Thread moved from GQ - letter to Clinton

Drop the word “exactly”, take Dresden out of your set of comparisons and you’ll be much closer to the truth. Whatever your feelings about U.S. 'hegemony", ignoring the obvious U.S. policy to conduct the invasion with minimum possible civilian casualties does little for your credibility.**

The point about tenuous links between Iraq and anti-U.S. terrorism is well taken. The latter point about money is not. Saddam starved his people to build up weaponry and many opulent palaces for himself. He had plenty of illicit oil income to fund his projects. Whether they included or would eventually have involved promoting terrorism are what’s debatable.

Well, we’ll see what Baghdad looks like after this incessant bombing, shall we?
The US may have a minimum civilian casualty policy, but are they adhering to it?
How can you ever justify civilian casualties if the war isn’t even justified? (ok, yes, open for debate, too. But I don’t think it’s justified, and definitely not done for the reasons given)

“Saddam has plenty of illicit oil income to fund his projects…”

can you verify this? Do you have hard facts? And what exactly were his projects? I’m definitely not saying he’s a nice guy, by no means, don’t get me wrong.
9 of the 15 attackers of 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. How come Bush is not invading Saudi?

Pakistan and India are at eachothers throat, threatening to use nukes on each other…what’s Bush doing about that? You have to agree that that threat is so much more imminent than any WMD that Saddam MIGHT have (that’s not even proven, India and Pakistan were on the verge of USING them)

And what about North Korea?

Calm down a bit elfje. You’re not on hostile territory.

Our money and guns. For better or worse, the US is more able to act independently than any other individual country. It doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want, of course, but it does mean we have more flexibility than most of the rest of the world.

And, generally, why shouldn’t the US act to maximize its interests? I mean, I expect the government of Ireland, for example, to do what it thinks is best for the Irish. What’s wrong with the US doing the same?

It’s not difficult to find evidence of money Saddam was reaping through gaping holes in the sanctions program. From the link:

*"The report, by the non-profit Coalition for International Justice, which specialises in monitoring human rights worldwide, is one of the most comprehensive on the size and sources of President Saddam’s money.

The study, Sources of Revenue for Saddam & Sons: A Primer on the Financial Underpinnings of the Regime in Baghdad, was released yesterday. It provides a window into one of the primary ways President Saddam, despite a decade of international sanctions, has maintained his grip on power by acquiring the wealth necessary to buy the loyalty of cronies and to finance a weapons development program and an internal security apparatus."*

**

The imminence of this threat appears to have eased, in part through diplomatic efforts supported by the Bush Administration.
**

I agree that North Korea has been posing a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. But I doubt the vocal anti-hegemonists want the U.S. to take action against North Korea either.

yes, your money and guns made you boss.
And you said it: It doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want…
And for the record, I’m not Irish, I just live here. I certainly do not suport he current Irish government. Ireland has always remained neutral in conflicts, as far as I know, apart from this one, now.

But sometimes the US pressure makes countries do things that aren’t in their best interests.

The Irish government at the moment is in a bit of trouble. Their popularity has fallen from 59% to 31% (not all do to foreign issues but a lot of it is). Ireland is actively involved with this conflict. A third of US troops stop in Shannon on the way over.

In a poll yesterday in the Irish Independent 75% of people said they were not happy with the war. The government has said that one of the big reasons why Shannon is used is because of the possible ramifications financially if this facility is stopped. Also how we have a close relationship with the US etc. We are meant to be a neutral country but we’re not acting like one. The government is in trouble because of US pressure. We were kinda given Hobson’s choice.

?

i’m actually quite calm, i don’t have the italics and bold option to stress a point, or a word in a phrase, that’s why i use CAPS.

It’s not meant as shouting, so I apologize in advance for people that think I am.

elfje, you can make things bold and italic by surrounding them with ** and ** or * and * respectively.

Why not? :wink:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**It’s not difficult to find evidence of money Saddam was reaping through gaping holes in the sanctions program. From the link:

*"The report, by the non-profit Coalition for International Justice, which specialises in monitoring human rights worldwide, is one of the most comprehensive on the size and sources of President Saddam’s money.

