Can someone explain to me....(political)

donmbmw · Feb 6, 2004

I really don't understand how we can justify invading Iraq because we THINK that they MIGHT be DEVELOPING a WMD program. But then when we find out that Pakistan, a country that has WMD including a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is selling it's technology to our sworn enemies i.e. North Korea & Iran, we accept an APOLOGY from a scientist and thats the end of it? Does anyone really believe that the generals and politicians in Pakistan did not know this was happening and were profiting from selling nuclear weapons technology to the "axis of evil", countries who have killed Americans and vow to destroy us? WTF?!! [mad]

codex57 · Feb 6, 2004

I think the current administration justifies it like this:

1) Pakistan hasn't invaded anyone yet, so they haven't clearly ID'd themselves as bad guys yet. Iraq tried to pull a Hitler but wasn't powerful enough to back it up. Iran's dictator (well the whole country really, but more importantly the leader) has always harbored terrorists and worked against us. North Korea is a communist country, which we're naturally, against, but they have a dictator that can't stand us (Vietnam and China are half capitalist now).

Basically, you need a nutcase dictator in charge of a country against us. Pakistan doesn't fit b/c while I believe most or at least half the country hates us, the current leader doesn't and we needed his help in securing access to his country to invade Iraq.

2) We need as many allies in that region as possible so they get a little leeway (just like the Saudis get a lot of leeway even though from all accounts, we should have invaded that sand lot too). There hasn't been a history yet of Pakistan or any other country we support having used a WMD against anyone so I guess we're giving them the benefit of a doubt. Pakistan and India (another ally I believe) have been threatening each other for years, but they haven't actually crossed the line and done anything that drastic yet.

skandalous · Feb 6, 2004

I don't see why people are so pissed off about going to war. Saddam was a dickhead, and if we learned anything in hte past, then we needed to take him down before he got too powerful. The reason why Pakistan hasn't been reprimanded, imo, is b/c we need them as an friend over there, like Codex said. Pakistan is fairly normal, meaning they don't slaughter thousands of their own citizens.

demq · Feb 6, 2004

Guys stop being "naive". Everybody knows why the war of Iraq started, because for the smelly thing that your car is running on...
Pakistan doesn't have oil (or they hide it from the rest of the world it very well not to be attacked), that's why it isn't going to be attacked in the near future. Think for yourself, there are a lot of "evil" countries with Hitler wannabe dictators in the world (take the North Korea for example), but nobody wants to mess with them, because war is a very very and very expensive activity, nobody is gonna start it if there isn't any big reward for it. Just think how much money was spent in the current war, and figure out for yourself how many such wars US can afford without getting any rewards for it???

Big Daddy · Feb 6, 2004

I believe we have a member of this board who is in the oil business and whom has already said that this is not the case! I do not believe you can document one incident where the US has profited or taken possession of any oil as a result of the war. Stop being so "naive" and using this "common" excuse used by so many "common" people.

Do not get me wrong, there may have been other motives that were not disclosed, or that were not even proper, but oil was not one of them.

demq · Feb 6, 2004

Well, what about the first war??? I don't say that the oil is being simply taken away, but it is controlled in a way that would be profitable for US.
And what about the South Korea? Which DOES HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS and they ADMIT THAT, with another psychopathic dictator as the head of their country. One can think of many more other countries too.
There might be some other undisclosed reasons too. They might including various political reasons(local and international) as well as economical and military ones( a lot of ammunition will be used, so it should be replaced, more army contracts for the manufacturers, army personnel will get military experience, new army equipment will be tested in the real combat situations, post-war reconstruction should be done.). But I don’t think that one can ever underestimate the OIL factor, because it is one of the most profitable resources in the world, and US is the biggest consumer…

Pink_Floyd · Feb 6, 2004

Big Daddy said:

Give me a break. Oh, someone in the oil business said that the war wasn't about oil? Oh, ok, thanks. How can you possibly think that it would be made common knowledge if the US got oil from other countries in questionable ways? There is no doubt that we have done it before and will continue to do it.

They could never prove that Al Copone killed anyone or had anyone killed... That must mean he's a nice guy right? It's the same type of situation. People with lots of power have the ability to disconnect themselves from the many devices and networks that give them their power.

skandalous - you're a moron. Why are people upset about going to war? Perhaps it's the credibility we lost with a majority of our allies. Perhaps is the tens of thousands of Iraquis that are going to be killed as a result of the war. Maybe it's even the hundreds of American soldiers that have been and will continue to be killed all because some guy is a "dickhead". Oh, and if you don't give a shit about all the innocent lives being lost - think about the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars that are being wasted. That's money coming out of our economy and our pockets.

Big Daddy · Feb 6, 2004

Pink_Floyd you can comment all you want as opinion are like, well you get it, everyone has one! But I will caution you on calling members names as this does not show respect for members that the "Terms of Service" calls for.

And for your information they could prove Al Copone killed someone, they just could not prove it beyond a "shadow of a doubt" that the law requires. They can prove it now!

And I did not say "someone in the oil business", I said a member of this board, whom I have great respect for. Feel free to disagree, but do it with respect!

codex57 · Feb 6, 2004

Oil is a retarded reason. If we went to war for oil, we woulda taken it by now. More importantly, we woulda taken over Saudi Arabia because they produce the most oil and terrorists are as cozy there as they are in Syria.

