| Author |
Message |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 4:19 pm: | |
DAve:
I would disagree, its probably the higher number. My reasoning is that the US military does have estimates on the enemy dead. Standard military operating procedure is to estimate the enemy casualties to get a threat assessment. They've got those numbers, but haven't assembled them. The only reason they haven't is that the number is large.
Art |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 1:35 pm: | |
Art: 3 words---CONSIDER THE SOURCE
But irrespective of the inherent bias of the Arab News (Al Jazeera, anyone?), and the LA Times (which had to retract a front-page photo during the war when it was proven that its own editor had altered it to make the US soldier in it look like he was pointing his M-16 directly at an Iraqi child, for God's sake; HOW FRIKKING BIASED IS THAT???) it's words kind of contradict yours:
"Extrapolating from the death rates of between 3 percent and 10 percent found in the units around Baghdad, one reaches a toll of between 13,500 and 45,000 dead among the troops and paramilitaries. The overall casualty rate may lie closer to the lower figure."
So, first, they're extrapolating--an inherently inaccurate process. And next, they are saying it is likely the LOWER of the range (13,500).
Still not sure where you get 50,000 unless you have an axe to grind.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Dave:
As to the war deaths: here is a relatively accurate count, based on the available figure. Note that they came to the same conculsions that I did, i.e., 50k dead.
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=26774
Art |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Ralph:
Did you read the cite I put up? I suspect not. It's interesting that you cite the Egyptian leader's death, but not the Israeli leaders death. Both killed by their respective radical right. The truth about the matter is that Israeli, if it continues along its current path, will not survive. That will be a shame, because it serves a great purpose: a place where jews can go if things get bad where they are. It won't fall because it isn't militarily strong, it will fail because it can't survive economically and maintain its war footing. The only solution is either to make peace which will involved painful concessions, or go to a more severe form of ethnic removal. If it chooses the latter, I fear that even the USA will not support such behavior, and all of the economic aid Israel receives will be at risk. A trading country, without natural assets cannot survive without trading partners.
Israel is already there in Europe, I understand that the EU has instituted a boycott of sorts against them already, if that is true, then if the US gets on that bandwagen, how will they survive?
Art
|
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 152
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:32 am: | |
Art: the Israelis have had nothing but a
worse security situation since the 1993
Oslo "Flash Bulb" ( Pics for Clinton's
Yearbook and legacy ) peace agreements.
Radical leaders ? Did'nt we try pacifist
leaders on the Israeli side ? There is
no such thing as a moderate on the Arab
side. Ehud Barak ran after an agreement
with Prs. Clinton on his side after the two
sides negotiations had collapsed at Camp
David. There were further negotiations at
Taba that only increased more consessions.
NOBODY in Israel ( including Meretz party
leftists ) can even consider the Palestinian's
right of return. That is a zero option.
It is not going to happen. There is also
no compensation for former Jewish residents
of Arab Countries.
This goes back to the Arab ( Elites ) not
wanting to change a thing. Why bother ?
Who wants a democracy ?
(Why) did the Palestinans under Egyptian
and Jordanian soverign rule NEVER try to
become free at any time before 1967 ?????
Was it possible that the Palestinians knew
that they are in fact Jordanians ?
60% of Jordan is (Palestinian/Jordanian).
After 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were
used by the Arabs as a propaganda tool
agaist Israel. Palestinians were very
welcome in refugee camps. They were not
welcome as citizens. All of the sudden
(after 1967) the people in the West Bank
and Gaza overnight became displaced
Palestinians. This never happened under
the watch of the Jordanians and Egyptians.
Throwing the Palestinians off their land ?
The Jews have had the land since the biblical
years. There have "always" been Jews there.
I do not need to give a simple history lesson.
The only way to stop terrorism and the
problems of the Middle East, is for Arab
Citizens in the street to demand a free
elected democratic government. We are
all waiting patiently in the West.
Ralph |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:05 am: | |
Dave:
That position doesn't take into account what Israel did to some of the Palestinaians there. Check the history. Most certainly the Palestinians were not blameless, but neither were the Israelis. Terrible things were done in 48 by both sides of the war. The losers on those issues were innocent jews and innocent Palestinians. There was a Palestinian village that certain elements of the Jewish fighters used to scare other Palestinians out of what was to become Israel. I don't have the name in hand, but my understanding is that woman and children were killed, left as an example to scare the Palestinians out of Israel. My understanding is that this is very well documented.
