Obama Intent on Keeping His Word - Again (125)
gypsykisses: Whatever happens is going to happen. TTom listens to way too much Rush Limbaugh and whoever else is an extremist. I, for one, do not rely on American media. We live in a terrific age where we can investigate to our heart's content-and find the answers by sifting through all the crap.
Good debate Tamsrin and fellas... it shows the differences through age and location. I am done on the subject after this post. Remember Tam, you can hate your dad, but love your brothers and sisters. I appreciate ALL of the soldiers who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will always give them a heartfelt thank you for serving their respective countries. I will never ever agree with the war. We could have done other things in answer to the threat of weapons. I hold a prayer for them in my heart. As well as for the civilians who are trying to do the right thing within so much turmoil. OH fun fact! Did anyone know that at one time, Saddam Hussien was given the key to Detroit.
Good debate Tamsrin and fellas... it shows the differences through age and location. I am done on the subject after this post. Remember Tam, you can hate your dad, but love your brothers and sisters. I appreciate ALL of the soldiers who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will always give them a heartfelt thank you for serving their respective countries. I will never ever agree with the war. We could have done other things in answer to the threat of weapons. I hold a prayer for them in my heart. As well as for the civilians who are trying to do the right thing within so much turmoil. OH fun fact! Did anyone know that at one time, Saddam Hussien was given the key to Detroit.
I think that actually turning on the radio or TV to listen to Rush, I have done less than a dozen times in my life. Sure if he is doing a interview in the middle of a news show....I hear it. But Rush is not my daily dial up of radio or TV.
Gypsykisses...a semi serious question. If you 'love all the soliders' in Iraq and Afghanistan.....then why not enjoy their victory in Iraq? Why not celebrate that as well? Because it is just that.
Afghanistan said today....that foreign fighters from Iraq are flooding into Afghanistan presently. Were did they come from?
One look at a map and it is pretty easy to tell. They were forced out of Iraq....rested and reformed in Iran for a time....and now headed to Afghanistan to fight there. They were beaten in Iraq, Gypsy. Pure and simple.
In every military engagement known to man.....is that the force left on the field....is the winner. Today, Iraq is a win. We are there and they are not (or not there in a significant force). Pure and simple. After the US withdrawal, will these foreign fighters now in Afghanistan return to Iraq? I don't know....but my thinking is it a real possibility.
As for Sadam being given the key to Detroit. I had heard of this as well. Also know that the likelyhood that the Mayor and Council to give it to him....are likely DEMs. But Rumsfield shook his hand. European companies supported him. The UN did the OIL for Food/Weapons program to him. There was even a retired US military officer that build his Super gun that was pointed at
Israel in the first Gulf War.
Sadam had contacts with everyone. Those that think he did not have Islamic terrorism contacts, when he has extensive contacts in the west.....mis read the man. He positioned himself to play both sides of the street.
These American that fought in Iraq, Gypies they won. On the Service battle flags on the day of President Obama oath...the Battle of Baghdad, the two Battle of Falluga, and other Iraqi
battles...were on their Service flags as victory steamers.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ttom500: I think that actually turning on the radio or TV to listen to Rush, I have done less than a dozen times in my life. Sure if he is doing a interview in the middle of a news show....I hear it. But Rush is not my daily dial up of radio or TV.
Gypsykisses...a semi serious question. If you 'love all the soliders' in Iraq and Afghanistan.....then why not enjoy their victory in Iraq? Why not celebrate that as well? Because it is just that.
Afghanistan said today....that foreign fighters from Iraq are flooding into Afghanistan presently. Were did they come from?
One look at a map and it is pretty easy to tell. They were forced out of Iraq....rested and reformed in Iran for a time....and now headed to Afghanistan to fight there. They were beaten in Iraq, Gypsy. Pure and simple.
In every military engagement known to man.....is that the force left on the field....is the winner. Today, Iraq is a win. We are there and they are not (or not there in a significant force). Pure and simple. After the US withdrawal, will these foreign fighters now in Afghanistan return to Iraq? I don't know....but my thinking is it a real possibility.
As for Sadam being given the key to Detroit. I had heard of this as well. Also know that the likelyhood that the Mayor and Council to give it to him....are likely DEMs. But Rumsfield shook his hand. European companies supported him. The UN did the OIL for Food/Weapons program to him. There was even a retired US military officer that build his Super gun that was pointed at
Israel in the first Gulf War.
Sadam had contacts with everyone. Those that think he did not have Islamic terrorism contacts, when he has extensive contacts in the west.....mis read the man. He positioned himself to play both sides of the street.
