Brazzil Forum
Message Board
» back to brazzil.com
Register | Profile | Log-in | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Search

» Welcome Brazzil: Log out | Messenger | Check New Posts | Mark all posts as read

    Brazzil Forum
    General
        War in Iraq
Mark all forum posts as read   [ help ]
» Your last visit to this forum was: Mar. 25, 2003 - 6:12pm «

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Single Page for this topic
Forum moderated by: No One
 

 
erjbcdt


Junior Member
   
Clearly the war with Al-queda will continue for many years to come, but the Bush administration believes now that Sadaam Hussein must adhere to the UN sactions that were placed against him.  

Iraq continues to say that they destroyed all their biological, chemical, and radioactive weapons?

Do you think the US has a justifiable reason to attack Iraq post September 11?  Do you think the only reason the US has interest is because of the oil?

What you think of the effects on the Brazilian economy if oil prices continue to raise?  Inflation will raise and rates may rise once again.  The price of oil is now at 36 dollars which is extremely high but the UN has to make move if world is united in this war.

Do you agree with Lula postion? Do you think he should be more critical of Bush or continue to more or less quite compared to other international leaders?

-----
Viva Brazil

Total Posts: 54 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 12:17 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
I don't believe at all that this situation in comparable to WW1 or WW2. I think that it will not effect Brazil except with oil prices.
What is this war about. It is absolutely about oil. Consider this history. The leader of Iraq, Sadam Hussein is a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favorite coup."  Sadam became the darling from Baghdad to the Washington elite. Consider this quote from Samuel Gejdenson.
“The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted.  From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. … The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
In 1980 the U.S. encouraged Iraq to launch its invasion into southern Iran, which turned into a bloody eight-year war. Henry Kissinger summed up the attitude of Washington: "too bad they can't both lose." Over 1 million people "were killed in the war, but it served U.S. purposes: it weakened both Iran and Iraq.
A Times article includes information revealing the extent of U.S. involvement: "More than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
This Pentagon program continued even when it became clear that the Iraqi military "had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested."
A DIA officer said the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." Another U.S. intelligence officer told the Times, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."  
Not only was Washington not appalled by Saddam using weapons of mass destruction, they encouraged him and supplied him to do it!
In the Gulf War the U.S. killed 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians. They bombed Iraq's infrastructure such as cutting off of water, electricity, etc. They then put sanctions that cut off food and medical supplies to Iraq, causing 1.5 million Iraqi's to starve or die of curable diseases.
All this actually weaken the Iraqi population and strengthen Sadaam's power.
After the war they maintained the no fly zone, in which their planes have bombed and killed on averaged of 100 Iraqis a year.
Weapons inspectors were sent in. This has dismantled Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Every one in a position to know has said they no longer are a credible threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors.
The have been steadily weakening Iraq for occupation.
Iraq has the second greatest supply of oil in the world. It nationalized it's oil, meaning it sells it's own oil, and it does not put it's oil fields up for sale. This is the same with Iran and Libya. Chavez is doing this in Venezuela.
Consider this also.
Oil companies were the biggest contributors to Bush's campaign--the most expensive presidential campaign of all time. The President had founded the oil company Arbusto Oil, later renamed Bush Exploration and eventually sold to Harken Oil & Gas. Vice President Dick Cheney made his personal fortune in the oil company Halliburton. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was a member of the Chevron Board of Directors between 1991 and 2000. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans was CEO of the oil company Tom Brown Inc. and Director of the oil company TMBR/Sharp Drilling. The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Kathleen Cooper, was an executive at Exxon. Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, was Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services.
I am writing more extensively on this subject if any one is interesting
.


-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 1:57 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
Sorry I copied the first part from a response to another post.
By the way, what is Lula's stance on the war in Iraq?

-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 2:00 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Sick



Newbie
   
This board serves my insomnia so well.

Jeromy that is all very interesting but I see you still can't resist plucking facts from history you consider relevant and then compiling them all into a conspiracy theory ladened with ideology. It may sound logical in your convuluted mind but it all never quite adds up. Maybe this is why you present so many "facts" that are so misleading they are basically rendered false. At some point I would think you would learn to stop doing this.

* The leader of Iraq, Sadam Hussein is a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favorite coup."  Sadam became the darling from Baghdad to the Washington elite.