The combatants on the Arab side did some of the same things in Jewish communities. These were terrible times. The unfortunate thing is that those who got this sort of treatment had kids and memories. This has created this level of anger on both sides. Note: I just looked up the Palestinian town and its history: The towns' name was Lydda, and here is the link that describes what occurred:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/arab-israeli-war.html
The only way that this gets stopped is for the radicals on both sides (I'm including both Arafat and Sharon in that category) to be taken out of power and more moderate people left in charge.
As to the specifics: remember that the settlement process has been continuing since 1993 when the peace process started. It's not hard to see how a loss of faith could lead to where the Palestinians attitude lead them.
bottom line is that as long as the hard liners stay in power, expect more dead, expect more dissention, expect more terror. George Bush senior, while wrong in a good many things, stood up and cut off the money, when the Israelis continued to build settlements after he suggested they stop. Too bad we didn't continue to follow his policy.
Art |
Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member
Username: Ferraristuff
Post Number: 687
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 7:12 am: | |
Dave,
I am not choosing sides in that conflict, merely pointing out that both sides make their own claims on that land and are apparently willing to depend "their point" with their lives and as long as they both keep doing that, that whole region will never know real peace and violence all over the world will KEEP spiralling upwards.
Simply blaming 70% of "the problem" on the Palestinians is way too simple in that respect.
Jack
P.S.
Got any pictures of your old Dinky Toys? |
Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member
Username: Ferraristuff
Post Number: 685
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
Bill H.,
Thanks!
Makes sense to me!
Jack |
Vincent (Vincent348)
Member
Username: Vincent348
Post Number: 336
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 12:19 am: | |
Ralph,
Maybe the theory I heard isn't too far off:
Mike writes
>> listen to their theories about rich Jews who control the media and effectively run the USA, and the horrible Jews who are hell-bent on killing every Arab, and you will see that these people are way, way, waaay past the point of looking for an amicable solution, their hatred and self-loathing is focused entirely on a single point of the globe like a laser - and that point is Israel.
People have been fighting for land in the middle east for thousands of years--fighting for it for religious and financial reasons.
Ralph: >>The elites are only interested in keeping the
status quo. Why would you want to change a
system that could provide you with seven maids
you do not even have to pay money ? You
would not have to put your shoes on for the
rest of your life. There is someone to do it
for you.
This is one of the problems with mostly singular market economies. There is very little room in the middle. You are either rich, poor, or poor but in the military. |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 9:10 pm: | |
Mike B is correct.
And Jack, Israel did not "steal" the Palenstinian's country, for 2 reasons: (1) the Palestinians did not have a country; as I have already posted, they have been kicked out of nearly every Arab country & kingdom; they happened to be squatting in what is now Israel when (2) the British & the UN created Israel in 1948 after the Jews left alive after the Holocaust floated at sea for a few years, rejected by all civilized nations of the world (us & our allies included).
Surprise, surprise! The UN may be largely responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! What did I just hear, Ye Defenders Of The Almighty UN? Was that a collective gasp? Or a pin dropping?
And Art? I would venture that Israel's activities are in direct response to dozens of homicide bombings. Remember, the terrorists attack only inncoent unarmed civilians (mostly) while Israel attacks (mostly) armed terrorists & those making bombs. Neither is perfect, but I will stand on the side of the latter 100 times more readily than I will stand with the former. Why won't you? |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
Jack: the baggage associated with the labels "liberal" and "conservative" changes in different political climates. For example, liberals were once thought to be strong supporters of Israel, but now, are sometimes viewed as pacifists here, and possibly pro-Palestinian. (Indeed, there are many "liberal" jews in the US who actually dislike Israel's current stance on the Palestinian issue). Ironically, the "conservatives" typically associated with big business and less concerned with human rights,the environment etc, (big liberal issues in the US) have, in conjunction with more fundamentalist Christian groups, recently become strong supporters of Israel, perhaps because it represents something other than Islam in the Middle East. But, the labels shift, and shift again, depending on the times and the issues. Have i managed this without really insulting anybody? |
Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member
Username: Srt_mike
Post Number: 200
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Art,
Your idea of Israel needing to "give a little" (I agree) is all well and good, but the presumption that such action by Israel would then lead to peace is based on the assumption that the Palestinians would be satisfied with such an agreement.
