Bush's Speech..

[Z]

yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 06:20
Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush's plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush's ass.

now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain ).

edit to add:

magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).

i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what.

If he were such a follower, he would've followed the US' lead, as the US has far more impact on Canada than China, or Angola, or Guinea.

About Afghanistan, I was just commenting on the "Afghanistan has no oil."

The civilian casualities wasn't in response to anyone, really. I just got off-topic.

[Z]

magicnakor:
thats exactly my point. he seems like a follower most of the time, and this time b/c more countries are objecting, so is he.

btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.

[al_birkett]

yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better

Yes , he deserves some sort of respect for standing up for what he believes in ... even when he knows that he could be putting his job at risk, apparentley he made a gud speech last nite

[PersianBulldog]

I saw the speech on TV, but is there a site where you can get the whole speech in text format?

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.

In Afghanistan it's about opium and haschich (thanks to the UN I can now get excellet Afghani haschich, which had disappear under the Taliban regime )

More seriously, I think oil has its part in this war, but it's not the essential motivation. It's much more important than the well-being of the Iraqi people. The main purpose is to reorganize the Middle East, in order to fight terrorism. It's a good idea, but it's highly probable that it will fail and have the exact opposite effect : an increase of terrorism. The US don't know a shit about the Middle East. I sincerly hope the Brits, who know it much better, will help them not to do to many mistakes.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 14:25

Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.

Do you really believe what you say? The second resolution was about a war! The alternative was between a war (with UN approval) or... a war (without UN approval).

And don't forget there's been NO vote at the UN (ie no veto). If there'de be one, a veto would proibably not have been necesseray from Russia or France, as there was not a majority of the Council willing to vote for this war.

First, he's right. The trade embargos established by the UN 12 years ago were basically ignored by most countries.
France among them.

As for the UN vote, Bush was willing to adhere to the outcome, whatever it was, until France made it well known they would veto it no matter what the vote.
Why would France need to veto if the US did not have a majority vote?
And if France veto'd, in my mind, THAT would go against the UN.
You cannot worm out of this. France proved that it was they who were not willing to go along with a UN resolution.

[ketoprak]

France wanted the destruction of Iraq mass destruction weapons, which was going on fine with the inspections decided by the UN and didn't see the necessity of a war if the inspectors didn't say they couldn't work. That's all.

Moreover the USA needed 9 votes for its resolution, and has never been able to reach them. So it's not about France or Russia. (edit : and Russia said it would veto before France. It's just a very good excuse for the US & UK)

But we're used to be the favorite scapegoat of UK & sometimes of the US. So it doesn't matter. If you need one, please do.

[Crackedup]

And what makes you so right healimonster? So Bush is going in there for the good of the world and because he feels it his duty to take out Saddam and his evil regieme? You are very naive not to see that he has a hidden agenda. Who will get the huge contracts for rebuilding Iraq? The arms industry needs wars to keep it going. And who was one of Iraq's major backers in the war against Iran?

Are you seriously telling us that Bush has no interest in the worlds second biggest oil supply....because if you are I'm afraid you don't understand the way powerful governments and companies work. And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn't finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi's who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.

I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn't producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn't have any oil," which is untrue.