These American that fought in Iraq, Gypies they won. On the Service battle flags on the day of President Obama oath...the Battle of Baghdad, the two Battle of Falluga, and other Iraqi
battles...were on their Service flags as victory steamers.
Gypsykisses...a semi serious question. If you 'love all the soliders' in Iraq and Afghanistan.....then why not enjoy their victory in Iraq? Why not celebrate that as well? Because it is just that.
Afghanistan said today....that foreign fighters from Iraq are flooding into Afghanistan presently. Were did they come from?
One look at a map and it is pretty easy to tell. They were forced out of Iraq....rested and reformed in Iran for a time....and now headed to Afghanistan to fight there. They were beaten in Iraq, Gypsy. Pure and simple.
In every military engagement known to man.....is that the force left on the field....is the winner. Today, Iraq is a win. We are there and they are not (or not there in a significant force). Pure and simple. After the US withdrawal, will these foreign fighters now in Afghanistan return to Iraq? I don't know....but my thinking is it a real possibility.
As for Sadam being given the key to Detroit. I had heard of this as well. Also know that the likelyhood that the Mayor and Council to give it to him....are likely DEMs. But Rumsfield shook his hand. European companies supported him. The UN did the OIL for Food/Weapons program to him. There was even a retired US military officer that build his Super gun that was pointed at
Israel in the first Gulf War.
Sadam had contacts with everyone. Those that think he did not have Islamic terrorism contacts, when he has extensive contacts in the west.....mis read the man. He positioned himself to play both sides of the street.
These American that fought in Iraq, Gypies they won. On the Service battle flags on the day of President Obama oath...the Battle of Baghdad, the two Battle of Falluga, and other Iraqi
battles...were on their Service flags as victory steamers.
So basically what your suggesting is a permanent presence in Iraq as a deterrent to those fighters returning? IN OTHER WORDS, permanent occupation of the central country in the middle east. Right in line with the Wolfowitz doctrine...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Gypsy
As in Germany and Japan or did you have an actual precedent of your own in mind?
Gypsy
No. I agree with you it would not be viable to occupy the Middle East for good.
Gypsy
That was but one of the reasons given. The others were to prosecute the War on Terror and conduct the official policy of the US towards Iraq since the Clinton era which was regime change.
Gypsy
Glad you see it the same as I do. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are cornerstones of democracy, loving the USA is not a prerequisite of freedom, it is ho hum Parisian radicalism.
LucasAus
1. None of them were adjacent to Saudi Arabia and thus, any deployment of US troops would not facilitate pressure on the regime to crack down on Qutbists who enjoyed fifty percent active and passive support within the Kingdom.
2. None of them were slated by Congress for regime change as policy of the US.
3. None of them were in violation of the ceasefire terms as described in UNSC resolutions 660 – 1441.
4. None of them had the ability or resources to rebuild themselves once regime change occurred.
5. None of them had a leader who was a regional threat.
6. Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror who’s position is more precarious as the royal Family of Saudi Arabia was hence, will more than likely be the last action taken in the war on Terror.
In response to: All of it. When you "force" a country to do something-inevitably it will revert back to what it was before.
As in Germany and Japan or did you have an actual precedent of your own in mind?
Gypsy
In response to: Are you suggesting that we occupy the middle east for good? That's insane in my opinion.
No. I agree with you it would not be viable to occupy the Middle East for good.
Gypsy
In response to: We went there for wmd--that was the excuse.
That was but one of the reasons given. The others were to prosecute the War on Terror and conduct the official policy of the US towards Iraq since the Clinton era which was regime change.
Gypsy
In response to: Answer one question for me---if they are in such democratic control, why were they burning President Obama's pictures and our flag???
Glad you see it the same as I do. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are cornerstones of democracy, loving the USA is not a prerequisite of freedom, it is ho hum Parisian radicalism.
LucasAus
In response to: So whats the excuse for ignoring Zimbabe, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Tibet, Pakistan and Tasmania Where most, if not all of the above happen to occur almost daily. Or do these countries not warrant a knee jerk reaction to a right wing populace howling for blood?
1. None of them were adjacent to Saudi Arabia and thus, any deployment of US troops would not facilitate pressure on the regime to crack down on Qutbists who enjoyed fifty percent active and passive support within the Kingdom.
