[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Drew


no, thats good business practices right there. were talking an unskilled labor force that can live off less, making stuff to sell to those , overtaxed americans who are used to buying stuff at that price anyway.  The 75 dollars like company makes goes to paying for their expenses company wide, so americans can keep getting their ****.  getting rid of the sanctions would improve the situation of the chinese worker,  because american companies would have to reduce their price for their shirt cuz of competetive pressures, and chinese workers would be gettin less ripped off so to speak.  saying the chinese workers are getting ripped off is just stupid, thats the way its worked for centuries,  make **** at low price and sell it high as you can, and what your saying is that chinese industry should shoot itself in the foot because its trying to make money

Crikey.  Calm down and try punctuation for a sec, eh?

Presumably by the same extent it's perfectly fine to pay 12 year olds in Pakistan a pound a day to stitch footballs?

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Drew


i dunno where you got that idea, but i was just responding to a statment that was already random and off the wall and didnt really have anything to do with the thread topic.

If you bothered to try to comprehend my post, you''d see that it was on topic and replying to another post.

That, and aldo makes a good point.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I can't help but wonder why a President is rewarded for starting a war with a fairly decrepit, non-threatening country with another 4 years.....

Mind you, so was Tony Blair (66 seat majority with 36% of the vote - WTF!?), so us British voters aren't much brighter either....

Don't be so quick to think that Saddam was a two bit dictator. Considering his actions in the past and the fact that he was sitting on emense oil reserves which would give him emense amounts of cash. That cash could plausibly finance a build up in his forces.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Don't be so quick to think that Saddam was a two bit dictator. Considering his actions in the past and the fact that he was sitting on emense oil reserves which would give him emense amounts of cash. That cash could plausibly finance a build up in his forces.

If it wasn't for sanctions.  

Both Hans Blix, the war, and the subsequent failure to find WMD have shown sanctions had been effective - despite abuse for financial gain - in preventing Iraq having WMD or a 'threatening' military.

Saddam may have been a threat in the past, but there was no way in hell he was a threat after the 1991 Gulf War, and certainly not in a way that required war.

[Grug]

I find it amusing that people fell for the same propaganda as in WW2.

Generally speaking, Fear.

In WW2, most fighting countries used fear. For example the American government supposedly allowed Pearl Harbour to happen to gain the support of its people. Plus if you look at of the propaganda posters and radio telecasts back then it was all about fear of the German and Japanese Empire.

Compare it to today. 9/11 presented an oppertunity to the American Government. It motivated the Weapons of Mass Destruction story, which was used to generate fear to gain the support of the people. A great deal of the governments speeches concerning WMD was all about fear of Terrorists.

For the most part each major media broadcast in each country is usually influenced in some part by the government. Each has a varying degree of influence but its usually always there in some form or another.

China is fighting a silent war IMO. Why go to war when you can conquer a nation with economics.

Trade tarrifs etc are quite common in the world. I don't really see the big deal about this one either. It makes perfect sense that America should want to at least slow its debt increase with China. It's one of the more intelligent things I've seen the US administration do in a long time.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


If it wasn't for sanctions.  

Both Hans Blix, the war, and the subsequent failure to find WMD have shown sanctions had been effective - despite abuse for financial gain - in preventing Iraq having WMD or a 'threatening' military.

Saddam may have been a threat in the past, but there was no way in hell he was a threat after the 1991 Gulf War, and certainly not in a way that required war.

I am speaking in the long run. Eventually countries like France, Russia and Germany would have pushed for the sanctions to be lifted.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
I am speaking in the long run. Eventually countries like France, Russia and Germany would have pushed for the sanctions to be lifted.

Or Saddam might have been ousted in a coup.  You can't declare a justifiable casus belli based upon one thing that might happen in the future.  Even if all 3 pushed for sanctions to be lifted (and didn't Rumsfeld also push for sanctions to be lifted during the Clinton years?  Clearly didn't regard it as that much of a threat), the US could probably veto it in the Security Council.  It's also IMO highly unlikely they would have pushed for the removal of sanctions given the political reaction it would have generated.

Every nation is a potential threat in the long run, if you make the necessary assumptions and guesses.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Or Saddam might have been ousted in a coup.  You can't declare a justifiable casus belli based upon one thing that might happen in the future.  Even if all 3 pushed for sanctions to be lifted (and didn't Rumsfeld also push for sanctions to be lifted during the Clinton years?  Clearly didn't regard it as that much of a threat), the US could probably veto it in the Security Council.  It's also IMO highly unlikely they would have pushed for the removal of sanctions given the political reaction it would have generated.

Every nation is a potential threat in the long run, if you make the necessary assumptions and guesses.

On the subject of a coup, I doubt there would have been one since the last time there was one attempted we removed our support at the last minute. ****ing Clinton.

The US vetoing a UN resolution to remove sanctions would entirely depend on the administration in power.

But, the point I was trying to make is that he should not be discounted as a 2 bit dictator.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
On the subject of a coup, I doubt there would have been one since the last time there was one attempted we removed our support at the last minute. ****ing Clinton.

