<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Feb 10 2004, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Feb 10 2004, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Damn and I wanted to continue arguing how hypocritical it is as a liberal to want human rights but be opposed to the removal of an oppressive regime. Oh well guess I'll just have to sign his guestbook.
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't hypocritical. We know WTH happens when we meddle with middle eastern countries. We get burned, create more terrorists, and destablise the region further, etc.
And, lo and behold, we have Islamic hardliners setting up religious laws in Iraq that will scale back that country's civil rights to who knows when. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Were scaling civil rights back to when they had elecrticity, running water, and didn't have to worry about being taking from their homes by police and shot. Yah horrible job.
You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.
I really don't have time to get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, feel free to make a thread about global terrorism and I'll post all my thoughts in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were scaling civil rights back to when they had elecrticity, running water, and didn't have to worry about being taking from their homes by police and shot. Yah horrible job.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please. Woman had more rights under Hussein than they will under sharia laws. They had utilities that actually worked most of the time, too. It's pathetic that the liberators can't do better in that department than a two-bit dictator.
We'll see the usual Islamic retardation once fundies take total control. Then it won't be any better than it was under Saddam. It would be worse in fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice pipe dream, let me know when it becomes even romotely feasible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Feb 10 2004, 10:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Feb 10 2004, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were scaling civil rights back to when they had elecrticity, running water, and didn't have to worry about being taking from their homes by police and shot. Yah horrible job.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please. Woman had more rights under Hussein than they will under sharia laws. They had utilities that actually worked most of the time, too. It's pathetic that the liberators can't do better in that department than a two-bit dictator.
We'll see the usual Islamic retardation once fundies take total control. Then it won't be any better than it was under Saddam. It would be worse in fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice pipe dream, let me know when it becomes even romotely feasible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you can predict the future as well as make dismissive comments about not fully formed posts. Like I said make the thread I'll explain how its more than a pipe dream.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do i think the US appointed iraqi governing council is a democracy? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its never been declared a democracy. That is what the upcoming elections are supposed to help.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do i trust the US army and politicians in setting up a democracy in iraq? Not at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why not? We've done it before ( e.g. Germany and Japan ). It would be far better if people wouldn't automatically assume that the US would fail and instead support the establishment of democracy in Iraq. Such actions would increase the likelihood of success, whereas everyone assuming failure would decrease the likelihood of success
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would i want the third partys army staying in my country, pumping my countrys resource to pay for occupying my country, giving the third-partys corporations 0% tax in my country with a selected, appointed "democracy"? Nope.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, we have US contractors rebuilding the Iraqi oil infrastructure ( paid for mainly by the US ). The money that is made from actually selling the oil goes to Iraq.
The US army must also remain in Iraq until the new government ( which has not been established yet ) can actually maintain control of the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? We've done it before ( e.g. Germany and Japan ). It would be far better if people wouldn't automatically assume that the US would fail and instead support the establishment of democracy in Iraq. Such actions would increase the likelihood of success, whereas everyone assuming failure would decrease the likelihood of success<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
World War II is a very different animal. Germany and Japan were already first world western countries, making them easy to rebuild and bring up to speed. Today we are dealing with third world disaster areas.
As you know, the US has a poor track record in the middle east. Iran, Afghanistan (when we built up Bin Laden, and in 2001), Iraq... all examples of power broking gone wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Feb 11 2004, 01:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Feb 11 2004, 01:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> World War II is a very different animal. Germany and Japan were already first world western countries, making them easy to rebuild and bring up to speed. Today we are dealing with third world disaster areas.
As you know, the US has a poor track record in the middle east. Iran, Afghanistan (when we built up Bin Laden, and in 2001), Iraq... all examples of power broking gone wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Germany and Japan were first world countries at the end of WWII? Where have you been getting your history? They were neither in very good shape and both economies were in ruin, not to mention cities destroyed.
If Germany and Japan were not disaster areas after WWII I don't know what is.
But there someone goes again... Making an assumption and not helping the situation. You lobbed Iraq into your little list. Iraq does not belong in that list at this time... It hasn't even been an entire year since the former regime was toppled. At least give it some time. Its pathetic ( and stupide ) how everyone thinks the US has failed in Iraq when not even an entire year has gone by.
Afghanistan... I don't think we tried rebuilding that country until just recently. We did give some support behind the scenes to fight the USSR, but we were never active in rebuilding it. If you think supporting Afghani fighters against the USSR is bad then you also probably believe that Saddam should still be in power since there was no "hard evidence".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany and Japan were first world countries at the end of WWII? Where have you been getting your history? They were neither in very good shape and both economies were in ruin, not to mention cities destroyed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Germany and Japan both were in rather good shape economically at the end of the war. Germany for example recorded it's best industrial output in June of 1944, and the damage inflicted by Allied bombing on both countries was remarkably small. Both nations were running low on manpower by the end of the war though and had been pushed back into their respective homelands, which resulted in their defeat.
Germany lost a large amount of it's industrial strength after the war when the Soviets hauled entire factories back east as "compensation" for damages inflicted by the Germans during the war.
