Iraq, again

[Guest]

Anotehr posting i noticed too late… sorry for that.
I will keep myself short

@Soon_U_Die:

So your one and only point is that you feel more comfortable with multilateral approaches to things. Good for you.

I feel more comfortable with bilateral approaches on many things.

I guess we agree to disagree :)

I’ll give you an example of a substance initiative. I actually care about what’s happening in Africa in general, and the state of their economy in particular. I know that the best thing the ‘West’ can do is eliminate all agricultural subsidies, worldwide. This is the only path that will allow Africa to use it’s one natural advantage to its economic advantage. The US has proposed doing exactly that and has tabled a submission to the WTO (this has long been the US position). The EU though is the major impediment to this. EU subsidies of its agriculture sector has long depressed food stuff values, led to artificial subsidies elsewhere, including Canada and the US, and shut out Africa. These are well known facts. I could provide you a whole ton of links, but I shouldn’t need to.

One of teh facts is no fact effectively.
Yes, teh EU subsidizes their farmers. They do so openly.
No, the US do subsidize their farmers as well. They don’t do that in teh open but hidden under taxes etc. (i will look that up for references when i find the time).
AFAIR, the EU once said they would cut down their subsidies if the US stopped hiding theirs and cut it down as well.
And i blame both the EU and the US for wanting and proclaiming “free trade” but keeping their tariffs and subsidies for their own side. Hypocrites on both sides.

Why isn’t the world demanding the EU eliminate agricultural subsidies? Arguably, this is one of the most significant substance issues in the world and it COULD be solved. But no one cares.

I guess the world keeps quiet, because they know the US does the same without telling, and everyone else does so. But you are right, it would help a lot, if both sides played with open cards.

Yet, when anyone else proposes something, and the US doesn’t agree, it is big news. It’s those crazy Americans doing their own thing. The evils of unilateralism are raised. Ohhh…ahhhh…its scary.

We have reached a new stage of that. Now it’s not only the US not signing treaties, but now it’s the US using military force to push their interests. That is politics that was common in the Europe before WWI.

Yet, we seem to presume that they should sign these agreements and give up their sovereignty? Why is that? And is it realistic, when we know that all regimes act in their own self interest first.

Well, if you accept that, then the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq sound like a lame excuse for whatever interests the US really has (just like anybody elses). And signing treaties is not “giving up sovereignity”, well at least not totally. And there are problems in the world which IMHO concern the world and are only solvable by the world and not each single nation.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Do you mean UN resolutions?

Yup… bad typo…

@Xi:

Yeah! Supply UNMOVIC with all the facts available to the Coalition. Then there will be no witnesses alive or willing to come forward due to what would happen to those who spoke freely.
[irony] Real smart idea! [irony]
I think the Coalition will save it’s facts for the Baghdad Trials.

Well, nice thing to first send the Inspectors in (half-heartedly, because the world wants so), don’t support them, and then claim that they have failed and the army has to march in. That would be proof that the US never had any real interest in disarming Saddam, but only in a change of regime.
For the “dead witnesses”: Well, do you expect the inspectors would tell the Iraqi gov’t who told what they read? They could have read it at UN HQ, made a plan and check the things….
I think the “Coalition” has no facts. They had to use faked evidence, they had to omit parts to make the rest sound like “proof”, they had to blindly copy-and-paste outdated Master-thesises… If you call that proof, may i then sell you an investment that provably will give you 123486% interest?

Free the Iraqi people!
Let them choose socialism, republic, communism or create the government of their own making!

Look up on what SUD and i discuss, just the posting above. And i bet the US will not tolerate any gov’t except a western-style democracy.

[Xi]

@F_alk:

… first send the Inspectors in (half-heartedly, because the world wants so), don’t support them, and then …

Yeah, and the UN validated itself by agreeing to send 100 inspectors to search(Oops! I mean inspect :roll: )a country bigger than California(between the size of Germany and France). Then they want to increase the number of inspectors to 300. Big freaking deal!
@F_alk:

… do you expect the inspectors would tell the Iraqi gov’t who told what they read? They could have read it at UN HQ, made a plan and check the things…

A dictator with between 3 and 50 billion dollars has connections (read bribery)…
@F_alk:

I think the “Coalition” has no facts. They had to use faked evidence …

You think? Reads like you’ve dismissed evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) We are all limited in our arguments to be confronted with the “faked evidence”(a constant Iraq Government complaint) accusation.
@F_alk:

… the US will not tolerate any gov’t except a western-style democracy.

After that they can choose any form of government they wish. But
if they start with socialism, communism or a dictatorship
they will have little or no choice.

[Xi]

And now for more, as the Iraqi government says, “faked evidence” from our friendly IKONOS(see below) satellite …

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_terrorists.guest.html

IKONOS, for those of you who may express disbelief in Limbaugh,
is an independent satellite operations company.

