Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

There has been a lot of talk about the UK being the US's lap-dog, Bush has now, by saying that he will go against the will of the UN if he feels it necessary, forced every country in the world to make a black and white decision. "Are you with us or against us?".......I think he will get quite a surprise how many are against him.

It's no secret that the world is not siding with us 100%. A lot of countries such as Saudi Arabia are playing both sides of the fence though.

It's your own countries decision as to whether they go to war with Iraq and stand by America. You have a choice - just like we have a choice in the matter. You have to take up your problems with your government if you think they are a bunch of lap dogs to the US. Sween obviously did - if he wrote a letter to Blair.

As has been stated repeatedly - our president reports to the American people, Congress reports to it's constiuents. The US is currently a member of the UN but we do not report to the UN. We went to them as the international community was screaming for - now we have to see what comes of it. Personally I don't think much will. When it all comes down to it - we may or may not support military action against Hussein.

Just because your country doesn't support it or understand America's stance - does not necessarily mean that we are wrong.

Looking at the foreign news sources - you hardly report all the discussion that is going on in the US concerning the possiblity with war on Iraq. I have noticed that the only thing that your news agencies report are the things that already support the general concensus. Until recently you basically left out Congress's role in the decision. People complain that America has very one sided reporting - but I have noticed it more with the reports coming out of international news agencies.

The feeling out here is different than what it is in England. My cousin the other day told me he has been considering dropping out of college to JOIN the army.

[Cirdan]

The war discussion here in the US is very similar to the culture in Germany before WWI. THey so whipped themselves up about the threat to the nation that they ended up attacking France despite having invaded them last in 1870. The events in Serbia were but a spark to the powderkeg that already existed. Other parallels are interesting. Germany was a relatively new nation, having cast off the last invader in the form of Napoleon. There was a war to unify the country. Despite being the largest country in population (of industrial nations) , industrial output, and military strenth, they still felt the world was against them. Sound familiar.

The question of Iraqi oil is more than imports and exports. With the second largest reserves of oil, control of Iraqi oil would mean control of world supply and pricing. The US could break the back of OPEC. Hmmmm.... maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The war discussion here in the US is very similar to the culture in Germany before WWI. THey so whipped themselves up about the threat to the nation that they ended up attacking France despite having invaded them last in 1870. The events in Serbia were but a spark to the powderkeg that already existed. Other parallels are interesting. Germany was a relatively new nation, having cast off the last invader in the form of Napoleon. There was a war to unify the country. Despite being the largest country in population (of industrial nations) , industrial output, and military strenth, they still felt the world was against them. Sound familiar.

I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

Support for Iraq Attack Drops

In this latest poll, 61 percent of Americans support attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. That's eased a bit from 68 percent after Bush addressed the United Nations on Sept. 12, but it's still up from late August.

That support remains conditional. As has been the case for months, support for attacking Iraq is substantially lower — 46 percent in this poll — if U.S. allies are opposed. Support consistently has been lower still if ousting Saddam required a high-casualty ground war.

At the same time, support for attacking Iraq grows, to 77 percent, if Baghdad admits but then interferes with U.N. weapons inspectors. And Americans overwhelmingly (79 percent) believe that Iraq in fact does not intend to cooperate with those inspectors. Indeed, antipathy toward Saddam is so broad that two-thirds say the United States should continue to try to oust him even if he does cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors.

The recent political sniping on Iraq is informed by election politics. Iraq and terrorism are two issues of prime importance to voters in the November midterm election, sharing the top tier with the economy and jobs, education and health care. And just as dealing with terrorism has been the wellspring of Bush's support the last year, so it is with his party more broadly.

The question of Iraqi oil is more than imports and exports. With the second largest reserves of oil, control of Iraqi oil would mean control of world supply and pricing. The US could break the back of OPEC. Hmmmm.... maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

Spoils of War
In Iraq War, to the Victor Goes the Oil

Oct. 4 — Saddam Hussein is sitting on a gold mine — the second-largest oil reserve in the world — and everyone wants a piece of it.

