Who Are America's Real Allies?

You are absolutely right. Americans are, and have been, hated in a lot of places around the world for decades. The big difference now is that it goes both ways. I don't think the sense of betrayal that many Americans have towards western Europeans is likely to dissipate any time soon. Probably a generation, or at least until older folks familiar with 20th Century history, are dead and gone.

 

Neither will the sense of betrayal that many Europeans have towards a US government which lied in the Security Council in order to get the UN go-ahead for a war. So there will, for quite a while, be that nagging feeling of "do they actually tell us the truth this time?" whenever a future US state secretary, for example, wants others to support a military mission. But that sense of betrayal is primarily directed at your federal administration, not the Americans or their country as such.

Christian

 

I believe that the weapons went to Syria with the gold. Remember the truck convorys of gold that briefly made the news. Plus the world media really did play down the missles and poison gas that could have reached way beyond Iraqs borders. As for nukes, British intelligence as reported stated that Iraq was attempting to obtain the materials. No one as far as I know ever stated that Iraq had them. Which was part of the point. Go in now when you still can.

The media killed the whole intent of the use of force in Iraq.

Then again was it not the media that reported tens of thousands of deaths in New Orleans with bodies floating everywhere.

This is what happened when Clinton pushed thru the recindering of the law that forbid any foreigners from having ownership of what once was our media.
We have a media that is not only baised but who is being used by majority share holders who are not americans to undermine us. They Hire a leftist publisher and he will in turn hire leftist editors who in turn will hire leftist reporters. It is that easy to manipulate the truth and undermine a nation.

 

Andy the media is not liberal it is slanted in favor of the corperate interests that own it.

 

Look up who the major share holders are and in some cases who the holding companies actually hold the shares for.

As I stated before, a majority interest in a media firm express the desire to hire a publisher or news director who has an anti-american agenda and they in turn would hire likewise for division head postions and they would in turn hire likewise., etc...
It really is easy and is being done for a while now. The media has had a liberal bias for my lifetime but never such an anti-american bais as I have been seeing the last ten years.

 

This thread was posted to point out the corruption and hypocrisy of members of the United nations. Countries all around the world violated national ethics, not to mention several United Nations Security Counsel resolutions, in an effort to make money and maintain the murderous status quo of Saddam's Iraq. Billions of contract and kick-back Ruples and Euros went to Saddam's convenient friends and conspirators, principally France and Russia, to methodically stop, or slow down, UN efforts to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons and to prevent him from enhancing existing chemical and biological weapons programs. The World, largely European members of the Security Counsel, intentionally delayed United Nations progress on the Saddam issue for at least a year, thus giving Saddam time to remove, with Russian Speznatz assistance, weapons materials and other goodies from Iraq.

The worst part of this unfortunate and dangerous scenario is the propensity for the guilty parties themselves to accuse G.W. Bush of lying to the United Nations, when in fact, he was practically the only person not lying in the hallowed halls of the UN. The secondary and tertiary hypocrisy of these shallow accusations is appalling. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of this epic example of political disinformation.

 

Wait a minute Andy GE owns NBC and isn't Rupert Murdoch a major media mogul. Warren Buffett held a huge position in newspapers for years and probably still does. The major holders in these companies are pension funds, mutual funds and the like (in other words you and I). these companies best interests often coincide with ours but when there interests do not they will screw you in a New York minute (and that is what is happening with media consolidation, companies like Clear Channel are acting in their own interest and against tha interest of the American people and conservatives like Colin Powell's son, who heads the FCC, are allowing this to happen). Media consolidation solidly disproves the myth of a liberal media.
Quickdog As for Iraq and UN resolutions look up how many of these resolutions Isreal is not in compliance with (it may surprise you).

 

You can not equate Israel with Saddam's Iraq. That's just stupid.

Israel might not be the kindest and most gentle government in the World, but the Jews have justifyingly developed a attitude over the years from being subjected to 3,000 years of blatent persecution, pogroms, hate, and holocaust. They exist today largely becasue of the United States. Ah ha, the root of the Muslim problem. The United Staes will abandon Israel when glaciers return to Syria.

 

Who knows? Back in February 2003, when the US government wanted the UN's support for the war in Iraq, Colin Powell informed the SC about supposed mobile biolabs, for example, which was not true. He did not say "we believe" but "we know" and "we have proof". Or think of that supposed Iraq-Niger connection. Both George W. Bush and Colin Powell claimed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. Both stories were based on nothing but hot air. And Powell admitted - much later - in public that he presented those allegations as facts. Bush was indeed clever enough to put the blame on the British government ...

Whether Powell willingly and knowingly lied (I have a lot of respect for him and don't actually think so) or whether he was a victim of people who wanted to go to war instead of continuing the inspections, I don't know. And I don't miss Saddam Hussein's regime, of course - I wish he had not been supported years ago in the first place, when he was considered a helpful against Iran. My problem is, how far can you trust an ally in the future who has lied in the past? This is what I consider a very difficult burden for the short term future.

But it should not poison the basically still good American-European relations. A few days ago, the German forces (Bundeswehr) celebrated its 50th anniversary, and at the Bundeswehr Forum in Berlin the former US defense secretary William S. Cohen said that, despite some differences in the recent past, further cooperation is possible and necessary. Maybe the current administration even shares his views in that regard?

