World Opinion

It seems as if the people opposed to war on this board are the non-american residents....

Well, I dont know about that completely. Im not for the war but I will support the troops as long as they are over there. That might seem kinda weird but that's ok, it makes sense to me.

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Well, I dont know about that completely. Im not for the war but I will support the troops as long as they are over there. That might seem kinda weird but that's ok, it makes sense to me.

It sounds like a cop-out to me .Bush is relying on people accepting it as a 'done deal'.When he has taken control of Iraq and found that the claims of chemical weapons and all the other hoopla were nowhere near accurate,he's relying on people to accept it because it's a done deal

This war is IMMORAL.It breaches the U.N.charter,it won't result in a stable Iraq, and it is being fought for the benefit of the oil industry.

I will never accept that George Bush has served his country well.The sooner he goes,the safer the world is.

and it is being fought for the benefit of the oil industry.
Naki where is your proof that this is for the benifit of the Oil industry?

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i

Naki where is your proof that this is for the benifit of the Oil industry?

You can't be serious,surely.Once the "axis of the killing[oops,willing]" has finished trashing Iraq, the money from Iraq's oil industry will be spent on rebuilding the infrastructure that has been repeatedly attacked since 1991.Iraq will need steel mills, chemical plants,water treatment facilities, power stations and all the other essential services the George's boys have taken out.The contracts for these jobs are already on the table...A very lucrative contract for the management of the port of Basra has been awarded to an overseas company already.

Three guesses which country will be getting paid to run Basra.

Where again is the proof? I'm not challenging anything, just wondering where the proof is..

Originally posted by Prelewd
Where again is the proof? I'm not challenging anything, just wondering where the proof is..

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/114656_rebuild28.shtml

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s818790.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39489-2003Mar27.html

from the third article

The latest contract was awarded under a waiver the Bush administration granted in January, allowing government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

in other words,screw the traditional tender process,it's going to anAmerican company.

Using your very own tactics, let's just call it all propoganda. There is no doubt that these companies have been awareded the contracts, but can you prove to me why they were? Can you also prove that Bush is definetly doing this because he wants oil?

Originally posted by Prelewd
Can you also prove that Bush is definetly doing this because he wants oil?It's probably going to be one of those things that is unprovable. How can anyone prove what a person is thinking. All we can prove is that they have the motive and the opportunity. Failing the uncovering of documents signed by the people in question that this was their intention, all we are left with is to see what happens if the coalition forces succeed. Even then it canot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that this was their intention. All we can say is that there existed a very strong motivation and opportunity.

I trust you have read the links explaining the oil situation that I've posted in other threads? If not then here they are again.
.American Petroleum Institute (industry lobby group apparently) (http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_supplies.html)
Oil in Iraq: The Heart of the Crisis (article) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm)
Iraq: The Struggle for Oil (article) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm)

To add to Taranaki's stuff on infrastructure/rebuilding contracts etc is the most lucrative of all - the oil. The oil contract usually work as a shared profit arrangement between the owner of the resources and the petroleum company who develops oilfields and sells the oil.

example:
Lets say the Iraqi's decide they want say $5/barrel for oil taken from their country. The petroleum company explores, develops and sells the oil for maybe $20/barrel. It will likely cost the contractor $1.50/barrel to produce oil in Iraq, so after paying for that and the "rent" of $5/barrel they sell it and make a profit of $14.50/barrel on the world market. Iraqi oil is estimated to be worth around $3trillion in clear profit to the petroleum companies who eventually get access to the resources.

Those of us who do not believe that Saddam supplies weapons to terrorists and is a threat to US, UK and world security are left with only oil as the primary motivation for invading Iraq. To say that it is for human rights and freedom etc. opens up questions of why intervention has not taken place in many other dictatorships around the world.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Using your very own tactics, let's just call it all propoganda.

using my own tactics again,why would two American sources and an Australian source publish anti-American propaganda?What alternative reason has anybody for opposing this war?

and just for the hell of it,why should I prove it's about oil?the important thing is that nobody can prove that the 'official' line isn't just a crock.

>ILike2DriveCars : "Well, I dont know about that completely. Im not for the war but I will support the troops as long as they are over there. That might seem kinda weird but that's ok, it makes sense to me."


doesn't sound weird : I'm French and not for this war which doens't seem necessary, but between American and Iraqis, we're with the Americans who are European's friends, even if we don't agree with them.

Stefanel1

When you say "we" who are you referring to? Do you represent the French people?

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Stefanel1

When you say "we" who are you referring to? Do you represent the French people?

