TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The true objective of the war
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The true objective of the war

i made this point in the chillout forum and would like to know what u guys think..if u r gonna flame and not discuss then u can kiss my ass..now for all u educated people..here goes..personally i am not against war..u gotta do what u gotta do but i am against this one..why? because i dont think the main purpose of the war is to free iraq..I noticed in the news that the first thing the troops did was to secure and control the iraqi oil fields..Rumsfeld came on tv and asked the iraqi goverment not to burn the oil fields and almost refered to them to our oil fields..Ever since the war started the gas prices became stable and the stock market is up blue chip is at its highest in several months..people arent talking about the economic problems or the lack of jobs in the country and are much occupied with the war talk..Support for the war has risen alot and so is patriotism and hence Bush's popularity..is all this a coincidence? i think not..thats why i am against this war because it is just lies lies and risking the lives of innocence for the sake of the prosperity of a country..how selfish can u get.

Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic i made this point in the chillout forum and would like to know what u guys think..if u r gonna flame and not discuss then u can kiss my ass..now for all u educated people..here goes..personally i am not against war..u gotta do what u gotta do but i am against this one..why? because i dont think the main purpose of the war is to free iraq..I noticed in the news that the first thing the troops did was to secure and control the iraqi oil fields..Rumsfeld came on tv and asked the iraqi goverment not to burn the oil fields and almost refered to them to our oil fields..Ever since the war started the gas prices became stable and the stock market is up blue chip is at its highest in several months..people arent talking about the economic problems or the lack of jobs in the country and are much occupied with the war talk..Support for the war has risen alot and so is patriotism and hence Bush's popularity..is all this a coincidence? i think not..thats why i am against this war because it is just lies lies and risking the lives of innocence for the sake of the prosperity of a country..how selfish can u get.

You do have a valid point tranceaholic ... I've noticed that a lot of military objectives are the capture of oil fields. I completely agree with you that the main purpose is not to free Iraq. But I don't think that the only reason for this war is oil.

I do think that the MAIN purpose is the overthrow of Saddam but I'll agree with you that secondary purposes are to capture oil fields intact and liberate the Iraqis. In a partial defense of sorts, Saddam is VERY intent on burning oil fields and ruining the infrastrucutre of Iraq as US forces invade. So it partially makes sense to capture these structures intact and avoid millions of dollars in damages environmentally and financially.

As a final comment I really don't think that the US will even be able to retain the oii or get it for free afterwards. Once Iraq is reestablished they will likely retain control of oil sales under a new government. And once Iraq can begin to sell oil freely without embargo oil prices will drop as supply increases. This is of course pure conjecture. We will see what happens.

Good point tranceaholic, my one question though is whether the US is targeting every oil field for capture or whether the media is reporting these oil fields as significant achievements that are captured on teh way to baghdad as a result of a lack of anything else to report. Dunno ...

any comments about the sudden rise of the stock market..it was shitty until we started the war..infact i was advised to buy stock before war start because the stock market will rise when war starts.

Ok, here's an interesting interview with Boutros Boutros Ghali (the ex-secretary general of UN) that has some pretty goddamn valid points:


'The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy'

While many commentators say that the UN is in danger of becoming irrelevant, a former secretary general, Boutros Boutros Ghali, believes the institution still has a chance of overcoming the current crisis. Interview by Francesca de Ch�tel

Monday March 17, 2003

What do you think of the current US foreign policy?

The United States foreign policy has completely changed in the last 10 years. Since the arrival of Bush Sr there has been a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. The international community was not aware of the importance of this change; now, the young Bush and the people surrounding him represent a group of rightwing extremists. They are fundamentalists: Christian fundamentalists.

Their policies are ideologically inspired: the United States believes it has a special message to the world. First they invented economic globalisation and now they want to globalise their philosophy in the same way. Like communism or socialism, you could call it "Americanism"; it is an ideology based on the liberation of the economy and the imposition of a democratic system. By spreading this around the world they hope to bring peace and security.

Since the attacks of September 11 Bush sees the world as divided between good and evil. They are going back to Reagan's rhetoric: he talked about the threat of communism, now Bush has replaced communism with terrorism. September 11 was not a military aggression - it is impossible to destroy the American military power - it was an ideological aggression.

Thus the Bush administration needed to come with an ideological response. But the change in foreign policy was not determined by 11 September alone: since the arrival of Bush there was an intention to do something about Iraq and address terrorism. September 11 only gave added strength to this resolve.

