Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occ

Recommended Posts

Sylvie wrote;

"Guest" wrote: As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops.

 

I leave that to the experts....

 

You leave that to the "experts" ? Then have no problems telling them why they made wrong decisions? :lol:

 

So you admit you offer no real answers.Sylvie, you bring nothing or offer nothing to the debate other than the same old story of dredging up facts and stats from the past to rub salt in open wounds.

nice.

Iraqi's visiting this board don't have the luxury to debate history. They may be hear looking for feedback to what they are living 24/7.

 

U.S.: Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable
... stats..

 

As they say in the sport of American NFL Football---- stats are for losers and your comment for finding ways to remove Saddam ; " I leave that up to the experts" is a bit shallow and offers nothing .

Getting Saddam,

It didn't happen. But, the 1st bomb dropped did target Saddam.Rumor was he ended up turning blue in the face and taken away by ambulance.

On the ground covert actions were tried,and failed. Who is to say certain corvert people were in place for years for just that one shot ?

What if we did get him ? Well...didn't happen, why did I even mention it. It's water under the bridge...

My question is...Who are the experts in your opinion and what use is wishing ill will on them like that ?

At least "Guest" isn't deluding him or herself that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the sake of human rights, as so many Americans have, conveniently forgetting that finding WMD's was the original purpose....
blah blah blah
...not to mention that a large portion on the U.S. citizenry still believes Saddam was behind 9/11.
Don't let anybody fool you on that point.A large portion of US citizens know Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.

You hope people overlook the obvious reasons Iraqi's themselves will tell you about human rights abuse,torture and mass graves or why many left that country.

Do you hope that the current experiment in Falluja fails ?

Yes or no....I don't want an after the fact , "wait and see" attitude of a response.

Thats lame.

Human rights has never been a major motivating factor in hardly any country's foreign policy. The U.S. is no exception.

Get off the high and mighty soap box while you cherry pick "stats" from the

Human Rights Watch website.

 

Why do you come here to post to Iraqis as to why you are so much better than they deserve a chance to be ?

 

At least "Guest" isn't deluding him or herself
I also admit I am an oil junky. My standard of living is directly related to oil production. Your standard of living is dependant on it.

Oil for food program corrupted the UN's best intentions for the Iraqi nation.

 

No more palaces for petroleumunder Saddams thumb. The majority of Iraqi's have been surpressed long enough due to our addiction to oil .

 

We are oil junkies Sylvie.

Somebody has you following an agenda of denial ? Don't buy into it. Don't delude yourself.

 

I look forward to eventual power transfer back to Iraq. They have the resources to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

 

 

I hope you are not going to rant about colonialism,Haliburten or "anybody but Bush." The Iraqi oil industry is going to remain nationalized,not for sale.

 

 

Even Aljazeera sees and reports a glimmer of hope.Developments in Falluja

 

Reporting Doom and Gloom is big buisness. For the media,it's what pays the bills. Doom and Gloom is not the whole story Sylvie. Iraqi's have "been there,done that" . They must talk themselves through this.

 

Sorry if my rant but I feel with less than 2 months,this is no time to throw gasoline on a fire. I think they do have the ability to talk themselves through this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one persons opinion.

 

THE FRENCH WAR FOR OIL

 

By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN

March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.

 

In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.

 

The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.)

 

But Colombani, whose paper's coverage of the war in Iraq was noteworthy for its wanton disregard for the truth, had not a word to say about his country's war for oil. Indeed, the secret deals the French state-owned oil companies negotiated in the 1990s with Saddam Hussein went widely unreported in France.

 

Almost as soon as the guns went silent after the first Gulf war in 1991, French oil giants Total SA and Elf Aquitaine - who have now merged and expanded to become TotalFinaElf - sought a competitive advantage over their rivals in Iraq by negotiating exclusive production-sharing contracts with Saddam's regime that were intended to give them a stranglehold on Iraq's future oil production for decades to come.

 

The first of two massive deals was announced in June 1994 by then-Iraqi Oil Minister Safa al-Habobi - a well-known figure whose name had surfaced in numerous procurement schemes in the 1980s in association with the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, which supervised Saddam's chemical, biological, missile and nuclear-weapons programs.

 

Speaking in Vienna, al-Habobi confirmed that his government was awarding Total SA rights to the future production of the Nahr Umar oil field in southern Iraq, and that Elf was well-placed to be awarded similar terms in the Majnoon oil fields on the border with Iran.

