Iraqi soccer players no fan of Bush

[Bingo]

Once again ... I just can't believe how far people go down that garden path when the United States or Bush are concerned. Amazing.

Starting to think Hussein wasn't that bad?

For every conspiracy that a leftist person could bring up in this there are several on the other side as well. This topic is better served without the "US alterior motives ... going in for oil", or the "UN was bought off by Hussein and was propping up a dictator" arguments that just bogg things down.

Quite likely neither is true, as often is the case.

The US thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and after 911 they were a little hesitant to just treat the Eastern half of the planet as a far off place that couldn't hurt them. That's the issue in my mind.

They had botched intelligence. They had a no real planning for a post war Iraq and deserve all the criticism in the world for both.

But to suggest a murderous dictator wasn't that bad is assinine, and a clear example of a person willing to ignore one side of the argument in order to hold on to their own.

We can have it all here people .. you can hate the US (as is the popular thing to do these days) and still hate a diseased evil man and be glad he's no longer living the high life and taking advantage of his own people.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 20 2004, 02:59 PM
Out and out BS Lanny. The UN says unequivocally he never met their requirements for diarming and never accounted for them if he did destroy them.

Then where are they? Why can't they find them? Why wouldn't the UN back the US in going into Iraq? Why has the world still sat back and said over and over that the US is wrong for being in Iraq? Not ONE WMD was found. Not ONE. It's bullsh*t and its time for those that have been holding out for the weapons to be found to admit it. Iraq was innocednt in this regard. If they were not the UN would be in Iraq WITH the United States and continuing the search. Explain that one away.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 20 2004, 09:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 20 2004, 09:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Aug 20 2004, 02:59 PM
Out and out BS Lanny. The UN says unequivocally he never met their requirements for diarming and never accounted for them if he did destroy them.

Then where are they? Why can't they find them? Why wouldn't the UN back the US in going into Iraq? Why has the world still sat back and said over and over that the US is wrong for being in Iraq? Not ONE WMD was found. Not ONE. It's bullsh*t and its time for those that have been holding out for the weapons to be found to admit it. Iraq was innocednt in this regard. If they were not the UN would be in Iraq WITH the United States and continuing the search. Explain that one away. [/b][/quote]
What does he have to prove?

There were how many resolutions against Iraq for weapons of mass destruction ... look into it, they don't have resolutions of this type with every country in the world. It may suggest he was up to something, don't you thinK?

Blix was quoted numerous times about their failure to account for stocks that were admitted in the 90's.

That's all fact Lanny ...

Where are they now? I don't know and clearly either does the US or they'd have produced them by now. And in fact, they are admitting that they may not be there, and likely are not there.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 20 2004, 03:25 PM
Once again ... I just can't believe how far people go down that garden path when the United States or Bush are concerned. Amazing.

Starting to think Hussein wasn't that bad?

For every conspiracy that a leftist person could bring up in this there are several on the other side as well. This topic is better served without the "US alterior motives ... going in for oil", or the "UN was bought off by Hussein and was propping up a dictator" arguments that just bogg things down.

Quite likely neither is true, as often is the case.

The US thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and after 911 they were a little hesitant to just treat the Eastern half of the planet as a far off place that couldn't hurt them. That's the issue in my mind.

They had botched intelligence. They had a no real planning for a post war Iraq and deserve all the criticism in the world for both.

But to suggest a murderous dictator wasn't that bad is assinine, and a clear example of a person willing to ignore one side of the argument in order to hold on to their own.

We can have it all here people .. you can hate the US (as is the popular thing to do these days) and still hate a diseased evil man and be glad he's no longer living the high life and taking advantage of his own people.