Yes, but this had nothing to do with oil. However, it did have everything to do with geo-politics and US strategic interests. The CIA official you are referring to above, James Chritchfield: "By 1959, Iraq was becoming important, because they had gone through one or two revolutions. The conservative monarchy established there by the British had fallen in a coup. Gamal Nassar was extremely active in the Ba'ath politics. We recognized in the Ba'ath. They were probably opposed to Egyptian nationalism, but we thought they were equally opposed to Soviet communism. Aside from that, we had no clear U.S. policy in which Iraq was either central or even very important. The Soviet effort in the Middle East tried to penetrate the Fertile Crescent from Damascus, to Baghdad, toward the Gulf, and through Egypt and the Suez Cannel to the Red Sea. So it was equally important for them to get control in Baghdad. I think the U.S. policy was essentially containment of Soviet efforts there--Baghdad was merely a piece on the board."

* Samuel Gejdenson... Yes it was US policy to assist Iraq in this manner, however, how could anyone have guessed he would turn around and use these on civilians like he did in 1988? I do agree these sales are indefensible, but then again this was done at a time that not many conceived of terrorists seeking these types of weapons. And it still has nothing to do with oil.

* In 1980 the U.S. encouraged Iraq to launch its invasion into southern Iran...

This is a good example of the Realpolitik school of thought that allows for the old Arab saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Jeremy, welcome to the sinister world of geo-politics.

* Another U.S.intelligence officer told the Times, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."

Notice the words "battlefield" and "strategic". Now try to think through what this intelligence offer was saying....stuck? I thought so. He is saying the US (and the world for that matter) need not worry about the use of these weapons in this war, since it will be limited to the battlefield. Chemical weapons used as terror weapons simply was not conceivable during those days especailly compared to now. This STILL has nothing to do with oil.

* Not only was Washington not appalled by Saddam using weapons of mass destruction, they encouraged him and supplied him to do it!

I would like to see your sources that show the US "encouraged" Iraq to use chemical weapons.

*In the Gulf War the U.S. killed 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians. They bombed Iraq's infrastructure such as cutting off of water, electricity, etc. They then put sanctions that cut off food and medical supplies to Iraq, causing 1.5 million Iraqi's to starve or die of curable diseases. All this actually weaken the Iraqi population and strengthen Sadaam's power.

This is a typical statement of yours that really sets me off. The first sentence is completely misleading and intentionally so. Please read: "There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war. The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according to Greenpeace." Soldier and civilian death totals should never be combined, unless they are unacceptably similar. The second sentence clearly displays your lack of understanding of the importance of defeating the enemy's logistics and communications in war. The third sentence shows your complete inability to comprehend causation. Those 1.5 million deaths would not have occurred had Saddam abided by the cease fire HE agreed to. By the way, the sanctions were imposed by the UN NOT the US. The fourth sentence shows the inhumanity of these type of sanctions and this is what will continue if the US is put in it's proper place. So when the death toll from sanctions reaches 3 million, no complaining.

* Every one in a position to know has said they no longer are a credible threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors.

Everyone? Tell this to the Israelis.

*The have been steadily weakening Iraq for occupation. --The only thing steadily weakening is your thought process. Still nothing about oil.

*Iraq has the second greatest supply of oil in the world. It nationalized it's oil, meaning it sells it's own oil, and it does not put it's oil fields up for sale. This is the same with Iran and Libya. Chavez is doing this in Venezuela.

Finally, we strike oil! This is an interesting statement which is merely a bit of fallacious logic intended to imply something of importance. What does the fact that Iraq nationalized it's oil have to do with anything? What does Iran, Libya and Venezuela have to do with this? Iraq nationalized it's oil in 1972, Libya in 1973, Venezuela in 1975 (so Chavez isn't the one "doing" that) and Iran in 1952 or thereabouts. Yes, that action by Iran DID result in the 1954 coup. But please recall it was the Brits who lost their oil rights not the US, and it was the Brits idea to stage the coup in the first place. The CIA eventually took over the operation. The US got involved for, again, strategic geo-political reasons. Specifically Ike thought it would be just nifty to have spy stations in a country with such an extensive border with the Soviet Union. And remember, dear Jeromy, the US buys oil from countries that have state owned oil enterprises. Two examples are Mexico (before privatization) and VENEZUELA. By the way, oil companies tend to do just fine even with nationalized oil companies, especially in the developing world. Why? Because they purchase our expertise and technology.    