The study, Sources of Revenue for Saddam & Sons: A Primer on the Financial Underpinnings of the Regime in Baghdad, was released yesterday. It provides a window into one of the primary ways President Saddam, despite a decade of international sanctions, has maintained his grip on power by acquiring the wealth necessary to buy the loyalty of cronies and to finance a weapons development program and an internal security apparatus."*
QUOTE]

thanks for this. I had a look at the article, and if all that is stated in it, is true, then where are those weapons? I can see how he would need money to buy the loyalty of his cronies, but if he spent so much money on weapons, where are they?
All weapons confiscated by the coalition troops were old and out of date. I haven’t heard any reports about WMD being found. A lot of leads, but nothing substantial so far. So where are they? Would it not make sense to use his most up to date weapons against such a formidable opponent?
Why fight with obsolete guns, if you have warhouses of new stuff?

It doesn’t make sense to me, sorry.
I can see he’s corrupt, and yes, he’s a bad guy, but does that justify invading a country and sacrificing so many civilians?

What worries me most is that Bush won’t stop at Iraq…but only time will tell what’s going to happen next, I suppose

thanks, I was trying it with ctrl+I and ctrl+B, but it didn’t work…

thanks!

Well, right, and then that becomes another factor in judging what’s in that country’s best interest…whether the action they take might hurt their relationship with the US and the costs of that, but every country has to take into account the way its actions will be viewed by other countries, and what effect this will have on their relationship with them. Unfortunately for Ireland, its size and reliance on foreign trade and outside investment means that foreign opinion plays a bigger role than if it were larger and more autarchic.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t approve of US diplomacy in this Iraq thing. We have been really heavy handed, and I think if we keep it up, we’ll hurt ourself in the long run.

I don’t want the United States to be the sole arbitrator of how the world should work.
I don’t want China to be the sole arbitrator of how the world should work.
I don’t want the European Union to be the sole arbitrator of how the world should work.
I don’t want the “Axis of Evil” :rolleyes: to be the sole arbitrator of how the world should work.

We are all stuck on this planet; for one group to make decisions on how things ought to be, and flaunt its military might to bend everyone else to its will, is brutish, primitive, and dangerous. The neo-conservative philosophy of “the U.S. is the world’s sole superpower, so we should flex our muscle to make it into whatever we want” is, at its core, merely a fancy name for bullying.

And while this policy is bad enough from any other group, given that America claims to embrace the ideals of liberty and fairness, then this is also hypocritical as hell.

I believe the article is referring to weaponry in general, such as the missiles, bullets etc. being fired at coalition troops, not specifically WMD.**

I guess time will tell why captured Iraqi military gear has included thousands of chemical weapons suits, gas masks and atropine. Perhaps the Iraqis just want to protect themselves from the evil machinations of the hegemonists, but I have a bad feeling about this.

elfje -

On the one hand, you don’t want the US to act alone in Iraq. On the other, you do seem to want us to act alone on North Korea and India/Pakistan.

I made this point earlier in the thread.

If the UN is supposed to act, let them act. If they aren’t, and there is a genuine problem as there is in North Korea and Iraq, why don’t you want the US to act?

Incidentally, I thought I heard earlier that the allied forces had found a ricin factory in Iraq. Am I misremembering, or has this not been confirmed?

Regards,
Shodan

Wolf! Again. No ‘Smoking Gun’

…Or by inciting a coup d’etat to overthrow a democracy and then financing and arming the installed military dictatorship? As the US did in Guatemala to protect the interests of the United Fruit company…

Nothing new under the sun! :slight_smile:

Thanks, Desmostylus.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan,

no, you misunderstood me. I’m just trying to make the point that the case for war had not been proved to my satisfaction, what Iraq was concerned. I then added that it seemd to me that Pakistan and North Korea presented a more imminent threat than Iraq, and therefor US should have focused its attention on those two countries, instead of invading Iraq.
That is what I was trying to say.

I don’t want the US to act the way it is acting now, though, as it started a war. For a country that holds principles of freedom and honesty high, this is hypocritical (so, it’s a justified war if the US starts it, but not justified if someone else does it?)

Here’s the link to the ricin story. Note the stresses on “alleged”, and “americans claim”.

Nothing confrimed so far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2902259.stm

mvg,