Well Bingo, I think the US should stay in their own yard for a while and clean up their own country. To call this a civilized nation and hold it up as a model for all others to follow is a joke. If the US would spend a tenth of their military budget on cleaning up their streets and educating their own people they would be much better off. If they would focus on their own problems and quit meddling in other's then I would say that they are doing the right thing. But to be meddling in other countries affairs when crime, drugs, poverty and unemployment are significant issues at home, well that's criminal. Americans are being made suffer through the taking away their livelihoods (encouraging offshoring of jobs leading to greater unemployment), taking away their ability to better themselves (education funding is being cut everywhere and at all levels), and taking away the support systems for the under priviledged (reduction in social programs is staggering). Who's better off? Those who lived under a tyrant and knew no change was coming and knew how to live, or those who live under an Autocracy where their vote doesn't matter (ask the African American community in Florida if their voice was heard), change is promised but never comes, and their chances of bettering themselves is almost zero? The US has way too much dirty laundry of their own to deal with before they need to worry about going to work at the world laundromat. Again, the US leads the world in violent crime, drug addiction, and incarceration of its own citizens. Is that a model that other countries should follow?

[transplant99]

Who's better off? Those who lived under a tyrant and knew no change was coming and knew how to live, or those who live under an Autocracy where their vote doesn't matter (ask the African American community in Florida if their voice was heard), change is promised but never comes, and their chances of bettering themselves is almost zero?

Wow.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 20 2004, 09:47 AM
Well Bingo, I think the US should stay in their own yard for a while and clean up their own country. To call this a civilized nation and hold it up as a model for all others to follow is a joke. If the US would spend a tenth of their military budget on cleaning up their streets and educating their own people they would be much better off. If they would focus on their own problems and quit meddling in other's then I would say that they are doing the right thing. But to be meddling in other countries affairs when crime, drugs, poverty and unemployment are significant issues at home, well that's criminal. Americans are being made suffer through the taking away their livelihoods (encouraging offshoring of jobs leading to greater unemployment), taking away their ability to better themselves (education funding is being cut everywhere and at all levels), and taking away the support systems for the under priviledged (reduction in social programs is staggering). Who's better off? Those who lived under a tyrant and knew no change was coming and knew how to live, or those who live under an Autocracy where their vote doesn't matter (ask the African American community in Florida if their voice was heard), change is promised but never comes, and their chances of bettering themselves is almost zero? The US has way too much dirty laundry of their own to deal with before they need to worry about going to work at the world laundromat. Again, the US leads the world in violent crime, drug addiction, and incarceration of its own citizens. Is that a model that other countries should follow?

OK ...

but when have I ever held the US up as the supreme model for civilization? I don't remember doing that ... really, you're taking things off topic.

Lets go there though ... for you. Say they ignore terrorism and the hot pot of the Middle East and pour all that money into social programs (starting to sound a bit like Canada, now isn't it?). A few years go by ... illiteracy rates are declining, so too is crime rates, and the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden. Utopia is emerging and the United States is bliss.

Then a nuclear bomb hits New York City and kills millions.

Gee ... sure wish we would have looked across that old pond and attempted to make the world a better place instead of just looking after ourselves.

That's the rub.

If the US doesn't get involved there's a public out cry (Liberia), and if they do get involved there's public outcry.

Life sucks for the lone super power, you can't do anything right no matter what you choose.

Your recipe is simple but it doesn't work and 911 proved that. You can't let danger fester over seas and put your head in the sand or you get your head kicked in later.

The US had intelligence suggesting WMD in Iraq (so did the Russians, the Brits and even Canadians) and were not willing to let that become the source for the next 911 in America.

I can't blame them for it.

But ... like I said earlier, shame they didn't think out the after war thing. If they had there wouldn't be much to argue about.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 20 2004, 09:27 AM
Then where are they? Why can't they find them? Why wouldn't the UN back the US in going into Iraq? Why has the world still sat back and said over and over that the US is wrong for being in Iraq? Not ONE WMD was found. Not ONE. It's bullsh*t and its time for those that have been holding out for the weapons to be found to admit it. Iraq was innocednt in this regard. If they were not the UN would be in Iraq WITH the United States and continuing the search. Explain that one away.

Wrong.

There haven't been near the numbers found that they expected, but there have been at least two found.. one with Sarin gas, another with Mustard gas.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/...main/index.html

Explain why Saddam wasn't granting full access. Explain why Saddam was playing games - refusing to allow inspectors to a site and then allowing it a number of days/weeks later.

