Putin to Bush: Do not attack Iraq alone

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by vniow, Nov 22, 2002.

  1. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #2
    Excellent question. I'm glad Bush had to face that in public. The fact of the matter is, it's all about the Saudis' oil. Time to break the habit America!! Similar politics have kept our borders as holey as swiss cheese for the past 14 months.


    We're looking for one particular cockroach among thousands in a large apartment complex. We knew from the beginning that this would be difficult and time-consuming. I'm not at all surprised that we haven't found Osama yet. In fact, I'd be very surprised if we'd found him already.


    The way the Republicans accused Clinton of using the Kosovo war and Afghanistan missile strike as political distractions? It's all about politics over American safety, unfortunately. Even if Bush or Clinton have used such things as distractions, I still agree with WHAT they did/are doing.


    I personally feel that we do need to take out Saddam. But if we are able to replace him with a gov't that's actually friendly to Iraqis (a very hopeful "if" for me), we will still have a very long way to go. This terrorism war is far from over. We still have the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and possibly the Chinese and North Koreans to deal with (and I'm not necessarily advocating dropping bombs on all of them as the way to deal with them). I don't believe that we'll completely get rid of Muslim--or any kind of--fanaticism, no matter how effective we are over the next 5-10 years. But if we can reduce it to the occasional criminal act, we will have been pretty successful. Even WWII did not completely eradicate Naziism.

    I think Putin asked some fair questions, some I'd love to ask the President to his face myself.

    Okay, I'm ready. Flame me for being an intolerant, right-wing fanatic who hates darker-skinned people or something (my having Asian and near-Eastern heritage notwithstanding).
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2001
    Location:
    Miami Beach
    #3
    NYT

    Hi, i liked some of your thoughts. In fact i liked to add only this what i read last days in the New York Times.
    They said that that Afganistan is falling back into the Al Quida regime and the US is slowly moving out of there. Now, what the hell is this? You can't just totally bomb a country and praise yourselfe it was for glory and the freedom and then leave it out to die. That will also happende in Irak and thats the bad part of it. The US ain't care for peace. Thats such a BS public statement. There are so many other counties that would need help against terror and peace but there is no US soldier!
     
  4. Gus
    macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #4
    We are not just leaving Afganistan. They want to form a stable, sovereign government, and they asked us to only help when they asked for it. You people complain when we help somebody saying that we are trying to build a puppet government, and then when we leave them alone to form them own, you complain that we don't do enough. Which is it?

    The question you should really be asking is what interest does Russia have in not attacking Iraq? What do they gain by not joining a coalition against Iraq? There is something going on other than old blood from the U.S.A./Russia relations here.

    Gus
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #5
    Excellent point. I'm glad someone said it. It seems like there are elements out there to whom the US is damned if it did and damned if it didn't.


    I think the old ways are hard to get rid of. That's just my opinion, I claim no special insight. I mean, in spite of Russia's democratic reforms, they still persecute Christians over there. Their political evolution will take some time.

    I also think that it has a lot to do with their own political and economic expediency. The US forged an alliance of sorts with Saddam 20 years ago, (obviously not looking too far into the future when they did). Nations often signs deals with the devil to quickly deal with an immediate problem, obviously taking the stand that their official ideologies will have to take a backseat to something they feel is more immediately important. Look at France's attitude towards Iraq. Same thing. All of these countries love to criticize the US in their own self-righteousness, but they're just as guilty. People are people, as Depeche Mode once said.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #6
    umm... Russia only has a couple of BILLION US dollars worth (over 50 billion I believe) of investments and loans in Iraq. If the US government topples the Hussein government, what guarantee is there that all of the investments and property would still be Russia's?
     
  7. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #7
  8. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #8
    Heh.

    France already invests heavily in Iraqi oil.

    Hypocrits.

    They accuse the United States of wanting to start a war for oil when they themselves are already dealing with scum for oil/profit.
     

Share This Page