2. None of them were slated by Congress for regime change as policy of the US.
3. None of them were in violation of the ceasefire terms as described in UNSC resolutions 660 – 1441.
4. None of them had the ability or resources to rebuild themselves once regime change occurred.
5. None of them had a leader who was a regional threat.
6. Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror who’s position is more precarious as the royal Family of Saudi Arabia was hence, will more than likely be the last action taken in the war on Terror.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Oh right...like the defense of freedom in Nicaragua, El Salvator, Chile, Viet Nam and so on you mean?
Something like 50 plus 'interventions' for 'freedom' by the US in the last few decades?
Nice way to diffuse 'freedom', blast a country to shreds and then go in and make millions 're-building' your concept of freedom.......
Something like 50 plus 'interventions' for 'freedom' by the US in the last few decades?
Nice way to diffuse 'freedom', blast a country to shreds and then go in and make millions 're-building' your concept of freedom.......
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ray
Iraqis desire to be free to decide their own fate unlike what Saddam offered. To pull out too soon and allow forces which can upset the fragile democracy may return it to what it was or worse, therefore, it is only too late when we are unable to do anything about that threat.
Ray
Yes, I wish he was more forceful too. The pandering to the left by utilizing too few forces to secure the country allowed Qutbists and factionalized entities to congeal and attempt to take power rather than allow the people to simply decide themselves in peace.
Ray
You’re not sure about occupying the entire world? Interesting that you yourself are not sure while everybody else including Bush were only fixated on Iraq.
Ray
The troofer is out there.
Ray
And Obama is in on it as they, the all powerful Globalists allowed him to.
Ray
Good thing he’s not in charge.
In response to: It's a little late to worry about "for Iraq's sake".
Iraqis desire to be free to decide their own fate unlike what Saddam offered. To pull out too soon and allow forces which can upset the fragile democracy may return it to what it was or worse, therefore, it is only too late when we are unable to do anything about that threat.
Ray
In response to: "For Iraq's sake" the last president should have known what HE was doing.
Yes, I wish he was more forceful too. The pandering to the left by utilizing too few forces to secure the country allowed Qutbists and factionalized entities to congeal and attempt to take power rather than allow the people to simply decide themselves in peace.
Ray
In response to: But all good things come to an end, even profitable wars.[/ quote]
I think ray. That if you believe that the suffering by Iraq prior or after this conflict is ‘good’ rather than something terrible to endure that you need some serious help.
Ray It's just not possible for a country that's entirely broke and utterly dysfunctional to occupy the entire world.
I'm not even sure it's really such a good idea.
I think ray. That if you believe that the suffering by Iraq prior or after this conflict is ‘good’ rather than something terrible to endure that you need some serious help.
Ray It's just not possible for a country that's entirely broke and utterly dysfunctional to occupy the entire world.
I'm not even sure it's really such a good idea.
You’re not sure about occupying the entire world? Interesting that you yourself are not sure while everybody else including Bush were only fixated on Iraq.
Ray
In response to: It'll be easier once World Government takes over and runs the whole world from Brussels or whatever.
The troofer is out there.
Ray
In response to: One big happy family with Big Brother watching over everybody's shoulder.
That's the goal of the whole puppet show anyway.
It's why the US military has been overextended to the point of failure.
It's why the dollar has been scuttled.
It's why the entire world economy is crashing.
People have to welcome globalist domination when it comes.
That's the goal of the whole puppet show anyway.
It's why the US military has been overextended to the point of failure.
It's why the dollar has been scuttled.
It's why the entire world economy is crashing.
People have to welcome globalist domination when it comes.
And Obama is in on it as they, the all powerful Globalists allowed him to.
Ray
In response to: Dr. Henry Kissinger Speaking at Evian, France, May 21st, 1992, Bilderbergers meeting; (secretly taped by a Swiss delegate)
Good thing he’s not in charge.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gozoman2
Thought you and I already agreed that communism was a threat to freedom? If not then tell us all about how communism is considered freedom by yourself please.
gozoman2
How many of those had communist entities involved and, while we are doing numbers how many has the USSR, China and their proxies been involved in?
gozoman2
Saddam didn't give himself up but, rather mobilized his entire forces to stop the US so, they had to use force to take him out of power and, to enact the will of the UNSC. Freedom was of the side benefits rather than main reasons for the action in Iraq. Once the official policy of the US and the mandate of the UN had been carried out something had to be done with the 25 million people of Iraq so, best to allow them to decide for themselves what they wanted to do hence, a constitution and to elect the leaders of whatever party they wished so they could carry one.
In any case, the tyrant
In response to: Oh right...like the defense of freedom in Nicaragua, El Salvator, Chile, Viet Nam and so on you mean?
