Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why America is wrong......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why America is wrong......

    When the USA defeats Iraq (a third world country) there will be a pro-US puppet government installed. After American interests have been served for several years, evidence will come to light of the new leaders illegal activities and then the vicious circle begins again, with the US leading the way.

    The US media has since Bush's Fall speech linked Iraq to 9/11, thus reinforcing the US position for war. I believe some US citizens acyally believe they are at war already.Now, weapons searchers on the ground may never have a chance to get a good look at those sites, if Bush unleashes his war machine upon the Iraqis, beforehand.

    Quote:

    What never enters into the discussion, over at the UN, is this: Given "the law of the jungle" - under which all nations seem to be operating these days - why wouldn't Iraq, hemmed-in between two hostile neighbors, Iran and Israel - the latter of which has over 200 nuclear bombs and as many delivery systems - be justified in obtaining whatever weapons it deemed necessary to defend itself!

    Such an approach has certainly worked well for North Korea, which, as a result, presently seems immune from a US attack!

    Anyway, back to the star of Wednesday's show at the UN, Secretary Powell, the former general has been playing the role of the "principled statesman," odd man out, reluctant to unleash Armageddon upon Iraq, urging diplomacy against the blood thirsty demands of Bush's war mongers. It is all so much theater. Powell is simply the most convincing, and "telegenic" of the actors in an administration not known for its media stars, but nevertheless, maniacally obsessed with world domination.

    The actor Powell presented another “slide show” once upon a time. As the Chairman of the Joint Military Chiefs in the first Bush
    administration, he came calling upon the Saudis in 1990, bearing
    "satellite photos" of tens of thousands of Iraqi troops massing at the Saudi border. The grave message that the good general was sent to deliver to the reluctant Saudis was: "Unless you invite the American armed forces into your kingdom, you will be invaded by Iraq."

    The timid House of Saud, corrupted by years of American patronage, and frightened by Mr. Powell's scare tactics, agreed to the bloodless invasion of their country by the USA. The only problem was that Powell's "satellite photos" were a fraud.
    The US was caught red-handed by ABC News and the St. Petersburg Times presenting bogus pictures to the Saudis. It seems that those two news agencies had been provided satellite photos of the Iraq-Saudi border taken at the same time, by other countries, and Iraqi troops were nowhere to be seen.

    But this expose was quickly dropped by our media and the buildup of US troops for the first American assault on Iraq continued without a
    glitch.

    Only years later did the revelations of Powell's deception of the Saudis gets air time again, when Gerard Ungerman produced his masterful documentary, "The Hidden Wars of Desert Storm." This outstanding program has been shown on World Link Television several times in the past three months, and can be ordered from www.hiddenwars.com

    Thus, once before, Powell lied (or was lied to) about Iraq and presented false documents to justify the huge American buildup (takeover) in Saudi Arabia - so how do we know that his latest show-and-tell isn't another lie?

    As stated above, the 1990 Iraq crisis was used as a pretext for the US to "invade" Saudi Arabia. Now, in an irony of ironies, the gutless Saudis are getting their revenge against Iraq - sort of.

    During the summer of 2001, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah informed the Western oil companies that make up the consortium known as "ARAMCO" that his kingdom would soon be nationalizing the conglomerate that has been operating on its soil for decades. Thus it was, as asserted by Robert MacFarlane, Ronald Reagan's former national security advisor, during an amazingly candid TV interview, that the US finally decided that the time had come to seize the Iraqi oil fields - "in order to make Saudi oil irrelevant."

    By a stretch of the imagination, it might be possible to think that the "good soldier," Colin Powell, had been deceived by those who had falsified our intelligence in 1990. But given all that has happened since, anyone with the facts could now confidently announce to the secretary (and highly-placed insider for the New World Order): "Mr. Powell, you and Mr. Bush are liars."

  • #2
    Can anyone tell me why only US construction companies have been authorised to rebuild Iraq after the US destoys it ? Supposedly they are the only companies that met the criteria.

    So, you find a nation, pick on them, destroy them and then employ US builders to rebuild them ? Is work really that slow ?

    Oh yes and one of the main companies was run by Dick Cheney. Can't the Americans do anything honestly ?
    Last edited by Marko; 11 Mar 03, 04:12.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Marko
      Can anyone tell me why only US construction companies have been authorised to rebuild Iraq after the US destoys it ? Supposedly they are the only companies that met the criteria.

      So, you find a nation, pick on them, destroy them and then employ US builders to rebuild them ? Is work really that slow ?

