Endgame

[Skybird]

Your remark on that I only meant a single person when saying Saddam (like many pliticians did before me!) - that was hairsplitting, admit it! Most people do mean the regime when mentioning that single name, and I am sure you know that.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:


Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate.

I never said the US had the authority, did I? No, I said the US enforced the resolutions. The US and allies defended one of the main condition of the cease fire from the first conflict: No interference with weapons inspectors. The UN rolled over like a $3 whore, when Saddam wanted them out, no one stood up to him. We did, although very belatedly. And you say the first war was "done on a UN mandate"... pfft, call it UN, but it was really US. If the US and coalition had sat out that conflict, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. And probably Saudi Arabia by now. Seriously, when has the UN ever done anything significant without a major contribution by the US?

UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.

Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.

[Iceman]

Skybird you crack me up...you remind me of the big computer brain in I-Robot..."My logic is undeniable.....My logic is undeniable....." Someone needs to insert some nan-nites into your brain to slow it down lol.I wish I kept my "Wizard" pic of ya...I predict, I predict, BS all the time....It is not prediction pointing out the obvious things in life.You yourself proclaim the absurdity of the Muslim faith practiced in the countries over there and I my self have been en-lightened by alot of your posting rergarding this.The world is on a steady track leading to destruction and nothing you or any "Human" can do about it.The sun rises and again hastens to the place from whence it came.You don't have to be Christian or Jew or Muslim to know be-heading innocent people is wrong.Or strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up you countrymen because one is called Shia and one is called Sunni.This is maddness on a grand scale.Whether America would have gone in when daddy Bush was pres or now I feel the outcome would have been exactly the same.Only because America does not do what conquers of old have done and that is to make the loser submit like a whipped dog and if it doesn't it got shot.America used to do that 200 yrs ago ask any American Indian here that is left alive.It is a no-win only because we care and hate to see the civil war that will ensue now and more innocent people will die.If we didn't care then we would have massacred them ALL and be sending all that black gold home now for free.I do not know what you could do now except divide the country up into the seperate sects possibly, it seems it is being divided up now by themselves to just stay alive.I love ya Sky

[kiwi_2005]

What! the americans are losing the war!!! When in doubt call the kiwis!

[snowsub]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

What! the americans are losing the war!!! When in doubt call the kiwis!

C/mon Kiwi, you need that army, it's the only one you've got
:rotfl: :p

[Dowly]

Guerrilla warfare is hard to fight against. Anyone in the crowd can be a terrorist and there´s nothing you can do. Well, you could shoot the whole bunch, but that would look bad in the news.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I never said the US had the authority, did I? No, I said the US enforced the resolutions. The US and allies defended one of the main condition of the cease fire from the first conflict: No interference with weapons inspectors. The UN rolled over like a $3 whore, when Saddam wanted them out, no one stood up to him. We did, although very belatedly. And you say the first war was "done on a UN mandate"... pfft, call it UN, but it was really US. If the US and coalition had sat out that conflict, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. And probably Saudi Arabia by now. Seriously, when has the UN ever done anything significant without a major contribution by the US?

I'm calling it a UN mandate because the United Nations is the international body that is charged with settling international disputes and because it was the UN that authorized the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Though a very flawed and imperfect body, it exists to at least attempt to resolve international disputes so that armed intervention isn't the first and only recourse between nations who have a dispute. Certainly it was the US who led the 32 nation coalition that removed Iraq from Kuwait, but it was the UN who legitimized the action and it turned out to be a pretty quick and clean process.

As to the weapons inspections, I guess we have a different take on how that played out. I'm not disputing that it involved a lot of arm twisting, but the results were what mattered and it looked to me like they were getting results - right up until the US had them pulled from Iraq.

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.

My reasoning was pretty simple: if the US couldn't find Osama Bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan, why would I believe they could find Iraq's alleged WMDs? And with Bin Laden still on the loose and Al Qaeda still hatching plots, why focus attention on a country that had no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11? It didn't make any sense to me then and it still doesn't now.

Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.

He was handed a Medal of Freedom in the same ceremony where it was awarded to George Tenet (who was blamed for the "bad intelligence" on Iraq's WMDs) and Jay Garner (who said he was sacked after only one month on the job because he wanted free elections and rejected the imposed programme of privatization).

As to what I said about Bremer, I don't consider that reaching. He was appointed overseer of Iraq for a little over a year, and in that time issued some 100 odd decrees which included:

• Orders 37 and 49 which reduced the top tax rates from 45% to 15%.
  
  Order 54 which abolished all import duties on Iraq, aside from a 5% reconstruction levy.
  
  Order 39 that allows for a 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies excluding those in the oil, gas, and banking sectors.
  
  Order 2 that dissolved the Iraqi army.

When you have an appointed official from a foreign occupying power issuing such decrees I call it as I see it. International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented and that doesn't look to be the case there. Most of this moot now anyway, but its still interesting how two people can look at the same events and reach such different conclusions on them.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

As to the weapons inspections, I guess we have a different take on how that played out. I'm not disputing that it involved a lot of arm twisting, but the results were what mattered and it looked to me like they were getting results - right up until the US had them pulled from Iraq.


When you have an appointed official from a foreign occupying power issuing such decrees I call it as I see it. International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented and that doesn't look to be the case there. Most of this moot now anyway, but its still interesting how two people can look at the same events and reach such different conclusions on them.

The weps inspections were getting results only because Bush Jr was
effectively posturing for military-imposed enforcement of the UN resolutions. Honestly, Saddam would have never backed up without this threat of force from the US. Exactly how Iran has treated the EU Three (France, UK, Germany) over uranium enrichment. Stalling, phony negotiations, utter disdain.

Certainly there has to be someone making the decisions, and in many cases, they are unilateral. But my point about Dictator Bremer is that you and I both know that is temporary. It's understood, and it has historical precedent. The US sets up an interim government and takes steps to turn power over to the indigenous people.

Yeah, it is interesting, how people can see the same issue with vastly different conclusions.

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by scandium

...As to what I said about Bremer, I don't consider that reaching. He was appointed overseer of Iraq for a little over a year....

Of course he was appointed. How else could an occupation government possibly function? If you think things over there are a mess now, what do you think the country would have been like if he hadn't been? No temporary system is perfect, but how else would you suggest that the infrastructure of a country ruled for years and years by a ruthless man be properly restored? How would you provide electricity? Plumbing? Communications? Transportation? Further, what would the outcome have been if free elections had been held within days or hours after Saddam's statue was pulled down? Do you think they would have been fair? Orderly? Non-violent? How many people would have understood that they could vote? Let alone done so? Why should the occupation of Iraq play out differently from any other post-war occupation?

...Order 2 that dissolved the Iraqi army.

More sophistry. As usual you wield a half-truth. Saddam's army was dissolved. You conveniently leave out that the Iraqi Army has been rebuilding ever since.

International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws...

Respect existing laws of the tyrant we went there to remove?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The weps inspections were getting results only because Bush Jr was
effectively posturing for military-imposed enforcement of the UN resolutions. Honestly, Saddam would have never backed up without this threat of force from the US. Exactly how Iran has treated the EU Three (France, UK, Germany) over uranium enrichment. Stalling, phony negotiations, utter disdain.

Certainly there has to be someone making the decisions, and in many cases, they are unilateral. But my point about Dictator Bremer is that you and I both know that is temporary. It's understood, and it has historical precedent. The US sets up an interim government and takes steps to turn power over to the indigenous people.

Yeah, it is interesting, how people can see the same issue with vastly different conclusions.

I've been following events in Iran so far as well. Time will tell I guess on how things play out, but the two things I'd rule out so far are (1) the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Iran (I see the posturing there as far as these go as just that); (2) any kind of ground campaign. The only question to me is on whether or not the use of force will become necessary (which would consist of some kind of air campaign), and if so when.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before.

How many terrorists would there have been in the world had the US not invaded Iraq? How about if they had just invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

How many of these terrorists would have devoted their time effort and energy to commiting attrocities in N. America, Europe and Asia, has they not been attracted like iron filings to a magnet to the war in Iraq.

Always look on the bright side of life.

This is not to say that all is well in Iraq. I mostly agree with you, Skybird, that things are not going great and much of it is due to poor planning, the wrong goals and impossible dreams. But I strongly disagree on the argument that there definitely would have been less terrorism in the world otherwise. And while the hoards Islamic shadid wannabeasts have been attracted to a far and distant battlegrounds of Babylon, the world has learned a few things or 2 about them, though they haven't or aren't willing to digest all the facts up till now.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

Of course he was appointed. How else could an occupation government possibly function? If you think things over there are a mess now, what do you think the country would have been like if he hadn't been? No temporary system is perfect, but how else would you suggest that the infrastructure of a country ruled for years and years by a ruthless man be properly restored? How would you provide electricity? Plumbing? Communications? Transportation? Further, what would the outcome have been if free elections had been held within days or hours after Saddam's statue was pulled down? Do you think they would have been fair? Orderly? Non-violent? How many people would have understood that they could vote? Let alone done so? Why should the occupation of Iraq play out differently from any other post-war occupation?

Good list of things to consider when drawing up plans to invade and occupy a country .Though having never advocated such an action you are posing them to the wrong person. The right person you can probably find on www.whitehouse.gov

More sophistry. As usual you wield a half-truth. Saddam's army was dissolved. You conveniently leave out that the Iraqi Army has been rebuilding ever since.

Sophistry eh? Do you call the US Military George Bush's army? I don't. But then again, it isn't the convention to refer to an army by its commander-in-chief since commanders come and go while the army remains (except when dissolved by the Viceroy).

Respect existing laws of the tyrant we went there to remove?

*shrug* I don't write international law.

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by scandium

Good list of things to consider when drawing up plans to invade and occupy a country .Though having never advocated such an action you are posing them to the wrong person. The right person you can probably find on www.whitehouse.gov

Good God, we actually agree on something! Indeed, none of those things were, in my opinion, fully considered in the haste of going to war. I do think, though, that they have been more successfully accomplished during the occupation than they would have been otherwise. That said, I also think we've done as much over there as we can do. As for alerting whitehouse.gov, I think the lights are on but nobody's home there these days.

Sophistry eh? Do you call the US Military George Bush's army? I don't. But then again, it isn't the convention to refer to an army by its commander-in-chief since commanders come and go while the army remains (except when dissolved by the Viceroy).

No, I don't refer to the U.S. military by its C-in-C, but the Iraqi Army under its former tyrant hardly compares to the U.S. military under any president. My point was that it would have been militarily stupid to leave Hussein's army physically or organizationally intact after defeating it. Surgeons don't remove "most" of the cancer and then leave a little because "oh, well, it probably won't grow back."

[scandium]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

Good God, we actually agree on something! Indeed, none of those things were, in my opinion, fully considered in the haste of going to war. I do think, though, that they have been more successfully accomplished during the occupation than they would have been otherwise. That said, I also think we've done as much over there as we can do. As for alerting whitehouse.gov, I think the lights are on but nobody's home there these days.

I agree with all of these points.

No, I don't refer to the U.S. military by its C-in-C, but the Iraqi Army under its former tyrant hardly compares to the U.S. military under any president. My point was that it would have been militarily stupid to leave Hussein's army physically or organizationally intact after defeating it. Surgeons don't remove "most" of the cancer and then leave a little because "oh, well, it probably won't grow back."

We disagree there as I don't see the army itself as being inherently cancerous. Using your analogy I would say dissolving the army was killing the patient to cure the cancer, since there was a viable alternative in simply keeping the army but purging the undesirables from it.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by snowsub

C/mon Kiwi, you need that army, it's the only one you've got
:rotfl: :p

:rotfl: