Bush's UN Speech

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Bush's UN Speech
40
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:02am

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 8:44pm
<<>

The same could have been said about the US back in the 80s when they were big friends with Saddam. Nothing is entirely black and white. >

No, the same cannot be said, because Saddam was not under UN imposed sanctions at the time so any help the US gave him was not illegal, not in direct violation of our own UN resolutions the way F G & R's take has been. We obviously didn't know at that time what Saddam was all about, so the two situations can hardly be compared. Besides, whatever aid we gave Saddam did not come from money that was supposed to be providing food and medicine for starving children!

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 8:49pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:21pm
<<"willing to compromise global security for their own financial self-interest">>

I think that global security was compromised when the war was launched in Iraq. I do not look too highly on those who make such heavy compromises in the name of financial self-interest but I want to also point out that America often takes part in activities that are questionable in the name of financial self-interest. While I do not believe that the Iraq war was "all about the oil" as many claim, it played a HUGE part. Therefore it can be easily construed by many that in invading Iraq, America (when considering Bush and Cheney with their ties to the oil industry) were also acting in their own financial self interest.

I am trying to look at this in a balanced way. I do not think that the actions of France, Germany and Russia were anything to defend either. They abused their power to try and prevent to war in Iraq (whatever their motivation). However, to write them off as enemies would be foolhardy. There are many ways in which they could be helpful going forward in the global war on terror (particularly if America plans on launching any more attacks on other nations in the "axis of evil" in the future). By placing more and more nations on the list of enemies rather than trying to effect some sort of cooperation in other areas would put the US in a very lonely place indeed.



iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:38pm
I'd like to see where Bush and or Cheney have financially benefitted from the war in Iraq. Quite an assumption since it would be so easily tracable through tax records.

Where is all this oil the U.S. got from the overthrow of Saddam?

Sure, U.S. oil companies will eventually benefit from dealing with a democratic Iraq.

Just one of many benefits... eliminating a safe harbor for terrorism, Gaining an ally strategically in the unstable middle east, an example to surrounding people of what freedom is, freeing an oppressed nation from a madman who killed, raped and tortured his people...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:25am
-- It's always nice to look at the bright side irregardless of the fact that the unfinished weapons inspections were pointing quite strongly in that direction.

At the rate the weapons inspections were going, it has been estimated that it would have taken this team of 200 inspectors almost 5 years to search the entire country. In the 6 months that Blix was there, his team had searched an area roughly 3/4 the size of Manhattan, and Iraq is the size of California.

Hussein would not allow the teams to access any site without prior notification (gee I wonder why) and the teams were too small to cover any significant amount of territory at any one time (which is the way Hussein wanted it, and the UN capitulated).

David Kay said he would have been more comfortable with between 2000 and 3000 inspectors in Iraq, with enough hellicopters to get them where they needed in the country quickly. Blix's team had 1 hellicopter at their disposal.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:26am
Ah, you mean the French and Russians, who to this day continue to sell arms and supplies to Iraq through back channels.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:28am
This only became the war chant of Terry McAullife AFTER the military inspection teams could not find any stockpiles of WMD's. This does not answer the questions about the satelite images that show convoys of trucks moving across the Iraq / Syria border just before our forces invaded.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:59am
<>

I highly doubt that they would be stupid enough to open accounts in their name and start buying yachts and summer homes (besides, most of them probably have one). The friends and family members of Bush's inner circle are well connected in the oil industry. They own companies that profit from both the oil industry and munitions industries. These companies all stood to profit. Ergo, so did the individuals all highly placed in these and related industries. As well, these profits would probably not have started to bear a substantial amount of fruit until Bush and his cronies were out of office. 4-8 years is not a long time. They would be well fixed for a long and profitable retirement.

<>

Well obviously things aren't going exactly the way the administration imagined they would (I wouldn't go so far as saying "planned", though the no-bid contracts point in the direction that some planning was involved....at least in so far as the potential profits might be concerned). This result is a part of the "miscalculation" that Bush himself admitted to.

<>

I agree with some of what you said. Gaining an ally in the region would be a big plus....there is also no argument that Saddam was a madman (that was being well contained for quite some time).

I have to disagree with your other points. This has not eliminated a harbour for terrorists (I wouldn't say safe however)...as foreseen by many, it has spawned new ones.

And, however idealistic the goal of "freedom" is, it was impossible to imagine it taking root in Iraq, given the complex divisions, fragmentation and large fundamentalist branch of Iraqi society. AS henious as Saddams cruel and heavy handed tactics were with his own people, it was spawned to some degree by the need to keep all these disparate groups under contol. You cannot "impose" democracy....you cannot suddenly give people "freedom" who do not have the capability or experience to deal with it.

Iraq has not given people of the surrounding area an example of what freedom is....it has given people a good idea of the limitations of conventional warfare when it comes to things as fundamental as radically and quickly trying to change the outlook and philosophy of an entire civilization.

Americans value their freedom because they fought for it themselves. They selected their own governemnts (it wasn't hand picked and guided by an outside entity). It works well because it has taken over a century to iron most of the kinks.

Bush should have kept his promise and stayed out of the nation building business. You want to talk about a flip flop.



Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 12:15pm
Confusing them with facts & logic??? :-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 2:53pm
I know...sorry.

Pages