I don't believe that the Palestinians, or the rest of the Arab world, will EVER be satisfied until Israel and the Jews are wiped out.
Art, you seem to get around to various news sources. I read a TON of the Arab press, and you can't have a discussion with 99.9% of Arabs about any sort of issue that affects their world without "the Jews" being mentioned within the first 10 seconds. Have you talked at length to Arabs? Every single Arab save a couple of enlightened individuals always talk about the Jews and how they are responsible for EVERYTHING going wrong in the world.
Ironically, EVERY SINGLE TIME I saw a protest (be it in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Syria, or wherever) against the war in Iraq, they would burn a US flag AND an Israeli flag. What in the hell did Israel have to do with Iraq other than supporting the USA? And how did Israel support us more than lots of other countries?
Listen to these people Art... listen to their theories about rich Jews who control the media and effectively run the USA, and the horrible Jews who are hell-bent on killing every Arab, and you will see that these people are way, way, waaay past the point of looking for an amicable solution, their hatred and self-loathing is focused entirely on a single point of the globe like a laser - and that point is Israel.
I have never, ever, ever heard of ANY Arab who had a beef with "their land" that is controlled by other Arab nations like Jordan.
I watched a good show on the History Channel a week or two back about Egypt and the various rules that were assasinated because they had pro-western views and *didn't* hate Israel. I forget the guys name, but the current leader, Mubarak, was at his side when he was assasinated by militant islamic morons during a military parade.
|
Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member
Username: Ferraristuff
Post Number: 679
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
>>>however 70% of the blame lies on the Palestinians etc.
To which the Palestinians reply that the Israeli stole their country...
>>>>>>Of course there are 2 sides to every conflict
Indeed.
This will never be resolved I fear.
Jack |
Jerry W. (Tork1966)
Member
Username: Tork1966
Post Number: 698
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Of course there are 2 sides to every conflict, however 70% of the blame lies on the Palestinians and their suicide attacks on innocent civilians with no regard whatsoever for human life (their own or otherwise) IMO. The Israeli responses are mostly at top level militants responsible for these barbaric acts. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Dave:
This is about the best analysis of why the middle east is screwed up as I've seen:
http://www.mideastweb.org/oslofailed.htm
Art |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Dave;
All of the facts you cite are true. Your conclusions however, don't take into account the other side of the issue. The problems flow both ways, and while the bombings need to stop, so does the Israeli actions against them. It's the old chicken and egg issue. Taking one side without looking at the other issues are indeed not a prescription for resolution.
Neither side is 100% correct, neither 100% wrong. Taking sides in this without any regard for the other's position will lead to endless turmoil and war. By the way, that isn't in Israel's best interest: their economy is in the shitter, their populace lives in fear, peace would be a lot better for everyone, and the current government there isn't doing much to ensure that this occurs.
Art |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Art, you accuse the Israelis of violating int'l law, yet it is the Palestinians who keep blowing up innocent unarmed civilians by the dozens? Maybe you need to up your dosage, pardner...'cause there is a major disconnect in your logic.
Bottom line: when the terrorists stop the homicide bombings, peace may be possible. Until then, all is fair in this war. I strongly suggest you focus your consideerable energies on the bigger problem--Palestinian terrorists who have a vested interest in no peace & a high level of violence. Solve that, then you can rail at Israel's alleged excesses.
As for your other points: the racist Arabs, rabid in their Nazi-like desire to rid the world of Jews, have attacked Israel numerous times. Each time, they get their arses handed to them in a paper bag.
Yet, said Arabs are sitting on land bigger than the United States by a lot.
And yet, these same Arabs have kicked the Palestinians out of numerous of their countries many times over the decades for being nasty troublemakers.
And also, said Arab countries refuse to allow the Palestinians to permanently settle in any of their lands (which, remember, are larger than the enture US), ever, despite having all of this unused land.
And yet, we are expected to all fall in line to the ridiculous notion that Israel--all of 13 miles wide and not much longer--the Mideast's only democracy (for now)--and the US's only true ally in the region--is supposed to carve itself up and give some if its already-tiny self to those same Palestinians, who have vowed to drive them into the sea & exterminate them for evermore, and who have been evicted & permanently banished from the rest of the Arab world for being horrible neighbors?
