That's something I hadn't even considered. Mainly because I have <i>no damn clue</i> what that means. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Bottom line: I are economics nub. Teach me! <b>TEACH!</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1588527:date=Dec 14 2006, 02:30 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 14 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]1588527[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Rightyho, less oil coming out of Iraq now. This means decreased supply. I have no reason to believe that demand has fallen, though. Now, basic economics teaches us that if demand stays the same but supply decreases, the result is an inflation of price. Which is exactly the development that the U.S. has seen since the invasion of Iraq. So the american citizen is paying more for his gasoline now. That means additional money out of his pocket and into... whose pocket? Where does that additional money go? I don't think it's naive to say that a fair chunk of it goes to the Big Oil Companies. Where else would it go? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...you didn't pay ANY attention to the "Scale" numbers, did you?
Iraq makes up a very tiny portion of Americas oil supply. On the order of 2%. Hurricane-related damage in the Gulf makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. The erosion of purchasing power of the Dollar makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. Further, the main determinant of supply in Iraq is the success or failure of terrorists sabotage attempts on Iraqi infrastructure. Theyve had more success than failure overall, which is why production has dropped. But its hard to blame Big Oil for sabotaging Iraqi pipelines, unless your the type of paranoid conspiracy theorist who quakes in his boots at the mere <i>mention</i> of the dread name <b>"Halliburton"!</b>
Oh wait, let me make sure, you aren't that type of person are you?
<!--quoteo(post=1588179:date=Dec 13 2006, 03:54 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 13 2006, 03:54 PM) [snapback]1588179[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The endnotes to the webpage I referenced above contains many valid sources, which appear to have gone unnoticed by the dis-believers. One worth mentioning is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml" target="_blank">Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked</a>.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The article is more than 3 years old.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which I believe has already been refuted as untrue. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Colin's presentation that included erronous evidence inserted, such as claims that Iraq was trying to obtain materials for nukes. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Defectors have provided inaccurate and even falsified information in the past. In fact, the false information they provided was an influencing factor in the decision to go to war. Remind me, how many terrorist camps did we find in Iraq when we went in again? There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq besides the pavlovian association that Bush tried to pull so people would support a war in Iraq. I would consider the decision from a judge on a class-action lawsuit to be much less meaningful than one made by, say, the 9/11 commission: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html</a>
The burden of proof is on you, because you are making the claims. Our justice system relies on the prosecutor proving the defendant is guilty, not the defendant proving he is innocent for a good reason. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
Oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While it would've been nice to get something out of the entire mess, I don't really think we got much oil. Production has gone down, not to mention we don't even have control the oil, Iraq does, and their relations with us are strained at best. My guess is they are probably not in a big hurry to sell oil to the country that invaded them and killed tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of civillians.
<!--quoteo(post=1588540:date=Dec 14 2006, 09:55 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 14 2006, 09:55 PM) [snapback]1588540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So...you didn't pay ANY attention to the "Scale" numbers, did you?
Iraq makes up a very tiny portion of Americas oil supply. On the order of 2%. Hurricane-related damage in the Gulf makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. The erosion of purchasing power of the Dollar makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. Further, the main determinant of supply in Iraq is the success or failure of terrorists sabotage attempts on Iraqi infrastructure. Theyve had more success than failure overall, which is why production has dropped. But its hard to blame Big Oil for sabotaging Iraqi pipelines, unless your the type of paranoid conspiracy theorist who quakes in his boots at the mere <i>mention</i> of the dread name <b>"Halliburton"!</b>
Oh wait, let me make sure, you aren't that type of person are you? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not a conspiracy theorist, no. I merely believe that money makes the world go 'round, and that Mammon is the mightiest god on the planet. Sadly, his worshippers tend to cause harm in his name. As for Halliburton, they're evil. What more can I say? So, having covered what sort of person *I* am, let's discuss you. Are you the type of person who attempts to put me on the defensive by suggesting (and forcing me to rebuff) that I am a conspiracy theorist (and implying that I am paranoid)? And all of this because I tendered a theory, formulated as a question, to which you could simply have answered "No, because..", but chose not to? Are you that type of person?
And having covered the personal attacks on each other, let's go back to the discussion: What about puzl's argument? Prior to the invasion, Iraq traded in euro under the <a href="http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/" target="_blank">Oil-for-Food</a> programme. That is no longer the case. This could be a pure coincidence. Or it could have been a desired effect of the invasion. Now, Iraq's oil production is apparently insignificant, but what if they had traded their oil in euros and prospered from it? This could have caused their neighbours to follow suit. That would have weakened the U.S. dollar's position as a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/reserve-currency" target="_blank">reserve currency</a>, further increasing the U.S. trade deficit.
<!--quoteo(post=1588246:date=Dec 13 2006, 10:14 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 13 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]1588246[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that. This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This will be amusing I found the actual case file, surprisingly, most of depots links are not very umm reputable.
Lets also be clear, this lawsuit was for wrongful death charges in connection with the 9-11 terrorist attacks. It has nothing to do with the defense department nor the actual occupation taking place. <a href="http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/03-04142.PDF" target="_blank">Court Date May 7 2003 (Release date)</a>
^^^ That is a .pdf file and is 29 pages long.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 10) 2nd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 10) 2nd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Before turning to the plaintiffs' proof on each of these elements, it is necessary to point that there is a threshold question of wether the flatow Amendment permits a cause of action against a foreign state such as Iraq <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The judge is question if it is even possible to bring a law suit against a foreign nation.
On page 13 of the judgement is where the proof starts.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 13) 2nd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 13) 2nd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Two expert witnesses testified at the inquest on the issues of Iraq's complicity with Al Qaeda: Robert James Woolsey, Jr. Direct of the CIA from February 1993 to Janurary 1995; and Dr Laurie Mylroie, an expert on Iraq and its involvement in terrorism gernerally and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 in particular. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that is interesting, both witnesses are outdated in their information according to the court document. Strike 1.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 14) 2rd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 14) 2rd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First, director woolsey described the exsistence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists (e.g. Egyptians and Saudis) are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and testimony of three Iraqi defectors 18, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of the facility, called Salman Pak, which as an airplane but no runway. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The paragraph continues, that actually looks like it might work. Of course, we need to maintain that this secret facility existed in as late as 1995 according to the CIA director.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I conclude that plaintiffs have show, albeit barely, "by evidence satisfactory to the court: that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda. As noted avoe, a very substatntial portion of plaintiffs evidence is classically hearsay (and often multiple hearsay), and without meeting any exceptions is inadmissible for substantive purposes. Thus, the hearsay rule prevents the court from considering as substantive evidence: the Ambassador of the Czech Republic's letter which repeats Minister Gross's statement about a meeting between Atta and al Ani in prague, the contacts described in CIA director tenet's letter to Sen. Graham, the evidence that Secretary Powell recited in his remarks before the U.N., and the defectors' descriptions about the use of Salman Pak as a camp to train Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist. However, the opinion testimony of the plaintiff's experts is sufficeient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So basically the hearsay was throw out of court.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph immediately after sept 11th sentence+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph immediately after sept 11th sentence)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, the judge didn't think there was enough evidence for him to rule, so he applied the rule of default oulined in the beginning of the case. Being that no one from either of the defendants attended.
Let me use an analogy for those who are having troubles following the court cases.
Lets say you are removed from an apartment for non-payment of rent. The case eventually goes to court, for a judgement against you for the rent that is due. You moved and you forward your addess to the old renter/landlord, and you have it changed with the post office. You never hear from it again, untill a subpoena is issued and you are summoned to court. (They will give those out at your work if they can't reach you at home.) If you fail to show up, the court will issue a judgment that you have to pay such-and-such an amount. If you do show up, more then likely due to lack of evidence of them being able to contact you in a sufficient amount of time, the case will be thrown out.
Being that no one was present to defend, the case was automatically passed.
They never said exactly what evidence was being presented and the case isn't open to public record.
Nice try.
*Edit*
In reguards to the first website, the url of <a href="http://www.husseinandterror.com/" target="_blank">http://www.husseinandterror.com/</a>
Almost all of the bibliography links are from the NRO magazine
The NRO is a conservative magazine run by conservatives, from their website <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/</a> Is their url.
Too bad you never use analogy with court cases. Since analogy is always suspect. We call this practice forfeiture. It's the same practice the RIAA uses against pirates, and the European Union does in regards to Microsoft. Pretty much it means ######.
The reasoning these rulings even take place without Arraignment is because defense hearings are practically useless court wise anyway. Nor would you even need a advocate. Basically it's plaintiff's ballgame really.
The big thing here is "Rule of default" is a very effective way to come to a conclusion in matters. Since he's highly doubt that new evidence will come up. Especially with civil suits. In matters of foreign policy you probably need some form of closure.
The problem here is ...why is there a court case to determine this anyway? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Judicial method does nothing when it's based upon personal opinions.
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html" target="_blank">Yet more documentation that Saddam Hussein supports International Terrorism</a> (from the White House).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><div align="center">Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism</div></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.
* In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
* Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
* Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
* Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
* In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
* Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so let me see if this about sums up your position, Depot.
Having links to terrorists who kill civilians is bad in the case of Saddam because he doesnt have 'your' interests at heart.
Invading other nations and killing civilians is perfectly acceptable in the case of Bush, because he does have 'your' best interests at heart?
(you can pretty much substitute 'the richest 1%' for 'your' there).
is it because of the claims they make? the place they were born? or the skin colour of the civilians they (directly or indirectly) kill that you feel one is abhorant and the other glorious?
