this'll probably turn to mud slinging very quickly, but I hope we can get some rational discussion. Several people (including Conin Powel & Tony Blaire) insisting that chemical weapons would be found. Now that they still haven't turned up I was wondering if peoples views had changed.
I don't think that the
eedle in a haystack argument holds water, because before they attacked the US presented the UN with proof that there was chemical weapons factories, trucks & depots. Surely if they could photograph them from satalites then then they can locate them now that they have complete control of the country & the support of some of the population.
Also, with raw sewage running in the streets, 40% of Baghdad without clean water & electricity, disease and malnutrition spreading like wildfire, is the US & the UK doing enough to repare the damage that they cause in the overthrow. The US & the UK forces look increasingly like occupying forces the longer they stay, but they at the same time don't seem able to make Baghdad a safe place to live now that the old police regeme is gone.
I have no doubt that Iraq will be a nicer place to live once things start to get better rather than worse, but there is the question now about who will pay to repair Iraq. After the contracts have gone to US firms for the rebuilding there are now calls to make Iraq pay for the repairs using their oil reserves. Do people think this is right?
Who should control the elections in Iraq? If the US does then they will look more like they are dictating Iraq's future as conqerors, especially as they are already banning certain movements.
Rational converstaion would be appreciated
Jon
I have always felt that there is but one weapon. Man. The toys he invents to kill with are just sharp edges and noise makers. The mind of humans is the problem and do ALL THE DESTRUCTION. I get into arguments all the time with people obsessed with gun control. People are the problem, not any weapon... be it a nuke or a knife.
I would trust mother Teresa with a thousand nuclear bombs and a hair trigger attached. I wouldn't trust a brutal communist dictator (Sadaam) with a toilet plunger. I guess the fact that we eliminated a "weapon of mass destruction" in the form of a mind that HAS used all his toys doesn't count? Or does it? This discussion will be doomed unless the real weapons (minds) are allowed into it.
I will be interested to see if the removal of Sadaam is as important as the political "points" each side claims on this thread. My vote is that we got the WMD we needed to get, ie, Sadaam. Next... My vote is for North Korean Communist president Kim Yng Il (young kim, the eel) Mike
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think the Americans should pay for the destruction in Iraq. Who payed for stuff in Germany after WW2. The Allies and they have the money to rebuild a country again. It's not the Iraqis fault their country has been attacked.
After the contracts have gone to US firms for the rebuilding there are now calls to make Iraq pay for the repairs using their oil reserves. Do people think this is right?
Who should control the elections in Iraq? If the US does then they will look more like they are dictating Iraq's future as conqerors, especially as they are already banning certain movements.
Rational converstaion would be appreciated
Jon
The Iraqis should hold their own elections. One of the points of this war was to free Iraq. You can't do this by banning Iraqi movements. If the Iraqis elect someone the U.S is not too keen on they can't just say "Sorry guys wrong choice". The Americans should only get involved if the Iraqis elect another nutter like Saddam.
Why should America be the only country to pay for damages?...did not British tanks and aircraft create damage?...besides the U.S. and UK paid to liberate the ungrateful Ba$tard$ with shed blood!...use Iraqi oil money to help rebuild a country that will resemble Iran soon. Let the mullahs run the country as they see fit...let it go down the toilet before anymore Americans or Brits lose their lives...and as it goes down the toilet, let it latch onto Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, Somolia, Sudan, Pakistan and any other country that harbors Al Qaeda and take them with it!!🙄
I still hold to my analogy before hand. We (the US) are still the modern version of the Roman empire. This war was never about helping the people of Iraq. We will do what we feel is in our interests and only permit what is in our interest (by we, I mean the US government). We will continue to do so unless something stops us. Citizens like me will continue to be ignored. The US populace will continue to lose their right piece by piece. The snowball is still rolling down hill, and wether or not we can still stop it does not matter because too many are still believing what they want and not the evidence as it presents itself.
I feel my country is headed for dark times, and sadly I think it is not unjust. Too many of my people follow the propaganda as though it were the work of God, and as such we our destroying ourselves from within. 🙁
The origional reason for invading Iraq was to prevent them using WMD's. If they don't have any then this was either a lie used to attempt to gain legality over the invasion of Iraq or a intelegence error. Whether there are WMD's or not doesn't in my eyes matter so much as that the US either lied to the world in order to do what it wanted or it acted rashly without checking out it's "proof".