Thought you and I already agreed that communism was a threat to freedom? If not then tell us all about how communism is considered freedom by yourself please.
gozoman2
In response to: Something like 50 plus 'interventions' for 'freedom' by the US in the last few decades?
How many of those had communist entities involved and, while we are doing numbers how many has the USSR, China and their proxies been involved in?
gozoman2
In response to: Nice way to diffuse 'freedom', blast a country to shreds and then go in and make millions 're-building' your concept of freedom.......
Saddam didn't give himself up but, rather mobilized his entire forces to stop the US so, they had to use force to take him out of power and, to enact the will of the UNSC. Freedom was of the side benefits rather than main reasons for the action in Iraq. Once the official policy of the US and the mandate of the UN had been carried out something had to be done with the 25 million people of Iraq so, best to allow them to decide for themselves what they wanted to do hence, a constitution and to elect the leaders of whatever party they wished so they could carry one.
In any case, the tyrant
------ This thread is Archived ------
Or one could call it propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians - destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
With the use of unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction Al Qaeda came to Iraq by "invitation" of the Bush´s "politics", by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq.
Bush created the war on terror for a (long list) purpose - more war and more terror - The US has set a very bad examples to any country - They challenged and provoked Al Qaeda - one only needs to remember his very crazy and stupid speaches. There is a possibility that the Bush´s and his interest partners are direct responsible for the Bin Laden confrontation and 9/11 attacks - his outrages policies, profit at all costs with fear and war mongers.
President Bush’s last words where even more stupid - as he left office with the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists, but perhaps it´s him they want?
With the use of unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction Al Qaeda came to Iraq by "invitation" of the Bush´s "politics", by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq.
Bush created the war on terror for a (long list) purpose - more war and more terror - The US has set a very bad examples to any country - They challenged and provoked Al Qaeda - one only needs to remember his very crazy and stupid speaches. There is a possibility that the Bush´s and his interest partners are direct responsible for the Bin Laden confrontation and 9/11 attacks - his outrages policies, profit at all costs with fear and war mongers.
President Bush’s last words where even more stupid - as he left office with the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists, but perhaps it´s him they want?
------ This thread is Archived ------
don't think he's going to be very popular with the military,if he thinks that he's smarter than the Chiefs of Staff. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
gozoman2: BBC NEWS
Obama unveils executive pay cap
US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (£355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.
The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.
President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.
He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".
'Justify expenses'
In addition to the limit on basic pay, Mr Obama said if affected executives receive any further bonuses, they "will come in the form of stock that can't be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance".
Firms will also have to publicly disclose "all the perks and luxuries bestowed upon senior executives, and provide an explanation to taxpayers and to shareholders as to why these expenses are justified".
"We're asking these firms to take responsibility, to recognize the nature of this crisis and their role in it," said the president.
Analysts said the plan could raise the likelihood of senior executives moving from firms who need government aid to those that don't.
"There is certainly a possibility of talent flight from the big firms to the smaller investment banks," said Lauren Smith, analyst at Keefe,
© BBC MMIX
Print Sponsor
AdvertisementHIP HIP.....
Obama unveils executive pay cap
US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (£355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.
The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.
President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.
He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".
'Justify expenses'
In addition to the limit on basic pay, Mr Obama said if affected executives receive any further bonuses, they "will come in the form of stock that can't be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance".
Firms will also have to publicly disclose "all the perks and luxuries bestowed upon senior executives, and provide an explanation to taxpayers and to shareholders as to why these expenses are justified".
"We're asking these firms to take responsibility, to recognize the nature of this crisis and their role in it," said the president.
Analysts said the plan could raise the likelihood of senior executives moving from firms who need government aid to those that don't.
"There is certainly a possibility of talent flight from the big firms to the smaller investment banks," said Lauren Smith, analyst at Keefe,
© BBC MMIX
Print Sponsor
AdvertisementHIP HIP.....
And if a Senior executive at one of these firms, came to them with a multi $1b revenues business project. Shows them how to do it. Shows them where the markets are. Shows them where the companies assets are to do this project. Should he also be limited to a $500,000 pay level, when he is making the company billions? Making jobs in the economy...doing his own economic stimulation for country.
Or do we reward his talents and commitments to the firms success ...by saying to him....here is your financial reward the same as others in the firm because it has been mandated by Washginton?
A star athlete goes to the market place (after college)....and gets $100 million of dollars for throwing a football, hitting a baseball, making a dunk. Yet a star in failing business has to take the hit with the firm? When he has part of the answer to save the firm?