Of all of the reasons offered for removing Saddam, from terrorism to terrible weapons, oil is seldom mentioned. Yet critical to the American agenda is the fear an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons could dominated, or hold hostage a region through which flows an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil and natural gas.

Inspector Intimidation
Former Iraq Inspectors Recall Tough Task That Could Get Tougher

The United Nations told the Iraqis that, as hosts, they were responsible for the inspectors' safety and had to follow rules: U.N. inspectors could go wherever they pleased, examine any documents, inspect facilities and take pictures.

But Terry Taylor, another former inspector, said the rules didn't always matter in Iraq, and, "sometimes things got a bit confrontational."

If the Iraqis broke the rules and barred inspectors from a site, the chief inspector had a satellite phone and could, on the spot, call U.N. headquarters in New York and inform the Security Council. The council, theoretically, could order U.N. troops to use force, maybe even bomb a building.

More likely, the council would threaten to prolong the economic sanctions against Iraq, which usually prompted the Iraqis to give in. But Iraq would resist and stall and spy constantly on the inspectors, trying to figure out their next move.

[Sween]

Iraq would not stand a chance against scunny united we've got steve 'im not very violent' torpy.

[Erawyn]

and worry about ourselves for a change.

like the US does anything else?

We should just stop babysitting other countries. Why should you look to us to make everything right? Why should our tax dollars go to constantly helping the world out of it's problems. Many of these problems occurred way before we had any role in world affairs anyway. It's not our responsibilty to fix the world. Let the countries that constantly complain about the way America does things get off their fat a$$es and do something for a change.

Being the most powerful country in the world, and the cause of many world problems, isn't it the responsibility of the US to be a positive force in the world? IF you can help other countries why shouldn't you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
like the US does anything else?

That's a completely ignorant comment.

Being the most powerful country in the world, and the cause of many world problems, isn't it the responsibility of the US to be a positive force in the world? IF you can help other countries why shouldn't you?

Most of the problems that the US deals with are problems that were brought about by Europe's colonialism. They caused the problems in Africa, Kashmir, Iraq, Israel and Palestine far more than the US did. They occupied these areas, controlled them, created these countries and then left. We're here trying to clean up the mess they left.

Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others? Europe relies on us for support and military action when they need it - just look at how we had to get involved in Bosnia after they requested our help because they couldn't handle it. Europe relies us as all their tax dollars go to help their own people. Europe can do a lot more to help the world than it does instead of constantly whining about the US. But they won't because it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]That's a completely ignorant comment.

Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others? Europe relies on us for support and military action when they need it - just look at how we had to get involved in Bosnia after they requested our help because they couldn't handle it. Europe relies us as all their tax dollars go to help their own people. Europe can do a lot more to help the world than it does instead of constantly whining about the US. But they won't because it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems.

Oh no what an argueement oh we should stop our 'socialized' or as i like to call them free to all public services and our well fare systems and spend all our money going after some pathetic little iraqui dictator.

No offence but the american people are more than happy to play the part as world leaders as is your government so dont begrudge us for asking you to play your role.

But are you that strong my mate told me a funny story about american troops that he was training with they were out on menovers and sudenlly it started to rain so all the brits got there wet weather gear out but the americans all went bk to camp the english asked why and got the responce 'we dont train in the rain' lmao .

The british forces are still regarded as the best trained if not that numeriable in size god bless the queen.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just because your country doesn't support it or understand America's stance - does not necessarily mean that we are wrong.