*Consider this also...More fallacious logic.

If you are going to make the oil argument for this war, why don't you make one that actually makes sense. For instance, it isn't about controlling Iraq's oil as much as it is about ending our dependence on Saudi oil. You see, Saudi Arabia's second leading export is Islamic fundamentalism. Since the US is so dependent on Saudi oil, in the past and even after 9/11, political leaders have been reluctant to challenge the Saudi's on this. If the US invades Iraq and deposes Hussein it will accomplish two things. One, it will rid the world of a vicious dictator. A dictator we helped put there and maintain power so perhaps it is also our duty to remove him. Two, it will give the US leverage against Saudi Arabia. Without all that money from oil, it will dry up their exportation of Wahibi fundamentalism which is behind the majority of this terrorism in the Middle East. However, if you think the world is skeptical of the evidence the US is presenting against Saddam, just imagine what the reaction would be if they presented it in this fashion. So you will never hear the administration own up to this. But to be honest, I believe that is what the US is doing. At least I hope.

-----
I have the best hair on this website.

Total Posts: 27 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 4:53 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Adam


Junior Member
   
There was a good point brought up by Thomas Friedman, an author and New York Times columnist. He was saying that Sadam and his two sons are playboys who value their life more than they value their cause (or what we believe is their cause). The people we need to go after are the ones who value their cause more than they value their life (ex. terrorists on 9/11).

On CNN they sent correspondents all around the world(england, france, iraq, russia, and germany), asking people on the streets if and why we should go to war. One person said yes, lets do it. The other 40 or so people asked this question, said no, bush only wants oil.


-----
Tchau

Total Posts: 64 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 10:38 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Adam


Junior Member
   
On top of that, what kind of idiot would go into a war without any backing. We dont have the UN behind us, in the war, or when we become responsible for iraq after the war.

-----
Tchau

Total Posts: 64 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 10:42 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
fernandobn


Junior Member
   
I agree with Jeromy in part, I think that the issue is oil, and this can affect Brazil, the main reason for Brazil to raise their prices is oil. Remember that in Brazil the transportation of goods is mainly done by roads. The UK, France have been in that region for long time and still nothing have changed, why US think they are gonna change things now there?  

-----
Fernando B.

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 10:43 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
Pardon me I went a little off the subject of oil in the first part of my post. I did not make it clear that I was trying to debunk the arguments that the Bush administration was using to justify war, such as Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, he is danger to his neighbors, he oppresses his people, etc.. I was showing that this could not possibly be their motivation considering the facts I presented. I at the end gave arguments for what is their real motivation, which is mainly oil. I was not saying that everything they did with Iraq in the past was motivated by oil, I am stating that it is at least one their motivations now.
As far as the proof that they encouraged Iraqi's use of gas. When these events occurred, such as the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. officials helped cover up these facts to the American public. They continued and even increased support to Saddam after this. It is interesting to note that soon after they had invaded Panama in 1989, the Bush Sr. administration increased military support to Iraq.
As far as the casualty number consider this quote the former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: Let me tell you what happened briefly. There were 114,000 separate aerial sorties in 42 days - one every 30 seconds. Eighty-eight thousand tons of bombs were dropped. Only seven per cent were guided. Ninety-three percent were free-falling bombs that hit were chance, necessity and no free will took them. There were 38 aircraft lost by the US in the slaughter. That number is less than the accidental losses in war games where no live ammunition is even used. No enemy aircraft rose to meet them. When the ground war came... there was no ground war. Name on ebattle. It wasn't a battle, it was a slaughter. General Kelly said when the troops finally moved forward that there were 'not many of them left alive to fight'. We killed at least 125,000 soldiers and to date 130,000 civilians. We killed as many as we dared.
As far as what will happen when the U.S. invades Iraq. According to a U.N. estimate, 500,000 Iraqi civilians will be killed. Probably thousands U.S. soldiers will die. It is a huge difference between pushing an invader out of a country that is not theirs, and invading a country and occupying it. The fight will be much different than the Gulf War in 1991.
A tide of terrorism will strike U.S. military, business, and civilian targets. New terrorists will be recruited.
A dictator will be removed, but what will be put in his place. According some reports a U.S. General will rule, or maybe someone else who is even worse than Sadam.    
Nothing good, and a hell of a lot of bad.