I think the main reason is that when a president goes to war, his ratings tend to go up. Bush was sagging so he pulled the same trick that Pops did. Saddam is easy to pick on cuz he's like a weak Hitler. I'm not sure what South Korea has to do with anything. They're a democracy. They're much less likely to go shooting off nukes and massacring their own people like a megolomaniac dictator is. Hitler was one such dictator. Saddam was another. And the North Korean dude is. That's why we pick on North Korea and not South.

Yeah, people have a right to be pissed off about the war cuz we were lied to, but it still doesn't change teh fact that the world is better off without Saddam then with him. Lotta morons before WWII kept trying to avoid war with Hitler and look where that got us.

skandalous · Feb 6, 2004

Pink_Floyd said:

I'm the moron? Oh well. So be it. I wish, just for a what if factor, that we would not have invaded Iraq. That way in 10 or 15 years you could be crying because Saddam was the next Hitler.

Also, just so you know, my best friend in my whole life is being shipped to Iraq next Wednesday. He knows why he is going over there and I know why he's going. He's going to protect you from future attacks.

Another thing: If we went in for oil, then why do I pay more for gas now? Riddle me this.

Pink_Floyd · Feb 6, 2004

codex - do you think if it was about oil (which i think is partly the reason) they would just start draining the fields and sending it all over to the US? It's obvious that they don't want it to be aparent. They way it is done is by giving contracts to US companies so that we can still control the oil, even when the iraquis are running the plants.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes - well, it's all about numbers. How much would it cost to fight a war with them? What would be all the expenses, and how much more profit would we gain? Our government doesn't care about human lives. Terrorism is bad for business, thats why we're fighting it. It's all about money- every single aspect of everything our government does. Iraq was a good deal for us. They are an easy target and have lots of oil. For Saudi Arabia due to the fact that they have much more power than Iraq it would be more cost effective to simply keep making backdoor deals with them in order to get the oil from them.

codex57 · Feb 6, 2004

The administration hasn't exactly been very secretive with their croneyism. Yeah, I do think it's about money, partially, but not oil. Those billions of contracts for rebuilding Iraq were the main goal I believe. With the way the Bush administration has been parting out Iraq, making oil contracts would have been included first thing as well. The administration isn't so stupid as to rape Iraq completely so I think they're leaving the oil for the Iraqis b/c they can use it long after Bush is out of office. But, the Iraqis aren't prepared financially and technically to rebuild Iraq in all its facets whereas US and other Allied corporations are. That's plenty of favors to hand out and if the resulting boom helps boost the economy enough for Bush to get reelected, then hey, the Iraq war was a complete success. And, they could keep pointing to the fact that the Iraqis kept the oil revenue to show the US always intended to "help" the Iraqi people as well as getting rid of a terrorist (Saddam).

demq · Feb 6, 2004

The thing with Saudis is that their kings are "in the US pocket", because they are in the head of their states only because of US support, so US doesn't have to fight with them to get what he wants. That's where some of regular (not from royal family) saudies are getting frustrated (
I think I have a short memory, but how many of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia??).
What about Kim, well yeah, a democracy, as much as USSR was a democratic country with a freedom of speech [fake] [fake] . He is a total screw-up, and what and how he does with his own people you don't really know because Kim doesn't want you to know. I am sure that there are tons of human right violations in there as in any other communist country.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that Saddam was a screw-up and it is good that he is eliminated, but I do think that he wasn't the first one in the list, and there might have been a better way to eliminate him (Bond, James Bond.. [hatchet]

)

Abdoman · Feb 6, 2004

The fact that Bush senior still lost the election speaks for itself.

CosmosBlack · Feb 6, 2004

Bush, representing Americans, did what has to be done. For our future well being and security, and the rest of the world gets the benefit for free!

Then, smart asses tried to analyse the situation and came up with different views. Jealous leaders from the rest of the world who were not involved, were upset coz' Americans didn't give a shit if they approved of the war.

Those were our towers and people that went down...It's our war against terror, why should they approve? What's wrong with you people who don't give full support to your Leader and country??? What about patriotism???

Oh by the way...I'm not American, I just live here but my heart is American!

carcus · Feb 8, 2004

Well, besides 9/11, I can think of two other good reasons I knew why I was serving in the gulf....

These might not have gotten as much attention but for us military....we know why we serve and know why we get paid.

Personally, I am happier than hell Sodamninsane is now OWNED!!!

It was not about GAS, it was about kicking ASS!

carcus · Feb 8, 2004

These are just my personal thoughts though. [;)]

Pink_Floyd · Feb 8, 2004

Those things wouldn't have happened if our government didn't have such a strong military presence in the gulf - especially in saudi arabia.

epj3 · Feb 8, 2004

Only thing that gets to me is that they are openly admitting to lieing about the WMD.

MyHarley · Feb 8, 2004

Isnt this in the political rule book?

Don't lie deliberately, but being evasive is certainly acceptable behavior.........let's define the word "is."

[thumb]

to Carcus............

Can someone explain to me....(political)

Member

2

2

Member

Senior Member

Member

2

Senior Member

2

2

2

2

Member

2

Active Member

1000 Post Club

1000 Post Club

2

Senior Member

2