Iran trying to take over Southern Iraq?

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Trex

Rebuilding the country was critical, and the coalition muffed it.

And that, i'm afraid, is the unforgiveable nub of the matter.

For some the reasons and the rationals were critical, fair enough. For me it was too opaque, and unclear wether it was intrinsically right or wrong. It was never all about the WMD. It was obvious at the time that when we said we have "proof" we meant we had "an educated guess". (And it is logically provable that it was only a guess)

When Scott Ritter said the inspections had dismantled the systems he was laughed at and subjected to a campaign to discredit him. When the Iraqis ponied up the full description of the elimination of the weapons program a couple of weeks before the attack, it was also laughed at and dismissed because of course the whole thing was not really all about the WMD, so why would we stop, or even pause the timetable because of that?

So it was a gamble on Bush's part (the buck stops there, right?). When you gamble and lose, a man pays his debt. I expect had the WMD been there to find, he would have claimed all the rewards he could.

But I don't care about all that. For me the proof of the pudding was in the eating. Was Iraq going to be better, was the middle east going to be better? Was Britain going to be associated with foresight and competence, and thereby have an improved standing in the world?

When it became completely obvious that all post-war planning had been consigned to the department of wishful thinking, we really showed the world who we are (I'm British and this goes triple for Americans), and you Americans really showed everyone what it means to tie your fate to the success of American military adventurism circa early twentyfirst century.

And on this matter, I'm deeply, deeply p!$$ed off. I incurred lots of stress among my friends and family for my pro-war stance, and here we are 5 years later with every cycle of relative promise being loudly and constantly hoorayed by resident right-wingers before they turn around and start blaming the Iranians (yes, blaming your publicly announced enemy!) for their own lack of success. Boy, times must be bad when that represents your best argumentative line of defense.

My God! The American leaders are the guys that sit in the same chairs as those who led the Free World in WW2 and then led the incredible reconstruction after that awesome cataclysm - and look at them. A bunch of incompetent lightweights, snivellers who exploit weasel words and a highly partisan fanbase to try at any cost to portray folly as brilliance.

And do you know what really ticks me off the most?

I have been left with the impression that the war on terror has been since 2002 a single front in the real war against the American left, like i should give a cr4p about that.

And this is what i supported British involvment in back in 2003, apparently. Can't say i'll encourage us to do anything like it again, anytime soon.

[Trex]

We never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I remeber Bush saying that they will find them, but its going to take time to search. Well, the damn Israelies got to it first and destroyed the party in Syria last year.

-S

Then I'm afraid your argument is pointless. No proof shoots your argument down right there. Just you trying to defend the President and his reign of incompetence.

Originally Posted by August

Right. All those dead Kurds in Halajba died of natural causes as did several thousand of your countrymen during the Iran/Iraq war?

Fifteen to twenty-five years ago, yes. They existed. Five years ago, there's no evidence that they did. Quite possible, but given the fact that none were ever found, there's no evidence that Saddam made any more. That's my argument here: there's no concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing WMD's around the time the United States declared war on his country and there's no proof that he had any, either.

Until I am shown evidence of WMD's in Saddam's possession five years ago (when Bush said he had them and when we went to war), then they don't exist and our President tacks yet another lie up on his wall.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I believe it was Herr Rumsfield, Minister of Propaganda, who said "we know where they are". Not bush.

Thank you, Platapus. Bit of a brain-fart on my part.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Trex

We never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

to attack the knowns, the known knowns, some known unknowns as well as the unknown knowns. The big problem are the unknown unknowns.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Brag

If it wasn't so tragic, it all belongs in a comedy

I think we'll turn it into a musical set to the music of ABBA or something.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I believe it was Herr Rumsfield, Minister of Propaganda, who said "we know where they are". Not bush.

The thing that makes me mad, is all of the petty internal fighting at the beginning of the war, the "I'm going to be incharge syndrome."

[AkbarGulag]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I think we'll turn it into a musical set to the music of ABBA or something.

Our officers used to play that full noise to get us out of our cots at 5am in -15c temperatures, worked every time

I would not believe ANYTHING put forward by the current US administration. Iran does this, Iran does that blah blah. George W only wanted to get rid of Sadam so he was the sole tyrant :p

So when are the Nuclear Inspectors going in to Israel to verify their atomic programme for dismantling? Also, what forces will the US use to impose sanctions on Israel, or what plans for 'Regime' change is there?

Sorry if this sounds fairly blinkered, but with the amount of dis-information around these days, coupled with the blatant application of values to suit,I fear I may have come down with some sort of propoganda fatigue.

My parents once told me the story of 'The boy who cried wolf'. I'm sure there was a message in there somewhere.

[Trex]

AkbarGulag - How in H did you manage to twist this around to bring in Israel again?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Then I'm afraid your argument is pointless. No proof shoots your argument down right there. Just you trying to defend the President and his reign of incompetence.

The news on this one is not over yet - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

And that really doesn't prove a lot given the fact that the Syrians agreed to testify that he'd transferred them there. Their word is meaningless. For all we know, they could have been paid to say it to make Bush's legacy improve by a bit. Hell, after all he's done in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if he got them to agree to testify this point.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Fifteen to twenty-five years ago, yes. They existed. Five years ago, there's no evidence that they did. Quite possible, but given the fact that none were ever found, there's no evidence that Saddam made any more. That's my argument here: there's no concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing WMD's around the time the United States declared war on his country and there's no proof that he had any, either.

Until I am shown evidence of WMD's in Saddam's possession five years ago (when Bush said he had them and when we went to war), then they don't exist and our President tacks yet another lie up on his wall.

Whatever SH. I understand that you hate teh Bush enough to let it cloud your judgement, otherwise you'd at least admit there's a difference between lying and being mistaken.

Remember Bush didn't say anything that his predecessors and members of Congress hadn't also been saying for over a decade. What makes his words a lie and theirs just being wrong?

The bottom line here is that 5 years ago Saddam still had the experience, the facilities and the experts to turn out WMD. Whether he was and in what quantities is immaterial. He'd already proved that he would use them against both neighboring countries as well as his own people, for the previous decade he'd gone out of his way to make the world think he still had them, and it was quite reasonable to assume that he'd take revenge on the US for his drubbing in Kuwait when the chance presented itself.

That was and is good enough for me. As bad of a mess as Iraq might be now it is still preferable to having left Saddam in power.

[Stealth Hunter]

I do hate Bush, and I will admit that it has clouded my judgement in the past, but you still fail to have shown me any proof. The end.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I do hate Bush, and I will admit that it has clouded my judgement in the past, but you still fail to have shown me any proof. The end.

And still is clouding your judegment obviously. Not too fond of the man myself, but I could care less what he says, WMD's existed in Iraq whether the gov tells me or not. And, they just didn't disappear.

What is this about Syria anyway? They have been trying to hide this fact for years, so have you heard something?

Last but not least, check out the Scooter Libby trial. Some declassified docs for that trial will tell you that Bush actually believed the Negerian story and why. What you do know is Saddam was trying to trade something there, we know that for sure. If you analyze Nigeria, what is the only thing they have to trade that anyone wants? Figure it out. You don't need the CIA to tell you this one.

-S

[Trex]

What Nigeria has that everybody wants is oil and lots of it - sweet crude so pure that some of it can be burned in diesel engines right out of the ground. Nigeria is one of the world's leading oil producers.

As to 'proof', there is very rarely complete, solid, undeniable, concrete 'proof' in intelligence. In the real world, you are faced with probabilities, indicators, suggestions and interpretations. Much judgement is required to put it all together to make this info into useful data. Much conflicting information is present, some of it coincidental, some of it mistaken, some of it deliberately false. Errors are easy and, worse, tend to perpetuate one another, ie one error leads to more, each of which leads to still more...

The analogy I like best is one of being before a huge table, poorly lit, that is covered with hundreds and hundred of jigsaw puzzles dumped on it and mixed together. The boxes are gone, so you don't know what the puzzles are supposed to look like. To make matters more interesting, many of the pieces have been duplicated and many more are missing or out of sight. From that, you are expected to produce - in timely fashion - comprehensible pictures.