By saying "we" he could be talking about friends he has that feel the same way as himself, or his family or people he knows around his community. "we" is not just subject to the French people only.

It's a general "we" : concerning the big part of French, Germans, and other countries opposed to this war. ;)
I mean that, even if there are some disagreements, American and French (and I'm sure taht's not different for other European or Australasian countries, less clear for African countries) are still friends !

using my own tactics again,why would two American sources and an Australian source publish anti-American propaganda

It is not anti-american propaganda it is anti-war propaganda. Why are they posting it you ask. Well I have had other conversations with you where you have stated that our media only shows and says what the government tells them to(censorship). I have continuously stated that our media takes objective views from both sides and we are all not brainwashed as you think. I frankly dont care if the large majority of New Zealands tiny populous is against this war. You can believe what you like about our president that is your right. Myself being an American citizen can tell you that the majority of our large populous support what we are doing. You can sit on your island believing whatever you like it just takes us back to the well used phrase ignorance is bliss until it creeps up and takes out your kneecaps. You say that Iraq and the terrorists it harbors represent no threat to the U.S. or any countries outside the middle east. What did Bali do to deserve the terrorist attack? You will be asking yourself many of these questions when terror strikes your country. You have also stated in other posts that all americans are republicans. This is by far correct. You act as if you know so much about how our president does his job. The truth of the matter is that our presidents approval ratings are higher than almost any president ever. These ratings are decided by the 280 million people who live in our country. You complain about U.S. companies working to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Well if there was another country out there that knew how to run an economy half as well as our companies maybe somebody else would be doing it. How many billion dollar companies are in New Zealand? My guess would be very few.

Originally posted by tomlong


It is not anti-american propaganda it is anti-war propaganda. Why are they posting it you ask. Well I have had other conversations with you where you have stated that our media only shows and says what the government tells them to(censorship). I have continuously stated that our media takes objective views from both sides and we are all not brainwashed as you think.

In any number of reports from U.S.sources ,I have seen the disclaimer that the report has been prepared in accordance with government guidelines,ostensibly to prevent sensitive information falling into enemy hands.What a load of spin.If you believe that your press is objective,good for you.Or perhaps you could take a look at some honest journalism from neutral countries around the world,then you might realise just how fucked-up CNN and other censored sources are.

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Well, I dont know about that completely. Im not for the war but I will support the troops as long as they are over there. That might seem kinda weird but that's ok, it makes sense to me.
Taranki said you were a cop out but I understand your stance in this. I don't care if people are against this war as long as it isn't that b.s. liberal propaganda that its about oil or that they just hate Bush. People can be totally opposed to the war while still stating they support the troops b/c they hope they come back safely. If they don't then they have no sense of emotions or feelings for others.

Originally posted by taranaki


It sounds like a cop-out to me .Bush is relying on people accepting it as a 'done deal'.When he has taken control of Iraq and found that the claims of chemical weapons and all the other hoopla were nowhere near accurate,he's relying on people to accept it because it's a done deal

This war is IMMORAL.It breaches the U.N.charter,it won't result in a stable Iraq, and it is being fought for the benefit of the oil industry.

I will never accept that George Bush has served his country well.The sooner he goes,the safer the world is.

As I have read this and many posts similar to this one over and over again, I have come to this conclusion. No offense is meant by this, as it is only an opinion, but you just refuse to accept the reality of this whole situation. You are ill-informed and ill-versed in American politics. And you see to throw endless facts that are of no use to this situation. This is reality, okay. I don't care if you think Bush is evil, that doesn't mean he is and obviously many people think he isn't. You act like just because you say he is evil, he is. I can't believe that after the 8 years of lies, turmoil, and outright havoc created by our last president you can even say Bush is an evil and in-informed man.

Originally posted by Pick


As I have read this and many posts similar to this one over and over again, I have come to this conclusion. No offense is meant by this, as it is only an opinion, but you just refuse to accept the reality of this whole situation. You are ill-informed and ill-versed in American politics. And you see to throw endless facts that are of no use to this situation. This is reality, okay. I don't care if you think Bush is evil, that doesn't mean he is and obviously many people think he isn't. You act like just because you say he is evil, he is. I can't believe that after the 8 years of lies, turmoil, and outright havoc created by our last president you can even say Bush is an evil and in-informed man.

As I have read this and many posts similar to this one over and over again, I have come to this conclusion. No offense is meant by this, as it is only an opinion, but you just refuse to accept the reality of this whole situation. You are ill-informed and ill-versed in American politics. And you see to throw endless facts that are of no use to this situation. This is reality, okay. I don't care if you think Clinton was a bad president, that doesn't mean he is and obviously many people think he isn't. You act like just because you say he was, he was.Regardless of what you think of Clinton,he's irrelevant to this debate.

