My views on Iraq

[Gryff]

Right here goes, I'm sick of posting scraps of arguments here and there.

Firstly I think Saddam should be removed from power. He is a dictator, and has committed numerous human rights violations.

BUT I DISAGREE with US action.

Apparently to americans, its not about oil, or gaining influence in the middle east, its about removing an evil dictator.

Well thats nice isnt it

I utterly disagree.

People such as Kofi Anan, and Nelson Mandela criticise the US and here is why.

Firstly, why attack Iraq?
If you tell me its about oil and influence, i'll nod and say yes thats a good argument, if you tell me its to remove an evil dictator, then yes I will agree.

Its when the US hides its real motives that I suspect ulterior motives as well, that I have not even considered.

If the US was so concerned about removing dictatorships and evil regimes they would have sorted out Myanmar, China, Libya, Zimbabwe to name but a few.

The only reason the US is acting is because these is an incentive to do so, and this is what appalls me and other people, especially when the US claims they are doing it in the name of peace.

Additionally, the countries that oppose the US in the security council do so for their own reasons.

France opposes it because the reactor it supplied Iraq in the 80's that Isreal bombed, well....it would be nice for that to continue, and lets not forget the money they could make rebuilding Iraqs infrastructure.

Russia would also like to sell Iraq nuclear reactors.

China really doesnt have a lot to gain, but it is worried about US dominance.

France is an ethically vocal country, but only when it suits it.
Please dont even get me started on the EU

Oh yeah, dont expect UK support
Our foreign secretary said *open up to weapon inspectors or face the consequences*,
well, he's done that

[Gryff]

PS: feel free to pick anything i've said apart :/

[Jeremy W.]

I basically agree.

[Gryff]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
I basically agree.

Did I hear that correctly?
We agree on something?

[Jeremy W.]

Why wouldn't we? *L* Do you see me as some kind of protagonist or something? *L*

[Gryff]

We usually disagree :/
Our choice of programming languages, religion, and almost everything else :P

[Jeremy W.]

Never noticed really... Maybe it's cause I like your avatar and find it non-threatening. I mean, if your avatar is too drunk to even stand up straight, how much of a threat can you be?

Naw, to be honest, I'd never thought of you as disagreeable. Sorry if I gave you that impression

[Gryff]

There was me thinking i'd come across as an arrogant british antagonist.

Must Try Harder.

j/k :-]


PS: my avatar is from an album cover

[makeda]

Why Gryff, how kind of you to devote an entire thread to your own personal views on Iraq.

I just posted an essay your (in one of your other threads) which counters the crux of the arguement you put forth in this one. It can be read here:

US refusal of offer to UN

Cheers.

[Woody]

My opinion is that Saddam should go and the world would be a better place without him. For that reason I support pretty much any action Bush would want to take against Iraq. He wants him removed for his reason (terrorism, WMD, oil, the fact that we created him) and I have mine. I personally don't see how oil fits into it all as being the only reason for an attack. I don't believe that other countries would support the US if Bush just wanted oil. He has to be giving them some information. But that is just my opinion and I don't really feel like debating it (I have found that people who disagree with anything related to the US usually aren't open to any civil debate at al).

Oh yeah, dont expect UK support
Our foreign secretary said *open up to weapon inspectors or face the consequences*,
well, he's done that

As they have done in the past. I don't trust Iraq since it is well known that they are able to move and hide weapons from inspectors easily. They have also done this same thing in the past. I am personally sick of history repeating itself, can't we just get rid of this guy already?

[Gryff]

makeda, i'll rubbish that article later :/
Semi interesting, untill i read


We know all too well the history of misery that followed the fall of our very flawed friends: genocide in Cambodia, boat people in Vietnam, theocratic thuggery in Iran, catastrophoic war in Zaire.


Dont get me started on vietnam lol.

PS: read jeremys counterpoint.

[rabmurdy]

Some people who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with sarin and tabun nerve agents that could be used against Americans. The facts don't support this.

Mmmm, makes for interesting reading, and it's from the real press...

Heres the rest of the Article


Rab

[astericks]

Originally posted by Woody
I personally don't see how oil fits into it all as being the only reason for an attack.

It's not the only reason, but it is also not the least important reason too.

[his]

a person on some tv show was saying that among all OPEC countries only Iraq, Iran, Libya and Venezuela are demanding increase in petrol prices and also they won't keep that money in western banks.

