1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    So in order for a country to "behav[e] in a manner befitting an ally," they have to simply rubber stamp any action we take even when the "evidence" for that action is exaggerated, stretched, or downright fraudulent?
     
  2. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    One would figure if the Bush Admin is so interested in spreading freedom and democracy they would take a strong stand against a policy that advocates an invasion of Taiwan.
     
  3. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    When the Russians, Franch and Germans were nixing their entry into the theatre of war in Iraq was it because the evidence was "exagerated" or were they just busy counting their dirty Saddam money?
     
  4. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    "Dirty Saddam Money"???

    BWAH!!!

    I'll bet there's plenty of that in Dick Cheney's wallet as well!
     
  5. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    As far as people sending 'dirty money' into Iraq you left out the U.S. seeing as how an oil man based in Texas was found to have done the same kind of stuff.

    Or perhaps they saw the money that the U.S. would make when they offered no-bid contracts to U.S. only companies in post Saddam Iraq as dirty money.

    Those guys are guilty of doing business with Saddam, but they aren't the only ones, and it isn't fair to act like only the countries that voted against going in were guilty of taking Saddam's money.
     
  6. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Are we talking the Oil-for-Food deal and are we talking at governmental levels.. not just individual citizens?
     
  7. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    agreed, when those guys screwed up it was their fault as individuals, not the US government.
    And when we were attacked by muslims, it was the the entire race and culture attacking us and not just individuals.
    To believe anything different is to be UnAmerican.
     
  8. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,402
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    the oil man in texas didn't have a seat on the security council.
     
  9. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    I'm not sure why you are trying to assert this...
     
  10. losttexan

    losttexan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 1999
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    This holier that thou attitude so scary!

    "If a nation does not support what we do they aren't our allies"

    What about if we don't support what they do? Are we not their ally?

    How absurdly shallow that thinking is.

    Do ya'll know how many ruthless dictators we have allied ourselves with? How many more we let exist no matter how ruthless they were. There is NOT one single instance of the US ever taking attacking another country just cause they were ruthless. (bush was doing it for WMD'S, right). This revisionist history is crazy.

    SO the country we go into for WMD'S, just happens to be sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and bush and most the top members of the administration came from the Oil Industry.

    Simple coincidence?
     
  11. wizardball

    wizardball Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    so are you calling the United States a tyrant nation?






    i think power is an obsession or an addiction.....just can;t give it up.....i think the U.S did whatever was in its best interest..("national security")...its economy was going down the drain…..and a war always helps make a distraction ….and in the U.S’s case it’s also good for its economy.... plus it was a country with oil...so all the better….after thinking about it i don’t think its that a big a deal…...even though i appose any war......i think things like this have been happening since the beginning of history….....though its comical how sloppily it took place…..
     
  12. VinceCarter

    VinceCarter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 1999
    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    0
    i guarentee there will be a civil war between the Shiite and Sunni's after the U.S leaves. i feel bad for everyone involved. just a bad situation that is going to get worse.:(
     
  13. losttexan

    losttexan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 1999
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0

    You don't think going to war for oil is a big deal? ......Well at least you are honest. Most republicans can't admit that was what the war was about. Refreshing!

    I however find it to a very BIG DEAL.
     
  14. DavidS

    DavidS Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2000
    Messages:
    8,605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey basso. Should we attack Cuba if Mexico attacks us? Cuba is dangerous, right? All those "wet backs" are the same, right? And we can all do it in the name of "protecting our own, people and interests," right? Who cares if we kill 10,000 civilian nationalist! Collateral damage! It's all in the name of "liberty and freedom!"

    Honestly, are all "rag-heads" the same to you? Iran, Iraq, Packastan, Saudi, Jordan...can you distinguish a difference? WMD's was used in order to build support -- hook, line & sinker. And the WMD's were your distraction. It wasn't a fluke. You were coerced -- by fear. And you took the bait.

    Ask yourself this: Would you send you child to Iraq to take out Saddam, if 911 did not happen and if Iraq did not have oil? Freedom and liberty, right?

    I have no problem fighting for freedom and liberty. But at least understand what you are fighting for before you do it.
     
    #214 DavidS, May 1, 2005
    Last edited: May 1, 2005
  15. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    We will likely never know since GWB abandoned any pretense at diplomacy and never tried in earnest to get those countries on our side. Keep in mind that these were all countries that were squarely on our side after 9/11 and throughout the campaign in Afghanistan.

    The problem is that Bush and his cabal hyped the WMD angle so much that it came out as the only issue regarding Iraq. Since the weapons inspectors hadn't finished their work (which they were busy doing until we invaded), those countries were reluctant to invade when the people responsible for verifying Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions weren't finished.

    You are welcome to accuse them of "counting their dirty Saddam money" as long as you acknowledge that both Dick Cheney's company as well as some Texas oilmen were involved in that as well. I believe that if GWB had made a case that was backed up by evidence (IOW, not centered on the nonexistant WMDs), those countries might have joined up with us, but as I said above, we will never know since Bush didn't want any diplomacy from the start.
     
  16. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    <b>Originally posted by andymoon

    We will likely never know since GWB abandoned any pretense at diplomacy and never tried in earnest to get those countries on our side. Keep in mind that these were all countries that were squarely on our side after 9/11 and throughout the campaign in Afghanistan.</b>

    Why do I feel like you constantly overstate this angle? "Abandoned any pretense"? They had more than 90 days from the SOTU2003. Yeah, they were on our side until our decision to act threatened to expose their dirty laundry.

    <b>The problem is that Bush and his cabal hyped the WMD angle so much that it came out as the only issue regarding Iraq. Since the weapons inspectors hadn't finished their work (which they were busy doing until we invaded), those countries were reluctant to invade when the people responsible for verifying Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions weren't finished.</b>

    Yeah, anything to buy time to figure out something else....

    <b>You are welcome to accuse them of "counting their dirty Saddam money" as long as you acknowledge that both Dick Cheney's company as well as some Texas oilmen were involved in that as well. I believe that if GWB had made a case that was backed up by evidence (IOW, not centered on the nonexistant WMDs), those countries might have joined up with us, but as I said above, we will never know since Bush didn't want any diplomacy from the start.</b>

    Are you failing to distinguish between the acts of individual US citizens or corporations and the acts of foreign governments? Why was the US government not in on that deal?
     
  17. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    That would be a great theory except that if there motive was to keep from getting found out, they would have been better off going into Iraq with us. They could have taken care of it all themselves, or made deals any relevant information pertaining to their govts. after Saddam fell.

    If protecting their alleged dirty money schemes was a motivating factor they would have been with us on the invasion. I'm sure they had no doubt that Bush was going in no matter what like most of us laymen did.
     
  18. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    I'm sorry but that makes no sense. The toppling of Saddam meant the "full" exposure of his dealings to whatever extent that is possible. It's not possible for them to destroy the evidence even as it is acquired all-the-while keeping it a secret.

    New definition: an uparmored Humvee-- one with a paper-shredder.
     
  19. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    The toppling of Saddam didn't mean full exposure. They wouldn't have to shred it. All they would have to do is have a coalition agreement that any documents relating to any country in the coalition would be handed over to representatives of that nation. It wouldn't have been difficult at all. I also don't think that any of the nations you mentioned would believe tha somehow by opposing the invasion of Iraq would prevent Saddam from being toppled by the U.S.

    They had nothing to gain as far as oil for food violations by opposing the invasion.
     
  20. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    So are you saying that these nations previously morally opposed to the invasion of Iraq would have dropped that pretense if they could have covered their asses? And that's okay by you?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now