Will bush win again?

[Chris_C]

Up north politicians are getting primed for the race for the next prime minister's race and US/Canada relations is one of major debates being tossed around....

Same Sex Marriage (right = no, liberal = ~yes)

Increased Military Budget (right = maybe, liberal = no)

Bush was right about Iraq? (right = "avoid the question but
perhaps yes", liberal = "avoid the question but @#&$ no")

Economics? (Mad Cow, SARS, and a rediculous US deficit = scary)

Predictions anyone?

In Canada Liberal will win again with a very right wing PM this time around. How about the US?

 

[LeeRyder]

lmao..britan..right.

and they have given exactly what again?

face it.. no country has given 1/10th of what the US has.

we have not only the resources..but the hearts to provide to people accross the globe.
We've rebuilt Europe and Asia after WWII and forgave 90% of the debt from it.
We have openly shared our technologies and progress.
we have enforced freedom to the best of our ability.
We ended Communism as a global threat.
essentially we are the reason the world is what it is today... in the 21st century... not..as preferred in the mid east.. in the 12th.

 

[armstrong]

It's not about oil per se. Instead, it's about oil dollars. Check out this article. (warning ... very anti-US)

Basically, the above article argues that the US has been getting a free ride because everyone else uses the dollar for trading oil. Should oil start to trade in anything other than US$, then all those dollars will come flying back to American soil, resulting in hyper-inflation, and the immediate collapse of the American economy.

It goes on to theorize that this war was intended to punish Iraq for switching to Euros for its oil trades, and to serve as a subtle warning for others thinking along the same lines.

Any economists around here who can intelligently refute this argument?

 

[slipondajimmy]

Oh well another topic that will come to a end...lol I cant/wont praise Bush on any of his efforts during his Term. And will never agree with the current efforts in Iraq. Maybe when i see that we have found those weapons of mass destruction we went there for in the first place i will change my mind .

But will say again that if we do keep strong arming other countries we will get whats coming to us . And it will not be a pretty sight.

Have a great night everyone

 

[LeeRyder]

It goes on to theorize that this war was intended to punish Iraq for switching to Euros for its oil trades

very easy to refute. Iraq was under embargo when the Euro was intoduced. There was no oil trade (other than for food and medicine) allowed.

Please, when you try to quote something.. look beyond biase and at the face of the truth.

 

[armstrong]

Originally posted by LeeRyder
very easy to refute. Iraq was under embargo when the Euro was intoduced. There was no oil trade (other than for food and medicine) allowed.

When was the embargo lifted, if ever? Are you saying Iraq never had the opportunity to sell its oil after the embargo was first implemented?

Please, when you try to quote something.. look beyond biase and at the face of the truth.

I'm not biased. That's why I asked for comments. I'll be willing to criticize that article if you can show me proof (dates and details of embargo). I'll even write an email to whoever authored that.

Conversely, will you be willing to see beyond your own biases?

 

[slipondajimmy]

U.N. Iraq Embargo was suppose to end May of 2003 if im correct but dont quote me on it

 

[armstrong]

This is what it says in the article:

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros.

So we aren't dealing with year 2003, but 1999. To refute the article, we need to know - was Iraq actually forbidden from trading oil at that time? If yes, did it get around it by trading in oil anyway, and with whom? When was the euro introduced, anyway?

 

[LeeRyder]

Indeed I can look past my own bias. And please, I didnt mean that the way it came accross man. I know it reads alot differently than how it sounded in my mind as I typed it... Ill try to re-think things before I post to ensure they sound...cohesive

the Euro, per my wife from France, was introduced 2002 (January)

Iraq was under embargo since the end of the first Gulf War. They began doing a food/medicine for oil program in (at best memory) 1995 or 6.

regardless of that year, it did not allow for cash transactions.. thats why saddam (one of them) being charged with selling the food and medicine to raise cash for arms and other items like the 100's of new cars (banned per UN resolutions/ embargo), planes, missiles from france, tech from germany, weapons from russia.

itsnt it odd that the only 3 nations to stand against us..where the 3 that had something to lose?

whats sad about it is the people in the US that choose to believe govts that blatantly lie (France, Germany and Russia), sell to dictators.. and stand in the way of ending toture and a demonic regime... etc..

they so Hate Bush because of a close election loss.. they lose focus of the truth..blinded by perdition, if you will.

 

[slipondajimmy]

well what is this i am looking at ....is this a different embargo ?

U.N. Iraq Embargo About to End
Stewart Stogel
Wednesday May 21, 2003
United Nations -- The crippling economic embargo imposed on Iraq by the U.N. in August 1990 is expected to end Thursday.
The U.S., UK and Spain are thought to have been successful in convincing the 15 member Security Council to lift the sanctions it imposed shortly after the armies of Saddam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait.

