Iraq Poll Updated

Oooooh! I get a new page!

Uccisore - America has openly declared that it refuses to negotiate with NK while it continues not to to cooperate. Following their expulsion of the weapons inspectors and declarance of reinitiating their nuclear weapons programme the US held a “secret” meeting with some NK representatives. The North Koreans will immediatly inform the world of meetings between them and America as it shows the US to be weak and on the defensive.

And of course, we’ve all been deceived. The bulk of American troops are actually in South Korea. That’ll go down a treat in World affairs. And every major country in the world is in on this big scam.Yeah.

I fail to see this massive backing. Militarily perhaps, you can hide info from the public and enemies, but not the reasons for the war.

So why is it time for a new Iraqi leader now, why not next year, or four years ago?

Would you go to fight this war for your country or would you leave that the soldiers? That’s the real question.

Found Blix’s Report for those of you that are interested. It’s easy reading and not rediculously long. … /index.htm

First of all, let’s not forget that in this case ‘cooperate’ means ‘give NK free food and aid because they threaten war if we don’t’. If they really want to badger people into giving them free stuff, they ought to talk to the French, I’m sure they’d oblige. Second, my point was that we don’t know what the US is doing about the NK situation. All we know is that they aren’t sending troops, and they aren’t holding publicly known negotiations. This doesn’t amount to “Refusing to acknowledge the issue”, not in the least. They just aren’t doing what NK wants them to.

If you fail to see it, you haven’t looked. Any scientific poll of US citizens I’ve seen since the State of the Union Address has the majority of Americans supporting a war against Iraq.

Ask the United Nations. This happens to be when the United States took it upon themselves to do the work of getting rid of Saddam. Why shouldn’t the timing be to our advantage, if we’re going to do all the work? If other countries think it should have been done sooner, they should have done it themselves. If other countries think it shouldn’t be done at all, they should have never told Saddam to disarm in the first place. Everyone paying attention knew Saddam was going to ignore the resolutions, everyone paying attention knew that when force was needed, it would be the US that would have to do it. With that in mind, you should be looking to see what the major UN countries against the war have to gain from Saddam remaining in power. Sure, the US must be doing everything for some big evil secret reason. We sure are suspicious, wanting to go to war with a country that ignored the peace agreements from our last war.
But let’s not even question why France and Germany oppose a war they aren’t even being asked to participate in. A war to enforce resolutions they agreed to, against a country known to be an agressor to their neighbors. A war being supported by two of their oldest allies, against an already established enemy of the United Nations. Germany and France must just be a bunch of peace-loving doves, there couldn’t possibly be some other motivation.

I’d leave it to the soldiers- it is their job, after all. That question was far to easy to be the ‘real’ one. :slight_smile:

After a suitable rest period recovering from the bouts between myself and Pangloss/Gordy (See a momentous moment…) I return to the fray!

The Uk are currently negotiating with NK to try and act as an intermediatry between the US and NK, twas in the news about 3 weeks ago, but only got a mention in the international section of the broadsheets and only a little column space at that. It was probably easily missed. As Blair said there are different ways to deal with different threats. For the NK problem, everyone’s hoping it’s just NK making a play to get more international aid. With the Soviet one you mentioned international aid is vaguely being used to try and secure the weapons better as well as clear up some of the mess the Soviets made. And with the Iraq problem the US have had enough of the diplomatic way cause it hasn’t worked even though it’s been given 12 years so they’ve decided that if the regime won’t cooperate, the regime should go.

Well, when does your patience run out?? At an arbitary time, no? Or are you telling me you’re super human? The time that patience has run out is now, not next year or 4 years ago. It just is, your question is what a philosopher would term an ‘empty’ question, there is no real answer to what constitutes enough. It’s obviously different for France compared to the US.

It was a choice of Iraq or Iran, Iraq was more to the West’s taste at the time so it was supported. It was a case of a lesser of two evils rather than, “Yes! Saddam’s our man, he’s all good and we love him”. It was more a case of “Dammit, it’s all kicking off down there, which of these two nutters is gonna bring about a more stable result. Errr, Iraq probably. Err, better make sure they win then. Bugger, wish we didn’t have to make this choice.”

And it wasn’t just the US supporting him sedm1000.

Where you hear that? That’s just not true! There are some that do, and others that say the cost far outweighs the benefits. Don’t forget the likely responses of the OPEC countries in the region. In the debate last week one of the commentators said that if Saddam manages to blow up his fields before they are secured by the west the cost of rebuilding it will far exceed any potential benefit. The Oil conspiracy theory also only appeared after the Venezulan oil crisis, before then oil was not a problem for the west. But the case for war was being made way before that!