To say he's innocent is way overstating it.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 20 2004, 09:47 AM
Who's better off? Those who lived under a tyrant and knew no change was coming and knew how to live, or those who live under an Autocracy where their vote doesn't matter (ask the African American community in Florida if their voice was heard), change is promised but never comes, and their chances of bettering themselves is almost zero?

Who's better off? Those living in a place where chances of bettering themselves is almost zero or those living in a place where chances of bettering themselves is zero.

Seems obvious to me.

[transplant99]

If there were indeed weapons of mass destruction, where are they? Oh, I know, they're buried in the sands, to be dug up in times of war and emergency.

Who knows Lanny?? You dont...thats for sure.

This IS the same guy that buried 30 Mig-25 fighter jets you know....why would he do that??

BTW...those jets were something he said he had destroyed in the manifest he presented to the UN in December of 02.

Geez....who would of thunk Hussein was lying about his weapons!!

[Cowperson]

Just to stir things into a fiery caldron, the latest poll results on what Americans believe about Iraqi WMD, the terrorism connection, etc.

The latest poll results

Secondly, marginally connected to the conversation, a look at how the first political convention in Iraq in 30 years went. The good and the bad. Will they make it as a democracy? Was this a good sign or a bad sign?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5769176/

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Alexandria@Aug 20 2004, 07:18 AM
I think we need to push for more flexibility and understanding of other nations when we choose to put sanctions on a country. The first time I think I heard about sanctions was when I was a little girl. South Africa had apartheid at the time. The rest of the world chose sanctions against South Africa instead of war. As country after country refused to do business with them, they began to change the way things worked. This era was also greatly influenced by de Klerk and Mandela. I don't know if these sanctions helped or if it would have ended anyway, but this is the only example I can think of where sanctions might have actually worked.

South Africa was a democracy and not a dictatorship . There was no strong man with a bunch of followers putting guns to everyone else's head telling them to like it. Granted SA was not all inclusive democracy but it was one that worked on the free market system nontheless. Sanctions basically hit them where it hurt the most and they were forced to change.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 20 2004, 10:00 PM
I can't believe we have people still using the phrase "US sanctions against Iraq".

How negligent can you be?

ugh.

The US championed sanctions against Iraq? The same sanctions Powell didn't want to tinker with when it was revealed some of the humanitarian problems that were occurring?


From AFP

The US has veto power in the security council and had a history of voting the lifting of these sanctions down. Once the US and UK took over Iraq, the situation was .

In any event, my post points to the source of anger of the Iraqis. I'm not trying to start a game of semantics about the internal politics of the Security Council. To Iraqis sanctions = US.
____

Wednesday, March 15 6:16 AM SGT

US CONGRESS REPORT SLAMS SANCTIONS ON IRAQ

WASHINGTON, March 14/00 (AFP) -

US-championed UN sanctions against Iraq bolster Saddam Hussein's regime while creating a humanitarian crisis, US congressional aides who traveled to Iraq charged in a report released Tuesday.

The document, detailing findings from what the staffers said was the first such visit since just after the 1991 Gulf War, was likely to provide ammunition to lawmakers who back legislation aimed at lifting the sanctions.

"It is members of Congress who are ultimately responsible" for US policy, said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies who went on the five-day trip in late July and early August 1999.

Last year, a bipartisan group of 70 representatives sent President Bill Clinton a letter urging the sanctions be lifted, citing what they said were UN estimates that the restrictions have led to the deaths of more than one million civilians, mostly children, from malnutrition and disease.

The staffers traveled to Iraq to evaluate the impact sanctions have on everyday Iraqis and US exports, as well as assess the public health effects of the US use of depleted-uranium ordnance during the Gulf War.

As well as hurting common Iraqis, the United States "have paid an economic, political and social price - in billions of dollars of direct costs and lost export revenue, in diminished influence with our allies ... and in a dangerously growing hostility to America by people throughout the Middle East," they concluded.