Originally posted by taranaki


As I have read this and many posts similar to this one over and over again, I have come to this conclusion. No offense is meant by this, as it is only an opinion, but you just refuse to accept the reality of this whole situation. You are ill-informed and ill-versed in American politics. And you see to throw endless facts that are of no use to this situation. This is reality, okay. I don't care if you think Clinton was a bad president, that doesn't mean he is and obviously many people think he isn't. You act like just because you say he was, he was.Regardless of what you think of Clinton,he's irrelevant to this debate.

You sound like a 5-year-old kid playing the copy-cat game.

Originally posted by Pick


You sound like a 5-year-old kid playing the copy-cat game.

Simply highlighting the absurdity of the post.It's got nothing new to add to the argument,so why should I bother constructing a more thoughtful reply?

Originally posted by tomlong


It is not anti-american propaganda it is anti-war propaganda. Why are they posting it you ask. Well I have had other conversations with you where you have stated that our media only shows and says what the government tells them to(censorship). I have continuously stated that our media takes objective views from both sides and we are all not brainwashed as you think. I frankly dont care if the large majority of New Zealands tiny populous is against this war. You can believe what you like about our president that is your right. Myself being an American citizen can tell you that the majority of our large populous support what we are doing. You can sit on your island believing whatever you like it just takes us back to the well used phrase ignorance is bliss until it creeps up and takes out your kneecaps. You say that Iraq and the terrorists it harbors represent no threat to the U.S. or any countries outside the middle east. What did Bali do to deserve the terrorist attack? You will be asking yourself many of these questions when terror strikes your country. You have also stated in other posts that all americans are republicans. This is by far correct. You act as if you know so much about how our president does his job. The truth of the matter is that our presidents approval ratings are higher than almost any president ever. These ratings are decided by the 280 million people who live in our country. You complain about U.S. companies working to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Well if there was another country out there that knew how to run an economy half as well as our companies maybe somebody else would be doing it. How many billion dollar companies are in New Zealand? My guess would be very few.


I hate to jump into the conversation but I think that the point here is how the contracts were awarded......the first article listed by Taranaki stated that the port contract was awarded on a "no bids" basis.

This means that multiple companies were not allowed to tender for the contract, merely a company was"selected" (in this case a company formerly run by Dick Cheney). In normal order of business, this would be seen as anti-competitive, and a normal company could be prosecuted for doing as such.

As for a government, I presume there isn't really any kind of international law to stop this from happening.

I'd actually be interested to know how it is under Bush's authority to award contracts in a foreign country anyway....unless that authority is derived from having the most guns in the Streets of Basra, which implies things far darker than "anti-competitiveness" on behalf of the US.

Originally posted by tomlong


It is not anti-american propaganda it is anti-war propaganda. Why are they posting it you ask. Well I have had other conversations with you where you have stated that our media only shows and says what the government tells them to(censorship). I have continuously stated that our media takes objective views from both sides and we are all not brainwashed as you think. I frankly dont care if the large majority of New Zealands tiny populous is against this war. You can believe what you like about our president that is your right. Myself being an American citizen can tell you that the majority of our large populous support what we are doing. You can sit on your island believing whatever you like it just takes us back to the well used phrase ignorance is bliss until it creeps up and takes out your kneecaps. You say that Iraq and the terrorists it harbors represent no threat to the U.S. or any countries outside the middle east. What did Bali do to deserve the terrorist attack? You will be asking yourself many of these questions when terror strikes your country. You have also stated in other posts that all americans are republicans. This is by far correct. You act as if you know so much about how our president does his job. The truth of the matter is that our presidents approval ratings are higher than almost any president ever. These ratings are decided by the 280 million people who live in our country. You complain about U.S. companies working to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Well if there was another country out there that knew how to run an economy half as well as our companies maybe somebody else would be doing it. How many billion dollar companies are in New Zealand? My guess would be very few. Some of your argument seems to centre around an attitude that the role of other countries is irrelevant in international matters. It is an attitude that appears to be shared by the Bush, Blair and Howard administrations borne out by their actions. It is certainly cause for concern when the world's biggest superpower ignores the voices of all those who oppose war while other options exist.

It causes even more concern when the voice of the people in the countries neighbouring Iraq who oppose this war are considered irrelevant - and some of those governments tell their people they are opposed to the war while at the same time supporting the coalition by allowing airspace access - obviously they consider public opinion irrelevant as well.

In some of those countries the governments have resorted using to water cannons and live ammunition in an effort to suppress anti-war protests. Are these events reported in yor media?