Multilateralism and unilateralism are just methods for the United States: they use them a la carte, as it suits them. The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy. They will use it when they need to, through a multilateral approach and if they don't need it, they will act outside the framework of the United Nations. Of course with a military budget that is equivalent to that of all the permanent members of the security council together, they can afford to.

Is it not about power and a desire to dominate the oil resources of the Middle East?

No. It may sound surprising, but I believe they already dominate the Middle East and its oil. If it was about gaining control over Iraqi oil, they could obtain it through much cheaper means, without spending many millions of dollars on a war in Iraq.

Is this new? Hasn't the United States always done as it pleased?

Yes, to a certain extent it has, but before they still needed to seek the endorsement of the other superpower: the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War brought an end to the bipolar system and now the United States can act alone without the agreement of another superpower. It is in complete contradiction with the philosophy of the United Nations, which is based on multilateralism, and taking decisions by consensus. The current US philosophy is: "We don't need consensus; I decide."

Will the United Nations still have any value as an institution if the United States and Britain decide to bypass it and attack Iraq without a resolution?

They went into Kosovo without a UN security council resolution and no one said anything... Look at it from the other side: could the security council condemn this illegal intervention? No, because the United States will use its veto right or pressurise other member states to vote against a condemnation, so that there is no majority vote.

America says this is a moment of truth for the United Nations.
What they say is not important, what is important is that they will act on the basis of resolution 1441. Other members will demand a second resolution, but they will say that they have tried to get a majority vote for a second resolution and failed, and so they will act on resolution 1441. Second scenario - which is worse- is that a second resolution is refused by veto: France Russia and China veto the second resolution and the United States will attack unilaterally based on resolution 1441. That would be a slap in the face of the other members of the security council.

What value will the United Nations still have after that?

If you are an optimist you will say this is not the first crisis within the United Nations in the last 55 years. The United Nations has in its history been able to overcome many more difficult crises: the blockade of Berlin, the aggression against Egypt in 1956, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam... it survived all of these and continued to work. So this will be remembered as an accident, a sad accident, but six months later, everything will be back to normal. If you are a pessimist, you will say this is the beginning of the end of the United Nations, just like the League of Nations that disintegrated before the second world war.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

It is hard to say what will happen. If it is a short war, with a clear victory, it will be easier for everybody to forget and say with hindsight that the US was right after all. On the other hand, if it is a long war with a lot of collateral damage, everyone will say it was to be foreseen and that it was a terrible mistake. The Americans will have to leave Iraq; the country will be devastated; and the United Nations will be asked to intervene but they will not have the capacity or the money - it will be the same mess as in Yugoslavia.

And what do you think will happen?

I am not a specialist in military intervention. I don't know how the Iraqi army will react; will Saddam Hussein be betrayed by his own people? Or will he be able to count on solidarity from the population?

Do you believe a war is justified if UN inspectors find weapons of mass destruction?

There are weapons of mass destruction in Israel, so why don't they start by disarming Israel? They have the atomic bomb, they never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so why not start there? It is deux poids et deux mesures [two weights and two measures]. This is inherent in the nature of the United Nations as a political institution: certain resolutions are adopted to be implemented and certain resolutions are passed and everybody knows they will never be implemented.

What do think of the idea of a pre-emptive strike in the context of international law?

It is illegal. Undoubtedly. It is in contradiction to the whole spirit of the United Nations. And this is where the pessimists say: "This is the beginning of the end of the United Nations."

We have to be clear on this: if military action is authorised by the security council then even preventive intervention is legitimate. The security council has the monopoly over the use of military force, they can use the military force at their discretion and no one can judge them on this. However, a preventive war that is the product of a unilateral decision by a member state is illegal. Bypassing the security council is illegal. It has only happened once before, when the Israelis bombed an Iraqi atomic power station. This was a preventive, unilateral attack.

How much credibility will the United Nations still have if the United States decide to "go at it alone"?

I am for defending the United Nations because it is the only existing institution that can contribute to the democratisation of international institutions: poor countries, weak countries, small countries - they all need the United Nations because they have nothing else. Big countries have diplomacy and their own business network; they can handle their foreign policy without the United Nations.

So even if the United Nations failed on the question of Iraq, the institution would still have value?

We don't know how member states will respond in future, whether the fact that an illegal preventative action has been carried out will encourage other countries to do the same thing. If this is considered an exception, then the United Nations will perhaps be able to continue to do its work.

What do you think will be the response in the Arab world?

Again, if it is a quick war, and - even though I don't like this term - a "clean" war, then there will be no great reaction. There will still be huge hostility in the Arab world; big demonstrations, but in two or three weeks it will die down. But if through CNN, through BBC, we see blood, we see great damages, houses demolished, people killed, then there will be problems.

I don't know what will happen in the case of Iraq, but we do have a precedent which could help us to predict the degree of reaction, or the lack of it. In the last 12 months we have seen the horrible things done by Israelis in the occupied territories: demolishing houses, killing children - without any reaction. There is some protest, some demonstrations, but that's all. The Arab world is weak, it is powerless, and the United States supports Israel.

Do you believe this is a clash of civilizations?

I don't believe in this. There may be an increase in terrorist actions - individual or by groups like al Qaida - but it is not a clash of civilisations. It will never be a mass movement.

How strong is the pan-Arab movement?

Pan-Arabism is passing through a crisis: the Arabs are weak and divided... Before, in the bipolar system, they were able to play A against B and B against A. One of the reasons for the current weakness is that they have no backbone, no support: there is only one superpower and they can turn to no one for back-up. In the war between Egypt and Israel, where did the arms come from? From Russia. Today they can turn to no one but the United States; Europe is too weak to play a role. And America has the capacity to accentuate this division by according assistance to one and neglecting the other. The question of Israel only heightens the Arab weakness: the United States are so pro-Israel that the Arab world cannot have good relations with America.

How will the conflict in Israel be resolved?

By 2010, 2015 there will be more Arabs than Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza. Already now, 20% of Israelis are Arabs; with time, this will be 30%, 40%, plus the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza. They will form a majority. It will be like the situation in South Africa in the 1980s, where a white minority ruled a black majority: in Israel, in 20 years a Jewish minority will be ruling an Arab majority.

What will this mean for Israel?

The situation will change: on the long-term you cannot dominate with a minority. You can do it for two, three, maybe 10 years, but it cannot be maintained long-term. The Israelis will be weakened and they will have to concede power and change their attitude.

Why has the United Nations been incapable of stopping the spread of the AIDS epidemic in Africa?

The international community is indifferent. The world is divided in haves and have-nots; rich and poor. Thus there are also "rich wars", and "poor wars". By "rich" I do not mean "rich in money"; "rich" in the sense that you have the attention of the world community. Everybody wants to help you, you have mediators, you have money, you have Blue Helmets. The wars that occur in the north receive this kind of attention.

But the wars in Africa are the wars of the poor. No one cares about these wars. Look at the war that has been raging in the Sudan for the last 20 years: no one cares. The war in Somalia also continues, but when the Americans and Europeans left there in 1993-94, it was forgotten. And yet they are still killing each other in Somalia, and Mogadishu is split in three, but no one cares. These are "orphan wars", and AIDS is part of this.

How effective is the United Nations as an institution if it cannot mediate this situation?

The United Nations is the association of member states. If member states are not interested, nothing happens. In my time as secretary-general of the UN, I once asked for $5m for Liberia. I didn't obtain the money, at the same time [the UN] were spending $5m a day in Yugoslavia.


Boutros Boutros Ghali (81), was the first Arab secretary-general of the United Nations from 1992 to 1996. Before his period at the UN, Mr Boutros Ghali was minister of foreign affairs in Egypt from 1977 to 1991. Today he lives in Paris, where he holds an honorary title on the board of the Association Mondiale de la Francophonie.

Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As a final comment I really don't think that the US will even be able to retain the oii or get it for free afterwards. Once Iraq is reestablished they will likely retain control of oil sales under a new government. And once Iraq can begin to sell oil freely without embargo oil prices will drop as supply increases. This is of course pure conjecture. We will see what happens.

Agreed, who knows, indeed isn't the plan to put up a US general as a pseudo-dictator in Iraq? I really hope that Iraq actually gets to rule itself after this mess.

As for the oil I think that accusing the US of blindly following their pockets and oil barons' demands, is a little pessimistic and/or conspiracy-theorish.

Like the article quoted by fantom says, there are much easier ways to gain control of oil that don't involve spending billions of dollars in a costly war. But then again, as Vesa hinted at, maybe the demand to test new weaponry is a large factor in all this! Who knows? Certainly no one can tell right now with certainty. This is all sheer conjecture.