The staff said they learned from UN officials working in Iraq and citizens there that the sanctions, imposed after Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, take a terrible toll on the nation's health, education and economic infrastructures despite an deal allowing Iraq to defray some humanitarian costs with oil sales.

Iraq is only authorized to export oil under strict UN supervision under an oil-for-food program. Several UN officials have recently resigned to protest what they say is the deal's failure to stem Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

"Program funds are barely enough for Iraqis' urgent and immediate physical needs, with nothing made available for intellectual needs. The result is complete intellectual deprivation," according to the report.

Moreover, sanctions have so taxed Iraq's once promising medical care system that hospitals lack basic equipment and medicine and children are dying from treatable diseases, the staffers wrote.

The report said that in addition to educated Iraqis heading abroad, crumbling schools and outdated textbooks, the sanctions have fostered growing extremism among younger Iraqis who take a harder line against the US and its allies than do Saddam Hussein and leaders of his Ba'ath Party.

"It is from these younger Ba'ath figures that pressure on Saddam Hussein is emerging from the right, challenging his 'too accommodating' stance towards the UN and the West," the report warned.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan indicated Tuesday in London that the United Nations may seek to further fine-tune sanctions against Iraq in a bid to diminish their effects on ordinary people.

In a report released Monday, Annan warned that Iraq's current oil output was unsustainable and recommended doubling to 600 million dollars the half-yearly allocation for its ailing oil industry from its UN-controlled sales of crude.different.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Lanny, still holding onto that apparition of being a conservative?

If it is so terrible in the US, why the hell do you live here? You're not even an American? You HAVE a choice. Unbelievable.

There are lots of problems in the US. It's not perfect, lord knows I've been saying that here for 7 years (selective readers need not reply).

You have made so many factual errors in defense of your stance in this thread that it's almost troublesome. You seem to have lost all ability to think through these things logically!

Hell, even Rogue Underoos, who would freely admit he stands firmly against the US on most of these matters, doesn't think the Bush administration LIED about WMD's! Why? Because it doesn't make any freaking sense whatsoever for them to have lied.

While we're floating conspiracy theories (bush stole the Florida vote...man, that is so old and simply unproven it makes you look like a middle schooler) I'll answer a couple of the questions you posed above...all though evidence for my answers can be found.

Why didn't the UN agree with going into Iraq? A corrupt Oil for Food prorgam administration did NOT want to be found out. They are currently being investigated (very quietly) by the UN. It seems that the Oil for Food program was really a Oil for money for Saddam program and some UN officials, French government officials, Russian Oil barons and Saddam Hussein all got rich while the UN sanctions continued to hurt only the Iraqi people.

France didn't want to go in because they knew there was evidence to be found of them supplying Iraq with weaponry that they were forbidden to have by the UN. Spefically some medium range missiles that could deliver a warhead to Israel.
This evidence was found very early on in the war. I posted the story here.

Did I mention that a French government official was buying oil from Saddam for MONEY?

[Displaced Flames fan]

DoreFro....they are UN sanctions. They were put in place as a result of Hussein's non-compliance with one or more of the 17 security council resolution he failed to comply with.

The US might have'championed' them, but 1 vote on the security council does not pass a measure through.

They are UN sanctions, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

1 vote doesn't pass them through, but one veto to readress sanctions is all that it takes to "revisit" policy. It was US policy that never ever would have relaxed those sanctions as they never took the UN's word that there were no WMD's. I doubt there was, if they have been unable to find trace of anything a year later. There is no reliable information stating there were WMD's in Iraq to this point, so unless Osama Bin Laden's hiding them in his dialysis machine for his good sectarian buddy Saddam.

In terms of how this related to the soccer players and to bring it back on topic, I was simply mentioning that the sanctions were perceived by Iraqis as being imposed by the US. That and the subsequent destruction of all of Iraq's non-oil related infrastructure has led to a natual dislike of US Foreign Policy by day to day Iraqis.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 21 2004, 02:07 AM
1 vote doesn't pass them through, but one veto to readress sanctions is all that it takes to "revisit" policy. It was US policy that never ever would have relaxed those sanctions as they never took the UN's word that there were no WMD's. I doubt there was, if they have been unable to find trace of anything a year later. There is no reliable information stating there were WMD's in Iraq to this point, so unless Osama Bin Laden's hiding them in his dialysis machine for his good sectarian buddy Saddam.