Both nations also did not have to worry about funding their own militaries after the war, protected as they were by the US and NATO. This took a large strain out of their budgets, which coupled with economic assisstance from the US and the fact that their industrial infrastructure survived the war fairly intact allowed both nations to become, or in Germany's case, continue, to be economic powerhouses.
In comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan, Iraq is in a far worse shape. It may be able to survive because of it's large scale oil reserves, but 12 years of sanctions and 3 wars have had a massive toll on the country's infrastructure. There is a lot of work ahead for those who would attempt to rebuild Iraq.
Carry on <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Strange. I don't hear much about Afganistan these days. Except "where's all that heroin coming from then ?" Either means people are happy there or are being vicously oppressed. Another thread methinks.
It's hard to speak for Iraqis because I'm not one and it is very difficult for me to empathise and understand when I don't know so much. However, if Britain really went down the bog, and the Nationalists got in and started oppressing half the country, I would still think long and hard about welcoming an invading force coming in to liberate us. Part of the reason being is the oppressors may have been ****, but at least they <i>our</i> ****. And, the coalition made it clear that they went in because Iraq had WMDs, not to bring about change for the better for Iraq. They would have done something about Rwanda and countries like that had that been the case.
Yes, the fact that Bush has WMDs does scare me. But the same argument applies. He may an war-mongering bugger, but at least he's our war-mongering bugger.
Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nice anti-flag quote there d00der. I have a site you'd like :-p <a href='http://www.anti-anti-flag.com' target='_blank'>http://www.anti-anti-flag.com</a>
If the only goal were oil, there were easier ways to get it. Drop sanctions. Saddam would have loved to sell us oil. I won't say that hadn't crossed their minds, but don't think that the US would go to war only for oil. If the goal was oil in the hands of the evil Haliburton company, why did the US announce the continued nationalization of oil in Iraq, distributing proceeds in the form of tax-refund style system to all Iraqis.
Also, Afghanistan has been in the news a lot. NATO's been doing a great job cleaning up in there. They just passed a new democratic constitution (although it is probably a bit more Islamic then it should have been... "Freedom of speech... in accordance with the law." ) Also, a new report came out today; the insurgency in Afghanistan has finally been beaten back. <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=1&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_re_as/nato_afghanistan' target='_blank'>AP</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the only goal were oil, there were easier ways to get it. Drop sanctions. Saddam would have loved to sell us oil. I won't say that hadn't crossed their minds, but don't think that the US would go to war only for oil. If the goal was oil in the hands of the evil Haliburton company, why did the US announce the continued nationalization of oil in Iraq, distributing proceeds in the form of tax-refund style system to all Iraqis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's important though not to simply dismiss the oil arguement altogether. Whilst oil may not have been the sole reason, it would be highly foolish to assume that it played no role at all. Iraq is home to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and having a US-friendly government in Baghdad helps secure that oil. Yes, the US could have dropped sanctions, but there's no guareentee that Saddam would sell the oil to the US; afterall, there's plenty of buyers for oil.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent).
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 10 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 10 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, perhaps this is a question everyone can answer for me:
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would IF he wasn't such a Baasist. That's extemeist stalinism, which is basically a mutated defunct intendedly corrupt flavor of communism, If he wasn't extreme, yes.
Besides, I feel the way I do about this is because somehow nobody can justify why its Ok for us to sell weapons to him for killing Iranians, then turn around and sell weapons to Iran to kill iraqis, THEN serveral years later, decide that both countries are no good, and decide to conquer them. People who in the 50's were offended by the USSR's expansionism should really take a good look at home before trying to justify the mass killing of civilians and innocents.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jammer+Feb 11 2004, 03:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 11 2004, 03:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saddam would have loved to sell us oil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why buy something when you can take it
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 11 2004, 06:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 11 2004, 06:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jammer+Feb 11 2004, 03:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 11 2004, 03:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saddam would have loved to sell us oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Spoken like a true Stalinist. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Everyone here needs to calm down, as this topic is barely a post away from being locked. Get your egos under control immediately, or it will be done for you via account suspensions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 11 2004, 04:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 11 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's important though not to simply dismiss the oil arguement altogether. Whilst oil may not have been the sole reason, it would be highly foolish to assume that it played no role at all. Iraq is home to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and having a US-friendly government in Baghdad helps secure that oil. Yes, the US could have dropped sanctions, but there's no guareentee that Saddam would sell the oil to the US; afterall, there's plenty of buyers for oil.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Monse: ?? I only made one post. Was it mean? I didn't think it was. I agree Ryo. All the things you mentioned were factors in invading Iraq. I think you miss the larger security implications though.
First, there was (considered) credible reason to think Iraq had WMDs. There was certainly the chance that, if Iraq had even trace amounts of biological and chemical, such amounts would be deadly in the hands of terrorists. Other nations have WMDs, but the thought of Iraq having them was especially dangerous because of the open contempt for America. Perhaps this argument seems silly in retrospect, but before the war, it was a very real possibility.
Also, the US-Friendly arab country argument is, I think, the main reason we went to war, not for more control of the region, but because of the results it had. Iran's revolutionary youth is emboldened by having the United States as a neighbor. It also sends a message to other Islamic countries: shape up and lose your WMD programs, or we'll bust you up. I highly doubt that Libya would be disarming if not for attacking Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-CWAG+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CWAG)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it is more like "Why buy something when you can damage it, spend money to repair it, and give control to the people who it belongs to." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Haliburton only has contracts to repair and upgrade the stations. They do not have any control over the actual oil. All oil sales are being returned to the Iraqi people, as I mentioned.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jammer+Feb 11 2004, 11:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 11 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 11 2004, 04:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 11 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's important though not to simply dismiss the oil arguement altogether. Whilst oil may not have been the sole reason, it would be highly foolish to assume that it played no role at all. Iraq is home to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and having a US-friendly government in Baghdad helps secure that oil. Yes, the US could have dropped sanctions, but there's no guareentee that Saddam would sell the oil to the US; afterall, there's plenty of buyers for oil.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Monse: ?? I only made one post. Was it mean? I didn't think it was. I agree Ryo. All the things you mentioned were factors in invading Iraq. I think you miss the larger security implications though.
First, there was (considered) credible reason to think Iraq had WMDs. There was certainly the chance that, if Iraq had even trace amounts of biological and chemical, such amounts would be deadly in the hands of terrorists. Other nations have WMDs, but the thought of Iraq having them was especially dangerous because of the open contempt for America. Perhaps this argument seems silly in retrospect, but before the war, it was a very real possibility.
Also, the US-Friendly arab country argument is, I think, the main reason we went to war, not for more control of the region, but because of the results it had. Iran's revolutionary youth is emboldened by having the United States as a neighbor. It also sends a message to other Islamic countries: shape up and lose your WMD programs, or we'll bust you up. I highly doubt that Libya would be disarming if not for attacking Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-CWAG+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CWAG)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it is more like "Why buy something when you can damage it, spend money to repair it, and give control to the people who it belongs to." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Haliburton only has contracts to repair and upgrade the stations. They do not have any control over the actual oil. All oil sales are being returned to the Iraqi people, as I mentioned. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I won't disagree that he was a bad man, but to say that the reasoning is quite obvious is...frankly, wrong. I am willing to bet that most of the integral components of the "Liberation" was cloak and dagger.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 11 2004, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 11 2004, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am willing to bet that most of the integral components of the "Liberation" was cloak and dagger. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> of course theres no way to prove it, but the chances are that spreading freedom and goodwill around the world were put out as reasons merely to appease a semi interested public.
God knows what comes under the heading of 'our interests', but you can bet your **** its significantly less morally acceptable than spreading joy and fighting evil.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those of you who didn't believe there was a link between Iraq and Al Quida
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not" every time no link found. 11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote.. "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying. its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jammer+Feb 11 2004, 11:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 11 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Monse: ?? I only made one post. Was it mean? I didn't think it was. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, you were fine, CWAG. I was addressing others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 11 2004, 02:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 11 2004, 02:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually Germany and Japan both were in rather good shape economically at the end of the war. Germany for example recorded it's best industrial output in June of 1944, and the damage inflicted by Allied bombing on both countries was remarkably small. Both nations were running low on manpower by the end of the war though and had been pushed back into their respective homelands, which resulted in their defeat.
Germany lost a large amount of it's industrial strength after the war when the Soviets hauled entire factories back east as "compensation" for damages inflicted by the Germans during the war.
Both nations also did not have to worry about funding their own militaries after the war, protected as they were by the US and NATO. This took a large strain out of their budgets, which coupled with economic assisstance from the US and the fact that their industrial infrastructure survived the war fairly intact allowed both nations to become, or in Germany's case, continue, to be economic powerhouses.
In comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan, Iraq is in a far worse shape. It may be able to survive because of it's large scale oil reserves, but 12 years of sanctions and 3 wars have had a massive toll on the country's infrastructure. There is a lot of work ahead for those who would attempt to rebuild Iraq.
Carry on <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How is what the US and NATO did in Germany different than what is happening in Iraq right now? Iraq has an advantage... Oil. A very much sought after resource. The US ( and its allies ) are rebuilding Iraq. They've gotten a LOT of Iraq's debt forgiven. The US is basically paying for the much of Iraq's new army. Iraq actually had a pretty decent infrastructure. It may not have been in the best of shape, but it was still there. A lot has been accomplished thus far in Iraq in regards to the rebuilding efforts.
After WWII Germany and Japan did not have any trading partners. They were only able to get off their feet because of the assistance of others ( the US being the main one ). If the US and others had not been there, chances are that neither nation would be where it is today. Neither nation would have been able to recover from the wars as quickly if it were not for international assistance.
Now we have Iraq, which is in a similar boat, but people want it to be fixed "over-night". Its been less than a year since Saddam's regime was overthrown and people have been talking about the supposed US failure for 6 months now. That's not just unrealistic its moronic.
No one is saying that there is not a lot of work needed to rebuild Iraq. All that is being asked is for a chance to be given. Iraq is on a faster pace of rebuilding than either Germany or Japan, but I think it will be able to succeed. It just won't happen over night. Everyone knew going into this that we would be there for a number of years.
