North Korea And Iraq

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"If some un-named nation took the territory of the United States away from us Americans and gave it to someone else, and we were all herded and prosecuted by these new invaders, how would you feel?"

 

I know I would feel pretty bad, but I would defer to the thoughts of le Voyageur.

 

For some reason it seems some people will always hate another group. Look at the Prostestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland as well.

 

As far as taking over Israel, I dont think we should invade and toppple a sovereign power just because it doesnt follow a few UN resolutions (sic), after all they are irrelevant.

 

However, there is something we could do for/to Israel that might be better than taking it over. It's relatively simple actually. Israel wants to be regarded as a world power. It likes to posture itself as a free independent country beholden to no one. We should oblige them and help them take the last step. We should quit sending them any aid. Shut the billions of dollars a year worth of goods and supplies off. They imagine themselves as hardy freedom loving people independent as can be, let them take that stance without my tax money. Now, if they want to keep the US aid, keep the billions pouring in (see Turkey) then they will create a Palestinian homeland and make nice with their neighbors, after all they all feed from the same trough, (ours) we might as well remind them of that.

 

(some of the preceeding does not necessarily reflect the true thoughts of the author, other parts do, any simlilarity to actual people or events is purely coincidence and sorry if I made you think)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[KoreaScouter 13]

Fella;

 

I think you may have missed the point of my last post. By pointing out September 11th, I wasn't asserting that SH or KJI were involved in planning, supporting, or carrying out the attacks...they may or may not have been, I just don't know.

 

My point was that September 11th was really two events. One, the attack itself and the human tragedy that we're still collectively recovering from. Two, and this is more to the point of this discussion I think, September 11th removed forever the American notion that our oceans protect us from harm. That notion, when it was true, enabled us to stay out of WWI and WWII as long as we did because our enemies could not project power to our shores.

 

UBL's communiques are psyops; don't get hypnotized by them.

 

I'd be careful attempting to speak for 280 million Americans. Our diversity makes it near impossible to lump us all together as having the same feelings, motivations, and values.

 

Your characterization of a "military/industrial/energy complex" as a monolithic group of identically-thinking warmongers ignores the fact that there are countless people who don't feel that way. I have many friends in southwest Asia right now, and we pray every day for a peaceful resolution to this when we think of them. As I check my family's gas masks and make sure our evacuation kit is complete if needed, I repeat that prayer. And, we're not the exception...we're the rule.

 

KS

[pfann 10]

OGE,

 

Check the official charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization. It calls for the elimination of Israel as a nation and as a people. How does one "make nice" with those who have sworn not only to defeat you but to wipe you from the face of the earth?

 

I find it interesting how many people absolutely discount anything the President says but when a "communication" form Bin Laden calls Saddam an infidel these same people take it literally. When the US government alleges Iraqui ties to terrorism, we call it a conspiracy of the mil/industrial complex and the zionists. But when Saddam says he is nothing but a nice guy, we take his word for it.

 

I am afraid to ask but where do you conspiracy guys stand on the Kennedy assassination?

[fella 10]

I think that the whole debate has become one-sided, at least in the US.

 

In Europe, various of the governments have had the guts to stand up to George W. Bush. Even in Britain, where Tony Blair behaves like George W. Bush's poodle, nearly 200 members of Parliament vote against war: hardly a sign that the people have been convinced.

[Zahnada 11]

Well, today France, Germany, and Russia have blocked a UN resolution to use force in Iraq. This brings us back to earlier topics in this thread. Below is a Fox News piece that really articulates the resistance those three countries have to the use of force in Iraq. ASM1 tried to explain it in earlier posts, but I think this is a much easier read.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80187,00.html

 

 

[Zahnada 11]

Ok, the link didn't work. Another great example of my computer ignorance. Here's the article:

 

Are they torturing captured al Qaeda thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? A report in a moment, but first the Talking Points Memo. Blood money in Iraq.

 

The Factor has been investigating just who is profiting by having Saddam Hussein in power. And here's what we found out for you.

 

Russia profits the most. Saddam owes Moscow billions for arms and supplies and is paying the debt off by sending the Putin government oil well below market prices. The Russians then turn around selling the oil, making huge profits.

 

Saddam has also given Russia contracts to explore for oil on Iraqi soil. Those could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars more.

 

So no way Russia wants Saddam out.

 

France sells Iraq just about everything and gets hard currency from Saddam in return. This is done under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, which is a complete farce.

 

Iraq buys whatever it wants with oil money. The U.N. looks the other way. Some experts believe U.N. supervisors have been bribed by Saddam but The Factor has been unable to confirm that.

 

France also has signed oil exploration contracts with Saddam, although they are not nearly as lucrative as Russia's.

 

British and U.S. oil companies are still buying Iraqi oil through middle men in Jordan and Syria. America buys tons of oil that originates in Iraq, money that goes right to Saddam's military.

 

So this is embarrassing and the Bush Administration owes us an explanation, as does Prime Minister Blair.

 

The good news is that Mr. Bush has no vested interest in removing Saddam, other than the danger angle. American oil companies are getting Iraqi oil from Arab middle men fairly cheap, and this system benefits the U.S. economy.

 

So it's logical to assume that if Saddam did not pose a changer to us, the president would have no reason to push him out.

 

Finally, the Germans have sold billions in arms to Iraq and U.S. intelligence believes that country will be embarrassed when those deadly weapons are uncovered. Thus Germany does not want USA making that discovery.

 

So the next time somebody tells you that America should make a decision about military action against Saddam with the world's approval, you can read them this Talking Points Memo.

 

Our allies are making billions off Saddam. Those billions mean a lot more to them than American lives do. And that is the cold heart truth of the international situation.