In terms of how this related to the soccer players and to bring it back on topic, I was simply mentioning that the sanctions were perceived by Iraqis as being imposed by the US. That and the subsequent destruction of all of Iraq's non-oil related infrastructure has led to a natual dislike of US Foreign Policy by day to day Iraqis.

It was never the UN's 'word' that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That's a conclusion that was never reached.

I wonder how the Iraqi players feel about the US being one of the only nations involved in the oil for food program that was actually providing food and medicine for the oil they purchased instead of lining Saddam's pockets like other members of the security council were?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 21 2004, 11:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 21 2004, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 21 2004, 02:07 AM
1 vote doesn't pass them through, but one veto to readress sanctions is all that it takes to "revisit" policy. It was US policy that never ever would have relaxed those sanctions as they never took the UN's word that there were no WMD's. I doubt there was, if they have been unable to find trace of anything a year later. There is no reliable information stating there were WMD's in Iraq to this point, so unless Osama Bin Laden's hiding them in his dialysis machine for his good sectarian buddy Saddam.

In terms of how this related to the soccer players and to bring it back on topic, I was simply mentioning that the sanctions were perceived by Iraqis as being imposed by the US. That and the subsequent destruction of all of Iraq's non-oil related infrastructure has led to a natual dislike of US Foreign Policy by day to day Iraqis.

It was never the UN's 'word' that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That's a conclusion that was never reached.

I wonder how the Iraqi players feel about the US being one of the only nations involved in the oil for food program that was actually providing food and medicine for the oil they purchased instead of lining Saddam's pockets like other members of the security council were? [/b][/quote]
And yet, despite all of that they still don't like US Foreign Policy. There is more than just a simple "they're ungrateful for all we've done and should be dismissed outright" in their responses, some mocassin walking is in order here.

The WMD issue was as follows - David Kay,the Bush administrations weapons inspector sent to Iraq to do the job the UN was perceived as unable to do.

David Kay quit - coming out on Jan 23 to say their were no stockpiles of WMD, and that there was little chance that much development of any kind came to the program in the nineties due to the sanctions the country was placed under. (BTW - I agreed with the sanctions in the beginning and opposed the occupation of Kuwait, but they were held in place for quite some time in what seemed like an attempt to Cubanize Iraq )

As for lining their pockets, Halliburton seems to be doing a good job of picking up where the UN baddies left off.

[Displaced Flames fan]

No, they seem to be doing a very bad job of picking up where they left off....and they should've known they would be scrutinized like no other government contracter before them.

They've already been fined and oredered to payback millions of dollars in overages and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of the scrutiny of their financial operations.

Why they thought (if they did) that they could get away with that kind of stuff is beyond me. Takes some pretty dumb people to think it was possible.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 20 2004, 09:53 PM
(BTW - I agreed with the sanctions in the beginning and opposed the occupation of Kuwait, but they were held in place for quite some time in what seemed like an attempt to Cubanize Iraq )

So after a set period of time the sanctions should just be dropped regardless of what happens?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by calculoso+Aug 21 2004, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Aug 21 2004, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 20 2004, 09:53 PM
(BTW - I agreed with the sanctions in the beginning and opposed the occupation of Kuwait, but they were held in place for quite some time in what seemed like an attempt to Cubanize Iraq )

So after a set period of time the sanctions should just be dropped regardless of what happens? [/b][/quote]
Yes, if there are thousands of people dying as a result of sanctions on a government, then they should be MODIFIED to stop it from happening. Simple goodness of the heart stuff.

Because they continued to be strictly imposed and things like medicine became unavaialble, the troops are finding out that their governments policy over the last 10-13 years has not provided them with "arms outstretched" welcome they were anticipating. If tortured soccer players are madder than heck at the US policy, imagine what those who weren't tortured are thinking.