I’ve also mentioned before the oil CT reason that some of the anti-war countries will have because they could lose rights to some of those oil fields. So there’s a reason for all you anti-war people! It’s all about oil, the french are just being selfish gits, so are the Russians, their pacifist stance is a lie, it’s all about oil, it is, it is, it has to be!!!

The conspiracy argument goes two ways sedm1000, be careful when you use it.

Ive read commentary to that end in the Times, Torygraph, Guardian and NY Herald Tribune. Although the problems in Venezula intensified the oil issue, I dont think anybody was under any illusions that Iraqi oil was one of GWBs targets. Iraq sits on an estimated 10% of the world`s oil reserves, American control lessens their vulnerability to the increasingly unstable relationships with some of the members of OPEC. There have been leaks from the US declaring their military intention to secure the oil fields as soon as war starts, so as to prevent the fiasco of last time.

It is also well known that the French and Russians have significant ties to Iraqi oil, which they are keen to protect. I haven`t seen any credible denial of this. Both stand to lose out if the US seizes control and installs a pro-US government. BP recently made huge investments in the Russian oil industry, keen no doubt to spread their bets over who will come out on top in the end.

I dont argue that either side in the war debate is acting with strictly honourable intentions. My issue lies with the propaganda that tries to persuade the world otherwize. France/Russia need not rely to on falsehoods as they know America cannot approach their real objection without revealing its own true motive. The question that some in America must now ask is whether the cost buying a war in Iraq (see $26 bn offer to Turkey this week) will actually be offset by the oil they expect to pump.

All we know is that they aren’t sending troops, and they aren’t holding publicly known negotiations. This doesn’t amount to “Refusing to acknowledge the issue”, not in the least.

What exactly does amount to acknowledging the issue? In my eyes, its taking an active role to resolve it, not to just ignore it.

I fail to see this massive backing. Militarily perhaps, you can hide info from the public and enemies, but not the reasons for the war.
If you fail to see it, you haven’t looked. Any scientific poll of US citizens I’ve seen since the State of the Union Address has the majority of Americans supporting a war against Iraq.

Perhaps the reason that American citizens support it is that they agree with a their leaders, and not that they cant see through the propaganda.

But let’s not even question why France and Germany oppose a war they aren’t even being asked to participate in.

By being asked to agree with it, or even abstain, as members of the security council they are most definatly participating in it. Be it by sending their own troops or not they are authorising any activities which happen during the war.

Germany and France must just be a bunch of peace-loving doves, there couldn’t possibly be some other motivation.

That’s it all right, in a nuttshell. Anyone anti war squirms at the sight of blood. There couldn’t possibly be any political or economic reasons involved. Were you actually being sarcastic, because this just seems too naive to be true?

Would you go to war if your hand was on the trigger? Answer.

I’d leave it to the soldiers- it is their job, after all. That question was far to easy to be the ‘real’ one.

So you feel perfectly content sending soldiers that may not nessecarily agree with the war, to die for a cause they may not agree with, just as long as you are safe at home? It is very much the real question. It is very easy to sit at home and approve a war as long as it doesnt put you in any real danger. Leave the fighting to those who signed up for it. What about the Iraqi forced to fight, what about the innocents? Would you you be so quick to approve a war if you were in an iraqi, where your probability of death is a damn sight higher than it is at the moment as you sit at home on your pc. Maybe you would, but is that fair on your best friend who wouldn’t.

As long as Iraq is still improving its cooperation im perfectly happy to let the inspectors progress. And it is progress. Despite the progress of the last six months, despite their increased cooperation, war is still going ahead. So why bother cooperating at all? Why bother destroying their weapons fo unmovic? Why not just keep them and nuke every arrogant prick that marches your way?

That is what they’re paid to do anon. The Army’s not a democracy!

I’m sure there were probably a few people in the Army who thought facism was a good thing when WW2 started (don’t try and say there wern’t, there were pro-fascists all over the world till the horror of what the Nazi’s had done came to light). Does that mean they shouldn’t have been made to go off to war? Soldiering is a career, not a lifestyle choice. You can’t pick and choose which orders to follow, unless in exceptional circumstances. And these circumstances aren’t exceptional, oursoldiers are bound by national law and contrac, not international (if you really believe there is such a thing).

The innocents are another matter, but see Clementine’s post in quotes about the effects of war to Iraqis last time. Only 3,500 civvies died, an incredibly small amount compared to mlitary casualties. It was the aftermath that killed a lot more of them, which won’t happen this time cause America will want to appear like good guys and will stay and make sure that doesn’t happen again. It was Saddam’s fault last time anyway, he didn’t have the reserves or whatever, his fault not the coalitions.

