| Author |
The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Sammy-boy this video clip in question is not of some anti-american or g.bush.this clip released by the pentagon is one of many that CNN,FOX NEWS and other respectable news channels have obtained and make no mistake are 110% genuine whether you accept as such is entirely upto you.
I do not and will never accept american intentions in the middle east.The americans have a hidden agenda there and don't give a monkeys about the people of Iraq or for its well being.I'm not as gullable as lot of people to think americans came to Iraq to liberate them from the the so called Butcher of Baghdad..Given the choice i would choose saddam over bush any day.Bush is responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than saddam ever killed.to be specific over the 2 gulf wars estimated number of Iraqi's killed is over 200,000.
Sammy-boy no probs mate...i don't mind having a debate with you just that remember that this is a serious issue and you have to see the difference between right and wrong,good & bad.
_________________
SonyEricsson
MY FLAG
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-18 09:07 ] | |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@axxxr
I would agree with you that the U.S. almost certainly does have other motives for intervening in the Middle East, but I think we must be very careful in considering what those motives are. All nations will ultimately act in their own best interest, that isn’t something peculiar to the U.S.; Britain does the same, as does France, Germany, Japan, Iran, Egypt, and most other countries in the world.
U.S. involvement in the Middle East came about primarily because of the Cold War, since then we have had a fractionalisation of power on a global level with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. isn't so much trying to gain control over other nations in a policy of empire building, rather it is seeking to contain the dangerous political and military elements, which it no longer has a use for now that the Cold War is over.
I think that we must look at what we are criticising the U.S. for, if it is because of the atrocities committed against Iraqi prisoners then that is a valid criticism; if it is because of the way the Iraq war was handled then that is a valid criticism, if it is because they support Israel despite Israel being in contravention of numerous U.N. resolutions then that is a valid criticism. We must be very careful, however, not to criticise the U.S. just because it is seen as the 'in thing' or because we duty bound to oppose the U.S. on something just because it is the U.S. doing it.
Ironically it isn't criticism from abroad the U.S. needs, it is criticism from within. There seems to be an air of silence in the U.S. at the moment, if one is critical of Bush or the war, etc, then one is in danger of being labelled 'unpatriotic'. It isn't we who need to criticise America, rather it is Americans themselves.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Scotsboy it is quite obvious what the motives are of the bush administration in the middle east!.A country acting in there own interests does'nt automaticaly give them the right to inavade countries whenever they decide its somehow in the best interests of everyone.As you so casually put it that other countries also do the same does'nt mean its moral and acceptable.
Quote:
| U.S. involvement in the Middle East came about primarily because of the Cold War, since then we have had a fractionalisation of power on a global level with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. isn't so much trying to gain control over other nations in a policy of empire building, rather it is seeking to contain the dangerous political and military elements, which it no longer has a use for now that the Cold War is over. |
|
I've said this before and i'll say it again that i do not have a problem with the U.S removing evil regimes,what angers me and i believe most of people who are against this war is the double standards.why is always muslims countries who pose less of a threat attacked when they pose no danger say compared to north Korea who have always shown a willingness to to attack the west with Nukes.or is it that the americans are cowards and can't face a real enemy,or is it the financial rewards they seek in the black gold?.Evil regimes are spead out all over the world,if america wants to show themselves the saviour of our beloved globe then it should inavade and remove all evil regimes wherever they may be.If your argument to suggest maybe that america wants to bring democracy to the islamic nations.The west has to learn that muslims culture and belief sytem is extremely different and to them democracy means nothing and simply don't want it.By forcing your ideals on an alien religion and culture your effectivly sticking your hand in the beehive.Democracy can be introduced into these harcore muslims nations but war is not the way these people will understand.
Quote:
| I think that we must look at what we are criticising the U.S. for, if it is because of the atrocities committed against Iraqi prisoners then that is a valid criticism; if it is because of the way the Iraq war was handled then that is a valid criticism, if it is because they support Israel despite Israel being in contravention of numerous U.N. resolutions then that is a valid criticism. |
|
Of course we are criticising the U.S for all of the above reasons and more i.e: the torture camps at guantanemo bay.America is always quick to jump at evil regimes but yet does not see its poor human rights record with prisoner abuse and torture.And of course i am not critical of the U.S because its "The in thing" absolutely not.America could be loved so much more in the Arab world if it changed its stance in the middle east especially With the palestinian issue.
