War perspective

[CamB]

France and Russia, after arguing forever to lift sanctions on Iraq, now oppose lifting sanctions on Iraq after the war is over and Saddam is out of power

This is already out of date. France want to lift the sanctions now.

Our PM made those comments in an interview - they were off the cuff from a woman who tends to speak her mind. Many people here appreciate that personality trait, while many think she is an idiot because of it. She also never apologises - hence she only apologises for "causing offence", rather than for making the remarks.

However, what she said is true - capricious, but true. The war didn't appear to be going to plan - an observation made by everybody at the time. Gore probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq when Bush did (the link between Iraq and terrorism is somewhat tenuous).

[CJFusco]

"How do you know it was the majority of the worlds population? There is no way to prove that."

How do you know it isn't?

[hoff944]

Exactly my point so that statement is invalid.

[CJFusco]

hey, just because it can't use its legs doesn't mean you should call names.

Ok, so "all evidence supports that most of the world was against this war." Better?

[CamB]

How do you know it was the majority of the worlds population? There is no way to prove that.

For someone with a little time it is pretty easy to prove.

In the US, before the war started, it was greater than 50% against going without UN approval. See this. Not surprisingly, this went to over 50% support once the Administration committed - I can't blame the US public for getting behind their President (although I wouldn't have got behind my own government, but then again I don't pledge alliegance to a flag either - we aren't as patriotic here. This isn't necessarily a bad thing).

In France it was about 80:20 (or higher) against. NZ was well over 50% against.

I'm guessing the Arab world was more than 50% against . China and India - the real clinchers in terms of weight of population - I'd be surprised if they weren't over 50% against the war (ok, so I'm guessing now).

Why guess though. This suggests that India is against it - try here.

OK, so that pretty much proves it. 87% times 900 million people = a world majority. There is no way you are coming back from that. I also found something else which suggested ~75% of Indians opposed the war from around the same time.

Please no-one bother picking apart the stats on this. I realise it is full of holes. The exact question matters - for instance, the US question in the CBS poll was "Should US invade Iraq without UN approval?". The demographics matter - the Indian poll only looked to the educated. But rather than focus in excruciating detail on these potential statistical errors, why not just accept that, prior to the war, the rest of the world was very much against a US-led, un-UN mandated invasion.

I also realise perceptions changed during and after the war (ie now). That doesn't make the invasion right.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by CJFusco

are you insinuating that liberals actually want people murdered? wow.

Yes, because then they have an excuse to moan about the state of the world whilst smoking pot and staring at the ceiling.

[island911]

Originally posted by CJFusco
are you insinuating that liberals actually want people murdered? wow.

Well, almost. You've slightly twisted my words.

Tell me why that statement is inaccurate.

Blue is right, much of the left wants to have an excuse to moan about the state of the world whilst smoking pot and staring at the ceiling. Although, those leftists are more of the indifferent types of people, when it comes to other countries killing each other.

There are for sure a number of leftists whom see people as the biggest threat to "mother earth." These are the ones that are indeed are fine with genocide (in other lands). . .especially if it's near a rainforest. . . as long as no darter slugs are harmed, of course.

[CJFusco]

well kindly don't lump me into that category; I think all murder is wrong, period. i am what you would call a pacifist, i think I would only be able to harm another human being if my life (or the life of someone I cared about) ++++++++were immediately threatened. And yet I am a liberal. I see your point about environmentalists (especially groups like Earth First!, who spike trees that result in the deaths of loggers) - they sometimes go too far. But please do not stereotype.

[island911]

"And yet I am a liberal . . ..But please do not stereotype."

As soon as you put a label on yourself, you enter in to a stereotype.

When you throw out "the majority of the worlds population" as sharing a common stance against the war, you again stereotype.

Obviously the people of the world are more diverse than any stereotype, and yet stereotyping provides utility even though it is faulty. Similar to war really.

If you have to kill, a mass-killer, to make the world a safer place, then of course you have to toss out the whole pacifist ideal. The alternative is to accept the mass killer will continue to kill . . . but of course if you frown hard enough he may stop killing . . .just for you and your good intentions.