I’ve only seen such things in the commentaries and not the news. Commentaries are one person’s opinion, the news bits tend to be reportable facts. Which politician has said that it’s about oil?

There was no mention at all till the Venezulan oil crisis, not even one sniff, and then boom, a few of the gutter press start suggesting it and all of a sudden it’s fact. I haven’t seen a single debate between polticians of both sides that has even touched on to oil, they all know it’s not a real issue, maybe it’s a nice bonus, but not a real issue.

There’s no guarantee that the post-Saddam Iraqi government will be pro-US either. Unless you’re willing to concede that the Iraqi people WANT the US to depose Saddam, then of course they would want to thank the US for helping them. If they wanted to KEEP Saddam I imagine any post-Saddam government would get into democratic power on the back of an anti-US vote.

Either way it weakens your argument, either you’ve got to admit that the iraqis want the US to come and help them, significantly weakening the anti-war stance, or if they don’t then the US won’t get the oil deals anyway and the Oil CT is a redundant argument.

Pax_Vitae im not sure about a new round of “withhunt” trials. i know it very well could happen what with the Office of Homeland Propoganda trying to scare everyone, but if it did, im also pretty sure there would be mass riots. sadly, my generation’s liberals dont seem to be as peaceful as their predecessors (1960s hippies)

anonymous i greatly resent your inability to put any middle ground between total pacifism and bloodlust. you say that everyone who is anti-war squirms at the sight of blood. thats obsurd! i am strongly anti-war but i will not run away screaming if i see blood. maybe i interpreted your comment wrongly, and if so, please explain what you meant to me.

To label oil as a “conspiracy theory” is a pathetic attempt to deny its credibility. The facts show that France and Russia have huge investments in Iraqi oil to protect, and that the US has made significant leaks about their interest/desire in taking the oil. GWB has declared his intention to secure oil interests for the American future (Alaska/Antartica/Iraq). I personally think you have to be very naive/blind to miss the connection. Terrorism/weapons programs/morality are all smokescreens for what is essentially a good old fahsioned oil grab.

You are very cynical about it all aren’t you :slight_smile: The decision of the leader there was made in their tribal council, which, as far as I understood it, the US wern’t involved in.

The point I’ve always been trying to make is that there are nice and strong enough reasons to attack Iraq without even putting Oil into the equation.

To say that it’s ALL about Oil is the terribly niave view, cause it’s quite clearly not. I call it a CT cause that’s what it is when people say it’s the only justification or the main justification.

I don’t deny it would be a desirable secondary benefit from deposing Iraq, but there’s no guarantees on it. In fact purely going for that reason would be a huge gamble that could blow up in their faces.

I’m quite sure that’s true. We support the war because we agree with the Administration that it’s the right thing to do.

That’s not at all the same thing as what the US is going to have to do in this situation, and any other situation where a country ignores a UN command, apparently.

I was being sarcastic, because it’s foolish to hold the US’s motivations as suspect while just assuming France and Germany have nothing to hide. If anything, it’s more likely the other way around.

You mean, if I was in that imaginary position of having the authority to delcare war, and also being on the frontlines? I might. Then again, I might chicken-out and not declare war. Hard to say. Doesn’t mean war isn’t the right thing to do, just means I’m not the bravest person on earth.

Of course I do. They signed on the dotted line with the knowledge that they could be asked to do that, knowing in advance the degree of compensation they would recieve for their services. If the army wasn’t a completely volunteer force, then I would have some reservations, sure.

Signs seem to suggest that most Iraqi’s want Saddam out of power, and that they realize their country would be better off without him. That said, there’s only two credible ways to get rid of Saddam.

  1. A US military action, or
  2. An Iraqi-civilian lead civil war.

I would think the second option would result in a much longer, bloodier conflict that would destabilize the area for ages. With that in mind, if I were an Iraqi citizen, I would certainly rather have the US come in an oust Saddam, than be expected to do it myself with rocks and molotov cocktails.

Which progress are you referring to? How many weapons has Iraq turned over for us to destroy? Making it slightly easier to look for the stuff they’re still actively hiding isn’t cooperation.

I think both sides should shut up about oil. The anti-wars say the only thing Bush wants is oil. Well there is no hard proof of that. Same when pro-war people talk about France and Germany. There is no proof. Does anyone else agree oil shouldn’t be talked about anymore in this forum? Let’s deal with real issues.