Iraq will be simple compared to Afghanistan.... We'll probably be in Afghanistan longer than we will be in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Feb 11 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Feb 11 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those of you who didn't believe there was a link between Iraq and Al Quida
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not" every time no link found. 11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote.. "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying. its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Political and military alliances don't just happen on a whim, if you think that somehow in the 3 month long war, while there was almost a complete blackout in communication, a hostile presence in thier country, and agressive efforts to find every bit of resistance there was, that they could have formed an alliance with no former ties or presence in Iraq you're a little off base.
To be honest I was someone who never bought the whole WMD argument, I was glad they went to war because I knew Iraq stood as a symbol of Fundamentalist values in the middle east (despite it's secular nature) they hated the US, the advocated that hate, and even before it was cited as a reason I always saw it as an available hub to terrorists in the middle of a region that spawns them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The military believes the document was written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant believed to be linked to al-Qaida<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and since when have jordanian militants spoken for Iraq?
man, I could write a letter to 'my brothers in the mountrains', wouldnt mean the UK government had 'links to al-quida'. and it certainly wouldn't be a reason to invade the UK (especially if the letter was written AFTER the invasion already happened?!?!)
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 11 2004, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 11 2004, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Feb 11 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Feb 11 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 11 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those of you who didn't believe there was a link between Iraq and Al Quida
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not" every time no link found. 11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote.. "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying. its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Political and military alliances don't just happen on a whim, if you think that somehow in the 3 month long war, while there was almost a complete blackout in communication, a hostile presence in thier country, and agressive efforts to find every bit of resistance there was, that they could have formed an alliance with no former ties or presence in Iraq you're a little off base.
To be honest I was someone who never bought the whole WMD argument, I was glad they went to war because I knew Iraq stood as a symbol of Fundamentalist values in the middle east (despite it's secular nature) they hated the US, the advocated that hate, and even before it was cited as a reason I always saw it as an available hub to terrorists in the middle of a region that spawns them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Somehow I find it interesting that you're suggesting someone is off-base, when you can't back up your claim. Iraq had no love for al-Qaida - Saddam told Iraqis not to form an alliance when them. Powell admitted that nothing linked the two.
My opinions are my own, if you want to link me to where Powell says that ok.
Everything I am saying is based of what I have read about and seen happening in Iraq, it takes a little inward thinking and I'm not claiming to be completely right, I don't know why you are.
There is a gray area when it comes to this sort of stuff, terrorists motives are as much political as they are violent, they don't blow themselves up just to kill people they hate. That's why I'm a little dubious that two ultra conservative, extremely violent, regimes who both hate the US and Israel wouldn't cooperate with each other just because they gave their word they don't like each other.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 12 2004, 01:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 12 2004, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's why I'm a little dubious that two ultra conservative, extremely violent, regimes who both hate the US and Israel wouldn't cooperate with each other just because they gave their word they don't like each other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> as soon as 9/11 happened, rumsfeld had the CIA on the case looking for the link between the bombers and Saddam. (actually hes not quoted as saying saddams full name, but the initials are pretty blatant; "SH" . He also refers to osama as "UBL") He wanted it pinned on Saddam so bad he repeatedly sent them back to look time and time again despite the fact they kept telling him there was no link.
rest assured, If such a link existed, it would have been found then.
As I am done with this topic because of its repetition, I'm gonna say a last thing or two.
First off, I don't deny that Saddam was a bad man, and I surely don't deny what he did to his people. I agree that if truly in fact he was captured and not a little body double, that its for the best. However, this is where I start to get annoyed. The only businesses contracted to rebuild Iraq are american, the real reason behind the entire invasion is a smear between Bush's Axis of evil campaign, liberation of an opressed nation, attacks on the world trade centers, and etc. And each of those are difficult to prove or disprove. Maybe his intentions were good, but america still got the goods. THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.
Anyway I hope that clears up some of my opinions, and maybe jog other peoples thought processes before speaking <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only businesses contracted to rebuild Iraq are american<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think that's quite true. I could've sworn that American businesses were not the only ones that could bid. Basically, those that supported the US invasion of Iraq could bid, those that did not could not. Pretty simple. That is only for the main contract though, any subcontracts could be bid on by any company from any country. This also was for the first round of bidding.
The second round was a little more open, and there are some companies from countries that did not support the US that have been allowed to bid, but still others have not. The subcontracts are also still open here.
The idea shouldn't be hard to grasp. The vast majority of the money used for these contracts comes from the US, why should we have allowed companies from countries like France and Germany, who did not support the US, to bid for contracts? Of course we would show favoritism toward those that supported us. Its not that difficult to understand and to an extent makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This may be true for some... But there are a lot of us who support the invasion for different reasons than the administration. Or, there are a lot who support the invasion for the practically the same reasons as the administration, we just supported our arguments quite a bit better. In the end, I think the classification of those who just agree and do not question their stance falls on both sides of the political spectrum ( e.g. Dean-ians ).
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 12 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 12 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only businesses contracted to rebuild Iraq are american<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think that's quite true. I could've sworn that American businesses were not the only ones that could bid. Basically, those that supported the US invasion of Iraq could bid, those that did not could not. Pretty simple. That is only for the main contract though, any subcontracts could be bid on by any company from any country. This also was for the first round of bidding.