[Aurel]

Really, the fact that Saddam was a mass killer entered to no more than 5% in the decision to go to war with Iraq, IMHO. The 90% of the driving force was the oil, period. I`d say another 5% was to find weapons of mass destruction, and yet nothing has been found. It is funny how public opinion gets so easily manipulated. It did not bother anyone that Saddam was a mass mudrderer during the Iran-Iraq war. So what changed since then ? 9/11 ? There have been no connections established with El Quaeda, despite repeated attempts. It is like if this administration desperately needs to find WMDs and links with Al Quaeda, but each time, they happen to be unsuccesful. Again, the naive american people have been embarked in an imperialistic war for oil while they are convinced to be making the world a better place...You cannot impose democracy on people, this is called a dictature ! What if these folks democratically decide to have a shiite religous form of government very much like the Taliban ? What if they are just not made for democracy ? It is a good thing that Saddam was removed, but now, if the US really had genuine and honnest intentions, it should pull back of Iraq as soon as possible. Not try to put its own puppet government to serve its own economical interrests.

Aurel

[Pete Pranger]

Aurel,

I have read most of your posts, and it seems like you keep coming back to the conclusion that this war is predicated on oil. I don't happen to agree. I think if if you are going to use a "percentage", it would be very low, but there is no way I can ever convince you of this.

I think that we had every right and an obligation to the American people to go back to Iraq. When we signed a cease fire areement with Iraq, it had conditions attached to it. One of the conditions was the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. They gave us a list of the weapons they had and they were supposed to document and show proof of their destruction. For 12 years they refused to do this.

So, what do we do about it?

Well, I guess we could just look the other way and hope for the best (kind of what we did under the direction of the UN). 9/11 changed things. It wasn't the first attack on US soil or against US citizens, but it was by far the most destructive. A lot of questions were raised about why we hadn't done anything to prevent it from happening. Surely we should have "seen" something like this coming. In the future we might have to try to "nip it in the bud". Okay, but "why Iraq, the bad guys are all in Afghanistan hiding in caves" you ask. Well, to say that Al Qaida, is the ONLY group of people who despise our way of life and want to see it destroyed is a little naive. Iraq had the capability and the desire to harm us, very badly if they wanted to. We just couldn't take the risk anymore. Will we do this to anybody who threatens us? Maybe, but Iraqs record on these things was pretty poor (Iran, Kuait, the Kurds, etc.).

But why didn't we do anything about N. Korea instead? They pose a much greater threat. Well, we ARE doing something about them (and they don't have any oil. Just kidding) diplomatically. For NOW. Remember just a few years ago we stood toe to toe with the Soviet Union who was also brandishing their nuclear sword. We won that one, and we will deal with this one.

I just have a few questions of those opposed to our action.

Do you think that Sadaam would have ever disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own? If "yes" when? If "no", what would have been a better solution?

Do you think it's ever possible for the US to do ANYTHING that isn't percieved by France et al as "US Imperialism", or a "quest for oil"?

Did France and Germany lose any contracts they had with Sadaam, now that he is gone? Hint: yes.

If this was all about oil, how long do you think it will take before our "investment" pays out? And who gets the cash?

When we finally "get the hell out" of Iraq, will they be better off by our leaving than say, Cuba was?

Just wondering.

[CamB]

I just have a few questions of those opposed to our action.

OK, I'll bite.

Do you think that Sadaam would have ever disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own? If "yes" when? If "no", what would have been a better solution?

Yes. The "when" appears at the moment to be about 2 weeks before being invaded. Having said that, I do expect that some evidence of remaining WMD will eventually be found (but maybe not much). Besides, by over-riding the UN process and invading Iraq the US has forever made this question a moot point.

Do you think it's ever possible for the US to do ANYTHING that isn't percieved by France et al as "US Imperialism", or a "quest for oil"?

Probably not, especially not now. What do you expect. I've posted this elsewhere, but to me it appears the French opposed the US attempt to bully the UN into invading Iraq because it doesn't trust the US, its motives, and a world with the US alone calling the shots. The US then invaded Iraq without UN sanction, proving it isn't trustworthy and does have imperialist tendencies. So beforehand, the French distrusted the US with little cause. Now they have a reason.

Did France and Germany lose any contracts they had with Sadaam, now that he is gone? Hint: yes.

No idea. I know nothing of the details so can't comment.

If this was all about oil, how long do you think it will take before our "investment" pays out? And who gets the cash?