Well all I can say is, be very careful when dealing with politicians who tell the people one thing and do the opposite - you can never tell which way those irrelevant people are going to jump - until they take out your kneecaps.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
It's probably going to be one of those things that is unprovable. How can anyone prove what a person is thinking. All we can prove is that they have the motive and the opportunity. Failing the uncovering of documents signed by the people in question that this was their intention, all we are left with is to see what happens if the coalition forces succeed. Even then it canot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that this was their intention. All we can say is that there existed a very strong motivation and opportunity.

I trust you have read the links explaining the oil situation that I've posted in other threads? If not then here they are again.
.American Petroleum Institute (industry lobby group apparently) (http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_supplies.html)
Oil in Iraq: The Heart of the Crisis (article) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm)
Iraq: The Struggle for Oil (article) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm)

To add to Taranaki's stuff on infrastructure/rebuilding contracts etc is the most lucrative of all - the oil. The oil contract usually work as a shared profit arrangement between the owner of the resources and the petroleum company who develops oilfields and sells the oil.

example:
Lets say the Iraqi's decide they want say $5/barrel for oil taken from their country. The petroleum company explores, develops and sells the oil for maybe $20/barrel. It will likely cost the contractor $1.50/barrel to produce oil in Iraq, so after paying for that and the "rent" of $5/barrel they sell it and make a profit of $14.50/barrel on the world market. Iraqi oil is estimated to be worth around $3trillion in clear profit to the petroleum companies who eventually get access to the resources.

Those of us who do not believe that Saddam supplies weapons to terrorists and is a threat to US, UK and world security are left with only oil as the primary motivation for invading Iraq. To say that it is for human rights and freedom etc. opens up questions of why intervention has not taken place in many other dictatorships around the world.

You are right, it is unprovable. Just like the majority of everything else in this war. Yes, even most of the things that you call the liberation supporters wrong on.

I have read many of the links, and could also call that propoganda, but calling everything propoganda, taranaki, is the real cop-out. You can call whatever you want propoganda even if it is true. Propoganda can be the truth, just some of it can be withheld. This, again, works both ways.

Those of us who believe that Saddam supplies weapons to terrorists and is a threat to US, UK and world security are left to think that this war is to put an end to that. Why haven't we intervened with other dictatorships around the world? What's to say we aren't going to? Why would you fight a war on three fronts? We have a history with Iraq. We have fought a war over there before and know what it's like. We have a knowledge of the environment and the structure of towns. By attacking Iraq, we are setting an example for all other countries with dictators and those that harbor terrorists. Will it take another war in a country that has no oil to make you think that it isn't about that? Or will you just blame it on whatever natural resource they have an abundance of? I don't like war, just like the majority of everyone, and I also don't think it's our job to police the world, but I guess that's the name they call us when we actually stand up for something.

What are you going to say it's about if we go to war with N. Korea for pulling the same blackmail bullshit every decade to get foreign aid?

Except that the United States won't go to war with North Korea because:

1. It has no Oil
2. It has a standing army of over a million (well trained, equipped, and disciplined) soldiers.
3. In all likelihood N.Korea now has nuclear weapons, and the rockets to deliver them....that changes things, massively.

Whats the moral? If you want WoMD, do it quickly and quietly. Then you will get diplomatic negotiations instead of military action. The whole premise of stopping the spread of WoMD is simply not enforceable all over the world.

Which brings us to Iraq.

Iraq is weak (perhaps not as weak as military planners thought though) and the rewards are lucrative. No one in the west gave a damn about the Kurds, or cared about how evil Saddam is (he is evil, that is beyond doubt) until Sept 11. Osama cannot be found, therefore it seems like a very good time to take out some aggression. Nevermind that Osama labelled Saddam an "infidel", and despite desparate CIA attempts, no link between the two has been found.

Which goes to show you how little they understand. Qatar excepted, Iraq is (or was) the most "western" arab regime there is....many strict muslim rules that the Taliban stick to vehemently are dispensed with in Iraq....as an example women can wear whatever they want, rise to whatever rank they can in any organisation. This is why the United States supported Iraq in the first place, also why Osama hates Saddam, and why it is futile to try and establish a link between the two.

Please note that I am not trying to justify Saddams regime or quality of life in Iraq, Im just trying to say why Osama does not Like Saddam.

Yes Iraq has been behind some terrorist attacks in Israel...but guess what, so have most Arab countries. Many of these attacks were carried at a time when the US actually supported these regimes (Iraq in the 80's).


