Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

A war against Iraq?

(Page 14 of 18)
> > > >
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
War And Finances: In any war once started the victory is governed by many factors one of them being financial pumping. Humanitarian Aid is a part of it and that's one of the reasons why we are "Human Beings" and not Animals. It's not personal opinion but a global one I believe. In case you would like to agree then take a case where nothing is put in Humanitarian Aid then more and more of people like "Jordanian Expert" who was interviewed on BBC from Jordan who would be uttering statements like quote unquote "Nazism Of Bush And Blair" That was aired by BBC (as i saw few hours back) and not me. In addition, the possibility switch over of local mass (which is not coming as expected by the administrations) would have been impossible and more of Mosul type of challenges.

While on Anger: Camp David Summit. PM is interested in getting UN involvement soon. A reason could be Anger or frustration in which UN and Security council impase lead to this war would normally prevent Bush from Agreeing to it.

Saddam is bad. But the lethal WMD was not handed over to Lebanon extremists when there was contact with them. And you may not like but during 1980's these WMD were shipped by US to Saddam (when he was enjoying the Blue Eyed Boy status) to fight Iran.

If he hands over nukes to OBL (which is a laughable proposition) then Saddam would be the first to be bombed by OBL.

The Indonesians are not taking the war nicely...The moderate Muslim Leader there again on air on BBC has said statements which again may not be welcomed but it was something more worse than the Jordinanian Expert,.. again aired on BBC.

Quote:
it seems quite contradictory that they would spend so much money and time into precision bombing and humanitarian aid.
When it hits the target it is "Precision Bombing" and when it doesn't it was Iraqi Mis-hit. At least that's how the Baghdad market place is being expressed by Western Media. There are mishits in every war but it would be brave to accept the same. Actually the worry is that this mishit is raising sentiments against the attacks from within Iraqi's (who may be dubbed as "Republican Army" in civilian clothes.

Quote:
I'm afraid your argument is severely flawed.

I am sure it is not

Quote:
I'm sure we could debate the motives and consequences all day, but until you can see things objectively

Actually for all those against war (in general and not particularly this one) would always be thought of seeing it with bias by "Advocates Of War" ...that's how a debate starts isn't it?

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 27, 2003, 7:30 AM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
I am against Perversion of "Sovereignity And Integrity" of any Independent Nation whether it is by War, Terrorism or any other means which indicates that "Anger" has taken precedence over "Common Sense". In the present context since Perversion is through WAR I am against WAR. In Kashmir Perversion is through Mercenaries from Sudan, Afghan Terrorists And Pakistan sponsored by ISI of Pakistan and so I am against "Terrorism" Even in "Animal Kingdom" the animals maintain the respect for "Territorial" inetgrity and you rarely find the "Boss" of one territory trying to enforce their "Authority" over the Other's Territory. And I think Humans are Superior than Animals and so we should always maintain that Superiority through actions.


I get it, double standards are nothing new. And the colors really help sell your argument.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
double standards are nothing new

All along I had been waiting for these phrase "double standards" to come up which has been imbibed so deeply into US policy. And to say the least, i did not have wait for long :=)

It sees Saddam as a terrorist. But it sees Musharraf as a freind who is spreading terrorism thru Sudanese and Talibaan terrorists in Kashmir which Pakistan Govt says will keep on Supporting Morally.

It sees North Korea as a Threat and wants to disarm it of nukes but when it comes to Israel US says that it has right to Self Defense so the Hushed up silence of Israel WMD possessions. India does it and they Slam sanctions (with least effect).

It wants end of dictatorship but does not have the list of other nations where dictators are enjoying the proceeds of dictatorship (there are quite a few).

Since all the above are factual facts, the question is why this discrimination. What are the driving forces for this discrimination? Racial or Interests of Teritorial Presence?

And the problem of the whole show is wherever the mission was elimination/ beheading it did not meet with great success (cf Gaddafi/ossama bin laden to name a few who did not meet with the conclusive end which US would have wanted.)

I am sorry to say....This Doctrine Of Double Standards is not what we practise. It is deeply entrenched in US policy comfortably cloaked by US doctrine of Peace when the mission of Expansion is Launched under "Pious Liberation Of Human Race" bandwagon......

Hope that it is clear....

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 27, 2003, 8:07 AM
 
Re: [oilrights] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
The point is simple. Blood for oil, Blood for money at the cost of Iraqis and other countries....


Hey that's a catchy slogan, "blood for oil" you should use that.

Oil is a strategic asset of Saddam's regime. We've taken that asset from him. He cannot use it to fund his regime and he cannot use it as a weapon, i.e., dumping it into the Gulf or setting thousands of well heads on fire.