Iraq had violated over 15( I don’t know the exact number if someone would want to say it would help ) UN resolutions. How far does he have to go before we take action? It better not be when he attacks another country. What are the point of these resolutions if their not going to be acted upon? We have given him chance after chance. If we keep letting him get away then that sends a message to the rest of the world’s evil dictators that they can push us around. Can anyone say North Korea? If we go into Iraq and we attack swift and remove Saddam. North Korea isn’t going to be walking around so smug. That is, I believe, why the NK situation is not being as publicized. Negotiations will be much easier after an Iraq war. I think that is the best way to handle the situation. A negotiation with Korea would be too hard now( though we might be trying) because we all look like ediots with the war in such question and of course military action on Korea might lead to giant mushroom clouds in the sky though I strongly suspect their all talk.

If their is anyone who is scared of attacking Saddam because he might have nukes I doubt he does(You need so many hard to get materials like uranium and testing needs to be done and even the ediot inspectors would question the mushroom shaped cloud in the sky or the suspiciously barren wasteland where a 2,000 person city once stood). He could build up a nuculear arsenal though in the future. That’s a scary thought. If a nuke bomb exploded in New York City it would kill 20 million people. The same if one exploded in London or any other major city. America freaked when 2 buildings fell. Think about 100s of buildings falling. We can’t let Saddam touch a nuculear weapon or we’d all be at his mercy. One more reason for war. Their adding up.

There is a pro-war angle there that I don’t hear talked about too much. It seems to me that the UN resolutions are pretty much the ‘peace treaty conditions’ between Iraq and the US, that is, we agreed to stop blowing them up after they attacked Kuwait in exchange for them getting rid of certain kinds of weapons and such. If they aren’t living up to their side of the peace agreement, aren’t we thereby justifed in resuming military action? I think this is a case of continuing the past war because Iraq didn’t live up to the peace terms, not at all a case of starting a second war with Iraq.
Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

The US paid off most of the warlords in weapons and cash. Which other way were they going to vote?

naive - 1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:

  1. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment:

Accepting the official propaganda would be naive, to criticise and dissect it is not.

The point I have argued is that the reasons presented are woefully inadequate in covering the true cause of US belligerence. Evidence of links to OBL was copied from a PhD student`s thesis, weapons of mass destruction hve not been found, and those conventional weapons that exist are of zero threat to the US or UK.

The US and Israel also stand in violation of countless UN resolutions. To argue this as a just cause is hypocritical to the extreme.

To suggest that Saddam could deliver a nuclear payload to the US is nonesense. To insinuate that NK will be frightened by US action is also rediculous - they actually have nuclear weapons, and so cannot be bullied into submission like Iraq.

There is hard proof of US, French and Russian oil interest (as mentioned earlier), and it seems nobody can post credible evidence against this. America made sure that oil makes the world go round - and must work its hardest to ensure it controls the oil.

exactly what america is all about. we kill inocent civilians in the name of achieving peace. bush is trying to start a holy war “god is on our side,” he says. now, correct me if im mistaken, but isnt that in violation of the separation of church and state? but then again, the american constitution has no relevance these days. with the founding of the office of homeland propoganda (i refuse to call it security so get used to it) the implied privacy rights of the fourth amendment are tossed out the window. now the government can tap phones, search houses, etc with no suspicion at all. the fact that government officials still throw around words like freedom and liberty is laughable.

Firstly, sorry to Uccisore, didn’t quite catch your sarcasm.
Also, to hairy guy, you did misinterpret me, I was actually being sarcastic. Sorry about the lack of clarity in general: I qouted what I said and said what I meant to qoute, What I meant to qoute is now in red.

Uccisore, and everyone else, I believe that Iraq is making significant steps to aid the inspections. Firstly, they let them in, a miracle in itself. As for the rest of it, I wouldn’t dare try to explain it in simple form so if you to see where I got my views I gave you the web-page for Blix’s most recent report already.

I think what we really need is an extremely detailed resolution which Iraq must comply with. It should apply to the SMART principles : specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, time period. Most importantly I think is the realistic one. It is not easy to find things in Iraq. It is a mess after all. Finding the paperwork to back up what you think you know is not easy. It could be anywhere (again I refer to the most recent report) I don’t think the US and GB are giving the time needed by one of the worst organised places in the world. War may indeed be inevitable but not right now. Until Iraq shows direct lack of cooperation which he hasn’t done, or becomes a threat, war isn’t neccessary.He can’t move any illegal weapons without being seen and so, he cannot use them even if he does have them.

He is a vicious dictator, he has killed far too many and commited human rights abuses but imposing international legislation on all UN countries would force him to comply or give a legitimate reason for war.