Christian

 

One point i would like to make about Sadams regiem is that he DID use and Produce Chemical wepons, they were used against Iran & the Kurds so please do not be to hasty in discounting his caperbility to produce wepons of mass destruction, Yes I believe that some of the politicos lied about the reasoning behind the invasion but I also think it was justified in the long term.

De Orc

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That is all we hear, and will for the rest of our lives from the countries that ran and hid when the time came to stand up and fight. The war in Iraq was something that needed to be done, if not now, in the near future. I'm just glad there are still a few good governments that are brave enough to recognize when a job needs to be done, no matter how ugly or popular.

 

@De Orc: I don't think there is any doubt about Saddam's regime having used chemical weapons against Iran (when he had support from many governments) and then the Kurds, for example, 15 to 20 years ago. There is no doubt about his regime having attacked Kuwait. After all, that was why the aerial control zones were set up and the UN inspections started. Well, after a long series of ridiculous hide-and-seek "games" the inspectors did not find any working installations that would have justified an attack. Whether it would have been better to put an end to Saddam's regime after his war against Kuwait ... probably so, but that is a moot point now.

What I find quite offensive is the use of the term "real allies" in a way that makes the latest Iraq war the only criterion, considers false allegations and doctored proof to be justified in this context (does the end justify any means?) and conveniently ignores each and every other support and international cooperation.

Christian

 

Quickdog my point is that these UN resolutions mean nothing and to site them as a viable reason to attack Iraq is just wrong

 

Murdoch became a US citizen in 1985 to comply with our then country's media ownership laws. Those laws have since been trashed.

It can take a stake of 20% to be a majority share holder and most of the middle eastern oil money that is buying majority share status is doing it in holding companies which is basically a one person fund but not as visible. What I am saying is not new.

 

If indeed there were false acusations made, then these accusations did not begin, nor end, with G.W. Bush. Everything that was said to the United State Senate and Congress, as well as the United Nations, by the current Administration, including the beloved Colin Powell, were simply reiterations of what had been widely accepted by the world intelligence community. Bill Clinton and his security advisors stated the same things publicly before Bush even took office. That is precisely why so many Democrats, as well as Republicans, responded positively to Bush's assessment of the situation, and his plan to use a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the potential risk. All this Monday-morning quarterbacking by Bush's political opponents and the blame-America crowd is self-serving and shallow.

Bush acted on the best information available at the time, and most everyone agreed at the time that it was the right thing to do.

To this date, British intelligence still insists that their assessment of earlier Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Niger were correct. This nefarious character Wilson was clearly a Democrat shill and lied repeatedly to promote his book deal and embarass the Bush Administration.

American and British troops in Iraq found a few hidden chemical (artillery) warheads, thousands of military chemical suits and masks, a few abandoned mobile trailers believed to have been used for manufacturing biological materials, and a lot of ancillary stuff indicating the earlier presence of the illegal weapons.

Russian Speznatz troops were reportedly observed on satellite images moving truck convoys of unidentified goods across the Syrian border a week before the American attack. The efforts by France, Russia, and even Turkey, to stall or thwart a prospective United Nations (sic, Anglo-American) attack by several months was a complete success. Lo and behold, the entire world learned that the Kofi Anon's son, the French, Russians, and 63 other nations were on-the-take from Saddam. This is the part of the giant puzzle that is conveniently overlooked by the "blame-America" crowd around the world.

I think that when a "casual observer" examines a complex situation wherein there appear to be contradictory statements, it is important to examine personal and national motives. Who stood to benefit from the status quo in Iraq? Obviously, those who were in power and those who profited from the that group remaining in power. Saddam and the Baathists were in power. These people are essentially Middle Eastern Nazis. France and Russia, and to a lesser extent other nations, were making billions of dollars by following along with the Iraqi charade. Paid to look the other way, or in the case of France and Russia, stop the process.

Who stood to lose from the Iraqi status quo? Certainly the Shia and Kurds were seriously abused by the Baathists. The legitimate American fear was that Saddam, a sworn enemy of Israel, Great Britain, and the United States, would eventually transfer his special-weapons knowledge and remaining assets to Islamic fashists. Most people who subsist above room temperature and still have some synaptic activity believe that Muslim fanatics will use any weapon at their disposal. Any individual or group that would slash the throats of a bunch of Christian school girls would not think twice about smoking "The Great Satan". It only takes one nut-case with visions of 72 black-eyed virgins and a viable opportunity.

Bush was right. End of story.

 

Well said Quickdog.

I would like to note to those who think that the US made up reasons to go into Iraq is if that is true, then why didn't we do it the first time we were there in the first gulf war?

 

Well, in the first Gulf War many "Eastern" and "Western" countries supported Saddam's regime against Iran ...

Christian

 

That is because Saddam already had them in his pocket! Yes, and Germany was one of the leaders so far as holding out their hand and taking money that was intended to help the people in Iraq. A leopard can't change it's spots.

 

You mean a leopard such as the government of a country that in the First Gulf War supplied weapons to Iraq and then also supported Iran in order to use the money from the sales in Central America? The term Iran-Contra affair comes to my mind ...

Christian

 

No, I was thinking more of the country that had trained the elite guard of Saddam's to do everything but the "goose step" when marching.