I'm sorry, but at this given moment in time there is not enough evidence on Hussein to justify a war: there has been no physical sightings of anything that might in anyway be construed as "war machines" or WMD. Since when has America waged an unprovoked war? (No, don't answer that. ) If it comes to pass that the US goes ahead with the war anyway, then it will drastically change the light which America is viewed in. America got roped into WWI because Germany was trying to join forces with Mexico. The threat of an attack on home soil was enough to shue them in. WWII was Pearl harbour - again, an attack. The messy relations of Central America aside, the US has seldom waged an unprovoked war. I hope to the god I don't believe in that this does not change.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

hmmm......Congress voted in favour of Bush by a much bigger percentage than that .....when Congress reports directly to it's people is it going to report that it blatantly ignored public opinion regarding an attack on Iraq?

As I said in my initial post THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ATTACK

JD I totally agree, letting the colonies obtain independence is probably the worst move Europe made......all I ask is that America prove us wrong ............ you also seem to think of Europe as a single country when in fact it consists of independant countries working as a coalition

[Khamûl]

My view on it is that if we did go to war, it would be an act of prevention. Do we attack now or wait 5 years until he has nukes? And when (notice I said when, not if) he gets nukes, what's to keep him from selling them to some extremist terrorist organization to use in an attack that would be 100x worse than September 11? However, I think that we should try the UN first and see if they let inspectors in with unrestricted access.

[osszie]

Saddam is not so much willing to actively use nukes as he is to use the threat of them to control trade of his oil reserves, this would make him so powerful, he could actually be capable of his threats........he would use the nukes as a deterrent against an attack on his country.......

Of course that is just one POV.........if we had proof that he DOES have weapons of mass destruction then of course he should be stopped............he is of course mad as a kipper

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Khamûl
My view on it is that if we did go to war, it would be an act of prevention.

Oh yes, and how far do we want to take this?

I say again: this is unjustified. Since when has prevention been a good excuse for a war? Especially since we don't actually know if Saddam has the capabilities to actually get hold of nukes.

What about Iran? They have frickin' silos. Why is no one worrying about them? What next? India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Oh yes, and how far do we want to take this?

I say again: this is unjustified. Since when has prevention been a good excuse for a war? Especially since we don't actually know if Saddam has the capabilities to actually get hold of nukes.

Well a lot of people argue that a preemptive strike against Hilter would have been justified. How many nukes or technology should we permit Hussein before it becomes "acceptable" to attack him?

What about Iran? They have frickin' silos. Why is no one worrying about them? What next? India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?

Iran, India and Pakistan aren't on the same level as Iraq at the moment. India isn't supporting terrorist against America and Pakistan is currently allied with us in the fight against terrorism. Iran has a moderate ruler right now. All this of course can change. If any of the hardliners take control of the government in Pakistan or Iran - then that is an issue.

Osszie - it seems again you don't understand how our government works. Each state has two representatives in the Senate, the House is based on population of each state. Each Representative in the House represents a particular district within THEIR state. You can't really look at the national polls and compare percentages of voters who support or don't support a partular item with the percentage of Congressmen that did or didn't. The only representatives I or any New Jerseyan can worry about are the ones that represent the state of New Jersey. Since it is midterm elections right now - it would be suicide for a lot of congressman not to be supporting what THEIR constituents want. Congress does not support the country as a whole - but are the states representatives to the federal government. These are the elected officials I have to worry about (not including local) - New Jersey Elected Officials . Hobbit and BMilder have a different representatvie in the House than I do because they're in a different district.

Also - I do not think that Europe is one country. If you want though from now on I'll paste all the countries in my posts that make up Europe. Of course I'll have to then seperate out which ones are supporting us, which ones are on the sidelines and which ones are against the war all together, otherwise I'll hear about that. I'll do it and you list the feelings and political leanings of all 50 states in your posts when you talk about the US. Because believe me - where California and Oregon stand on the issue is a lot different than where the midwest stands or the northeast.

No offence but the american people are more than happy to play the part as world leaders as is your government so dont begrudge us for asking you to play your role.