The only problem with that is if big countries ie US, France, GB break the legislation there is jack all we, being everyone else, can do about it. So we laws agreed by the security council, that are fair and that the sec. council can themselves keep to.

They let them in at the last possible moment before the US invaded. The every last moment! Have you forgotten that already??? And as I’ve said time and time again, South Africa just said “Here are our weapons”, they were destroyed, everyone was happy, no need for war. Iraq has just been stalling, refusing this and that, hiding scientists, lying (See my quote from the guardian article in the thread “a momentous moment” about how much one of their scientists lied about her involvement in a biological weapons programme, the worst thing is, everyone knew she was lying because they’d found all the biological weapons at her lab the first time the inspectors came to the country).

Don’t misrepresent the facts. There has been no or little cooperation from Iraq. Even Hans Blix says that it’s always been too little, too late. With the paperwork I assume you’re talking about the missing anthrax that was there and has now mysteriously disappeared without trace and record. Everytime everyone starts saying, yep, Iraq’s not cooperating, they concede on one more little point. That is not “significant” to me.

The weapons inspectors can only work if Iraq is honest with them. It is plain to see Iraq’s not being honest and that all these delays are always to give them “One last chance”. How many last chances do you want to give them? They’ve had 12 years after all!

We’ve not broken the non-proliferation treaty have we! Anyway, international law doesn’t really exist, it’s more a set of rules of thumb of conduct or there may be consequences. As it’s only the big countries that can enforce these consequences of course nothing ever gets done against them.

Interesting that; Matt focussing on Iraqi lies, yet failing to acknowledge the fact that the UK and US administrations have been embarrassed several times when their lies and propaganda have been exposed.

Here’s further embarrasment for the US: … 01318.html

“garbage after garbage after garbage”- that’s US “intelligence” for you.

The South Africa example is utterly irrelevant- there was never going to be a war- the “white” administration simply didn’t want to hand over those weapons to the “black” administration- they therefore handed them over for destuction.

It blows my mind just how willing you are to accept US propaganda, Matt, it really does. Mind you, coming from someone who fails to see that this war is about oil, perhaps I should not be so surprised. Incidentally- you said there was absolutely no reason to believe the war is about oil: There is plenty, and plenty evidence to show that the true purpose of the war on Afganistan was to secure the pipeline:

So you’ve got Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, all with extremely close ties to the oil industry, but quite clearly, this war has absolutely nothing to do with oil.

Hey- it’s this Sadam guy, dammit- he’s just such a bad dude. We’re gonna smoke him out- yeah, kick his ass! Forget the fact that we supported him for years- um yeah, just forget it, cos we can’t find a decent explanation. But no- this guy has WMDs, he used them on the Kurds. Sorry, what was that? Who supplied him with those weapons? Oh, never mind about that now, heheh. He harbours terrrrrrrrrists… what’s that? oh? we support more terrorists than any other govt? We train them at the School of the Americas? Massacres in Vietnam? We’ve used terrorist groups to destab…detabili… shucks, long word, Nicaragua, el Salvador? Really? Shucks sorry about that- I thought they were freedom fighters. Yeah, but this guy Saddaaaaaaam has invaded other countries! What’s that? Panama you say? Bombed countries? Cambodia? 21 countries? Yeah- this guy has commited human rights abuses…I guess we’d better not talk about Gitmo [Guantanamo], or the Patriot Act then huh? Oops, did I say that out loud? :blush: Yeah, but what about all these UN resolutions? Huh? Israel in violation of far more than Iraq? Yeah, but isn’t Israel our buddy? Or am I thinking of Iran? …Erm… fool me once, shame on…me…you? uhhh


You fail to mention that in those 12 years the UK and US have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thouands of Iraqis. (here’s an article by the Director-General of Save the Children from yesterday’s Guardian on that issue:, … 25,00.html).

I believe it is you that is misrepresenting the facts-there has been a great deal of cooperation from Iraq, and Blix has acknowledged this.

There can be absolutely no justification of a war against a sovereign country on the basis of the evidence presented. Containment is working as far as any alleged international threat is concerned. I believe they should send in human rights inpectors, but then that is the case for so many countries, including many that are US/UK allies.

You almost seem to advocate this world view.

Dammit, you’re right, the attack on the Taliban was all about Oil too. You guessed it all! Our cover’s been blown. But not before the black helicopters come and get you. Muhahahahahaha!!

Matt, I’m glad have a sense of humour and speak your mind :slight_smile:

But really- read between the pipelines. The connections between the oil industry and Bush’s cabinet don’t bother you?

Gordy 1 problem

The pipeline has been droped, the main company has abandoned the asian market. Afghanistan and some company in it can not get a buyer to invest into it.