[BigBlocky]

Nobody should take rush limbaugh seriously (nobody should listen to him better yet). There are a few sayings that come to mind when his name pops up. Through enough mud and some will stick to the wall. Even a broken clock has the right time twice per day…

F_alk, I’m afraid you’re totally wrong about the US agricultural subsidies. There is nothing secret or hidden about it. The US just in the last year passed the largest agricultural subsidy bill ever. We’re talking 180 Billion over 10 years. 18 Billion a year is a heck of a GDP for a third world country. Nothing secret about it! The secret stuff is when they provide loans to the thirld world countries to buy the wheat from the US that is below fair market price so the third world countries farms fail and they have to import what they used to grow. How nice we provide them with loans too… Mind you the EU is the most guilty. They spend more than 100 Billion/year.
http://www.kisanwatch.org/eng/analysis/may2002/an_US_FARM_BILL_2002_1.htm
BB

[Guest]

@Xi:

@F_alk:

I think the “Coalition” has no facts. They had to use faked evidence …

You think? Reads like you’ve dismissed evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) We are all limited in our arguments to be confronted with the “faked evidence”(a constant Iraq Government complaint) accusation.

It has been proven that the “evidence for the Iraq attempting to get nuclear material from Niger” (Niger is AFAIR) has been a fake, and that the weapn inspectors were surprised that the secret services of the US and the UK could fall for these rather blatant fakes.

@F_alk:

… the US will not tolerate any gov’t except a western-style democracy.

After that they can choose any form of government they wish. But
if they start with socialism, communism or a dictatorship
they will have little or no choice.

Choice on what? Do you notice that you say “let them be free, but not that free?”

@BigBlocky:

F_alk, I’m afraid you’re totally wrong about the US agricultural subsidies. There is nothing secret or hidden about it. The US just in the last year passed the largest agricultural subsidy bill ever. We’re talking 180 Billion over 10 years. 18 Billion a year is a heck of a GDP for a third world country. Nothing secret about it! The secret stuff is when they provide loans to the thirld world countries to buy the wheat from the US that is below fair market price so the third world countries farms fail and they have to import what they used to grow. How nice we provide them with loans too… Mind you the EU is the most guilty. They spend more than 100 Billion/year.

Thatnks for the evidence. And i know, the EU is even worse in the amount of subsidies…

SUD, should you be back and read this: Please consider the following,
you say that multilateralism is less effective than bilateralism. On the other hand, in your examples of failed multilateral treaties, one side you call the “EU”. The EU is not a unit, it’s several countries who found together by multilateral treaties.
So, to prove that multilateralism doesn’t work, you use the “greatest” example of multilaterlism working.

[BigBlocky]

F_alk, I agree that the ‘evidence’ of the attempt to get uranium from africa was false. However, this does not imply that all evidence is false. It is not a logical conclusion, suspician of evidence is, automatic dismissal of all subsequent evidence is not. Intelligence agencies make mistakes and will continue to do so, I cite 9/11 as one error in judgement.

Iraq has spent about 10 billion dollars over the years on trying to build an atom bomb, they had an atom bomb before desert storm but it was too big to deliver. The French were friendly enough to ensure the uranium they supplies had a good mix of U-235 and U-238 so Iraq could extract weapons grade uranium from the reactor grade uranium thus saving them the time to use a breeder reactor to get plutonium which is not mined out of the ground like uranium but rather is ‘man-made’ so to speak.

As for governments, there are a whack of forms and I suspect anything save dictatorship or communism (little difference in the practical sense) is fine with the US. Nothing wrong with socialism as long as the representation is representative in some way.

BB

[Mangas_Coloradas]

Big Blocky, why do you assume that the US has some kind of problem with dictatorships ? Saudi-arabia and Kuwait aren’t exactly democracies you know. And Israel is led by a guy responsible for the massacre of refuges.

So democracy and respect for human rights is clearly not the most important factor for the US when they deal with other countries.

[BigBlocky]

MC, I’m not saying the US won’t deal with dictatorys. ‘President’ Mushariff of Pakistan is a dictator who ceased control by a military coup. One can argue as to whether or not Pakistan is better for this, I think it is but it too needs Democracy. The Israeli prime-minster is the leader of a democratic government. But this is all off-topic really.

For Iraq, the US will not tolerate anything but some form of representative government, it was not meant as a blanket statement for US relations with all other countries. Iraq is in effect a state with no government and is not like any other state outside of Africa. Democracy and respect for human rights is clearly going to be the focus of NEW governments that the US will pay to help build.

BB

[Guest]

@BigBlocky:

F_alk, I agree that the ‘evidence’ of the attempt to get uranium from africa was false. However, this does not imply that all evidence is false. It is not a logical conclusion, suspician of evidence is, automatic dismissal of all subsequent evidence is not. Intelligence agencies make mistakes and will continue to do so, I cite 9/11 as one error in judgement.

