Press

Under questioning?

Under torture what would you say, what would you tell your guards?

Bottom Line

American fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers are in Iraq (Not including Afgan) fighting like lions and dying like lions, honourably serving their countr. But unwittingly for one purpose and one purpose only, to install American Imperial control over the region. Oil oil oil!

 

You can choose to characterize it that way if you want. The way I see it, it is of utmost importance that the developed nations have a secure and stable supply of energy. The safety and security of the world requires it.

What is the bottom line on the British in Iraq? Are they also trying to install American Imperial control over the reqion?

 

So why isn't there more serious effort to stop the reliance on oil, which after all will run out one day (relatively soon, if you believe the pessimists)?

lol - many people would agree with that
Blair has a reputation in some circles for simply being Bush's lapdog.

I do think that 'American Imperial Control' is a bit strong, but certainly 'an American (and British) - friendly regime.

 

You cannot describe today's American foreign policy as Imperialism unless you acknowledge the existence of "informal empires": imperialism through establishing regimes politically and economically dependent on the mother country without being physically colonized. I do believe this form of imperialism is what the US is actively pursuing today, but on the other hand it is all too easy to ascribe the war in Iraq as an overblown piece of guesswork or idealism by the Bush administration.

Ahem.

Grieg: If the developed world needs to have its oil to preserve stability and prosperity, then why does the US engage in costly wars to get it? It seems to me that this will only promote instability and the development of debt.

 

There is no war to "get" oil. That should be obvious. The US does not get oil from Iraq as a result of the war.
One of the goals of the war is a stable Persian Gulf region. That helps ensure a stable world supply of oil.
There may or may not be other reasons related to idealism for the war however it seems that a stable Persian Gulf is in everyone's best interest.

 

What with Sunni and Shiite rivalries playing up, Iran developing nuclear weapons, Bush threatening Syria and Israel losing one of the most progressive leaders in a long time, there isn't any indication that the situation in the Middle East is going to stabilize any time soon, is there?

 

It is fairlystable at the moment considering we are talking about the most volatile region of the world. It's been volatile for about as long as I can remember.

 

Some WMDs were found in Iraq after the coalition invasion, just not in large quantities. Which begs the question of what happened to them, because I doubt very highly that all of them were destroyed by the UN inspectors, given the obstacles that Saddam Hussein put in their way.

 

Regarding stability - If a stable democratic regime can be installed in Iraq, then that will be a step in the right direction IMO.

However, there are the obvious pitfalls - an extremist clique gets voted in, or nutty local countries decide to take it over, or...

However, one less volatile/aggressive country in a volatile area cannot be a bad thing.

 

Yes. But as you point out yourself, that is not what is happening there now.

Corp, do you have any proof for your claim? The CIA didn't. I'm intrigued.

 

All that was found were some shells that still contained rests of chemical weapons.These were not operational.
I don't think that qualifies as "some WMD were found"
I mean, given the size of Saddam's wmd programm in the 80's, it would have been more than surprising if absolutely no rests of those weapons were found.
The US weapons inspector that was in Iraq till 2004, and extensively searched for them concluded that there were no wmd.

The reason Saddam did not fully cooperate with the inspectors in the 1990's was that he wanted to give the shiites in his country, as well as the leaders in Teheran the impression that he was not totally disarmed and that it could possibly be a bad idea to seek quarrel with him....

 

There were several news reports about the WMDs found in Iraq, complete with video and interviews of the troops who found them. Like I said, not many were found, but some were.

 

[/quote]


No, none were found.
All that was found were remnants of WMD destroyed in the 1990's.

According to Charles Duelfer, chief of the CIA weapons inspectors in Iraq:
"The hunt for WMD has gone as far as feasible, and nothing was found...."

Yes, there were some reports about WMD found, but they were later recognized to be wrong.

 

Hmm..interesting.

story here:


http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


.

 

And yet another explanation:

Yesterday, in an interview Lt.Gen. Thomas Mcinerney, military analyst of Fox News advanced a new theory: Russian Spetsnaz special forces moved the WMD's to Syria on order of Vladimir Poutine.

Of course he failed to produce any proof for his theory, nor did he explain what reasons the russians would have had to do so.
Nevertheless, asked by the moderator wether he was sure that the russians moved the WMD, he responed:Absolutely, absolutely....


Or maybe I should have posted this in the conspiracy theory section....

 

I think that sums up this story's credibility. :smok:

 

the only time the russian got involved during the war was when the
aussies special forces got told to watch out for an escaping saddam . they
were located in the western desert blocking the highway to damascus .
sure enought , a shiny black limo turn upfrom bagdad with two apc as
escort , the aussies take out the apc and signal the car to stop , the car
take evasive action, the car get shot up , lightly . it was the russian
ambassador (unhurt ) and some staff ( injured ) the aussies offer medical
help , and are pointing out than those are dangerous time to drive at
night with military escort .

 

In a report released yesterday an inquiry comission of the US senate announced that there is absolutely no evidence for links between Saddam and Al Qaida.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm

 

.
.
.
I'm still waiting for the " discovery " than the Iracki government under
saddam had not engaged in any action against the U.S.

In fact , when saddam invaded Kuwait (with some arguable reasons )
he was kind enought to ask pretty please from the then U.S. ambassador .
and was given the diplomatic equivalent of a green light .
.
.
. Some enemy :roll:
.
.

 

I donno maybe Saddam wanted Kuwait back into Iraq. Its not his fault it seceeded.