Quote:
| Ironically it isn't criticism from abroad the U.S. needs, it is criticism from within. There seems to be an air of silence in the U.S. at the moment, if one is critical of Bush or the war, etc, then one is in danger of being labelled 'unpatriotic'. It isn't we who need to criticise America, rather it is Americans themselves. |
|
You've hit the nail on the head by saying that,but problem is that the american public are led to believe and its kind of built into there culture is that if your are critical of american foreign policy you are automaticaly branded as anti-american and un-patriotic..what happend to the american the land of the free?Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.Its somehow ironic that the america fights around the war to restore freedom yet in there own country they is a tight control over it.But if the americans are not allowed to do it then someone has to.You simply just cannot turn a blind eye to the killings of thousands of innocent people by the american administration.Just imagine the world not being critical of american foriegn policy!.They would be getting away with Mass genocide and god only knows what else.I think now more than ever the world has to stand united againt the G.bush administration and American foreign policy.
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Seymour Hersh speaking at an ACLU event. He says the US government has videotapes of children being raped at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
" Some of the worst things that happened you don't even know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young there young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking & screaming for help that the u.s government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
There's also a piece worth reading in Newsweek about new allegations of rape and sexual torture at Abu Ghraib. Feature includes details on the identities of the Iraqi prisoners shown in those widely-circulated photographs -- including Satar Jabar (charged with carjacking, not terrorism), whose iconic hooded figure with wires attached is derisively described by many Iraqis as the "Statue of Liberty."
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
How has the US been spending Iraq's oil revenues?
Henry Waxman is an awkward customer. For 30 years, this California congressman has probed, badgered and embarrassed US administrations of every hue.
As the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives' government reform committee, Congress's principal standing investigative panel, he is a difficult man to ignore.
Right now, Mr Waxman has a question on Iraq. In fact, he has several - and in typically robust fashion, he is demanding answers. What he wants to know is whether the Bush administration has been fiddling with Iraq's oil revenues.
He wrote to the Republican chairman of the reform committee on July 9, suggesting there was a serious case to answer. Subpoenas should be issued, he said, "to investigate potential mismanagement of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) by the United States".
The DFI was set up after last year's invasion as the depository for Iraq's multi-billion-dollar oil revenues and was administered, until June 28, by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) - with notional UN oversight.
In particular, Mr Waxman is curious about "the [Bush] administration's last-minute 'draw-down' of billions of dollars from the DFI for unspecified expenses" prior to last month's transfer of sovereignty. "For example, $1bn [about £550m] was withdrawn from the DFI during the last month of the CPA's existence for unspecified 'security' purposes."
The administration provided no information about how these funds would be spent, Mr Waxman says, and has yet to do so.
He is concerned about apparent attempts by the then CPA chief, Paul Bremer, to mandate and direct the spending of a further $4.6bn in Iraqi oil funds after the handover.
He is also exercised by the results of a belated audit of the DFI's accounts that concluded they were "open to fraudulent acts" and lacked "transparency". In all, the CPA earmarked more than $6bn of Iraqi funds in the last two months of its existence.
He wants to know whether CPA officials obstructed the auditors, KPMG, who were employed by the UN-created International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB).
And he also asks why the White House has "failed to comply with numerous IAMB requests [for information about] payments of approximately $1.5bn in DFI funds to Halliburton" - the Texas-based oil services company formerly headed by the vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Mr Waxman is not alone in asking questions. In April this year, the chairman of the IAMB, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, wrote to Mr Bremer saying the awarding of three contracts to Halliburton without a competitive bidding process was "a source of concern". His letter appears to have had little effect.
The IAMB is now reviewing the CPA's overall conduct and must decide whether a full investigation is necessary.
Given the problems over alleged misappropriation and fraud that engulfed the UN's oil-for-food programme in Iraq from 1997 to 2003, and which are now under investigation, swift, rigorous action in this instance may also be deemed essential.
Officials from Congress's financial watchdog, the general accounting office, have pointed out meanwhile that while the CPA was keen to appropriate Iraqi oil revenues, it was much more reluctant to spend bilateral US aid funds.
Nearly all of the $20bn in the DFI was spent or allocated by June 28 - but only 2% of the $18.4bn promised by the US for reconstruction was actually spent. According to White House figures, for example, and despite all the rhetoric about building a new Iraq, not a cent of America's own money had been spent on construction, healthcare, sanitation and water projects as of last month.
Last month, Iraq Revenue Watch, part of the Soros Foundations network, accused the CPA of "committing billions of dollars to ill-conceived projects" using Iraqi rather than US funds, effectively pre-empting budgetary decisions that should have been left to the interim Iraqi authority.
This is a charge also voiced by senior Iraqi officials in Baghdad, quoted anonymously this month by the Washington Post; and, intriguingly, by British government aid officials who reportedly blocked spending projects proposed by Mr Bremer in the dying days of the CPA. But at Westminster, only the Liberal Democrats have formally called for an investigation.
Such matters are plainly extremely sensitive as the US presidential election approaches - especially for George Bush and Mr Cheney.
In this context, two facts may be of interest: Halliburton was the largest single recipient of Iraqi oil funds during the occupation, according to the Army Corps of Engineers' figures released last month. And among US politicians, according to the Center for Public Integrity, Mr Bush has been the largest single recipient of US oil and gas industry campaign contributions since 1998 - his total stands at $1,724,579.
[addsig] |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
farenheit 9/11 has been receiving a bit of bad press here (good reviews for it as a film, but universal criticism as to it's accuracy and misrepresentation of the facts, and michael moore's gross manipulation of a grieving mother).
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Let’s get one thing straight, no documentary is objective. I don’t care if your old copy of Merriam-Webster’s says otherwise, show me a documentary – any documentary – and I’ll show you a filmmaker with a specific agenda they’re trying to support. Sometimes the subject matter is relatively benign (as in “Hoop Dreams”),sometimes less so but all of these movies are the result of the filmmaker’s choices in what to include and what to cull from their footage.
Sorry about that, but if you approach “Fahrenheit 9/11” with the attitude, “But it’s not objective,” there’s not much point in continuing.
Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing filmmakers of our time, and his films have received much more scrutiny than others of their ilk. Factual errors subsequently uncovered in “Roger and Me” and “Bowling for Columbine,” as well as in his books, have damaged his reputation and opened the door to widespread criticism of his techniques and accusations that he plays fast and loose with the facts to support his arguments. Some of these claims have merit (his continued incorrect assertions that the Bush Administration gave aid to the Taliban in 2000 and 2001), while others don’t – and if one wishes to criticize Moore for ambushing an old man suffering from senile dementia to debate the merits of gun control, well, maybe the NRA should have selected a spokesman actually capable of defending its position. With “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Moore still slips into hyperbole on occasion, but he makes his points forcefully and with less bluster than in previous efforts.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is a wide-ranging attack on, among other things, the way the Bush Administration has run the country these last three and a half years, the Florida recount, the Bush family’s ties to the bin Laden family and the Saudis, and the Administration’s management of the war against Iraq. Along the way, Moore takes swipes at Congress, the Senate, and the media. More than any of this, however, “Fahrenheit 9/11” is an all-out assault on George W. Bush, and Moore pulls no punches. Where earlier Moore films showcased a fair amount humor, even when covering weighty topics, “Fahrenheit” – especially the latter half – gives us Moore at his most serious.
Oh, he still goes for the easy laugh. The gratuitous “feed” footage of Bush and company as they get primped and made up for the cameras, while humorous, would be just as accurate for any politician, be they Republican or Democrat. And the point of including John Ashcroft crooning a love ballad to America (of his own writing, we’re told) eludes me, except perhaps to demonstrate our Attorney General’s horrible command of lyrics. These are cheap shots, and one of the reasons Moore’s credibility suffers (though I don’t think I’ll ever be able to cleanse my brain of the image of Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb).
