And now it has begun...

GOG

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html


The real reson behind this war.

"and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people may freely determine their own political future."

Please read that line and tell me what's wrong with it. The person who said this must be either insane or high, "conditions" and "freely" in the same sentence. How about letting them choose right now?

What really pisses me off is that Solana in Spain, he can't even keep terrorism out of his own country (or maybe CIA has provided him some proof of links between ETA-Hussein-Al-Qaida, LOL). He saw his chance to boost up the spanish economy with some cheap oil and fat construction contracts, all paid by the Iraqi people. First you trash their country, now you're gonna set the price-tag for the rebuilding yourself, damn fascists...

Vampyromaniac

The word "conditions" has more than one meaning.
One meaning is similar to "rules" or "terms"
Another is similar to "environment"
Read in context, it seems to mean "environment" there.

JavaFox

Sounds like a logical statement to me. Iraq is a country in which peace did not exist, and democratic institutions did not exist. Anything with a rudimental knowledge of political science knows you can't just impose an alien system of governance on a nation and expect it to take shape by itself. Iraq is a contry in which democracy has never existed. You can't make democracy work there without buidling it. Self-determination, then, will come when the conditions are right -- that is, when democracy can take hold. Otherwise, it is an exercise in futility.

GOG

An environment gaining what, the US government or the voters in Iraq? Do you really think that the USA will let a islamistic fundamentalist stay in power if he gets elected? NO! I don't think they even will allow him to participate.

GOG

Why? It worked perfectly in your country...

Falstaff

Gog.......sigh
your response Javafox...
did you sincerely mean that democracy in our country is a futile exercise?
or that democracy was imposed on everyone here during it's inception over 200 years ago..
democracy is shaped by the people that embrace it...
what I mean is, a theocracy or democracy might work in IRAQ...in time...but the will of the people in a controlled way, could actually elect someone that might make a difference..
Our own country went through some teething and struggles as well...it was easy...freedom isn't free...
or were you being inciteful..?

bluelight

Actually.......im more worried that Usa will loose interest in Iraq very soon.his is morte likely than that they will styay there forever.

They have lost all interst in Afghanistan and the same thing will happan in Iraq .

AS the situation is....leaving Iraq would be one of the dumbest things ever.....



Bluelight

GOG

Actually Blue, I had the UN in mind here. An organization without hidden motives.

Falstaff

The united nations or any other organization with economic and military power must have an agenda that is not revealed to the public. It would cease to be effective without some secrecy. I cannot imagine the United Nations preparing and performing any act of intervention or assistance without the knowlege that what occurs can adversely affect economies, political regimes and prosecute criminals within the scope of a police action...but then I am thinking of the Korean war..

SH4President

It's revealed to all the member states in the UN, that's a hell of a difference compared to what's going on in your Senate.

bluelight

The UN is a blown alternative now.We best get used to that the UN has been made a "non organisation" by Usa.

The UN has no point at all as things are right now and it will not have so until Usa gets a democratic government.


The one and single use the UN will have is to gather money for food etc etc catastrophes.

The way to conduct the world...has been taken over by the Bush government.

Tjhey actually rule the political development globally right now.


As i said ..i fear that the "brains" in this government will hurry off to new adventures soon.
First off is next election of president which they will likeley win...after that we will see new action .

But Iraq ..Afghanistan...the "brains" will soon loose interest as they have done so many times before.

This is of course not very good....ripping a tree up from the soil without replanting it is never a good idea.

And...it will hit back on them one day ...as every other time....and this way this will continue repeating itself.....until the planet is destroyed.
Bluelight

JavaFox

Okay, I'm sorry, but are you serious? You honestly believe this?

You think France's extensive oil contracts with the Hussein government had nothing to do with their opposition to the war in Iraq?

Or the fact that Russia was owed billions by Saddam?

Or the fact that officials in Germany said they opposed the war because it would damage their economy? And isn't it interesting that, along with France, Germany was promised access to Iraqi oil as soon as sanctions were lifted?

None of those things factored into the thinking of those anti-war countries? Give me a break. What a monumental coincidence indeed, that the countries most opposed to war stood to gain the most from its delay!

Such alturism!

Answer me this, GOG. Where was the alturistic UN in Somalia? Why didn't they want to do anything in Kosovo? Did they bring peace to the Congo? Did they save the Rwandans? Don't reply with a "Well, where was the US?" because that's not the point we're arguing here. My question is this: if the UN is so concerned with human suffering and justice, where were they in those situations? Why didn't they want to help people in Kosovo?

It is absolutely astonishing to me that nobody sees that the UN has very deep problems.

GOG

Stop whining about the vetos, you've done exactly the same thing the last 35 years. The only difference is that no-one took the problems in their own hands as you did.


When it comes to the UN I can only agree, it's far from perfect, we should start with taking away your and the other hypocrits right to use vetos. But in THIS case the UN can do what they are supposed to. As I see it now, your country will be using Iraq as a nice source of natural resources for as long as you can. Sure, you can probably insert a government that will follow you and provide some human rights. But what happens the day you leave? Then some other maniac will see his chance and take control and Iraq is back at square one. Another good reason is that the US is not capable of peace keeping missions, if it has to do with your mentality or not I don't know. Please tell me of ONE peace keeping mission you have been involved with where you have not either turned it into a bloodbath with civilian casualties or where you have simply left because of own casualties. You can't force peace to a people that in fact hate you.


The last and biggest reason to let the UN handle this is that it will prevent your government to steal something that doesn't belong to them. I've read that your President has promised Russia that they can reclaim the debts owed to them by Iraq if they support the US-plan. This man is holding an auction with stuff that doesn't belong to him. In any normal society this behavior is known as "thieving", but apparently not in yours.

Falstaff

what auction are you referring to?

do you have a link or url, I can't find anything on the web..

GOG

I couldn't find the one I was refering to, but this one explains the same thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Nov21.html

"We understand that Russia has got interests there, as do other countries." "And of course those interests will be honored."

I don't know what's the worst thing with this, the fact that this was said before the war or the fact that he's promising other countries things that doesn't belong to him in the first place. Wonder why Russia got so pissed and threw in a veto, maybe your President decided to keep it all for himself?

But none of this surprises me, a country capable of having children enprisoned in concentration camps, this is nothing.

Falstaff

but the chinese nuetrality was sought as well, because they are interested in cheap IRAQI oil too..

bluelight

Time to set things straigh again ...i hear.....What was that about France??



Those.......arguments are really reallly starting to become ......pathetic









Bluelight

mike2h

who is going to fund the un & provide the military support.

mike2h

that was a 9 yr old mistake. the french issue is now. do al you guys really beleve that if your countries had the same economical/miilitary/political power that we(us) does you would not be using it? evey country/nation on this planet uses & abuses whatever power they have to the best of their abilities.

mike2h

not all of that is directed specifally at you. sorry about that

The_Neon_Cowboy

dude it would be easy to say all the members have thier own motioves thust the orginization has it own motives... kinda like france with thier garenteed uncondital veto agenst millitary action in iraq

The_Neon_Cowboy

thats easy ... funding it It should be france, russia, seria, china, germany

and nato forces ...........

mike2h