View Full Version : I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD
I guess that was all just a lie?
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html
BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.
Takeda Shingen
07-31-12, 02:42 PM
If they were usable, he would have used them against the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2009_Declarat ion
The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated. The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.
If they were usable, he would have used them against the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2009_Declarat ion
These munitions meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[114] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-113)
We were told there were no WMD's in Iraq. Obviously that isn't true.
Takeda Shingen
07-31-12, 02:55 PM
So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay.
My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.
Herr-Berbunch
07-31-12, 02:59 PM
I had a friend in the weapons inspection team, he said that it was futile, the Iraqis knew when they were turning up and moved it. They knew it, we knew it, but what can you do?
Here's my friend next to a waxwork of Saddam, can't think why he was chosen for the team.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4789/petesaddam.jpg
So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay.
My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.
Agreed on both points. To even imply that previously secured remnants justifies the conduct of the Iraq action is straw grasping in the desperate extreme by Bush apologist. The American people were lied to and our military servicemen have paid the price...
As for cleaning up, that is a very good question. In all the Bush years in Iraq and in the Obama years it does appear there was "no rush" to neutarlize what, as Takeda points out, is a potential environmental disaster. Particularly given the Bush administration's fervent frenzy about AMDs and the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands, it is indeed curious the AMD remnants were not destroyed/neutralized as a top priority. Also, why is the UK taking point on the disposal? It seems the US would bee the more likely entity to take the lead...
...
There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time...
Either way, the fact that Saddam DID have WMDs and did use them is not a question. The question is when. This doesn't add any evidence to the idea that he had any in 2003.
Herr-Berbunch
07-31-12, 03:08 PM
. Also, why is the UK taking point on the disposal? It seems the US would bee the more likely entity to take the lead...
...
Probably because we were the first to use WMDs in modern(ish) warfare, and that was against Iraqis.
Or because we sold them to them in the first place, when they were good guys against Iran.
I had a friend in the weapons inspection team, he said that it was futile, the Iraqis knew when they were turning up and moved it. They knew it, we knew it, but what can you do?
Here's my friend next to a waxwork of Saddam, can't think why he was chosen for the team.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4789/petesaddam.jpg
LOL :D
Did he ever dress up as Saddam to gain access into their facilities and/or Iraq's finest pubs? :O:
Herr-Berbunch
07-31-12, 03:09 PM
LOL :D
Did he ever dress up as Saddam to gain access into their facilities and/or Iraq's finest pubs? :O:
That's the only pic of him with Saddam that I've seen, I've not seen him dress up, but surely it's only a matter of time. Maybe he was waiting for the threat of assassination to move on. :hmm2:
Takeda Shingen
07-31-12, 03:12 PM
PHOTO
Wow. It's almost a perfect double. :haha:
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/scaled.php?server=26&filename=bummer.jpg&res=landing
"BUMMER OF A BIRTHMARK, HAL"
EDIT:
Got the picture, but the caption didn't come with...
...
Who said anything about justifying a war? The claim was made that Iraq had no WMD's. Not "No new WMD's", no WMD's. Obviously this is not true whether you want to admit it or not
There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time..
Invalid comparison. There's a big difference between the remains of an aircraft and the remains of a Chemical weapon munition. For one thing just walking by the aircraft isn't likely to kill you...
Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.
Probably because we were the first to use WMDs in modern(ish) warfare, and that was against Iraqis.
Or because we sold them to them in the first place, when they were good guys against Iran.
What WMD's did we use against the Iraqis?
Takeda Shingen
07-31-12, 03:30 PM
We went in there over centerfuges, VX and Anthrax. What we found was 50-year-old degraded mustard gas and a pair of toxic sites that were destroyed in 1991. To point to the latter and say 'See! I told you!' is a disingenous line of argument at best.
Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.
Exactly; the "waste" was/is not in a weaponized state. If it can't be used as a weapon, it is not a weapon...
...
What WMD's did we use against the Iraqis?
I suppose you could turn that argument around and ask what WMDs Iraqis used against us/US.
And again, I'm not disputing the fact that Saddam had and used WMDs on his own people before. Just that there's 0 evidence of that being anywhere near the year 2003.
Ducimus
07-31-12, 03:49 PM
We went in there over centerfuges, VX and Anthrax. What we found was 50-year-old degraded mustard gas and a pair of toxic sites that were destroyed in 1991. To point to the latter and say 'See! I told you!' is a disingenous line of argument at best.
Pretty much my thoughts. Particuarly when the word residual is being tossed around. I honestly wish Saddam did have stockpiles of NBC. At the time i thought we did need to go over there, because we all thought he had them. Turns out he didn't, we looked the buffoon, sunk untold amounts of cash into another 2nd world excrement hole, and now we're stuck with a credit card bill from hell.
mookiemookie
07-31-12, 03:51 PM
Who said anything about justifying a war? Justification of the war was the whole point of making the claim that Iraq had WMDs in the first place. Otherwise you're just arguing semantics.
Skybird
07-31-12, 04:05 PM
Nobody ever denied that Saddam has hads chemicals in the past. Point is he got rid of them several years before the war 2003. What'S left is residual material from those years. And it has not been a secret. It is known since many years that residual traces of former Iraqi chemical arsenal exists. It was "revealed" already in 2004 I think, or 2005.
Takeda is right on target with his comments.
Herr-Berbunch
07-31-12, 05:43 PM
What WMD's did we use against the Iraqis?
I was referring to us (Brits) dropping gas on Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) 90 years ago. :O:
krashkart
07-31-12, 06:33 PM
Who said anything about justifying a war?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/220px-George-W-Bush.jpeghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/46_Dick_Cheney_3x4.jpg/250px-46_Dick_Cheney_3x4.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Rumsfeld1.jpg/220px-Rumsfeld1.jpg
August -- with all due respect. These guys were in charge in '03. As far as I know they lied to us. Until we have concrete evidence to the contrary I will always believe that.
August -- with all due respect. These guys were in charge in '03. As far as I know they lied to us. Until we have concrete evidence to the contrary I will always believe that.
Why so defensive? We were told by those who said these guys lied that there were no wmd's in Iraq. That's obviously not true. That has nothing to do with whether those guys were liars or just mistaken.
krashkart
07-31-12, 07:15 PM
Why so defensive? We were told by those who said these guys lied that there were no wmd's in Iraq. That's obviously not true. That has nothing to do with whether those guys were liars or just mistaken.
Not defensive. I think they lied to us. I don't abide by liars. That's all.
Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.
I said "wasn't likely" not "can". You "can" kill someone with a UN peace plan (if it's a hard cover edition). Is it likely? Aside from boring you to death, no.
But you must admit that chemical weapons, even degraded are a lot more dangerous than the most toxic of B-52 airplane part. As for putting them in a warhead you do realize that by middle eastern standards that warhead can be a backpack carried by a suicide bomber.
Not defensive. I think they lied to us. I don't abide by liars. That's all.
And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it but you're entitled to it.
Also I'm not sure it matters whether they lied or not. They had a big responsibility to be forthright and they screwed up, with tens of thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) paying with life or limb for a dubious cause as a result. They didn't trust international organizations who told them not to do it, and instead went with their own sources that later proved to be at best negligent, at worst guilty of falsifying evidence. I don't think two or three guys deserve all the blame, but they were the ones in the seat of power and if not them, then who? I think history has every reason to judge them harshly as a result.
See there where you and I disagree CCIP. I think it was right to take out Saddam and his regime for other equally important reasons. As far as I'm concerned they were only finishing the job that should have been finished back in 1991. Saddam was a knife pointed at our back.
That doesn't mean I think they did a good job of it but it did have to be done.
Blood_splat
07-31-12, 07:40 PM
I'm starting to think it was about establishing bases now.
Expecting a politician to tell the truth is like expecting a rock to write poetry.
Wars have been fought because of lies before, and they will be again, there was a reason behind this war, and the United States got something out of it, quite what that is will only really be known in the highest offices of power, but it certainly wasn't to do with WMDs that, I quote, "can be launched within 45 minutes", that, I think we can all agree now, was bull, and the only difference between that and some other wars is that the media found out that it was bull.
Blood_splat
07-31-12, 08:52 PM
The media had 69% of people believing Saddam was personally responsible for 9-11.
It's good to be a defense contractor.
I guess that was all just a lie?
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html
Do you still think Iraq was about WMDS? Come on, its common knowledge that Bush and Blair lied though their teeth.
Sadam likley had those "WMDs" since the 80s (Possibly when we or yourselves sold them to him) they are leftovers that got missed in 1991, they are nothing, not even worthy of front page news.
I hope you arent trying to tell us that this 'find' suddenly means the full scale invasion, recent war, loss of lives and fiancial cost to our nations was all 'worth it'.
If so, shouldnt N Korea have been a bigger priority? They have Nukes after all.
The media had 69% of people believing Saddam was personally responsible for 9-11.
It's good to be a defense contractor.
^this
Catfish
08-01-12, 06:17 AM
We were told there were no WMD's in Iraq. Obviously that isn't true.
Well you should know what Iraq had at that time, he received it all from you and the NATO. And how we liked Saddam very much while he kept on attacking his neighbours, until he turned towards Saudi Arabia. Also Iraq and Turkey had tried to gas the Curds, along their frontiers. Is that gas a weapon of mass destruction ? I think it depends on whether you are a weapons contractor, the UN or a Marine, or an ordinary man with common sense.
Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator for decades, all doing business with him and sending him weapons of all kinds. Just like with Ghaddafi. Ahem.
"We were told .."
Exactly, you know people are always being told instead of thinking and making proof themselves. What about middle/south America back then :hmm2:
Now, for Iran ...
Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator.
.
You must be kidding right?
Now they have democracy....is that good?
Catfish
08-01-12, 06:26 AM
You must be kidding right?
Right. :up:
Now they have democracy....is that good?
At least no one is tortured anymore, at least not that i know of. However daily life and a civilian society will take time to be established, along with the avarage standard of living as it was before .. if those religious weirdos do not ruin it all again.
kraznyi_oktjabr
08-01-12, 06:29 AM
Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator. Ahem.Except those poor girls who got Uday Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein)'s interest.
I general I agree. I would like to point out that Iraq is mostly Shia nation (figure vary but 65% is quite common). This means that in religious point of view there is one natural ally - Iran. Besides I'm quite sure that Iraq will collapse into civil war within next 20-30 years.
Right. :up:
At least no one is tortured anymore, at least not that i know of. However daily life and a civilian society will take time to be established, along with the avarage standard of living as it was before .. if those religious weirdos do not ruin it all again.
Ill go to racist cultural thing:D by saying that Iraqi themselves ruin their own life.
They need to change their priorities.
Catfish
08-01-12, 06:40 AM
But that would be racist.
I, myself, blame it on the heat in those countries. :sunny:
Now they have democracy....is that good?
In a bitter sweet sort of way, I guess the question is would you like to live though almost a decade of war, in order to be able to cast a ballot?
If you have lost your livelyhood and/or home and/or loved ones, im guessing the answer is probably maybe not.
An invasion of Iraq had been on the cards since 2000 (feel free to look it up)
I do not believe for a second we went in to iraq to spread democracy or to find WMDs, those were 'excuses' not legitimate reasons.
And even if theywere, if foreign troops invaded our nations to disarm us and replace our Political leadership? How would we feel about it?
We'd be somewhere between 'outraged' and 'a bit skeptical' I imagine.
However you dress it up, its still a case 'We think our system is superior to yours. so we will force you to live like us AND! expect you to thank us for it.
Now how democratic is that? And where in the U.S consitution does it say this is acceptable?
Bottom line is, if Iraq wanted democracy, that was something they needed to do by themselves.
Well you should know what Iraq had at that time, he received it all from you and the NATO.
What exactly did the US Government supply them?
What exactly did the US Government supply them?
Google "United States support for Iraq during the Iran - Iraq war"
And scour through the 69,900 results until you can find a source you like.
But dont expect articals from major US main stream media outlets
(for obvious reasons)
The major superpowers (past and present) play smaller nations off against each other for their own advantage, its nothing new or surprising we have been doing it for decades. Or in our case (The UK) for centuries.
Google "United States support for Iraq during the Iran - Iraq war"
And scour through the 69,900 results until you can find a source you like.
But dont expect articals from major US main stream media outlets
(for obvious reasons)
So in other words it's more foreign bull crap.
So in other words it's more foreign bull crap.
To you it is yes. :haha:
Think of it this way, any negative artical that the U.S media writes about China - is just 'foreign bull crap' to a patriotic chinese man, doesn't mean he is automatically correct though does it?.
Is that fair?
In a bitter sweet sort of way, I guess the question is would you like to live though almost a decade of war, in order to be able to cast a ballot?
If you have lost your livelyhood and/or home and/or loved ones, im guessing the answer is probably maybe not.
An invasion of Iraq had been on the cards since 2000 (feel free to look it up)
I do not believe for a second we went in to Iraq to spread democracy or to find WMDs, those were 'excuses' not legitimate reasons.
And even if theywere, if foreign troops invaded our nations to disarm us and replace our Political leadership? How would we feel about it?
We'd be somewhere between 'outraged' and 'a bit skeptical' I imagine.