      Oh yes and one of the main companies was run by Dick Cheney. Can't the Americans do anything honestly ?

      Marko: If we do the fighting, obviously we choose who does the rebuilding since we will be the ones paying for it. He who pays the money chooses.

      If we had set it up so that some other nations would do the rebuilding you would have said something like "Sure, you guys bomb the country and then we have to clean it up". It's clear that some in Europe are prepared to criticize the U.S. for anything and everything.
      "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

      Comment


      • #4
        Whatever.....

        Marko,

        I wouldn't trust that hiddenwar.com, it's so liberal, then I suppose it fits your bill.

        So once again, you continue to ignore American armed forces' professionalism and insist that our armed forces act like Sloan Milosevkic's henchmen, always hell-bent on committing massacres all the time.

        It's wrong to think of us like that.

        We attack the military targets, NOT civilian targets. Please STOP accusing us of going after civilian targets. This is not the next Vietnam, we are not fighting a guerrilla war, we are fighting against another semi-professional army -- Iraqi Army, whether it be a third-world army or not.

        In fact, since, you insist we attack civilians, should I remind you, that the armed forces don't appear out of thin air, the sources of manpower come from the civilian centers not cloning centers. Any target that is civilian in nature does not mean we intentionally attack civilians, only to deny them the means to supply their own professional army to prolong the conflict needlessly.

        Allies and Germans have done this in WWII, we have done it in Vietnam, so did North Vietnamese & Viet Cong, Japanese in WWII, China, etc. Nobody is exempt from this basic tactic. All the nations do this, America isn't an unique country.

        Why are you singling out America like it's a monster or what? Why you must be so blind to Saddam's atrocities and his personal ambitions to build more WMDs? For once, I would like to hear about India or Pakistan's atrocities, other than America all the time. Or better yet, what about China, obviously, Marko, you don't see China as a real threat.

        Dan
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Whatever.....

          Originally posted by Cheetah772
          Marko,

          I wouldn't trust that hiddenwar.com, it's so liberal, then I suppose it fits your bill.

          So once again, you continue to ignore American armed forces' professionalism and insist that our armed forces act like Sloan Milosevkic's henchmen, always hell-bent on committing massacres all the time.

          It's wrong to think of us like that.

          We attack the military targets, NOT civilian targets. Please STOP accusing us of going after civilian targets. This is not the next Vietnam, we are not fighting a guerrilla war, we are fighting against another semi-professional army -- Iraqi Army, whether it be a third-world army or not.

          In fact, since, you insist we attack civilians, should I remind you, that the armed forces don't appear out of thin air, the sources of manpower come from the civilian centers not cloning centers. Any target that is civilian in nature does not mean we intentionally attack civilians, only to deny them the means to supply their own professional army to prolong the conflict needlessly.

          Allies and Germans have done this in WWII, we have done it in Vietnam, so did North Vietnamese & Viet Cong, Japanese in WWII, China, etc. Nobody is exempt from this basic tactic. All the nations do this, America isn't an unique country.

          Why are you singling out America like it's a monster or what? Why you must be so blind to Saddam's atrocities and his personal ambitions to build more WMDs? For once, I would like to hear about India or Pakistan's atrocities, other than America all the time. Or better yet, what about China, obviously, Marko, you don't see China as a real threat.

          Dan
          So you tell me how many countries China have bombed in the last twenty years ? And how many civilian deaths have been atributed to those bombing raids ? I know the US do not target civilians, they are just not very good at targeting period.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kid kool



            Marko: If we do the fighting, obviously we choose who does the rebuilding since we will be the ones paying for it. He who pays the money chooses.

            If we had set it up so that some other nations would do the rebuilding you would have said something like "Sure, you guys bomb the country and then we have to clean it up". It's clear that some in Europe are prepared to criticize the U.S. for anything and everything.
            No...Europeans do not criticise everything America does, your mass-murderers are the best in the world and as for teenage firearm rampages you are second to none. Also the USA is pretty good at missing targets designated as military. They make nice burgers too. Your also pretty nifty at starting wars that do not need to be started, pretty good at installing puppet regimes then overthrowing them ten years later, pretty good at stockpiling WMD's, pretty good at supporting the biggest violator of UN resolutions, etc. The list is pretty much non-ending...

            Comment


            • #7
              Halliburton is the largest oilfield service firm in the world and is allied with the best oilwell fire fighting firm in the world (Boots & Coots), so it isn't much of a surprise that they would win the bid for fighting the oilwell fires and repairing/refitting the oil infrastructure.

