Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

With regard to Somalia, the Republicans didn't support him because the mission was undefined, the strategy was poor, and the execution was even worse.

As for Kosovo, Clinton did a pretty good job. But, interestingly he did it without UN approval (because the Russians and Chinese would have vetoed the matter) and because he claimed that the conflict with humanitarian dimensions and one that could spread (aka it was both a war or preemption and a humanitarian one).

Clinton's shining moment in foreign affairs was definately with Israel and Arafat. He did a good job and I can't knock him for it.

It was interesting how no mention is ever made of how Kosovo was enacted without UN approval. I think the UN has major issues anyway, but that's a story for another day

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

It was interesting how no mention is ever made of how Kosovo was enacted without UN approval. I think the UN has major issues anyway, but that's a story for another day

It's funny I've heard some say Clinton would make a good candidate for UN Secretary. Very unlikely though.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you don't think the Iraqi people should be policing themselves?

Yes they should but if it is a person or group we think is attacking our troops we have to be involved so we do the best in catching the person or group. From what I have seen we are involving them more and more in our policing the areas and in most of Iraq they have total control of the cities. You have to re member that 80% of Iraq is living in peace and its the 20% in and around Bagdad which is causing all of the problems. That 80% living in peace where kids are going to school (some for the first time) running water, electricity, and living mostly normal lives is the 80% totaly irnored by our media. I'm not saying that the bombings should not be reported but why ignore all of the positive thing happening in Iraq and why not give some positives reports on how the troops are doing in other areas? Its like when the 1/4 state of the economy comes out and they have to report the good news they always seem to add a but and then find something negative to add to the story. It happens every time and there is always going to be something negative in the economy no matter how good things are going. The other week on one of the major news channels they had to report that unemployment was at a low for so many years and I knew that they could not just report that and sure enough they had to add something negative.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yes they should but if it is a person or group we think is attacking our troops we have to be involved so we do the best in catching the person or group. From what I have seen we are involving them more and more in our policing the areas and in most of Iraq they have total control of the cities. You have to re member that 80% of Iraq is living in peace and its the 20% in and around Bagdad which is causing all of the problems. That 80% living in peace where kids are going to school (some for the first time) running water, electricity, and living mostly normal lives is the 80% totaly irnored by our media. I'm not saying that the bombings should not be reported but why ignore all of the positive thing happening in Iraq and why not give some positives reports on how the troops are doing in other areas? Its like when the 1/4 state of the economy comes out and they have to report the good news they always seem to add a but and then find something negative to add to the story. It happens every time and there is always going to be something negative in the economy no matter how good things are going. The other week on one of the major news channels they had to report that unemployment was at a low for so many years and I knew that they could not just report that and sure enough they had to add something negative.

Where are you getting this information? Please provide the sources, because this is completely contrary to what everyone in any position of knowledge is saying about the situation. Is your argument that our project in Iraq is succeeding? And what kids are going to school for the first time? Education enrollment in Iraq was close to 100 percent prior to the invasion. It is now at 30 percent. Maybe I have been indoctrinated by the media, so point me in the direction of what I should be consulting and we will take it from there.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Where are you getting this information? Please provide the sources, because this is completely contrary to what everyone in any position of knowledge is saying about the situation. Is your argument that our project in Iraq is succeeding? And what kids are going to school for the first time? It infuriates me to hear you say that. Education enrollment in Iraq was near 100 percent prior to the invasion. It is now at 30 percent. Maybe I have been indoctrinated by the media, so point me in the direction of what I should be consulting and we will take it from there.

Schools where not at 100 prior to the invasion they had droped 53% by the 90's due to the neglect from Sadam. I don't have time to look up the other info right now but I will. So don't get infuriated with me I just think any positives are totaly ignored by our main media. Just listen to someone who has been over there. I know the news only has the one's who have problems with us over there and ignores the others.
USAID Fact Sheet: Rehabilitating Iraq's Basic Education System

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Where are you getting this information? Please provide the sources, because this is completely contrary to what everyone in any position of knowledge is saying about the situation. Is your argument that our project in Iraq is succeeding? And what kids are going to school for the first time? It infuriates me to hear you say that. Education enrollment in Iraq was near 100 percent prior to the invasion. It is now at 30 percent. Maybe I have been indoctrinated by the media, so point me in the direction of what I should be consulting and we will take it from there.

What really irks me about this Administration and sometimes the media, depending on who you listen to, is this notion that Iraq is somehow better off now that Sadaam is out of the picture and the good old U. S. of A. is occupying the territory.

If the people of Iraq aren't hungry for democracy then we're spinning our wheels. I fully understand our motivation for the invasion, but to suppose we can rebuild that country when so many of their elected officials are beholden to different religious groups and groups within groups has really tied our hands.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

What really irks me about this Administration and sometimes the media, depending on who you listen to, is this notion that Iraq is somehow better off now that Sadaam is out of the picture and the good old U. S. of A. is occupying the territory.

If the people of Iraq aren't hungry for democracy then we're spinning our wheels. I fully understand our motivation for the invasion, but to suppose we can rebuild that country when so many of their elected officials are beholden to different religious groups and groups within groups has really tied our hands.

My point is that we have not had a clear picture of the situation in Iraq as we only hear of the bad and they only show pictures of small groups that hate us. I call that selective media which there is no way anyone can deny that is what they have shown. You just proved my point as you said how the schools where running so good before we went in and now are way down when just the opposite is happening. How do we know if they are hungry for democracy? We don't because of the select media we receive is just showing one side of the story. I'm not saying all is good and rossy I'm just asking for the whole story so I or we can decide the truth.