 

 

 

Those two deals, which I detail in "The French Betrayal of America," would have been worth an estimated $100 billion over a seven-year period - but were conditioned on the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Simply put, analyst Gerald Hillman told me, the French were saying: "We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this."

 

The Total contract, a copy of which I obtained, was "very one-sided," says Hillman. (Hillman, a political economist and a managing partner at Trireme Investments in New York, did a detailed analysis of the contract.) An ordinary production agreement typically grants the foreign partner a maximum of 50 percent of the gross proceeds of the oil produced at the field they develop. But this deal gave Total 75 percent of the total production. "This is highly unusual," he said. Indeed, it was extortion.

 

But Saddam willingly agreed: He saw the Total deal, and a similar one with Elf, as the price he had to pay to secure French political support at the United Nations.

 

Much has been written in recent weeks about the corruption of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. Documents uncovered in Iraq's oil ministry and published by the Baghdad daily al Mada list several cronies of French President Chirac among those who had received special oil allocations as a political payoff from Saddam.

 

But the amounts attributed to these individuals - in the tens of millions of barrels, on which they stood to earn between 25 to 40 cents per barrel - pale in comparison to the $100 billion payoff orchestrated by Chirac and Saddam.

 

No, oil wasn't the only reason France opposed the United States at the United Nations in the lead-up to the war. The megalomania of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly and later boasted about it to visiting U.S. congressional delegations) certainly entered into the mix. So did French pride, wounded at the realization that France is no longer the great power it once was.

 

But the French did not merely disagree with the United States over Iraq, as did a certain number of our allies: They actively sought to rally world leaders and public opinion to treat the United States - not Saddam Hussein - as the enemy.

 

The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America.

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine. His book "The French Betrayal of America" is just out.

 

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20887.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob from Pine Creek
"Guest" wrote: As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops.

 

I leave that to the experts. But many of the top Pentagon generals were opposed to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan. Bush proceeded during the runup to the attack on Iraq to scare half to death the already jumpy US citizenry as well as the troops with the horrors of Saddam's WMD's and continually mentioning his name with that of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 in the same statement. That is one reason why there were so many avoidable Iraqi deaths at checkpoints and on city streets at the hands of frightenend, jumpy troops - long before the suicide bombings began. And then there continues to be the use of cluster bombs - see the Human Rights Watch website:

U.S.: Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable : http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm

 

At least "Guest" isn't deluding him or herself that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the sake of human rights, as so many Americans have, conveniently forgetting that finding WMD's was the original purpose, not to mention that a large portion on the U.S. citizenry still believes Saddam was behind 9/11. Human rights has never been a major motivating factor in hardly any country's foreign policy. The U.S. is no exception.

Actually, that was me. I have no idea why it didn't take my nick for that post. Now, since you like to throw the whole "shouldn't be there" argument around, I have to ask, who cares? Sure, we shouldn't have gone in the way we did. But that is *over* now. Debating it doesn't help *anyone* at all except those that like to think that taking the moral high ground is reward enough.

 

I will say this again. What is your point? Why are you debating the past when people ask you how to help the future? We are there. We aren't leaving - in fact we *can't* leave now.

 

Your moral high horse is beautiful, but is a luxury no one can afford anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob from Pine Creek
Bob

Altho we certainly helped it happen, a good part of the blame lies on not just the west and the USA, but also much of the Arab world itself.

 

Fully agree, however , it is the US interest today to build trust with Iraqis and bridge the gap that last decades policies had done.. Arabs and most of the west don't have such interest.. America took the lead in helping Iraqis, America should keep the momentum..

Taking part in a worng action wouldn't keep our responsibility away.. What I am suggesting is not to balme the Americans but to give them the lead in correcting the wrong doing, to put the issue in it's real size. It might set a great push to the trust building process..

If that were possible, I would wholeheartedly agree. But you and I know that isn't how things work. Human nature demands human sacrifice. If the US were to out the culprits (if that is even possible, we are talking about the entire foreign policy wing of the government for 30 years), the world would demand their punishment. The USA would once again be the scapegoat for everyone else's problems, just like we always are. It would be nice to think it could help the peace, but people would demand the blood of the outted. You know as well as I that a good chunk of the world would jump on that in an effort to take away their blame.