              Bechtel and Fluor are gigantic contractors who do the bigger public works projects so again there isn't much of a surprise that they would be appointed the job of rebuilding Iraq.

              Comment


              • #8
                Let's be honest Marko, Europe, particularly France and Russia stand to loose billions of dollars in trade, and contracts when Bush and Blair invades. Russia can almost certainly forget getting back much of the $25 billion dollars owed. France-state controlled TotalFinaElf had contracts to drill in Iraq, the world's largest unexploited oil reserviors.

                So to get it into the open, Bush is about to deal two of Europe's most power countries a serious economic blow. Chirac knows that if this happen, the French people will blame him for the economic situation, and he gets canned. Russia is in similar trouble. Germany, to a lesser degree, also stands to loose economically when America invades.

                Why is America evil? We are about to sell out one of best friends. France will be cut out of the Iraqi oil industry as punishment for supporting the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein, just like we lost Iran.

                France, Germany, and Russia never intended to commit to containment. It was not in their economic best interest. However, the poor US-Iraq relation was.

                Is it right? Hell NO. It just means Bush is as corrupt as Chirac and Putin. Europe will weep when the Coalition crosses into Iraq. Only the people will cry for the people. The government will shed tears as billions of dollars in trade are handed over to US control where it's already clear US and UK will receive. Like Bush, European leaders are misleading their people, playing on the argument that war is immoral. They don't care what those words do to relationships.

                I must give the European politicians their props. They took a populations general resentment of war and used it to further their political position. More importantly, when people find it more difficult to pay their bills, they will find their leaders blaming the US.

                This crisis is the West at it's worst. A set of politicians are using their people's fears and concerns to further personal ideals, which they color as being for the greater good. America only cares about Americans. British only cares about British. French only care about French. And German only care about Germans. That is how multilateralism died (when it does).
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kid kool
                  If we had set it up so that some other nations would do the rebuilding you would have said something like "Sure, you guys bomb the country and then we have to clean it up". It's clear that some in Europe are prepared to criticize the U.S. for anything and everything.
                  How about letting the Iraqis re-build their own country? Does the USA know what's best for the Iraqi people? After all, this whole process is supposed to be for the net benefit of the Iraqi people (re: Freedom), not for the benefit of the USA. I think post-WW2 Germany and Japan should be the blueprints for the planning of a post-war Iraq. Help rebuild, but after 5-10 years, let them run their own affairs once and for all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                    How about letting the Iraqis re-build their own country? Does the USA know what's best for the Iraqi people? After all, this whole process is supposed to be for the net benefit of the Iraqi people (re: Freedom), not for the benefit of the USA. I think post-WW2 Germany and Japan should be the blueprints for the planning of a post-war Iraq. Help rebuild, but after 5-10 years, let them run their own affairs once and for all.

                    We're all for letting the Iraqis rebuild their own country. In fact, the U.S. is the only country that has any faith in the the Iraqi people. The rest of the world is ready to write them off in order to get their business deals with Saddam.
                    "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kid kool

                      We're all for letting the Iraqis rebuild their own country. In fact, the U.S. is the only country that has any faith in the the Iraqi people. The rest of the world is ready to write them off in order to get their business deals with Saddam.
                      If the USA had faith in the Iraqi people, you'd think they would have supported the Kurdish and Shiite revolts back in 1991, like they said they would.

                      While I honestly hope the USA wants peace and freedom for the Iraqi people, I doubt that the USA's true intentions are any better than the rest of the world. We've seen how miserable the record of nation-building has been in the past century. Hopefully some lessons have been learned.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh
                        Let's be honest Marko, Europe, particularly France and Russia stand to loose billions of dollars in trade, and contracts when Bush and Blair invades. Russia can almost certainly forget getting back much of the $25 billion dollars owed. France-state controlled TotalFinaElf had contracts to drill in Iraq, the world's largest unexploited oil reserviors.

                        So to get it into the open, Bush is about to deal two of Europe's most power countries a serious economic blow. Chirac knows that if this happen, the French people will blame him for the economic situation, and he gets canned. Russia is in similar trouble. Germany, to a lesser degree, also stands to loose economically when America invades.

                        Why is America evil? We are about to sell out one of best friends. France will be cut out of the Iraqi oil industry as punishment for supporting the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein, just like we lost Iran.

                        France, Germany, and Russia never intended to commit to containment. It was not in their economic best interest. However, the poor US-Iraq relation was.

