International Relations

[rmnunez]

The intervention in Iraq has produced a lot of criticism against the US; the WMDs, the oil greed argument, a crusading Bush, war on terrorism... have all been cited. Human rights concerns apparently were never a consideration, but their improvement in Iraq a happy side-effect. What do you think, should the US pull out, compensate Iraqis, restore Saddam, make an act of contrition? Or should they instead forge ahead with Iran, DPRK, Syria, Indonesia...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Until Europe gets off their collective arse and interacts with the world they live in they have no real right to criticize those that do. The Islamic bickering is irrelevant because they never criticize their own. Thus making their disagreement of zero value, because Saddam could have served up his citizens for dinner and the other Islamic countries would have only objected to his choice of diet.

Something had to be done, allowing terrorism to go without a response (even a wrong one), is worse than any other action. IMO: Simply destroying all of the oilfields (in terrorist supporting countries), since that is what the world claims America is really after, would have sent the message cheaper with less committed manpower...

[Myth]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 28 2003, 01:42 AM Something had to be done, allowing terrorism to go without a response (even a wrong one), is worse than any other action. IMO: Simply destroying all of the oilfields (in terrorist supporting countries), since that is what the world claims America is really after, would have sent the message cheaper with less committed manpower...

Are you implying that America should have destroyed oilfields?

[Jay]

I must admit that I was quite surprised when they reported that a lot of Iraqis welcomed the American troops in Bagdad in a friendly way. I wouldn't have expected that at this point. But after the media-event war was "won" the whole situation went downhill.

Not only that militant groups will never be completely defeated (I'm assuming this from my knowledge about such groups in Israel etc.) but the US also instantly cut down the budget and the amount of troops based in Bagdad which practically makes it impossible to bring order into the whole situation and rebuild the city.
I'm not saying the people in Iraq were better off before the US defeated Saddam's militant, nation-oppressing regime but I think this just shows how Bush's decision to attack Iraq was totally based on FINANCIAL INTERESTS.

Oh, I can accept that he broke lots of promises and I can tolerate the utter crap he launches out in his speeches but I hate how he now tries to turn the "War on Terrorism" into an international thing by asking for fund and military support. Now that Bush's interests are satisfied he completely diverts his course.

[Dislogic]

I agree with you totally Jay... President Bush was obviously in it for Financial reasons, The fact is though in a hundred years we wont have any oil left on the damn planet anyway so i dont really care (in that aspect) the he is taking oil from iraqis because the faster we use it up the faster we will have to find an efficient alternate energy source...

[John]

Almost each day i wake up to the news to see that atleast one American soldier has been killed from an Iraqi attack, I think the figures are around 64 dead since the end of the war was 'declared'. Being from Australia, I dont know what the general concensus of the public is in the USA, some believe that US troops should pull out as too many are being pipped off, however, i do not see it this way, the fact that soldiers are being killed should hold a strong argument for the troops staying put in Iraq. What kind of chaos would errupt if US troops all of a sudden pulled out?, Iraq would be a lot worse off than it was when saddam was in power. If the USA wants to act like world police than they must take the bad with the good. And also, i don't feel the Iraq situation is that bad anymore, politically. When it all first started there were not very many nations willing to join in, but now even the U.N wants a peice of it, and i think it took a terrorist bombing for them to realise how important stability in the middle east will mean to the stability of the world

[Jay]

Another sidenote that may be interesting: If Bush's government really was after the islamistic terrorists they would have attacked the Arabic Emirats. Even the majoriy of terrorists who were involved in 9/11 came from that country. Unluckily the US government got a few deals running with the Emirats concerning oil and weaponry so Bush has to put up with something else...

[John]

Originally posted by Jay@Aug 28 2003, 09:44 AM Another sidenote that may be interesting: If Bush's government really was after the islamistic terrorists they would have attacked the Arabic Emirats. Even the majoriy of terrorists who were involved in 9/11 came from that country. Unluckily the US government got a few deals running with the Emirats concerning oil and weaponry so Bush has to put up with something else...

Well if we are going by this idea, indonesia should be invaded as well, Jemah Islamiah is a close counterpart of Al Quaeda, and just as ruthless, responsible for the bali bombings. Indonesia harbours so many terrorists, there have been over 90 arrests alone in this country. But i cant just single out indonesia, the whole south east asia region is just as bad, however this region seems to be more focused on hating Australians, not only is it a closer target, but we are also strongly alligned to America and our security seems to be lacking somewhat

[Pooeypants]

Until Europe gets off their collective arse and interacts with the world they live in they have no real right to criticize those that do. The Islamic bickering is irrelevant because they never criticize their own. Thus making their disagreement of zero value, because Saddam could have served up his citizens for dinner and the other Islamic countries would have only objected to his choice of diet.

I do believe you're talking about the objection to Gulf war mark 2, to which the justification of it, which was Iraq's potential WMD capabilities which are still not found today (if they existed that is in 2002 and 2003). Had the argument for war been about human rights etc to which Saddam has violated it might have been much more accepted.

Bring out the WMD and you'll have won the argument....but until then, remember it's innocent until proven guilty...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, I will addres these on at a time, and see if the lot of you are willing to debate using reason rather than numerical advantage.

Myth
I stated destroying the oilfields because leaving them intact allows that cheap shot about claiming that America is in it for the oil. hat would have been the only way to quell that lame attack.

John
One soldier a day is fairly insignificant, we have greater causualties in Basic training than that. (lol)

Jay
Yes, it woul be nice if we could attack the source of the terrorist money, but we do recognize that that is not feasable. The rest of the world is more dependent on oil than we are. Think about it...