Sorry, man, I will charitably say this makes no sense.
 |
Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member
Username: Ferraristuff
Post Number: 667
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
Going away a little bit from the discussion itself now;
From reading all the posts, I get the impression that this issue is really an issue between left and right in the USA.
Is that correct?
What I also noticed is that left wing is called "liberal" by you guys.
Here in the Netherlands, liberal is right of the center (I can be considered a liberal in that sense).
It also seems to me that in the USA, pacifism and right wing can't go together.
Is that true?
How come?
I am both, that is why I am asking.
Jack |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:17 am: | |
Ralph:
That was a nice diabtribe against the arabs, and a great puff piece for Israel. Unforunately. it was a little short on facts, and those facts which you used, were incorrect in some areas.
Let's start at the top:
1. The issue re: the occupied territories. What was offered in 98-2000 was not 97% of the land. There is a jewish peace group, based in Israel, who did an analysis regarding that offer. B'lsteen (sp?). What they found was that although the area i.e., 97% was correct, but because some settlements would remain in the area, Israel kept jurisdiciton over the roads connecting them, and the net effect was that Israel kept jurisdiction over about 45% of the land. In short the Israelis would control most movement in the area by the Arabs. By the way, the Palestinians did not leave the peace talks, the Israelis did.
2. Israel continues to allow people to settle in these territories, and this has caused quite a bit of angst in the US and with the Palestinians.
3. There is a uniform peace offer on the table. The Saudi's plan. Give back the territory, all of it, and there will be peace. There is a right of return clause therein, but it doesn't specify they they have to return, there is disjunctive clause in the agreement, which in sum and substance is: or compensate them for their land, property, etc.
4. There are UN resolutions which Israel has violated: 242 stands out at the earliest one.
Remember that in 48 and 67 terrible things were done to what are effectively innocent Palestinans: they were thrown off their land, in some instances by terrible means. Sure the Arab nations attacked Israel in 48, but a good many of the Palestinans who had this happen to them, did nothing to assist in that, and were effectively innocent.
5. As a Jew I understand the need for a homeland, and believe that Israel is absolutely needed, given what the world has done to us over the years, but I strongly disagree with how Israel is dealing with these issues. Remember, the conservatives came into power by the killing by a conservative (Bernard Goldstein) of a liberal Israeli who attempted to make peace with the Arabs. The Arabs did the same thing with their leader who tried to make peace.
6. The tactics being used by the Israelis are against International law. This is well documented, and it causes much anger from the Palestinans.
Let's be real clear: I certainly don't like what the Palestinians are doing with the suicide/homicide bombers, etc., but it certainly isn't anywhere as clear an issue as you would have people believe in your post. These people at not subhumans, they have feelings asperations, just as we do. By the way, are you aware that the lawyer representing the Palestinian interests in the USA is a fellow by the name of Cohen from New York?
Art |
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 150
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 1:25 am: | |
Peace in the Middle East at this time is unfortunately unobtainable. Israel can give
EVERYTHING that the arab nations have asked of
it that is within reason. You still have the
outer fringe element to deal with. Quite a
few of this outer fringe elements are just
considered normal people. These types have
claimed that it is not possible to reach any
agreement ( period end of statement ).
As President Clinton was leaving office, Israel
offered 97% of what the palestinians were requesting of it. Negotiations today is a
waste of time. There is no reason is signing
more agreements without reaching some type of
conclusion. Partial agreements are a waste of
everyones time. Can you sell just the kitchen
of your house to a home buyer? How will you
reach an agreement on the entire house after
the partial buyer has moved in and unpacked
their bags. An agreement as we all know could
not be agreed upon at that time. Perhaps
the Palestinians were interested in negotiating
in good faith at a later date. Instead upon
arafats return to Gaza, the Palestinians again
turned to attacking and murdering pure civillian targets at will. They were actually encouraged
to go about this. Children were shown on official
Palestinian TV as heros who strapped on explosive
belts attacking civillian targets upon completion they would end up in heaven with 73 virgins.