Where is the motivation to the star in this failing business...to excell? To achieve? Why not just sit there...draw your %500k for 20 years and retire? Why go above and beyond?
College employment conselors now saying to college grads....don't go into business. Rather choose a gov't career, because under the Obama and DEM plan....it is going to be BIG GOV'T. So how many Gates, Jobs, and Wangs will end up in the gov't sector to this new Big Gov't we have? How much of our youth's creativity will end up...sitting in a Gov't office complex unseen and unrecognized?
Think that the bailout plan is not making a BIG GOV'T? Some are saying that only 25% of this $900b bailout is to stimulate the economy. The rest...the 75%....is being used as pork and earmark spending. And to make the FEDERAL GOV'T a partner in many state and local projects. That will ultimately will expand gov't at local and state levels.
So let us do the socialist thing here.....restrict the wages of executives of failing business..including the star that has the idea of how to lead his company in dark times. I have to admit, President has been fair in this....he also made the restriction on gov't executives as well. But the question is in a capitalist society should there be restrictions on wages and income? Especially when some...star athletes....don't seem to be restricted.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: Who will ever know when the best time to pull out is ?
Maybe we have some real expensive issues here at home to attend to before fighting expensive wars elsewhere ?
Maybe we have some real expensive issues here at home to attend to before fighting expensive wars elsewhere ?
Who knows....maybe President Obama will stretch it out for 100 years?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: So basically what your suggesting is a permanent presence in Iraq as a deterrent to those fighters returning? IN OTHER WORDS, permanent occupation of the central country in the middle east. Right in line with the Wolfowitz doctrine...
What I am suggesting is. We force reduce in Iraq to a security level. To make sure that if foreign fighter return.....we are there to keep the country stable enough not to see it fail. Similar to what was done in South Korea following the Korean war.
We paid a price for this. Full withdrawal make the Iraqi gov't and the Iraqi people that are supporting democracy in large numbers...targets again for these foreign fighters.
So follow me a little. A full force withdrawal (President Obama position) can allow that to happen. If it does fail, we are in the position of either....going back and doing it again. Or reneging on the commitment to make Iraq democratic. Why pay this price a second time? Why lose face in the middle east by saying we don't back up exporting of Democracy?
That latter is very important to the Iran issue. If Iran feels that we are no longer in the democracy exporting business, then it will become even more aggressive in the radical Islam exporting business.
------ This thread is Archived ------
US/British-Iraqi War
Also called: Gulf War III; 3rd Gulf War
War launched by US and British forces, with the assistance of British forces, against Iraq starting March 2003. USA claimed that 30 countries openly supported the action, and that 15 or more were anonymous supporters.
The war was started without the support of the United Nations, where strong members like France, Russia, Germany and Sweden all opposed the war, and supported the request of the UN inspectors to continue their control work inside Iraq.
Background
The initial background for the war was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein included the country as Iraq's 19th province, as had been the aim of Iraqi leaders ever since Kuwait's independence in 1961. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait by February 1991, and agreed to both pay indemnities, and allow the disarmament of the country under the control of the United Nations.
Iraq was reluctant to cooperating with UN inspectors, resulting in sanctions that prohibited the import of products that could be used for military purposes, many medicines and foodstuffs etc.
In 1998 Iraq felt that the inspections were dragging out, and that every area had been sufficiently controlled. They asked for the lifting of sanctions, and sent all inspectors out of the country.
In 2001 and even more in 2002, USA started a campaign both in media as well as in United Nations to resume the inspections on Iraq. Towards the end of 2002, it was clear that USA was preparing on going to war.
The official motivation for going to war was by USA defined as Iraq representing a threat to its neighbours by its weapons of mass destruction. "Weapons of mass destruction" was defined as bacteriological and chemical substances, weaponry to carry this into neighbouring countries, as well as possibly nuclear weapons, or at least a programme for developing nuclear weapons.
In late 2002 UN inspectors were admitted back into Iraq following UN Security Resolution 1441 and the clear threat of military action from the USA if Iraq did not comply. The inspectors resumed the control work for establishing any breach on the military regulations imposed on Iraq following the cease fire in 1991. They inspected areas indicated both by Iraqi reports, UN reports and US, British and Israeli intelligence. The inspectors reports indicated that Iraq was cooperating very reluctantly, but that there were no serious breach on the regulations. In all cases where USA had indicated suspected areas, the inspectors concluded that the areas contained nothing suspicious. In early March, the leader of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix stated that the cooperation from Iraqi side was much improved and that he wanted to inspections to continue for a period of a few months more. Blix told the press, after resigning, that he had had the feeling that USA were irritated over the work the inspectors did, and did not listen to information that didn't fit their need to blame Iraq.
More serious, however, is that the evidence presented for Iraqi nuclear program, proved to be falsified. It was unclear who had been behind the falsification; British intelligence, Israel's Mossad or exile-Iraqi groups.
cont
Also called: Gulf War III; 3rd Gulf War
War launched by US and British forces, with the assistance of British forces, against Iraq starting March 2003. USA claimed that 30 countries openly supported the action, and that 15 or more were anonymous supporters.
The war was started without the support of the United Nations, where strong members like France, Russia, Germany and Sweden all opposed the war, and supported the request of the UN inspectors to continue their control work inside Iraq.
Background
The initial background for the war was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein included the country as Iraq's 19th province, as had been the aim of Iraqi leaders ever since Kuwait's independence in 1961. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait by February 1991, and agreed to both pay indemnities, and allow the disarmament of the country under the control of the United Nations.
Iraq was reluctant to cooperating with UN inspectors, resulting in sanctions that prohibited the import of products that could be used for military purposes, many medicines and foodstuffs etc.
In 1998 Iraq felt that the inspections were dragging out, and that every area had been sufficiently controlled. They asked for the lifting of sanctions, and sent all inspectors out of the country.
In 2001 and even more in 2002, USA started a campaign both in media as well as in United Nations to resume the inspections on Iraq. Towards the end of 2002, it was clear that USA was preparing on going to war.
The official motivation for going to war was by USA defined as Iraq representing a threat to its neighbours by its weapons of mass destruction. "Weapons of mass destruction" was defined as bacteriological and chemical substances, weaponry to carry this into neighbouring countries, as well as possibly nuclear weapons, or at least a programme for developing nuclear weapons.
In late 2002 UN inspectors were admitted back into Iraq following UN Security Resolution 1441 and the clear threat of military action from the USA if Iraq did not comply. The inspectors resumed the control work for establishing any breach on the military regulations imposed on Iraq following the cease fire in 1991. They inspected areas indicated both by Iraqi reports, UN reports and US, British and Israeli intelligence. The inspectors reports indicated that Iraq was cooperating very reluctantly, but that there were no serious breach on the regulations. In all cases where USA had indicated suspected areas, the inspectors concluded that the areas contained nothing suspicious. In early March, the leader of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix stated that the cooperation from Iraqi side was much improved and that he wanted to inspections to continue for a period of a few months more. Blix told the press, after resigning, that he had had the feeling that USA were irritated over the work the inspectors did, and did not listen to information that didn't fit their need to blame Iraq.
More serious, however, is that the evidence presented for Iraqi nuclear program, proved to be falsified. It was unclear who had been behind the falsification; British intelligence, Israel's Mossad or exile-Iraqi groups.
cont
------ This thread is Archived ------
Drew you are twisting the Facts to support your argument.
The fact of the matter is that the UN were against the Invasion of Iraq and a US led 'Coalition' went against the UN......
Everyone knows that and your twisting the fact to suppport yourself is laughable in my opinion.........
The fact of the matter is that the UN were against the Invasion of Iraq and a US led 'Coalition' went against the UN......
Everyone knows that and your twisting the fact to suppport yourself is laughable in my opinion.........
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: Enduring bases were the first things to be constructed and, was the main focus of Rumsfeld’s initial visit to Iraq.
NATO and the 2003 campaign against Iraq
The campaign against Iraq in 2003 was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not.
NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign nor in its conduct.
Again you are twisting the facts to support your argument......
I dont really care for your type of argument when it comes to this tragic war.
The US and the coalition forces went against the UN in their action and you using arguments like NATO wanted it done does not make it right...........
The rest of it is all spin as far as I'm concerned as the real reasons for this war are very obvious to people with open minds.
There has been far too much lying from the US Government in this matter it is demeaning to people.
They should withdraw NOW and not try to force their idea of Democaracy on anyone else.........
Might is not Right and the outcry from the rest of the World should teach you something............It seems to have taught your New Government.......
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: NATO and the 2003 campaign against Iraq
The campaign against Iraq in 2003 was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not.
NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign nor in its conduct.
Again you are twisting the facts to support your argument......
I dont really care for your type of argument when it comes to this tragic war.
The US and the coalition forces went against the UN in their action and you using arguments like NATO wanted it done does not make it right...........