 

Only time will get trust back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Canadian Abroad

Firstly, I get tired of hearing the belly aching of Americans waving their flag claiming they want to bring peace and democracy throughout the world. They are no better than the old Roman Empire who had little tolerance for those that oppose their ways.

 

Don't get me wrong - I love America as well. Most of it. But, it’s a way of life that people choose. Big cars, TV's, Hollywood, McDonalds, Obesity and massive divorce rates will eventually signal the downfall of the American Empire. No individual is truly free in any politically run country, US included.

 

The truth - American Politics have been destabilizing the Middle East for a long time. It's actually policy. They want the Middle East unstable so they can get the oil, not worry about another world power and keep the Arab nation from uniting. Israel is a prime example of keeping instability. The mass genocide Israel is undertaking in Palestine is no different than the Germans did to the Jewish people then. But, the US still backs them to maintain unstability. They cannot keep it up there much longer though. Iraq was a logical target to continue this policy. Remember Egypt/ Isriel, Iran, Libya etc etc all part of the policy.

 

The real tragedy is - Americans, Iraqis, Egyptians, Israelis, Canadians, Russians are all human and great people plagued by political strangle holds. I have traveled in all these countries and found that people are in essence good, friendly and inviting. So the next time anyone kills another - it is not for the security of a country, not for revenge, not for you, it’s for a political party that eventually will not be in power and doesn’t care much other than their continued existence.

 

Also - the US never won the cold war. The Russian Union collapsed on its own and couldn't maintain its lifestyle. Much like the US will do eventually. It's destiny and history repeats its self. As well the US has lost a war - To Canada. Believe it or not.

 

May all your families stay safe and may you all never face adversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest That crazy Canadian again

PS - Yes it does help do discuss the past on a "moral highhorse". It helps enlighten people as to the wrongs of others and perhaps will prevent future tragedies.

 

But, I agree also that people need to also focus on the future and help rebuild and grow strong again.

 

Stay safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob from Pine Creek
PS - Yes it does help do discuss the past on a "moral highhorse". It helps enlighten people as to the wrongs of others and perhaps will prevent future tragedies.

 

But, I agree also that people need to also focus on the future and help rebuild and grow strong again.

 

Stay safe.

Discussion is good. Beating that highhorse to the benefit of no one is not. The problem with the moral high horse that is being used now is that it doesn't benefit *anyone* except those that wish to feel superior.

 

Go ahead and discuss how it was a mistake to go into Iraq. No one says you don't have the right to do that. But using the invasion of Iraq as a grounds for not supporting or helping the Iraqis is obscene. While the anti-war folks talk and demonstrate against Bush, people are dying - and I'm not talking about insurgents v. American Soldiers. I'm talking about no refrigeration, no clean water, no stable economy.

 

So, once again, it is a luxury no one can afford anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, I get tired of hearing the belly aching of Americans waving their flag claiming they want to bring peace and democracy throughout the world. They are no better than the old Roman Empire who had little tolerance for those that oppose their ways.

 

....well the US has lost a war - To Canada. Believe it or not.

Hahaahah

 

There was a brief incident in 1838-39 called the Aroostoock War, named for Aroostook county in northern Maine, and the State of Maine declared war on New Brunswick (Canada did not exist until July 1, 1867), in a border dispute. I'd suggest that you go to Google or some such and type in the words: "Aroostook War."

 

The Aroostook War, also called the Pork and Beans War, or the Northeastern Boundary Dispute, it was an undeclared, BLOODLESS North American "war" that occurred in the winter of 1838 and early spring of 1839.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

 

it would behoove my Canadian Friend to see how that bloodless BORDER DISPUTE (before Canada was even a Sovereign Country) ended up before declaring her country defeated the USA..

 

Cheer Up ole Girl ! – it is why WE Americans Love YOU Canadian Humorist and pacifist ( so French ! ) …… by the way say hello to your patriot Hiram Smith next time you are in Madawaska, which is the northernmost township in Maine. USA. He was ……… ummmm your casualty? fell in a lake or something? – http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/07/13/p23s2.htm

 

What ?? that’s not the ONE?…. Well maybe its this one where the only casualty was a PIG?and the USA ended up with the disputed Island? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War ..

 

Still not it? Maybe the REPUBLIC of INDIAN SPRINGS…. Well isn’t that what the State of New Hampshire USA is today? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream

 

…… it’s truly funny how you can wrap YOURself in CANADIAN PATRIOTISM after chastising those PATRIOTIC Americans especially since you once defeated them!