[rabmurdy]

Originally posted by his
a person on some tv show was saying that among all OPEC countries only Iraq, Iran, Libya and Venezuela are demanding increase in petrol prices and also they won't keep that money in western banks.

And whats wrong with that? It's called free trade!


Rab

[Jeremy W.]

Erm, the countries listed are "rebel OPEC members" who are actually sellin oil cheaper than the standard set by the rest of OPEC.

[seanf]

Originally posted by Woody
My opinion is that Saddam should go and the world would be a better place without him

As simple as that? Do you think that if he is taken out by the US that will be the end of it?

Originally posted by Woody
I personally don't see how oil fits into it all as being the only reason for an attack

Oil = power

Originally posted by Woody
I don't believe that other countries would support the US if Bush just wanted oil

Is it not possible that the countries are sticking with Bush because of the power this could give the US? A late night debate the other night talked off America and imperialism - do you think this is a fair reflection?

Sean

[neil100]

Originally posted by Woody
I personally don't see how oil fits into it all as being the only reason for an attack. I don't believe that other countries would support the US if Bush just wanted oil. He has to be giving them some information.

No oil isn't the only reason, once Iraq has been defeated the US will no doubt keep a long term military presence there and build some air bases, thats the other reason.

The only other countries that support Bush are Israel, who would support him whatever he wanted to do and the UK who also tend too side with him on most things, I am sure Blair has recieved a pat on the head been told if he is a good boy, then he too will have access to the cheap oil.

As they have done in the past. I don't trust Iraq since it is well known that they are able to move and hide weapons from inspectors easily. They have also done this same thing in the past. I am personally sick of history repeating itself, can't we just get rid of this guy already?

If you are sick off history repeating itself, then are you not sick of America interfering, putting in place, arming and funding new regiemes, then years later discovering they have made yet another **** up and put another homicidal egomaniac in power.

[Gryff]

which neil to be fair, is exactly what the US did with saddam, they were his ally untill he got his own opinions and decided on his own course of actions.

[SubKamran]

Before I read every other post, I agree with Gryff...

Totally. It's so true...

[Technosailor]

Originally posted by Gryff
Right here goes, I'm sick of posting scraps of arguments here and there.

Firstly I think Saddam should be removed from power. He is a dictator, and has committed numerous human rights violations.

BUT I DISAGREE with US action.

Apparently to americans, its not about oil, or gaining influence in the middle east, its about removing an evil dictator.

Well thats nice isnt it

I utterly disagree.

People such as Kofi Anan, and Nelson Mandela criticise the US and here is why.

Firstly, why attack Iraq?
If you tell me its about oil and influence, i'll nod and say yes thats a good argument, if you tell me its to remove an evil dictator, then yes I will agree.

Its when the US hides its real motives that I suspect ulterior motives as well, that I have not even considered.

If the US was so concerned about removing dictatorships and evil regimes they would have sorted out Myanmar, China, Libya, Zimbabwe to name but a few.

The only reason the US is acting is because these is an incentive to do so, and this is what appalls me and other people, especially when the US claims they are doing it in the name of peace.

Additionally, the countries that oppose the US in the security council do so for their own reasons.

France opposes it because the reactor it supplied Iraq in the 80's that Isreal bombed, well....it would be nice for that to continue, and lets not forget the money they could make rebuilding Iraqs infrastructure.

Russia would also like to sell Iraq nuclear reactors.

China really doesnt have a lot to gain, but it is worried about US dominance.

France is an ethically vocal country, but only when it suits it.
Please dont even get me started on the EU

Oh yeah, dont expect UK support
Our foreign secretary said *open up to weapon inspectors or face the consequences*,
well, he's done that

Believe it or not, I mostly agree (90%) as well....and I rarely agree with you...or rather with how you present stuff.

Aaron

[Gryff]

Originally posted by Sketch
Believe it or not, I mostly agree (90%) as well....and I rarely agree with you...or rather with how you present stuff.

Aaron

Thats because most of the time my threads are ill considered rushed postings in the early hours of the morning




Thats my excuse anyway.

[talash]

Hi,

I agree with the views of the poster. Frankly, i do not understand a lot of international politics. But what i want to say:

Can we live in peace ?

I think this is most important.

Regards
Abhishek

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by Gryff
Right here goes, I'm sick of posting scraps of arguments here and there.

Firstly I think Saddam should be removed from power. He is a dictator, and has committed numerous human rights violations.

BUT I DISAGREE with US action.

This is because for the most part you are wishy washy and flippant. You want a perfect solution to an imperfect problem. Unfortunately yourself and many like you lack the foresight and the will to do anything about a problem until it is to late.