The film does better when Moore adheres to matters of public record, like the bin Laden family’s support of Arbusto Energy, the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, and actual statements by the President and his Cabinet. The comedic set-ups so prevalent in his earlier films are largely absent here, and the movie makes its most powerful statements when Moore removes himself from the picture altogether and lets the footage – whether of American soldiers humiliating prisoners or a mother grieving for a son killed in Karbala – speak for itself.
What you won’t find much of in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” however, is selective editing or manipulation of President Bush’s words themselves. Moore does succumb to the occasional gimmick, but like it or not, the President has a serious credibility problem when it comes to public speaking. You can highlight Moore’s unsupported allegations concerning exactly how much money the Bush family and their friends and business partners have received from the Saudis ($1.4 billion, according to the film), or take him to task for his blue sky pictures of women and babies in Baghdad before the bombing started, but you can’t deny many of his points: that Bush opposed both a Congressional and an independent 9/11 panel, that the mainstream media played cheerleader to the Administration’s Iraq War policies, and that Bush cut combat pay and veteran’s benefits even while publicly lauding the troops.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is an undeniably powerful,As a polemic, it’s hard to beat. As a historical document that shows audiences things about the war and the Administration they may not have previously seen, it’s indispensable. It’s also not going to change anyone’s minds. If you already hate Moore, watching 2 hours of concentrated footage of Bush mangling the English language with a smirk on his face isn’t going to alter your views. Moore is preaching to the converted. Even so, he is as focused as he’s ever been on the task at hand. Some scenes, such as those showing Iraqis dragging the burned bodies of Americans behind a car, are extremely disturbing, and that’s probably Moore’s point. Perhaps if we’d been reminded earlier on how horrible war really is, we wouldn’t have been so gung ho to put our fighting men and women in harm’s way.
_________________
<<<+TIMELINE+>>>
<<<+LAPTOP FOR SALE+>>>
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-24 12:54 ] |
amagab
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
Let's just face the clear facts without writing a novel:
Everyone acts in their own interest, whether it is Saddam invading Iraq, Iran, or Kurdistan or US invading Iraq instead of Korea or Chirac staying out of the war because of the large middle eastern vote.
War is horrible and the situation in Iraq is now better for some, worse for some others. Hopefully, it will be better for most of them soon.
To me, US is acting in the entire worlds interest. And the word has been mentioned hundreds of times: OIL
Iraq has the largest untouched oil reserve in the world and we need it dearly. I'm neither selfish nor a capitalist. However, I don't want to sit on my ass when the shit hits the fan and the industrialized world runs out of oil. Even if technology is rapidly moving ahead we still need and will need lots of oil for our industries, homes, vehicles, etc. Norway and Russia (who supplies Asia and Europe with oil) have already said that they haven't found any new oil reserves they can tap. Iraq oil is very important to future world generations.
Conclusion: Gulf War 1 was to protect Kuwaiti oil supplies. Gulf War 2 is to protect Iraqi oil reserves.
Question: How would/will the Middle East be without world oil dependency? Would/will it be better off or worse? Why?
|
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
I've often wondered this: Would Gulf War 2 (and I suppose it's prequel, Gulf War !) have occurred if Iraq's main export was bananas instead of oil? Was the US (and UK) just looking for someone to 'take out' in revenge for 9/11, whether it stopped global terrorism or not?
I'm far too tired to be asking these kinds of deep questions! 
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
Who is next on in the list?
This message was posted from a T630 |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
Depends on if Bush gets re-elected. If so, then my money's on Iran, or somewhere like Syria. I'm really hoping this doesn't happen, because invading countries like Iraq I don't think has made the world safer - it's added fuel to the extremist's cause, reinforces the illusion that this is a war on Islam, and in Iran' case, they the people don't want to be invaded, despite hating their government (which I've read about, and also after speaking to someone in Iran who doesn't like their government).
It would be interesting to see a 'regime change' initiated in Israel, can't see that happening though. For a start, Mossad probably have their act together much better than either any US or UK intelligence services - recent reports damning the intelligence communities in both those countries prove that.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-17 09:46:06, axxxr wrote:
THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN AIR FORCE KILLS INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN IRAQ
The pilot says to command "I've got numerous individuals on the road you want me to take those out" gets reply "Take them out" after bombing them says "oh dude"
CLICK HEREWindows Media Player Format
|
|
Where is any indication that the pilot saying "numerous individuals" refers to civilians? Is there any evidence that the group fired upon was not a military group? Context people! Context!