Here's something else....does it bother anyone else that Arab's are always portrayed in western news coverage as crazy fundamentalists waving AK's in the air? Never shown as "real" people like us?

There was a doco in NZ the other day which made me think about this...the reporter was interviewing a young Iraqi at a LAN perty....they were playing counterstrike and such.....and I was like "WTF, I do that! Do they even have computers over there???!!??"

The answer is of course they do, we just never see it. :(


I can't remember what my point is now, I just wanted to get this stuff off my chest :)

Originally posted by MattyG

...

Here's something else....does it bother anyone else that Arab's are always portrayed in western news coverage as crazy fundamentalists waving AK's in the air? Never shown as "real" people like us?

...


I see Iraqi streetlife on my western news coverage all the time. It's just hard not to see those AK bearing fundamentalists if Saddam is planting them amongst civilians to use as human sheilds.

Prelewd and MattyG - great posts, I really enjoyed reading them - thanks.

One of the things that concerns increasingly more people (as I've discovered through reading opinions on various forums), is a pattern of US withdrawal and/or defiance of international multi-lateral organisations which have occurred since GW Bush came to power.e.g. WTO, Kyoto Protocol, ABM Treaty, and most recently the UN.

Yet at the same time as multi-lateral co-operation is declining, The Bush administration is increasing military activity followed by the establishment and maintainence of large military installations in distant parts of the world.

As the US increasingly assumes the role of international policing, it seems incongruous that the Bush administration is at the same time opting for more unilateral decision making on international matters.

In particular, two documents have come to the fore that outline the direction the US is taking with regard to foreign policy and long term military strategy. One is the PAX Americana or "PANC" report which was produced for the current administration before they were elected and later led to another document called "Rebuilding America's Defences:Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" . The other is the "National Security Strategy" which the Bush administration uses to describe their planned approach to defending the US.

Below is a link to an analysis on a Russian site drawing links between these two documents, the current situation in Iraq and the major players in the Bush administration - along with a link to another site on the same topic. Call it propaganda or a conspiracy theory if you like, agree or disagree as you will. Whatever you choose to believe about these documents and their intentions, several people and governments around the world view this stuff very suspiciously - and at the very least you might begin to understand a little more about the reservations much of the world has about US overseas intervention and foreign policy. These links provide more than enough information for us to make good use of the search engines on the internet.

Here's the links:
The President's Real Goal in Iraq (http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1071&sesid=2)
It is Pax Americana, stupid! (http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/29arvind.htm)

BTW, I'm not in the habit of reading Russian Press etc. before someone calls me a commy or something - I visit this site daily because I believe the daily intel reports on the war are the most accurate I have found

This one shows promise as well, not so much for or against as a commentary on the attitudes to the idea.

Pax Americana - The Case for an American Empire (http://www.sclos.org/research/paxamericana.html)

Some interesting thoughts there.I've argued before on the strategic reasons for establishing a U.S. military stronghold in Iraq,as the war unfolds it is becoming increasingly obvious that the reasons given by the White House for this war are not ,and have never been,plausible.

The actions that have been taken in Iraq mirror those of Britain in the late 1800's and early 20th century.Paint the leaders of another nation as savages,blunder in and install your version of peace and christianity at the point of a gun,milk the country of its resources and use it as a forward staging post for the next mission.Thus was built the British Empire.

We are now moving into the era of the American Empire.Little has changed in the methodology or the self-righteous propaganda used to justify it,only the scale has changed.America is far bigger than Britain was a hundred years ago.It is a much bigger consumer,requiring far greater amoutns of resources to fuel the American Dream.And of course,it has much bigger and nastier weapons with which to enforce its 'gunboat diplomacy'.

The mission for Iraq is simple.

1/take Iraq from Saddam.
2/ensure that the next leader of Iraq is a leader in name only.
3/Use Iraq as a staging point for troops and missiles.

Bush has already threatened Syria for allegedly supplying hardware to Iraq.Don't be surprised if suddenly he decides that there are large numbers of terrorists hiding there that need to be removed'for the good of the world'.

This means that multiple companies were not allowed to tender for the contract, merely a company was"selected" (in this case a company formerly run by Dick Cheney). In normal order of business, this would be seen as anti-competitive, and a normal company could be prosecuted for doing as such.



Actually they have been formally requested by the White House to step aside.
IMO regardless of Vice President Cheney's FORMER relationship with Halliburton. So this argument doesn't even have merit anyfurther

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i




Actually they have been formally requested by the White House to step aside.
IMO regardless of Vice President Cheney's FORMER relationship with Halliburton. So this argument doesn't even have merit anyfurther

Just to clarify, you mean Halliburton doesn't have the bid anymore?