The mothers who were no without their child
were interviewed as heros. The iraqis were
there with 25 thousand dollars to distribute
to the relatives. This was all shown through official channels. There is NO unofficial channels throughout the arab world. There is
no dissent.
For there to be any chance at a real peace, the
arab nations must embrace real democracy. The
problem is that there is no form of democracy
in infancy or a mature government. For the arabs democracy is as foreign as the rings of Saturn. There is "no desire" to try and introduce this with arabs living in their native countries or the ones who live amongst us in the West !
No journal articles at universities and no "protests." Yet their are millions and millions of arabs. Their are Shia protests
today in iraq for the U.S. to leave.
No protests abroad or in the West by Arabs
living amongst us for democracy in any form.
Better luck next time. Give us a call in a
hundred years when you can consider a new
form of government.
The elites are only interested in keeping the
status quo. Why would you want to change a
system that could provide you with seven maids
you do not even have to pay money ? You
would not have to put your shoes on for the
rest of your life. There is someone to do it
for you.
They are currently socially and politically where we were 600 years ago. This was the time of the oligarchies. This is where the government wanted to strictly keep peasants a bunch of uneducated followers. This was the days when
the lord of the land owned everything and the
peasant had nothing. This is how the Middle
East is today. You have mansions that are
just around the corner from squatters who live
in the streets with flies in their eyes.
We saw images from the war of U.S. Marines washing up in Sadamm's palaces using gold sinks.
There was also images of Mosul in the north
of Iraq. You could see people living amongst the
water in the gutter. Yet Mosul is awash in a
sea of oil. Black Gold / Texas Tea.
How many palaces did Sadamm have? Uday lit his
cigars with $100 bills.
Which leads to what are the political choices
within the Arab Middle East ?
1. Dictatorships
2. Monarchies
3. Fundamentalist Religious Dictatorships
The corrupt elites will not allow change.
Shopping trips by a saudi princess to Europe
with a return of 70 + suitcases do not help
the situation. This helps foster the believe
that fundamentalism is the only way for the
hopeless. The elites want to keep the arab masses eternally politically and socially in
the 14th century forever. There is no desire
to try and improve the domestic situation
economically. This brings about the desire
of the squatter in the street to consider religious fundamentalism. Now the squatter
with flies in his eyes wants to hear TODAY
in the year 2003 what the fundamentalist zelot
has to say.
Ralph |
Vincent (Vincent348)
Member
Username: Vincent348
Post Number: 330
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:09 am: | |
Ralph,
Like I said, came up in a discussion. Thought it might be interesting. You don't believe it, it seems. I din't give it much thought either, especially since some of the identities of the bombers have been revealed. Good to know where you stand. Politics in the Middle East is a very difficult subject, and a very passionate one, making it extremely hard to understand.
Vincent |
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:02 pm: | |
Vincent:
Theories and validity ? Really ?
I also heard that it was possible Mossad agents
flew the planes into the Towers on 9/11.
It was also written a few years ago that Jews
also poisoned wells. That was a theory also.
Ralph |
Vincent (Vincent348)
Member
Username: Vincent348
Post Number: 322
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 8:39 pm: | |
Ralph,
This theory came up during a discussion I had this weekend. I merely found it interesting and wanted to see what you guys thought of it, obviously it is not the entire reason for war but it seems to have some validity. I am sorry but I don�t know the answers to your questions, but they would shed some light on it. And of course there are other strong lobbies. This theory may have a part in helping why the location of the attack of 9/11 was chosen. The US has had to play an interesting game with regards to Israel, an amazing balancing act.
Art,
I think I said �strong case for war� and that might have been much. But he does seem to say that the options with regards to Saddam Hussein are limited. Though he paints a very scary picture of this man, he does point out that he is not a suicidal maniac. But, rather that he is very calculating, ruthless, Stalinesque. Iraq has tried to overtake neighboring countries in the past and he thinks they will in the future. Is the US responsible for stopping this? Why should they?
In 1938, the French knew that Hitler was amassing forces. If they had attacked first, which they considered but didn�t, WWII may have been different. I am not sure Pollack was thinking on this scale, but it crosses his mind.
BTW I haven�t reached the conclusion yet.