Speaking of that article, I really enjoyed reading it and was quite impressed - it presents a very balanced and healthy view on this matter. Too bad more people don't take this tone, but rather take the extremes.

Re: Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Too bad more people don't take this tone, but rather take the extremes.

Yep, including myself...

Re: Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Agreed, who knows, indeed isn't the plan to put up a US general as a pseudo-dictator in Iraq? I really hope that Iraq actually gets to rule itself after this mess. As for the oil I think that accusing the US of blindly following their pockets and oil barons' demands, is a little pessimistic and/or conspiracy-theorish. Like the article quoted by fantom says, there are much easier ways to gain control of oil that don't involve spending billions of dollars in a costly war. But then again, as Vesa hinted at, maybe the demand to test new weaponry is a large factor in all this! Who knows? Certainly no one can tell right now with certainty. This is all sheer conjecture. Speaking of that article, I really enjoyed reading it and was quite impressed - it presents a very balanced and healthy view on this matter. Too bad more people don't take this tone, but rather take the extremes.

Great post accolade haha just kidding alcodde. For some reason accolade always pops into my mind. Part of the reason why I think that the US can't just take the oil or establish a general as a governor is because there is SUCH a huge anti-US sentiment over this war and we are touting it as a war of liberation. As such expect something along the lines of an Afghanistan form of government to be set up with minimal US control.

great interview you posted fantom

Re: Re: Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Great post accolade haha just kidding alcodde. For some reason accolade always pops into my mind. Part of the reason why I think that the US can't just take the oil or establish a general as a governor is because there is SUCH a huge anti-US sentiment over this war and we are touting it as a war of liberation. As such expect something along the lines of an Afghanistan form of government to be set up with minimal US control.

Haha actually my nick has nothing to do with "accolade" at all, I'm not intending it to sound like that, it was just a name that came up a long time ago (by accident) when I was mashing some buttons, and it stuck.

I agree with how putting up a general wouldn't work. I forgot where I read about that, but it was probably from a not-too-credible source. You know, now that I think about it, the idea strikes me as absolutely absurd!

Sigh, as always, I only later realize how I can sometimes post crap, and not notice it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Note the date and the signatries.

What are you sugguesting Renegade ? You have a good attention to detail and it's an excellent find but I hope you haven't become a conspiracy theorist. Here are people's answers as to why Iraq is an issue now and never before. We now know that Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz always felt strongly about the issue so it should come as no surprise now that the upper levels of US government feel the need to take action now.

Keep in mind that there were other letters issued with regards to matters dealing with Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc., and that have never been implemented. Furthermore EACH of these letters contains a different set of signatures implying that signatures are no indication of member status or support of a group but rather each signature is gathered on an issue by issue basis.

But you know what? I'll indulge you! I'll give them a call tomorrow and ask them what kind of relation rumsfeld, perle, etc. have to the group and how signatures are compiled. In the meantime, don't jump to any coclusions just yet

After yesterday's bombardement I concluded that besides the strategic, economic and political goals this war is also about a simply pychological message: Don't fuck with US(literally)

Whoever saw those explosions, this huge devastation will probably think twice before he supports/harbors/finances terrorists.

Another reason could have been...

- Been the president after the golden years of President Clintons econoic boom and wide support, while Bush was heaving national lows acceptance and bunch of problems coming ahead, he tried to in a big way distract the american minds, taking over Iraq and making it a National situation, convincing majority on what he is doing its right, and show that he has as much power by doing this actions, showing off the latest US military, and say.. SEE! IM BUSH! LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! ..

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant After yesterday's bombardement I concluded that besides the strategic, economic and political goals this war is also about a simply pychological message: Don't fuck with US(literally) Whoever saw those explosions, this huge devastation will probably think twice before he supports/harbors/finances terrorists.

some valid points... and some not so valid points, but an interesting read none the less


How not to fight terrorists.

By John Champneys

Terrorists fight with bombs and bullets. They frequently target civilians. They always take personal risks because they think their cause is just.

Terrorists like nothing better than governments who fight back with guns and bullets. This makes their outrages seem more respectable. The innocent get hurt, and from their ranks spring up more terrorists. The fighting back gives the terrorists publicity, which they crave.

Terrorists claim that their cause justifies their outrages. It never does. Terrorists have to have non-violent supporters who hide them and provide them with finance. Once you convince these supporters that the terrorists methods are not justified, then the terrorists become a fringe activity who can be infiltrated and destroyed from within.