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-17 20:28:51, axxxr wrote:
Sammy-boy said:
The audio on that clip seems a little TOO clear.... I do wonder about it's authenticity.
------------------------------------------------------
Why do you always have to always suggest that somehow that the americans are the innocent party here,and everyone else out they are hell bent on making or creating elaborate hoaxes against them..by the way that clip above is a official pentagon released clip taken from the an american news site..I can recall back when the Abu-ghraib prison scandel broke out that it was said that somehow it was all a lie made to make the american look bad..Just for the record the Americans have a extremely poor human rights record in in all Vietnam wars aswell as the Gulf wars..You only have to look at the majority of innocent prisoners held at Guantanemo bay and the daily torture and abuse they have to suffer to see how humane the american army and the government really are..A lot of even worse american atrocities are yet to be uncovered in Iraq.I would trust saddam more than g.bush...these atrocities are just the tip of the iceberg..
|
|
Why do you have to always assume that the clips are authentic? Why not make no assumptions and go for the real thing ... ask for proof.
And about this clip - I don't doubt it was authentic. Heck - it was realsed by the US military. But all it does is say "numerous individuals" ... not "numerous civilians". How do you know those people on the ground were non-combatants? And why would the US military release such a damning clip without being forced to?
Guantanamo Bay - Daily Torture? You don't know jack about it - even if it were true.
You call our human rights record "Extremely Poor" and then say in the same paragraph that you'd trust Saddam more than Bush! Where is the logic in that? And if you want to back up your false claims all you'd need to do is point us to the web page for the Human Rights Record of the USA. Oh wait ... Here it is. That was easy.
Okay - now we can see all the attrocious things the USA has done this year.
Now ... let's compare that to the 1999 report for Iraq ... which was under Saddam.
But you say that's too much reading for you? Ahhh, come on. Think how good it will feel to be proven right for once. Unless you're wrong!
... So the USA isn't looking so hot. Lot's of people detained. Some say suspected terrorists. Others say they need their day in court. What's that ... the US Supreme Court has ordered that the US grant detainees their day in court. Awesome.
And ... Let's see ... uh oh. Under Saddam:
Quote:
| In April [1999] the un Commission on Human Rights condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the government of Iraq”, and extended for a further year the mandate of the un Special Rapporteur on Iraq. |
|
That doesn't sound good. But hey ... at least Saddam was better than Bush. Yeah! On Bizzaro Backwards World.
Hey - you can hate the USA all you like but I ask once again - before you go spewing your vile lies about the United States - just get your facts straight. OKAY???
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 17:45 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-18 07:22:23, axxxr wrote:
that CNN,FOX NEWS and other respectable news channels |
|
That takes us up to 4 things Axxxr and I agree upon:
1. Americans need to travel more to learn to appreciate other cultures and peoples.
2. The International Red Cross has been allowed to inspect Guantanamo Bay.
3. That the fight threads were fun while they were open.
4. That Fox News is a respectable news channel.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-18 07:22:23, axxxr wrote:
Bush is responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than saddam ever killed.to be specific over the 2 gulf wars estimated number of Iraqi's killed is over 200,000.
...just that remember that this is a serious issue and you have to see the difference between right and wrong,good & bad. |
|
Where did you see that the estimate of Iraqi deaths as 200,000?
Yes this is a serious issue ... too serious to have people lie about it. You started to link us to posts that tended to prove things you asserted as facts. Even though one was found to be completely without credibility (the so called torture in Ahbugrahb [whatever spelling]) and the other doesn't prove what you asserted (US Air force fired on civilians - how do you know they were not combatants) and the other was shown to be a red-herring argument (rape accusations in Iraq being used against bush when the UN is accused of horrible torture itself but you still see K. Annan as Secretary General, why?). Keep up the good work and try to support your assertions with evidence.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-18 07:22