The rest of it is all spin as far as I'm concerned as the real reasons for this war are very obvious to people with open minds.
There has been far too much lying from the US Government in this matter it is demeaning to people.
They should withdraw NOW and not try to force their idea of Democaracy on anyone else.........
Might is not Right and the outcry from the rest of the World should teach you something............It seems to have taught your New Government.......
The campaign against Iraq in 2003 was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not.
NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign nor in its conduct.
Again you are twisting the facts to support your argument......
I dont really care for your type of argument when it comes to this tragic war.
The US and the coalition forces went against the UN in their action and you using arguments like NATO wanted it done does not make it right...........
The rest of it is all spin as far as I'm concerned as the real reasons for this war are very obvious to people with open minds.
There has been far too much lying from the US Government in this matter it is demeaning to people.
They should withdraw NOW and not try to force their idea of Democaracy on anyone else.........
Might is not Right and the outcry from the rest of the World should teach you something............It seems to have taught your New Government.......
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967:
The rest of it is all spin as far as I'm concerned as the real reasons for this war are very obvious to people with open minds.
There has been far too much lying from the US Government in this matter it is demeaning to people.
They should withdraw NOW and not try to force their idea of Democaracy on anyone else.........
Might is not Right and the outcry from the rest of the World should teach you something............It seems to have taught your New Government.......
The rest of it is all spin as far as I'm concerned as the real reasons for this war are very obvious to people with open minds.
There has been far too much lying from the US Government in this matter it is demeaning to people.
They should withdraw NOW and not try to force their idea of Democaracy on anyone else.........
Might is not Right and the outcry from the rest of the World should teach you something............It seems to have taught your New Government.......
Great post, thanks for all the clear information!
I and many other Us citizens share your views, are and remember far more than just the battle cry reasons given for this war...
No one will ever convince me that the real interest is and always has been for our governments interest in Iraq is the oil they are sitting on.
This war has been managed with an eye to those interests and attempted to be justified by claiming a war on terror and spreading democracy etc, etc...it is all about the oil and there has been far too much damage and death already worshiping that god.
Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority of the American people who feel the War in Iraq is wrong and want the US to get out of their and that the crashing economy would be mismanaged by the Rep party. It is on their watch that these things happened, they are to blame for them.
It is rather nauseating to me to hear all the justifications for war that are not only tired lies, they are still being held up by some as the "reasons".
------ This thread is Archived ------
Skybow: Great post, thanks for all the clear information!
I and many other Us citizens share your views, are and remember far more than just the battle cry reasons given for this war...
No one will ever convince me that the real interest is and always has been for our governments interest in Iraq is the oil they are sitting on.
This war has been managed with an eye to those interests and attempted to be justified by claiming a war on terror and spreading democracy etc, etc...it is all about the oil and there has been far too much damage and death already worshiping that god.
Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority of the American people who feel the War in Iraq is wrong and want the US to get out of their and that the crashing economy would be mismanaged by the Rep party. It is on their watch that these things happened, they are to blame for them.
It is rather nauseating to me to hear all the justifications for war that are not only tired lies, they are still being held up by some as the "reasons".
I and many other Us citizens share your views, are and remember far more than just the battle cry reasons given for this war...
No one will ever convince me that the real interest is and always has been for our governments interest in Iraq is the oil they are sitting on.
This war has been managed with an eye to those interests and attempted to be justified by claiming a war on terror and spreading democracy etc, etc...it is all about the oil and there has been far too much damage and death already worshiping that god.
Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority of the American people who feel the War in Iraq is wrong and want the US to get out of their and that the crashing economy would be mismanaged by the Rep party. It is on their watch that these things happened, they are to blame for them.
It is rather nauseating to me to hear all the justifications for war that are not only tired lies, they are still being held up by some as the "reasons".
One-trick ponies rarely get another line of rhetoric. Hey, WMD's got us in there. Now it will be Iran, with their WMD's. Can't be having other countries infringing on our WMD hegemony.;
------ This thread is Archived ------
Skybow: Great post, thanks for all the clear information!
I and many other Us citizens share your views, are and remember far more than just the battle cry reasons given for this war...
No one will ever convince me that the real interest is and always has been for our governments interest in Iraq is the oil they are sitting on.
This war has been managed with an eye to those interests and attempted to be justified by claiming a war on terror and spreading democracy etc, etc...it is all about the oil and there has been far too much damage and death already worshiping that god.
Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority of the American people who feel the War in Iraq is wrong and want the US to get out of their and that the crashing economy would be mismanaged by the Rep party. It is on their watch that these things happened, they are to blame for them.
It is rather nauseating to me to hear all the justifications for war that are not only tired lies, they are still being held up by some as the "reasons".
I and many other Us citizens share your views, are and remember far more than just the battle cry reasons given for this war...
No one will ever convince me that the real interest is and always has been for our governments interest in Iraq is the oil they are sitting on.
This war has been managed with an eye to those interests and attempted to be justified by claiming a war on terror and spreading democracy etc, etc...it is all about the oil and there has been far too much damage and death already worshiping that god.
Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority of the American people who feel the War in Iraq is wrong and want the US to get out of their and that the crashing economy would be mismanaged by the Rep party. It is on their watch that these things happened, they are to blame for them.
It is rather nauseating to me to hear all the justifications for war that are not only tired lies, they are still being held up by some as the "reasons".
I am not so sure about the clear information......I completely understand that there are so many Americans against the war and the way it has been manipulated to suit a specific agenda........The lies and cover ups have been incredible.
I do think people in the US somewhat think its anti American for people in the US to object to the war when the truth is completely different.........
I personally opened a bottle of wine when Obama was elected and I toasted the American people and it was 4 am here. The US has come so far in such a short space of time IMO and I for one believe in him...........not blindly but I think he sees the big picture and will strive to do the right thing.........
What I cant abide is people who blindly post arguments in defence of the war and twist facts to suit their arguments unfortunately.............
Thanks for your post.........
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: I am not so sure about the clear information......
I completely understand that there are so many Americans against the war and the way it has been manipulated to suit a specific agenda........The lies and cover ups have been incredible.
I do think people in the US somewhat think its anti American for people in the US to object to the war when the truth is completely different.........
I personally opened a bottle of wine when Obama was elected and I toasted the American people and it was 4 am here. The US has come so far in such a short space of time IMO and I for one believe in him...........not blindly but I think he sees the big picture and will strive to do the right thing.........
What I cant abide is people who blindly post arguments in defence of the war and twist facts to suit their arguments unfortunately.............
Thanks for your post.........
I completely understand that there are so many Americans against the war and the way it has been manipulated to suit a specific agenda........The lies and cover ups have been incredible.
I do think people in the US somewhat think its anti American for people in the US to object to the war when the truth is completely different.........
I personally opened a bottle of wine when Obama was elected and I toasted the American people and it was 4 am here. The US has come so far in such a short space of time IMO and I for one believe in him...........not blindly but I think he sees the big picture and will strive to do the right thing.........
What I cant abide is people who blindly post arguments in defence of the war and twist facts to suit their arguments unfortunately.............
Thanks for your post.........
Remember; "There are none so blind as those who will not see..."
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Nature
1830's Music
How far is too far?
everything is changing
Icebergs Still Around
rarotonga
Common Issues with the BMW X1
other can see but not you
your personality
Salami, Salami, Baloney
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Obama unveils executive pay cap
US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (£355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.
The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.
President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.
He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".
'Justify expenses'
In addition to the limit on basic pay, Mr Obama said if affected executives receive any further bonuses, they "will come in the form of stock that can't be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance".
Firms will also have to publicly disclose "all the perks and luxuries bestowed upon senior executives, and provide an explanation to taxpayers and to shareholders as to why these expenses are justified".
"We're asking these firms to take responsibility, to recognize the nature of this crisis and their role in it," said the president.
Analysts said the plan could raise the likelihood of senior executives moving from firms who need government aid to those that don't.
"There is certainly a possibility of talent flight from the big firms to the smaller investment banks," said Lauren Smith, analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.
'Take responsibility'
"We all need to take responsibility," said President Obama.
"And this includes executives at major financial firms who turned to the American people, hat in hand, when they were in trouble, even as they paid themselves their customary lavish bonuses."
According to the available figures, US banking bosses received bonuses of more than $18.4bn last year.
Some, such as those at Citigroup, also tried to continue to spend on executive luxuries despite receiving government aid.
Citigroup was criticised for attempting to buy a new $50m executive jet after receiving $45bn in taxpayer bail-out cash under the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) $700bn financial bailout fund.
Republicans have supported the move to limit the pay of executives at firms that secure fresh government money.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/04 17:12:29 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Print Sponsor
AdvertisementHIP HIP.....
Maybe we should have a Department of Homeland Financial Security. Let's grow the government. Oh, wait, I thought Republicans were against big government. Well, they are, if its a DEM's idea.
EPA! EPA!