-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 2:24 pm on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
Consider this...This is report that shows that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. It also reveals another motivation for invading Iraq.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.



-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 2:30 pm on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Sick



Newbie
   
Jeromy the Master of Misinformation strikes again!

It is clear you haven't read the PNAC report and have taken the Sunday Herald article at it's word. The article is misleading in so many ways it's laughable.  

* According to the article it is a "secret blueprint" for the Bush administration.

This is false. The PNAC study appears on it's website, which I think disqualifies it from being "secret". This is a report created by a think tank full of egghead academicians. Here is the purpose and method of this evil blueprint of imperialism: "The project proceeded by holding a series of seminars. We asked outstanding defense specialists to write papers to explore a variety of topics: the future missions and requirements of the individual military services, the role of the reserves, nuclear strategic doctrine and missile defenses, the defense budget and prospects for military modernization, the state (training and readiness) of today’s forces, the revolution in military affairs, and defense-planning for theater wars, small wars and constabulary operations. The papers were circulated to a group of participants, chosen for their experience and judgment in defense affairs. (The list of participants may be found at the end of this report.) Each paper then became the basis for discussion and debate. Our goal was to use the papers to assist deliberation, to generate and test ideas, and to assist us in developing our final report. While each paper took as its starting point a shared strategic point of view, we made no attempt to dictate the views or direction of the individual papers. We wanted as full and as diverse a discussion as possible."

* The study was not aimed at Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, et al. In fact, Libby and Wolfowitz are contributors to the study which at the end offers this disclaimer: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions." The report is aimed at ANYONE who is interested in such matters.

* The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

No where in this document does it say or even imply that the US should invade and occupy Iraq. It does not say the US should take military control of the Gulf region. It simply explains that the authors believe it would be prudent for the US to maintain sufficient forward military bases in the region to protect US interests as well as allied interests which would include our allies in the Gulf region. The US, having the worlds mightiest military would of course LEAD it's allies in this context. The reference to Iraq is an example as to why a US military presence is necessary from an American strategic point of view, because Saddam's Iraq is a destabilizing force.

* The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

I know you stand firmly against "American principles and interests" especially in terms of economic models, but, "maintaining pre-eminence" means the US, as the sole superpower, would be the leader in the construction of an international security order. (Is this unreasonable? If so, then who should lead?) An order that includes our interests as well as our allies' interests. The report is merely pointing out that the US should take advantage of the current world situation and secure it's strategic interests BEFORE a rival power arises, like something along the lines of a Soviet Union or smaller states that develop WMDs and threaten US and it's allies interests. For some reason this is evil.

* This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

All of this is misleading and out of context. "Grand strategy" is a concept from Clausewitz's 'On War' and simply is the term for strategic defense policy. Which, sorry to say dear Jeromy, the US is allowed to have. What it isn't is a conspiracy to dominate the Earth as that article seems to suggest. It does NOT call for the US to fight decisive, simultaneous theatre wars, it does however suggest strongly that the US should have the CAPABILITY 'to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission' should that happen to be necessary.

* The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

Ugh! The Wolfowitz and Libby comment comes from the 1992 Defence Policy Guidance written by Cheney's defense department at the end of Bush Sr.'s term. That comment is not mentioned specifically in the report but is alluded to and most of which I have already addressed: "At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Leaked before it had been formally approved, the document was criticized as an effort by 'cold warriors' to keep defense spending high and cuts in forces small despite the collapse of the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was subsequently buried by the new administration." (The 'new administration' was a reference to Clinton not Bush, just to be clear).

READ the goddammed report BEFORE you comment on it and present it in such a misleading fashion. Sheesh.

-----
I have the best hair on this website.

Total Posts: 27 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 9:57 pm on Feb. 16, 2003 | IP
 

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Single Page for this topic

Topic Options: Lock topic | Edit topic | Unlock topic | Delete topic | Move topic

© 2003 Brazzil | Our Privacy Statement

Powered by Ikonboard 2.1.9 Beta
© 2001 Ikonboard.com