The US taxpayers and coallition nations are footing the bill for the reconstruction, but France and Germany are paying nothing. Like we say around here: you break it, you pay for it. Or you expected Iraq to pay with their oil for your invasion?
but common enemies make strange bedfellows. That is the idea that made US had so many dictator friends. And every one ended as a foe. Like Saddam, Noriega, Bin Laden and the Taliban.
I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll put it this way. IMHO a lot of people around the world sees the whole Iraq affaire as USA invading Iraq to:
A) control oil flow and derail OPEC. Oil is a critical resource to USA. OPEC is a pain in the neck for USA. Venezuela is controled by Chavez who is not liked at White House and is the main supply of oil in Americas (and is the OPEC). Note that I'm talking about influencing the flow, not taking over which would be seen badly by the rest of the world. B) Impose democracy at middle east. This paradoxical objetive can only be understud if we take in account that for USA government democracy only applies to allies. Take the Chavez case where USA was actively working in the coup attempt, even when Chavez was democrately elected (even if one disagree with his goverment). C) Use Iraq as a permanent base. Bases in Saudi Arab are being downsized. After all, Bin Laden is Saudi. D) Government of Iraq only for friends of USA. Even if they have null following in people like most of the council. They don't dare to have elections for fear that the muslim mayority would make Iraq an islamic country like ex foe Iran. E) most of Irak infrastructure was destroyed in the war. The country was already in misery after 10 years of embargo. Ocupation forces wasn't able to restore security to the people.
There are more factors (like pushing out old Europe of the zone) but lets keep with those. So people there may be happy but I don't expect them to be very grateful. They know that Saddam arrest wasn't for them or for justice. It was more PR. And for freedom, sooner or later they will want to exercise it fully, and nobody knows what may happen then.
The problem is: are the government arresting Saddam the same who gave him his toys? take in mind that Rumsfeld is mentioned as giving SH toxic gas. If so they are just blaming him for what he did and what they did. And it wasn't just that UN just did nothing. Bush father asked oppository groups to rebel against Saddam, but when they did he looked to other place while they where slaughtered. Why he didn't invade? He didn't want to pay the political cost of american body bags coming on tv. Of course Bush the minor just forbids to watch that and problem solved.
It is if you want the war so bad that make it happen whatever the other factors. If they would had care to use your checklist we would be bashing Microsoft instead.
This is the first time this link is mentioned, until now even US intelligence services downplayed it. Wait a minute, this suposed Niger uranium shipment isn't the one that was previously reported as non existant by ex ambassador Wilson refuting Mr Bush? I'll wait a few days to see what solid turns to be this news.
In fact I copied it shamelesy from dailyroxette and forgot to mention it. I like the CopyrightMoron moderation idea. I propose also that./ adds Satire +1, Ironic +1, Sarcastic +3, stupid -1 and ACbrag -1 moderations.
This post should be at Insightful +5, if it isn't use your moderation points to correct the error.
Saddam has eaten every WMD. That's right, he has them all inside. That's why he must be kept alone and not allowed to talk about his old american friends. If he opens his mouth deadly gas may come out.
the Bush administration cannot afford to give him a fair international trial. How do you can say such a thing? Bush senior gave Noriega a fair trial... eh... Wait! perhaps they could trial in the international court made specifically for crimes against mankind, that one that Bush hates... oh.
I agree that I was simplifing. I can't agree that the issues are very complex. It bothers me when someone uses the "Saddam bad, Saddam hides weapons" mantra, because there is a lot more going than this.
What I'm affraid that Iraq was ill-conceived and the months since the start of hostilies have confirmed this IMHO. Terrorism has been incresing instead of the other way, as many predicted. This is independent of SH fall and arrest. Don't think it will change too much from now, that why it may seem I'm ignoring it. In my country we had a dictatorship that leave with what many estimate in 30000 missing and tortured people in the name of the fight against subversion, that's why I have a lot of sceptism about what's going on.
Ok, that's right. But the UN inspectors where the police and they complain didn't had enough time to search before the "Governor" which is in campaign sends state police, throws down the house, makes a hole and found nothing.
SH had chemical weapons he used to kill thousands of Kurds. Nobody cares. SH invades Kuwait oil camps. You know how it follows.
USA supports Pakistan. Isn't that a truly evil dictatorship? didn't they give training to Talibans? then why supporting them and making them allies? My point is that while dictatorships are evil and we are all happy there is one less dictator, we shouldn't be blinded that Iraq invation was inspired for a complex mix of economical-geopolitical interests and not for the love of freedom or war againt terrorism. That being the driving force of the ocupation there are high probabilities that this issue ends bad for all the parties involved (coallition, Iraq, UN, etc). Other dictactors/terrorists are happily supported until they become inconvenient or get out of hand. Doesn't that disturb you?
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction. Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being capitalists like us. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don't be a smart-ass. Q: I didn't think I was being one. A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway. Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate? A: I never said Pervez Musharraf
That's just a simplification of a very complex reality. I agree that almost all of Iraq love to having get rid of Saddam, but that doen't mean they accept anything that happens. They may not like foreign troops in their country else. Just answer me one question: do you support Paquistan evil dictatorship?
Maybe but deads are still deads. Do you think their families will be happier for it? Please clarify me where in my life I attempted to support Saddam so I can correct it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey what you have against comic books? most of them are far more complex than Bush speechs.
The US taxpayers and coallition nations are footing the bill for the reconstruction, but France and Germany are paying nothing.
Like we say around here: you break it, you pay for it. Or you expected Iraq to pay with their oil for your invasion?
but common enemies make strange bedfellows.
