General discussions : Non mobile discussion : The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
Bookmark topic
So, @scotsboy, where are your weapons of mass destruction? You'd better destroy them or we'll 'shock and awe' you into submission!
We have it from our trusted intelligence sources (Just out of Uni) that you have stockpiles of nerve agents, nuclear materials, haggis, and deep-fried Mars bars.
If these aren't destroyed immediately, we will enforce 'regime change' and knock Hampden park down for good measure!!
--
Posted: 2004-07-17 18:41:12
Edit :
Quote
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..
--
Posted: 2004-07-17 20:28:51
Edit :
Quote
Yes,I think we can compare Bush to Saddam now,after these all things what have happened in Iraq.Anyway US presence in IRQ is very sad history of USA.
--
Posted: 2004-07-17 20:44:00
Edit :
Quote
@boto43
You seem to be making a very sweeping statement with no evidence to back it up. Whilst the U.S. led coalition's occupation of Iraq has been fraught with difficulties we should not forget that ordinary Iraqis do have a lot more hope for the future. If the current insurgency can be put down and the violence brought to a halt then Iraq has a very prosperous future to look forward to.
Iraq has large oil reserves and in time these can hopefully be used to enable Iraq to become a wealthy nation able to provide for its citizens. That the U.S. has committed atrocities in Iraq is indeed very sad, most especially for the Iraqis, but we should not let the actions of a few cloud our judgement, the vast majority of American and Coalition troops are very professional men and women who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for a greater good, no matter how misguided it has been.
It is the shameful way in which the politicians have behaved that is the biggest crime of all. I supported the war in Iraq, not because I believed Saddam posed nay great danger to the West, but because I was sure that the world would be a much better place without him in power and I still hold to that view. Tony Blair wouldn't be in such a bad position just now if he had declared that the war was to remove Saddam instead of focusing on WMDs, which the intelligence was patchy on.
--
Posted: 2004-07-17 21:57:55
Edit :
Quote
@axxxr -
I'm not standing up for the Americans per se, I guess I'm playing devil's advocate a little!
Continuing my devils' advocate line, you said to me earlier in this thread about not believing everything I see/hear in the media, I could say the same back to you with regards to all these American websites, perhaps run by people with their own (hidden?) agendas themselves. You say the clip came from the Pentagon and on a US news site - how do you know? I keep getting these chain emails claiming that they're been tracked by Microsoft, Yahoo, etc., but they probably aren't!
I do however agree totally with your comment on the Abu Giraib (excuse spelling) jail - I could not believe my eyes when I saw US soldiers doing that to people. They lowered themselves to Saddam's level at the very least. If the US had any credibility left in the Middle East (which I doubt) they would have lost it all after that scandal broke.
I hope you don't mind me keeping you on your toes mate, just having a good debate. I don't get much chance for one of them!
--
Posted: 2004-07-18 01:47:34
Edit :
Quote
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 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-18 07:22:23
Edit :
Quote
@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.
--
Posted: 2004-07-18 15:21:42
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2004-07-19 03:00:45
Edit :
Quote
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."
--
Posted: 2004-07-21 02:36:26
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2004-07-22 18:25:15
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
