Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

This is an opportunity to strike Iraq - Don Rumsfeld, 911

  1. Nov 2, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "This is an opportunity to strike Iraq" -- Don Rumsfeld, 911

    --- Bob Woodward
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/woodward.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Do you recall what we did after Pearl Harbor - did we attack Japan or Germany first?
     
  4. Nov 3, 2004 #3
    Don't forget Africa...wasn't it Tunisia?
     
  5. Nov 3, 2004 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Japan and Germany were closesly allied countries in that war.

    Are you suggesting that Iraq was a close ally to Al Qaeda ?
     
  6. Nov 4, 2004 #5

    I thought bin laden was from saudi arabia....
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  7. Nov 4, 2004 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Define "closely allied." Germany and Japan were not fighting side-by-side, they were essentially fighting separate wars at the same time. All they agreed on was who to fight ('them,' not each other). That's comparable to the level of allegiance between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-war. (Our alliance with the USSR wasn't any stronger).

    The point is, Pearl Harbor wasn't a reason to enter the war in Europe, it was an excuse to do something we should have been doing anyway, but weren't because of the US's historical policy of irrational isolationism.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  8. Nov 4, 2004 #7

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think this alledged alliance is what all the discussion is about. It seems that you think that 9/11 gives the US the "right" to attack who and whatever dislikes the US. Apart from the fact that the US was disliked by Saddam, but not necessarily by its population, and that the US was disliked by Ben Laden, they have nothing in common. Now, the US is hated (not only disliked) by 90% (ok, way of speaking) of ALL Arabs.
    Making a link between Saddam (who was a secular dictator) and Ben Laden (a religious fanatic) is or not understanding one single bit of politics in the Arab world, or just finding a stick (any stick) to hit a dog.
     
  9. Nov 4, 2004 #8

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If the emphasis of your point lies in the last paragraph, that the US merely needed an excuse to mount a long overdue invasion of Iraq, I can at least understand your point, even if I don't agree with it.

    The fact that both hated the US might have given them reason to at least investigate the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is not my foe', but their allegiance never even progressed that far. The views of Al-Qaeda (rule by religous theocracy) and Saddam Hussein (secular dictatorship) made the two natural threats to one another.

    Regardless, invading Iraq because of Al-Qaeda is kind of like deciding that being punched by Ralph gives you a right to punch Dave, whom you've always hated. It's hardly sound logic.
     
  10. Nov 4, 2004 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree in most part with your second point, but not the first.

    I can name 5 countries that are stronger suporters of the Al Qaeda cause than Iraq. Can you tell me that the same is true with Japan ?
     
  11. Nov 4, 2004 #10
    EVEYONE KNOWS HOW 9/11 was used to get iraq and its oil!!!!!!!!!







    everyone except 52% americans who voted for bush
     
  12. Nov 4, 2004 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So who's "got" the oil??????????
     
  13. Nov 4, 2004 #12
    The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.

    In May, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which ended sanctions and endorsed the creation of Development Fund for Iraq, to be controlled by Paul Bremer and overseen by a board of accountants, including U.N., World Bank and IMF representatives. It endorsed the transfer of over $1 billion (of Iraqi oil money) from the Oil-for-Food program into the Development Fund. All proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are also to be placed into the fund.

    "The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, will apparently be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq."

    ExIm recently announced that it was open for business in Iraq and would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is, companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq.

    "The primary source of repayment," explained an ExIm release, "is the Development Fund for Iraq, or another entity established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority with access to foreign exchange and protection from claims of creditors of the former regime." In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq -- especially because the money comes from Iraq.

    Bush signed an executive order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for U.S. corporations in Iraq.

    Executive Order 13303 decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

    In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

    In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  14. Nov 4, 2004 #13
    So Burnsys, your point is that the UN unanimously passed a resolution(wow, so now UN support is bad thing?), and Bush implemented a Executive order that promotes business to go into a dangerous area and help reconstruction?

    That's not true at all.


    CAn you show me somewhere where this Order has been abused, and not just used to keep companies from running away from fixing Iraq?
     
  15. Nov 4, 2004 #14
    I read your first line and thought it was a joke....wow.
     
  16. Nov 4, 2004 #15
    Iraq had connections to terrorists. You can deny it all you want, But Saddam did help terrorists. I'm not saying Al Qaeda. But it is common knowledge that he payed for the financial support of families of palestinians involved in suicide bombing Israel.

    Second, he signed the armistice in 1992 which said that if he did not comply with its demands, war could be resumed. True, as we know afte the Duelfer report he had no WMDs. But he was still not complying with the armistice. He was, for whatever reason, consistently interfering with UN inspection teams and trying to keep them from perform there jobs. If not for hiding WMDs then the question must be asked why. But he was, and so by the 1992 armistice alone, we had every right to invade.

    The invasion was overdue. It should have happened in 1998 under Clinton, when inspectors were first thrown out of the country by Saddam. Everything in 2002 was an excuse to justify an invasion that should have happened four years previously and needed no extra justification.
     
  17. Nov 4, 2004 #16

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Haven't you ever played poker? The why was obvious. Hiding what you don't have is as important as hiding what you do have.

    The US wasn't his only enemy. Hussein believed his Scud missiles and chemical weapons helped Iraq survive its war with Iran. He also believed those chemical weapons kept the US from invading Iraq in the first gulf war.

    None the less, he somehow thought he could play both sides. If he destroyed them but kept some plausible doubt, the inspectors would never find evidence that could result in an invasion, but no one could ever be sure whether they were gone or hidden.
     
  18. Nov 4, 2004 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You (and vanesch) are exactly right. Don't you remember learning about how shaky our alliance was with the USSR in WWII? Some of our generals thought we shouldn't have stopped at Berlin but should have hung a right and gone toward Moscow. Afghanistan and Iraq never had a formal alliance only because there was never a formal war. But the reality of their relationship was very similar to what the US and USSR had in WWII.
     
  19. Nov 8, 2004 #18
    As far as I understand, US had a reason to go to Europe : German U-boats were destroying American transports and commerce to Britain. It replied to Japan because of Pearl Harbour. Attacking the Taliban following 911 was a similar reply. But with Iraq, there was no provocation! As far as I know, Saddam never even sponsored any kamikaze-type terrorism, he was at least a notch above this. Seems like Bush etc. assumed he would. Nothing however indicates he would have gone that far.

    This pre-emptive business is what alienates everyone from the US. It's one of the reasons we hate Hitler, that he attacked (Poland etc.) first! Might as well rename the DoD the Department of Assault. Should other countries follow the US' lead and do the same? Fudge the UN and attack another country as it pleases?

    I keep hoping that the US administration knows stuff I (or the public) don't and in fact knows what's doing, because by the looks of it, it's quite simply setting the stage for a new generation of US haters who will want want revenge for the arial poundings etc, just as the US wanted for Pearl Harbor, 911, and the Atlantic commerce disruption during WW2. The job market in security for today's American kids seems extremely promising.
     
  20. Nov 8, 2004 #19
    Figures Rumsfeld would say something like this.
    Resolution 687, April 3 1991 demanded iraq accept unconditionally "the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction" - Iraq accepted.

    Later Resolution 715, imposed 11 oct, 1991 stated that iraq would "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission"

    This was declared "unlawfull' by iraq, and was never accepted, therefor it was imposed on iraq, and therefor it was void.
    Resolution 715
     
  21. Nov 8, 2004 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's true, but the point is that we didn't enter WWII in response to that. We should have, but we didn't. It took a largely unrelated incident to prompt action against Germany.
    Clarification: he didn't support Al Queda - his support for other Arab terrorist organizations was quite well documented.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: This is an opportunity to strike Iraq - Don Rumsfeld, 911
  1. Rumsfeld's War (Replies: 3)

  2. Replace Rumsfeld (Replies: 6)

  3. Rumsfeld Has Resigned (Replies: 46)

Loading...