However you dress it up, its still a case 'We think our system is superior to yours. so we will force you to live like us AND! expect you to thank us for it.
Now how democratic is that? And where in the U.S consitution does it say this is acceptable?
Its total BS, Bush & Blair used 9/11 fear mongering to sucker us in to supporting their dodgy deeds. Quite a nasty pair - those two.
Invasion of Iraq was in part to change geopolitical map of middle east.
Democracy and pro western government is one of the ways to do it...im not WMD story buyer but general behavior of Saddam Hussein called for such war.by 2000 he was re-establishing his position as regional bully.
9/11 opened wndow to finish the job.
Iraqi's Sadam Hussein deserved very much his ass to be kicked out of power the only miscalculation was about the chaos thereafter.
Iraqis had been no lovers of Saddam Husein as some welcomed Americans...the problem had been and is the tribal mentality and the meddling of neighboring countries like Iran and Syria or SA which looked toward destabilising any chance of civil life....by supporting all sorts of fractions that went along their own interests.
Iran for example would hate this experiment to succeed next door...same SA or Syria.
USA found it self in the middle of that taking all the heat.
Most of casualties in Iraq are due to tribal wars and terrorism against own population to create atmosphere of total chaos...terror at its best which in turn caused US forces to adopt some though polices.
It seems more act of terror had been conducted against own population or representatives of post Saddam government that actual US forces in Iraq...
Yet USA has been generally more successful in Iraq that in Afghanistan...as for now.
Question is how long it will hold with Iran trying to gain more influence over the region.
As it turns out ME is not Germany or Japan lol.
.........
mookiemookie
08-01-12, 08:24 AM
What exactly did the US Government supply them?
Economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war)
This fact isn't exactly secret, new or in doubt.
To you yes, to everyones else, maybe not. :haha:
Think of it this way, any negative artical that the U.S media writes about China - is just 'foreign bull crap' to a patriotic chinese man, doesn't mean he is automatically correct though does it?.
Is that fair?
I have no reason to doubt that most of it is. On the other hand foreign media have a proven track record of distortions and outright lies when it comes to my country. Wasn't it you just the other day trying to tell me that a little Ron Paul rally drew thousands of veterans when it was just a couple hundred guys claiming to be vets? Isn't it you who keeps trying to make a case that 911 was an inside job? Why should we believe anything you say?
Now i'm sure that a US company or three had it's hand in Saddams cookie jar but whether they did it with the permission and approval of the US government is another thing. AFAIK the only thing we gave Saddam (along with a bunch of other countries) is some Anthrax samples as part of a vaccine development program. Kind of a dumb idea in hindsight but that does not equal giving them *all* their WMD like you claim.
mookiemookie
08-01-12, 08:28 AM
Now i'm sure that a US company or three had it's hand in Saddams cookie jar but whether they did it with the permission and approval of the US government is another thing. AFAIK the only thing we gave Saddam (along with a bunch of other countries) is some Anthrax samples as part of a vaccine development program. Kind of a dumb idea in hindsight but that does not equal giving them *all* their WMD like you claim.
T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.
- Statement by former National Security Council staffmember Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
http://www.webcitation.org/5flvP0UgC
USA gave aid to Iraqis as long as he played the ball then he miscalculated with Kuwait and got screwed...that's life.
Wasn't it you just the other day trying to tell me that a little Ron Paul rally drew thousands of veterans when it was just a couple hundred guys claiming to be vets?.
My mistake, it was approx 400 vets and 'thousands' of supporters. Anyway keep in mind Paul still got more donations from military personell than any of other candidates did. And that cam for Your media sources, not from any of that foreign muck.
Isn't it you who keeps trying to make a case that 911 was an inside job?.
No, because questioning something is not the same as calling it something else. I make the case to not be too dismissive of people who have an alternative views on something, I actually remember the 9/11 thread and you were one of the few people that argued your case very mature and reasonable manner on that one (without name calling and character attacks.)
Why should we believe anything you say?.
Why should we believe anything anyone says?. Do you have a track record of being 100% right on every subject in GT? You are right sometimes but not always, nobody is.
but that does not equal giving them *all* their WMD like you claim.
I did? ....
(Possibly <insert humour> when we or yourselves sold them to him)
Just abit of British syncism/sarcasm mate.
Economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war)
This fact isn't exactly secret, new or in doubt.
Nor is relevant to what Catfish claimed. See post number 35.
Economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war)
This fact isn't exactly secret, new or in doubt.
Nor is it relevant to Catfish's claim that we sold them ALL his WMD.
My mistake, it was approx 400 vets and 'thousands' of supporters. Anyway keep in mind Paul still got more donations from military personell than any of other candidates did. And that cam for Your media sources, not from any of that foreign muck.
A mix of several hundred vets and supporters was the non partisan tally. That's not very many from a group of Americans numbering in the tens of millions. Nor does it prove that those who did march were real veterans either.
Why should we believe anything anyone says?. Do you have a track record of being 100% right on every subject in GT? You are right sometimes but not always, nobody is.Exactly that's why I don't lecture foreigners on what is happening in their own country whereas you seem to make a habit of it.
Exactly that's why I don't lecture foreigners on what is happening in their own country whereas you seem to make a habit of it.
Ok and what about this thread? Weren't you just implying that the WMDs in Iraq were real and linking us to a non-US news source? How do you know there are no Iraqis reading this forum :)?
http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/322611-825-46.jpg
Ok and what about this thread? Weren't you just implying that the WMDs in Iraq were real and linking us to a non-US news source? How do you know there are no Iraqis reading this forum :)?
If there are they hardly need a Brit to do their arguing for them.
gimpy117
08-01-12, 12:37 PM
Newsflash:
Leftover weapons USA gave Iraq back in the day finally cleaned up!
Oh wait...I think I just came up with the proper headline for this story. Hell, I'm sure we knew exactly what Saddam had because there is a good chance, I would venture, that WE gave it to him to fight Iran.
So know I never thought for a second this was a "breakthrough" in the reasoning for going to war. It's kinda like the actual yellowcake we found; and every person who still had an axe to grind about Bush basically lying to us went: "Ah-HA!"....except for the fact that we knew about it since the first Gulf War, and it was never even ever close to being weapons grade, nor was it used.
We got sold a load of bull, and now people who still wanna act like we didn't are taking any chance to retrospectively justify things. However, I feel like if you have to scour any little news headline after a 10 year war to somehow make up a reason for it...then it's probably safe to say it was a pointless war
mookiemookie
08-01-12, 12:41 PM
Nor is it relevant to Catfish's claim that we sold them ALL his WMD.
It's very relevant to your question that implied that we didn't supply them with anything, and then your later claim that it was on a small scale and not under the auspices of the government and that the only thing we gave them was "some Anthrax samples as part of a vaccine development program."
Or you can try and narrow the question so far down so that you can claim that you're right and everything else is irrelevant - which is exactly what you're trying to do.
It's very relevant to your question that implied that we didn't supply them with anything, and then your later claim that it was on a small scale and not under the auspices of the government.
I implied no such thing. I simply asked for evidence to back up his assertion that the United States Government sold Saddam ALL his weapons of mass destruction. If that somehow equals economic aid and the rest of it then I submit you are letting your usual bias affect your reading ability.
:salute:
Newsflash:
Leftover weapons USA gave Iraq back in the day finally cleaned up!
:oGive Saddam some credit.
krashkart
08-01-12, 01:31 PM
@August - I look up to you as a long standing member of this board, and I respect that you have many years of experience over me. You have worked harder than I have, but I demand some accountability. To deny that our country had anything to do with *Saddam's chemical weapons program (and subsequent chemical attacks) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program) is to hide behind a lie while hoping to not get caught well after the fact of being caught. We done been caught with blood on our hands, sir. Time to own up to the facts.
* Yes, I know it's Wiki. Sue me.
@August - I look up to you as a long standing member of this board, and I respect that you have many years of experience over me. You have worked harder than I have, but I demand some accountability. To deny that our country had anything to do with *Saddam's chemical weapons program (and subsequent chemical attacks) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program) is to hide behind a lie while hoping to not get caught well after the fact of being caught. We done been caught with blood on our hands, sir. Time to own up to the facts.
* Yes, I know it's Wiki. Sue me.
In that entire page the United States is mentioned only once as contributing some "dual use technology" including computers which apparently were useful in their nuclear program (as opposed to chem and bio weapons).
Now maybe i'm missing something here but I don't see how that equals the US providing ALL of Saddams WMD.
If there are they hardly need a Brit to do their arguing for them.
Im sure they dont - its an example, we either practise what we preach or we dont.
Skybird
08-01-12, 05:33 PM
Right. :up:
At least no one is tortured anymore, at least not that i know of. However daily life and a civilian society will take time to be established, along with the avarage standard of living as it was before .. if those religious weirdos do not ruin it all again.
An easy Websearch will show you how wrong you are there. There is not only torture still in Iraq, at least two years ago there was even more torture than there ever was under Saddam. So again, at least until 2010, torture became worse than it was before. Torture and secret torture rooms maintained by the government are still reported until today. So are death squads and secret police executions.
Crime also is high. Abductions, blackmailing, ethnic cleansing, and the kicking out of non-Muslims anyway.
And just today they reported that the killing in Iraq currently has hit the highest peak again since two years.
And while somewhere someboy mentioned Uday and his special taste for woman treatment, that creature was a sick piece of s###, yes. But by numbers his victim record did not compete with what they have today, it seems.
To say that the Iraq war helped to install a government with less torture, is like saying that the Afghanistan war has led to a democratic non-corrupt government where bribery is no issue anymore. Like in Iraq, it seems that bribery and corruption became worse under Karzai. And like in Iraq, there are many open bills that still wait to be payed out.
These are the kinds of wars Western soldiers get thrown away for like empty PET bottles, by criminal politicians without morals and without scruples. Not only were these wars absurd - they were a betrayal of said soldiers and treachery towards own nations and its people that until today gets fed lies and polit burea propaganda.
This makes me sick today - and from another perspective feeling lucky that 27 years ago I decided against a military career. This Western politics is not what I considered and was willing to serve for - this it was not.
To say that the Iraq war helped to install a government with less torture, is like saying that the Afghanistan war has led to a democratic non-corrupt government where bribery is no issue anymore. Like in Iraq, it seems that bribery and corruption became worse under Karzai. And like in Iraq, there are many open bills that still wait to be payed out.
.
All those things are issues that usually don't disappear just by the fact that the country had an election.
No one claimed this i think.
The country is a mess but there are signs of actual co - operation between Sunni and Shi'tes.
The government also tries to distance it self from extremism,it has complied constitution and there are no signs of pushing sharia laws from the top....
How it eventually works out it is hard to say but surly doom gloom is what people like to hear:haha:
Also question is how SA and Iranian affairs will influence the future of Iraq.
Ohh wait... some American companies cant wait to start pumping the oil at last.
...............
Tribesman
08-04-12, 04:51 AM
I guess that was all just a lie?
Still trying to peddle out the same old rubbish because even after all these years you just can't accept your being very publicly suckered.:yep:
The ayatollahs send you thier gratitude from the theocracy in Iran and its clients in Iraq, keep believing in the rubbish that has been thoroughly trashed repeatedly for the entirety of this century:yeah:
if you have to scour any little news headline after a 10 year war to somehow make up a reason for it...then it's probably safe to say it was a pointless war
It wasn't pointless for some of the nuts in the middle east, for them it was the perfect war.
But for anyone else it was pointless, or even worse, it was thoroughly counter productive, harmful and wasteful.
Some could even say it was treasonous as after all the WMD rubbish some people swallowed was being fed from Tehran so the people who swallowed that crap were providing aid and comfort to the enemy.:hmmm:
TheSatyr
08-09-12, 02:48 PM
We know Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds and we know he used them on Iran. With a record like that you'd have to assume he still had them and would use them.
As for who (supposedly) lied,you can add Clinton,Gore and most of the Democratic leadership as well. Since they also claimed that Saddam still had WMDs.
Blaming it all on Bush and his Administration is nothing more than political theater.
As for who (supposedly) lied,you can add Clinton,Gore and most of the Democratic leadership as well. Since they also claimed that Saddam still had WMDs.
Blaming it all on Bush and his Administration is nothing more than political theater.
So, an adminitration that has an acknowledged "unofficial" policy of "Anything/Anyone But Clinton (the so-called "ABC" policy of the Bush White House), that publically went out of it's way to disavow and discredit anything associated with the Clinton years, is to be excused because they somehow arbitrarily decided the one thing they would believe from the Clinton administration was that Sadaam had WMDs? Rather a jejune defense, n'est pas? The way the Bush apologists disingeously try to disavow any of the failings of the Bush administration seems to give the impression that Bush did nothing in his eight years in offfice...
Oh, wait, maybe they have a point...
...
Tribesman
08-09-12, 05:20 PM
With a record like that you'd have to assume he still had them and would use them.
You can assume nothing, they presented the "evidence" and it was laughed at, several of the nations doing the laughing had already examined the evidence and passed it on to America with a note saying it was bollox.
Didn't your secretary of state describe presenting that pile of tripe as the lowest point in his career.
As for who (supposedly) lied,you can add Clinton,Gore and most of the Democratic leadership as well.
It isn't a party thing, some people at the time lied, some people at the time swallowed rubbish and some people just went along for the ride because the truth of the claims didn't matter to them at all.
However, for people to still try and peddle the rubbish that has long been proven as absolute crap is absolutely ridiculous and simply demonstrates that they cannot learn from their mistakes or accept the reality of them.
So, an adminitration that has an acknowledged "unofficial" policy of "Anything/Anyone But Clinton (the so-called "ABC" policy of the Bush White House), that publically went out of it's way to disavow and discredit anything associated with the Clinton years, is to be excused because they somehow arbitrarily decided the one thing they would believe from the Clinton administration was that Sadaam had WMDs? Rather a jejune defense, n'est pas? The way the Bush apologists disingeously try to disavow any of the failings of the Bush administration seems to give the impression that Bush did nothing in his eight years in offfice...
Oh, wait, maybe they have a point...
...
An administration that began two wars can hardly be accused of doing nothing.
But maybe your confusion is because the idea of Iraq having WMD's wasn't invented by Bush and co:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Sounds to me like these people thought there were WMD's in Iraq as late as 1999. Maybe they are the ones who need apologists,.... oh wait they have you.
Tribesman
08-09-12, 05:38 PM
Maybe they are the ones who need apologists,.... oh wait they have you.
The politicians of both parties have said they got it wrong, completely wrong. a bi partisan commitee looked at how wrong they had got it and how on earth they put forward such rubbish claims.
The only people who need apologists are those who are still trying to claim the lies are true,
Have you got someone who can apologise for you?
I can step in if you want
August is very sorry for still trotting out the bull a decade after the people who fed him it said it was incorrect:salute:
Thank me in your own time:woot:
My response still stands: regardless of what Clinton did or did not say, Bush decided to take his own tack, relying on his rather largely limited understanding of global politics, fed by persons (Cheney, et al), and, in an act of stubborn, petualnt, defiance of all evidence, throw the US into a two-front war with no greater substantiation than the urgings of those who stood to profit more from an incresed US role in the region (Haliburton, Blackwater, et al). Bush had the opportunity to take a step back, carfully assess the priorities of the then current war situation, make a reasoned evaluation and do what a President would have done: weigh the cost of American lives against an unnecessary expansion of the war. But, then again, Bush has never been accused of being thoughtful, considered, and rational; we may never relly know what the entire rationale behind his acts was, but, if he wast rying to show he was tougher than Daddy, that he possessed a set of brass ones, if he was playing out his childhood fanatsies brought on by watching "Combat", or if he was just brainlessly incompetent and quite probably the least qualified person, to that point in history to occupy the Oval Office, the fact remains he, and he alone, is responsible for his actions. If you want to blame Clinton for everything he did in his eight years in ofiice, if you want to blame Obama for what he has done in his time in office, then you Dubbya-lovers are just going to have to face up to the reality that Bush came into office with a nation at relative peace, with a balanced budget, with a budget surplus, with a thriving economy, and a rather solid ecnonmic system and eight years later, with neither Clinton or any other person of either party in the position to call the shots, Dubbya walked out of the Oval Office more like the captain of the Titanic than the captain of the ship of state. Dubbya's entire life prior to entering the White House was a history of skirting responsibility, foisting blame on others, and having others try to bail him out. There is a very good raeson the GOP does not want him at the convention, quite similar to the reason they did not want Nixon at the conventions after he left office. But, you know what? I would almost rather have had Nixon in office between 2000 and 2008; Nixon was reprehensible, but he really managed to do the most damage mainly to himself. Bush has the distinction of taken an entire nation down with him...
You may now proceed to flail away further to prove that you, like your hero, Dubbya, have no defense for the stupidity that got us where we are today...
...
Have you got someone who can apologise for you?
I can step in if you want
August is very sorry for still trotting out the bull a decade after the people who fed him it said it was incorrect:salute:
Thank me in your own time:woot:
I was still writing my above response when you posted this; I owe you a pint, your choice... :)
...
Tribesman
08-09-12, 06:29 PM
I owe you a pint, your choice... :)
I will have a pint of Bonaparte after my swim in the morning.:Kaleun_Cheers:
http://www.tighneachtain.com/category/12-our-beers.html
Ok Vienna you and the troll have convinced me. Bush made up the whole thing one weekend out at the Crawford ranch. The poor poor Democrats were just ignorant pawns in the master chess players game to cast the peace loving gentle Saddam as some evil monster the world would be better off without. Apparently that's the Pravda nowadays and far be it from me to go against the koolaid stream. :roll:
Just between us though i'm still glad we took out Saddam, WMD's or not. Same goes for Khadaffi.
Tribesman
08-09-12, 06:49 PM
Ok Vienna you and the troll have convinced me.
:roll:
The fact that you attempted to trot out that rubbish years after its proponents admitted it was as bull shows that you cannot be convinced you got it totally wrong.
Bush made up the whole thing one weekend out at the Crawford ranch. The poor poor Democrats were just ignorant pawns in the master chess players game to cast the peace loving gentle Saddam as some evil monster the world would be better off without. Apparently that's the Pravda nowadays and far be it from me to go against the koolaid stream.
Nice to see the drought isn't causing a shortage of straw for you to stuff you posts with:rotfl2:
The master chess players were the Iranian nuts who sold you that crap you still believe.
Just between us though i'm still glad we took out Saddam
Not as glad as the shia theocrats are.
Oh, I am very glad Sadaam got taken out; it just didn't require a massive military force and the loss 3,800 coalition lives to do it. I would have been just as happy to have had it done by a single well-placed Hellfire and then all about have a pint to refresh our taste buds and toast a "Mission Accomplished"...
But, we would have been deprived of such sights as Dubbya strutting across a crrier deck looking little more than Alfred E. Newman dressed up like a G.I. Joe doll from the Island of Misfit Toys. Ah, that Dubbya: always good for a laugh (if the whole matter weren't so tragic)...
...
Oh, I am very glad Sadaam got taken out; it just didn't require a massive military force and the loss 3,800 coalition lives to do it. I would have been just as happy to have had it done by a single well-placed Hellfire and then all about have a pint to refresh our taste buds and toast a "Mission Accomplished"...
But, we would have been deprived of such sights as Dubbya strutting across a crrier deck looking little more than Alfred E. Newman dressed up like a G.I. Joe doll from the Island of Misfit Toys. Ah, that Dubbya: always good for a laugh (if the whole matter weren't so tragic)...
...
Right, a well placed missile. If only it were that easy. Of course you'd need at least two more missiles to take out his heirs apparent, and then maybe some more missiles to take out Chemical Ali and the other big shots of the regime. Suddenly it's not that simple now is it?
Any loss of life is a terrible thing but that's the realistic cost of war, any war. As far as wars go though our losses were on the low side. This is a testament to the skill of our troops and nothing should be taken away from them in that regard.
By the way, that Mission Accomplished sign that you mention had nothing to do with Bush. It was requested for and put up by the Navy to celebrate their completion of a very long and successful combat deployment.
In wartime plenty of missions are accomplished. That has nothing to do with declaring victory. In the speech that Bush made in front of that sign he mentions several times that the war is not won yet.
But hey it gave the liberals something to point at besides their own complicity in getting that mission assigned in the first place. Casting blame on others in order to cover up their own lack of accomplishment seems to be a favorite Democrat tactic. Of course I guess they sort of have to since they never accomplish anything except to make things worse.
Tribesman
08-10-12, 01:54 AM
As far as wars go though our losses were on the low side.
As far as your losses go in that war they were very high.
Even one casualty would count as very high for that stupid conflict as it was totally un needed and was sold to a gullible public on a raft of lies.
But its OK August, keep believing the lies if it makes you happier about the waste.
Betonov
08-10-12, 03:48 AM
There's one line in Lord of war I completely agree with
Jack Valentine: Keeping track of nuclear arsenels - you'd think that be more critical to world security. But it's not. No, nine out of ten war victims today are killed with assault rifles and small arms - like yours. Those nuclear weapons sit in their silos. Your AK-47, that's the real weapon of mass destruction.
A bit off topic but that's the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear people talking about WMD's
Any loss of life is a terrible thing but that's the realistic cost of war, any war. As far as wars go though our losses were on the low side. This is a testament to the skill of our troops and nothing should be taken away from them in that regard.
Right, a cost of war as long as it isn't your life, right?
But hey it gave the liberals something to point at besides their own complicity in getting that mission assigned in the first place.
As I've said before, I am not a liberal and I am an independent.
Casting blame on others in order to cover up their own lack of accomplishment seems to be a favorite Democrat tactic. Of course I guess they sort of have to since they never accomplish anything except to make things worse.
Oh, I don't know about that; the GOP Right seem to be doing an examplary job of blaming Clinton, Obama and anyone or anything for the failing of the years 2001-2009. These seem to have become the "Lost Years" for which no historical, cultural, or archeologigal documentation or evidence exist; or is it, how did you put it:
Of course I guess they sort of have to since they never accomplish anything except to make things worse.
Thank you for the truism, August...
You know, I am of a mind to report you to PETA for the act of flagellating deceased equines...
Right, a cost of war as long as it isn't your life, right?
That's a pretty low blow. I wore my countries uniform for seven years of honorable Army service. Did you?
I have friends and family who served in that war. Do you?
As I've said before, I am not a liberal and I am an independent.I didn't say you were either. Of course if it smells like a rat...
Tribesman
08-10-12, 01:46 PM
I wore my countries uniform for seven years of honorable Army service. Did you?
How irrelevant can you get?
You are not special, wearing a uniform doesn't make it suddenly OK to peddle lines that are well established as totally false:88)
In fact it makes it worse as you are showing utter contempt for the soldiers by still supporting a pile of lies that killed and maimed lots of them
I have friends and family who served in that war. Do you?
What have you got against them?
If you liked them you wouldn't have been in favour of the sillyness in Iraq.
Catfish
08-13-12, 04:27 AM
DID the Iraq have weapons of mass destruction ?
WAS the destroyer torpedoed by north-vietnamese PT boats in the gulf of Tonking, back then ?
Make up your mind yourself. This is not bashing the US, indeed i do not like the old Soviet Union or North Corea any more than August, but it very well shows how propaganda works, and how the Media never really questions anything the government says. Indeed you could compare this to the "polish attack at Germany" in 1939 - it is all the same, propaganda repeats itself, and "Lest we forget" should ESPECIALLY address those lies :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF3VMvppOk&feature=relmfu
And now they are trying to kill and arrest those who say the truth. No democracy, no free speech.
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
Sailor Steve
08-13-12, 09:08 AM
How irrelevant can you get?
Not irrelevant at all. August's statement was a direct reaction to Vienna's seeming claim that August was willing to sacrifice other's lives but not his own.
You are not special, wearing a uniform doesn't make it suddenly OK to peddle lines that are well established as totally false:88)
In fact it makes it worse as you are showing utter contempt for the soldiers by still supporting a pile of lies that killed and maimed lots of them
While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.
What have you got against them?
If you liked them you wouldn't have been in favour of the sillyness in Iraq.
His point was that he was one of them. You seem to be going back and forth on that.
Tribesman
08-13-12, 11:09 AM
Not irrelevant at all.
Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.
While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.
Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.
His point was that he was one of them.
Not there, his point was that he had friends a family who were in Iraq.
That puts him on par with Cindy Sheehan and simply means that his views must be taken on their merit alone so if it is a crap view he holds then he holds a crap view.
Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.
So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.
Sailor Steve
08-13-12, 11:23 AM
Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.
Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam. If you've never served you have no idea what it feels like to be accused of not being willing to risk your own life when you have done exactly that. I have friends who weren't in Iraq this time around, but were in Kuwait for the Gulf War. August signed up, and he would have gone wherever they sent him. His service is no less valid than anyone else's. It's not irrelevant at all.
Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.
I tend to agree with you. Even if he is clutching at straws, his self-defense in the face of "as long as it's not your own life" is still relevant.
Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.
No, nor would they have been right if she herself had served. That said, no one accused her of being willing to risk someone else's life but not her own. That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice. Whatever I may think of August's arguing skills or tactics, I am certain that he is not coward, and that he would have willingly served in Iraq had circumstances dictated.
So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.
I agree, but that's not what his defence was about, or your charge of irrelevance. If you think his service is irrelevant to his argument, fine. I agree. But that's not why he brought it up. He brought it up because he was accused of what amounts to cowardice, and that grates on anyone who has served, whether he saw actual combat or not.
Tribesman
08-13-12, 03:43 PM
Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam.
But this isn't about Vietnam or Lebanon or Grenada or anywhere else, this is specificly about the bullexcrement used to justify the war in Iraq so it only counts for that conflict.
That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice.
No it isn't.
Take a serviceman/ex serviceman who opposed the 2nd Boer war and supported the Great war or viceversa, which stand is he the coward for?
Take a serviceman who opposed both wars, which then.
Each must be dealt with on its merits and cowardice doesn't even rate on the meter of a decent arguement.
The only possible angle approaching "cowardice" here is a abject fear of facing the reality about the politicians lies.