                        Is it right? Hell NO. It just means Bush is as corrupt as Chirac and Putin. Europe will weep when the Coalition crosses into Iraq. Only the people will cry for the people. The government will shed tears as billions of dollars in trade are handed over to US control where it's already clear US and UK will receive. Like Bush, European leaders are misleading their people, playing on the argument that war is immoral. They don't care what those words do to relationships.

                        I must give the European politicians their props. They took a populations general resentment of war and used it to further their political position. More importantly, when people find it more difficult to pay their bills, they will find their leaders blaming the US.

                        This crisis is the West at it's worst. A set of politicians are using their people's fears and concerns to further personal ideals, which they color as being for the greater good. America only cares about Americans. British only cares about British. French only care about French. And German only care about Germans. That is how multilateralism died (when it does).
                        France is not one of our best friends and they haven't been for over 50 years....

                        Honestly, people just do not get it. Europe has gone so far left there is simply no room for compromise. That's what this is all about. What is referred to as the radical left wing nuts in the United States is mainstream public opinion in Europe. You've got the Green party and "former" communists in power in Germany. Can you imagine Bush and Ralph Nader in a war coalition of any kind? Didn't think so. Even nations that have so called "right wing" governments in Europe are still closer to the American democratic party. Bush is a moderate in American politics. He's not even a conservative by the standards of most people in the Republican Party and is constantly irritating his base of support.

                        Even the "far right" that has recently seen rise in some parts of Europe has more in common with the fading populist right in America like Pat Buchanan (theological socialists who favor protectionism, strict immigration laws, isolationism and national identity).
                        "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not like the US is going to pay for it all. Out of the nearly $70 billion dollar price tag of Gulf War #1, the USA had to pay a mere 10% of the bill.

                          Biggest mercenary operation in the history of the human species.

                          This time, however, you have to rebuild. Again though, that's not a big problem. Iraq can mostly pay it's own way. It has over $30 billion in accumulated funds in the UN escrow account which will be released whenever sanctions end. Oil revenue will help it along the way. Other nations will pitch in on this aspect, definately, lest we forget who contributed the most real dollar aid in Afghanistan: Japan.

                          There is that little question of paying the cost of the war itself, since the US will probably have to foot the bill itself - but that's a small price to pay for over a hundred billion USD a year in direct economic stimulus to the US economy, that removing Saudi dominance of world oil prices would allow.

                          In other words, the big losers are the oil producing nations. The US is notably exempt from this category because unlike in many other oil exporting nations, proceeds from extraction don't go directly to the government.

                          But none of that is relevant to the case for war. What is relevant is the threat level posed by Iraq and, dare I say, unless we get into a long string of non-sequiturs, that threat level is nearly non-existent.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                            If the USA had faith in the Iraqi people, you'd think they would have supported the Kurdish and Shiite revolts back in 1991, like they said they would.

                            While I honestly hope the USA wants peace and freedom for the Iraqi people, I doubt that the USA's true intentions are any better than the rest of the world. We've seen how miserable the record of nation-building has been in the past century. Hopefully some lessons have been learned.

                            I agree that we should have in 1991 and I always thought so. In fact most Americans believe we should have went to Baghdad in 1991. See if you can guess who the nations were that were opposed to the idea back then. That's why its best not to listen to those voices this time knowing how many lives their peacenik blunder caused the last time.

                            The Iraqi people have been lobbying the U.S. congress to overthrow Saddam for the last several years. There have been endless hearings with Iraqi exiles, organizations and defectors pleading that we help them.

                            We're taking care of some unfinished business here. Saddam violated agreements that he signed which allowed him to remain in power after the gulf war. The U.S. has tried containment, only to see France and others call us baby killers for having the audacity to enforce an agreement and live up to our obligations after the gulf war while all the while they tried to peel away all the very containment measures we had in place. The U.S. got sick of it and decided we would just finish it once and for all. Ironically, France and Russia are now making the case for all the things they have been lobbying against all these years. It is not going to work. We're not going to patrol the no fly zone for the next 25 years and be called baby killers. We can put up with being called warmongers for a short period of time if it a choice between that and removing all restrictions on Saddam and letting the world know we have no intention to honor our agreements. We're not going to keep 300,000 troops there forever. If we give in to the treacherous french, the day those troops come home is the day the Russians, French and Germans start to peel away the containment measures and we would be back at square one
                            "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kid kool



                              We're all for letting the Iraqis rebuild their own country. In fact, the U.S. is the only country that has any faith in the the Iraqi people. The rest of the world is ready to write them off in order to get their business deals with Saddam.
                              ? The only country that has any faith in the Iraqi people ? So why you gonna kill a whole bunch of them ? And if that is the case, why not let them sort their own country out ?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X