[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ood Lord. Not to say Iraq is right or wrong either way, but put it in perspective.
The UN wanted to handle Iraq. But look at the Ivory Coast! They cant even handle a small rebellion in the Ivory Coast!! Good God, could you ask for a eaiser bush fire to handle?!
Again, not saying the Iraq situation is right or wrong, but after seeing this I'm DAMNED GLAD the UN isnt handling Iraq.

[trespam]

Can you please define what you mean by saying the UN wanted to handle Iraq? The UN voted for the force resolution which put inspectors back into Iraq. The UN then believed that the inspects should continue to completion.

We've since discovered that the inspectors inability to find WMD was based upon fact: it wasn't there.

Which part of the UN plan do you have problems with in the above? Seems to me they were handling it fine (with the support and pressure from the US) until the US rushed to war for no good reason.

Also, instead of posting an entire article in a thread, how about summarizing what you think the UN did wrong, the French, what they should be doing, etc. That would make them more useful than just mudslinging.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, not saying the Iraq situation is right or wrong, but after seeing this I'm DAMNED GLAD the UN isnt handling Iraq.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'C')an you please define what you mean by saying the UN wanted to handle Iraq? The UN voted for the force resolution which put inspectors back into Iraq. The UN then believed that the inspects should continue to completion.

We've since discovered that the inspectors inability to find WMD was based upon fact: it wasn't there.

Which part of the UN plan do you have problems with in the above? Seems to me they were handling it fine (with the support and pressure from the US) until the US rushed to war for no good reason.

Also, instead of posting an entire article in a thread, how about summarizing what you think the UN did wrong, the French, what they should be doing, etc. That would make them more useful than just mudslinging.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'O')n a side note, anyone think Bush will stand up and ask France if they need America's help to handle this small, insigniigant uprising?

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Guest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'O')n a side note, anyone think Bush will stand up and ask France if they need America's help to handle this small, insigniigant uprising?

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h yes, that other UN led war? I remember that.

[trespam]

Please don't baffle us with more bullshit. Let's also keep posts as concise as possible. You've thrown a lot of references at us. Posted long articles with "proof." How about pulling out the key points and summarizing. Here's my point and/or questions:

1. What should the UN and French done in the article you posted, not Iraq. You've posted an article about the ivory coast. Since you are apparently studying this, and it proves a point, please summarize for us.

2. The US went to the UN to put inspects back into Iraq. The UN cannot enforce anything other than through the actions of its members, in particular the threat of force from the US, the only country that can project force in great strength anywhere in the world. So the UN authorized inspections, the inspectors returned, and yet the inspectors were not allowed to finish their job. The only reasons given for the rush to war was the hot weather and keeping a large number of troops in the desert. Given that they are still there, those arguments are moot.

You are once again bifurcating. UN bad, US good. You think anyone who says UN sometimes good automatically says US always bad. This is not true.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', ' ')...So what do I think went wrong? France didnt want military action because it wanted oil.... Ironic. France wants to let a sadistic dictator continue on (One who we know had gas) but everyone despises America for its "War On Oil". let me get this right... Its ok to let a sadistic dictator continue on to have oil, but its NOT ok to declare a war for oil (Assuming the war is even about oil...)
...

[Specop_007]

No no khebab... The worlds opinion is that Iraq has no WMD's!! Dont help support my statement they do!!

[Andy]

I give up on guys like Specop_007 refusing to understand the geopolitical realities and reasons behind the U.S involvement in Iraq. Let me state this again, the United States did NOT invade Iraq for the alleged WMDs!!!! They did NOT invade to liberate the Iraqi people. They did NOT invade to expand democracy in the Middle East. They did invade Iraq for strategic geopolitical positioning particularly regarding energy resources vis a vis fellow competitors like the EU, Russia, China, India etc. and all that entails. Is this so hard to understand? You are on a peak oil site for crying out loud, this should be crystal clear by now.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'I') give up on guys like Specop_007 refusing to understand the geopolitical realities and reasons behind the U.S involvement in Iraq. Let me state this again, the United States did NOT invade Iraq for the alleged WMDs!!!! They did NOT invade to liberate the Iraqi people. They did NOT invade to expand democracy in the Middle East. They did invade Iraq for strategic geopolitical positioning particularly regarding energy resources vis a vis fellow competitors like the EU, Russia, China, India etc. and all that entails. Is this so hard to understand? You are on a peak oil site for crying out loud, this should be crystal clear by now.

[Malone]

Actually, from what I've read, the French effort in Ivory Coast has been pretty well done. They managed to seperate the warring parties and had a successful cease-fire in place since last year. When the government broke the cease-fire and killed some French troops recently using air forces, the response was very measured and appropriate: they destroyed the Ivorian air forces. After that, they evacuated their own people and are now having a face-off with the crowds.

Note the lack of destruction of civilian infastructure and also the lack of an unkeepable occupation. The US should be taking notes.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')So the ONLY reason we're there is for oil?
You realize with what we've spent on the war we probably could have bought out all the oil fields we want right?

I'm getting ready to give up on you guys!! To think the ONLY REASON we're in Iraq is for oil is a bit narrow minded. Is that part of it? Yes, i believe it is. But I certainly dont believe thats the only reason! And the no WMD argument is getting pretty damned old.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'N')o no khebab... The worlds opinion is that Iraq has no WMD's!! Dont help support my statement they do!!

[Andy]

Specop_007.

What is with you and the WMD argument. Yes, the principal 70 - 80% reason the U.S. is in Iraq is geopolitical control of a critical energy producing area. No other argument withands scrutiny. If you realize the potential seriousness of peak oil, you can understand why the leadership would want to take such action. I actually don't think it is going to work but you can at least understand their thought process.

Even if Iraq possessed WMD, that is not a valid reason to invade and occupy a country. Israel, France, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, U.K etc. all possess WMD's yet I don't hear talk about invading and occupying these countries. Remember that Pakistan and China are brutal dictatorships as well. You were not explicitly threatened by Iraq. It could be argued that Saudi Arabia would have made a better target in the so-called war on terrorism given that at least the conspirators in Sep 11 were primarily Saudi. One quick question to ask yourself, why wasn't North Korea invaded and attacked? It can be forcefully argued that they presented and still present a much clear threat to the U.S and allies than Iraq ever was. Their leader is certifiably insane (physcopathic) and unpredictable.

Do you must realize the argument about buying Iraq's oil instead of invading is meaningless if you think it through. Oil cannot all be produced at all at once unless you have not been paying attention to the peak oil arguments. In such a scenario, it then becomes important to have access (politically, physically and otherwise) to the fields until they are eventually depleted. Purchasing reserves in the fields will also be meaningless when others will be willing to physically/muscularly expropriate the produced oil from the fields rendering standard economics useless. This is what the U.S is positioning itself for. Remember, it will not be business as usual when oil scarcity sets in.

If you can't rationalize these arguments, then no further arguing is warranted. I will stick to my rationalizing and you can listen blindly and unquestioningly to Messrs Bush and Company.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Guest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'O')n a side note, anyone think Bush will stand up and ask France if they need America's help to handle this small, insigniigant uprising?

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')So the ONLY reason we're there is for oil?
You realize with what we've spent on the war we probably could have bought out all the oil fields we want right?

I'm getting ready to give up on you guys!! To think the ONLY REASON we're in Iraq is for oil is a bit narrow minded. Is that part of it? Yes, i believe it is. But I certainly dont believe thats the only reason! And the no WMD argument is getting pretty damned old.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')Yep, I'M the unreasonable one. Thats actually a funny standing. By that logic, your always right and I'm always wrong is it? For some reason, that suggestion coming from you doesnt suprise me.....
1st Amendment. Always protected, unless someone doesnt agree with you. Way to support oppression Trespam.

[KiddieKorral]

You two, opposite sides of the playground!