Am I right in saying that you believe that the Western nations have an obligation to overthrow "brutal" regemes? Do they have a right to do so, legal and moral? This may be a valid point, but it would require clarification, such as what constitutes a brutal regeme and what body decides who needs to be removed & who doesn't? I would hope that the decision making pprocess could be more broadly controlled than just the US.
Would you elaborate your thoughts?
Originally posted by orkyboyI think I'd have to agree that any government that sent an army to fight in GW2 should be a part of paying for the damages caused by it(when I said US before it was as an abreviation for allied forces - sorry, I shouldn't do that). How the responsability should be shared is a different matter (based on size of country? GDP of country? proportional size of army sent???)
Because they dragged us into the war. The very few of the public wanted us to go to war but the U.S pushed us into it. 😠
The question of repairs does go deaper though, in that Iraq wasn't exactly in best repair before the war. Should the west be involved in improving the situation to beyond the state it was in before the war? How much of the disrepair is due to sanctions applied by the UN (US included)? Should we now be looking to bring Iraq to a "higher" standard of living, by western investment?
One reason to put more money into Iraq is that I can't think of any better way to improve Middle East to Western relations than to show them that life in Iraq really has improved since the west got involved. Show them that we really are interested in helping them, not just taking their assets.
Originally posted by belgianfreakif you were refering to me then you'd be half right. the answer "no, but" comes to mind, while western countries do not have the rite or are obliged to overthrow "brutal regimes", a brutal regime does not have the right to make its people suffer needlessly.
Am I right in saying that you believe that the Western nations have an obligation to overthrow "brutal" regemes? Do they have a right to do so, legal and moral? This may be a valid point, but it would require clarification, such as what constitutes a brutal regeme and what body decides who needs to be removed & who doesn't? I would hope that the de ...[text shortened]... ocess could be more broadly controlled than just the US.
Would you elaborate your thoughts?
as for who dicides, that doesnt matter, the US has shown that "world superpowers" will do what they please regardless of others.
that said
thank god its all over, time to build a new "free" Iraq.
but i still wonder who's next?
Originally posted by CrowleyThat's what we have now. The security council passed many, many resolutions stating that if Iraq didn't disarm they would face "grave consequences". They didn't. They got the grave consequences. Please note that the votes were all unanimous from all the security council members on 18 separate resolutions going back to 1991. Didn't have any effect on, or consequences for Iraq. What makes you think there would be any for the USA under the same situation?
What if the UN had a set of rules (or resolutions) that automatically enforces worldwide sanctions on a country that invades another, if that country did not go through the correct procedures and got UN support.
However... I think you meant "from now on, if the us invades, the un clobbers them economically"?... if so then cool. That's one way to put an end to the United Nitwits... aka United Nations. It wouldn't be missed in the least. The biggest problem for the US would be chasing the buggers out of New York before they looted all the remaining fixtures from the lu lu's. (30 thousand dollars worth stolen last year alone). We might have to chase them away using 50 grade school kids on trikes. Or 10 high school kids with paint ball guns. The UN is just so powerful and frightening, we might have to use up to 100 gradeschoolers!😠
I must agree that to the best of my perception the UN has been a lot of talk and no action. Nonetheless, I am curious as to what assets really are at their disposal. Perhaps one of our great data finders here will produce some stats. 😉
The issue about the status of "rebuilding" Iraq hits close to home for me and some reasons why I didn't want the war to happen. The US is far from being in a financial surplus at the moment (FAR from it), and as such I really wonder just how much aid we think we can give. Now, don't get me wrong, I think we could greatly increase Iraqs standard of living as it were, but I really think we charged into this war with an attitude of "damn the bills, we need to do it". As of late I have been hearing about Bush promising to create atleast one million new jobs this year. I truly wonder how he plans to accomplish this in a government whose spending is much more than its financial resources and is now responsible for the rebuilding of another country. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but in my opinion he's just blowing smoke up our @$$ again (please note the "again", as in "just how many times now?"😉 😛