US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush

08/26/2005 12:28:31 PM · #176

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Nothing will improve in Iraq until President Bush and his administration are out of office. We need to get other countries and the UN in there to help rebuild and settle things down but they don't want to get involved because it would put those countries at risk for terrorist attacks. Very few foreign government officials trust the current administration and don't want to be aligned with them in any way.

History does not support your contention. Things ARE improving in Iraq even while the Bush administration is in office. As for UN involvement, it would appear that they were a part of the PROBLEM. You have repeatedly pointed out how the U.S. supported Hussein when he was coming to power, but have neglected to point out how the U.N. AIDED him while he was IN power. It's called the Oil-for-food scandal, overseen by the same U.N. that you propose be involved now, which added billions to Husseins pockets, and millions to the pockets of corrupt individuals ( some of whom were actually working for the U.N.). At least the U.S. has not provided support for Hussein since 1991 the way the U.N. has.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

A second problem is that the Bush administration is changing over the Iraqi economy to an American style economy and changing laws that give American companies advantage. The laws that have been put in place through the urging of the Bush administration will be permanent and promote privatization, which the Iraqi people do not want. They already have very high unemployment and fear that these new laws and new economy will mean further job cuts. A whole special category of laws was written especially for the oil industry.

Again, history does not support your contention. It is Iraqs who are drafting a Constitution in Iraq, not the Bush administration. While it is quite true that Iraqi's see daily the lifestyle of American and other coalition troops and the employees / agents of non-military companies, it is THEIR choice as to whether they approve or disapprove of those customs and or socio-economic models. What "laws" are you referring to that have been "put in place through the urging of the Bush administration"? What Iraqi laws has the Bush administration changed that give American companies advantage? What laws have been "written especially for the oil industry"?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

RonB, what are your recommendations for Iraq?

1) The coalition should keep on doing what they are doing until the Iraq:
a) is self-governing ( e.g. have a Constitution ),
b) has a sufficiently trained, sufficiently equipped peace-keeping force ( police and national guard ), and
c) has an infrastructure ( water, power, sewage treatment ) that is able to sustain vital services.

Mind you, if a) occurs and the installed Iraqi government requests that the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) withdraw all military and industrial personnel and equipment, then the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) should do so, even if items b) and c) are NOT yet completed.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/26/2005 12:44:33 PM · #177

Originally posted by elderell:

Ron...There are many points I DON'T disagree with you on...But do you think the majority of voters would have voted for Dubya the first time around,had they KNOWN we would be invading Iraq ??

Probably not. Do you think that Roosevelt would have been elected if the majority of voters had KNOWN that the U.S. would enter WWII? Or that Truman would have been elected if the majority of voters had KNOWN that he would order the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan? Do you think that Clinton would have been elected if the majority of voters had KNOWN that he would be having sex with an intern in the White House?
Just what point are you trying to make. The Presidency, as well as the Congress were established by our Constitution to AVOID having to burden the common people from having to be involved in the weighty matters of having to decide whether or not to go to war.

Originally posted by elderell:

Oh,sorry...My Bad...I remember now-the majority voted for the other guy..Dubya was appointed to the position...As for the second election,why bring in someone else to clean up HIS mess??

Same old, same old. Bush was never appointed, he was elected, in absolute accordance with the Constitutional provisions regarding election of a President, while NOT violating other provisions of the same Constitution ( i.e. equal protection, which is why the SCOTUS got involved - they did not decide anything to do with the election, they merely held that a decision of the Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ). And you know as well as anyone that the Constitution does NOT provide for the popular election of the President, so your argument about how many popular votes Gore received has no bearing on the law and is just sour grapes, which some folks seem to have a surplus of.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/26/2005 01:16:17 PM · #178

I am not sure that the "answer to Iraq" lies in Iraq. The troops the US and the Uk have sent there are mired in a battle that is much bigger than Iraq.

Having (illegally) invaded Iraq and destroyed the seat of power there, there is a moral obligation on us not to create a power vacuum and abandon the country to the strongest mob in civil war.

The cause of local resentment and the ongoing fight with the occupying troops is rooted in many causes, only one of which is the ongoing occupation. The biggest failure, IMO, is the failure to properly address the purpose of the "war" on terror, which is to win hearts & minds, not to occupy land (no matter how oil rich) or depose dictators (no matter how distasteful they may be).