The UN is not a strong forum, and is only as strong as what the US makes it to be. It was however heading in the right direction in attempting to solve conflicts and give an outlet to all including �loser third world nations�. I think it is a shame that 50 years of work are being undermined.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Vincent:
If you read Pollack's book, you can see that there wasn't a reason to attack Hussein. Pollack although he advocates an attack, says that Hussein was not then, nor would be in the future a threat against the US, but if we attacked him, would sponsor people to attack us.
I've read the book and for the life of me can't understand how he came to those conclusions, given the facts in his book.
Art |
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 148
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
Vincent:
I suppose there "might" be other strong lobbies
and financial backing in the U.S. besides the Jews ?
Where is this theory from ? Did the Jews vote
for President Bush ? How do the Jews have the
President in their back pocket ? Maybe just
maybe President Bush did the correct action that
"also" had a positive economic impact for the U.S.
BTW ~
The arabs also are lucky that they had the U.S.
restrain Israel on more than a "few" occassions.
Shalom
Ralph
|
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 147
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
Un is a worthless forum for third-world
loser nations.
Ralph |
Vincent (Vincent348)
Member
Username: Vincent348
Post Number: 321
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 5:57 pm: | |
Mike,
As to my assertions bring bullsh!t: good point but how do I know your information correct. Realize that all the information you have may not really all that you think it is. This is a perfect example of conflicting facts on the same event. The information that we get on a general basis may or may not be that accurate and a lot of it is filtered by the government. The Bush white house has a strong reputation for controlling information and having very few if no leaks. No, I am not into conspiracy theories. Only saying that the reporting of events is very good, but the analysis of how and why they occurred is often flawed.
Here is what might be another reason to the war: protecting the state of Israel. There is a theory that the 9/11 terrorist act was not only an attack on the US but more specifically an attack on the Jews who have a large presence in NY and the World trade center. The Jewish community has very strong lobbies and very important financial influence in the US and the World, and it may reason that they may have influenced some pressure as well to retaliate. If it wasn�t for the US, Israel may not exist today. In the same way as: if it wasn�t for the US, France may not exist today.
All together there were many reasons to attack Saddam Hussein. There is a great book which makes a strong case for the war and was written before any shots were fired :The Threatening Storm: a case for invading Iraq. It is written by Kenneth Pollack who was the head analyst for the CIA for the Middle East. It�s very well written and you�ll find some interesting things with regards to US-Iraq relations as well as other European countries involved in the middle east. It also spells out what kind of man Saddam is or was-very alarming.
Af far as France's illegal arms selling. A lot of contracts that France had with Iraq were as a result of Reagan taking Saddam Hussein of the top ten wanted terrorist list so that we could get a 1.25 reduction on barrels of oil coming out of iraq. These contracts were part of some complicated deals and many done at the urging of the US, including the selling of nuclear power stations to Iraq. All of these deals were mainly to secure oil at favorable prices. Remember Iraq and the US up until around 1990 were allies.
This war has really damaged the UN. It seems that the US can choose to either accept the UN as a world governing body and forum-place for discussion and peacemaking: or, more dangerously, undermine the 50 or so years it has taken the UN to become a body which has the semblance of some power by choosing that it will only heed to it when it sees fit. Unfortunately the six months before this war may be the last time in a long time that you see the entire world debating keeping peace on a relatively even playing field. The UN may be in dire straits. |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
"No, the only gainers in this enterprise are the American companies,"
"see the UN debate, and that is exactly what they were saying"
I know exactly what they were saying. I'm supposed to just accept this as the truth? They're just some do good countries who only want peace. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I know what I read in Time magazine and other credible news sources, you have Iraqibodycount.com.
France was did not want to lose their contracts, nor have anyone find out about all the weapons, etc. they sold Iraq illegally. Your suggestion that they are on some high moral ground and had nothing to gain is just plain ignorace. I'm more than willing to admit the US had something to gain besides ridding the world of a tyrant, and threat to our security.
Are you? Or has your hatred of Bush so blinded you to what's really going on that you can't see past it?
Whatever. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convice me so I'm going to drop it. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | |
Sean:
Take a look at the sites I've put in. Your bombast shows the lack of reason in your comments. As to the comments that France, Russia, et al wanted more time, and proof, I suggest you go back into the web, look at the various new articles, see the UN debate, and that is exactly what they were saying: let the inspectors do the job, and if they find anything, they'll report it back. That is an accurate paraphrasing of exactly what was being said. Your comments about the money would be humourous were it not for the consequences: under International law, they will get repaid, under the international banking laws, they have a lien on Iraqi's property. They will get paid back, or they will waive the indebtness.