I don't think it is much about oil. I think it is a very overzealous attempt to ensure US security, with scant regard for the remainder of the world. If security includes oil, then fine - the oil argument stands, but generally I'm not into conspiracy theories. I actually don't think the US is imperialist per se - rather it will protect domestic security at any cost. Which right now is making it a pretty crappy international citizen.

When we finally "get the hell out" of Iraq, will they be better off by our leaving than say, Cuba was?

No idea. I don't know much about Cuba. Fidels cafe in Wellington, New Zealand is excellent though. Its on Cuba St.

[island911]

Cam,
The condition of the cease-fire, was NOT to simply make Saddams WMD disappear from Iraq. The cease-fire agreement explicitly stated that proof of there destruction must be provided.

For you to say (or imply) that 'Saddam disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own, just a few weeks before we went in' is completely irresponsible, and rather trollish of you.

Re; France and Germany loss of contracts. I’m very surprised you don’t know anything about this.

“Which right now (the US) is making it a pretty crappy international citizen.”
Again; I’m very surprised you don’t know anything about this.

I must say, you seem to be simply throwing out a lot of troll tactics lately.
What's going on? . .. too busy with work? . . .did your dog die?
Maybe you're just on the wrong side of this one, and don't want to give up.

[tabs]

Somethings going on and you don't know what it is do U mr jones.....

[Bo]

The bottom line....

[CamB]

Originally posted by island911
Cam,
{snip}

I must say, you seem to be simply throwing out a lot of troll tactics lately.
What's going on? . .. too busy with work? . . .did your dog die?
Maybe you're just on the wrong side of this one, and don't want to give up.

Look, I'm sorry - I guess I have got more trollish. The incessant criticism of the French really pissed me off. I actually do see two sides to this - but I end up supporting only one because:

- I am fundamentally against war etc. It is a personal belief thing. If my country was at war, I would have to be a concientious objector, because I couldn't kill other people. I understand the other viewpoint though.

- just because the US can, doesn't mean it should - no matter how well intentioned. While I think you understand this, not all who post here do. Maybe I thought I could change opinions.

I honestly believe this from my last post. "I actually don't think the US is imperialist per se - rather it will protect domestic security at any cost."

And I honestly don't think this is a good thing for the rest of the world (but good for the US). This is why I think you guys tend to have a biased view of the whole situation.

I'm happy to concede the other stuff. In particular on WMD, cease fire etc. If he had them, why didn't he use them? But then again, if he destroyed them, why not show the proof to the UN? It doesn't make sense.

I'm going to keep a low profile on this now. I have said enough and I'm not going to change anyone's opinion. I'll respond to anything directly replied on this thread, but I'm not going to wade in on any others. I don't really want to be "that guy" (which I suspect I've become).

But I reserve the right to argue again on the next "guns are good for protection thread" (and I'm not going to say [b]anything[\b] here now about that).

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Cam, not to worry, you're not "that guy", IMHO. Reasoned debate is infinitely preferable than mindless insults (which none of your posts contain).

[Aurel]

Cam, I can tell you that I have been in your shoes too, and also decided to keep a low profile. Being french, and living in the US and loving Porsches, it has been very distressing for me to see that all these guys, whom I mostly respect and appreciate, have taken such an anti-french stance, cristallized all their hatred at one country that they for most of them have never visited. I have tried to communicate my views, almost against all. I have tried not to react at basically stupid insults such as wine drinking monkeys or smelly people. Although I have to admit sometimes, you have to call a moron a moron...I have done it, and it felt good...I have been rude, and it is true that the french can sound rude when they say their truth without British hypocarcy, which I beleive the americans inherited...The bootom line is that it is a lost cause to try to convince people, and the truth lies in our hearts. I really understand how you feel...

Aurel

[island911]

"the truth lies in our hearts."

where's my feak'n violin. . .

My only point was Cam was slipping in to troll type territory. Cam's post usually have a more subversive-provocative tone.

All this banter does need provocative words to be thrown about. Some banter is smarter than others. Some is overtly silly, (ie wine drinking surrender monkeys) that no reasonable person is going to take it as anything beyond hyperbole.

Aurel, you've got one thing right, your truth lies.

[Aurel]

Doc, your Island is sinking slowly but surely...