqi civilians. In fact, that is a fact of life for millions of people across the globe today, in both pro- and anti-US regimes. Shall we add Syria to the list of countries we are to blow the living s**t out of, after Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

Why stop there? Given that many of the regimes the US sponsor in Central and South America contain thousands of police/troops/officials who were trained in the US School Of The Americas, where they learnt, among other useful democratic skills, surveilance of opposition figures, assassination and torture, should we turn our attention there?

For the record, and just so I don't get splinters in my arse sitting on the fence for too long, I do not wish to see Saddam Hussein in power for one day longer than is humanly possible. I do not however see current US policy as the best way to topple the tyrant, and as such am anti-war.

TomF

I think the reality is that the United States of America is the only country anyone in the world can turn to if something needs to be done. In general, the governments of countries like France are very tightly focused on their self-interest and would not lift a finger to help if it didn't have a payback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but no country in history has put as much treasure and effort into rebuilding and protecting former enemies after a war as has the United States. The same has to be said for worldwide medical and food aid in postwar and peacetime eras (if we have ever seen real peace).

If you put all countries under the same microscope of examining motives, how would Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and any others compare?

For the first time since the very bloody Civil War or War between the States, (not counting the Japanese balloon bomb that exploded in Omaha during WWII) the "zone of the interior" United States has been attacked, and the casualties were perfectly innocent people at their daily work. The attackers were radical Moslems, who I think presently represent the greatest threat to the security of the United States.

The response of the United States has been very measured and reasoned. The threats to those countries perceived as centres of threat to the United States have been delivered far in advance of any military blow, and certainly don't bear the marks of simple revenge.

I think the United States has every right to defend itself against real threats, and I also am sure that the countries which represent these threats will be much better places for their citizens to live after the present governments are removed.

BanjoDanjo

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm not for a war at all.
I just want people to realize that they (myself included) do not have the full story on reasons why there is going to be a war.
Ask an american and an Iraqi, you will get different points of view.
Same applies to Isrealis and palistinians.
I know people from both sides.
You'll get very few isrealis against isreal and very few palastinians on the other side.
There are 2 sides to every situation, so please realise that you can be anti-war or pro-war but you really don't know what the real ins and outs are.
Another thing that gets up my nose is how many people call it an economic war.
How so.
Last i heard Opec control the price of oil.
Doesn't matter who the americans put in Iraq. I just hope that they put someone sensible in and not another tyrant.
Anyway, i have a sneaking suspicion there may not even be a war. Could just be political bulying tactics.
Anyway, as always when there's a war, the truth will only come out in 20 or 30 years as to whether it was worth it or not.

therecklessone

Originally posted by BanjoDanjo

Another thing that gets up my nose is how many people call it an economic war.
How so.
Last i heard Opec control the price of oil.

OPEC only control the oil price for member states. A post-war Iraq will not necessarily be a member...remember Powell's words "We will hold Iraqi oil in trust for the Iraqi people"...

I look forward to seeing how that'll work.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF


The response of the United States has been very measured and reasoned. The threats to those countries perceived as centres of threat to the United States have been delivered far in advance of any military blow, and certainly don't bear the marks of simple revenge.

In the event of an American assault on Iraq the followingwill happen...

1. Massive bombardment of air-defence capabilites...surface-to-air missile batteries, radar control sites, headquarters, airfields and the like.

2. Iraqi infrastructure will be pulverised. That's water, electricity, telephones, roads, railways, food distribution,all to be targeted. The aim being to weaken the resolve of the Iraqi army, and its people, to help shorten the war. Transport will be targeted to immobalise the Iraqi armed forces.

Now, if number 1 happens I won't lose too much sleep. True, many frightened conscripts will die at their posts, but war is a nasty business, and they will have died in combat, as opposed to being mowed dwon while trying to surrender.

If number 2 happens, thousands of innocent civilians will die as a result. Many while die as a direct result of US/UK bombing raids, killed by "smart" bombs (if they're such smart bombs, you'd think they'd realise this war was a farce and refuse to detonate????). Thousands more will die from hunger, not hunger imposed by an Iraqi regime, but by the fact that all the infrastructure around them has been blown to s**t and nobody can get food to them.

If that is your definition of measured and reasoned, then I worry for you, really I do.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF
I think the reality is that the United States of America is the only country anyone in the world can turn to if something needs to be done. In general, the governments of countries like France are very tightly focused on their self-interest and would not lift a finger to help if it didn't have a payback.

Laugh my arse off? I nearly had a prolapse reading that one...

America is now acting out of something other than self-interest? Read your history of the US please. Better still, read what Shrub had to say about foreign policy before his "election" in 2000.

And lets wait to see thousands of bodybags returned to the US, to see how long she wants to remain involved in the affairs of other states...

p.s. I genuinely do not wish harm on any American serviceman with that comment, but I think it needs to be said...

PHB

What annoys me is that the americans are doing this all wrong.

If they simply stated that they wanted to get rid of the regime to foster democracy in other countries I'd be all for it, and I'd say they wouldn't get the objections in the security council they're getting now, just a different moral outlook from the other members. The whole Nucleor weapons thing has just made them look bad, it still doesnt change the fact that they need to get a different leader, and obviously preperably not a puppet for the US.

