World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out)

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k
if the ME is "more stable" and more "democratic", then the price of this oil would drop,

Oddly enough, all market analysts and traders seem to think the contrary. Go figure. It seems they're not confident in the US for "stabilizing the Middle East".
Don't you see an Islamic revolution or at least, an unprecedented wave of terrorism coming ?

Originally posted by bigben2k

So the problem is that Saddam is using oil profits to wage war on neighbouring countries (Kuwait) and funds terrorism.

It's outdated information. Waging war on koweit: that was following the war against Iran, and he used weapons that WE (as in "we the westerners") provided him. And it was in 90. Not now. As for funding terrorism, it has been proved it was totally wrong, even Blair had to present public excuses to his government for such a lie.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a major source of funds for international terrorism...

Originally posted by bigben2k

He is an immediate threat not only to the US, but to the rest of the world as well.

That statement has no ground. On which evidence do you base it ? (that's the question the UN representatives ask to the USA btw - with no answer)

Originally posted by bigben2k

the UN is not in a position to either: fix all of the problems with Iraq

But no one is apart from the Iraqi themselves. Remember "the right of people to dispose of themselves".
If the UN (should be the highest authority) cannot, then the USA or any other country for instace, cannot as well.

Originally posted by bigben2k

to instaure a temporary government made up of representatives from various countries.

So far from letting the Iraqi decide of their own destiny...

Originally posted by bigben2k

they've opted to do nothing and suffer.

It's far from the truth. Did you speak to a real cuban lately ?

Originally posted by bigben2k

I don't believe that the UN has it as a mandate to promote democracy.

Oddly, founders of the UN and most of its voting members seem to believe the opposite.

Originally posted by bigben2k

I do believe that the US has promoted democracy through its "contributions" to third world countries

Sadly such a behaviour is an infinitesimal part of the *real* US contribution to the 3W. This part is what's shown on CNN.
The real thing is in the USA archives. As they're opened 30 to 50 years later we're rather up to date with the 60's and a part of 70's. The "contributions" were merely cold war tactics, a war of influence. The Russians did the same on their side. Heck even today the French do the same in Africa. Arming factions, changing regimes "from the inside", corrupting leaders, everything was (and still is) good. I won't go into details as it would flood this forum. Simply "we" (as in "'civilized' western countries") never "help" 3W countries without some kind of financial / power / strategic interest. Never.

[nOv1c3]

Originally posted by gmat
Mmhhh i notice two things:
- you made assessments without evidence. All ppl who posted here are full grown adults.
- since you have nothing supporting your assessments, you have recourse to insults.
- YOU don't seem to understand Middle East situation at all, nor what the incoming war is about. Israeli neighbours are very far from what you think they are. And Palestinians are not Iraqi. Besides Saddam is not a muslim (his government is Catholic). Check your sources before insulting people.

I would detail that Charlie Daniels (who is that dude anyway) quote here, but i'm at work, no time for that. It's full of lies (that are easy to counter with verified facts), propaganda (ie pre-made sentences made to touch peoples sensivity, but with no relation with the problem at hand) and half truths (again all are easy to counter). I don't see one sentence in that letter that aint in these 3 categories, apart from pure insults.
I'm 100% for having an adult argument. But use arguments, with evidence, and foundations, not insults. Insulting people won't make your point. Maybe that's what Mr Bush and Mr Powell do not understand...
Notice how Terramex didn't have recourse to any insult, even a single time. Notice how he made arguments based on facts that are verified and easily verifiable. You can't counter that with "nonsense" and "idiocy", that doesn't hold any ground.

First off i,m not going to argue .....kids argue adults debate

And i wasnt out to insult anybody Was just an observation

Seen it on so many boards time after time with the US and Bush bashing and the conspiracy theories and more times than not its kids

I very well do understand the Middle East situation i dont think you do

So Saddam government is Catholic ?? hehe I think you beter check your sources

Sadam is part of the baath party -aka- Arab nationalist movement
Although members of the ruling Baath Party generally are ideologically committed to secularism and about 95 percent of Iraqis are Muslim 45% Sunni Muslim, 50% Shia Muslim and Islam is the officially recognized state religion

Sadam likes to betray himself in the middle east as the savior of the islam faith


But none of these argument or debates realy maters ..We are going to take his ass out

[gmat]

Saddam, his prime minister, and members of his cabinet, are catholics, though Saddam himself is more of a 'laic' (dunno the english term). I know it sounds odd, but hey, he's the dictator, he does what he wants. He has good connections with the Vatican... it's public, not a rumour.
I don't think Tarek Aziz would kiss the hand of the Pope otherwise.

[Blackeagle]

BigBen,

I was rather shocked to hear your thoughts on Cuba. Have to say I disagree with you on that one.


Gmat,

My referance to polls was in regards to how they are manipulated in this country, not judging anything anywhere else in that statement. And I would not try to determine the value of polls taken in any other country where I don't have direct knowlage of how they are taken and any biases proven/shown. As to the marches you mention I have seen some of that on the news. Would tend to agree with your statement regarding peoples feelings on the issue there. You're there I'm not, as well as what I've seen in reports on the news here regarding Europe's peoples in this matter. While I do not agree with them, I do see that they are strongly motivated aginst war on Iraqi.

But in regarding the polls and the results shown both here and abroad based on "facts gained from highly biased sources they are misleading at best. It does disgust me that this goes on in my nation, but that is the truth of the matter.

Regarding the Iraqi leadership (Aziz) showing strong respect for a leader of a faith other than muslim, that does not surprise me at all. The Koran recognizes both jews and christians as "people of the book". Thus it is right and proper to show respect to leaders of those faiths according to the Koran. The Koran sees these faiths and their prophets as preludes to the coming of Mohamad. Christ is recognized as a leader and a prophet, but not as more than that, prior to the coming of the prophet Mohammad who is the leader of their faith. Although that has changed a lot in practice.

Saddam is not only a member of the baath party, but it's head. And Saddam does as nOv1c3 posted see himself as a sort of savior of the faithfull of islam.

nOv1c3,

Good post. I agree with it all. And I think those fortelling how our forces will suffer large losses need to remember how those same forcasts last time ended in the most lopsided loss ratio in history, in our favor, not Iraqs. May not be as lopsided as last time if the fighting goes into urban areas, but the Iraqi armed forces won't last long.

Then the rather harder part will start. Helping the Iraqi people set up a new and better goverment.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
BigBen,

I was rather shocked to hear your thoughts on Cuba. Have to say I disagree with you on that one.

I am open to hear other's opinion/view on the Cuban situation: please correct me if I am in the wrong.

[Blackeagle]

Gmat,

Here's the latest CNN poll on the American peoples feelings about war with Iraq.

64% are in favor of war and the use of ground troops to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam. They report that is up from 59% last week.

43% of Americans fear a increase in terrorism if we go to war.
But
50% fear a increase in terrorism if Saddam is left in power.

I found that one rather interesting, if also kind of strange.

51% think Saddam was involved in 9/11.

And last 88% believe Saddam has been shown to hold WMD.


Just a take on the most recent polling here. The fact that this poll seems to agree with many of my own beleifs in no way means I have anymore faith in polls.

BigBen,

I don't see how you feel the cuban people can be well represented at the UN, or anywhere else, by those apponited by and serving Fidel.
Such a "representative" is hardly going to report Fidel's human rights abuses. So in effect the Cuban people have no representative at all (my take on it).

Yet your second post leaves me thinking now you were addressing perhaps the fact of the UN's disregard of Fidel's treatment of his people?????????? After rereading your last post addressing Cuba I'm a bit unsure just what you are getting at.

[nOv1c3]

Originally posted by gmat
Saddam, his prime minister, and members of his cabinet, are catholics, though Saddam himself is more of a 'laic' (dunno the english term). I know it sounds odd, but hey, he's the dictator, he does what he wants. He has good connections with the Vatican... it's public, not a rumour.
I don't think Tarek Aziz would kiss the hand of the Pope otherwise.

You sure ..Always thought Sadam was a Sunni

[gmat]

Well there's his propaganda... so one cannot be sure exactly.
One thing is for sure though, the man is mad.

[bigben2k]

Well, that's one thing we all agree on!

Reviewing my comments on Cuba: actually, I believe that it was the US that imposed trade sanctions, not the UN. As for representation, I meant that the government of Cuba is represented, not its people. Normally, any citizen would be able to write to the UN, but I have a feeling that the UN doesn't receive too many letters from Cuba...

In any case, the morning update is that Bush has had it with the UN, and will initiate an attack on Iraq, with the UK , Spain, Portugal, and maybe even Australia as supporters (physical or moral).

I believe that Bush will make every attempt to bypass Congress to initiate this "peace keeping" effort, as he'll probably call it.

Otherwise, France and Russia have made it clear that they will not support this action, and that diplomacy should still be first in line, at least at this time.

Time to catch up on the news...

[TerraMex]

As long as the "shadowed goal" will be to get a good grasp at the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, France , China and Russia will be against any military action in Iraq.