The second round was a little more open, and there are some companies from countries that did not support the US that have been allowed to bid, but still others have not. The subcontracts are also still open here.
The idea shouldn't be hard to grasp. The vast majority of the money used for these contracts comes from the US, why should we have allowed companies from countries like France and Germany, who did not support the US, to bid for contracts? Of course we would show favoritism toward those that supported us. Its not that difficult to understand and to an extent makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This may be true for some... But there are a lot of us who support the invasion for different reasons than the administration. Or, there are a lot who support the invasion for the practically the same reasons as the administration, we just supported our arguments quite a bit better. In the end, I think the classification of those who just agree and do not question their stance falls on both sides of the political spectrum ( e.g. Dean-ians ). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol, what country can outbid the US? I rest my case *Points to my last post*
Outbid the US? I'm sorry CWAG, but you seem to have no idea about outsourcing, near-shoring, NAFTA, the Asian manufacturing sector, and the fact that everyday just about every country on earth can outbid us - because they compensate their workers far less and can afford to.
Comments
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't hypocritical. We know WTH happens when we meddle with middle eastern countries. We get burned, create more terrorists, and destablise the region further, etc.
And, lo and behold, we have Islamic hardliners setting up religious laws in Iraq that will scale back that country's civil rights to who knows when. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were scaling civil rights back to when they had elecrticity, running water, and didn't have to worry about being taking from their homes by police and shot. Yah horrible job.
You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.
I really don't have time to get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, feel free to make a thread about global terrorism and I'll post all my thoughts in there.
Oh please. Woman had more rights under Hussein than they will under sharia laws. They had utilities that actually worked most of the time, too. It's pathetic that the liberators can't do better in that department than a two-bit dictator.
We'll see the usual Islamic retardation once fundies take total control. Then it won't be any better than it was under Saddam. It would be worse in fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice pipe dream, let me know when it becomes even romotely feasible.
Oh please. Woman had more rights under Hussein than they will under sharia laws. They had utilities that actually worked most of the time, too. It's pathetic that the liberators can't do better in that department than a two-bit dictator.
We'll see the usual Islamic retardation once fundies take total control. Then it won't be any better than it was under Saddam. It would be worse in fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right though when we meddle with a country we do no good, that's why I explicitly said Iraq is small step in the right direction. Take whatever actions necessary to get rid of every fundamentalist country on the planet, you will have no more fundamentalists, and soon after that no more fundamentalist terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice pipe dream, let me know when it becomes even romotely feasible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you can predict the future as well as make dismissive comments about not fully formed posts. Like I said make the thread I'll explain how its more than a pipe dream.
Its never been declared a democracy. That is what the upcoming elections are supposed to help.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do i trust the US army and politicians in setting up a democracy in iraq? Not at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? We've done it before ( e.g. Germany and Japan ). It would be far better if people wouldn't automatically assume that the US would fail and instead support the establishment of democracy in Iraq. Such actions would increase the likelihood of success, whereas everyone assuming failure would decrease the likelihood of success
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would i want the third partys army staying in my country, pumping my countrys resource to pay for occupying my country, giving the third-partys corporations 0% tax in my country with a selected, appointed "democracy"? Nope.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, we have US contractors rebuilding the Iraqi oil infrastructure ( paid for mainly by the US ). The money that is made from actually selling the oil goes to Iraq.
The US army must also remain in Iraq until the new government ( which has not been established yet ) can actually maintain control of the country.
World War II is a very different animal. Germany and Japan were already first world western countries, making them easy to rebuild and bring up to speed. Today we are dealing with third world disaster areas.
As you know, the US has a poor track record in the middle east. Iran, Afghanistan (when we built up Bin Laden, and in 2001), Iraq... all examples of power broking gone wrong.
As you know, the US has a poor track record in the middle east. Iran, Afghanistan (when we built up Bin Laden, and in 2001), Iraq... all examples of power broking gone wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Germany and Japan were first world countries at the end of WWII? Where have you been getting your history? They were neither in very good shape and both economies were in ruin, not to mention cities destroyed.
If Germany and Japan were not disaster areas after WWII I don't know what is.
But there someone goes again... Making an assumption and not helping the situation. You lobbed Iraq into your little list. Iraq does not belong in that list at this time... It hasn't even been an entire year since the former regime was toppled. At least give it some time. Its pathetic ( and stupide ) how everyone thinks the US has failed in Iraq when not even an entire year has gone by.
Afghanistan... I don't think we tried rebuilding that country until just recently. We did give some support behind the scenes to fight the USSR, but we were never active in rebuilding it. If you think supporting Afghani fighters against the USSR is bad then you also probably believe that Saddam should still be in power since there was no "hard evidence".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Germany and Japan both were in rather good shape economically at the end of the war. Germany for example recorded it's best industrial output in June of 1944, and the damage inflicted by Allied bombing on both countries was remarkably small. Both nations were running low on manpower by the end of the war though and had been pushed back into their respective homelands, which resulted in their defeat.