No, the only gainers in this enterprise are the American companies, who will rebuild the Iraqi oil fields, sell the oil to the US and/or its allies at a much lower price than we have been paying for oil, and use those funds to generate their own profits. That is what the war was about, and believe it or not, everyone else on the world got it, even if we didn't.
Art |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
"One bullet would have been enough"
Yeah, that's what we need. More anarchy in the Middle East.
Ok, my mistake. France Russia and Germany were going to gain Billions from no war. Trying to say the US had only $$ interest at the core, while France, etc. were on some high moral ground is just stupid.
Art..
One casualty is to many? How many have to die under Saddam for the war to be justified? How would leaving Saddam in power bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people?
from your 2nd link..
"After it became clear that the US was facing stiff resistance to the invasion"
300-miles in less than a week is NOT stiff resistance.
Iraqibodycount.com...give me a break. An obviouse liberal adjenda site. Give me a better source than some cobbled together web site.
Also, why would the US give a body count? If you were their laywer, would you? NO, you wouldn't. Why is it your business to know how many died. Why is it relevant? You said one was to many so how does the number 1 or 50K change your view? |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Dave:
YOu really made me work for these, they were hard to find:
Civilians: 5,000. See:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Military:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/casu-a28.shtml
While the second source doesn't provide actual numbers, it does indicate that the losses for the Iraqis were in the 10s of thousands, which is very consistent with the estimates given in the press at the time.
Bottom line: thousands, tens of thousands dead. Based upon mistake or lies. Even if the number is less, so what? In my opinion one would have been too many.
Art |
Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member
Username: Ferraristuff
Post Number: 647
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
>>>France, Germany and Russia had million$ to gain by preventing a war.
I think that is the souce of the problem...
They had millions to loose... the US had BILLIONS to gain....
>>>" The U.S. is NOT on trial here."
But France is?
Fact remains that if the only objective was to take out SH, there would have been WAY more intelligent ways to do it, especially when funded by 75 billions dollars.
One bullet would have been enough... but... well... then there would have been no occupation...
So, if that REALLY was the objective, I wonder... why this massive war then?
Jack |
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:05 pm: | |
Neither Blix or Al Baradi ever certified
that the iraqis had complied with all
requirements of the Un disarmament team.
They both mentioned that the iraqis could
do more.
And oh by the way: what the **** does a country
that is floating on a sea of oil have a need
for a nuclear power station. Do they have
any other domestic needs to spend the money elsewhere ? They have "enough" oil for all
domestic consumption + exporting that is the
major engine of their economy. So why build
nuclear power plants ? ( iran and iraq )?
( N.K.'s is nothing but a weapons production
facility ). These facilities can be taken
out overnite with precision weapons. Why
wait ? Like the oil filter commercial says:
"You can pay me now, or pay me later." The
price will only increase with procrastination.
The threat will NOT go away. Negotiations is
pointless. These people only understand one thing. ~ FORCE.
Ralph |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:52 pm: | |
" The U.S. is NOT on trial here."
Unfortunatly, the U.S. will never be good enough, even in the eyes of those whose freedom has come in the price of someone elses blood.
They want us to feed the hungry, shelter the sick, and keep out the bad guys, but only if no on gets hurt and it doesn't cost them any money.
Oh, don't forget to do it in my neighbors back yard, not mine. I've built a fence to keep out the undesirables. There's only one gate and I have the key! |
Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Junior Member
Username: Ralfabco
Post Number: 144
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
There is a little more than smoke here
when it comes to iraqi compliance.
In todays day and age we unfortunately
cannot hide behind our oceans for security.
We do not have the luxury to have all day
long to prepare for a conflict. Terrorists
will pick the time and place to attack at
their convenience. The iraqi's and (other)
countries are "determined" to aquire a
capability to inflict mass casulties in
our own backyard.
The iraqi's are not exactly innocent
choir boys. iraq's record speaks for
itself. The U.S. is NOT on trial here.
iraq is the one that always went out of
its way to play cat and mouse and waste
everyones time for years.
Ralph |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page