Originally posted by Gryff
Apparently to Americans, it’s not about oil, or gaining influence in the Middle East, it’s about removing an evil dictator.

Well that’s nice isn’t it

I utterly disagree.

People such as Kofi Anan, and Nelson Mandela criticize the US and here is why.

Firstly, why attack Iraq?
If you tell me its about oil and influence, I’ll nod and say yes that’s a good argument, if you tell me its to remove an evil dictator, then yes I will agree.

Its when the US hides its real motives that I suspect ulterior motives as well, that I have not even considered..

Come off it, Honestly show me one nation that does not act in it's own self-interest and I might indulge your finger pointing.

Originally posted by Gryff
If the US was so concerned about removing dictatorships and evil regimes they would have sorted out Myanmar, China, Libya, Zimbabwe to name but a few.

The only reason the US is acting is because these is an incentive to do so, and this is what appalls me and other people, especially when the US claims they are doing it in the name of peace.

Why does America not right all the wrongs of the world? Well im glad you asked. First off anytime we take action we have to hear from people like you. Always with the accusations of heavy handiness and ulterior motives. Never mind if out actions are justified or not we must accept criticism from the rest of the world for being capable of dealing with issues that the rest of the "civilized" world is either to inept or "moral" to address themselves.

Originally posted by Gryff
Additionally, the countries that oppose the US in the Security Council do so for their own reasons.

France opposes it because the reactor it supplied Iraq in the 80's that Israel bombed, well....it would be nice for that to continue, and lets not forget the money they could make rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure.

Russia would also like to sell Iraq nuclear reactors.

China really doesn’t have a lot to gain, but it is worried about US dominance.

France is an ethically vocal country, but only when it suits it.
Please don’t even get me started on the EU .

France, Don't even get me started. If it was not for the US they would all be speaking German. I am so sick of everyone trying to come down on the US for protecting its interest. Guess what boys and girls this is the REAL world and it is not always pretty. Your governments are no better.

[neil100]

Originally posted by Hellbent

Come off it, Honestly show me one nation that does not act in it's own self-interest and I might indulge your finger pointing.

Although every nation acts out of it's own self interests for at least some of the time, it appears that America acts more and more out of self interest (at least over the last few years) and that is prepared to go further than any other western country to fufil those aims. (although if you want a country that comes closet to not putting it's own interests above those of others try Denmark.)

Originally posted by Hellbent

Never mind if out actions are justified or not we must accept criticism from the rest of the world for being capable of dealing with issues that the rest of the "civilized" world is either to inept or "moral" to address themselves.

When it comes to being "inept" I agree the rest of the civilised world relies far too heavily on the US to provide the military means to sort out the various problems around the world, particularly Europe which seems to be fine with making decisions at the UN and then contributes virtually nothing in terms of the military to the actually of sorting out the problem.

Being "moral" can sometimes have bad effects, but if you are looking for examples of the bad it can do, then perhaps you should be looking closer to home. Your president would have the world believe everything he does is down to his "American and religous morals", he has the most overly-simplified idea of "good and evil" on the planet and if you are not with him, then you are against him. If it was really a case of a moral issue then there would be much more support for the US governments stance on Iraq, just like there was plenty of support from the rest of the world for the Gulf war.

Originally posted by Hellbent

France, Don't even get me started. If it was not for the US they would all be speaking German. I am so sick of everyone trying to come down on the US for protecting its interest. Guess what boys and girls this is the REAL world and it is not always pretty. Your governments are no better.

Possibly the French would be speaking German, or possibly less people would have died if the US had not carried on selling materials, goods etc to the Germans and Japanese for the first 18 months of the war, or possibly the French would of been speaking German if the Russians had not sent in more troops against the Nazis than the US, France and UK put together.

You seem to see nothing wrong with the US protecting it's own interests at any cost, fine while Europe seems not that bothered with it's military and Russia is in a state, the US can behave like it does. However perhaps you should take a look at China, while the US and EU economies have been stumbling along and Japans is in real trouble, China has enjoyed year upon year of heavy growth, now give it a few more years and China will join the US as an economic superpower, it's military is already huge and will only get larger as it's economy grows, now what happens if it takes the same view as America about the middle east, Korea etc and starts arming favoured countries to the teeth and seemingly wanting to occupy others for it's own reasons, do you think it will be good for the US to enter another era like the cold war again, accept this time against a country that has economic strength aswell as military.