Now that we've secured the southern and northern oil fields, by your slogan our war objective has been achieved. Declare victory and start dancing in the streets. But wait, we have the oil - and the war continues...hmmm.

When Iraqi crude oil begins to flow again and production capacity has been restored, what happens to the market? We know the price per barrel will drop and the market will be stable, and there will be excess supply.

You'd think if this was simply about oil companies making money, we'd destroy the Iraqi oil fields to drive up market prices. Instead we'll spend millions, perhaps billions, to modernize the Iraqi petroleum industry and then become its best customer.

And under the old Oil for Food program, we still bought Iraqi oil.

But if this is a war for oil, who is the benefactor? American petroleum companies? Low market prices are not beneficial for the petroleum industry. A few contracts to modernize the Iraqi oil fields? That's pretty short term and in dollar terms, small potatoes.

Maybe we just need better anti-war slogans.
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Hope that it is clear....


You're motivations are exceedingly clear.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I was meaning the "Double Standards" part which you thrust upon my observations and point of views. The perpetrators of Double Standards i meant....

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I understand you completely.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Instead we'll spend millions, perhaps billions, to modernize the Iraqi petroleum industry and then become its best customer.

Who all are included in this "WE" ?

If I have interpreted this correctly (as my understanding of english has British colour), either it is only US or at best the "Wilful Coalition" fighting the war.

So in either case, does it not testify the fact that Indeed for "Oil" that this War is being fought??
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
You have not interpreted it correctly.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
But if this is a war for oil, who is the benefactor? American petroleum companies?

Could be that the interpretation was wrong as it was based on the above portion of the message.

So who all are included in that "WE" ...

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
We're too busy looking over the Iraqi oil fields to see which advanced technology we can steal to tell you who we are.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Stumped! Carry on

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hehe I've been out and played 9 holes of golf and you are still rambling =0)
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hey I enjoyed your humorous version of Viktor Belenko's defection, forgive me if I entertain myself by refering to it again.
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hmm Will have to re-read "Games People Play" by Dr Thomas Harris Interesting analysis of various games there

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I expect is says golfers are good looking, intelligent, rich..
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
I expect is says golfers are good looking, intelligent, rich..
No only the good ones.

Bob

http://totallyfreeads.com.au
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Good job I fall under that bracket then.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Shocked look let the company paid the iraqis,by hiring them and teaching the the tradeAngelic

GOD BLESS

our arm

forces
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
Quote:
There must be Russian companies that could provide these services because of the vast number of oil wells that they have developed in Russia. If not the Russians, how about the Canadians


The Russians back Saddam's regime. The Canadians are not participants in the coalition. I doubt a non-coalition country would allow a private company to operate in Iraq. Nor should anyone expect the coalition, which is controlling a war zone, to allow a non-coalition based company in.

Perhaps if there was a NGO that did such work, but to my knowledge one does not exist?

As to death counts. You cannot make such estimations based on guesswork. Many Iraqis will die, those who do not capitulate will die. That is war.

So to will many die at the hand of fellow Iraqis. In Basra the Baath party troops turned their mortars on their own citizens. We have heard reports of Fedayeen dressed in US style uniforms, attempting to accept the surrender of other Iraqi units in this guise and then shooting them. Iraqi units using the pretext of surrender to stage counter attacks.

Iraq's regime has long used human hostages around their sensitive sites. They have also positioned military equipment next to mosques, ancient antiquity, and amongst civilian populations. Some of their units operate in civilian attire and drive civilian vehicles.

They know our soldiers will do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. So they will conduct combat operations from this shield while the world media reports how horrific and inhumane the coalition militaries are.


- p.s. To claim this is a war due to pressure from campaign contributors is not really worthy of discussion.
 
Re: [Godblsthmarmen] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Did your reply get cut off?
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Paul,

Meant to tell you that I've caught several of the UK briefings replayed here. General Mike Jackson really stuck it to some of your local media in the MoD briefing, which was very enjoyable to watch. And Air Marshall Burridge briefing out of Kuwait is especially good.

As for those bastards who executed your POWs, and ours, their time is at hand.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I didn't see the Mike Jackson briefing - was that today?

I saw the Tom Franks one earlier - well part of it.
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Friday I believe.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Interesting...all the news channels were reporting a live address to the Iraqi nation by Saddam at 6pm our time....so I tune it at 6pm eager to see what state he's in (physically) .....surprise surprise....he never appeared and his side-kick gave the address.

Last edited by:

Paul: Apr 1, 2003, 9:34 AM
> > > >