The US vetoing a UN resolution to remove sanctions would entirely depend on the administration in power.

But, the point I was trying to make is that he should not be discounted as a 2 bit dictator.

Why?  

Maybe not in the 80s, but in the 90s and 2000s he was definately a 2-bit dictator.  Doesn't mean he wasn't a bastard, but in terms of actually posing an immenent threat..... there was none.  IMO Saddam was about as dangerous to the US as Zimbabwe or Uzbekhistan.

You cannot justify a war on the basis of an immenent threat, when that threat is based on solely what might happen, if the right conditions occured.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Why?  

Maybe not in the 80s, but in the 90s and 2000s he was definately a 2-bit dictator.  Doesn't mean he wasn't a bastard, but in terms of actually posing an immenent threat..... there was none.  IMO Saddam was about as dangerous to the US as Zimbabwe or Uzbekhistan.

You cannot justify a war on the basis of an immenent threat, when that threat is based on solely what might happen, if the right conditions occured.

I am not using that to justify the war. However, with oil reserves in the middle east  dwindling I would see the sanctions lifted and the amount of money flowing into his control would be huge and dangerous, I do see something having to be done. This is based on what he had done in the past as well.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
I am not using that to justify the war. However, with oil reserves in the middle east  dwindling I would see the sanctions lifted and the amount of money flowing into his control would be huge and dangerous, I do see something having to be done. This is based on what he had done in the past as well.

That's a bloody big assumption to go to war on.  I would have thought it'd make more sense to agressively campaign to expand the oil-for-food program and in doing so add in more safeguards against the firms & individuals (which included US as well as European, etc ) abusing it.

Certainly I doubt there would be, in any case, any form of viable cause for war until it was proven that rearmament was taking place.

Otherwise it would be fair justification to attack any country which had or discovered significant natural resources, on the basis that the money might be used to build a large military, which might be used aggressively, if the wrong person was in charge at that time.

In the period of 1991-2003, i don't think Saddam posed any form of military threat to the United States, or even to his neighbours.  Whether or not he may have posed a threat in 2010 is irrelevant; you don't convict people for crimes they could commit.

[Rictor]

Iraq borders Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, all of which have militaries far inferior to America's. And yet, somehow, none of these countries were afrad of Saddam and his thousands upon thousands of nukes. None of them particularly liked Saddam, with the possibe exception of Syria, but none were afraid of him. And yet, the United States, supposedly the world's strongest military and half a world away, was.

Venezuela buys 100,000 AKs to replace their 40-year old weaponry, and suddenly it's the end of the world. Really tells you something about the atmosphere or fear and paranoia which is pervasive in the US.

The risk of Country A being attacked by the US, where Country A is any country on Earth excluding the major military powers, is far greater than the opposite.

[Bobboau]

the only reason we went to war in Iraq was because it was an easy sell to US citizens.

that's it.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


That's a bloody big assumption to go to war on.  I would have thought it'd make more sense to agressively campaign to expand the oil-for-food program and in doing so add in more safeguards against the firms & individuals (which included US as well as European, etc ) abusing it.

Certainly I doubt there would be, in any case, any form of viable cause for war until it was proven that rearmament was taking place.

Otherwise it would be fair justification to attack any country which had or discovered significant natural resources, on the basis that the money might be used to build a large military, which might be used aggressively, if the wrong person was in charge at that time.

In the period of 1991-2003, i don't think Saddam posed any form of military threat to the United States, or even to his neighbours.  Whether or not he may have posed a threat in 2010 is irrelevant; you don't convict people for crimes they could commit.

The difference between him and other 2 bit dictators was the proven propensity to invade others for reasons of greed. As for the oil for food, do we actually have any proof that this money was actually spent on food? Was it distributed evenly? Was the money from oil for food just horded in Saddam's coffers? Is it being used now to fund the insurgency in Iraq? Put simply you can install safegaurds, but as long as people wish to line their own pockets, there would always have been some sort of corruption either by saddam or UN officials or their friends and relatives.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
The difference between him and other 2 bit dictators was the proven propensity to invade others. As for the oil for food, do we actually have any proof that this money was actually spent on food? Was it distributed evenly? Was the money from oil for food just horded in Saddam's coffers? Is it being used now to fund the insurgency in Iraq? Put simply you can install safegaurds, but as long as people wish to line their own pockets, there would always have been some sort of corruption either by saddam or UN officials or their friends and relatives.

Actually, I already pointed out that I'd expect any drive to expand oil-for-food would of course require further safeguards (althought I wonder if the US would do so, as 4 US oil companies were implicated in the scandal).

The success of oil-for-food is debated, partly because discrediting it is a useful way to justify the invasion of Iraq and is also useful in attacking political opponents within the UN or nations oppossed to the war.  

The US & UK (in 2001) partly helped in this by bankrupting the programme; using their influence (within the comitte running the programme) in order to setup a system where oil buyers had commit to buy oil without knowing the price beforehand (causing a collapse in oil sales).  At the same time no-one - including the US - acted to police the well-known Iraq-Jordan smuggling route.

Despite corruption and abuse (it was estimated by the GAO that Iraq made $5.7bn through smuggling in 1997-2001), the programme did have a humanitarian impact; upon its former termination in 11/03, it had delivered $31bn humanitarian aid - between 97 & 2002 the nutritional value of the food basket delivered almost doubled from 1,200 to 2,200 calories per day per person, communicatable diseases (malaria, cholera) were reduced , electricity become more reliable, and more drinkable water was available.

As for Saddams propsensity to invade others; he didn't have the military capability to do so.  The situation as it was all through the last and this decade, was that he was unable to gain arms to even be capable of invading another country.  And even if he had wished to, he would have been in no doubt of the response from the US and allies (in a far more coherant, legal way than what transpired).

I would note that Iraqs war against Iran was supported directly by the US; as well as providing weapons & satellite images, they also allowed Iraqi oil tankers to fly the US flag (and thus they would be protected from Iranian attack).  The later invasion of Kuwait was partly due to an $14bn debt owed to that country (as well as nationalist ambitions - Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created the state), and Iraq was not aware the US would oppose it (they were told George W Bush would veto any sanctions congress set against Iraq, and that the US position was that they had 'no stance').  

Clearly, the political situation was far less amenable for the Iraqis after the 1991 Gulf War; whilst their prior wars were waged with either tacit approval, or the anticipation of disinterest (Kuwait invasion), Saddam would now know that any aggressive invasion would result in a military response.  Having been utterly decimated in 91, I doubt Saddam would have wished to risk it again - he's a tyrant, but not suicidal.  IMO the only war Saddam could have contemplated without fear of the US would be against Iran.

[Swamp_Thing]

If we look closely at the timeline, and the weeks leading to Iraq´s invasion of Iran, it becomes clear Saddam did so with 2 objectives in mind:
To secure the large iranian oil sources was one.
To secure and legitimize his own govt. was the other. Saddam declared war on Iran at the US´s behalf. The rise of the Ayatollahs had Washington spooked, wich is why several diplomatic missions were conducted by the US, to secure support from Saddam in overthrowing the iranian regime. Who doesn´t remember the infamous hand shake of Rummsfeld and Saddam?
Or the fact that the US blocked any efforts from the international community to condemn the supposed chemical attack on the kurds. The US wanted Saddam to thrive.
The war with Iran was not an attempt on territorial conquest, far from it. Saddam did it because he would be rewarded by the US aknowledging his rule over Iraq. The oil was a bonus that he needed just as bad, but that he would not cmpromise his rule unless he knew he had his back covered.
As for the Kuwait invasion, we can reason that Kuwait was part of Iraq. And after a decade of war, Iraq was bankrupt, and he was left out to dry by his former buddies in the White House.

The point being, that neither of those 2 wars were a direct consequence of Saddam´s desire for conquest. He was a tyrant yes. He was ruthless, yes. But stupid he was not, nor was he a power hungry madman waging war left and right. I seriously doubt he would have lift a finger against anyone, after the Gulf War.

[redmenace]

As per the US actions during the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with them except to say that we were still in the cold war mentality(meaning we were helping him incase the communists became more active in the Middle east)

But, basically I am saying that because of his propensity to invade others, and if sanctions were ever lifted (which would depend on the administration; think Jimmy Carter) he would be dangerous. And it is this that I come to the conclusion that he is not just a 2-bit dictator. That doesn't mean going to war with him though. But, when we invade he posed absolutly no threat to anyone except those in his own country.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
As per the US actions during the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with them except to say that we were still in the cold war mentality(meaning we were helping him incase the communists became more active in the Middle east)

But, basically I am saying that because of his propensity to invade others, and if sanctions were ever lifted (which would depend on the administration; think Jimmy Carter) he would be dangerous. And it is this that I come to the conclusion that he is not just a 2-bit dictator. That doesn't mean going to war with him though. But, when we invade he posed absolutly no threat to anyone except those in his own country.

I would define a 2-bit dictator as one who, as well as the usual trappings of dictatorship, may have empirical/expansionist aims but which crucially which he is unable to act upon.  By that context, I would define Saddam as a 2-bit dictator.  

Whether he would or would not seek an aggressive rebuilding and militaristic expansion of Iraq, if given the chance, is neither here nor there, as these are based on possibilities and scenarios which are inherently unpredictable.  Were Saddam to begin to do so (although this of course is now impossible), then I'd no longer 'rank' him as a 2-bit dictator.

EDIT; 2-bit with respect to international context.  There are a lot of completely and utterly nuts dictators who destroyed their whole country, but in terms of threat to the outside would be seen as '2-bit'.

[Kosh]

None of them particularly liked Saddam, with the possibe exception of Syria,

Syria didn't like him either. The Ba'ath party in Syria and that Ba'ath party in Iraq have had a feud going for many, many years.

2-bit with respect to international context. There are a lot of completely and utterly nuts dictators who destroyed their whole country, but in terms of threat to the outside would be seen as '2-bit'.

So does that make Bush a 64 bit semi-dictator?