Iraq, even having a dictatorship doesnt invalidade some rights as an UN member and an official country . No proven connections to terrorism, and poorly backed evidence of WMD throws most of the US rethoric out the window, innocent until proven guilty is one of the pillars of your judiciary system... or is it until it's annoying?.

He needs to disarm ... what? Sticks and stones probably.

The US is going , because it suits their economy. Doing so at a cost of another country is criminal by any standards. Its not about saddam, the people or how he treats them, its about money.

>Then the rather harder part will start. Helping the Iraqi
>people set up a new and better goverment.

I agree, it will be the harder part. But why? :

Simple , they have a different culture and
mentality and needs for a government. The "we know best, they need a democracy" is a poor excuse, and forcing a type of government on a people who dont want it, need it or asked for it will only go one way, the bad one. Why is that every country in the world has to be a democracy by the US standards? . Dont be so bold to assume that change is required, and by imposing a democracy. By their standards, they prefer a strong and iraqian leader over a western democracy , an iraqian democracy that will be the next dog in the US kennel.

If they want change , a regime change, that must come from the inside, and nothing less. So , like i said before, if they're fed up with their government, have a revolution. Those are choises they have to make, not we for them.

The US has made a crusade out of promoting "democracy" in the world. And when it cant be imposed by pressure or bought, then enter covert ops.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by TerraMex
The US has made a crusade out of promoting "democracy" in the world. And when it cant be imposed by pressure or bought, then enter covert ops.

Right on.

Now if they could only admit it openly. In the mean time, the argument is backtalk and gibborish, merely a dance around the real motive.

I also think there's a "greater-than-thou" attitude demonstrated by the US. Iraq is a dictatorship, ok, so what? Never mind that the people are mistreated, for a moment, and someone tell me why a dictatorship (in general) is (otherwise) a bad thing.

What few people realize is that the culture of these countries is intertwined with the form of government that it has: they're not as clearly seperated as they are within the US.

[boomer235]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cleaner environment, but if that means that I have to spend 50'000 on a car, then something else takes priority: my ability to live!...

Sorry to post a reply to this late, but I just started reading this thread,Im not done yet, but
a Prius can be had starting at just under $20,000.. FYI

[bigben2k]

Hot da*n! Looky here!

Looks like Honda is at it too.

[bigben2k]

A prelude to war


The US, Spain, and UK will not be seeking a UN security council vote on their resolution. Diplomacy is out. The US withdraws its measure.

Australia commits 2'000 troops (despite the 70% opposition of the population.link. More may come, but it will not be up to a vote.

Bush Gives Saddam 48 Hours to Flee Iraq. link. 2/3 of US citizens support the forcible removal of Saddam.

250,000 U.S. troops poised at the borders of Iraq.

Powell suggested that even an 11th-hour effort by Saddam to disarm wouldn't avoid war. "I can think of nothing Saddam Hussein could do diplomatically," he said. "He had his chance."


I'm afraid that nothing will stop this now: all the signs are there.


[edit]More news:

Israel Readies for Possible Iraqi Strike
which includes this: "In a weekend television interview, Mofaz indicated Israel's response might include a counterattack."

Turkish Leaders to Act on U.S. Troops


Now, as ya'll know, americans enjoy a good game of poker, once in a while. The cowboy diplomacy seems to include some poker strategies: try to get the UN to agree, and failing that, withdraw the application, so that the US can attack Iraq with it's own coalition, leaving it harmless from UN reprimands, because the UN didn't vote on it... smart M. Bush, very smart.

Another bit on that "poker hand":
U.N. Orders Inspectors Out of Iraq Ok M. Bush, if you want to quit negotiating, we'll take out the only opportunity the world had to prove that Iraq has disarmed, then we can blame you for it later (ace up a sleeve?).

[bigben2k]

To those who doubted that the US wasn't willing to pay (or play some more poker):
The White House is expected to ask Congress for up to $90 billion to pay for a war with Iraq

A round up of events (my favorite: "A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found eight in 10 Americans would support a U.S. invasion if the U.N. passed a resolution; 54 percent would support it if the resolution did not pass; people were just about evenly split on an invasion if the United States did not offer a U.N. resolution and said it would proceed with military action without any new vote.")

Defiant Saddam Faces U.S. Ultimatum
Of interest:
"While France, Germany and Russia made clear their continued opposition to war — and Canada said its troops would not participate" hey, at least I know where my home country stands! (Canada)

"Australia and Poland said their troops would participate"

"We believe that our actions now are supported by international law, whatever actions we take, said Powell" (that's general Collin Powell, USA)


Blix Outlines Steps Iraq Must Take
Of interest:
Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix on Monday spelled out exactly what Iraq must do to prove it has disarmed and avoid U.S.-led military action, even as war looms. In a report to the Security Council, Blix said if Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) cooperates, the dozen key remaining disarmament issues could be resolved in months.

The chief inspector was required to produce the list before the end of March but speeded up its presentation at the request of France, Germany and other council members.

The list, obtained by The Associated Press, includes many of the key issues in the dossier — anthrax, VX nerve agent, mustard gas, missiles, chemical and biological munitions and warheads, drones and Scud missiles.


So now the situation appears to be that the US is not willing to wait for "months", for a resolution of the outstanding issues, and will still maintain that Saddam is/has been funding terrorist groups, and as such, is a "clear and present danger" to world peace. I don't see how the UN could/would convince Bush otherwise: he's going to play the strong hand, and let everyone else fold.

[gmat]

Of course.
As for who is paying this war for real: read the economic news (you have the choice, Financial Times will do). The markets are already reacting. One thing is for sure, the US economy will get a boost (+2.5% or more), the dollar is climbing already, and Europe will stagnate or even enter in a slight recession (+0.4% optimistic, but this figure is being revised now). So the short term losses are compensated by the huge gains at middle term. Market analysts are still unsure about the oil issue, though, as the ME could very well burst in flames.
The Bush administration played a good economic card here, even destabilizing the unity of Europe.
Now on to the civil losses. Let's see the fireworks.

[gmat]

Latest news. European press condemns the USA policy. No surprise here.
Russian press has the same tone.
USA press:
- The New York Times and Washington Post criticize harshly the Bush foreign policy, and explains the mistakes he made since he's been in power. (read em i won't rewrite badly some well written articles)
- The Wall Street Journal follows Bush but just hopes that the USA will do better than in Afghanistan.
Go out and take one or two papers. Or read em online:
http://www.nytimes.com/ (the registration is free)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ (same)

[nOv1c3]

Originally posted by gmat
Latest news. European press condemns the USA policy. No surprise here.
Russian press has the same tone.
USA press:
- The New York Times and Washington Post criticize harshly the Bush foreign policy, and explains the mistakes he made since he's been in power. (read em i won't rewrite badly some well written articles)
- The Wall Street Journal follows Bush but just hopes that the USA will do better than in Afghanistan.
Go out and take one or two papers. Or read em online:
http://www.nytimes.com/ (the registration is free)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ (same)

The new york times and washington post has always been a Liberal democrated paper theres no surprise on there comments

[bigben2k]

Powell: 30 Nations in Anti-Iraq Coalition

Does anyone have the list?

[airspirit]

We're going to kick some ass now. Argument is futile.

[g.l.amour]

indeed, we can argue what we like. saddam and his boys can talk big, but that will all soon be over forever.

hooah for all the military out there, may actions go swift with no casualties for soldiers nor civilians.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by g.l.amour
hooah for all the military out there, may actions go swift with no casualties for soldiers nor civilians.

Here here!

I'm surprised that no one mentionned how the vastly superior forces may have played a part in all this: Does anyone think that Bush is using the US military power, because he can? I mean, 50 years ago, there was no way the US would have done this. Now, those means are available, so why not use it?

Does anyone think the reverse, where the vastly superior forces, merely by their existence, hindered diplomatic efforts with Iraq?

[airspirit]

It must be teh sucks to be a peace protester now, knowing that everything you've said (and probably will say) has been utterly ignored and rejected, and that you were completely ineffectual in changing anything.

Don't you love a happy ending?

[cybrsamurai]

It must be teh sucks to be a peace protester now, knowing that everything you've said (and probably will say) has been utterly ignored and rejected, and that you were completely ineffectual in changing anything.

It's the nature of this country. There weren’t enough people that believed in what protesters were trying to do. If there were Bush never would have been in office, but through the right to assemble its an Americans duty to do what they think is right even if it is in opposition to the leader of our country. As to being ignored and ineffectual, it was expected. However it is disheartening that protesters were completely ignored by the administration as it is the governments duty to provide leadership to this country NOT polarize it.

Don't you love a happy ending?

This is hardly an ending. We still have to win a war, remove a dictator, rebuild a STABLE Iraqi government, repair mangled foreign relations, recover from wartime economy, defend against possible heightened terrorism and hope that this doesn't unify the Arab world against us.

[gmat]

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
recover from wartime economy

*That* one part is already covered. Don't worry for that.