On another note, why does everyone think that once the UK back down, the US will?

therecklessone

Because then the US will be all on their lonesome among the all-important permanent members club in the Security Council.

Then again, considering recent social deveopments in the US, the last thing we want is an armed loner roaming the world...

BanjoDanjo

Opec DO control the price of oil. It will not be sold if Iraq is not a member of Opec.
Anyway enough said from me about this.
There are too sides to each story and this will end up in hostilities between Europe and America eventually.
Hopefully people will calm down a bit and stop pointing accusing fingers at one side or the other.
Events of the last 15 years of so have lead the world to this point. Saddam wanted not to win a war against america but to isolate them from the rest of the world.
They seem to be achieving this goal.
Too bad the Americans are falling for it too.
How will people here feel when maybe 10 years from Now an Iraqi made nuclear weapon goes of in the middle of London.
**** it doesn't even have to be a nuclear weapon.
Hope it doesn't come to that but personally i'ld prefer Saddam dead and then make sure the next guy is not going to go nuts with power as well.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to Tom F. I am sorry for you because it seems as though you have a terminal neglect for the reasons behind certain events in history. Ask why did America help to rebuild western europe? Because they did not socialists getting control of any country since socialists do not fit into the american economic plans - and western europe suffered for that dependency from then until now. I think we are also well aware that the US is very self interested itself - considering that a) it allowed so much to happen in countries considered US allies and b) it only intervenes with Non US allies if US economic interests are threatened. DId you see America lift a finger over Tibet when the Chinese invaded? Of course not - this was because it is an economic backwater. However you did see the US pour money into post revolution Russia in order to topple the Bolsheviks (as did Britain, France and yes Germany) - simply because a communistic revolution threatened US economic interests. Make no mistake, the US is just as ruthless and self serving as the old imperial states.

Éomer of Rohan

Banjo please accept the point - OPEC do not control the price of oil. At present everyone abides by OPEC rules because effectively they have what might be called a controlling share. However if Iraq was taken over by the US, the balance statistically shifts in non-OPEC favour - with the combined production of Russia, the Central Asian states, America (Cal, Texas and Alaska) and Iraq out producing OPEC - possibly resulting in a new cartel including members of the present group.

therecklessone

Thanks Eomer (how do I do the fada?).

Banjo, I'm not being smart, but can you point me in the direction of anything which supports your view of OPEC and its control of oil production? I know I can't do the opposite for you btw.

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by PHB
What annoys me is that the americans are doing this all wrong.

If they simply stated that they wanted to get rid of the regime to foster democracy in other countries I'd be all for it, and I'd say they wouldn't get the objections in the security council they're getting now, just a different moral outlook from the other members. The whole Nucleor weapons thing has just made them look bad, it still doesnt change the fact that they need to get a different leader, and obviously preperably not a puppet for the US.

On another note, why does everyone think that once the UK back down, the US will?

I dont think the UK will back down, I think Blair is Motivated by a genuine desire to "Do the right Thing" and to try to repair some of the mistakes of previous administrations,after all unlike the US Republicans his party has none of the blowback of a potential "Iraqgate"-Matrix Churchill scandal.

Thats not to say there are not some huge gaps in New labours "ethical foriegn policy" especially regarding Zimbabwe and unconditional arms sales to Pakistan and India.

Bounty Hunter

Simply-
A policeman with too much power and power corrupts

TomF

I think the Iraqi infrastructure will be safe from attack by United States forces if (that's a very big "if") there is actually an invasion of Iraq. Why would the United States want to ruin a country that will be occupied under military rule and then handed over to a democratically-elected government? You want to start with a clean slate, not with a country in ruins. This doesn't mean that Saddam might not try to wreck the infrastructure.

Of course if I were the god of war, I would have the United States armed forces make a dash for the big cities, surround them and embargo all but necessities of life and health. Eventually the baddies would have to surrender, unless they were content to stay in town and watch old movies (new releases would be subject to the embargo). Saddam would have to do without new Italian handmade suits and shoes, and further, no fine wines and spirits would be allowed to enter. It could get ugly for him.

Meanwhile, the oil fields of Iraq would be put into full production to pay the costs of the invasion force mobilization and the running maintenance of the occupation force and interim government. There should be plenty of money left over to compensate the repressed Moslems of southern Iraq and the Kurds for their years of suffering. Maybe a series of tribunals could be set up to decide amounts of monetary compensation owed to other victims.

It doesn't seem likely to me tonight that Saddam Hussein and his gang would accept prosecution-free and wealthy exile outside Iraq because there are far too many who might seek revenge when the boss and his gang are without an army.

If these men survive what is coming, then I'd guess the United Nations might be interested in establishing a war-crimes court to hear the evidence and decide guilt or innocence of the parties and pass appropriate sentences on those found guilty.

Originally posted by therecklessone
Thanks Eomer (how do I do the fada?).

cóntról ált ánd thé vówél óf yóúr chóícé wórks á tréát !

Originally posted by clintons Cat:
I dont think the UK will back down, I think Blair is Motivated by a genuine desire to "Do the right Thing" and to try to repair some of the mistakes of previous administrations,after all unlike the US Republicans his party has none of the blowback of a potential "Iraqgate"-Matrix Churchill scandal.

That would be my thinking on this also.
mm