That happens to be a common thing throughout history where people have to face the question of "what the hell was that all about?" after the conflict.
All too often some people slide into some myth as a comfort as they can't face the reality of it.
Catfish
08-13-12, 03:56 PM
repeating post #84: War made easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF3VMvppOk&feature=relmfu
Sailor Steve
08-13-12, 05:32 PM
No it isn't.
"as long as it isn't your life, right?"
Yes it is.
Take a serviceman...
Now you're being irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with the "your life" comment.
CaptainHaplo
08-13-12, 06:08 PM
Right, a cost of war as long as it isn't your life, right?
Folks like August, Sailor Steve, myself and many others here understand one thing you don't seem to get - when you sign up you don't get a guarantee of sitting somewhere safe. You go where you are needed and you do the job you are given - sometimes the mission seems like a boneheaded reach, others it looks like a milk run. When you sign up - you know it could cost your life - and yet your willing to do it. To claim that "as long as it isn't your life" totally ignores that point and just goes to show that you have either no understanding of the sacrifices of a soldier (and thus take those sacrifices for granted) or you choose to dishonor the sacrifices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF3VMvppOk&feature=relmfu
Quoting youtube starring a washed up actor that supports a socialist dictator as a relevant and accurate source of US government propaganda is more than just a stretch you know....
This is not bashing the US
Its not like he (or those he supports) are hostile to the US, huh?
Tribesman
08-13-12, 06:59 PM
Yes it is.
Did he volunteer to go to Iraq?
Did he sign up for a shift with Blackwater?
If not then no it isn't as previous service is not relevant to sending troops to Iraq over a bunch of lies.
Now you're being irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with the "your life" comment.
No as they would be conflict specific examples which is why they work as the whole topic is conflict specific.
To claim that "as long as it isn't your life" totally ignores that point and just goes to show that you have either no understanding of the sacrifices of a soldier (and thus take those sacrifices for granted) or you choose to dishonor the sacrifices.
It is the people who still carry on the lies about the conflict that are the ones dishonouring the sacrifices.
Catfish
08-14-12, 06:37 AM
Quoting youtube starring a washed up actor that supports a socialist dictator as a relevant and accurate source of US government propaganda is more than just a stretch you know....
Its not like he (or those he supports) are hostile to the US, huh?
"Source of government propaganda" lol this government is the source itself. Indeed Penn is more or less neutral, the IPA (institute of public accuracy) is indeed different than the phased media, and Hollywood military advertising films.
You obviously haven't even seen it. The propaganda is just like it has always been, and you, like millions before you, just do not want to know about it and what is really happening. The government cannot lie, unless it is Obama lol.
And a socialist dictator ? What do you mean - Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, unfortunately a socialist who died 9/11, 1973, during the putsch of this other dictator Pinochet ?
And a socialist dictator ? What do you mean - Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, unfortunately a socialist who died 9/11, 1973, during the putsch of this other dictator Pinochet ? You don't know your own history.
If it's Sean Penn you're talking about then i'm sure the socialist dictator is Chavez. I understand they're quite cozy with each other.
Bilge_Rat
08-14-12, 11:23 AM
You know, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the Iraq War rationally without all this endless childish, moralising posturing from either side. The war is over and the troops have gone home.
The war may have been a mistake, history will be the judge, but then what war is not a mistake. I'm sure the Germans also regret starting WW2.
I have read a number of books on the war, although the historical research is still embryonic. One interesting book which I read recently is the U.S. Army's official history on OIF which is available on line:
http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/OnPointI.pdf
It only deals with the first phase to the fall of Baghdad, but it really shows you the competence and professionalism of U.S. troops. This is in sharp contrast to the performance of the Russian Army in the 2008 Georgian War which was much more amateurish:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf
...anyway, I will let you kids go back to your playpen...:ping:
Betonov
08-14-12, 11:28 AM
You know, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the Iraq War rationally without all this endless childish, moralising posturing from either side. The war is over and the troops have gone home.
Good luck. WW2 ended in 1945 and it's still a hot-topic in my country. If you gave us all guns a 55 faction civil war would begin because of that damn war.
To be fair, there is a grain of truth in that Sean Penn film in that it's very rare that a politician will give the full true reason for going to war with a nation, with a few exceptions. War is rarely a popular thing, so politically you have to dress it up to make it look acceptable to the people who voted you in to office. Thus satisfying them, whilst solidifying the strategic agenda that you have for this war.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, one can only presume that the initial goals were to disrupt the flow of weapons to Al'Qaeda, create a pro-American state in order to counter Iran, and to shake things up in the Middle East enough that it disrupts any co-ordinated plans against America that had been formulating. Oil may have factored into the equation as well, because let's face it, it's an important strategic resource, just about everything we use runs on it, and every nation which is a strong importer of it is doing their best to secure supplies, China in Africa for example and their quiet support of Iran.
Wars are rarely about bettering society, or preserving lives, if that was the case then we'd be seeing F-18s over Damascus right now.
So where does that leave the average GI Joe? Stuck in the middle of course, they do their job for President and Country, and they do it damn well. They don't question why they're doing it because if you start doing that then the whole structure of the military breaks down, it's been like this since organised military forces came about...as Tennyson put it in the Charge of the Light Brigade "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die."
Was the war in Iraq just? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are many examples of just and in-just wars depending upon the viewpoint of the nations involved, in the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 who was truly the bad guy? Hitler who murdered millions or Stalin who murdered millions?
[..]in the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 who was truly the bad guy? Hitler who murdered millions or Stalin who murdered millions?
Stalin, of course. He had bigger moustache. :yep:
Stalin, of course. He had bigger moustache. :yep:
I stand corrected! :haha:
Not irrelevant at all. August's statement was a direct reaction to Vienna's seeming claim that August was willing to sacrifice other's lives but not his own.
Hello, guys...
To clear up a probable misconception about the intent of my statement that prompted Sailor Steve's response (Hi, Steve hope the gig went well); I was not saying that August was not willing to sacrifice other lives but not his own. I was trying (unsuccessfully, it sems) to make the point that many people who beat the drums of war appear to not really take into account the very real toll of human life and injury their fervent jingoism entails when put into action. When 9/11 happened, I told a number of my fellow employees and others I was happy Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Cheney were in their positions as I felt, by reputation, they would be highly effective in running both the war on terror and homeland security matters. Boy, was I wrong. As the conduct of the war seemed to further deteriorate; the impession of confusion and lack of direction further grew; and the spectacle of commanding officers, in the field and knowledgeable, being replaced for voicing their concerns (and these were consistent, legitimate, unaddressed concerns), I began to look deeper into the background of these men and others of their ilk. I was somewhat surprised to discover not a single one of them ever served a single day in the military and had actually sought out and recieved deferments from military draft induction. Cheney, when asked why he had sought a deferment said, "I had better things to do." These are the men who were overseeing the conduct of the war and its senior officers. They chose to treat the military as expendable and the casualties, as how Kissinger might have put it, "acceptable". I do not mean to say they would not sacrifice their lives themselves, but they seem to tend towards looking a war as a balance sheet of numbers and not human lives. There have in recent years been released recordings made in the White House (by the same recording system that brought don Nixon, ironically) of LBJ's conversations with various people where he agonized over his send of troops to continue the war in Vietnam. He was not concerned about costs, political image, or any other such matters. He was genuinely and humanly worried about what it meant it terms of the lives of "the boys". This concern was also a large part of his decision not to run for a second term. I did not agree with LBJ on many matters, but I have always respected his personal integrity and ability to put the nation's interests ahead of his own political interests. Sadly, the people who were in charge of the conduct of this current war and its two fronts have neither the empirical experience nor the seeming compassion for the human cost to really be in a position to make make those kind of decisions. It's easy to waste water when you don't have to dig the well or raise the buckets...
Folks like August, Sailor Steve, myself and many others here understand one thing you don't seem to get - when you sign up you don't get a guarantee of sitting somewhere safe.
Very true, if you sign up...
Those of my and Sailor Steve's age remember the Draft. The vestiges still suvive in the requirement for all males to register when they reach 18 years, but there has been any active conscription since 1973. Some men in our age group didn't have the option of not "signing up". The other option was exile or prision, if you didn't qualify for a deferment or if you didn't have "connections". The draftees of that era were, to most of the "Hawks" at the time, expenedable numbers, not men. As long as "goddless communisim" was kept at bay (and defense contractors made a profit), they were an acceptable "cost of war/business". The men who died and suffered for that war as unoptioned conscripts deserve all the benefits this country can give them...
The men and women who serve now in the all volunteer armed forces deserve better than to be merely part of a tally sheet; they deserve more than just casual consideration as human beings; they deserve leadership that knows and understands what they might go through in the conduct of their duties; and they deserve the knowledge that the leadership considers sending the in harm's as if they were sending themselves or their children in harm's way. I don't think it is too much to ask on their behalf...
...
Catfish
08-14-12, 02:03 PM
Hello August,
If it's Sean Penn you're talking about then i'm sure the socialist dictator is Chavez. I understand they're quite cozy with each other.
So you or Captain Haplo say Penn has an agenda - ok :hmmm:
I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.
Maybe there is a connection that the hawks see true reason = treason :-?
Hello August,
So you or Captain Haplo say Penn has an agenda - ok :hmmm:
I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.
Maybe there is a connection that the hawks see true reason = treason :-?
You might want to do some research on this guy before you start championing him Catfish.
Sailor Steve
08-14-12, 02:41 PM
To clear up a probable misconception about the intent of my statement that prompted Sailor Steve's response (Hi, Steve hope the gig went well); I was not saying that August was not willing to sacrifice other lives but not his own.
I was worried that I might be taking you the wrong way, and that I might be taken the wrong way myself, which is why I tried to continually use the word "seeming" in my references. (It went pretty well, considering not one person I invited showed up). I was upholding August's defense of his own service, though I disagree with his beliefs on this.
Those of my and Sailor Steve's age remember the Draft. The vestiges still suvive in the requirement for all males to register when they reach 18 years, but there has been any active conscription since 1973. Some men in our age group didn't have the option of not "signing up". The other option was exile or prision, if you didn't qualify for a deferment or if you didn't have "connections".
And here's where I jump ship. I consider myself a coward. I don't think I was in any danger of getting drafted, but I didn't know that at the time, and I "volunteered" for the Navy because I didn't want to get drafted into the Army. That I ended up in a combat zone doing fire support for the Marines was through no fault of my own. I came home firmly against that war.
The men and women who serve now in the all volunteer armed forces deserve better than to be merely part of a tally sheet; they deserve more than just casual consideration as human beings; they deserve leadership that knows and understands what they might go through in the conduct of their duties; and they deserve the knowledge that the leadership considers sending the in harm's as if they were sending themselves or their children in harm's way. I don't think it is too much to ask on their behalf...
An excellent point. All too often decisions are made by those who never consider the consequences.
Takeda Shingen
08-14-12, 03:01 PM
I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.
Indeed. One would be foolish to disregard a message just because it came from an unfavorable messenger. Or, at least that is what the Bible says.
And here's where I jump ship. I consider myself a coward. I don't think I was in any danger of getting drafted, but I didn't know that at the time, and I "volunteered" for the Navy because I didn't want to get drafted into the Army. That I ended up in a combat zone doing fire support for the Marines was through no fault of my own. I came home firmly against that war.
You ended up in a combat zone, but you didn't shirk your obligation: no coward, in my opinion. A lot of guys came home firmly against that war. It's kind of like that old Packard Motors ad, "Ask the Man Who Owns One". At least you didn't join the Air national guard and spend your time making "champagne flights" around the South USA...
I like the way you put "volunteered" in quotes; For a lot of 1-A's, the Navy and the Air force were seen as safer options. Sometimes they weren't. In San Francisco, there was another danger: getting "drafted" into the Marines. A fellow classmate of mine told me that after the group of draftees he was in finished taking the oath and the step, a door opened in the room, out came a couple of Marine Officers and NCOs. They went up and down the ranks of draftees, selecting those who were of better than average physical condition. My clasmate, being of sleder build, was bypassed, much to his relief. I have heard similar stories of "instant Marines" from other people over the years. To be absolutley fair, the new Marines still had to pass boot camp just like the enlistees. I have not been able to find out what happened to those whoe failed the Corps' boot camp. Were they discharged or transferred back to Army units?...
Sorry about the non-attendance at your gig. Are you going to post clips, if any? I was not going to be able to watch the live stream anyway, but things took a sharp turn for me last Friday; I wound up in an ER due to a severe violent illness. The tests run on me pointed to a viral infection; they also pointed out a couple of potentially serious conditions I wasn't aware of even being suffering. All in all not a great day...
BTW, if you have to go to an ER in Los Angeles, have them take you to Cedars Sinai Hospital. The staff there is really top notch and very attentive. They have the nicest, most well organized ER operation I have ever seen. It's almost worth getting ill just to go there...
(I said "almost"... :D)
...
How about an answer to my questions Vienna? Did you serve?
How about an answer to my questions Vienna? Did you serve?
Does this have anything to do with WMDs or are you trying to avoid the fact your OP has gone down in flames?...
Dead aquines, man, dead equines...
...
Who said anything about justifying a war? The claim was made that Iraq had no WMD's. Not "No new WMD's", no WMD's. Obviously this is not true whether you want to admit it or not
The pettifogger. :cool:
Sailor Steve
08-14-12, 04:10 PM
Sorry about the non-attendance at your gig. Are you going to post clips, if any? I was not going to be able to watch the live stream anyway, but things took a sharp turn for me last Friday; I wound up in an ER due to a severe violent illness. The tests run on me pointed to a viral infection; they also pointed out a couple of potentially serious conditions I wasn't aware of even being suffering. All in all not a great day...
No, no clips. We have a bunch of pictures on FaceBook, but nothing else that I know of. Sorry to hear about your infection. I hope it's getting better.
No, no clips. We have a bunch of pictures on FaceBook, but nothing else that I know of. Sorry to hear about your infection. I hope it's getting better.
Oh, well, maybe next gig...
The infection really isn't the problem; that will go away, but, the tests pointed out some possible organ failure...
But I,m not going anywhere soon...I've still got a whole bunch of people to tick off... :D
...
u crank
08-14-12, 04:31 PM
All the best Vienna. Hope everything is okay.
But I,m not going anywhere soon...I've still got a whole bunch of people to tick off... :D
One of the few privileges of getting old. :D
duck, dodge and jump
Be a man and quit avoiding the question. Don't be ashamed.
Just for the record, if the answer is negative, the one who will look worse is you for jumping on it (or "resting your case"). Because the question is irrelevant and is an unwarranted attack on his ethos. Contrary to the belief of some, serving does not give you an ethical bonus.
CaptainHaplo
08-14-12, 06:30 PM
Contrary to the belief of some, serving does not give you an ethical bonus.
No one said it does. However - it does provide a unique perspective that those who have NOT served cannot have. Knowing you can get a call at any time to go get shot at is a sobering thing. To be in combat situations also can alter your view - on a LOT of topics.
To infer cowardice because a servicemember never got the phone call while refusing to even address whether the accuser ever served is the bottom of the barrel.
Just for the record, if the answer is negative, the one who will look worse is you for jumping on it (or "resting your case"). Because the question is irrelevant and is an unwarranted attack on his ethos. Contrary to the belief of some, serving does not give you an ethical bonus.
:sign_yeah:
On the subject of Sean Penn. I do believe he is just a narrator in the documentary,
as the whole thing is based on Norman Solomon's book of the same title. :hmmm:
Just for the record, if the answer is negative, the one who will look worse is you for jumping on it (or "resting your case"). Because the question is irrelevant and is an unwarranted attack on his ethos. Contrary to the belief of some, serving does not give you an ethical bonus.
I don't really care what his answer is. I just want him to man up and answer it. He directly accused me of both personal cowardice and worse indifference towards my own kind. I think I deserve to know whether he comes from my world or not.
As far as ethical bonus' goes you have your opinion and I have mine. In my opinion you're not being very ethical by calling my response to him an unwarranted attack yet have nothing to say about his original attack upon me.
But since we're on the subject. Have you ever served your country?
Takeda Shingen
08-14-12, 06:54 PM
Oh the chest thumping. :roll:
Blood_splat
08-14-12, 07:00 PM
They lied about WMD and they should feel bad.:O:
They lied about WMD and they should feel bad.:O:
Don't worry, the biggest liar got his neck stretched.
CaptainHaplo
08-14-12, 09:32 PM
Don't worry, the biggest liar got his neck stretched.
What has Barack Obama got to do with this discussion?
What has Barack Obama got to do with this discussion?
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2454385065/ancient-aliens-guy-big-hair-giorgio-tsoukalos.jpeg
Tribesman
08-15-12, 01:54 AM
Oh the chest thumping.
Sounds like the great lakes coastguard boasting of his service while trying to tell people the incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin really happened like they had claimed at the time.
I don't really care what his answer is. I just want him to man up and answer it. He directly accused me of both personal cowardice and worse indifference towards my own kind.
"Cowardice" is as irrelevant as your service, however the proven indifference you hold towards the lives of your countries troops is about as bad as you want to make it for yourself.
If you cared about the troops you wouldn't still spout the tired old lies, you would be holding the politicians accountable for wasting the troops lives over silly obvious lies and for aiding the enemy.
Come to think of it aiding Iran would be treason wouldn't it, does supporting the aiding of Iran carry the same label?:hmmm:
Have you ever served your country?
Yes, by not believing the bull from politicians I do the best service the country can ever have:yeah:
The pettifogger.
Good one, I suppose it would be funny to point out that as well as the claim being a lie the bit about what was originally claimed is also a lie.
Does this mean August is really a politician?
But since we're on the subject. Have you ever served your country?
No. And I am a good example, because I left (or more accurately, was removed by my parents) from my country because I refused to be drafted as cannon fodder for a pointless, bloody war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Chechen_War) (which I would've been) that was was originally started by idiots/criminals and cynically used to raise the profile of a greedy future dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin) and resulted in a little more than a gangster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov) being established as a regional vassal to an equally gangsterous central regime. This is one of the hardest choices that anyone can face, and to this day I regard that choice as the right one. I have a lot of admiration and more than a little sense of guilt towards my peers who served in this horror. But no amount of spilled blood and noble service will vindicates fundamental wrongs behind the war and the shame that participating in an unjust conflict brings. Sometimes turning around and leaving is the only thing you can do to avoid making a bad situation worse. Nor does service give anyone an ethical higher ground. Hitler served his country too. So did that guy who shot up the Sikh temple last week.
There is no "your own kind". Everybody as people. I admire the courage of people who served, but it's against the principles of the society you fight for to suggest superior ethical categories of people. There is nothing preventing a critically-thinking civic person from passing ethical judgments of war. In fact, therein lies one of the big mistakes of many, many societies - the equation of service with violence and danger. Again, it's admirable. But the fundamental hero ideal of a just society must necessarily be a civic one first.
No. And I am a good example...
Well this may surprise you but I respect your decision not to serve your country (especially since there is such an obvious disconnect between your countries best interest and that of your leader) as I respect your willingness to admit it.
The people I don't respect are those who hide behind the anonymity of the internet just criticizing the actions of others. For Vienna to accuse me of the things he did is despicable in my opinion yet you seem to be quite willing to give him a pass on it and that I don't respect.
Blood_splat
08-15-12, 09:20 AM
the same could be said about military personal who have never seen combat, when debating things about war.
Tribesman
08-15-12, 10:16 AM
especially since there is such an obvious disconnect between your countries best interest and that of your leader .
You wrote that in a topic about the useless wasteful Iraq war and the lies the politicians told:har::har::har::har::har:
as I respect your willingness to admit it.
Yet instead of acknowledging the lies like your leaders and military have already done you are still running with the lies as you are unwilling to face reality and admit it.
Why does the truth make you so scared?:hmmm:
Ducimus
08-15-12, 11:51 AM
No one said it does. However - it does provide a unique perspective that those who have NOT served cannot have. Knowing you can get a call at any time to go get shot at is a sobering thing. To be in combat situations also can alter your view - on a LOT of topics.
True. Before I enlisted I was neoconservative. Several years later, I found my views had changed dramatically to a more middle of the road perspective, and I certainly wasn't as hawkish as i was before.
For me, my world view changed the day i looked into the mirror before a deployment, and realized that who i was as a person didn't matter. I could be the nicest guy in the world, help old ladies accross the street, donate my last dime to some non profit organization to feed the hungry, be the father of umpteen children and raise them all with the most loving care, but NONE of that would matter. No, who I was did not matter to the world. What did matter, was WHAT I was. And for that, I would be shown no kindness to put it mildly. But it was what I volunteered for, it was my job and nobody else's. When I realized this, I felt some icy cold run down the core of my being. The world was suddenly very real to me, very cold, and very lonely.
As an aside. Getting rid of Saddam, to me , was not worth it. That's just my armchair opinion. I think saying, "but we got rid of a dictator" Its like some BS bonus prize. "We found no WMD's that would endanger your country, but what do we have for him Johnny?!?!". I think it's the same ole story from other places we ended up sending our people to. Blood sweat and tears goes into the place, and half the local population spits in your face the first chance they get. That's never worth it. Id have sooner left Iraq to its own devices and left saddam in place. At least then there'd have been no power vaccum in the region and we'd be dealing with a known entity.
Buddahaid
08-15-12, 01:46 PM
As an aside. Getting rid of Saddam, to me , was not worth it. That's just my armchair opinion. I think saying, "but we got rid of a dictator" Its like some BS bonus prize. "We found no WMD's that would endanger your country, but what do we have for him Johnny?!?!". I think it's the same ole story from other places we ended up sending our people to. Blood sweat and tears goes into the place, and half the local population spits in your face the first chance they get. That's never worth it. Id have sooner left Iraq to its own devices and left saddam in place. At least then there'd have been no power vaccum in the region and we'd be dealing with a known entity.
Now that I can get behind. In the weeks leading up to hostilities I was telling people it's a big mistake but the juggernaut was unstoppable by then. The average Joe wanted to kick some Arab ass and really didn't care where. The most common response was "Do you like Saddam? Do you think he's a nice guy?" to which I said no I don't like him and I don't think he's a nice guy, but I do know it takes a ruthless hand to keep those countries from degenerating into civil war and this will end badly for us. Now where are we? No Saddam, billions wasted, and a country trying hard to rip itself apart still. Mission failed.
Bilge_Rat
08-15-12, 02:42 PM
To me the focus on WMDs is a bit of a red herring. It was the official reason for the war, but there were other reasons why govt officals signed off.
There had been a group around since 1991 that thought Saddam should have been removed from power. In the Bush administration, they were grouped around Paul Wolfowitz. If 9/11 had never happened, they would never have been able to get the support needed for the invasion.
After 9/11 and the successful invasion of Afghanistan, there was a policy vacuum as people decided what was to do next? Wolfowitz with the support of Rumsfeld and Cheney argued that removing Saddam was the logical next step. In the absence of an appealing alternative and under popular pressure to do something, the decision to invade Iraq kept moving forward.
Bush administration officials/politicians signed off on it for a variety of reasons: WMDs, sending a message to Islamic radicals, removing a regional threat, removing a potential support base for terrorists, etc.
In a sense, the progression towards war from 2001 to 2003 is very similar to how WW1 started: an international crisis occurs and events move inexorably towards war because no one else can offer a viable alternative.
Ducimus
08-15-12, 03:05 PM
Now that I can get behind. In the weeks leading up to hostilities I was telling people it's a big mistake but the juggernaut was unstoppable by then. The average Joe wanted to kick some Arab ass and really didn't care where.
To be fair and honest, I thought the original invasion was a good idea. Only on the premise that he had Nuclear, Biologocal, Chemical weapons.. I thought it was a good idea, because I remembered my NBC training. The reality is, we have no defense against an NBC attack, and I have no doubt in my mind that if they were to fall into the wrong hands that they'd be used without any hesitation. So on that premise, i thought it was a good idea to get in there and get rid of them. Which is why earlier in some post last week or so, i said I wish he had them. I really do. I thought he did. But, he didn't, and now we have this money pit called Iraq.
Wolferz
06-10-14, 06:37 PM
http://news.msn.com/world/militants-overrun-most-of-major-iraqi-city
Insurgents are back on the offensive in Iraq and their current leader is headed down the same path as Saddam. :roll:
Why did we even bother?:stare:
Platapus
06-10-14, 06:42 PM
http://news.msn.com/world/militants-overrun-most-of-major-iraqi-city
Insurgents are back on the offensive in Iraq and their current leader is headed down the same path as Saddam. :roll:
Why did we even bother?:stare:
We were supposed to be greeted as liberators and Iraqi oil revenues were to pay for the war. :shifty:
Tribesman
06-10-14, 06:57 PM
We were supposed to be greeted as liberators and Iraqi oil revenues were to pay for the war. :shifty:
No, thats the flip flop moment.
The initial plan was that Iraq when "free" would pick up the tab, then they changed it so the US taxpayer got stuck with the bill.
There was some politician who supported the first plan but voted against it when it was changed.
I seem to recall that he was widely lambasted for changing his vote when the finances were altered:yep:
Mittelwaechter
06-10-14, 07:08 PM
"We" bothered, because Hussein wanted to sell oil for Euros or gold (just like Gaddafi, so "we" had to save the Petrodollar) and because he was a threat to Israel (they have a strong influence on American politics).
WMD's and liberating people was the official story for the folks to support the war.
Some simple minds even thought he was involved in 9/11.
Jimbuna
06-11-14, 04:52 AM
http://news.msn.com/world/militants-overrun-most-of-major-iraqi-city
Insurgents are back on the offensive in Iraq and their current leader is headed down the same path as Saddam. :roll:
Why did we even bother?:stare:
Your surprised?
Wolferz
06-11-14, 05:34 AM
Your surprised?
Not at all. I knew it was going to be a waste the moment it started with Bush Sr's Gulf War to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Then he stops the whole shebang short of taking out Saddam. I guess he wanted to save that task for Junior while they continued to slant drill into Iraqi oil fields. :roll:
Crooks rule. Dictators drool.:haha:
Dread Knot
06-11-14, 08:14 AM
Not at all. I knew it was going to be a waste the moment it started with Bush Sr's Gulf War to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Then he stops the whole shebang short of taking out Saddam. I guess he wanted to save that task for Junior while they continued to slant drill into Iraqi oil fields. :roll:
Crooks rule. Dictators drool.:haha:
Yeah. Mosul. The Iraqi army just dropped their weapons and ran for it, and they left a whole depot of nifty and expensive US-supplied weapons and armored vehicles for the insurgents to pick up.
Shades of the ARVN.
Dread Knot
06-11-14, 10:11 AM
The latest new is that Saddam Hussein's old hometown of Tikrit has been overrun by the same militants. What tactics did we train in Iraqi Army in? Dropping your weapon so you can run faster?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27800319
Hopefully, someone will bother to alert the American Embassy before they roll into Baghdad. :doh:
Wolferz
06-11-14, 11:34 AM
Back to the Sunnis and Shiites fighting for control, with Al Qaida in the mix to boot.:nope:
Hopefully, someone will bother to alert the American Embassy before they roll into Baghdad. :doh:
I remember this film...
http://www.wolfenotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SAigon.jpg
Skybird
06-11-14, 12:22 PM
Der Kreis schließt sich.
Mr Quatro
06-11-14, 01:16 PM
"We" bothered, because Hussein wanted to sell oil for Euros or gold (just like Gaddafi, so "we" had to save the Petrodollar) and because he was a threat to Israel (they have a strong influence on American politics).
WMD's and liberating people was the official story for the folks to support the war.
Some simple minds even thought he was involved in 9/11.
Don't forget Gaddafi did have WMD and he wanted to use them to destroy America and in turn blame Saddam Hussein ... diabolical plot that the FBI foiled (no cite available)
Mittelwaechter
06-11-14, 02:12 PM
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/
http://www.truthistreason.net/death-of-the-us-dollar-hegemony-military-intervention-oil-sales-and-the-inevitable-collapse
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html
Skybird
06-11-14, 02:44 PM
Don't forget Gaddafi did have WMD and he wanted to use them to destroy America and in turn blame Saddam Hussein ... diabolical plot that the FBI foiled (no cite available)
As a matter of fact his son talked him into handing the nuclear components over to the uS, they were flown out of Lybia by the US years ago.
The result was France and Britain daring to directly intervening in the Libya war, and the turmoil right now.
Catfish
06-11-14, 02:54 PM
Well i wonder if the western nations will be able to hold up the petro dollar. And I really wonder if this monopoly breaking away would be good, for us westerners :hmmm:
Skybird
06-11-14, 03:20 PM
The petrodollar system is a construction that tries to found power and influence on a bubble of illusions. Take away the paper money system and the money printers running 24/7, and the petrodollar is dead. So are the interests of those basing their doing on it.
It's all short-living illusions, not lasting fundaments.
Gazprom has managed to turn 95% of its deals into contracts paid for in Euros, not in dollars anymore. China wants to get rid of the petrodollar as well, and it will. OPEC wanted it as well, but was so far talked out of it by the US due to the diplomatic relations and military deals the US maintained with several OPEC states in the ME. But in the mid-term run, the show is over for the US. Russia and China prepare to run deals for resources in Yuan and Rubel, not Dollar anymore. Since the Ukraine crisis, the Russians have intensified these efforts, and were given a warm welcome by the Chinese. Both are natural allies against the dollar, and euro as well.
CaptainMattJ.
06-11-14, 03:26 PM
Well i wonder if the western nations will be able to hold up the petro dollar. And I really wonder if this monopoly breaking away would be good, for us westerners :hmmm:
And yet, people still vehemently attack renewable energy as an industry looking to destroy american jobs. Truth is, the more dependent on oil and gas we become, the worse things are going to be for us. It doesn't matter if you deny climate change, the benefits of self-sustaining, renewable energy are too beneficial to pass up. The entire idea that we'd invade another country mainly for control of oil trade is disgusting, to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in that toilet of a country, and for what? Anybody with half a brain stem couldve seen the instant collapse of Iraq after we left. There wasn't any real "nation-building". With saddam dead, another psychotic militant leader will arise. We did nothing but throw away hundreds of thousands of lives (4,487 americans dead and 32,223 wounded), up to $6 trillion when everything is said and done, and give terrorist organizations more fuel for their jihad. There is absolutely NOTHING commendable about the war in Iraq, and the bush administration was entirely responsible, not only for the war but for the mass deception and propaganda imposed on the American people.
You know what we couldve done with that $6 trillion that were going to end up paying for Iraq? Put the ENTIRE country on renewable energy. Start up tens of thousands of jobs to maintain and install the equipment. And more than likely we would've had alot of money left over to invest in SCHOOLS and HEALTHCARE. Our insatiable appetite for oil is a dangerous road. Many of you should have firsthand experience of the OPEC crisis. I'm sorry. but theres no reason we shouldnt be trying our hardest to get rid of our dependency on oil. At the bare minimum, we need to cut our consumption enough so that we never have to import another drop of oil from other countries. Oil/coal companies have been screwing people since the mid 1800s. Oil companies have free reign to use oil futures, instead of real supply and demand, to dictate prices. Every year they conveniently have an oil rig malfunction and claim that they HAVE to jack up prices (which is completely false) because they dont make enough, when in reality, oil companies collectively have millions of barrels of oil in reserve above and beyond the reserves set aside in case of war. They do it because they know they have the country by the balls. When gas prices go up, so does almost everything else.
Renewable energy is key to the self-sustainability and economic independence of this country.
A simple question
This "Petrodollar"-thing isn't it some kind of hoax or conspiracy ?
Markus
Skybird
06-11-14, 04:24 PM
It is a political function, strategically used to parasitically suck money from deals done by two people whose deal has nothing to do with you directly and in which you are not involved. Doing these deals in non-dollar currency or by abandoning the paper money system, would cost the parasite an awful lot of money that else never would have become his. That's why the parasite even wages wars to prevent the changing of the petrodollar regime. It's like a money cheat in a game that generates an certain additonal income for the player at the beginning of every turn, independent from any game events, legal game mechanism and rules.
If you suck in air and pump up your chest, you throw a bigger shadow. But it is just air, no muscles.
Mr Quatro
06-11-14, 04:49 PM
In a way gas pumps are a lot like slot machines they just give you enough to keep you playing down the way ...:yep:
Stealhead
06-11-14, 05:11 PM
We did nothing but throw away hundreds of thousands of lives (4,487 americans dead and 32,223 wounded)
Yeah your numbers are a bit off http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf Iraq is Operation Iraqi Freedom also keep in mind that all deaths of service members in country are counted those that are combat related and those that are not for example accidents and illness.Not saying that there is no significance to such deaths but it is a factor when the question is who in fact died due to enemy action.
The actual KIA number for Iraq is 3,481 http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf. if you add the Operation New Dawn KIA which is 38 as of today that is 3,519 total KIA.
Just to give some perspective in daily operations in the military deaths caused by accidents are not uncommon in the military in a good year the typical command will have 0 deaths caused by accident that is a very good year.Hell in just one year in my last unit in Germany just in my squadron there where 8 or 9 serious injuries.That was out of roughly 400 people give or take there is always some flux due to people PCSing and other things.
By comparison 34,080 people died in car accidents in the US in 2012.
Tribesman
06-11-14, 05:32 PM
This "Petrodollar"-thing isn't it some kind of hoax or conspiracy ?
No its just a normal way of business.
Skybird explains it quite well, though he omits the fact that his preferred alternative simply results in lots more wars as countries attempt to keep balancing their books.
Which logic suggests is a worse option than that currently practiced as the default option would become the one that he says is the possible current bad result
History gives many thousands of ugly examples of how his ideal solution works in practice.
It could however really work if there was a global dictatorship..... or if suddenly the human race changed and the whole world started singing a happy clappy Kum Ba Ya.
But a sane person must realise that the first is a very dangerous and certainly unwelcome idea.... and the second ain't ever going to happen.
Tribesman
06-11-14, 05:57 PM
By comparison 34,080 people died in car accidents in the US in 2012.
By comparison how many hundreds of times were how many millions of people in a car in the US in 2012?
A comparison should be like for like.
Skybird
06-11-14, 06:01 PM
Add to the losses on allied side the suicides of veterans, the mentally affected veterans, the non-physically wounded veterans who do not function in their home environment anymore and have lost their former private and social life and chances alltogether, not ticking in conformity with the social environment around them anymore. You then are deep in the 6 digit range.
Add the civilian casualties that got injured, killed, as a result of the country falling into chaos and 11 years of cataclysm now. You then have entered the 7 digit range.
Iraq is a failed state now. Afghanistan: failed as well.
Syria lost as well. Libya looks not good.
Muslim terrorism marching on all fronts, its veterans having started to drip back into Europe, causing risks rising here as well.
Al Sadr back in business, Maliki asking him for help. Al Sadr and Maliki. That alone tells something to the knowing.
Stupid and unscrupulous Washington and London bastards in 2003. Stupid, and unscrupulous. They should get executed, all politicians whop said yes back then. Every single bigmouthed political retard there has been.
Schroeder
06-12-14, 06:46 AM
I guess by now the Iraqis wish to have Saddam back....:/\\!!
Flamebatter90
06-12-14, 07:02 AM
I guess by now the Iraqis wish to have Saddam back....:/\\!!
Most certainly.
Bilge_Rat
06-12-14, 07:29 AM
I guess by now the Iraqis wish to have Saddam back....:/\\!!
not really, Saddam was a Sunni. He had between 100,000 and 200,000 Shiites killed in spring 1991 alone.
During the "Surge", U.S. forces had defeated the precursur to ISIS, in part, by forming alliances with moderate Sunni leaders/groups in the Sunni provinces. The Maliki govt has squandered all that goodwill by systematically excluding Sunnis from the government and the Army.
Local support explains, in part, ISIS's success in Sunni areas:
The inhabitants of Mosul see the Iraqi army as a Shiite occupation army from Baghdad, and some civilians welcomed ISIS when they entered Mosul and removed all Iraqi army checkpoints.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/isis-mosul-takeover-residents-blame-iraqi-army.html
The best explanation of the collapse of the Iraqi military — which spilled over on the same day to the cities of Siniya and Beiji in Salahuddin province, as well as Hawija, Sulaiman Bek and Rashad in Kirkuk — is a fundamental flaw in planning, leadership and training. These have been defects in the Iraqi security forces over the past few years, despite their receiving sophisticated equipment and weapons.
Throughout the years, Baghdad has failed to produce a professional army or provide efficient training programs, hence the clear hostility between the population in Sunni areas in general and the army, whose members mostly hail from Shiite areas in central and southern Iraq.
This failure is definitely linked to the inability to represent all demographics within the military, something the Sunnis have complained about for years.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iraq-mosul-fall-army-breakdown.html#ixzz34QTsrhwr
Many in ISIS consider Shiites to be infidels:
Many fighters from ISIS and other radical Sunni Islamist groups in Syria deem Shiites as infidels and consider their shrines idolatrous, and therefore legitimate targets.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-26/251348-islamists-bomb-shiite-shrine-in-eastern-syria-activists.ashx#axzz34QXth3C2
You will most likely see a bloodbath if ISIS manages to capture Baghdad.
Dread Knot
06-12-14, 07:45 AM
I guess by now the Iraqis wish to have Saddam back....:/\\!!
Certainly not if you are Kurdish. They seem to be the only other group profiting from this debacle, as they just seized the oil-rich town of Kirkuk. But, then they probably never identified themselves as Iraqi either.
The Kurds should be okay. They have defensible terrain, have spent the past decade basically building their own army, and have every reason to defend their turf to the death. There is nowhere to fall back to for them; Turkey and Iran hate them.
The real problem is basically the rest of Iraq. The government and the army are both weak and divided. Meanwhile, the group seizing control is so hard core in their beliefs that even Al Queda disowned them.
Wolferz
06-12-14, 07:50 AM
Ah well, there's been a de facto civil war going on in Iraq for millennia. It will never end and any government on the planet would be nuts to get in the middle of it like the American coalition did.:stare:
Leave the sand fleas to do what they do best...kill each other.
Meanwhile, we'll just keep pumping out their oil via Kuwait.
Skybird
06-12-14, 08:40 AM
It was a very big mistake that after the American had taken full control during the implementation of the occupation they destroyed all governmental and especially military structures in Iraq. They destroyed the security and intel apparatus as well and send scores and scores of men onto the street, jobless and without income.
With Malik the US supported a corrupt, nepotist politician who enver cared at all for any form of improving relations between Shia and Sunni and Kurds, and who spend his time with establishing a new torture and secret police apparatus that hunted Sunni opposition members and former members of the Baath party. Years ago their were reports saying that the situation regarding death squads and torture now was worse than it ever had been under Saddam. Sunni and Kurds were tried by Maliki to be left out of the distribution of financial income from oil business.
Finally, two years after the invasion the US equipped and armed Sunni tribes in West Iraq to make them allies in the fight against the first terror wave that just had swept across Iraq, and against Al Quaeda that tried to get a first foot in the door at that time. Indeed these tribes did that and kep Al Quaeda away for some time - and after Washington thought it had been successful enough a cooperation, it let them fall again and did not care anymore, once again sending thousands of angry young men without financial support onto the streets - this time well-armed young men.
It is these regions in Western Iraq where the "fundamentalists" now have come from, and from where they started their offensive.
After the war 1991, Washington had led tens of thousands of Shias to the slaughterbank when dropping support for them short time after it had called them to revolt against Saddam. Despite the ban on the air force, Saddam's helicopter force was allowed to fly, and it used the opportunity to commit a huge massacre amongst the Shia. Probably what Bush senior intended to secure his champion - Saddam - in power a bit longer: leaving him the option to kill the opposition that could endanger his power.
Nice record you have there, Washington. Ironically, Obama's strategy of pulling out from world affairs has completely backfired by now as well. I do not know whose foreign policy record is more disastrous: that of Bush or of Obama.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/06/10/mosul-madness-in-a-collapsing-middle-east/[/url] ]
The Greater Middle East moved significantly closer to a total meltdown this week. The vicious civil war in Iraq escalated as one of the global terror movement’s most bloodthirsty factions conquered the major city of Mosul (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27778112). As more than 150,000 terror-struck civilians fled the second biggest city of Iraq, government forces appeared utterly incapable to stop ISIS, a jihadi group that is too radical and murderous for Al-Qaeda. This latest defeat caps a series of major setbacks for the Iraqi government in 2014; ISIS backed forces have occupied or partly occupied most of the major cities in Anbar, and violence in Baghdad continues to spike.
In Pakistan, meanwhile, the Pakistani Taliban stunned the country and humiliated Pakistan’s security forces by launching two successive attacks on the Karachi airport (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/world/asia/pakistan-karachi-airport-attack-taliban.html?ref=world). Karachi is Pakistan’s largest center and commercial capital; the gaping holes in Pakistan’s security network have never seemed larger or harder to mend.
This is hardly the end of the story. Libya’s shambolic government continues to shed authority in the capital and beyond. Yemen remains mired in anarchy. The civil wars in Syria continue unabated; the authority of the Lebanese state continues to fray. A nascent terror movement in Egypt continues to threaten the stability President Sisi hopes to impose.
If the Obama administration has a strategy for dealing with this situation, it has been very successful at keeping any sign of it hidden from the world press. The human tragedies unfolding in this arc of crisis are harrowing; neither an end to the suffering nor a political solution to these conflicts looks likely anytime soon. Look for more mayhem and more death; the dogs of war have slipped the leash.
All this reflects back onto Israel's security situation as well, and stupid Westerners still argue that if only Israel would agree to destroy itself by allowing Palestinians to take it over, all would be good in the ME (since the civil war between Sunni and Shia powers is just a myth propagated by Islamophobes anyway). For them, this little piece (in German):
http://spiritofentebbe.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-israeli-solution/
The author discusses why the two states solution is idiotic, the "peace process" is a Western self-deception, and that the one state solution is the only way. I fully agree.
Bilge_Rat
06-12-14, 09:09 AM
The Iraqi government is requesting U.S. Air support against ISIS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-wants-america-back-to-fight-al-qaeda-with-air-strikes.html#
I hope Obama says no. It's the Iraqis mess now, they can deal with it.
Dread Knot
06-12-14, 09:55 AM
It's the Iraqis mess now, they can deal with it.
I wonder. This wasn't simply a defeat, this was a rout. Iraqi security forces didn't fight at all, they simply fled. And they fled before a vastly inferior force. That doesn't happen unless you have a complete failure of leadership. Much as in the 1975 North Vietnamese Spring Offensive, when ARVN soldiers fled because they saw their corrupt officers flee, despite being lavishly equipped with US hardware. How do you stop that? Once the Iraqi army has already demonstrated to itself that it will crumble upon contact with the enemy, how do you then convince soldiers to fight?
Maybe they will for Baghdad where the lives of Shiite women and children will be on the line. You would think being on their home ground would change the dynamic. But I still wonder.
Of course, maybe it's way past time to admit there was never an Iraq at all. Just a group of squabbling tribes and religious factions contained by poorly drawn lines on a map. Could they eventually partition themselves by force?
Skybird
06-12-14, 10:43 AM
The best organised, best-led and most disciplined forces in Iraq, are the Kurdish units in the North. But I think they are outnumbered - I am not certain on that, however.
Catfish
06-12-14, 11:08 AM
I'd say let Great Britain fix it. They created this land named 'Iraq' after crushing the Ottoman Empire, and installed an (unliked) king.
:03:
Hey, if the Ottomans had stayed in their own backyard. :O:
Mr Quatro
06-12-14, 11:27 AM
These guys are after more than some Shiite women ... the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) just stole $425,000,000 in cash after they ran the Iraq army off:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/)
the most lasting impact as Iraq descends into a possible civil war is that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria just got extremely rich.
As insurgents rolled past the largest city in northern Iraq, an oil hub at the vital intersection of Syria, Iraq and Turkey, and into Tikrit, several gunmen stopped at Mosul’s central bank. An incredible amount of cash was reportedly on hand (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190), and the group made off with 500 billion Iraqi dinars — $425 million.
To Skybird and Tribesman thank you for your explanation about Petrodollar
Have been reading some of the posting in this thread and when I saw the word "petrodollar"
This popped up in my mind
(from wiki)
"Some assert that the Iraq war which began on March 19, 2003, was a result of Iraq's abandonment of the petrodollar system in 2002, in favor of a "PetroEuro" "
That's why I asked my question
Markus
Wolferz
06-12-14, 01:07 PM
One step closer to Armageddon.:dead:
The author discusses why the two states solution is idiotic, the "peace process" is a Western self-deception, and that the one state solution is the only way. I fully agree.
What do you know...
You may have them , they just might immigrate to Germany lol.
PA as autonomy(which it is right know) with some adjustments is the best solution for now.
All this reflects back onto Israel's security situation as well, and stupid Westerners still argue that if only Israel would agree to destroy itself by allowing Palestinians to take it over, all would be good in the ME (since the civil war between Sunni and Shia powers is just a myth propagated by Islamophobes anyway). For them, this little piece (in German):
I can somewhat agree with that....getting ME to civilize it self would help Palestinian cause a lot.
I would love to have Dutch as neighbors lol.
One step closer to Armageddon.:dead:
Nah, they've still got a bit further to go to get to Meggido, wrong country for a start.
Armistead
06-12-14, 05:38 PM
Well, it looks like Iraq is going to hell big time. Those radical insurgents will soon be in Baghdad... We have failed again, leaving a possible big mess....over 4000 dead soldiers...for what?
Wolferz
06-12-14, 05:45 PM
Well, it looks like Iraq is going to hell big time. Those radical insurgents will soon be in Baghdad... We have failed again, leaving a possible big mess....over 4000 dead soldiers...for what?
So Dubya could hang his "Mission Accomplished" banner and act like he actually did something.:88)
Dread Knot
06-12-14, 05:51 PM
So Dubya could hang his "Mission Accomplished" banner and act like he actually did something.:88)
After what happened last year in Syria, I don't expect to see Obama painting any red lines in the sand. :O:
It's a frustrating spot to be in, regardless of blame. There is absolutely no course of action of which I can conceive that will not engender tremendous political backlash from some corner in the short term and probably in the long term as well.
Do nothing? Hah. What a rudderless, impotent foreign policy you have.
Do something? Hah. What an arrogant imperialist meddler you are.
Do something military? Oh My Gaawwd! Throwing away lives to prop up a failed state!
Tribesman
06-12-14, 05:54 PM
all would be good in the ME (since the civil war between Sunni and Shia powers is just a myth propagated by Islamophobes anyway)
I am interested in the validity of the propogation of this myth, I am unaware of it being held much by anyone with even only the most basic knowledge.
However I am aware it exists in certain quarters. It would be by the sort of person who would claim that Iran is a Sunni country, or the sort of person who claimed that there is only one sort of muslim and that they are all from a 19th century offshoot.
I wonder if Skybird can provide confirmation of some people saying such things, or if it would be necessary to simply quote him saying it all himself:hmmm:
The author discusses why the two states solution is idiotic, the "peace process" is a Western self-deception, and that the one state solution is the only way. I fully agree.
I do like your links. So President Bush should be made dictator for life, Iraq should be emptied of its population and resettled by Americans, America
should engineer a war to take over the middle east and its oil:har:
Interesting on the one state solution though. Several options available there
Option one. Expel all the unwanted population and take all the land.
Option two. Keep all the unwanted population and take all the land but deny that population any rights.
Option three. Keep all the unwanted population and take all the land but lose power through becoming a minority.
All three options will undoubtably lead to the one state disappearing...yet Skybird is in favour of it, why does he hate Israel so much? I thought he only hated the Muslims?
There is of course option four. Genocide.
Now who in their right mind would be in favour of genocide?:hmmm:
I am sure I can find a quote from someone who is in favour of genocide, I wonder if it would be that Skybird fellow again providing the material?
So Dubya could hang his "Mission Accomplished" banner and act like he actually did something.:88)
Except that he didn't actually hang that banner, or have it hung, and in any case for the next 5 years of his presidency afterwards he didn't stop doing what he could to improve the situation. He didn't cut and run from it like the present president seems wont to do.
Dread Knot nails it though. No choice is without criticism and none are easy to dismiss because each one involves a real cost in blood for somebody both immediately and down the road.
nikimcbee
06-12-14, 06:55 PM
After what happened last year in Syria, I don't expect to see Obama painting any red lines in the sand. :O:
Only in the golf sand trap.
Tribesman
06-12-14, 07:19 PM
Except that he didn't actually hang that banner, or have it hung, and in any case for the next 5 years of his presidency afterwards he didn't stop doing what he could to improve the situation.
Errrrrr..... He created the situation, he made the mess.
You supported creating the situation, you still repeat the same old lies on which the situation was created.
There is no merit in a failed attempt at improving a situation that you needlessly created in the first place.
Avoiding the situation or ensuring that you didn't make a complete mess of it in the first place would be worthy of merit, but those achievements are entirely absent from the Bush Presidency
He didn't cut and run from it like the present president seems wont to do.
Cut and run?
Its a strange sort of patriot that would have wanted their president to accept the SOFA dictated by Tehran which was offered to the US.
Why do you hate America August?
Mr Quatro
06-12-14, 08:05 PM
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)?
Aren't these same group of terrorist fighting in Syria alongside other loose groups ... the same ones we are sending men to train and small arms to in Jordan?
The same group that Senator McCain supports backing?
The same group that Syria is fighting backed by Russia and Iran?
If the USA won't help out ... maybe Iraq's old enemy Iran will fill the void?
Tribesman
06-13-14, 01:46 AM
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)?
Aren't these same group of terrorist fighting in Syria alongside other loose groups ... the same ones we are sending men to train and small arms to in Jordan?
No. it is a three way split with each fighting the other two
The same group that Senator McCain supports backing?
No. That would be one of the three
The same group that Syria is fighting backed by Russia and Iran?
Yes.
If the USA won't help out ... maybe Iraq's old enemy Iran will fill the void They already are.
The Iranian based SCIRII with the Al-Badr became the dominant power in Iraq, and as Skybird mentioned, Al Sadr is back in the game following his re-education in Iran.
Armistead
06-13-14, 04:33 AM
ISIS or the group it came from basically rose back from the ashes due to we removed out intelligent forces.
Just think when they take over our billion dollar embassy. Hell, it's a fortress, you think we would defend it...instead of leave.
I always believed Iraq to be a blunder, it takes a dictator like Saddam to keep a nation like Iraq under control, but leaving as we did will be a bigger blunder than the war itself.....
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 05:22 AM
I wonder what would happen if Iran decides to step in as they say they will. Would Iran try to grab a slice of territory or go even further? The state Iraq is in atm, might present a tempting target for Iran.
Catfish
06-13-14, 05:59 AM
^
Looking back, the US stuffed Mr Saddam Hussein with weapons, so he could and should (intended) attack Iran, what he did. He also attacked the Kurdish settlements with poison gas delivered by "the west", and generally behaved like the dictator and bully that he was.
He never understood why America suddenly dropped him.
From today's viewpoint Iraq was a much better place to live, before the 'liberation'.
Skybird
06-13-14, 06:22 AM
I wonder what would happen if Iran decides to step in as they say they will.
They already are in there and always have been since the past ten years or so. ;)
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 07:01 AM
They already are in there and always have been since the past ten years or so. ;)
Yes, but actual troops is what I mean.
Jimbuna
06-13-14, 08:19 AM
Yes, but actual troops is what I mean.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5804184/iran-deployed-troops-iran-isis
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iran-sends-troops-to-aid-iraqi-government-1.1830624
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 08:49 AM
But those are all unconfirmed as I understand it?
Dread Knot
06-13-14, 09:00 AM
I kinda wish all parties would stay out of it. State and societal formation and consolidation is a long process. It is often ugly and violent and it is what we are witnessing in Iraq. Right now the Iraqis are working out just who gets to be considered an Iraqi, as well as who gets to be in control and how state and society are going to be organized. And when this wave passes, eventually there will be another one. Expectations will have been raised, but whoever emerges will not be able to meet them, until one day they finally are able to do so and things will settle down. Maybe eventually they will agree to some sort of partition and we will get borders and new nations were Iraq once was that make some sort of cohesive sense.
I fully expect the Kurds to declare independence as soon as they think everyone is sufficiently diverted with the Sunni versus Shi’a Arab violence.
Tribesman
06-13-14, 09:39 AM
But those are all unconfirmed as I understand it?
But if you note in Jims 3rd link they have already been there for over a decade. If you go back to recent years you will find plenty about their deploying to Syria from Iraq to prop up Assad.
If you want to further tie the two periods and the links together. The Iranian backed, Al quds trained, Hezb'allah are also in Syria propping up Assad, they officially set up shop in Iraq shortly after the US invasion under the protection of the Iranian led al quds trained Al-Badr brigades.
So it is unconfirmed that the two battalions have moved across the border, but not unconfirmed that other units of that force have been in Iraq for a long time already.
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 12:06 PM
But if you note in Jims 3rd link they have already been there for over a decade. If you go back to recent years you will find plenty about their deploying to Syria from Iraq to prop up Assad.
If you want to further tie the two periods and the links together. The Iranian backed, Al quds trained, Hezb'allah are also in Syria propping up Assad, they officially set up shop in Iraq shortly after the US invasion under the protection of the Iranian led al quds trained Al-Badr brigades.
So it is unconfirmed that the two battalions have moved across the border, but not unconfirmed that other units of that force have been in Iraq for a long time already.
Oh, I agree that Iran has had it's fingers in the play for some time. But again, I mean to concentrate to the time when/if Iran sends military forces across the border. Not guerrillas, but actual troops as they say they will. What you guys think should be the west's answer if nothing.
Mr Quatro
06-13-14, 12:22 PM
I fully expect the Kurds to declare independence as soon as they think everyone is sufficiently diverted with the Sunni versus Shi’a Arab violence.
This lady agrees with you:http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/6/state8070.htm
Professor Ofra Bengio is senior research associate at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, Israel. She is the author of the forthcoming The Kurds of Iraq: Building a State within a State
Asked if the Iraqi Kurds would be more likely to declare independence if their efforts to export oil independently via Turkey become constant and sustainable, Bengio responded that “the main obstacle for separation is the economic dependence of Erbil [the region’s capital] on Baghdad. If Erbil manages to export oil and gas independently of Baghdad it will make such a move much more plausible.”
The Kurds want to export their oil through Turkey: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/iraq-s-kurds-to-export-oil-by-new-pipeline-very-soon-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/iraq-s-kurds-to-export-oil-by-new-pipeline-very-soon-.html)
Jun 19, 2013 · Iraq’s Kurds will start exporting crude by pipeline “very soon” after the completion of a new link to the Turkish border by the end of September
Are there some one who can tell what we can expect if ISIS gain power in Iraq and perhaps Syria?
Will we see an another Afghanistan but a much more terror?
Markus
Tribesman
06-13-14, 03:23 PM
Oh, I agree that Iran has had it's fingers in the play for some time. But again, I mean to concentrate to the time when/if Iran sends military forces across the border. Not guerrillas, but actual troops as they say they will.
They are actual troops, quds is a corps of the Iranian revolutionary guard.
Think of it as Vietnam in the 50s and early 60s before full on Americanisation came about following Tonkin.
What you guys think should be the west's answer if nothing.
God knows. You have the evil Iranians on one side placed into a position of power by silly US adventurism. Then you have the really crazy sunni fundies on the other side, essentially formed and funded by Americas local "allies".
A bit of a ****storm whichever way they chose to jump isn't it:oops:
kraznyi_oktjabr
06-13-14, 03:32 PM
They are actual troops, quds is a corps of the Iranian revolutionary guard.
Think of it as Vietnam in the 50s and early 60s before full on Americanisation came about following Tonkin.
God knows. You have the evil Iranians on one side placed into a position of power by silly US adventurism. Then you have the really crazy sunni fundies on the other side, essentially formed and funded by Americas local "allies".
A bit of a ****storm whichever way they chose to jump isn't it:oops:Agreed. I advocate "no see, no hear, no say"-policy in this case. Not very humane or something like that but best course of action in my opinion. Next best in my opinion is supporting Iran although I'm worried how that could possibly backfire? :hmmm:
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 03:33 PM
Oh for ****'s sake. Must it be so difficult?
Tribesman, you know what I mean, boots on the groud, Revolutionary Guards of Iran as they have said they will send to fight ISIS.
Or are you one of those who stick to every little detail?
Tribesman
06-13-14, 04:07 PM
Oh for ****'s sake. Must it be so difficult?
Tribesman, you know what I mean, boots on the groud, Revolutionary Guards of Iran as they have said they will send to fight ISIS.
Or are you one of those who stick to every little detail?
Details are important.
Revolutionary guards are already there and have been there a long time , that's boots on the ground.
@ Kraznyi
I advocate "no see, no hear, no say"-policy in this case.
I agree to a certain extent, however, they made the mess so they are responsible for cleaning up their mess.
Not very humane or something like that but best course of action in my opinion.
Is there a best course of action?
Seems to me like they a now buggered whatever they do.
Next best in my opinion is supporting Iran although I'm worried how that could possibly backfire?
Inadvertingly supporting Iran is how they ended up where they are now.
Now I come to sound very conspiratorial.
Sometime in the late 80's I saw a kind of drama documentary
The movie was called "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow '. For me it was nothing more than fiction and good sci-fi.
It is what is happening in Iraq right now, that made me remember what was being said at the end of this documentary.
Sorry for this offtopic story.
Markus
Flamebatter90
06-13-14, 04:51 PM
Details are important.
Revolutionary guards are already there and have been there a long time , that's boots on the ground.
May I have some evidence for that?
Link? Book?
Again, I am talking about Iran sending officially troops to Iraq.
I am talking about the "2 battalions" that are coming to fight ISIS, and my question is and has been, will Iran settle with just taking out the terrorists, or will they attempt to seize land Nothing more. Just want your opinions.
Tribesman
06-13-14, 07:26 PM
May I have some evidence for that?
Link? Book?
Take a look at the 2006/7 period
Start with the US raids in the Shia south add Scirii Bahgdad, extend it to the Kurdish provinces held by the Iranian backed Kurds. Quite a pile.
Then you can top it off with what the US claimed was an quds retaliatory raid on their Karbala HQ
Mr Quatro
06-13-14, 07:40 PM
Strange bed fellows are developing, USA/Iraq/Iran: http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-555317/ (http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-555317/)
WASHINGTON—The U.S. and Iran have a “shared interest” in pushing back Islamist militants who have gained control of large territories in western Iraq, the State Department said Friday, but no direct discussions have occurred between Washington and Tehran on coordinating their efforts to stabilize the Iraqi government.
U.S. President Barack Obama said this week he is considering airstrikes in Iraq to weaken the al Qaeda-linked militia, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, which has taken key cities in western Iraq and is marching on to Baghdad.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has sent troops into Iraq in recent days to bolster Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik’s government, according to Iranian security officials.
May I have some evidence for that?
Link? Book?
Take a look at the 2006/7 period
Start with the US raids in the Shia south add Scirii Bahgdad, extend it to the Kurdish provinces held by the Iranian backed Kurds. Quite a pile.
Then you can top it off with what the US claimed was an quds retaliatory raid on their Karbala HQ
He's going to need a big telescope to see Iraq from wherever he is. :yep:
Two battalions is nothing but a token force.
kraznyi_oktjabr
06-14-14, 01:21 AM
I agree to a certain extent, however, they made the mess so they are responsible for cleaning up their mess.I agree with this principle.
Is there a best course of action?No, not really. I should have said best course of action I can figure out. Hopefully there is someone smarter in D.C.
Seems to me like they a now buggered whatever they do.Very true.
Inadvertingly supporting Iran is how they ended up where they are now.:hmmm: Could you remind me? Bulb doesn't light up...
Jimbuna
06-14-14, 05:59 AM
Two battalions is nothing but a token force.
Quite so but it is a foot on the first rung of the ladder, 'test the waters' so to speak and could lead to something much bigger.
I can't see the west putting any boots on the ground thankfully, so let em get on with it over there.
Best leave em to it. The first two rounds weren't worth it and a 3rd is unlikely to change things.
It's rather funny really....
Well, RAF Fairford has a few visitors at the moment on an exercise.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/public8/ffd1409.jpg
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/public8/ffd1401.jpg
Would make for a more than reasonable staging point for any operations in Iraq. Guess we'll see what happens when the exercise finishes...if we have any buzzards left in the area (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657232/Moment-unwitting-buzzard-flies-straight-B-2-stealth-bomber.html) by then. :haha:
Here's one thing I do not understand. According to Danish news the ISIS group interprets the Qur'an very ultra conservative. They will all live as they did during Mohammed's era.
is that correct?
If so, why do they use modern weapons then???
They did not exist in Mohammed's era
Markus
They did, some time travellers from South Africa brought AK-47s...oh...
No...wait, wrong book, sorry.
Jimbuna
06-15-14, 05:48 AM
They did, some time travellers from South Africa brought AK-47s...oh...
No...wait, wrong book, sorry.
LOL
Dread Knot
08-06-14, 08:44 AM
Is this just my perception, or are recent developments surrounding ISIS under-reported? Is it just currently in the shadow of the Gaza fight? I know it's been a bloody summer.
BBC News didn't have anything on their site about the battle surrounding the Mosul dam. Seems like game changing stuff. Old nations falling apart, new ones developing, a potential new Taliban state, ethnic cleansing of Christians and Islamic minorities. Shrines being destroyed and religious communities that have a 3000-year history in the region driven out, and the only people who seem to be able to lift a finger to help them are the over stretched Kurds. Who should frankly be focusing on keeping all this madness on the other side of their checkpoints.
Skybird
08-06-14, 10:19 AM
Is this just my perception, or are recent developments surrounding ISIS under-reported? Is it just currently in the shadow of the Gaza fight?
:D How could something as tiny and relatively unimportant as the Gaza war "overshadow" big massacres like the ISIS barbary spreading, or the almost 200,000 dead in Syria, or the frequent massacres of Boko Haram?
It does not overshadow these events - it gets intentionally blown beyond proportion, because "Muslims do not do evil". Jews do. Muslims not. Capice? ;)
Tribesman
08-06-14, 11:25 AM
Is this just my perception, or are recent developments surrounding ISIS under-reported? Is it just currently in the shadow of the Gaza fight? I know it's been a bloody summer.
BBC News didn't have anything on their site about the battle surrounding the Mosul dam. Seems like game changing stuff. Old nations falling apart, new ones developing, a potential new Taliban state, ethnic cleansing of Christians and Islamic minorities. Shrines being destroyed and religious communities that have a 3000-year history in the region driven out, and the only people who seem to be able to lift a finger to help them are the over stretched Kurds. Who should frankly be focusing on keeping all this madness on the other side of their checkpoints.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28677283
That story covers a lot of what you say isn't there.
For the other aspects simply scroll down and click on the headlines for each relevant topic
Dread Knot
08-06-14, 04:10 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28677283
That story covers a lot of what you say isn't there.
For the other aspects simply scroll down and click on the headlines for each relevant topic
Well, it was ultimately my fault.:/\\!! When I didn't find any news on the front page I went spelunking through the Asia section and completely spaced on the Messy East section. Too literal in my geography I guess.
Armistead
08-06-14, 04:50 PM
:D How could something as tiny and relatively unimportant as the Gaza war "overshadow" big massacres like the ISIS barbary spreading, or the almost 200,000 dead in Syria, or the frequent massacres of Boko Haram?
It does not overshadow these events - it gets intentionally blown beyond proportion, because "Muslims do not do evil". Jews do. Muslims not. Capice? ;)
Muslims killing Muslims by the 100,000's is so old news, Jews killing Muslim is always the in thing.
But never seen in the main news:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76598000/jpg/_76598554_76598550.jpg
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Jul-29/265396-lbci-launches-mosul-solidarity-initiative.ashx#axzz38qphdIVT
Dread Knot
08-06-14, 05:53 PM
Suddenly I'm pining for the days when I could still get ITN presenter Daljit Dhaliwal in my corner of America. :D
http://www.wnyc.org/i/raw/photologue/photos/tt/daljit-dhaliwal.jpg
donna52522
08-06-14, 11:03 PM
I am not sure if this has turned into a joke thread or not, but even Mr. Stevens had said before...The Boston Bombers (those who survived for trial) are being tried for using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's).
If a pressure cooker can be considered a WMD then any enemy we face has WMD's...and possibly corn.
Tribesman
08-07-14, 01:59 AM
I am not sure if this has turned into a joke thread or not, but even Mr. Stevens had said before...The Boston Bombers (those who survived for trial) are being tried for using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's).
If a pressure cooker can be considered a WMD then any enemy we face has WMD's...and possibly corn.
But in this case WMDs are clearly defined.
Now unless the definition as set out covered pressure cookers or pressure cooker related development programs...or even pressure cookers who exceed 100 miles in range....
then your comparison doesn't work:yep:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.