 

 

This was written by Bill O'Reilly

[fella 10]

To paraphrase Voltaire, if Saddam did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

 

Otherwise, it would be more difficult to justify the bloated US defense budget, with that military-industrial mega-corporations that feed off military 'free trade'.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Whether I agree with it or not, I can't fault France, Germany or Russia. Why? Because they are doing the exact same thing that the US is doing......looking out for their own national interests. That fact seems to be lost on most people. They get upset that those countries are not backing the US. But the US backs who it chooses to back, when it chooses to back them. We refuse to take part in UN forces unless WE get to command them. We do not want to be under the control and power of any other nation or be beholden to them. And rightly so! We can not expect less from them or be disrespectful of their rights that we hold so dear for ourselves without being hypocrites in the process. If you go back and read some of the writings of our founding fathers, you will find that they were highly opposed to forming coalitions or alliances except for a very short-term when our interests and another nation's interests intersected. The US needs to make a decision of whether it wants to be part of something like the UN or not. If we want to be totally sovereign, than we need to excuse ourselves and quit worrying about what the world wants or thinks of us. There may be a price to pay for doing so, but there may be benefits as well.

 

Yes, France, Germany and Russia have heavily invested in Iraq in the past and it is against their interest to support a war there. It is the same reason that we don't take Saudi Arabia to task for producing radical Islamic terrorists. We have too much invested there to do that. The European countries are simply exercising the same rights as the US in deciding who to befriend and who to call an enemy. When our interests are in common, we will be allies again.

[fella 10]

kwc57

 

"We refuse to take part in UN forces unless WE get to command them. We do not want to be under the control and power of any other nation or be beholden to them. And rightly so!"

 

The UN is supposed to be an organization of sovereign states which have agreed to act lawfully with one another.

 

If what you've said were applied to the UN, there wouldn't be any peace-keeping forces anywhere, since no-one would agree to joining them.

 

I think this idea that the US is wanting to engage in preventative genocide on the UN's behalf is a no-no: Bush 2 has already said that if the UN doesn't approve of his war then he'll go in anyhow. (Yes, killing thousands of civilians on the ground, while CNN-viewing voters in Main Street can't stomach any body bags at Dover Delaware AFB, is what I call genocide, even if the military industrial mega-corporations just regard it as 'collateral damage', a term maybe worse than 'genocide' because it is used so obscenely and dishonestly.)

 

Strengths of the UN are that it's an international arena where breaches of international law can be recorded for public scrutiny and that it's a wonderful talking shop for group therapy where angry people can gradually cool it with empathy.

 

Mr. Rumsfeld and his corporation cronies might not think so, but jaw-jaw IS better than war-war.

[ASM1 10]

All good responses about France and Germany and Russia. But I am seeing something different here in the US. Doesn't it sound just a little bit funny to anyone how "panzy" the US war machine is acting? I mean the idea that we mass 250.000 troops and armour on the boarders, treaten all out war, then demand outright that the opponent disarm first. Sounds crazy to me. I wonder how Hitler would have responded in 1941 if we demanded he disarm BEFORE we go to war with him. I think the entire world would have laughed the United States right out of legitimate existance.

 

Doesn't anyone find this sort of "sissy"? You have to think it may be a ligitimate arguement when you see the outright cowardly responses to North Korea, who actually has a 1 million man army, some of the best air power in the world, the Mig 29 Fullcrum, and a real nuclear threat. Sound to me like the bully on the block picking on the kid who cannot defend himself, and ignoring the bigger bully on the other end of the street who has publically called him out to fight. Now what can the rest of the world think of the US now? No wonder China refuses to help us with North Korea. They are sitting back and watching with a big ole grin on their face. If we shrink from North Korea, we must be petrified of a 5 million man super war machine like China.

 

ASM1

[fella 10]

The fact that the Iowa caucus is only 10 months away may have something to do with the war-talk.

[SR540Beaver 116]

ASM1,

 

As usual, you get it wrong. The US is not demanding that Iraq disarm before we wage war. The US is demanding that Iraq disarm or we will wage war. Huge difference. The troops and armor threat is there as an incentive to get them to disarm to avoid a war.

 

BTW, when are you going to respond about using neo-Nazi propaganda sites to support your views?(This message has been edited by kwc57)

[ASM1 10]

Is that what you think? You really think will not go to war if Iraq dissarms? LOL!

 

When you stop using Zionist propaganda to support your views. How's that?

[SR540Beaver 116]

Zionist propaganda? Fact....you posted material that you agree with from a white supremist web site called whitesruggle. Show me where you can point to my copying zionist information and passing it off as fact or truth? When I called you on the junk you use for information, you reduce your argument to a childish nanny nanny boo boo comeback by calling me a zionist.

 

You really DO need to increase your doasge and quit reading the tabloid conspiracy journals.

[KoreaScouter 13]

ASM1;

 

If you're going to opine as a military balance-of-power pundit, or whatever, please take a little time to get more than a mile wide and an inch deep in your topic.

 

- Learn something about NK AOB before you attribute to them "...some of the best airpower in the world"; you'll find that the MiG-29s they have constitute a tiny number of their total airframes. The overwhelming majority of their air force flies (if you want to call it that) MiG-15s and -19s that are an airpower version of a '58 Edsel. I guess it's a matter of perspective though; it may seem to be some of the best airpower in the world if you're from Djibouti.

 

- The NATO tag for the MiG-29 is "Fulcrum", not "Fullcrum". A minor point? Sure, maybe, but in the same way that chewing with your mouth open makes people think you're ill-mannered, misspelling military terms when you're trying to make a military point makes people think you're ill-informed...and you are trying to persuade, aren't you?

 

KS