That is the idea that made US had so many dictator friends. And every one ended as a foe. Like Saddam, Noriega, Bin Laden and the Taliban.
They say there is a joke in Washington:
The pentagon knows all about Saddam's WMD. They made the bills...
I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll put it this way. IMHO a lot of people around the world sees the whole Iraq affaire as USA invading Iraq to:
A) control oil flow and derail OPEC. Oil is a critical resource to USA. OPEC is a pain in the neck for USA. Venezuela is controled by Chavez who is not liked at White House and is the main supply of oil in Americas (and is the OPEC). Note that I'm talking about influencing the flow, not taking over which would be seen badly by the rest of the world.
B) Impose democracy at middle east. This paradoxical objetive can only be understud if we take in account that for USA government democracy only applies to allies. Take the Chavez case where USA was actively working in the coup attempt, even when Chavez was democrately elected (even if one disagree with his goverment).
C) Use Iraq as a permanent base. Bases in Saudi Arab are being downsized. After all, Bin Laden is Saudi.
D) Government of Iraq only for friends of USA. Even if they have null following in people like most of the council. They don't dare to have elections for fear that the muslim mayority would make Iraq an islamic country like ex foe Iran.
E) most of Irak infrastructure was destroyed in the war. The country was already in misery after 10 years of embargo. Ocupation forces wasn't able to restore security to the people.
There are more factors (like pushing out old Europe of the zone) but lets keep with those.
So people there may be happy but I don't expect them to be very grateful. They know that Saddam arrest wasn't for them or for justice. It was more PR. And for freedom, sooner or later they will want to exercise it fully, and nobody knows what may happen then.
The problem is: are the government arresting Saddam the same who gave him his toys? take in mind that Rumsfeld is mentioned as giving SH toxic gas. If so they are just blaming him for what he did and what they did.
And it wasn't just that UN just did nothing. Bush father asked oppository groups to rebel against Saddam, but when they did he looked to other place while they where slaughtered. Why he didn't invade? He didn't want to pay the political cost of american body bags coming on tv. Of course Bush the minor just forbids to watch that and problem solved.
Ah yes, from the lesser known Jyhad card game.
Isn't it funny when OTHERS make the typos?
It is if you want the war so bad that make it happen whatever the other factors. If they would had care to use your checklist we would be bashing Microsoft instead.
This is the first time this link is mentioned, until now even US intelligence services downplayed it. Wait a minute, this suposed Niger uranium shipment isn't the one that was previously reported as non existant by ex ambassador Wilson refuting Mr Bush? I'll wait a few days to see what solid turns to be this news.
and nobody did anything about it how much? about 15 years? while Iraq was an ally, right?
I'm sorry, I'm gonna hit my head at the wall, ok?
I don't known what you mean.
In fact I copied it shamelesy from dailyroxette and forgot to mention it. ./ adds Satire +1, Ironic +1, Sarcastic +3, stupid -1 and ACbrag -1 moderations.
I like the CopyrightMoron moderation idea. I propose also that
This post should be at Insightful +5, if it isn't use your moderation points to correct the error.
Saddam has eaten every WMD. That's right, he has them all inside. That's why he must be kept alone and not allowed to talk about his old american friends. If he opens his mouth deadly gas may come out.
the Bush administration cannot afford to give him a fair international trial.
How do you can say such a thing? Bush senior gave Noriega a fair trial... eh...
Wait! perhaps they could trial in the international court made specifically for crimes against mankind, that one that Bush hates... oh.
Sorry! my last post should be read: I can't agree more that the issues are very complex.
My mistake, please don't shot me.
I agree that I was simplifing. I can't agree that the issues are very complex. It bothers me when someone uses the "Saddam bad, Saddam hides weapons" mantra, because there is a lot more going than this.
Thanks for pointing this. This fact fall under my radar. I didn't want to put erroneous info. After a quick search I found this article
What I'm affraid that Iraq was ill-conceived and the months since the start of hostilies have confirmed this IMHO. Terrorism has been incresing instead of the other way, as many predicted. This is independent of SH fall and arrest. Don't think it will change too much from now, that why it may seem I'm ignoring it.
In my country we had a dictatorship that leave with what many estimate in 30000 missing and tortured people in the name of the fight against subversion, that's why I have a lot of sceptism about what's going on.
Ok, that's right. But the UN inspectors where the police and they complain didn't had enough time to search before the "Governor" which is in campaign sends state police, throws down the house, makes a hole and found nothing.
SH had chemical weapons he used to kill thousands of Kurds. Nobody cares. SH invades Kuwait oil camps. You know how it follows.
USA supports Pakistan. Isn't that a truly evil dictatorship? didn't they give training to Talibans? then why supporting them and making them allies?
My point is that while dictatorships are evil and we are all happy there is one less dictator, we shouldn't be blinded that Iraq invation was inspired for a complex mix of economical-geopolitical interests and not for the love of freedom or war againt terrorism. That being the driving force of the ocupation there are high probabilities that this issue ends bad for all the parties involved (coallition, Iraq, UN, etc).
Other dictactors/terrorists are happily supported until they become inconvenient or get out of hand. Doesn't that disturb you?
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf
My stupid copy & paste mistake. Apologies.
That's just a simplification of a very complex reality. I agree that almost all of Iraq love to having get rid of Saddam, but that doen't mean they accept anything that happens. They may not like foreign troops in their country else.
Just answer me one question: do you support Paquistan evil dictatorship?
My point is that you should take much more legal care to invade a full country than to enter a house with a judge order.
Maybe but deads are still deads. Do you think their families will be happier for it?
Please clarify me where in my life I attempted to support Saddam so I can correct it.