<!--quoteo(post=1588616:date=Dec 14 2006, 07:46 PM:name=Melatonin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin @ Dec 14 2006, 07:46 PM) [snapback]1588616[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> so let me see if this about sums up your position, Depot.
Having links to terrorists who kill civilians is bad in the case of Saddam because he doesnt have 'your' interests at heart.
Invading other nations and killing civilians is perfectly acceptable in the case of Bush, because he does have 'your' best interests at heart?
(you can pretty much substitute 'the richest 1%' for 'your' there).
is it because of the claims they make? the place they were born? or the skin colour of the civilians they (directly or indirectly) kill that you feel one is abhorant and the other glorious? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My position is that Suddam Hussein is a terrorist, and that the war in Iraq could turn into another Viet Nam. Hence the reason I created this thread. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1588635:date=Dec 15 2006, 01:23 AM:name=Melatonin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin @ Dec 15 2006, 01:23 AM) [snapback]1588635[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do you think that because Saddam had links to terrorism, the invasion was just? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1588564:date=Dec 14 2006, 04:13 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 14 2006, 04:13 PM) [snapback]1588564[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I am not a conspiracy theorist, no. I merely believe that money makes the world go 'round, and that Mammon is the mightiest god on the planet. Sadly, his worshippers tend to cause harm in his name. As for Halliburton, they're evil. What more can I say? So, having covered what sort of person *I* am, let's discuss you. Are you the type of person who attempts to put me on the defensive by suggesting (and forcing me to rebuff) that I am a conspiracy theorist (and implying that I am paranoid)? And all of this because I tendered a theory, formulated as a question, to which you could simply have answered "No, because..", but chose not to? Are you that type of person? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have not, in fact, tendered a coherent theory yet. Lets review your contributions to our argument:
--The single word "Oil". This suggests a couple of theories, but does not actually describe any of them in enough detail to be meaningful. This forced me to first guess at the most likely direction you were going, and then respond to a broad variety of related theories since I lacked the detail necessary to counter any one in particular.
--The insistence that our Oil companies are now obtaining large quantities of Oil from Iraq (which might be interesting, IF it were true), followed by...
--A refusal to provide any evidence to back that statement up, and finally...
--A line of logic suggesting that Oil companies have made a greater profit because of the disruption of Iraqi oil production. This may or may not be true (for the sake of argument, lets assume it is 100% true), but it is not a theory. I can only assume that you mean that to be a veiled accusation that US Oil companies wanted Iraqi Oil production hampered, but if you really mean to suggest that the Iraq campaign was undetaken for no other reason than to reduce Iraqi oil exports, I'd like to see you say that out loud before I waste any more breath on it.
If you're going to continue to talk in veiled accusations instead of making your points in public, then I will probably call you a conspiracy theorist again at some point. Real points can stand up to the light of examination. Now, perhaps we can get back to the issue?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And having covered the personal attacks on each other, let's go back to the discussion: What about puzl's argument? Prior to the invasion, Iraq traded in euro under the <a href="http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/" target="_blank">Oil-for-Food</a> programme. That is no longer the case. This could be a pure coincidence. Or it could have been a desired effect of the invasion. Now, Iraq's oil production is apparently insignificant, but what if they had traded their oil in euros and prospered from it? This could have caused their neighbours to follow suit. That would have weakened the U.S. dollar's position as a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/reserve-currency" target="_blank">reserve currency</a>, further increasing the U.S. trade deficit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This requires some economics data. Allow me to quote some data at you. <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/HistoricalExchangeRates/index.html" target="_blank">Link</a>
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->6-Mo average exchange rates: 1 US $ buys this:
Note how the US Dollar was highest around 9/11, and then began falling dramatically as the Invasion of Iraq began, and has never recovered against the Euro. Its recovered slightly against the Yen, but still not to Pre-war levels. This leads me to assume that the war cannot have been undertaken to boost the power of the US Dollar, unless it was even more spectacularly unsuccessful then we already thought.
<!--quoteo(post=1588635:date=Dec 14 2006, 08:23 PM:name=Melatonin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin @ Dec 14 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1588635[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do you think that because Saddam had links to terrorism, the invasion was just? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As noted in the first post,
<!--quoteo(post=1519927:date=Jun 26 2005, 05:47 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Jun 26 2005, 05:47 PM) [snapback]1519927[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Originally I supported Bush on this war in Iraq, but it certainly resembles another Viet Nam to me. Our troops could be over there another 10 to 12 years? I don't like the sound of that. At all.
