You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Conflict and catchphrases
Brian Whitaker explains what 'creative destruction' and 'total war' mean in the context of current US foreign policy
Monday February 24, 2003
Faced with obstruction from the French and Germans, ransom demands from the Turks, and opposition from millions of demonstrators around the world, the desired invasion of Iraq has fallen behind schedule.
But not to worry. The process of selecting the next candidates for regime change is already under way.
In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.
Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.
The attraction of this approach is easy to see. After Afghanistan and Iraq, conquering Syria and Iran would create an unbroken chain of puppet regimes stretching from the Mediterranean to China.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,901982,00.html
Brian Whitaker explains what 'creative destruction' and 'total war' mean in the context of current US foreign policy
Monday February 24, 2003
Faced with obstruction from the French and Germans, ransom demands from the Turks, and opposition from millions of demonstrators around the world, the desired invasion of Iraq has fallen behind schedule.
But not to worry. The process of selecting the next candidates for regime change is already under way.
In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.
Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.
The attraction of this approach is easy to see. After Afghanistan and Iraq, conquering Syria and Iran would create an unbroken chain of puppet regimes stretching from the Mediterranean to China.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,901982,00.html
I guess my old age is diminishing my capacity to think clearly.
Which is good for me, but maybe not so good for those around me.
I must be regressing to my childhood mentality. Maybe I am entering early Alzheimer's. Because things seem so fucking simple to me. But then I see and hear that things are not as simple as I believe.
But I could have sworn that the whole purpose of the United Nations was to PREVENT war. So what has changed? Why are we now against the UN because WE are not supporting the organization that WE essentially assembled and for which WE provided a home?
????Rs7
Which is good for me, but maybe not so good for those around me.
I must be regressing to my childhood mentality. Maybe I am entering early Alzheimer's. Because things seem so fucking simple to me. But then I see and hear that things are not as simple as I believe.
But I could have sworn that the whole purpose of the United Nations was to PREVENT war. So what has changed? Why are we now against the UN because WE are not supporting the organization that WE essentially assembled and for which WE provided a home?
????Rs7
...SEVENTEEN British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation....
Germany in hot water too:
...Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens...
...In China three companies traded weapons technology. in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab
...The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq...
...It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agri culture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology...
...The Foreign Office said: 'The UK will investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute any UK company found to have been in breach of export control legislation.' The..
full article/more details: http://www.sundayherald.com/31710
Josh
Germany in hot water too:
...Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens...
...In China three companies traded weapons technology. in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab
...The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq...
...It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agri culture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology...
...The Foreign Office said: 'The UK will investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute any UK company found to have been in breach of export control legislation.' The..
full article/more details: http://www.sundayherald.com/31710
Josh
Nice article Josh...
The problem is that, however many facts about arming Iraq we give to the asinine war mongers, they will simply not open their eyes...
The problem is that, however many facts about arming Iraq we give to the asinine war mongers, they will simply not open their eyes...
Np-one is saying that those companies which broke the rules did the right thing. (and of course they should be dealt with in such a harsh manner (treason = electric chair ?) that, forever after, anyone else would think ten times before they would even contemplate making a strategic sale to a blacklisted country.
Whilst such sales may have contributed towards the present problem they have however got nothing to do with the decisions at hand.
As the saying goes, 'Two Wongs don't make a white'.
(no offense intended).
freealways
Whilst such sales may have contributed towards the present problem they have however got nothing to do with the decisions at hand.
As the saying goes, 'Two Wongs don't make a white'.
(no offense intended).
freealways
Quote from freealways:
Np-one is saying that those companies which broke the rules did the right thing. (and of course they should be dealt with in such a harsh manner (treason = electric chair ?) that, forever after, anyone else would think ten times before they would even contemplate making a strategic sale to a blacklisted country.
Whilst such sales may have contributed towards the present problem they have however got nothing to do with the decisions at hand.
As the saying goes, 'Two Wongs don't make a white'.
(no offense intended).
freealways
They didnt break any rules... the sales of weapons of mass destruction was done with the full blessing of the US government... when Saddam gassed the Iranians and the Iranian-backed Kurds, he got a friendly pat on the back from the same people who now condemn him... US hypocrisy is alive and well...