 

Wanna come to Iraq?

 

Thank you for your humor , you ride that self rightous highhorse well !!

 

Come on down, we love ya !

 

TEX

 

BTW - perhaps you might want to LOOK UP the word EMPIRE before you compare the USA to any ROMAN EMPIRE? you're a chuckle a minute without GRASP of your own history to take any lessons from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Texas Gentleman

Since we are off subject;

Didn't Abe Lincolns Secy of State get Alaska from the Russian Czars?

Yep,

my question:

Once the Alaskan panhandle Latatude/Longitude was known,

Wasn't ther a political slogan ; 54- 40' or fight ! "

I understand that is the measure of North lattitude that may have knocked Canada landlocked, off the Pacific rim map.

Not to mention the vast wheatfields of canada would have been American.

?

Wasn't the dispute U.S vs England ?

I think the dominion of Canada was still a French pipedream in Quebec at the time....

....correct me if I am wrong.

Not to drift so far off subject.

So,

back on track ,

claiming moral highground in the present isn't such a big deal if car bombs go off in say, Athens during the Olympics in the near future.

Hey,

Iraq is sending a soccer team to Athens !

 

Rock em in Athens TEAM IRAQ !

 

If we want to go wayyyy back into Greek history.... wars and disputes were suspended for the sake of human competition.

Safe passage was granted and a truce would be observed

 

Unlike the modern Olympiad games of Munich in the 70's.

 

It's safe to say that we in the west will not make any violent political statements this summer.

 

Some folks in the west will attempt to justify what may happen at the games as a mindless " we deserved it " rant.

Those MORAL Equestrians are another weapon the " competition" is ready to accept as proof they can divide and conquer their Infidel enimies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian...

Firstly, I get tired of hearing the belly aching of Americans waving their flag claiming they want to bring peace and democracy throughout the world. They are no better than the old Roman Empire who had little tolerance for those that oppose their ways...

 

The truth - American Politics have been destabilizing the Middle East for a long time. It's actually policy. They want the Middle East unstable so they can get the oil...

 

ROFL! :lol: :rolleyes:

 

Puhleeeeeeeeze!

 

You are aware, aren't you, that if this were only about oil, it would have been easier, cheaper, and politically safer for Bush to have signed an executive order that said, "Commence drilling on the Florida side of the Gulf of Mexico"????

 

We have what could be one of the largest untapped oil resevoirs in the world under the Gulf of Mexico. We honestly don't know how big it is. What we DO know is that there are fissures on the floor of the Gulf that have been leeching oil for years. For decades small oil slicks have been blamed on dirty shipping heading for the Mississippi Delta, but scuba divers reported that it was coming up from fissures, and so it was tested within the past few years and was found to be unprocessed crude oil, not leakage from shipping.

 

Fully half of our access to the Gulf oil resevoir isn't being utilized. The entire 600 or so miles of Florida's Gulf coastline is platform-free. The reason has to do with tourists. But we're getting oil leaks from the fissures anyway, so I don't see what the big problem is.

 

We have a refinery shortage created by environmentalists. True that if we started building more refineries and Gulf platforms right this minute it would take a couple of years for that oil to come online and it would be costly to build the infrastructure, but that would still be a lot faster and cheaper than spending billions a day in Iraq trying to create a democracy.

 

So why didn't he just do that? Environmentalists don't like Bush anyway. He has no reason to pander to them :).

 

The old "oil" argument doesn't wash. Oil IS a consideration, but the notion that it is the ONLY consideration is total hogwash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

"We have a refinery shortage created by environmentalists. True that if we started building more refineries and Gulf platforms right this minute it would take a couple of years for that oil to come online and it would be costly to build the infrastructure, but that would still be a lot faster and cheaper than spending billions a day in Iraq trying to create a democracy."

 

US oil production has passed its peak. We look for new oil more and find less. We open new oil fields and they don't replace what we've used up.

 

We *could* drill for oil in all the remaining places and forget about the environment, and it would last us a few years. I'm reasonably sure we *will* do that someday. But all the american oil we know about but don't pump yet, might as well be part of the strategic reserve. We can get it when we need it. It isn't nearly enough, we need foreign oil and we'll need more each year.