Let's not dwell on how we got there to begin with , IF we should even be there, or if the administration has done the right things to date. And let's not debate the pros and cons of war. <b>Should The United States and it's coalition forces pull the plug on this and send the troops home?</b> Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
look, your the one who posted that the link about Saddams links to terrorism, and now you decide its got nothing to do with the topic and im a fault for reluctantly trying to discuss that rubbish you take as gospel.
dont act like im the one who brought it up.
back on topic: The coallition cannot stay in Iraq for the rest of all time. At some point we will have to leave. Now you may be of the opinion that we should at least try to clean up the god aweful mess we have made of that country ( and dont kid yourself, Saddam rules with an iron fist, but at least the country wasnt on the brink of a civil war under him ). Things are <i>far</i> worse now for the majority of Iraqis than under Saddams dictatorship. This will naturally lead to resentment of anything associated with the American and British troops amongst the people of Iraq. Couple this with the string of scandals and abuses that have seeped out along the path (Abu Gharib et al), and there is no way in hell we could ever, <i>ever</i> create anything in Iraq that would last, or be accepted by the people.
We are better accepting the failings and leaving with our collective tails between our legs.
Of course, this cannot happen. Whatever the actual reasoning behind the war, too many resources have been invested to get to this point, and you can be sure that we will hold this position until such a time as it no longer serves its purpose (I have an idea that a millitary prescence just outside of Iran may be one of many pre planned benefits to this whole debacle). To be honest though, I dont know why we are there, im a peasant, just like you, and its not for us to know the reasoning behind these hideous atrocities commited in our names. Just realise that as long as this administrations key players hold power, there will be no withdrawl.
<!--quoteo(post=1588671:date=Dec 14 2006, 09:18 PM:name=Melatonin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin @ Dec 14 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]1588671[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> look, your the one who posted that the link about Saddams links to terrorism, and now you decide its got nothing to do with the topic and im a fault for reluctantly trying to discuss that rubbish you take as gospel.
dont act like im the one who brought it up. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The link I posted was in response to someone questioning Saddam Hussein's association with terrorism. What I quoted above was necessary because, as stated, I don't want this thread turned into a discussion about war itself, or justification of the war in Iraq. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
I would expect, with the resignation of Rumsfeld, that our position will change soon regarding how long we keep troops over there.
In order to decide whether we should go home, you have to start by asking a series of 6 questions. None of these questions can be properly considered without the context provided by the other 5.
1--What is the best-case scenario result of leaving and going home? 2--What is the worst-case scenario result of leaving and going home? 3--What plan can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario after leaving, and how good ARE the chances with that plan?
4--What is the best-case scenario result of staying in Iraq? 5--What is the worse-cast scenario result of staying in Iraq? 6--What plans can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario if we stay, and how good are the chances with that plan?
<!--quoteo(post=1588694:date=Dec 14 2006, 08:56 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 14 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]1588694[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In order to decide whether we should go home, you have to start by asking a series of 6 questions. None of these questions can be properly considered without the context provided by the other 5.
1--What is the best-case scenario result of leaving and going home? 2--What is the worst-case scenario result of leaving and going home? 3--What plan can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario after leaving, and how good ARE the chances with that plan?
4--What is the best-case scenario result of staying in Iraq? 5--What is the worse-cast scenario result of staying in Iraq? 6--What plans can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario if we stay, and how good are the chances with that plan?
Hopefully that will give us some direction. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. The country remains stable. 2. Civil war. 3. More military, government, and legal training. 4. We manage to stabilize the country. 5. Sectarian violence continues to escalate into an all-out civil war. Our men and women start dying by the buttload. 6. More troops. Unlikely to happen unless we re-institute the draft, though.
All in all, it doesn't seem like we have a whole lot to gain by staying in Iraq, unless we're planning to coordinate with our forces in Afghanistan for a dual-pronged invasion into Iran. I say we heed the legacy of Vietnam, cut our losses, and pull the ###### out of there before our presence embitters the whole of the Middle East for several more generations to come.
Honestly, I don't have answers for questions 3 and 6. Theyre hard questions. But I have some suggestions for the other 4.
1--With America removed as a target, many of the insurgents stop fighting against the government. Nationalistic Pride takes over, and the remaining purely Anarchistic insurgents are defeated by the majority populace. The county is stablized. 2--Without the stabilizing presence of American troops, the country dissolves into Anarchy. Al Qaeda declares victory and sets up to plan the next assault on American home territory.
4--After much complaining from all sides, the Iraqis stop fighting each other and form a Democratic Government and institute full-scale capitalism. Sabotage attempts on infrastructure are halted, and Iraqi living conditions skyrocket. After a few years, the Iranian citizens look across the border and wonder why they don't have that same level of wealth and prosperity. 5--Iraq devolves into civil war, and many US soldiers are killed. Finally, a religious theocracy is established and America is too war-weary to complain. We go home, having successfuly transformed Iraq into Iran-part-2.