Dislogic
Bush is our President, not our king. A president is more of a slave to the responsibilities of power than a monarch, you may want to learn them...

Pooeypants
Who cares about WMD, do no recall any being used on the Twin Towers...

[John]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 28 2003, 03:01 PM John One soldier a day is fairly insignificant, we have greater causualties in Basic training than that. (lol)

A soldier a day insignificant?, boy i hope the american public dosnt feel that way. Here if one soldier dies he gets all sorts of parades and memorials in his name. We love our troops here, even though are military is pretty insignificant on a global scale.

[rmnunez]

Jay, it would be interesting to know what ties with the UAE you are refering to. It is known that all the hijackers on 911 minus one were Saudi Arabian. The UAE is a collection of minute enclaves (Dubai, Abu Dabi, Bahrain, etc...) between Qatar and Oman. I'm sure there must be some misguided wealthy philanthropists there donating to some dubious charities, but other than that I am unaware of any major Fundamentalist involvement. It actually is dubious they would be involved as the basis of this terrorist fundamentalism apparently is Wahabbism which is a strictly Saudi variant of Islam (nothing to de with the Emirates).

On the matter of European failures, I'd note support for intervention was mixed. Spain, Italy, Britain, plus the "Vilnius 10" and 18 former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe endorsed (more or less) the effort. France, Germany and a few others strongly opposed intervention. We can differ on why (some think the German, French and Russian motivation was tied to pending contracts). It does seem like there were good reasons to hold back (no WMDs yet, no genuine terrorist sponsorhip, poor evidence of nuclear efforts). Now it seems like this will take a bit longer than Afghanistan, that well-equipped and trained NATO contributions would be very helpful, so it would seem advisable rather than to tar Europe with a broad brush to try and draw them in.

[Jay]

rmnunez, sorry in this case I was mainly referring to Saudi Arabia and not the Emirats, my bad. Since it is known that Saudi Arabia is the US's most trustworthy import source for oil.
On the other hand it is proven that according to documents of the "Energy Task Force" lead by vice-president Cheney there has been interest in the supergiant oilfields and pipelines of Iraq, Sauid Arabia and the United Arabic Emirats.
I think Iraq was the least problematic to attack in terms of diplomatic issues and complicacy to overpower.
Saddam and his regime even were the perfect motive. It was as if Saddam waved with a flag saying "bomb us!"...

Wyrm, I think it's funny that you mention this. Sure the US have their own oilfields in the south and therefore the American economy could be self-sufficient on oil for a limited time. (Very limited in this case) And I really wonder why the government rather goes all elitist by bombing other countries and claiming their oil instead of doing something to decrease national oil usage. It seems a bit irrational and the similarities to Ninetyeightyfour by our beloved Orwell are almost scary. They should know how precious this black stuff is. Why not support the developement of gas-saving cars? Same with various energy saving concepts. No other nation wastes so much energy per head like the US.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

John
Explain the difference to me between losing a sodier a day in Iraq and losing thousands when a terrorist decides to blow up a building...

[Myth]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 28 2003, 03:01 PM Okay, I will addres these on at a time, and see if the lot of you are willing to debate using reason rather than numerical advantage. Myth I stated destroying the oilfields because leaving them intact allows that cheap shot about claiming that America is in it for the oil. hat would have been the only way to quell that lame attack. John One soldier a day is fairly insignificant, we have greater causualties in Basic training than that. (lol) Jay Yes, it woul be nice if we could attack the source of the terrorist money, but we do recognize that that is not feasable. The rest of the world is more dependent on oil than we are. Think about it... Dislogic Bush is our President, not our king. A president is more of a slave to the responsibilities of power than a monarch, you may want to learn them... Pooeypants Who cares about WMD, do no recall any being used on the Twin Towers...

But America IS only in it for the oil.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Myth
Is this what you consider debate, I make a point and you simply repeat yourself? Who and I arguing with the founder of Memorex?

[John]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 29 2003, 11:25 AM John Explain the difference to me between losing a sodier a day in Iraq and losing thousands when a terrorist decides to blow up a building...

The difference is thousands of civilians. Look, im not saying pull out, i love the fact iraq is getting its ass pounded, and i was a supporter of sending aussie troops to iraq. But troops are getting pipped off each day if it continues public views of the situation will want to pull out and the soldiers moral will plummet which is bad. A new approach needs to be taken, when australian troops landed in the solomon islands a few weeks ago our first objective was to force the militia to hand in all their weapons within a week or else face severe consequences. American troops need to get the weapons off the streets, and in turn flush out all these small bands of Saddam supporters.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

John
I have no problem with you, you happen to be the one that initiated a personal attack. Then you went on to use a lower case letter for America, while I am hardly a fanatical patriot, America is still a country and should be capitalized unless you are making a personal attack there as well...

[John]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 29 2003, 10:45 PM John I have no problem with you, you happen to be the one that initiated a personal attack. Then you went on to use a lower case letter for America, while I am hardly a fanatical patriot, America is still a country and should be capitalized unless you are making a personal attack there as well...

I didnt attack you personally at all, and I had Australia with a lower case a as well, just because i spelt America with a little a dosnt mean i am putting it down. It is just lazyness

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

John

A soldier a day insignificant?, boy i hope the american public dosnt feel that way.

It was not the capitalization that provoked me, it was this implication that I am an unfeeling brute. You also mis-quoted me while you were taking it out of context. If this was unintentional, you sure beat the odds...

On the other hand, I am thick skinned, I forgive fairly easily, and I forget fairly quickly unless I am continually reminded. Even if I do not allow them to pass unmentioned.