So, addressing the causes of resentment (as I see them):

Occupation: increased policing and education for military forces. Purpose: increase level of cultural understanding, reduce level of inhumanitarian acts, reduce level of fear to which troops are exposed through better understanding.

Israel/Palestine: Continued support for the dismantling of the illegal settlements, withdrawal of Israel from post-1967 occupied land and reparations to dispossessed pre-1967 land owners; dismantling of the security wall; promote greater Israeli/Palestinian dialogue at top levels; international policing effort to reduce the risk from Palestinian extremists (eg accepting Egyptian offers of Egyptian, Arabic speaking, policemen); greater investment in the charitable teaching of the language of tolerance in Middle Eastern schools (Israeli & Arab states).

Purpose: redress the impression that international support at state level, and in particular the vociferous US support (and failure to criticise Israeli actions when criticised by every other major Western leader) is biased against Arabian/Muslim states, reduce the perceived (and probably actual) oppression and ghetto-isation caused by the wall, increase acceptance at all levels but in particular at school and in the youth of tomorrow, improve security while avoiding the perception that Israeli police/security forces are heavy handed and over reactive; increase Palestinian and Arab/Muslim state responsibility for terrorist action.

International: Greater international support for poverty in the Middle East generally, possible creation of a supra-national body specifically for the Middle Eastern area dealing with all security issues, policed internally (without US or other external involvement/interference) and seeking to draw some balance (difficult, I know) in representation between Israel's size and influence and relative isolation. US to sign up to international criminal law and give up derogations from criminal liability for its troops.

Accountability: promote the concept of a lawful, democratic state by investigating with the aim of impeaching those responsible for the commission of the war. Promote the concept of international justice and policing (rather than the use of force) by subjecting the responsible parties to criminal sanction in the international courts.

Purpose: lead from the front - when imposing our version of democracy on others, let's demonstrate how it has checks and balances to ensure that it operates lawfully and appropriately, according to the reasoned will of its people. Rather than demonstrating it to be as corrupt and unreliable a system as that which we seek to replace.

Just a start - there are a thousand more things we must do to promote equality, reduce racism and religious bigotry, and enforce a system of law and order (on ALL sides). Peace would bring with it huge prosperity, financially and spiritually, to all.

DanSig

08/26/2005 01:17:45 PM · #179

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by DanSig:

just like Iraq, they invaded Iraq to get Saddam Hussain, well they got him almost 1 year ago and they are still there.. even if nobody wants them there..

This is where the dilemna comes in...When is it best for the US to pull out? If they are to have a "democracy", then we can't be a part of their governing process. But if we leave too soon, a dictator/regime will most likely come into power again. So where does one draw the line? When is it best to call it quits and completely take the soliders out of Iraq?

USA should have pulled out the day they declared the war was over and the Iraqis wanted them to leave so they could build up their own country.

latest news say that the USA will keep their soldiers there for another 5 years, why is that ? the Iraqis will have their democracy soon and they already have their own army and police, so why keep US soldiers there ?.. to protect the oil the USA is stealing from the Iraqis, to make shure that the goverment of Iraq will be the goverment Bush wants and that it will do as the USA tells them, the US soldiers are NOT in Iraq to keep the peace, the only war there is when the Iraqis attack the US soldiers, so if the US troops would leave Iraq then peace would be established again very soon.

and why should the USA have anything to say about whether there is a regime/dictator or democracy in Iraq, it's not their buisness, Monaco,Sweden, Denmark, England, Spain and many other countries have a regime/dictator/king/emperor and those countries function properly, and probably better than the USA with a paranoid racist as president.

I live in Iceland, here we do have a US base but we do not have soldiers anymore and almost all aircrafts have been relocated to other countries, so the base is very close to being shut down, the people on the base rarely go outside the base, and if they do it is in civilian clothing so they look like tourists, Iclanders have no access to the base unless they work there. so we hardly have any contact with the US troops here.

we have never had a army of our own, we do not have agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI or anything like that, we are a peaceful nation and are against ALL kinds of war, especially those started by Bush !

and for a 300 million people nation to vote for an idiot like bush, not once but twice (Bush senion, Bush junior) well.. it only shows the ignorance of the nation, that idiot can lie all kinds of bullshit to the nation and you believe it, no matter how stupid it sounds, and you vote for him, just like you did with his father who told the same lies during election and did everything the same as the junior is doing now, the USA have never owed more money and is close to bankrupcy, if Bush had skipped both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and used the money to build up the economy then there would me no poverty in the states, everyone could go to college for free and healthcare would be free for everyone, instead close to 10% of americans are homeless, almost 30% are considered poor, there are more americans in prison than in college, and people are turned away at the hospital door if they do not have insurance.

this is the shit you voted for, it's close to the next election, hope you will be wiser next time, and I really hope that there will NOT be a third Bush for president, then it will be Nukes ;)

you can ask almost anyone that is not a US citicen what they think about Bush and the war in Iraq, and almost everyone hopes that the Iraquis will kill enough US soldiers so that Bush will pull the rest out of Iraq !.. some people wouldn't put it so harsh, but the meaning is the same.. some say they just wish Bush would pull out his troops really soon !

08/26/2005 01:39:29 PM · #180

I keep hearing the statement that Pres Bush lied to the American People. How can people forget so soon. It amazes me that we have a issue with forgetting anything over a day old. All intel, including intel from the Pres Clinton time in office indicated exacting what Irag was up to. Even the almighty corrupt UN also said what Saddam was up to NO GOOD! I wish the people that complain could go over to Iraq and tell the people there that they wish they we still under Saddams reign, wish that they cannot have freedom to choose or vote.

Had the peace lovers had there way, Saddam would be in power.
There still would be mass graves, 5th largest military (and growing).
He would have the UN giving him $ for oil, his people would still be starving, his sons would still be intimadating the people as well as killing them, (remember how they treated there soccer players!!!).
Building more palaces for Saddam. and so on and so on.
This is the way it would be right now.

He would be threatening his neighbors.
After going into Afganistan where do you think Ben laden would be. If we did not go to Iraq who do you think would be supporting Ben Laden?

There are so many benefits to the people of Iraq and to there neighbors that anyone with any forsite cannot say that things are not better.

Freedom is worth the cost! With freedom the hostilities between neighbors virtually go away. Remember all the problems in Euroup. Now look at it.

So lets leave over there before the new government can protect itself and watch all we have done go right down the tube. What a waste!!

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 13:42:29.

DanSig

08/26/2005 01:50:12 PM · #181

it might be justifiable invading Iraq, but ONLY by the majority vote of BOTH UN and NATO, for the USA to invade Iraq agains the majority of NATO and UN makes the USA the terrorist country, and even though I am a man of peace, I really hope some powerful county invades the USA and does the same to you as you do to other counties, then you might learn that what goes on in other countries is NOT your buisness, Saddam can kill as many of his fellow Iraqis as he wants, it's their problem and if they do nothing to stop it why should you ? it's not like Saddam was doing something to another country..

and WHY does Bush not invade countries like Botswana, Kongo, Nicaragua, and many other countries that currently are facing civil war, massacres and many atrocities that are much worse than Iraq.. is it because those countries have no oil ?.. I think so

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/26/2005 01:52:39 PM · #182

Something I hear a lot, and don't understand: "If you don't like it, why don't you offer a better solution?â��

When Bush started talking about Iraq, before we had even begun to clean up Afghanistan, I saw what looked to me like a slow motion train wreck was being set into action.

I spoke out about it, but since I was in the minority, felt very impotent. Actually got involved in a "discussion" with a Rush Limbaugh fan that ended up shouting me down. I gradually became very clear to me that anyone who opposed this action was basically considered a non-citizen who should just keep their mouth shut.

Regardless of the assumed "good" intentions of the war supporters, I witnessed the administration make numerous judgment calls that appeared to lack any semblance of common sense. There's so much talk about looking to the future instead of the past; yet it seems as if they chose to attack a country and disband the army without a system in place to address the inevitable chaos that would erupt. That's just one example. If I listed them all, it would take many pages.

So, basically people like me were told "Sit down, and shut up". Now we're being told "Do something about it, or shut up." That's like being chained up and witnessing an arsonist burn down a house; and then being told by the police "You should have tried to stop him/her."

I don't think there is a "good" solution, but I do think there is a productive process. It starts with holding accountable the irresponsible people who chose to create this mess. At the same time, there should be a "meeting of minds" to begin focusing on how to begin improvements. I think we should bring together some intelligent American people from all mindsets and begin a dialogue; with the sole purpose of finding solutions to the problems in Iraq.

The vindictive side of me would like to see Bush pursued for lying about WMD with the vengeance that Clinton was pursued for lying about his affair. That's unreasonable, though because this country cannot afford to tie the leadership up with hearings the likes of which distracted Clinton for so long.

I think it's unfortunate that we feel compelled to pigeonhole each other with the negative (and unproductive) brandings, when I believe that the majority of us would just like to see the killing stop. So my idea of a solution would be for the leadership to genuinely address the country and take accountability by saying "We were dishonest, we screwed up, and we're very sorry. Now, let's put our heads together and get busy with a plan to put things back together."

A practical plan, in my mind, would consist of actions based on logic and forethought, rather than ideology. Don't ask me for details, because I would put my ego aside and consult with knowledgeable people who have experience in sociology, economics, ethics, government, and foreign cultures and religion etc.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 13:55:07.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/26/2005 01:58:59 PM · #183

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Nothing will improve in Iraq until President Bush and his administration are out of office. We need to get other countries and the UN in there to help rebuild and settle things down but they don't want to get involved because it would put those countries at risk for terrorist attacks. Very few foreign government officials trust the current administration and don't want to be aligned with them in any way.

History does not support your contention. Things ARE improving in Iraq even while the Bush administration is in office. As for UN involvement, it would appear that they were a part of the PROBLEM. You have repeatedly pointed out how the U.S. supported Hussein when he was coming to power, but have neglected to point out how the U.N. AIDED him while he was IN power. It's called the Oil-for-food scandal, overseen by the same U.N. that you propose be involved now, which added billions to Husseins pockets, and millions to the pockets of corrupt individuals ( some of whom were actually working for the U.N.). At least the U.S. has not provided support for Hussein since 1991 the way the U.N. has.

A more open and multilateral approach, with an overseeing body, to restablizing Iraq will hopefully minimize corruption, but it's ludicrous to think that the the Bush administration and those getting those contracts (Not all, but many) are not partaking in corruption. Shall I name a company associated with a high ranking Bush administration official that has overcharged the government by millions, and still continues to get work from the government?

Btw, what history are you talking about that does not support my contention?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A second problem is that the Bush administration is changing over the Iraqi economy to an American style economy and changing laws that give American companies advantage. The laws that have been put in place through the urging of the Bush administration will be permanent and promote privatization, which the Iraqi people do not want. They already have very high unemployment and fear that these new laws and new economy will mean further job cuts. A whole special category of laws was written especially for the oil industry.

Again, history does not support your contention. It is Iraqs who are drafting a Constitution in Iraq, not the Bush administration. While it is quite true that Iraqi's see daily the lifestyle of American and other coalition troops and the employees / agents of non-military companies, it is THEIR choice as to whether they approve or disapprove of those customs and or socio-economic models. What "laws" are you referring to that have been "put in place through the urging of the Bush administration"? What Iraqi laws has the Bush administration changed that give American companies advantage? What laws have been "written especially for the oil industry"?

Here's an article for you to read about the economic changes that are going on in Iraq.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
RonB, what are your recommendations for Iraq?

1) The coalition should keep on doing what they are doing until the Iraq:
a) is self-governing ( e.g. have a Constitution ),
b) has a sufficiently trained, sufficiently equipped peace-keeping force ( police and national guard ), and
c) has an infrastructure ( water, power, sewage treatment ) that is able to sustain vital services.

Mind you, if a) occurs and the installed Iraqi government requests that the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) withdraw all military and industrial personnel and equipment, then the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) should do so, even if items b) and c) are NOT yet completed.

Well, I do agree with you on your last point.
However, it is clear to many of the American public, and foreigners as well, that the Bush administration has lied to the US public and Congress about the reasons for going to war. This needs an independent commission to investigate for possible Impeachment proceedings.

Sorry about the bold, but I don't have time to edit it to be very readable.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/26/2005 02:06:36 PM · #184

I can't wait for the first time we see someone in Iraq post here and tell us what they think. It's great that they have that freedom now.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/26/2005 02:14:08 PM · #185

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

The vindictive side of me would like to see Bush pursued for lying about WMD with the vengeance that Clinton was pursued for lying about his affair. That's unreasonable, though because this country cannot afford to tie the leadership up with hearings the likes of which distracted Clinton for so long.

08/26/2005 02:33:55 PM · #186

Originally posted by DanSig:

Saddam can kill as many of his fellow Iraqis as he wants, it's their problem and if they do nothing to stop it why should you ? it's not like Saddam was doing something to another country..

and WHY does Bush not invade countries like Botswana, Kongo, Nicaragua, and many other countries that currently are facing civil war, massacres and many atrocities that are much worse than Iraq.. is it because those countries have no oil ?.. I think so

YES! Control over oil directly effects your way of life. If all the oil in the world was controlled by tyrants and alike then your country would be at the mercy of them. They could bankrupt your country anytime they want. You want all the oil under the control of decent people. Why would you want a Saddam type to take the earnings of there oil sales and use it to build up there military. Why? Perhaps to threaten there neighbors? SO they can control there people?. The Sadde's use there $ to better there people and provide a high standard of living. (thats the way it should be done). Look how Saddam goot into power and what he did to get there. See what he did with his power and the $ generated from oil sales. He was a low life and needed to be removed. The UN is full of whiners who are affraid to make a stance. They too take $ and spend it in the wrong way.

Americans can not police the entire world. Thats where the UN comes in. Why are they not in the countries you mentioned preventing them from commiting genocide on there own people?.

Im sick of war yet there are prople in this world that take advantage of there people and they need to be taken care of. Stick your head in the sand! that sure will help. I want my grandkids to live in a world free of countries ran by low lifes and the freedom to travel to where ever they want to go.

08/26/2005 02:42:37 PM · #187

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

At the same time, there should be a "meeting of minds" to begin focusing on how to begin improvements. I think we should bring together some intelligent American people from all mindsets and begin a dialogue; with the sole purpose of finding solutions to the problems in Iraq.

I agree. By the way, it's called the U.S. Congress and is composed of Senators and Representatives elected by ( shudder ) the popular vote of the people whose districts they represent. I'm assuming, though, that YOU don't deem them to be "intelligent" and consider them to be incapable of worthy dialog. It seems that you'd rather believe that ONE MAN, George W. Bush, has more power than 100 Senators and over 435 Representatives ( who, by the way, authorized him to take action against Hussein ), so you can blame HIM instead of the people who elected those Senators and Representatives ( yourself included, assuming that you vote ).

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

And Clinton ended up with a mere slap on the wrist. AND he was apparently distracted ( by Ms. Lewinsky ) long BEFORE the hearings - so what changed ( other than the bombing of that aspirin factory to distract the Press? )?

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I think it's unfortunate that we feel compelled to pigeonhole each other with the negative (and unproductive) brandings, when I believe that the majority of us would just like to see the killing stop.

What killing is that? The killings being done by the Iraqi "insurgents"? You're right - I'd like to see that stop. But I believe that if THAT killing stopped, the killing being done by the coalition troops would also stop. I DON'T believe that the opposite is true.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

So my idea of a solution would be for the leadership to genuinely address the country and take accountability by saying "We were dishonest, we screwed up, and we're very sorry.

Liberals are really focused on getting the people they hate to admit that they screwed up, aren't they. Forget the problem at hand. Instead let's instead focus on investigating who knew what, and when did they know it. Your house is on fire and instead of concentrating on putting the darned fire out, you'd rather spend your time figuring out how it started, and then demanding that your wife apologize for putting that candle on the dining room table. Only THEN can you focus on the fire itself.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Now, let's put our heads together and get busy with a plan to put things back together."

Do you REALLY think that Bush is making all of his decisions WITHOUT consulting anyone? If so, it is useless to engage you in rational dialog.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

A practical plan, in my mind, would consist of actions based on logic and forethought, rather than ideology. Don't ask me for details, because I would put my ego aside and consult with knowledgeable people who have experience in sociology, economics, ethics, government, and foreign cultures and religion etc.

In other words, you would do exactly what Bush is doing.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/26/2005 03:13:51 PM · #188

Originally posted by DanSig:

...if Bush had skipped both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and used the money to build up the economy then there would me no poverty in the states, everyone could go to college for free and healthcare would be free for everyone, instead close to 10% of americans are homeless, almost 30% are considered poor, there are more americans in prison than in college, and people are turned away at the hospital door if they do not have insurance.

While I am amused by your vitriolic rhetoric, I am amazed at your complete lack of economic understanding. Under what fantasy do you delieriously believe that there is ANY circumstance under which there would be no poverty, that everyone could go to college for free, and that healthcare would be free for everyone. Surely SOMEONE has to pay for all that FREE stuff, because sure as hell, the colleges and hospitals can't remain in business without some source of funding - and if it's the GOVERNMENT doing the funding, then it's the TAXPAYERS who are PAYING - through the nose. That means that it ISN'T FREE.

And, FYI, there has been a law in the U.S. since 1986 called the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that, in laymans' terms says that any patient who comes to the emergency department of a hospital requesting examination or treatment for a medical condition must be provided with an appropriate medical screening examination to determine if he is suffering from an emergency medical condition. If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directive. There is no exclusion based on whether or not the patient has insurance or on their ability to pay.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 15:38:10.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

08/26/2005 03:16:51 PM · #189

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
A practical plan, in my mind, would consist of actions based on logic and forethought, rather than ideology. Don't ask me for details, because I would put my ego aside and consult with knowledgeable people who have experience in sociology, economics, ethics, government, and foreign cultures and religion etc.

In other words, you would do exactly what Bush is doing.

That would mean that Bush actually uses logic and forethought. Whether you think this or not depends on which side of the fence you are on and what you actually believe to be right (not self-rightious).

08/26/2005 03:35:36 PM · #190

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Nothing will improve in Iraq until President Bush and his administration are out of office. We need to get other countries and the UN in there to help rebuild and settle things down but they don't want to get involved because it would put those countries at risk for terrorist attacks. Very few foreign government officials trust the current administration and don't want to be aligned with them in any way.

History does not support your contention. Things ARE improving in Iraq even while the Bush administration is in office. As for UN involvement, it would appear that they were a part of the PROBLEM. You have repeatedly pointed out how the U.S. supported Hussein when he was coming to power, but have neglected to point out how the U.N. AIDED him while he was IN power. It's called the Oil-for-food scandal, overseen by the same U.N. that you propose be involved now, which added billions to Husseins pockets, and millions to the pockets of corrupt individuals ( some of whom were actually working for the U.N.). At least the U.S. has not provided support for Hussein since 1991 the way the U.N. has.

A more open and multilateral approach, with an overseeing body, to restablizing Iraq will hopefully minimize corruption, but it's ludicrous to think that the the Bush administration and those getting those contracts (Not all, but many) are not partaking in corruption. Shall I name a company associated with a high ranking Bush administration official that has overcharged the government by millions, and still continues to get work from the government?

Btw, what history are you talking about that does not support my contention?

You contend that NOTHING will improve in Iraq until Bush is out of office. Obviously SOMETHING HAS improved in Iraq ( history ), and SOME THINGS ARE improving in Iraq, and Bush is not out of office. Hence history doesn't support your contention.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A second problem is that the Bush administration is changing over the Iraqi economy to an American style economy and changing laws that give American companies advantage. The laws that have been put in place through the urging of the Bush administration will be permanent and promote privatization, which the Iraqi people do not want. They already have very high unemployment and fear that these new laws and new economy will mean further job cuts. A whole special category of laws was written especially for the oil industry.

Again, history does not support your contention. It is Iraqs who are drafting a Constitution in Iraq, not the Bush administration. While it is quite true that Iraqi's see daily the lifestyle of American and other coalition troops and the employees / agents of non-military companies, it is THEIR choice as to whether they approve or disapprove of those customs and or socio-economic models. What "laws" are you referring to that have been "put in place through the urging of the Bush administration"? What Iraqi laws has the Bush administration changed that give American companies advantage? What laws have been "written especially for the oil industry"?

Here's an article for you to read about the economic changes that are going on in Iraq.[/b]

Thanks. While the article is interesting, it rather supports my position moreso than yours. For instance, you ( and the article ) may accurately point out that the transitional administrative law favors a U.S. style economy, but, as the article points out, the TAL can be changed, with a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly, and with the approval of the prime minister, the president and both vice presidents. The fact that the National Assembly, and the governing body have left these laws in place must mean that the Iraqis have no strong desire for a DIFFERENT economic style - at least not yet.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
RonB, what are your recommendations for Iraq?

1) The coalition should keep on doing what they are doing until the Iraq:
a) is self-governing ( e.g. have a Constitution ),
b) has a sufficiently trained, sufficiently equipped peace-keeping force ( police and national guard ), and
c) has an infrastructure ( water, power, sewage treatment ) that is able to sustain vital services.

Mind you, if a) occurs and the installed Iraqi government requests that the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) withdraw all military and industrial personnel and equipment, then the coalition ( or just the U.S. ) should do so, even if items b) and c) are NOT yet completed.

Well, I do agree with you on your last point.
However, it is clear to many of the American public, and foreigners as well, that the Bush administration has lied to the US public and Congress about the reasons for going to war. This needs an independent commission to investigate for possible Impeachment proceedings.

And it is just as clear to many of the American public ( I can't speak for foreigners ), that the Bush administration did NOT lie to the US public and Congress. Either a) they don't believe he lied, or b) they don't care whether he lied or not, because c) they relected him.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 15:45:14.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

08/26/2005 04:45:52 PM · #191

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I agree with much of what you say, however, there are specific US laws that possibly make what Bush, and his administration, did illegal. Should the rule of law be discarded in this case? There may have been other illegal things that were done, as well, besides Lying about the reasons for going to war. Should all these possible crimes be ignored? It's not about vindictiveness.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The vindictive side of me would like to see Bush pursued for lying about WMD with the vengeance that Clinton was pursued for lying about his affair. That's unreasonable, though because this country cannot afford to tie the leadership up with hearings the likes of which distracted Clinton for so long.

No, I don't think the law should be disregarded. I think all of those responsible should be brought to justice. I only wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to prioritize damage control in Iraq and then begin the impeachment hearings once our troops are safe? If we tried to impeach him now it would be twisted around to make us the villians because attention would be diverted away from Iraq.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

08/26/2005 05:01:40 PM · #192

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

[quote=Olyuzi]

No, I don't think the law should be disregarded. I think all of those responsible should be brought to justice. I only wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to prioritize damage control in Iraq and then begin the impeachment hearings once our troops are safe? If we tried to impeach him now it would be twisted around to make us the villians because attention would be diverted away from Iraq.

Why would you want to impreach the President for responding to intel provided by several governments, several agencys, the UN ect? You believe he just made it all up. UN resolutions mean nothing, sat photo's mean nothing. Intel from Germany, England ect means nothing. He has the guts to respond to these reports and you whine about it. The Congress approved of what was needed. Why not recommend to impeach every congressman and senator involved. I would go over to Euroup and address the different agencies involved for providing inadequate info on this subject.

Just my thought

Then while you at it tell the people of Iraq you wish Saddam was still there and they do not deserve freedom! Let them die!

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 17:03:58.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

08/26/2005 05:44:02 PM · #193

Originally posted by bcoble:

Originally posted by DanSig:
Saddam can kill as many of his fellow Iraqis as he wants, it's their problem and if they do nothing to stop it why should you ? it's not like Saddam was doing something to another country..

and WHY does Bush not invade countries like Botswana, Kongo, Nicaragua, and many other countries that currently are facing civil war, massacres and many atrocities that are much worse than Iraq.. is it because those countries have no oil ?.. I think so

YES! Control over oil directly effects your way of life. If all the oil in the world was controlled by tyrants and alike then your country would be at the mercy of them. They could bankrupt your country anytime they want. You want all the oil under the control of decent people. Why would you want a Saddam type to take the earnings of there oil sales and use it to build up there military. Why? Perhaps to threaten there neighbors? SO they can control there people?. The Sadde's use there $ to better there people and provide a high standard of living. (thats the way it should be done). Look how Saddam goot into power and what he did to get there. See what he did with his power and the $ generated from oil sales. He was a low life and needed to be removed. The UN is full of whiners who are affraid to make a stance. They too take $ and spend it in the wrong way.

Americans can not police the entire world. Thats where the UN comes in. Why are they not in the countries you mentioned preventing them from commiting genocide on there own people?.

Im sick of war yet there are prople in this world that take advantage of there people and they need to be taken care of. Stick your head in the sand! that sure will help. I want my grandkids to live in a world free of countries ran by low lifes and the freedom to travel to where ever they want to go.

And who is going to decide who is a "lowlife" tyrant and by what criteria? I should think that there are many countries that consider the Bush government as "lowlife" so that makes the USA, who also happen to have oil, up for invasion by your standards.
You say the USA should not police the world and that should be the job of the UN yet you are happy that Bush and Blair ignored the UN and invaded Iraq. The only happy people in your scenario would be the most physically most powerful nation - but then perhaps that is what you want as a US citizen? Your grandchildren would be OK but as for travelling, I don't think they would dare step outside their doors for fear of being subject to terrorist action. Actions like the Iraq war has increased terrorism and every time there is kneejerk reaction or an unjust war or lies being told to the people, this will continue to increase.

P

ergo

08/26/2005 05:48:37 PM · #194

Originally posted by Riponlady:

And who is going to decide who is a "lowlife" tyrant and by what criteria?

Let Pat Robertson do that for ya. He seems to have a knack for that kind of thing.

08/26/2005 06:19:15 PM · #195

A easy way to look at it. Go back too 1989 or so. Pick up Iraq and put it on your border. Now what are you going to do? Stick your head in the sand and hope they dont get mad? Except the fact that it is ok to spend the billions you receive for oil sales and put it in the military and not the betterment of there people. Imagine your neighbor having the fifth largest military in the world, hear rumors of WMD's. Iraq invades your other neighbor cause they says its theres. You will set back and be passive, complaing to the world how mean they are.
Something had to be done. Things were not getting better as time went on. The longer you wait the harder it gets. Should have been resolved in 1990 and we would not be discussing this.

My point is, because it is in the other side of the world does not mean they should be ignored and let to run amok.

Terrorist are part of the game. Should we quit because of terrorist? Maybe we should let them alone to kill each other. Im sure if we get out of Iraq they will leave everyone alone and become good citizens of there respective countries. We (the US) should take all the money we give away to other countries and stop doing that. We should just let the rest of the world fend for themselves. What sould we do? We are a very generous country and spend alot of my tax dollars giving to foreign countries because they need it.
We the tax payers are rebuiding the interstructure of Iraq. We are protecting there government so they can create there constitution. We are allowing them to be free, vote, decide there own futures. Something the majority of the world was spineless when it came to helping these people.

Every person who complains about this should be ashamed that they do not believe these people deserved more.
If you are against our actions then what actions would you have recommended?

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 18:31:24.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/26/2005 06:37:09 PM · #196

Originally posted by RonB:

The question for y'all STILL remains: WHAT, in your opinion, SHOULD we do NOW ( besides complain about the situation )?

When one considers the historical perspective of your question RonB, perhaps the best answer would be.... To tend to your own affairs, and forget about issues that have no bearing on the every day operations of the USA.

The USA cannot be all things to all people... and unfortunately the current situation is such that you are in a lose... lose situation. No amount of effort on your part will give rise to terms of endearment from the people you are trying to save.

Just a thought.

Ray

DanSig

08/26/2005 06:38:35 PM · #197

Originally posted by bcoble:

the USA is my neighbour and with one of the biggest and most powerful armies in the world, and you have a terrorist madman running the show, I'd rather have a nutter like Saddam as my neighbour, at least he didn't have nukes, and since he lost the war against Iran and Kuveit he hasn't invaded any country and hasn't been a threat to any country exept his own, and that was his buisness not Bush's, so if we would make a list of nations that has started the most wars in the past 100 years, then USA would be at the top of the list... and they havn't won any war yet ;) why don't you quit, your army sucks, you couldn't hit a cow even if you were holding it's tail, and I really hope Bush does something even dummer than he's done sofar, I hope he goes to war agains North korea, because they won't fight the war in Korea, they will bring the war to USA, so you people can see what you are doing to other countries, and no excuses, YOU are responsible, YOU voted for that idiot and YOU can have him removed from office !

elderell

Fujifilm FinePix S5000 Z

08/26/2005 06:41:00 PM · #198

Originally posted by bcoble:

LOL !! Why 1989?? Why not go back another 30 years to around 1959...The USSR HAD WMDs,they were invading or setting up missile sights in other countries...(Remember Bay Of Pigs??..Their citizens were being knocked off right and left,so why didn't we (The USA) invade them to 'save the world'?? Because,most likely,they would have KICKED OUR ASSES !!...

08/26/2005 06:59:36 PM · #199

1961 Pres. Kennedy Cuba??? Dont you remember?

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D