Governments should never behave like terrorists. They should behave with dignity, and in accordance with law. Whilst this is necessary in accordance with morals and all relevant religions, the principle reason for is practical, it is a necessary precondition of success.

For Bush to declare war on terrorists is silly. It is CERTAIN that you cannot with bombs and bullets stop people blowing themselves up and nearby civilians with them. To do this is an outrage against creator God and the human race and is quite definitely not authorised by any mainstream religion If the communities from which the terrorists come are treated even half decently they will not support such terrorism and it will wither

. Bush�s war against terrorism is not even honest. He does not mean terrorists in general, just those who attack America. Whilst some revenge after the unprecedented and unspeakable outrage of September11th is doubtless understandable, it is threatening to go far beyond that. There is currently no evidence that the evil tyrant Saddam Hussain is planning civilian outrages on mainland America or actively supporting those who do. Whilst he may be amassing chemical biological or nuclear weapons, the idea that he plans to launch them off against America is absurd (the evidence does not exist and cannot even be credibly manufactured).The Americans doubtless can defeat Iraq and overthrow Saddam, but what then, and where will it end?

The only legitimate demand, post September 11, is for governments, whatever they did in the past, not in future to sanction training camps where suicide terrorists are trained to commit civilian outrages. Governments should be invited to say they will not and show they will not, and those that do so should be guaranteed freedom from attack. Those that continue this lamentable practice should be subject to economic pressures, and diplomatic pressures, keeping military means as a truly last resort and only after U.N. approval. Should this make American hawks impatient they should be reminded that they themselves built up the Afghan and Iraqi offenders, to fight the Russians and Iranians.

Dropping bombs on people to defeat them and make them change their mind is an invention of Hitler. It did not work then, and , please God, it never will. Civilized society can never make progress that way. Remember the story of the Sun and the Wind. The man could not be forced by the Wind to take his coat off, but the Sun got him to do so freely. Violence begets violence. Peace begets peace.

We in the West have the best system of government, democracy, and we can use it to evolve the best form of economy. We have the wealth to alleviate all the worst aspects of global poverty from whence terrorists spring. All this we can export worldwide, with the internet, marmite and coca-cola, Shakespeare and Mickey Mouse.. .We are unlikely to achieve this fully unless we demobilize, stop exporting arms and inventing new and more outrageous weapons.

America urgently needs to spend money on bread not bullets. It needs to make a success of Afghanistan before embarking on any further military adventures. If it bombs places to smithereens and then walks away it cannot expect to be loved, and it is missing the great chance it now has to be the accepted leader of the free world. In general unless it is spending at least twice as much building up as it does in destroying and preparing to destroy it isn�t responsibly fulfilling its world leadership role. And yes, this is also the way to fight terrorists.

O

^ the above is a circle, and you are all running around it.

how clever

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r O ^ the above is a circle, and you are all running around it.

it took alot of searching to come with that one eeh buddy..good job.

I couldn't agree more with that article, except for this statement:

quote:

Originally posted by ascension We in the West have the best system of government, democracy,...

Sure you do... with all those corrupted, selfish & greedy mother ******s running that government, you're not gonna get anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by fantom Sure you do... with all those corrupted, selfish & greedy mother ******s running that government, you're not gonna get anywhere.

What is better than Democracy?

Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic why? because i dont think the main purpose of the war is to free iraq..

it may not be the main purpose but it will befinetly be a likely outcome of the war and for that reason i support it.

now as for Boutros Boutros Ghali some things stuck me about him both for good and bad....

quote:

now, the young Bush and the people surrounding him represent a group of rightwing extremists. They are fundamentalists: Christian fundamentalists.

thats pretty offensive if you ask me. i would not call the bush administration christian fundamentalists because they are not trying to convert everyone in the world to christianity but rather are pushing liberty and the religious freedoms it contains.

quote:

Is it not about power and a desire to dominate the oil resources of the Middle East? No. It may sound surprising, but I believe they already dominate the Middle East and its oil. If it was about gaining control over Iraqi oil, they could obtain it through much cheaper means, without spending many millions of dollars on a war in Iraq.

now will you guys listen to me? i've been saying that all along.

quote:

Do you believe a war is justified if UN inspectors find weapons of mass destruction? There are weapons of mass destruction in Israel, so why don't they start by disarming Israel? They have the atomic bomb, they never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so why not start there? It is deux poids et deux mesures [two weights and two measures].

i love how everyone brings that up to skirt away from answering the question... its like me asking:
me: john, let me check if you have some bananas in your frig
john: go check bob's frig i know he has some bananas.
the point is i asked john for his, not bob's, why divert attention?

quote:

In the last 12 months we have seen the horrible things done by Israelis in the occupied territories: demolishing houses, killing children

right.... its just as one sided as he says it

Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy thats pretty offensive if you ask me. i would not call the bush administration christian fundamentalists because they are not trying to convert everyone in the world to christianity but rather are pushing liberty and the religious freedoms it contains.