With Coalition forces now firmly in control of Iraq and former president Saddam Hussein in hiding, Washington and London believed the premise to maintain sanctions no longer existed.

Under the terms of the new resolution, the U.S. and UK will assume most of the duties of administering Iraq for the foreseeable future. The U.N. will be relegated to a supporting role, mostly in the area of providing humanitarian aid.

Most importantly, revenue from Iraq's oil sales will be controlled by the United States and Britain.

One area left unaddressed is the resumption of Iraqi arms inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

All the U.S. and UK will say is that issue "needs to be revisited" at some unspecified future date.

The issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq was a major concern for the Bush Administration.

It was repeatedly cited by President George W. Bush as a primary reason for launching Operation Iraqi Freedom.

To date, little evidence relating to WMD has been found by Coalition forces who have been on the ground in Iraq for more than two months.

Specialized groups of U.S.-led inspectors (some of whom worked for the U.N.) fanned out across the country shortly after the US/UK invasion began. To date, nothing of major significance has been found, say U.S. sources.

The same sources confirm that Washington has decided to "suspend" the WMD search, at least temporarily.

Officials close to the UN inspections have labelled the actions by the U.S. teams as "sloppy" and a "disaster."

One incident involved an inspection of an Iraqi nuclear site by U.S. troops in April.

The Tuwaitha nuclear complex was overrun by U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad.

An inspection of the complex revealed several subterranean levels.

On one of those levels, the U.S. troops discovered a storage facility loaded with steel drums that sent radiation detectors ticking.

According to the Pentagon, some of the drums were opened by the U.S. troops to examine their contents.

While the U.S. military thought the find may be related to hidden WMD, it was later reported that the material was no more than nuclear waste.

The waste had been declared by the Iraqi government and subsequently stored and sealed under IAEA supervision.

It was also highly toxic.

U.N. sources believe that U.S. troops who were exposed to the waste material may have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation

The Pentagon has had no comment.

However, recent reports from the area surrounding the nuclear complex speak of local residents becoming sick.

There is a suspicion in U.S. quarters that some of the ailments may be related to the theft of nuclear materials from the research center.

IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei has requested permission to resume nuclear inspections.

So far, Washington has refused. ElBaradei has responded by threatening to have the IAEA issue a nuclear emergency for Iraq.

On Wednesday, IAEA sources told NewsMax that discussions were underway with Washington that might allow a nuclear team into Iraq to assess the condition of the nuclear facilities in question.

The Pentagon has also signalled a readiness to accept an IAEA team in the country.

The purpose would be to assess the facilities' condition and what if any equipment or nuclear materials may be missing.

It would not mark the resumption of regular arms inspections, which highlights a continuing problem for the Coalition: What to do about U.N. arms inspections?

Moscow and Paris have insisted that the issue of WMD must be addressed before sanctions can be lifted, as required under current Security Council resolutions.

Washington and London have responded that the WMD issue is less important now, since the Coalition has effectively taken over the government.

UNMOVIC sources confide that they do not see the issue of future of Iraqi arms inspections being taken up by the Security Council until after U.N. Chief Inspector Dr. Hans Blix retires in July.

IAEA sources tell NewsMax that IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei may not seek reelection when his current term ends in 2005.

When asked if his country considered the resumption of U.N. arms inspection a priority, Council president Munir Akram (Pakistan) said:

"For us the priority is the welfare of the Iraqi people and for that purpose it is obvious that the oil sales resume so that resources are generated by which the Iraqi economy can be revived, reconstruction in Iraq can begin and relief can be provided to the Iraqi people. That is our first priority. We believe that the weapons issue will have to be addressed at some point down the line."

All of which has led to uncertainty at UNMOVIC: "I am sending out my resumes," confided one veteran inspector. "Are any television networks looking for additional experts to put on the air?" he asked

 

[LeeRyder]

yes, for all intensive purpouses it appears to be that one.

 

[rambo6376]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said on Friday he does not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War (news - web sites) and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...40123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_kay_dc&printer=1

 

[LeeRyder]

WASHINGTON — U.S. forces in Iraq believe they may be facing an Al Qaeda cell in Fallujah after two men with suspected ties to the terror network were captured in the last week, sources told Fox News Friday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html

 

[rambo6376]

Sure! I don't doubt it for a second. But did Saddam have clear ties to Al Qaeda prior to the US invasion? That has never been proven...so you can post that link all you want and the spin seems to work - but it aint gonna work on me. (over 50% of ppl polled inthe US actually believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and this has been proven by the Bush administration - these are the sheep who buy your spin)

 

[LeeRyder]

my spin? I dont work for the govt ahmed.

Have you read the entire thread? as I've said.. the only reasons I've needed for Iraq to be justified, saddam laid out for us.

Paying for suicide bombings
Gassing civilians
shooting at coalition aircraft
by-passing sanctions
torturing civilians
failing to live up to terms of surrendor


shall we go on?

If you feel it is OK for a govt to blow up school busses. and all of the above... then please.. continue in your BS against Bush.,.. however.. if you feel that those things are wrong.. then I highly sugest you rethink your positiom on Bush.. because what Bush has done was end those things.

no less...no more.

 

[rambo6376]

I never claimed you worked for the govertment...but your posting of an article that shows two guys in Iraq are "suspected" of having ties to al Queda can very well be considered spin.

I know very well the atrocities committed by Hussein's regime so there's no need to try to educate me on that either.

Finally, I never claimed it is OK for a govt to blow up school busses - please quote me if I'm wrong. My position on Bush has nothing to do with how me feeling that Hussein's actions and other terrorist actions by Palestinians are wrong. Bush has not ended those things...that is very apparent if you look at Iraq right now.

What BS did I exactly post against Bush? The news story is a FACT - Kay found no WMDs and has been pulled out of Iraq it seems - hence the title "ex-us arms hunter ..."
Another FACT - no one has proved that Saddam was behind 9/11.

It's a personal opinion really - what Saddam did in his past was enough justification for you. But some of us don't feel the same way. Maybe some of us would've supported this war if from THE BEGINNING the war had been justified on humanitarian grounds. I find most Americans to be kind and compassionate at heart and I believe that would have generated more support. Instead Bush lied in his State of the Union speech in 2002 and claimed that Saddam had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. He then claimed inspectors had been given plenty of time and the reason they came up with nothing is because Saddam was not giving them access to places - and not because there simply was no advanced nuclear development program. Now after so many months and millions of US dollars wasted on hunting for said weapons, 400 member US team has been pulled out and his claim from 2002 mysteriously ommitted from the 2003 speech.

 

[LeeRyder]

the fact of the matter lies truth...

the humanitarian issue was the initial reason. The liberal parties (UN and Europe included) betrayed this of the Iraqi people. Bush then used, at the UN via Powell.. the information provided by iraqi Scientists, British.. German and french intelligence.

The UN even stated during Powell's speech that it has no doubt that Saddam has/had WMD, but lacked the proof to justify invasion.

relying on the initial reasoning (humanitarian), the WMD info from the rest of the globe (oddly enough the CIA and NSA are the only two who doubted the claim) and the violations of the terms of surrender.. Bush acted.

Bush NEVER claimed Iraqi involvement in 9-11. You'd do well to remember that.

As a matter of fact, it serves in my memory that he came out during a news conference stating as such "There is no proof that Iraq had any dealings with terror acts commited on september 11th."

As stated earlier... Our justification for entering WWII was not to save the Jews, but to avenge pearl Harbor which was a direct effect of our oil embargo on Japan. Does this make any less noble our war in that time?

I hardly think so.. but then again, liberals actually had balls back then and knew the difference between right and wrong. and they realised even then that regardless of feelings for a president.. the right thing must be done, always.

"All that is required for evil to conquer good is for good men to do nothing."

 

[Chris_C]

Just War Theory (jus ad bello)
Just for fun :P Really though to add some perspective to what I think a few people have expressed so far. Namely, this war was not justified (or was it?). My thesis is that it was not, feel free to disagree (like you need my permission) but put your biases aside and argue within context pls.

According to the theory (http://www.google.ca/search?q="Just+war+theory"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) a war is justified when all of the following conditions are met:
being declared by a proper authority
Met, Bush was democratically elected (don't dig up florida as it's moot imo) by the US people and therefore had the authority to act on behalf of the state. Further it was openly declared.
having a reasonable chance of success
Met, while I must say that the planning on what was going to happen after the war was horrendous, I don't think there is anything to argue about here.
having just cause
Met, "liberation" from a dictatorship such as Saddam's is imo a just and moral cause.
possessing right intention
Not Met, A just cause can be reached through the wrong intentions which is what occurred. This war was about economics and gain, not the just cause. Why? 1) There are many other nations equally repressed to iraq but who have not seen this aid (do we really need to argue this?), 2) Deficit aside, the US needs more oil than it can produce itself and today they are in much better position than they were before, 3) The west's economic dominance and the G8 power is in a declining state and the result of the war leaves the US/brit in a much better long-term position.
end being proportional to the means used
met, i do think they us/brit did try to finish the war as quickly and with as little human life cost as possible.
Last Resort
Not met, and here's the biggest failure IMO. This war was not neccessary and the same results could have been produced via other means. This war was pushed forward on the grounds that there was an imminent threat first because of ties to Al Quaeda and later because of the WMD. Neither of these were true, were they? If they weren't true, and put forth as the main reason for going to war (i'll happily bring up lots of rumsfeld and bush quotes if you really want to argue this one), what was the true intention of the war?