Well then don't complain about it - because the fact remains we voted in our elected officials and only we can vote them out. If you want to leave the governing of the world to the US - then just leave it to us. As I've stated before though - I think we should get out of the UN, remove our troops from Bosnia and all other places around the world and stop giving so much aid. If your unhappy with how we handle things then tell your governments to take a more active role. But as I said - in order to do that you'll have to move a lot of money out of your welfare programs to support it.

[Erawyn]

India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?

good point!

Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others?

Because there is no reason not to if you can! Or the US could just leave everyone alone instead of barging in the with army at the slightest hint of trouble!

it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems

Which are great things, that make the living standards in european countries (and canada) so high!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn

Which are great things, that make the living standards in european countries (and canada) so high!

As if we don't have high living standards? All Canada's good doctors move to the US and the hall ways of your hospitals are filling up. But we've gone over that before. By the way my friend in Canada who is studying to be a nurse now interns in a hospital.

Because there is no reason not to if you can!

The same goes for Canada. Instead obviously you only look at your own needs so you can supply YOUR country with high living standards.

[osszie]

Ty for that brief lesson in American politics JD.
Let me see if I've got this straight.

The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) ............. I have been under the mishaprehension that the States worked together to act as a country, obviously I was wrong.

Still it cannot be all bad at least they counted INDIVIDUAL votes at the last election.

JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.

Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well a lot of people argue that a preemptive strike against Hilter would have been justified. How many nukes or technology should we permit Hussein before it becomes "acceptable" to attack him?

It has been said before, but I'll say it again: there is no comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Why? Because there has been no evidence that Hussein is prepared to wage war with America. With Hitler there were at least indicators that he was up to no good.... Poland, anyone?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Ty for that brief lesson in American politics JD.
Let me see if I've got this straight.

The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) ............. I have been under the mishaprehension that the States worked together to act as a country, obviously I was wrong.

The president DOESN'T have autonomous power in terms of the military. Although the president has always been Commander in Chief. The only thing Congress has given him is the rigth to act when it comes to Iraq. Not unilateral control around the world or at home.

The representatives of the states represent the interests of their respective states in the federal government. We do work as a country, but we also have strong state rights. The federal government was ORIGINALLY set up with very very limited powers and the majority of power rested with the states. That has been changing and I think it is not a good thing. I am for state rights. What is good for California is not necessarily good for New Jersey. Also it was recently reported that New Jersey pays to the federal government $2,000 for every $1 we get back - yet a midwestern/mountain state (which I can't remember right now) pays $1 for every $1500 it gets.

Still it cannot be all bad at least they counted INDIVIDUAL votes at the last election.

The last election was determined by the supreme court based on the electoral college and the existing hand count of Florida ballots. The constitution calls for an electoral college and each state has it's own laws regarding when that STATE'S votes need to be hand counted. There is no way that all the votes can be individually counted and not use the electorial college unless Congress passes, by a 2/3 majority vote to change the Constituion, then it goes to the states and 2/3 of them most agree.

[quote][b]
JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.
[b][quote]
We're the most powerful country in the world because the European countries, including England, lost their power after WWII.

Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?

Ask yourself where you would be if you imposed trade sanctions on the US. Most of your goods go to US consumers. Look at how the strike in the Pacific docks was having an affect around the world. Europe couldn't afford it anymore than the US could. It would like cutting off your hand beca

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It has been said before, but I'll say it again: there is no comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Why? Because there has been no evidence that Hussein is prepared to wage war with America. With Hitler there were at least indicators that he was up to no good.... Poland, anyone?

So we need Hussein to invade a country again before we do anything? Hitler COULD have been stopped way before Poland - except no one really cared and Hitler kept assuring everyone he wasn't doing anything. Of course he made back room deals with the Soviet Union to share Poland. If Europe had done something - millions of people's lives could have been saved and that's just counting his own German citizens that he executed in his concentration camps.

[webwizard333]

JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.

I was under the impression that what he was saying, that if the rest of the world didn't like it, they would have to take a more active role themselves.

Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?

<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.