So I think there is much left to fight for. I'm just not sure how best to fight for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1588689:date=Dec 14 2006, 10:34 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 14 2006, 10:34 PM) [snapback]1588689[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Just like with Vietnam, I suspect it's going to take an administration change to get us out of Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately I believe you're correct. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1588580:date=Dec 14 2006, 04:42 PM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 14 2006, 04:42 PM) [snapback]1588580[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The problem here is ...why is there a court case to determine this anyway? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Judicial method does nothing when it's based upon personal opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was for a wrongful death case. Which still makes those two people who sued a foreign country stupid. Obviously Iraq and company were never going to pay them damages.
Hey, Depot, how about actually responding to posts instead of ignoring points brought up by others, reiterating yourself, and spamming links to a bunch of online articles?
<!--quoteo(post=1589067:date=Dec 15 2006, 07:12 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Dec 15 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]1589067[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hey, Depot, how about actually responding to posts instead of ignoring points brought up by others, reiterating yourself, and spamming links to a bunch of online articles? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I replied to melatonin - did I miss something? What points do you feel I've ignored? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/clapping.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
If you dislike the links or articles I've referred to, by all means respond. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Comments
Bottom line: I are economics nub. Teach me! <b>TEACH!</b>
Rightyho, less oil coming out of Iraq now. This means decreased supply. I have no reason to believe that demand has fallen, though. Now, basic economics teaches us that if demand stays the same but supply decreases, the result is an inflation of price. Which is exactly the development that the U.S. has seen since the invasion of Iraq.
So the american citizen is paying more for his gasoline now. That means additional money out of his pocket and into... whose pocket? Where does that additional money go? I don't think it's naive to say that a fair chunk of it goes to the Big Oil Companies. Where else would it go?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...you didn't pay ANY attention to the "Scale" numbers, did you?
Iraq makes up a very tiny portion of Americas oil supply. On the order of 2%. Hurricane-related damage in the Gulf makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. The erosion of purchasing power of the Dollar makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. Further, the main determinant of supply in Iraq is the success or failure of terrorists sabotage attempts on Iraqi infrastructure. Theyve had more success than failure overall, which is why production has dropped. But its hard to blame Big Oil for sabotaging Iraqi pipelines, unless your the type of paranoid conspiracy theorist who quakes in his boots at the mere <i>mention</i> of the dread name <b>"Halliburton"!</b>
Oh wait, let me make sure, you aren't that type of person are you?
The endnotes to the webpage I referenced above contains many valid sources, which appear to have gone unnoticed by the dis-believers. One worth mentioning is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml" target="_blank">Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked</a>.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article is more than 3 years old.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which I believe has already been refuted as untrue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism,
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Colin's presentation that included erronous evidence inserted, such as claims that Iraq was trying to obtain materials for nukes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Defectors have provided inaccurate and even falsified information in the past. In fact, the false information they provided was an influencing factor in the decision to go to war. Remind me, how many terrorist camps did we find in Iraq when we went in again? There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq besides the pavlovian association that Bush tried to pull so people would support a war in Iraq. I would consider the decision from a judge on a class-action lawsuit to be much less meaningful than one made by, say, the 9/11 commission:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html</a>
The burden of proof is on you, because you are making the claims. Our justice system relies on the prosecutor proving the defendant is guilty, not the defendant proving he is innocent for a good reason.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
Oil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it would've been nice to get something out of the entire mess, I don't really think we got much oil. Production has gone down, not to mention we don't even have control the oil, Iraq does, and their relations with us are strained at best. My guess is they are probably not in a big hurry to sell oil to the country that invaded them and killed tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of civillians.
So...you didn't pay ANY attention to the "Scale" numbers, did you?
Iraq makes up a very tiny portion of Americas oil supply. On the order of 2%. Hurricane-related damage in the Gulf makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. The erosion of purchasing power of the Dollar makes a bigger difference than the entire output of Iraq. Further, the main determinant of supply in Iraq is the success or failure of terrorists sabotage attempts on Iraqi infrastructure. Theyve had more success than failure overall, which is why production has dropped. But its hard to blame Big Oil for sabotaging Iraqi pipelines, unless your the type of paranoid conspiracy theorist who quakes in his boots at the mere <i>mention</i> of the dread name <b>"Halliburton"!</b>
Oh wait, let me make sure, you aren't that type of person are you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not a conspiracy theorist, no. I merely believe that money makes the world go 'round, and that Mammon is the mightiest god on the planet. Sadly, his worshippers tend to cause harm in his name.
As for Halliburton, they're evil. What more can I say?
So, having covered what sort of person *I* am, let's discuss you. Are you the type of person who attempts to put me on the defensive by suggesting (and forcing me to rebuff) that I am a conspiracy theorist (and implying that I am paranoid)? And all of this because I tendered a theory, formulated as a question, to which you could simply have answered "No, because..", but chose not to? Are you that type of person?
