One thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq

[Onkel Neal]

Very interesting interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16096369/)and slide show of a Marine who served in Afghan and Iraq. I was particularly struck by this exchange:


Doc Block (interviewer): If you had to pick one, what is the one thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq?
Orth (Marine sniper): That there were WMD and the people talk about them all the time.

[Camaero]

I think he had them as well.

[The Avon Lady]

Link reminder: "Iraq's WMDs Revisited" thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91656).

I think there are tons of things the American public doesn't understand about Iraq, starting at the top of the government, as already being discussed on the "Saddam hung" thread.

[Iceman]

Doc Block: If you could go back in time to the moment when you signed up for the Marines, would you do it again?
Orth: In a heartbeat.

This is a hero.

Great post Neal...Happy New Year All.

[waste gate]

Why has he been discharged at aged 22? We aren't being given the entire story.

We are only seeing part of the interview and only that part based on the negative questions being asked. MSM and Neal Stevens framing the argument to their liking.

[CCIP]

I'd also like to know why a Marine knows about the WMDs that even the administration can't show us :hmm:

As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, I think the public is right to assume what they assume - no evidence has yet surfaced that I'd consider half-convincing.

[August]

Why has he been discharged at aged 22? We aren't being given the entire story.

4 years active duty with 2 tours in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. Isn't that enough for you?

[Wim Libaers]

I'd also like to know why a Marine knows about the WMDs that even the administration can't show us :hmm:

As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, I think the public is right to assume what they assume - no evidence has yet surfaced that I'd consider half-convincing.

Well, some of them have been used in IED preparation. But it seems to be old stuff, left probably from before the previous gulf war. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html

Also (nitpicking here), it was not about the administration but about public perception.

[Bort]

Doc Block (interviewer): If you had to pick one, what is the one thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq?
Orth (Marine sniper): That there were WMD and the people talk about them all the time.
I think that the word "were" is the important part of this exchange. Nobody argues that Saddam did have WMD, he had them some time ago, the question is whether or not he had a stockpile as of the time of the invasion, and the clear answer is that he did not. Yes, some old weapons, left over from Iraqs conflict with Iran are still around and have been found and used by insurgents, in addition to being found and destroyed by US EOD teams, but most of these weapons have degraded well beyond any sort of usefulness and when they have gone off, have barely injured anyone. The Iran-Iraq conflict was a long nasty war and left all sorts of junk all over the battlefields, including WMD. This enlisted Marine's assertion says nothing of consequence to the "did Saddam have WMD's or not" issue-if that issue even matters as to whether or not this war should have been fought in the first place.

[Onkel Neal]

Why has he been discharged at aged 22? We aren't being given the entire story.

We are only seeing part of the interview and only that part based on the negative questions being asked. MSM and Neal Stevens framing the argument to their liking.

I didn't intend to frame any arguement, just thought the article was interesting.

[Subnuts]

A Wacky Menacing Dictator? :smug:

[Abraham]

:D Very interesting interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16096369/)... of a Marine who served in Afghan and Iraq...
Indeed!
But alas, a negative picture has been framed about the US/British?Australian intervention in Iraq, mostly because the aftermath of it was badly managed from a security and from a public relations point of view.
The reality is that any military intervention triggers a tumultuous time and it might take ten years or so for the small percentage of extremists - who are the ones that cause the problems - to realise that the past is dead and gone. Often reconciliary or progressive forces take the upper hand.
Evidence: Germany after World War II, Vietnam and - quite illustrative - the Balkan war in the '90s.

History will judge this conflict (and President Bush). Since the conflict isn't history yet, it's still too soon to judge.
But I hope to start a thread "History lessons about the Second Gulf War" vife years from now, on Jan. 1st., 2012.

[nightdagger]

I think that he just hid them well. As a kid, if someone hid one of your toys in the sandbox, you might never find it. Saddam had a pretty damn big sandbox to hide his toys in.

In any case, that's a good article. A Marine recruiter at my school told us about the same thing that the sniper said: the media just shows the negative. Marines even do things like airdrop soccer balls to the Iraqi kids but they don't get credit for it from Americans.

[TteFAboB]

Considering the Hizballah managed to sneak in a bunch of high-tech anti-tank missiles inside tiny little Lebanon, you can take anything out of Iraq undetected.

[diver]

I'd also like to know why a Marine knows about the WMDs that even the administration can't show us :hmm:

As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, I think the public is right to assume what they assume - no evidence has yet surfaced that I'd consider half-convincing.

The fact that thousands of Kurds were killed in Chemical weapons attacks not enough evidence for you?

Did he have Nukes, no.

WMDs, certainly.

[bradclark1]

The fact that thousands of Kurds were killed in Chemical weapons attacks not enough evidence for you?


March 1988. A little too far back. In fact we(U.S.) probably supplied the gas or the ingredients to make it to Sadam.
Politics is such a nasty business.

[baggygreen]

^^ that is spot on.

Thus the accuracy of the statement that Iraq did have WMDs in its possession. Lets not fool ourselves, the US (defence chiefs, senior politicians) knows how much was used against Iran and the Kurds, and knows how much was supplied in the first place. the reference by someone earlier on about toys in a sandpit is a perfect analogy.

And yet, here at the Australian National University you still get leftwing nutters proclaiming that Iraq has never had weapons in any form, and their use against Iran was really the work of Israel and the US....:damn:

[Letum]

[
The fact that thousands of Kurds were killed in Chemical weapons attacks not enough evidence for you?

Did he have Nukes, no.

WMDs, certainly.
Gas or other chemicals are not WMDs
you need a hell of a lot of gas and very large deployment systems before you can achieve the kind of "mass destruction" you get from WMDs.
Whilst chlorine may not be the most potent of chemicals, many hundreds of tonnes where used in WW2 with only limited effect. To cause mass destruction you would need to release 100s of tonnes quickly in a populated area; impossible with any standard delivery system. Kurdish villages is one thing, mass destruction is another.
Biological and nuclear weapons are the only weapons capable of mass destruction with a single use.

Prahaps a mute point tho.
*edit* I'm not trying to make any political point.

[bradclark1]

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

[Letum]

Some chemical weapons are WMDs, some are not.

There is no publicly known weapons system that can deliver enough chemical material to directly kill more than ten - one hundred thousand people* as a result of chemical exposure in one use** of the weapon.
That's under optimal conditions for chemical weapons, using the most powerful toxins most effectively. The chemical weapons in Iraq didn't come close to this level of effectiveness and even if they did, one hundred thousand people isn't really "mass" destruction by the standards that other modern "wide-effect" weapons, such as nuclear and biological weapons, can achieve with the densely populated cities around the world.

However, where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass destruction. Some chemical weapons are, some are not. The ones found in Iraq are not by any sensible standard.
Just like you wouldn't call the chlorine taps in WW1 "mass destruction" weapons, we shouldn't call Iraq's chemical weapons WMD's.
In short: just because it is chemical weapon, doesn't mean it is a WMD.
The common cold could be used as a biological weapon, but it would not be effective enough to be a Biological WMD.

*A wide guess broadly based on a number of different estimates and guesses Iv'e come across.
**We can not count multiple deployments as that would make any weapon a WMD.

Back on topic:

A Marine who served in Afghan and Iraq is hardly a unbiased witness to the conflict in Iraq. A 22 year old Sergeant may have interesting views about the situation there, but not views anyone should use to form a political opinion with, without understanding a lot more in order to put the Marines views in the proper context and be able to view them critically.

[Abraham]

...
Back on topic:

A Marine who served in Afghan and Iraq is hardly a unbiased witness to the conflict in Iraq. A 22 year old Sergeant may have interesting views about the situation there, but not views anyone should use to form a political opinion with, without understanding a lot more in order to put the Marines views in the proper context and be able to view them critically.
Sure.
But the same thing goes for a 44 year old journalist who knows that he'll only be on screen with a catchy news item (and who may sometimes have a political agenda as well)...
:-?

[diver]

And yet, here at the Australian National University you still get leftwing nutters proclaiming that Iraq has never had weapons in any form, and their use against Iran was really the work of Israel and the US....:damn:

It's always puzzled me why institutions of higher education can be home to some of the dumbest people in society.

[Fish]

^^
And yet, here at the Australian National University you still get leftwing nutters proclaiming that Iraq has never had weapons in any form,


I dare to question your proclaim.:cool:

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:

[The Avon Lady]

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:
When you say "yes, the west", do you mean that this person was a government sales agent representing a western country?

Or was he a private citizen, acting on his own initiative or on behalf of a non-governmental company or organization, looking for a wad of cash to top up their Swiss bank account?

Or do you not see a difference between these?

[Fish]

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:
When you say "yes, the west", do you mean that this person was a government sales agent representing a western country?

Or was he a private citizen, acting on his own initiative or on behalf of a non-governmental company or organization, looking for a wad of cash to top up their Swiss bank account?

Or do you not see a difference between these?

Well, I see in a way, but schouldn't he be stopped in time by the covernment?
And what about the Frence covernment?

[The Avon Lady]

Well, I see in a way, but schouldn't he be stopped in time by the covernment?
Was the government aware of the illegal nature of the transaction before the material was delivered? If yes, was there another reason why they didn't halt the shipments(s)? Unaware of potential use? Waiting to catch a bigger fish? I'm just asking. Are all the facts known?
And what about the Frence covernment?
I've only considered France western in the geographic sense. :p

Some (WARNING: UNDERSTATEMENT AHEAD!) cynical and sarcastic reading: Oysters and Foie Gras and, By the Way, Saddam Was Hanged (http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/oysters_and_fois_gras_and_by_t.php).

[Letum]

Sure.
But the same thing goes for a 44 year old journalist who knows that he'll only be on screen with a catchy news item (and who may sometimes have a political agenda as well)...
:-?
Oh, everyone has an agenda. Even everyone who has posted here.
With so many different views, agendas and angles on political issues most people either:

a) Decide its all to much and the world is a confusing place and go and make a cuppa tea.

b) Side with the personality, religion, country or people they most identify with.

c) Side against the personality, religion, country or people they least identify with.

Everyone is effected by effected by a, b or c to some extent; some more obviously then others.
Personally I find I never have enough information I can trust and I lack background knowledge of people, places and history. I end up in category 'a'.

'a' is bad because you don't count until you can decide. Someone in 'a' may never make a difference for the better.

'b' is bad because it lacks questioning and your side may be the "wrong" one. Someone in 'b' might not question their guiding government, religion, people or personality.

'c' is bad because it lacks self criticism and the side you are against may be the "right" one. Someone in 'c' might be blinded by their prejudice against people.

'a' and 'b' often go hand in hand, but not always.

Occasionally someone will chose 'd'.
'd' is leading people your self.

'd' is bad because a room full of leaders, by definition can't achieve goals together unless some of the "leaders" are lead by other leaders. Those being lead are no longer 'd' (leaders), they are now 'b' (see above). If all the leaders remain independent then the group as a whole becomes as directionless as 'a'.
And then finally, if you do end up leading people independently, you will almost certainly be corrupted.

The UN is a good example of a room full of leaders.


Its important to know I'm talking about political issues here, not general conflicts such as ongoing war.

So whats the best option if you want to make the "right" choice?
I think the best thing to do is to try and understand all the underlining systems like this. Try to escape the influences of 'b' and 'c', gain all the knowledge you can and then make a compromise. After you do that act on your choice, even if you just change the way you vote next time.

Option 'd' is out of the reach of most people and is almost impossible to get right and stay uncorrupted....unless you are the next Gandhi - Mandela.


This could all be bull **** btw, I'm making it up as I go along and I have no real knowledge of political philosophy! ;)

*edit* Wish I could get my self to write that much back in education, my spell check must be burnt out.
*edit#2* This isnt off-topic, its just meta-topic ;)

[bradclark1]

There is no publicly known weapons system that can deliver enough chemical material to directly kill more than ten - one hundred thousand people* as a result of chemical exposure in one use** of the weapon.

You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD.
300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction.
The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937.

What was found after the invasion was old and useless. It couldn't be termed a WMD. If the coalition had found just one modern up to date container of a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon Bush's reasons for invasion would have been vindicated. None were found.

[Letum]

There is no publicly known weapons system that can deliver enough chemical material to directly kill more than ten - one hundred thousand people* as a result of chemical exposure in one use** of the weapon.


You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD.
300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction.
The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937.

What was found after the invasion was old and useless. It couldn't be termed a WMD. If the coalition had found just one modern up to date container of a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon Bush's reasons for invasion would have been vindicated. None were found.
OK, lets go step, by step here...

You said:
"You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD."

Yes, I was. However, to quote myself:

"where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass" destruction." "

You said:
"300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction."
"The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937."

That's a bit like saying 3,000,000 knife wielding men is a weapon of mass destruction. Clearly not the case. A weapon of mass destruction is denoted by the destruction a single weapon used once does. Its possible to kill millions if you have 3,000,000 knife wielding men and a good opportunity. That does not make it a WMD at all.
There is a big difference between mass destruction as seen at Gernika, Spain and a weapon of mass destruction as seen at Hiroshima.
If the term was used at Gernika, then it's meaning has significantly changed.

You said:
"What was found after the invasion was old and useless."

No, chemical weapons where used with effect by Iraq against it's own people. Not a WMD, but not useless either.


Gah, talk about getting weighed down in definitions.
How ever you describe concepts, it is the concept, not the word that counts.

[Abraham]

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:
When you say "yes, the west", do you mean that this person was a government sales agent representing a western country?

Or was he a private citizen, acting on his own initiative or on behalf of a non-governmental company or organization, looking for a wad of cash to top up their Swiss bank account?

Or do you not see a difference between these?
Well, I see in a way, but schouldn't he be stopped in time by the covernment?
And what about the Frence covernment?
The Dutchman was a private citizen, a businessman actually, who tried to hide his trade with Saddam from public scrunity. A few years ago he spoke about his connections with Saddam. The Dutch Justice system then started a criminal inquiry, putting one of our top prosecutors (Fred Teeven - for insiders; since last November's elections a Member of Parliament) on the case, which was in legal circles considered a 'mission impossible'. Nevertheless, the businessman, Van Anschat, was convicted for crimes against humanity. I hope for him that he has a Swiss bank account because he will now face civil claims from lawyers of Kurdish victims of Saddam.

But to answer The Avon Lady, this kind of help to Saddam was of course considered illegal, but - as anybody will understand - obscure transactions are very difficult to prevent in an open society.

[geetrue]

This war is the end of war as modern man has fought war ...

Tanks and planes ... men and machines started this war that
has now become a war of occupation.

We bascically have made all of Iraq a DMZ ...
All we have proved is
that you can't win a war. if you are a poor country, without WMD's.

This take over of Iraq and Afganistan may be the end of
war as we know it.

Now what do you think of first strike ... ?
Better be a solid as a rock President on the way.

I pray the next president to visit the war college every three
months just to train himself on how to react to some anti-American
country with WMD's threatening our way of life.

I don't see the enemies of Israel using anything so destructive with
Jerusalem being so Holy to their religion, but they have already used
the threat of WMD's

Israel has WMD's
Syria has Iraq's WMD's (don't argue just accept it)
Iran has WMD's
Saudi Arabia just has some old F-15's and some AWAC's
America has WMD's

WMD's can ruin your whole day ...

The generals are already looking at what this war cost ...

I wish it were the men that made a difference, but it is the
budget. We can't fight another war like this is the bottom line.

WMD's are not only cheaper for poor countries without a big
army, airforce, navy, but also for big rich in debt countries.

It would be foolish to fight another war like this one ...

America will have to adjust to the threat of WMD's from it's
enemies like never before ...

First strike vs a dragged out war that no one wants ...

Which one makes sense?

[bradclark1]

Gah, talk about getting weighed down in definitions.
How ever you describe concepts, it is the concept, not the word that counts.
Thank you.
Your concept is different then most of the worlds I think. The understanding of a definition could be the difference between a handshake and a knife in the back. (Just felt like being a little melodramatic :))

You said:
"What was found after the invasion was old and useless."

No, chemical weapons where used with effect by Iraq against it's own people. Not a WMD, but not useless either.

Yes in 1988.

Try this definition. Some people swear by this channel. :) http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,76887,00.html

[bradclark1]

Syria has Iraq's WMD's (don't argue just accept it)
You know something the rest of the world doesn't?

[The Avon Lady]

Syria has Iraq's WMD's (don't argue just accept it)
You know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Old news. Browse through the Iraqi WMDs Revisited (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91656) thread to find several article links discussing Syria's supposed role in hiding the WMDs.

Unlike Geetrue, this is not to say that there is nothing to argue about.

[geetrue]

You know something the rest of the world doesn't?


This for those who disagree (no flaming here)

I know there are other long drawn out arguements
about it, else where.

Where did all of the WMD's go ...?

I just have a gut feeling about this. Saddam had them ...
He gave his airforce to Iran during Desert Storm or
right after the war at least, didn't he?

The war that's left is really just between the suni's
and the ****es anyway.

I keep trying to figure out how I can remember that
the ****es are the ones causing all of the trouble in
post war Iraq ... It'll come to me ... pun intended :lol:

[bradclark1]

Syria has Iraq's WMD's (don't argue just accept it)
You know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Old news. Browse through the Iraqi WMDs Revisited (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91656) thread to find several article links discussing Syria's supposed role in hiding the WMDs.

Unlike Geetrue, this is not to say that there is nothing to argue about.
I'm not hardheaded but I've read enough here and there that made me decide that Syria is not hiding any weapons. If they were there would have been some whisper somewhere about it that intelligence services could act on.

[TteFAboB]

the suni's
and the ****es

Hehe, the curse filter will block out ****es. :lol: This forum is for suni's only.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not hardheaded but I've read enough here and there that made me decide that Syria is not hiding any weapons.
I've read lots and I have no way of drawing a definitive conclusion.
If they were there would have been some whisper somewhere about it that intelligence services could act on.
Here I strongly disagree with you. US intel (actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.

[August]

SHIITE

[The Avon Lady]

SHIITE
Two 'I's don't make an asterisk. :D

[Letum]

Here I strongly disagree with you. US intel (actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.
Well, US intelligence is clearly poorly informed, but not as poorly informed as our intelligence or the presses intelligence. Mainly because of the manpower, cash and technology that we, the people, generally lack.
Professional intelligence services do know more than us and are likely to be more accurate, but as has clearly been shown, do get it wrong.
That is of course, not to say that we should not endeavor to find the truth our selves and not believe a thing they tell us.
a) they might be wrong, althow we are more likely to be
b) they might be lying

[ASWnut101]

(actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.


hehehe, MOSAD maby?:p

[bradclark1]

Here I strongly disagree with you. US intel (actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.

I realize that, but there are a whole lot of different services out there that I'm pretty sure would not like WMD's floating around out of control of a responsible goverment. Just don't ask me to define a responsible goverment.

[waste gate]

Here I strongly disagree with you. US intel (actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.

I realize that, but there are a whole lot of different services out there that I'm pretty sure would not like WMD's floating around out of control of a responsible goverment. Just don't ask me to define a responsible goverment.

If this was about responsible governments. But it is not. Its about irresponsible governments and the terrorist organizations they support either directly or by complacency.

[The Avon Lady]

(actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.
hehehe, MOSAD maby?:p
Note what I wrote between the parentheses. :hmm:

[ASWnut101]

ahh, but you must state the names that are not reliable for people so we know who you're talking about.:cool: