I just want to know why the US is going into Iraq when the “world” isnt behind him in this?
If anyone can share articles and opinions, would be appreciated. Thanks. Sorry if you have covered this already. I dont visit this forum that often.
They only say they are not behind him. They are behind him.
Here is a Muslim Canadian that is also behind the Americans attempt to get rid of Saddam. I assume the majority of Pakistani-Canadians are probably behind them also. There are always a few die hard American enviers, who just cannot stand no matter what america does. Apparently there is no cure for that malady.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-9-2002_pg3_10
Let’s listen to what Iraqi dissidents are saying
Sir: In this debate about removing Saddam from power, many people are trying to make their voices heard. However, very little attention is being paid to Iraqi dissidents, who have firsthand knowledge of the Iraqi regime. They left promising careers in Iraq because they could no longer support the brutal Iraqi regime.
Hamid Ali Alkifaey, a prominent Iraqi journalist living in London, in a column “Throw out Saddam and free my nation” wrote in The Independent: “When I was recently asked by the Fabian Society to give a talk about the nature of the threat that Saddam Hussein represents, I didn’t know where to start. … Should I talk about how he and his party took over Iraq in 1968, killing innocent businessmen and confiscating their property, before moving against ethnic minorities? Maybe the best place to begin was his launching of a chemical attack in Halabja in March 1988 that slaughtered at least 5,000 civilians? What about the time when he killed 180,000 Kurds in the infamous Anfal operation?
“Perhaps the best place to start is with the present threat of weapons of mass destruction, which the world now fears, and to explain why the United Nations’ plan for weapons inspection will never work. The threat does not stem from the possession of these weapons alone. Many countries in the world possess these weapons, but few people feel threatened by them. The threat comes from the nature of Saddam Hussein himself. Since his rise to power he has had three obsessions: secrecy, security and weapons. He was lucky to have been able to achieve all three, but at a huge cost to Iraqi people, to his neighbours and to the environment. History stands as a witness to this cost.”
Another prominent Iraqi writer and intellectual, Hassan al-Alawi, who was part of Saddam’s inner circle for 12 years before his defection, wrote a book Iraq: The State of Secret Organisations. The book stated that Saddam runs Iraq’s affairs in total secrecy, not wanting anyone — not even those in the party leadership — to know what he wants to do next. The whole government machinery works on the basis of his last-minute orders which can change from one day to another. Alkifaey concludes: “Saddam will never give up two things: his weapons and the secrecy in which he conducts his own affairs. That is why inspection won’t work. He will never co-operate fully…Almost every Iraqi I meet in exile here in Britain wishes to return to Iraq one day. Personally, I will be on a plane the day after Saddam falls.”
Rather than listening to self-styled outside experts, the world should listen to these people who have intimate knowledge of how Saddam Hussein’s mind works.
MAHMOOD ELAHI
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
i wanted to stay out of this because i know i will mess up poor Munni’s excellent thread, but IMHO it’s not anti-Americanism that makes individuals oppose US policy vis-a-vis Iraq. It’s just a small matter of 167 pre-school children dying each day that bothers us; believe me, if somehow i could close my eyes and shut my mind from that fact and endorse US foreign policies, then i would in a heartbeat. It’s the fact that there is a genocide occurring as we speak, that bothers those of us who are ‘anti-sanctions’ activists, not that we are envious of the US.
...and a regime change may well entail much civilian misery and death in the process. It hinges on Iraqi military sentiment.
OldLahori, I'd like to know if you feel its a tacit agreement btwn the US and other countries, to go forward. If so, how can the regular citizen assume this or be guaranteed of this?
Nadia, actually I was really hoping you would add to this discussion, so please do. I am interested in knowing your views. As you know, I dont always come here. Please also check your email.
Tomasso, do you believe in puppet governments? Meaning that they exist, or are put into place.
"its the oil, stupid" is what I read in an article and very firmly believe in it. If you want to know more, there was a hearing held recently in US (perhaps Senate), search for archives at www.npr.org keyword "hearing" and listen to it. In that hearing, one questioner presented the facts and told openly that she suspected that "its about oil".... one of leaders representing government kinda admitted that "we are oil consuming nation" and that oil is one big interest of US.
You must have heard that US is fighting these wars for its national security and interests..... that exact word "interests" includes "oil interest".
Iraqi Dossier comes out the 24th, intresting to see what that says.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Munni: *
OldLahori, I'd like to know if you feel its a tacit agreement btwn the US and other countries, to go forward. If so, how can the regular citizen assume this or be guaranteed of this?
Nadia, actually I was really hoping you would add to this discussion, so please do. I am interested in knowing your views. As you know, I dont always come here. Please also check your email.
Tomasso, do you believe in puppet governments? Meaning that they exist, or are put into place.
[/QUOTE]
I really don't understand your question. Tacit as in implied? And what do you mean by regular citizens assumptions? If Qatar allows US forces on it territory, if Pakistan allows FBI agents to monitor the arrests of Arabs in Pakistan, if Canada accepts US suggestions to bring its immigration and customs policies in line with US's and now requires Saudi's to get visas and probably fingerprinting them, if jordan states that it would be obliged to let US use its airfields, etc. etc. what do I call all of that? As far as Nadia's comment on 167 children is concerned, I know the consesus here is that is all of America's fault and poor Saddam has nothing to do with it. I just happen to disagree with that. Nothing in Unicef report that Nadia has posted that points the finger at US. Why hasn't Saddam's regime done anything about it?
tazzy
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
"its the oil, stupid" is what I read in an article and very firmly believe in it. If you want to know more, there was a hearing held recently in US (perhaps Senate), search for archives at www.npr.org keyword "hearing" and listen to it. In that hearing, one questioner presented the facts and told openly that she suspected that "its about oil".... one of leaders representing government kinda admitted that "we are oil consuming nation" and that oil is one big interest of US.
You must have heard that US is fighting these wars for its national security and interests..... that exact word "interests" includes "oil interest".
[/QUOTE]
Oil is on the way out - and, fast, with all the recent developments in fuel cell technology that are being touted lately. That will make maintaining any great emphasis on oil irrelevant. It's probably been inordinately slow in coming because so many firms, both US and international, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and maximizing on the investment they've made in exisitng, albeit antiquated, technologies.
Can't wait to see what happens when the US and Europe stop buying oil altogether! Should make for interesting changes in some parts of the world!
Peace To All Who Read This....
Re: tazzy
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrpockets: *
Oil is on the way out - and, fast, with all the recent developments in fuel cell technology that are being touted lately. That will make maintaining any great emphasis on oil irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
This is somewhat incorrect. It will be a long time before world would be running on the alternative 'fuel'. I am not saying it is unlikely..just it might take another 25 years or more.
Iraq still has the second largest oil reserves in the world After Saudi Arabia. Iraq is still considered a threat to Israel by some. That is the whole thing about this supposedly sanction.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
I just happen to disagree with that. Nothing in Unicef report that Nadia has posted that points the finger at US. Why hasn't Saddam's regime done anything about it?
[/QUOTE]
What do you suggest Saddam do? 11 years of economic embargo..Infrastructure in shambles, everything in ruin. And constant US surveillance least some baby milk gets into the country & on top of that weekly bombing of Southern Iraqi.
Hydrocarbons (oil, gas and condensate) are cheap and effective sources of energy; they have vast infrastructure in place and can adequately supply the needs of the global market for 150 years+.
Mr Pockets et al. instead of jumping to conclusions on sound bites such as ‘fuel cell technology’ you should stop and think about how oil and it’s derivatives are used not only to power a car/factory/power station etc but also to make plastics, medicines and chemicals. It would take advancements in a number of fields to replace products so easily provided by liquid petroleum.
The technology of hydrocarbon recovery and processing is far from antiquated; the industry employs and maintains some of the most advanced forms of technology around. The biggest investors and applicators of ‘alternative energy’ (solar, hydrogen fuel cell technology, wind and tidal power) are indeed hydrocarbon companies and are more aptly named ‘energy companies’.
I strongly believe due to the almost ubiquitous presence of hydrocarbon derivatives in almost all our products, we are living in the ‘oil age’.
To answer Munni and quote another guppy
it is "the oil stupid"
Iraq has the second largest oil and gas reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia.
Whilst the Saudi governement is pliable to US demands and is only too happy to award large lucrative contracts to US companies, Iraq under it's current regime is not.
Bush Sr and now Bush Jr see it as their right to 'protect' the US against the evil of non co-operation.
I posted a longer thread on this about a year ago, but a sound bite for the Mr Pockets of gupshup.
'The US uses 25% of the worlds daily hydrocarbon production. Saudi Arabia produces 25% of the worlds hydrocarbons. It's a delicate balance that's been working since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Iraq is all about insurance incase Saudi follows the Iranian path and ensuring that the status quo is maintiained.'
Simply put, at the moment France and Russia are getting the lions share of Iraq's wealth, the US and UK want it back.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Simply put, at the moment France and Russia are getting the lions share of Iraq's wealth, the US and UK want it back.
[/QUOTE]
This is the reality.
The minute Iran threatened USA with oil embargo in the 80's - Iran was branded a terrorist state run by mad Mullah.
The minute Saddam nationalized Iraqi oil- Iraq was called a rogue nation ruin by a mad dictator.
…Running in all theatres now: Sequel To The Gulf War..
Munni.. Ofcourse the World Community is Behind ie backing USA..if they seem NOT to that is because they all are shamelessly full of cowardice..I heard this on Fox the other night that the World Community including Arab States will not say it openly because they are scared of Iraq and the wrath 
of Saddam…but that they back the United States..so thats clear,hainna??
Iraq was an oil issue..and may still be..but thats not the core issue NOW..
Saddam is a Crazy Loon…he needs to hit the strait jacket..
America has its own il Reserves, Thank You..
A political resolve would be a better option…but with no other choice left…USA may have to succumb to doing the dirty job itself…meaning
Saddam..if the World Community ( the world itself has begun to sound a sham..) would kindly show some intent otherwise the United states will have to go ahead with the military option
Aries,
With this sort of logic and sense it's a wonder your not instrumental in making US foreign policy.
Don’t believe in all what you are told by FOX, MSNBC and the crap. This is their job to tell American public that “the whole world is with us, its just they don’t want to admit”, “the terrorists are jealous of our independence, democracy” etc.
Every country has its own issues/problems regarding attack on Iraq.
Saudi Arabia: fears that when Iraq is attacked there will be internal political problems (may be public uprising). after successful removal of Saddam Hussein, KSA’s importance will decline and may soon be included in “axis of evil”.
All countries have their own set of problems when Iraq is attacked and then Saddam removed thats why they are opposing this war.
“Its not the cowardice, stupid”.
It still is, and will remain the issue for next 15-20 years, or until America looses its “Super Cop” (or Chief Gangster) title.
Saddam is not a recent “crazy loon”. He has been made all this power by the great uncle SAM, by awarding all the chemical weapons, technology, other weapons during its war against “the other element of axis of evil”.
Saddam is not a recent threat, he has been there for several decades now.
Was he not a threat when he gassed masses in 1988? Why did US not attack Iraq then? because it was not in US “interest”.
America does not want to use “its own Oil Reserves” because they are expensive to touch compared to the dirt cheap prices available from exporters like Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc.
Yes, of course, “the cop” has to do the dirty job. Iraq shall be bombed come what may, the Bush is determined.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *
This is the reality.
The minute Iran threatened USA with oil embargo in the 80's - Iran was branded a terrorist state run by mad Mullah.
The minute Saddam nationalized Iraqi oil- Iraq was called a rogue nation ruin by a mad dictator.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I think a small episode that involved the taking of American hostages had a little to do Iran's unfavor with the US.
And a little excursion by Saddam into Kuwait had something to do with his positioning in Washington.