And having covered the personal attacks on each other, let's go back to the discussion: What about puzl's argument? Prior to the invasion, Iraq traded in euro under the <a href="http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/" target="_blank">Oil-for-Food</a> programme. That is no longer the case. This could be a pure coincidence. Or it could have been a desired effect of the invasion. Now, Iraq's oil production is apparently insignificant, but what if they had traded their oil in euros and prospered from it? This could have caused their neighbours to follow suit. That would have weakened the U.S. dollar's position as a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/reserve-currency" target="_blank">reserve currency</a>, further increasing the U.S. trade deficit.
A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that.
This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This will be amusing I found the actual case file, surprisingly, most of depots links are not very umm reputable.
Lets also be clear, this lawsuit was for wrongful death charges in connection with the 9-11 terrorist attacks. It has nothing to do with the defense department nor the actual occupation taking place.
<a href="http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/03-04142.PDF" target="_blank">Court Date May 7 2003 (Release date)</a>
^^^ That is a .pdf file and is 29 pages long.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 10) 2nd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 10) 2nd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Before turning to the plaintiffs' proof on each of these elements, it is necessary to point that there is a threshold question of wether the flatow Amendment permits a cause of action against a foreign state such as Iraq
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The judge is question if it is even possible to bring a law suit against a foreign nation.
On page 13 of the judgement is where the proof starts.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 13) 2nd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 13) 2nd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Two expert witnesses testified at the inquest on the issues of Iraq's complicity with Al Qaeda: Robert James Woolsey, Jr. Direct of the CIA from February 1993 to Janurary 1995; and Dr Laurie Mylroie, an expert on Iraq and its involvement in terrorism gernerally and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 in particular.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that is interesting, both witnesses are outdated in their information according to the court document. Strike 1.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 14) 2rd paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 14) 2rd paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
First, director woolsey described the exsistence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists (e.g. Egyptians and Saudis) are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and testimony of three Iraqi defectors 18, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of the facility, called Salman Pak, which as an airplane but no runway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The paragraph continues, that actually looks like it might work. Of course, we need to maintain that this secret facility existed in as late as 1995 according to the CIA director.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I conclude that plaintiffs have show, albeit barely, "by evidence satisfactory to the court: that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda. As noted avoe, a very substatntial portion of plaintiffs evidence is classically hearsay (and often multiple hearsay), and without meeting any exceptions is inadmissible for substantive purposes. Thus, the hearsay rule prevents the court from considering as substantive evidence: the Ambassador of the Czech Republic's letter which repeats Minister Gross's statement about a meeting between Atta and al Ani in prague, the contacts described in CIA director tenet's letter to Sen. Graham, the evidence that Secretary Powell recited in his remarks before the U.N., and the defectors' descriptions about the use of Salman Pak as a camp to train Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist. However, the opinion testimony of the plaintiff's experts is sufficeient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So basically the hearsay was throw out of court.
<!--QuoteBegin- Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph immediately after sept 11th sentence+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( Court Document (Page 17) 2nd Paragraph immediately after sept 11th sentence)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, the judge didn't think there was enough evidence for him to rule, so he applied the rule of default oulined in the beginning of the case. Being that no one from either of the defendants attended.
Let me use an analogy for those who are having troubles following the court cases.
Lets say you are removed from an apartment for non-payment of rent. The case eventually goes to court, for a judgement against you for the rent that is due. You moved and you forward your addess to the old renter/landlord, and you have it changed with the post office. You never hear from it again, untill a subpoena is issued and you are summoned to court. (They will give those out at your work if they can't reach you at home.) If you fail to show up, the court will issue a judgment that you have to pay such-and-such an amount. If you do show up, more then likely due to lack of evidence of them being able to contact you in a sufficient amount of time, the case will be thrown out.
Being that no one was present to defend, the case was automatically passed.
They never said exactly what evidence was being presented and the case isn't open to public record.
Nice try.
*Edit*
In reguards to the first website, the url of <a href="http://www.husseinandterror.com/" target="_blank">http://www.husseinandterror.com/</a>
Almost all of the bibliography links are from the NRO magazine
The NRO is a conservative magazine run by conservatives, from their website
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/</a> Is their url.
It is a humorous magazine, but that is all.
The reasoning these rulings even take place without Arraignment is because defense hearings are practically useless court wise anyway. Nor would you even need a advocate. Basically it's plaintiff's ballgame really.
The big thing here is "Rule of default" is a very effective way to come to a conclusion in matters. Since he's highly doubt that new evidence will come up. Especially with civil suits. In matters of foreign policy you probably need some form of closure.
The problem here is ...why is there a court case to determine this anyway? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Judicial method does nothing when it's based upon personal opinions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><div align="center">Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism</div></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.
* In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
* Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
* Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
* Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
* In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
* Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having links to terrorists who kill civilians is bad in the case of Saddam because he doesnt have 'your' interests at heart.
Invading other nations and killing civilians is perfectly acceptable in the case of Bush, because he does have 'your' best interests at heart?