Religious freedoms? Whoa there... you're getting way ahead of yourself. I don't think that Iraqis need those "religious freedoms" that much, especially not from US. And liberty? I'd rather call that americanization, as Boutros nicely puts it.

quote:

right.... its just as one sided as he says it

Now that's a pretty ignorant comment, if you ask me. Why concentrate on Iraq ONLY? Why are they the only bad guys, and not any of the surrounding nations? It takes two to create conflict, don't you think?

Re: Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by fantom Religious freedoms? Whoa there... you're getting way ahead of yourself. I don't think that Iraqis need those "religious freedoms" that much, especially not from US. And liberty? I'd rather call that americanization, as Boutros nicely puts it.

the iraqi's may not need religious freedoms, but it would be nice to have - dont you agree? do you not belive that the US stands up for liberty? i'd definitly call iraq's current regime the opposite - tyranny. anyways i was angry to hear Boutros call america lead by rightwing extremists - Christian fundamentalists. i dont see that to be the case.

quote:

Now that's a pretty ignorant comment, if you ask me. Why concentrate on Iraq ONLY? Why are they the only bad guys, and not any of the surrounding nations? It takes two to create conflict, don't you think?

i was refering to how he singled out israel as the problem in the conflict... how the israeli's were killing palestinian children... what about the palestinian suicide bombers who kill israeli children? two sides make a conflict as you said, singling out one as Boutros did shows bias, something i dont want to see from a UN secuirty general (even if he is an ex....)

Re: Re: Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i was refering to how he singled out israel as the problem in the conflict... how the israeli's were killing palestinian children... what about the palestinian suicide bombers who kill israeli children? two sides make a conflict as you said, singling out one as Boutros did shows bias, something i dont want to see from a UN secuirty general (even if he is an ex....)

I don't find it as taking one side and being biased, but actually pointing a finger on the other side too...

Re: Re: The true objective of the war

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy thats pretty offensive if you ask me. i would not call the bush administration christian fundamentalists because they are not trying to convert everyone in the world to christianity but rather are pushing liberty and the religious freedoms it contains.

It is the truth. Half of Bush's admin is full of Christian Fundamentalists, the other half is trying to manage the world (guide it), not tell it where to go and force change. I saw it in a documentary a couple of days ago and I even posted about it in this political forum in a thread once, I forget which one but I will look for it...it talks about the "Hawks" being the fundamentalists etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Yet they don't even know what the Americans are doing there The latest info is not very encouraging in that the ideal scenario of tens of thousands Iraqis surrendering has not happened, but instead lots of fighting has been reported. In particular, there's no info yet about the body toll of Iraqi conscripts, so we don't know if the American troops are butchering the Iraqis en masse like on the Basra Highway Of Death in 1991. But it's still too early to assess how it's going, so the surge in Bush's popularity can't be explained rationally.

what fucking crack are you smoking?!@!

"Yet they don't even know what the Americans are doing there"
except for perhaps the most extensive media coverage in the history of armed conflicts?

'ideal scenario of tens of thousands Iraqis surrendering has not happened' <- gee, i dont know, maybe because war only started about, 4 days ago. around 2000 have already surrended, which is pretty good considering they probably havent met the core of the iraqi army yet.

'so we don't know if the American troops are butchering the Iraqis en masse like on the Basra Highway Of Death in 1991.' <- well shit, i'm sure the reporters embbeded with the invasion force (3rd infantry division?) would report something like that, dont you? and i seriously fucking doubt the fact that coalition troops would mercilessly slaughter iraqi troops.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2875777.stm
"Applause as Marines enter Basra"

"Based on these latest bits of info about the real war motives, I'm slowly starting to become a fanatical supporter of the Anti-War Movement."
yeah well you know what they say, birds of a feather....

retard.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.