Germany lost a large amount of it's industrial strength after the war when the Soviets hauled entire factories back east as "compensation" for damages inflicted by the Germans during the war.
Both nations also did not have to worry about funding their own militaries after the war, protected as they were by the US and NATO. This took a large strain out of their budgets, which coupled with economic assisstance from the US and the fact that their industrial infrastructure survived the war fairly intact allowed both nations to become, or in Germany's case, continue, to be economic powerhouses.
In comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan, Iraq is in a far worse shape. It may be able to survive because of it's large scale oil reserves, but 12 years of sanctions and 3 wars have had a massive toll on the country's infrastructure. There is a lot of work ahead for those who would attempt to rebuild Iraq.
Carry on <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's hard to speak for Iraqis because I'm not one and it is very difficult for me to empathise and understand when I don't know so much. However, if Britain really went down the bog, and the Nationalists got in and started oppressing half the country, I would still think long and hard about welcoming an invading force coming in to liberate us. Part of the reason being is the oppressors may have been ****, but at least they <i>our</i> ****. And, the coalition made it clear that they went in because Iraq had WMDs, not to bring about change for the better for Iraq. They would have done something about Rwanda and countries like that had that been the case.
Yes, the fact that Bush has WMDs does scare me. But the same argument applies. He may an war-mongering bugger, but at least he's our war-mongering bugger.
Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice anti-flag quote there d00der.
I have a site you'd like :-p
<a href='http://www.anti-anti-flag.com' target='_blank'>http://www.anti-anti-flag.com</a>
If the only goal were oil, there were easier ways to get it. Drop sanctions. Saddam would have loved to sell us oil. I won't say that hadn't crossed their minds, but don't think that the US would go to war only for oil. If the goal was oil in the hands of the evil Haliburton company, why did the US announce the continued nationalization of oil in Iraq, distributing proceeds in the form of tax-refund style system to all Iraqis.
Also, Afghanistan has been in the news a lot.
NATO's been doing a great job cleaning up in there. They just passed a new democratic constitution (although it is probably a bit more Islamic then it should have been... "Freedom of speech... in accordance with the law." ) Also, a new report came out today; the insurgency in Afghanistan has finally been beaten back. <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=1&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_re_as/nato_afghanistan' target='_blank'>AP</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's important though not to simply dismiss the oil arguement altogether. Whilst oil may not have been the sole reason, it would be highly foolish to assume that it played no role at all. Iraq is home to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and having a US-friendly government in Baghdad helps secure that oil. Yes, the US could have dropped sanctions, but there's no guareentee that Saddam would sell the oil to the US; afterall, there's plenty of buyers for oil.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent).
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would IF he wasn't such a Baasist. That's extemeist stalinism, which is basically a mutated defunct intendedly corrupt flavor of communism, If he wasn't extreme, yes.
Besides, I feel the way I do about this is because somehow nobody can justify why its Ok for us to sell weapons to him for killing Iranians, then turn around and sell weapons to Iran to kill iraqis, THEN serveral years later, decide that both countries are no good, and decide to conquer them. People who in the 50's were offended by the USSR's expansionism should really take a good look at home before trying to justify the mass killing of civilians and innocents.
Why buy something when you can take it
Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spoken like a true Stalinist. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Everyone here needs to calm down, as this topic is barely a post away from being locked. Get your egos under control immediately, or it will be done for you via account suspensions.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Monse: ?? I only made one post. Was it mean? I didn't think it was.
I agree Ryo. All the things you mentioned were factors in invading Iraq. I think you miss the larger security implications though.
First, there was (considered) credible reason to think Iraq had WMDs. There was certainly the chance that, if Iraq had even trace amounts of biological and chemical, such amounts would be deadly in the hands of terrorists. Other nations have WMDs, but the thought of Iraq having them was especially dangerous because of the open contempt for America. Perhaps this argument seems silly in retrospect, but before the war, it was a very real possibility.
Also, the US-Friendly arab country argument is, I think, the main reason we went to war, not for more control of the region, but because of the results it had. Iran's revolutionary youth is emboldened by having the United States as a neighbor. It also sends a message to other Islamic countries: shape up and lose your WMD programs, or we'll bust you up. I highly doubt that Libya would be disarming if not for attacking Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-CWAG+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CWAG)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it is more like "Why buy something when you can damage it, spend money to repair it, and give control to the people who it belongs to." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Haliburton only has contracts to repair and upgrade the stations. They do not have any control over the actual oil. All oil sales are being returned to the Iraqi people, as I mentioned.
Grabbing a fantastic place to base troops probably crossed the minds of the US leaders as well. Saudi Arabia was getting gradually more and more annoyed with US troops there, and if you want a strategic location then you'd be hard pressed to do better than Iraq: sea access and situated right between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the largest sources of terrorist support (though not nessessarily by their governments).
A war also garnishes support back home, especially a quick one like Iraq (though it's stretching out into a gurilla war, as the latest 2 attacks prove). Bush probably didn't go to war just for that reason, but it was certainly a juicy extra. To ignore the idea that politicians take advantage of situations is to ignore the very nature of politics.
Reasons such as these on their own probably didn't lead to the war. But combined they certainly form a tempting arguement for taking over Iraq. Of course, no government would start a war under such a banner "We want oil, land and approval ratings!", so you need other reasons to tell the public and indeed, other nations. Were WMDs such an invention, or did Bush truely believe there were WMDs to be found? I believe that Bush selectively listened to intelligance reports, hearing what he wanted to hear so he could justify a profitable war on Iraq (profitable in terms of what was gained, not money spent). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Monse: ?? I only made one post. Was it mean? I didn't think it was.
I agree Ryo. All the things you mentioned were factors in invading Iraq. I think you miss the larger security implications though.
First, there was (considered) credible reason to think Iraq had WMDs. There was certainly the chance that, if Iraq had even trace amounts of biological and chemical, such amounts would be deadly in the hands of terrorists. Other nations have WMDs, but the thought of Iraq having them was especially dangerous because of the open contempt for America. Perhaps this argument seems silly in retrospect, but before the war, it was a very real possibility.
Also, the US-Friendly arab country argument is, I think, the main reason we went to war, not for more control of the region, but because of the results it had. Iran's revolutionary youth is emboldened by having the United States as a neighbor. It also sends a message to other Islamic countries: shape up and lose your WMD programs, or we'll bust you up. I highly doubt that Libya would be disarming if not for attacking Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-CWAG+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CWAG)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why buy something when you can take it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it is more like "Why buy something when you can damage it, spend money to repair it, and give control to the people who it belongs to." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Haliburton only has contracts to repair and upgrade the stations. They do not have any control over the actual oil. All oil sales are being returned to the Iraqi people, as I mentioned. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't disagree that he was a bad man, but to say that the reasoning is quite obvious is...frankly, wrong. I am willing to bet that most of the integral components of the "Liberation" was cloak and dagger.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a>
of course theres no way to prove it, but the chances are that spreading freedom and goodwill around the world were put out as reasons merely to appease a semi interested public.
God knows what comes under the heading of 'our interests', but you can bet your **** its significantly less morally acceptable than spreading joy and fighting evil.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not"
every time no link found.
11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote..
"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying.
its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links.
Nope, you were fine, CWAG. I was addressing others.
Germany lost a large amount of it's industrial strength after the war when the Soviets hauled entire factories back east as "compensation" for damages inflicted by the Germans during the war.
Both nations also did not have to worry about funding their own militaries after the war, protected as they were by the US and NATO. This took a large strain out of their budgets, which coupled with economic assisstance from the US and the fact that their industrial infrastructure survived the war fairly intact allowed both nations to become, or in Germany's case, continue, to be economic powerhouses.
In comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan, Iraq is in a far worse shape. It may be able to survive because of it's large scale oil reserves, but 12 years of sanctions and 3 wars have had a massive toll on the country's infrastructure. There is a lot of work ahead for those who would attempt to rebuild Iraq.
Carry on <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is what the US and NATO did in Germany different than what is happening in Iraq right now? Iraq has an advantage... Oil. A very much sought after resource. The US ( and its allies ) are rebuilding Iraq. They've gotten a LOT of Iraq's debt forgiven. The US is basically paying for the much of Iraq's new army. Iraq actually had a pretty decent infrastructure. It may not have been in the best of shape, but it was still there. A lot has been accomplished thus far in Iraq in regards to the rebuilding efforts.
After WWII Germany and Japan did not have any trading partners. They were only able to get off their feet because of the assistance of others ( the US being the main one ). If the US and others had not been there, chances are that neither nation would be where it is today. Neither nation would have been able to recover from the wars as quickly if it were not for international assistance.
Now we have Iraq, which is in a similar boat, but people want it to be fixed "over-night". Its been less than a year since Saddam's regime was overthrown and people have been talking about the supposed US failure for 6 months now. That's not just unrealistic its moronic.
No one is saying that there is not a lot of work needed to rebuild Iraq. All that is being asked is for a chance to be given. Iraq is on a faster pace of rebuilding than either Germany or Japan, but I think it will be able to succeed. It just won't happen over night. Everyone knew going into this that we would be there for a number of years.
Iraq will be simple compared to Afghanistan.... We'll probably be in Afghanistan longer than we will be in Iraq.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not"
every time no link found.
11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote..
"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying.
its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Political and military alliances don't just happen on a whim, if you think that somehow in the 3 month long war, while there was almost a complete blackout in communication, a hostile presence in thier country, and agressive efforts to find every bit of resistance there was, that they could have formed an alliance with no former ties or presence in Iraq you're a little off base.
To be honest I was someone who never bought the whole WMD argument, I was glad they went to war because I knew Iraq stood as a symbol of Fundamentalist values in the middle east (despite it's secular nature) they hated the US, the advocated that hate, and even before it was cited as a reason I always saw it as an available hub to terrorists in the middle of a region that spawns them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The military believes the document was written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant believed to be linked to al-Qaida<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and since when have jordanian militants spoken for Iraq?
man, I could write a letter to 'my brothers in the mountrains', wouldnt mean the UK government had 'links to al-quida'.
and it certainly wouldn't be a reason to invade the UK (especially if the letter was written AFTER the invasion already happened?!?!)
is this making sense?!