(you can pretty much substitute 'the richest 1%' for 'your' there).
is it because of the claims they make? the place they were born? or the skin colour of the civilians they (directly or indirectly) kill that you feel one is abhorant and the other glorious?
so let me see if this about sums up your position, Depot.
Having links to terrorists who kill civilians is bad in the case of Saddam because he doesnt have 'your' interests at heart.
Invading other nations and killing civilians is perfectly acceptable in the case of Bush, because he does have 'your' best interests at heart?
(you can pretty much substitute 'the richest 1%' for 'your' there).
is it because of the claims they make? the place they were born? or the skin colour of the civilians they (directly or indirectly) kill that you feel one is abhorant and the other glorious?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My position is that Suddam Hussein is a terrorist, and that the war in Iraq could turn into another Viet Nam. Hence the reason I created this thread. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Do you think that because Saddam had links to terrorism, the invasion was just?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, I magically predicted the future!
I am not a conspiracy theorist, no. I merely believe that money makes the world go 'round, and that Mammon is the mightiest god on the planet. Sadly, his worshippers tend to cause harm in his name.
As for Halliburton, they're evil. What more can I say?
So, having covered what sort of person *I* am, let's discuss you. Are you the type of person who attempts to put me on the defensive by suggesting (and forcing me to rebuff) that I am a conspiracy theorist (and implying that I am paranoid)? And all of this because I tendered a theory, formulated as a question, to which you could simply have answered "No, because..", but chose not to? Are you that type of person?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have not, in fact, tendered a coherent theory yet. Lets review your contributions to our argument:
--The single word "Oil". This suggests a couple of theories, but does not actually describe any of them in enough detail to be meaningful. This forced me to first guess at the most likely direction you were going, and then respond to a broad variety of related theories since I lacked the detail necessary to counter any one in particular.
--The insistence that our Oil companies are now obtaining large quantities of Oil from Iraq (which might be interesting, IF it were true), followed by...
--A refusal to provide any evidence to back that statement up, and finally...
--A line of logic suggesting that Oil companies have made a greater profit because of the disruption of Iraqi oil production. This may or may not be true (for the sake of argument, lets assume it is 100% true), but it is not a theory. I can only assume that you mean that to be a veiled accusation that US Oil companies wanted Iraqi Oil production hampered, but if you really mean to suggest that the Iraq campaign was undetaken for no other reason than to reduce Iraqi oil exports, I'd like to see you say that out loud before I waste any more breath on it.
If you're going to continue to talk in veiled accusations instead of making your points in public, then I will probably call you a conspiracy theorist again at some point. Real points can stand up to the light of examination. Now, perhaps we can get back to the issue?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And having covered the personal attacks on each other, let's go back to the discussion: What about puzl's argument? Prior to the invasion, Iraq traded in euro under the <a href="http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/" target="_blank">Oil-for-Food</a> programme. That is no longer the case. This could be a pure coincidence. Or it could have been a desired effect of the invasion. Now, Iraq's oil production is apparently insignificant, but what if they had traded their oil in euros and prospered from it? This could have caused their neighbours to follow suit. That would have weakened the U.S. dollar's position as a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/reserve-currency" target="_blank">reserve currency</a>, further increasing the U.S. trade deficit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This requires some economics data. Allow me to quote some data at you.
<a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/HistoricalExchangeRates/index.html" target="_blank">Link</a>
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->6-Mo average exchange rates: 1 US $ buys this:
6 Mo ending EURO YEN
Jun-2000 1.053 106.849
Dec-2000 1.128 109.765
Jun-2001 1.131 120.770
Dec-2001 1.114 123.345
Jun-2002 1.108 128.442
Dec-2002 1.004 120.405
Jun-2003 0.899 118.918
Dec-2003 0.859 112.235
Jun-2004 0.818 107.986
Dec-2004 0.790 107.377
Jun-2005 0.784 106.536
Dec-2005 0.833 114.819
Jun-2006 0.809 115.358
Oct-2006 0.783 115.593<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
Note how the US Dollar was highest around 9/11, and then began falling dramatically as the Invasion of Iraq began, and has never recovered against the Euro. Its recovered slightly against the Yen, but still not to Pre-war levels. This leads me to assume that the war cannot have been undertaken to boost the power of the US Dollar, unless it was even more spectacularly unsuccessful then we already thought.
Do you think that because Saddam had links to terrorism, the invasion was just?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As noted in the first post,
<!--quoteo(post=1519927:date=Jun 26 2005, 05:47 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Jun 26 2005, 05:47 PM) [snapback]1519927[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Originally I supported Bush on this war in Iraq, but it certainly resembles another Viet Nam to me. Our troops could be over there another 10 to 12 years? I don't like the sound of that. At all.
Let's not dwell on how we got there to begin with , IF we should even be there, or if the administration has done the right things to date. And let's not debate the pros and cons of war. <b>Should The United States and it's coalition forces pull the plug on this and send the troops home?</b> Discuss.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dont act like im the one who brought it up.
back on topic:
The coallition cannot stay in Iraq for the rest of all time. At some point we will have to leave.