[dblanch66]

As long as Americans keep referring to other nations and other people as "them", as in "its either them or us" ; and, as long as other nations continue to refer to Americans as "them"...the problems will never get resolved. The only solution to the problem is a spiritual one which no one wants to look at 'cause it isn't sexy or testosterone laden. Most of the great minds have always known that we are all one. As soon as that is considered, problems will begin to dissipate and war will not be necessary. Until then, keep on killing.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

What really irks me about this Administration and sometimes the media, depending on who you listen to, is this notion that Iraq is somehow better off now that Sadaam is out of the picture and the good old U. S. of A. is occupying the territory.

I think it's definately a close call. We've blundered our way through the past 3 years, but Saddam was a pretty bad dude.

I'm not talking about you 12thman, but I don't understand how people called for us to get involved in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Sudan because of humanitarian concerns, but totally ignore what Saddam Hussein did to his people. Intentionally killing 300,000+ civilians in a country the size of Iraq is just about as bad as it gets.

Moreover, I don't really understand how people can say that we shouldn't try to force democracy down people's throats and we should mind our own business, and simultaneously criticize the U.S. government for supporting other dictators. The U.S. government might be hypocritical insofar as it supports dictatorships yet talks about spreading democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to be hypocritical too.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think it's definately a close call. We've blundered our way through the past 3 years, but Saddam was a pretty bad dude.

I don't understand how people called for us to get involved in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Sudan because of humanitarian concerns, but totally ignore what Saddam Hussein did to his people. Intentionally killing 300,000+ civilians in a country the size of Iraq is just about as bad as it gets.

Well, lets also not forget the efforts to remove him and over-take the country has led to the death of more than 655,000 people. I think we should have gone in during the Gulf War... but that's neither here nor there.

While Sadaam was a terrible tyrant... I'm not sure the country is in the "better". According to the Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides there is alot of bad shit going on, and I think the United States needs to look long and hard at what our obligation necessarily is.

Where one see's a crime of omission, another see's an oppurtunity to avoid future conflict (ie middle east turmoil). We haven't seen the worst of what's going on yet... and we need to really really think about the implications of our actions.

Right now I'm sure attacking Iran is a wrong move. Theres way to much at stake.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Moreover, I don't really understand how people can say that we shouldn't try to force democracy down people's throats and we should mind our own business, and simultaneously criticize the U.S. government for supporting other dictators. The U.S. government might be hypocritical insofar as it supports dictatorships yet talks about spreading democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to be hypocritical too.

A common misconception that alot of people have is that democracy is the right form of government for every country. We don't even really have a democracy, but rather a polyarchy (Polyarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

That being said, It's not being hypocritical to support a dictator for one set of circumstances, and encourage democracy for another set. Different countries/people need to be governed by different strategies. Democracy is not a "blanket solution" that works on everything.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think it's definately a close call. We've blundered our way through the past 3 years, but Saddam was a pretty bad dude.

I'm not talking about you 12thman, but I don't understand how people called for us to get involved in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Sudan because of humanitarian concerns, but totally ignore what Saddam Hussein did to his people. Intentionally killing 300,000+ civilians in a country the size of Iraq is just about as bad as it gets.

Moreover, I don't really understand how people can say that we shouldn't try to force democracy down people's throats and we should mind our own business, and simultaneously criticize the U.S. government for supporting other dictators. The U.S. government might be hypocritical insofar as it supports dictatorships yet talks about spreading democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to be hypocritical too.

I didn't take any of your reponse personally, thanks.

The only conclusion I can come to as to why we chose to get involved in Iraq as apposed to those others is because of the economic thread running through the situation in Iraq.

One thing that war tends to expose is both the strengths/weaknesses and hypocrosy of the invading nation.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Well, lets also not forget the efforts to remove him and over-take the country has led to the death of more than 655,000 people. I think we should have gone in during the Gulf War... but that's neither here nor there.

While Sadaam was a terrible tyrant... I'm not sure the country is in the "better". According to the Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides there is alot of bad shit going on, and I think the United States needs to look long and hard at what our obligation necessarily is.

Where one see's a crime of omission, another see's an oppurtunity to avoid future conflict (ie middle east turmoil). We haven't seen the worst of what's going on yet... and we need to really really think about the implications of our actions.

Right now I'm sure attacking Iran is a wrong move. Theres way to much at stake.

Good article in Today's WP about Bush's recent comments on Iran. He's certainly going out of the way to avoid any language or pretext to war with Iran. Good move.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Good article in Today's WP about Bush's recent comments on Iran. He's certainly going out of the way to avoid any language or pretext to war with Iran. Good move.

I actually haven't read the paper yet today (late morning because of school closings)

I'm going to go drink some tomatoe soup and read that bad-boy...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Well, lets also not forget the efforts to remove him and over-take the country has led to the death of more than 655,000 people. I think we should have gone in during the Gulf War... but that's neither here nor there.

While Sadaam was a terrible tyrant... I'm not sure the country is in the "better". According to the Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides there is alot of bad shit going on, and I think the United States needs to look long and hard at what our obligation necessarily is.

Where one see's a crime of omission, another see's an oppurtunity to avoid future conflict (ie middle east turmoil). We haven't seen the worst of what's going on yet... and we need to really really think about the implications of our actions.

Right now I'm sure attacking Iran is a wrong move. Theres way to much at stake.

I'm not sure how you came up with those numbers and the ones in you link assume allot of stuff. It used numbers saying that we starved them when food was suppose to be traded for oil. Where did the food go? I also here that the country had no money because of the embargo. He found money to build all those palaces and to rebuild his army but he let his people die. So I don't think those numbers can be accurate or used saying that the UN embargo killed them. Also some of the sources used was The Church of Christ which is a group that is against the war so how do we know that they don't make the numbers support their view?