*edit. I suck*
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_qaida_document' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._qaida_document</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
can I just point out that 'now' is not the same as 'then', your opinions and practises are liable to change once youv been invaded.
IIRC there were 11 attempts to find a link pre-war searching everything at the request of rumsfeld "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not"
every time no link found.
11 times, they would have found it if it existed.
another random quote..
"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann
at best this proves a link NOW, not before the war, which is what your implying.
its a pretty significant point, you cant use what happens today as proof of past links. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Political and military alliances don't just happen on a whim, if you think that somehow in the 3 month long war, while there was almost a complete blackout in communication, a hostile presence in thier country, and agressive efforts to find every bit of resistance there was, that they could have formed an alliance with no former ties or presence in Iraq you're a little off base.
To be honest I was someone who never bought the whole WMD argument, I was glad they went to war because I knew Iraq stood as a symbol of Fundamentalist values in the middle east (despite it's secular nature) they hated the US, the advocated that hate, and even before it was cited as a reason I always saw it as an available hub to terrorists in the middle of a region that spawns them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somehow I find it interesting that you're suggesting someone is off-base, when you can't back up your claim. Iraq had no love for al-Qaida - Saddam told Iraqis not to form an alliance when them. Powell admitted that nothing linked the two.
Everything I am saying is based of what I have read about and seen happening in Iraq, it takes a little inward thinking and I'm not claiming to be completely right, I don't know why you are.
There is a gray area when it comes to this sort of stuff, terrorists motives are as much political as they are violent, they don't blow themselves up just to kill people they hate. That's why I'm a little dubious that two ultra conservative, extremely violent, regimes who both hate the US and Israel wouldn't cooperate with each other just because they gave their word they don't like each other.
as soon as 9/11 happened, rumsfeld had the CIA on the case looking for the link between the bombers and Saddam. (actually hes not quoted as saying saddams full name, but the initials are pretty blatant; "SH" . He also refers to osama as "UBL")
He wanted it pinned on Saddam so bad he repeatedly sent them back to look time and time again despite the fact they kept telling him there was no link.
rest assured, If such a link existed, it would have been found then.
First off, I don't deny that Saddam was a bad man, and I surely don't deny what he did to his people. I agree that if truly in fact he was captured and not a little body double, that its for the best. However, this is where I start to get annoyed. The only businesses contracted to rebuild Iraq are american, the real reason behind the entire invasion is a smear between Bush's Axis of evil campaign, liberation of an opressed nation, attacks on the world trade centers, and etc. And each of those are difficult to prove or disprove. Maybe his intentions were good, but america still got the goods. THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.
Anyway I hope that clears up some of my opinions, and maybe jog other peoples thought processes before speaking <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't think that's quite true. I could've sworn that American businesses were not the only ones that could bid. Basically, those that supported the US invasion of Iraq could bid, those that did not could not. Pretty simple. That is only for the main contract though, any subcontracts could be bid on by any company from any country. This also was for the first round of bidding.
The second round was a little more open, and there are some companies from countries that did not support the US that have been allowed to bid, but still others have not. The subcontracts are also still open here.
The idea shouldn't be hard to grasp. The vast majority of the money used for these contracts comes from the US, why should we have allowed companies from countries like France and Germany, who did not support the US, to bid for contracts? Of course we would show favoritism toward those that supported us. Its not that difficult to understand and to an extent makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be true for some... But there are a lot of us who support the invasion for different reasons than the administration. Or, there are a lot who support the invasion for the practically the same reasons as the administration, we just supported our arguments quite a bit better. In the end, I think the classification of those who just agree and do not question their stance falls on both sides of the political spectrum ( e.g. Dean-ians ).
I don't think that's quite true. I could've sworn that American businesses were not the only ones that could bid. Basically, those that supported the US invasion of Iraq could bid, those that did not could not. Pretty simple. That is only for the main contract though, any subcontracts could be bid on by any company from any country. This also was for the first round of bidding.
The second round was a little more open, and there are some companies from countries that did not support the US that have been allowed to bid, but still others have not. The subcontracts are also still open here.
The idea shouldn't be hard to grasp. The vast majority of the money used for these contracts comes from the US, why should we have allowed companies from countries like France and Germany, who did not support the US, to bid for contracts? Of course we would show favoritism toward those that supported us. Its not that difficult to understand and to an extent makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THe last thing that annoys me has to do with society in general, I don't understand how many people can just stand by bush without even questioning him. Its fine if you agree, but always always question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be true for some... But there are a lot of us who support the invasion for different reasons than the administration. Or, there are a lot who support the invasion for the practically the same reasons as the administration, we just supported our arguments quite a bit better. In the end, I think the classification of those who just agree and do not question their stance falls on both sides of the political spectrum ( e.g. Dean-ians ). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, what country can outbid the US? I rest my case *Points to my last post*
Please unrest your case.
as far back as 2001 in fact..
So far they've had $500 million worth of work contracted to them.
*mumble mumble, cheney.. conflict of interests.. former head.. somthing fishy*