Now you may be of the opinion that we should at least try to clean up the god aweful mess we have made of that country ( and dont kid yourself, Saddam rules with an iron fist, but at least the country wasnt on the brink of a civil war under him ). Things are <i>far</i> worse now for the majority of Iraqis than under Saddams dictatorship. This will naturally lead to resentment of anything associated with the American and British troops amongst the people of Iraq. Couple this with the string of scandals and abuses that have seeped out along the path (Abu Gharib et al), and there is no way in hell we could ever, <i>ever</i> create anything in Iraq that would last, or be accepted by the people.
We are better accepting the failings and leaving with our collective tails between our legs.
Of course, this cannot happen. Whatever the actual reasoning behind the war, too many resources have been invested to get to this point, and you can be sure that we will hold this position until such a time as it no longer serves its purpose (I have an idea that a millitary prescence just outside of Iran may be one of many pre planned benefits to this whole debacle). To be honest though, I dont know why we are there, im a peasant, just like you, and its not for us to know the reasoning behind these hideous atrocities commited in our names. Just realise that as long as this administrations key players hold power, there will be no withdrawl.
look, your the one who posted that the link about Saddams links to terrorism, and now you decide its got nothing to do with the topic and im a fault for reluctantly trying to discuss that rubbish you take as gospel.
dont act like im the one who brought it up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The link I posted was in response to someone questioning Saddam Hussein's association with terrorism. What I quoted above was necessary because, as stated, I don't want this thread turned into a discussion about war itself, or justification of the war in Iraq. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
I would expect, with the resignation of Rumsfeld, that our position will change soon regarding how long we keep troops over there.
1--What is the best-case scenario result of leaving and going home?
2--What is the worst-case scenario result of leaving and going home?
3--What plan can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario after leaving, and how good ARE the chances with that plan?
4--What is the best-case scenario result of staying in Iraq?
5--What is the worse-cast scenario result of staying in Iraq?
6--What plans can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario if we stay, and how good are the chances with that plan?
Hopefully that will give us some direction.
In order to decide whether we should go home, you have to start by asking a series of 6 questions. None of these questions can be properly considered without the context provided by the other 5.
1--What is the best-case scenario result of leaving and going home?
2--What is the worst-case scenario result of leaving and going home?
3--What plan can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario after leaving, and how good ARE the chances with that plan?
4--What is the best-case scenario result of staying in Iraq?
5--What is the worse-cast scenario result of staying in Iraq?
6--What plans can we enact to maximize the chances of the best-case scenario if we stay, and how good are the chances with that plan?
Hopefully that will give us some direction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. The country remains stable.
2. Civil war.
3. More military, government, and legal training.
4. We manage to stabilize the country.
5. Sectarian violence continues to escalate into an all-out civil war. Our men and women start dying by the buttload.
6. More troops. Unlikely to happen unless we re-institute the draft, though.
All in all, it doesn't seem like we have a whole lot to gain by staying in Iraq, unless we're planning to coordinate with our forces in Afghanistan for a dual-pronged invasion into Iran. I say we heed the legacy of Vietnam, cut our losses, and pull the ###### out of there before our presence embitters the whole of the Middle East for several more generations to come.
1--With America removed as a target, many of the insurgents stop fighting against the government. Nationalistic Pride takes over, and the remaining purely Anarchistic insurgents are defeated by the majority populace. The county is stablized.
2--Without the stabilizing presence of American troops, the country dissolves into Anarchy. Al Qaeda declares victory and sets up to plan the next assault on American home territory.
4--After much complaining from all sides, the Iraqis stop fighting each other and form a Democratic Government and institute full-scale capitalism. Sabotage attempts on infrastructure are halted, and Iraqi living conditions skyrocket. After a few years, the Iranian citizens look across the border and wonder why they don't have that same level of wealth and prosperity.
5--Iraq devolves into civil war, and many US soldiers are killed. Finally, a religious theocracy is established and America is too war-weary to complain. We go home, having successfuly transformed Iraq into Iran-part-2.
So I think there is much left to fight for. I'm just not sure how best to fight for it.
Just like with Vietnam, I suspect it's going to take an administration change to get us out of Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately I believe you're correct. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
The problem here is ...why is there a court case to determine this anyway? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Judicial method does nothing when it's based upon personal opinions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was for a wrongful death case. Which still makes those two people who sued a foreign country stupid. Obviously Iraq and company were never going to pay them damages.
Hey, Depot, how about actually responding to posts instead of ignoring points brought up by others, reiterating yourself, and spamming links to a bunch of online articles?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I replied to melatonin - did I miss something? What points do you feel I've ignored? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/clapping.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
If you dislike the links or articles I've referred to, by all means respond. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />