Who Thinks The Usa Should Withdraw,

[ne1GotZardoz]

Thats really what France and Russia are saying.
They want Saddam to win this.
Thats what he's going to believe if we withdraw.
Imagine a future where Saddam Hussein defeated the USA and England at the same time.

How much power will the UN have over him then?

It took the US presence south of Iraq just to get him to allow inspectors in this time.

What will it take next time?

If you'll remember, he was not allowing inspectors in, until the US threatened war.

If we withdraw, he will know that the US poses no real threat.

Who wants Saddam to win?

[Z]

the US was really not prepared for this. they expected surrenders and a quick invasion in a couple weeks.
not gonna happen. theyre havin a tough time now. and theyre losin people. they polly wanna back out. but they gotta save face. bush gives more bout his ass then his soldiers. but they are soldiers. they will win, but its gonna be bloody, and baghdad is gonna be smitherines by the time this is over. and th eUS is not prepared to clean up that mess. even with oil money.

[WebCheF]

Originally posted by lil_z@28 March 2003 - 04:37
the US was really not prepared for this. they expected surrenders and a quick invasion in a couple weeks.
not gonna happen. theyre havin a tough time now. and theyre losin people. they polly wanna back out. but they gotta save face. bush gives more bout his ass then his soldiers. but they are soldiers. they will win, but its gonna be bloody, and baghdad is gonna be smitherines by the time this is over. and th eUS is not prepared to clean up that mess. even with oil money.
The prob is not that the Iraqi's are good, but the U.S. is trying to be low impact on the population of Iraq. If we were brutal it would be very short.

BTW. I think the U.S. has cleaned up far worse that this State, Sorry County.

[fallenknight308]

NO, NO, Emphatically NO! We went in there, now we have to finish what we started!
It would be poor example, and dishonorable.
And some of those poor people, believe it or not, don't like their dictator, and want change (wasn't for us to decide, but its too late now!)
:o

[Jonne]

I was against this war, but it'll be impossible for the US and UK to back out now.
The war will be bloody, especially in Bagdad. Let's hope Saddam gets a heart attack or a bomb on his head, just to make sure the war ends quick...

BTW; what allies is Bush referring to in his speech? the only countrys that are supporting the war are the USA, Spain, and the UK. What other 40 countrys is he talking about?

[jetje]

there are some governements "giving political support" whatever that means. Our stupid prime minister does do that. However the majority from my country is always against this war. But we live in a democracy... we have freedom of speech...


btw the sub topic title is wrong... we all.... already lost, no one wins wars.

[Spindulik]

You got to be kidding me!

Let Saddam win? I think he is dead or near death. Basicly a walking dead man.

Let a guy who released all of Iraq's hardened criminals out of Iraqi prison just before the war?

A guy who has an army that fires bullets into the civilian crowd?

A guy who uses human shields?

A guy who supplies his armies with all sorts of bio-chem protective equipment (and that's not to prtect them from the enemy).

A guy who has pre-stocked American, British, etc.. uniforms (what's that for?)

Sets fire to his own oil fields.


The list goes on...

[Spindulik]

Originally posted by Jonne@28 March 2003 - 12:18
BTW; what allies is Bush referring to in his speech? the only countrys that are supporting the war are the USA, Spain, and the UK. What other 40 countrys is he talking about?
I'll come back later with an allied list for you, when I get the time.


Meanwhile, many countries want to be allies now, in hopes of cashing in on the rebuild of Iraq.

France has offered to do a major portion of rebuilding Iraq (yet the were/are totally against the war). Isn't that nice. The coalition forces sacrifice their lives, and France wants to cash in on it, after the war. Thank guys.

I hope my company wins a bid on the jobs for rebuilding some of the oil facilities. That would mean very good work and pay for me, however, I'd have to temporarily move to Iraq with all of that terrorism. A years worth of work there would buy me a house here, and then some.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Jonne@28 March 2003 - 06:18
I was against this war, but it'll be impossible for the US and UK to back out now.
The war will be bloody, especially in Bagdad. Let's hope Saddam gets a heart attack or a bomb on his head, just to make sure the war ends quick...

BTW; what allies is Bush referring to in his speech? the only countrys that are supporting the war are the USA, Spain, and the UK. What other 40 countrys is he talking about?
He's mentioned several times that support does not mean they are fighting beside us.
Several countries support and are providing aid to this war effort.

You don't need me to tell you where our troops entered Iraq from, or who's airspace we are allow to fly through, or where we fly our wounded to.

There is also financial aid, tactical support, moral support.

Everything is appreciated.

Understand, I was against starting this war.

But arguing that point now is rather moot.

There should be no more asking if we should have started this war.
It is begun.

The question now should be, what will be the effects of withdrawal?

[Jonne]

I hope my company wins a bid on the jobs for rebuilding some of the oil facilities. That would mean very good work and pay for me, however, I'd have to temporarily move to Iraq with all of that terrorism. A years worth of work there would buy me a house here, and then some.

you don't work for halliburton or one of it's daughters, do you? The company that is in charge for the logistics of the US army, and got the contract for putting out the oil wells two weeks ago? The Company that used to have Dick Cheney as CEO? The company that pays still Dick Cheney 1 million dollars a year?


just to proove, an article that was published on 14/03/2003 in 'De Standaard'

Cheney's gewezen werkgever krijgt contracten in Irak

14/03/2003
Robert Bryce en Julian Borger
AUSTIN/WASHINGTON -- Halliburton, het Texaanse bedrijf dat van het Pentagon het contract kreeg toegewezen om mogelijke branden in Iraakse olievelden te doven, doet nog altijd jaarlijkse betalingen aan zijn vroegere chief executive, de Amerikaanse vice-president Dick Cheney. Het bedrijf dingt nu mee naar contracten voor de wederopbouw van Irak.


De betalingen, die op Cheneys inkomstenverklaring van 2001 staan, gebeurden in de vorm van ,,uitgestelde compensatie'' en beliepen tot één miljoen dollar (ongeveer evenveel euro) per jaar.

link (http://www.standaard.be/archief/zoeken/DetailNew.asp?full=0&articleID=DST14032003_034&trefwoord=halliburton) (you need to register and pay for access, i know...)


edit: said days instead of weeks

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by jetje@28 March 2003 - 06:41
there are some governements "giving political support" whatever that means. Our stupid prime minister does do that. However the majority from my country is always against this war. But we live in a democracy... we have freedom of speech...


btw the sub topic title is wrong... we all.... already lost, no one wins wars.
Jetje,

Well said.

The real question then is, how much are we willing to lose.

[dwightfry]

Iraq has NO chance of 'winning' the war. They sent 1000 troops south to try to cut off our 70,000 troops. (not counting brittish troops) Bush is sending in another 100,000 very soon, and believe me, he could send a hell of a lot more. We are trying to be cival and do as little damage as possible while still completing our goals. So things will be tougher for us in the sense that we still want to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, if we didn't care what damage we did, we could win the war by monday, (It's friday right now).

I wish this war had never happened, but now that it has, we must continue. Iraqi civilians have died, american soldiers have died, british soldiers have died, if we don't take this to the end, it would have all been for nothing.

[tennine]

as many of you already know I was absolutely opposed to this war...
but now it's on, some people in Irak (I'm not talking about crowd but minorities opposed to saddam with a kind of organisation) are now fighting with coalition troups like in kurdistan or other south cities... these people deserve not being abandonned one time more by US.. cause wether you wanted this war or not you can't ignore saddam is a dictator going to slay his own population if he escapes again...

By the way concerning big contracts passed with US firm to rebuild the country... as the conflict wasn't approved by the UN, many reconstruction costs will be sent to US, so I can't see why they won't pay their own firms as to try to relaunch an agonising economy...

PS: excuse me for my poor grammar as you may know I'm french...

edit: @ dwightfry: don't forget that iraqi soldiers died too.... many are just patriots defending their land (your ancestors may did the same far ago...)

[Marcus]

Originally posted by jetje@28 March 2003 - 12:41
there are some governements "giving political support" whatever that means. Our stupid prime minister does do that. However the majority from my country is always against this war. But we live in a democracy... we have freedom of speech...


btw the sub topic title is wrong... we all.... already lost, no one wins wars.



Well said

[Z]

i dunno ppl...saddam is gonna be tough ta kill. hes got like 10 imposters at every press conference and such. like i said before, they need ta get sum1 in there and just snuff em all. done deal. or they could just march into baghdad with tanks and take a bunch of casualties. its not gonna be easy. bush was so ignorant bout all this. and yes the iraqis hate saddam but they cant speak out against him and they are being invaded so they want to defend their land. (possibly).

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@28 March 2003 - 03:48
Thats really what France and Russia are saying.
They want Saddam to win this.

I don't know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it's started. You're just saying bulls**t.

We're not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they'd listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.

[Spindulik]

Originally posted by Jonne@28 March 2003 - 13:53

you don't work for halliburton or one of it's daughters, do you? The company that is in charge for the logistics of the US army, and got the contract for putting out the oil wells two weeks ago? The Company that used to have Dick Cheney as CEO? The company that pays still Dick Cheney 1 million dollars a year?



No. I work for a small minority company. I assume that jobs contracts would be open for bids to any company, qualified to place a bid.

[Rat Faced]

I was and am opposed to this war...mainly due to hypocracy surrounding its reason for being.

However, now that it is a 'done deal' it HAS to be seen through to its conclusion.


To have all these people die for nothing would be the greatest mistake.

Every opposing argument I had will happen now whether the Coalition withdraw or carry on...in which case at least take one of the worlds bastards out.



I can only hope now that the USA give control of rebuilding to the UN......notice i say CONTROL, not 'participation'.........that may at least take away the argument that the USA will control the country, and hence it is imperialistic (and no, i dont believe this is so....but the argument WILL be used against them)

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 06:06

I don't know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it's started. You're just saying bulls**t.

We're not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they'd listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.
Is that the sentiment of most French people or are you a lone wolf?

What we are seeing is Chirac Fighting every single move we make.

I agree that there must have been a better way before this war started, to solve the problem in Iraq. At least there were a few things left that could have been tried.

But maybe Bush was right, here. I don't know what Iraq was doing on one side of the country while the inspectors were on the other.

I do, however, know that our inteligence department is usually right...no matter how much we laugh about CIA being a contradiction in terms.

I also have great confidence in Interpol.

And although Bush has no understanding of the international community, he's not an idiot.
He's just a very poor speaker.

Blaire, on the other hand, is an excelent speaker.

I advise that the rest of the world ignore Bush's fumbling around for the right facial expressions, and focus on Tony Blaire.

Overlook the fact that Bush doesn't understand the conventions of Deplomacy.

Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.

Ignore the fact that the U. S. was recently attacked on its on soil for the first time in 60 years and may hold a grudge.

Focus on the fact that England did NOT experience anything like that, and has no grudge.

Then check to see if the U. S. has anything to gain from this war...really.

Its costing us billions of dollars to fight this war.
Chirac has already pointed out that he has every intention to block any resolutions we put on the table.
Do you believe we are sending hundreds of thousands of men and women and billions of dollars worth of equiptment to meet their potential doom, for oil trade?
There was oil trade before the war, and there will be oil trade after the war.
A dollar per barrel change, maybe, is not worth this.
Economic stability?
Well, wars do sometimes improve the economy but only at the expense of the government deficit.
Our deficit is back where it was before we fixed it.
To give us an edge in the Middle East?

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

What 'edge' is that suppose to give us with the people, if we're wrong?

And if we're right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

Peace to you

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+29 March 2003 - 14:47--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 29 March 2003 - 14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 06:06

I don&#39;t know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it&#39;s started. You&#39;re just saying bulls**t.

We&#39;re not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they&#39;d listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.
Is that the sentiment of most French people or are you a lone wolf?
[/b][/quote]
The polls here in France give:

80% against the war

40% want the US to win the war as soon as possible
40% want the war to stop NOW
8% want Saddam Hussein to win
2% don&#39;t know.


What we are seeing is Chirac Fighting every single move we make.


That&#39;s because he&#39;s a bad diplomat, even if Bush is worse&#33;


Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.

That&#39;s true, but Blair has his hands tied-up by the UK traditional deep links with Washington.

As for Interpol, I don&#39;t know. Just know about MI-6 considering faked documents as authentic and re-writing a PhD about the 1st Gulf War, saying it&#39;s about the present situation, etc...


Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

Once again, Saddam has nothing to with it. The US&#39;d better fight the Saudians or Pakistan.


And if we&#39;re right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

You&#39;re wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what&#39;s currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 11:00

Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.

That&#39;s true, but Blair has his hands tied-up by the UK traditional deep links with Washington.

As for Interpol, I don&#39;t know. Just know about MI-6 considering faked documents as authentic and re-writing a PhD about the 1st Gulf War, saying it&#39;s about the present situation, etc...


Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

Once again, Saddam has nothing to with it. The US&#39;d better fight the Saudians or Pakistan.


And if we&#39;re right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

You&#39;re wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what&#39;s currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....
MI-6?

Faked Doccument?
Rewriting a PhD about Desert Storm?

More details please.

I want to understand the French perception.

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+29 March 2003 - 17:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 29 March 2003 - 17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>MI-6?
[/b]
MI-6 is the Brittish CIA


Faked Doccument?

That&#39;s what Mohamad Al-Baradai (head of inspectors for International Nuclear Agency) said about the information the US gave about a collaboration between Iraq and Niger on a nuclear program, information that they received via the UK.


Rewriting a PhD about Desert Storm?

In this forum, this has been perfectly said by Chloe (see here (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=10944&st=75))

<!--QuoteBegin--chloe_cc2002@8 February 2003 - 15:44

I&#39;ve heard yesterday that Tony Blair took his information about Al Qaeda links with Irak in an article written by an unknown student, and forgot to mention it

Large parts of the British Government&#39;s latest dossier on Iraq which purports to draw on &#39;intelligence material&#39; WERE PROVEN to have been plagiarised from published academic articles. Yes, Colin Powell gave high praise to the document &#39;Iraq - it&#39;s infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation&#39; to none other than the UN. ........saying it "describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities". A Cambridge University Politics lecturer noted that it sounded very familiar as he read it. It was discovered that 4 of the report&#39;s 19 pages appear to have been copied, with insubstantial editing, fromthe internet version of an article that was written by another author on Middle Eastern affairs last year. The content of yet another six pages relied heavily on articles by two other authors who had written articles in 1997 for an intelligence journal. Yet the document did not even attempt to make any reference whatsoever to these sources. That was bad enough, but when it was posted on the Government&#39;s website it accidentally named four Government officials who had worked on it. :)

It was then reposted with the names deleted altogether after this was noticed. This document was passed off as being the product of the work of intelligence services commissioned to prepare it for a specific purpose. Commentators who have read it and are familiar with the authors who it seeks to quote are of the consensus that it doesn&#39;t have ANY independent sources of information on Iraq&#39;s internal policies. Rather it just re-iterates previously held publicly available data packaged into a new document.

There are even obvious tell tale signs apparently that it was an amateurish cut and paste job, as one of the original authors had misplaced a comma, but his work had been reproduced without it being corrected. The same sentence in the British Government&#39;s report contains the same misplaced comma. The author&#39;s report was referring to Iraq&#39;s head of military intelligence during the 1991 Gulf War. When pressed for WHY the report&#39;s public sources hadn&#39;t been acknowledged the Government spokesperson merely said "We said that it draws on a number of sources including intelligence. It speaks for itself."

Hardly an exercise in intellectual honesty.[/quote]


I want to understand the French perception.

That&#39;s nice :)

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 11:00

And if we&#39;re right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

You&#39;re wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what&#39;s currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....
If we&#39;re wrong, isn&#39;t it the citizens of Iraq who should judge that?

The people who are being bombed and shot at by their own army that is &#39;supposedly&#39; defending them? the republican guard?


Admittedly the main connection was made due to the events of september 11th.

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

Now, at that point, our Government was hessitant to point the finger at IRAQ as being behind it.
Pretty much EVERYONE in the U. S. thought that they were though.

We should have gone in then. Or soon after Afganistan.

But Bush believed that the interpretation of the events coupled with inteligence information, was so obvious that the UN would agree.

Well...The UN DID agree that Iraq was in violation of the UNSC resolutions, ie. refusing to allow weapons inspectors, and that Iraq definately had motive and oportunity.
However, their solution was to send in the weapons inspectors again.
Bush kicks his heels and says, ok.
Saddam says, No way.
Bush says, You better.
Saddam says, or what?
Bush says, or we&#39;ll kick your ass again. (can he say ass on TV)?
Saddam still refuses.
Bush is ready to go in, when a weapons inspector from the 90&#39;s visits the Iraqi people and reads a very eloquently written speech about the nobility of the American people and the need for trust.
Saddam says, Ok, I&#39;ll let them in, but they can&#39;t see anything.
Bush says, everything or we start bombing.
Saddam says, oh, alright.
So the inspectors enter Iraq.
The US has its eyes in the sky and ears of the walls pealed.
We pick up a cell phone conversation from an Iraqi guard telling another one to destroy any reference to a certain type of missile.
(I forget the exact message. Anyone have the tape)?
We present that recording and several other bits of information to the security council.
Iraq accuses us of fabricating it.
Fabricating it???
Fabricating a tape so we can go into an unpopular war and add even more to our deficit?
We had no motivation to fabricate it.
Iraq had every motivation to claim it was fabricated.
(we were going to attack them).
So anyway, we have a majority of the security council starting to see the truth of the situation...We were ready to present a resolution and accept whatever the council decides...Then, what happens?
Chirac says he&#39;ll veto it anyway&#33;

Chirac said he was going against the majority if/when it came to that and use a veto.

THAT was the point where the UN lost all credibility.
At that point, any decision the UN may or may not have made, came down to the beliefs of one man...


Chirac.



Peace dude


edited to correct spelling and one mistake in sentence structure that changed the meaning from intent.

[Marcus]

Originally posted by Z@29 March 2003 - 07:55
i dunno ppl...saddam is gonna be tough ta kill. hes got like 10 imposters at every press conference and such. like i said before, they need ta get sum1 in there and just snuff em all. done deal. or they could just march into baghdad with tanks and take a bunch of casualties. its not gonna be easy. bush was so ignorant bout all this. and yes the iraqis hate saddam but they cant speak out against him and they are being invaded so they want to defend their land. (possibly).



it&#39;s a very harsh subject, The U.N. was founded on the Idea of "NEVER AGAIN" with reference to the Nazi attempt to murder a whole race "THE JEWS" and as far as we are told Saddam is a despot who denies his people the basic means of life. Isn&#39;t this an awefull position for the Iraqi people when we concider that a Whole population of Iraq have been forced to accept the the sanctuary of a political democricy whose only objective is to impose upon said people a way of life whose objectives are beyond their understanding and therefore beyond their control. idiology is mentioned but none is offered to Iraq.
Lump it or else? What a question?

Nobody has concidered yet how a muslim country can possibly accept the forced influence of the western world
.

[ClubDiggler]

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Did I hear this right&#33;&#33;&#33;

That is the most stupid idea in the history of stupid ideas&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s kind of like:

Stay still so I can shoot you.

No f****n way :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:


The reasons are a million. :ph34r:

[Jonne]

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

&#39;Afganistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september, it&#39;s a terrorist network that happened to be in Afghanistan, because the taliban didn&#39;t really care about terrorist camps.

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

that really is bullshit: Some saudis (that didn&#39;t have support from any country) attack the USA, and you attack Iraq. It&#39;s like saying: this dog bit me, let&#39;s kill off a different one so it won&#39;t happen again... Where&#39;s the logic in that?

[ClubDiggler]

Originally posted by Jonne@1 April 2003 - 09:16

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

&#39;Afganistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september, it&#39;s a terrorist network that happened to be in Afghanistan, because the taliban didn&#39;t really care about terrorist camps.

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

that really is bullshit: Some saudis (that didn&#39;t have support from any country) attack the USA, and you attack Iraq. It&#39;s like saying: this dog bit me, let&#39;s kill off a different one so it won&#39;t happen again... Where&#39;s the logic in that?
I agree "&#39;Afghanistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september",

but due to American involvement Afghanis are in better shape. The taliban
is not ruling the country, women can go to school and overall life is better
for them. They don&#39;t live in that kind of fear anymore.

The same goes for Iraq. What&#39;s wrong with that?

And why the US or US/UK?

Someone has to do it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; These countries have the means.

Bullies dont stop being bullies with words; it takes action.

[leecheskicked]

Back to the original question, NO&#33;