True, but if it comes to extremes (and it does here), you are kind of forced to take positions like “it is all true” or “i don’t believe it is right… “(here you usually are interrupted before you can say)”… until it’s further examined”.
You are absolutely correct, not everything is right, not everything is wrong. But the way the “proofs” were prestented made me highly suspicious of anything presented as “proof”. It’s just that too much has later shown to be false, they have made too many mistakes (or lied too often, depending on your stance, mine is a mix)… probably because they themself wanted to believe.

As for governments, there are a whack of forms and I suspect anything save dictatorship or communism (little difference in the practical sense) is fine with the US. Nothing wrong with socialism as long as the representation is representative in some way.

Here you show that you are not from the US quite clearly :).
But just for the record: socialism in its (marxist-leninist) definition is a dictatorship (needed to prepare the society for communism, which then again is democratic).

[Xi]

@F_alk:

It has been proven … a fake, and that the weapn inspectors were surprised that the secret services of the US and the UK could fall for these rather blatant fakes.

Hmm … seems like a good peace of propaganda to me. I repeat … Reads like you’ve dismissed other evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) Were you there?
You trust your sources and I’ll trust mine.
@F_alk:

Choice on what? Do you notice that you say “let them be free, but not that free?”

… and you want them to choose what? A male dominated, religious fundamentalist theocracy maybe? You want to leave the region in the 14th century?
If so, I’m glad it’s not up to you.
I believe the Iraqi people and we’ll work toward something like the government of Turkey.

[Meijing]

F_alk doesn’t want them to choose a theocracy, but maybe they want.
The Germans democratically chose a pacifist governement, the Turks democratically choose a moderate religious governement, the Americans, or at least some of them, choose a religious, militant president.
Deomocracy doesn’t garanty, that people choose the best, but it makes it easier to corect mistakes.

[BigBlocky]

Algeria democratically elected a religiously fundamenalist governement. Of course the military steped in and cancelled the elections. Indeed democracy doesn’t guarantee a good choice. Look at the French for instance…. tongue in cheed

BB

[Guest]

@Xi:

Reads like you’ve dismissed other evidence because you read or heard something(no proof.) Were you there?
You trust your sources and I’ll trust mine.

I was refering to the “Uranium trade”-documents between Niger and Iraq.
And you should know thet old saying “you don’t trust the one who lied once”, the same saying that is (absolutely correctly) applied on SH. Why are other gov’t exempt from that saying?

… and you want them to choose what? A male dominated, religious fundamentalist theocracy maybe? You want to leave the region in the 14th century?
If so, I’m glad it’s not up to you.
I believe the Iraqi people and we’ll work toward something like the government of Turkey.

As Meijing already said:
I want them to choose what they want. That is the way democracy in its basis works. If they want the theocracy, let them have it. It will change (like the Iran) sooner or later. I don’t want them to take my choice, because it is my choice: i would never try to “force” my will onto them.
For your “leaving the region in the 14th century”: you sound like you are pretty convinced that “our system” is the best in the world, aren’t you?

[Guest]

Did you know….

the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war, is about…

… 1.5 times the worlds annual money spent on development projects (50 billions)

… 50 times the UN’s World Food Program (1.74 billion)

… 3 times the total sum of all goods delivered to Iraq in the “Food for Oil” program since 1996 (25 billions)

… 1.5 times the budget of the US-gov’t department of education (54 billions)

… 13 times the money of Bill Gates (5.9 billion)

… 375 times the production cost of “Titanic” (200 millions)

Just to think about it

[Xi]

As for choice of governmental systems … I’d say Japan and Germany(though Germany still has political/diplomatic problems) worked out fairly well, so let’s see what comes.

Looky, looky who wants to come back and play :roll: ! Why it’s France and Germany. Left out of the game and afraid their free-agent(sports analogy)status will put their salaries on the downspin.

For the post-Gulf War world what will the US do? Maybe …

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson040403.asp

[DeviantScripter]

Did you know….

the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war…

…will save the lives of millions of future Iraqi generations

…is paltry when compared to our entire GDP

…is entirely worth it to save American lives

…is what Americans are willing to spend to prevent a future 9/11.

Just to think about it.

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Did you know….

the 75 billion US$, the money that GWB wants for the war…

…will save the lives of millions of future Iraqi generations

…is paltry when compared to our entire GDP

…is entirely worth it to save American lives

…is what Americans are willing to spend to prevent a future 9/11.

Just to think about it.

don’t forget:
will be worth it to kick-start a stalled economy
will demonstrate America’s might to all of her enemies, and should frighten them into submission to America’s demands
will yeild many times this amount in oil fortunes
will tell the world “now does this make up for the 3 years we sat out of WWII while your sons died for freedom?”
is approximately what Bush is prepared to pay to kick-start a flailing ego/libido

[DeviantScripter]

Oh c’mon CC, you’re not really gonna use the “jumpstart the economy” argument are you? That’s almost as bad as the “war for oil.”

The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond.

By the way, what exactly are “America’s demands”?

[Guest]

@Xi:

(though Germany still has political/diplomatic problems)

Do we?
I think your political (GWB election) and diplomatic (Iraq conflict) problems are worse :)

@D:S:

The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond

Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…