 

"Burn America First" is not a workable slogan. We need to first use up the oil we'd have more trouble getting later, and save american oil to fight the next big war with. If we burn the american oil first, what will we do when we can't protect the tankers? Better to use the tankers now to burn foreign oil, and burn armerican oil when we can't get the foreign oil until after the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_Tajer

وفي هجوم على المعارضة اليسارية في بريطانيا للحرب على العراق، وتحت عنوان "جبناء اليسار"، كتب نيك كوين من الأوبزرفر قائلا إن حدثا وقع الأسبوع الماضي لم ينتشر خبره "شكك أكثر في ما يتردد عن يسار ليبرالي قائم على مبادئ".

 

يقول كوين إن هادي صالح، المسؤول الدولي للاتحاد العراقي للنقابات، أُوثق وعصبت عيناه وتعرض للتعذيب على أيدي "مسلحين" بعثثين موالين لصدام حسين قبل أن يجبر على الركوع ويخنق بسلك كهربي ويطلق عليه الرصاص.

 

ويضيف الكاتب إنه "لم يندهش" لأنه لم تتعالى "صيحات الاحتجاج من جانب الحركة المناهضة للحرب لمقتل اشتراكي شجاع".

 

ويتابع قائلا إنه اعتقد أنه بعد الحرب فإن الأشخاص الذين عارضوها لأسباب وجيهة سيأخذون على عاتقهم "ملاحقة بلير وبوش لما فعلاه حتى النهاية" غير أنه ستكون لديهم الأمانة الفكرية لقبول أن نظام صدام كان فاشيا نظريا وعمليا، وستكون لديهم النوايا الحسنة لمد يد الدعم لرفاقهم الاشتراكيين والديمقراطيين والليبراليين العراقيين في صراعهم الدامي.

 

ويواصل الكاتب انتقاده فيقول إن "ائتلاف أوقفوا الحرب" الذي عبأ مليون شخص في مسيرات احتجاج في شوارع لندن، قال "للذين يقومون بعمليات الخطف والتعذيب" من البعث والقاعدة إن حركة مناهضة الحرب "تعترف مجددا بمشروعية الكفاح العراقي، بأي وسيلة يعتبرونها ضرورية".

 

ويضيف الكاتب أنه بخلاف أصوات قليلة، فإن ائتلاف أوقفوا الحرب وغالبية الرأي الليبرالي-اليساري في بريطانيا والعالم لا يبالي "بالمعركة الدائرة" للحيلولة دون عودة الاستبداد، "هذا في أفضل الأحوال، أما في أسوأها فإنهم يريدون كيدا في الأمريكيين أن يتمكن المفجرون الانتحاريون من وقف الانتخابات".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest مستفسر

في مقابله مع شارلي روز على احدى القنوات الامريكيه, قال ريتشارد بيرل العنصر المهم في جماعه الصقور , ان الخطأ الاكير في العراق كان اعلان احتلال العراق بدلا من تسليمه للعراقيين اصحاب المصلحه

وعند سؤاله عن المسؤول عن هدا القرار قال ان الدفاع كان معارضا كبيرا لدلك

ويدكر ان احمد الجلبي كان قد نصح الامريكان بعدم الاستماع الى نصائح المخابرات الامريكيه التي تحملت مسؤليه هدا القرار

وعند سؤاله عن صحه التقارير التي تقول ان وصول الشيعه للحكم سيكون لصالح الحكومه الايرانيه الدينيه, اجاب ان دلك هو العكس لان المرسه التقليديه النجفيه لاتؤمن بالبدعه التي اوجدها الخميني بمساله تدخل الدين بالسياسه وان هدا الامر كان غائبا عن بال الادارات الامريكيه المتعاقبه بسبب النصائح الخاطئه

وقال ان حكومات الاردن ومصر وسوريا ستكون قلقه جدا من نجاح التجريه العراقيه

وتوقع ان ينجنح العراقيون بعد الانتخابات بتشكيل حكومه وطنيه تستطيع معالجه الملف الارهابي وبسرعه ستكون مفاجئه

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tony Castalino

If you call this a Liberation, you need to tell me what is slavery? US killed more Iraqis than Saddam 45 years in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_tajer

Do you know how many Iraqis that Saddam had killed?

Do you know how many out of those Iraqi killed after the occupation/libaration, were killed by terrorists that some idiots call them resistance?

 

The liberation is not not only from foreign occupiers but also from local tyrany.. Do you agree on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...