 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM Sawzaw, old saying, "Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect." Now, if I gave a rat's ass what you think I might stick around, But you obviously don't understand plain English and I've wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you what is historical fact. You have a computer, look it up.You won't get the argument you seem to enjoy, but you might learn something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM Welcome to the world of Sawz, Capt'n... This is the way the boy/girl is... But seein' as he/she used to be "Old Guy" here I'd bet he/she is a he... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:56 AM Gervase: Now that Mr Kendall has flaked out on answering the tough question about Rwanda, maybe you can answer this one because it relates to what you and he said: So, how many Rwandans have died because The USA stayed out of that nations business? And is that an acceptable figure? Amos: I am glad you finally fessed up to the fact that the truth you "bring" is not always the truth. To be to fair, I don't think you would have presented it if you had read through the post but you seem to be in such a rush to post piles of negative bullshit as if volume makes up for accuracy. Anyhoo, starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong in some instances such as Hitler and the Japs did. However in some circumstances it is not wrong such as in Kosovo and the Balkans. Do you think Saddam Hussein should have been left alone when he invaded and occupied Kuwait? Do you think the US should have stayed out of that nations business? Bobert: Still dancin' and not a single answer out of you. This thread is another one of your stink bombs and when the stink blows back on you, all ya got left is personal attacks to prop up your shaky arguments and strange ideas. Got any input on Kuwait or Rwanda or are personal attacks your forté? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:53 AM Why did there have to be a linkage between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein Gervase?? With regard to the security of the United States of America, both Al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were two completely seperate issues. Since the war Al-Qaeda has had many mentions and since 11th September, 2001 to date thay have got fewer and fewer. Because of their handling of their "Jihad" in Iraq, where in an "infidel rich" target environment, they were seen to baulk at attacking armed "infidel invaders" and instead killed thousands of fellow muslims in an attempt to foment a civil war in Iraq - That Gervase did not go down too well in the "muslim world". Even Al-Qaeda's No.2 admitted defeat in Iraq. Ah yes all those Jihadists clustered on the borders - well Gervase, most of them died, figures stand at between 30 to 40 thousand of them so far. Afghanistan Gervase, I think 2009 and 2010 and going to bring very torrid times for the Taleban. Remember that road transportation exercise that ISAF undertook a couple of months ago to transport the components of the third turbine to the Kajaki Dam. The Taleban lost 250 men attacking the decoy convoy, injuries to ISAF amounted to one man with a broken hand he got while freeing a vehicle that become bogged down. Oh Carlton-Smith was perfectly correct in that there is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan - but that is as true for the Taleban as it is for ISAF and the Afghan Government forces. At the moment ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces stand a damn sight better chance of lasting the course until the Taleban realise that. The second round of free elections are coming up in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, let's see how they go. As to how things would have been better if the US had stayed at home: - Going on his average Saddam would have killed 617,580 Iraqi's possibly more (see below). - Libya would now have a nuclear weapon. - Syria would still be occupying Lebanon and be well on its way to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. - The Second Iran/Iraq war would now be in its third year. This would be the only way Saddam had of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons capability. - World oil prices would have gone through the roof at the start of the conflict between Iraq and Iran because of loss of supply from the the middle-east region. - Terror attacks upon western european countries and the USA would have continued with growing intensity as the co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies round the world would have remained at pre-911 levels. - Dr.A.Q.Khan's network would have remained undetected and would still be in business. - The opportunity for an international terrorist group to acquire, or be supplied with, WMD, or WMD technology would be five or six times what it is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM Tough questions sure knock the wind out of the Liberal blowhards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:48 PM The tough questions here are the ones I asked when I started this thread and to date none of you war-mongers have come close to answering... Why??? Because it would reveal that you were (and still are), ahhhhh... ...wrong!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM Bobert: In the opening of this stink bomb troll of a thread, the only thing that even resembles a question was: "Why Bush felt he had to invade will be up to armchair historians and psycologists but the fact did not warrent this war..." You answered your own question. Suppose you answer this question: What were the reasons for going to war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:20 PM Currently: BAGDHAD – The Iraqi Oil Ministry says the country's oil exports in December reached 56.2 million barrels. It says that's a 3.4 million barrel increase from previous month although revenues dropped due to the slide in global oil prices. Sunday's statement shows revenues fell to about $1.943 billion from $2.299 billion in November. Iraq's oil was sold at an average price of about $34.57 per barrel, down from the previous month price of $43.54 a barrel. It was purchased by 23 international oil companies. The statement says 43.4 million barrels were exported through the Persian Gulf, while 12.8 million barrels were exported via Turkey's port of Ceyhan. Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves with 115 billion barrels. Previously: • Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people. • Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit. • Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas. Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government • Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis. • Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM That last assertion is not supported by the data you have presented, Sawz. That is obvious. But, the rest os good. Obviously, the reason for the invasion was to curtail the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, according to all the PR from the Bush Administration. That there were none, and that the CIA realized there were none, and half the country figured there were none, leads to the suspicion that the pretext was either fraudulent or intensely stupid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Nickhere Date: 25 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM LH, my post here is coming in very late after yours about the Lusitania. I just thought you might be interested to know that I was reading an article some time last year (can't remember when right now, but i cut out the piece and kept it somewhere). There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface. The ammunition turned out to be .303 calibre made by the Remington company. This is significant as Remington was (and is?) a US arms manufacturer, but the .303 round was not popular in the USA (I don't think it was used there at all, actually. There was a 30-30 but that was a totally different round and not interchangeable with the .303). On the other hand the .303 was the standard round of the British army from about 1890 (Lee Metford rifles and later Lee Enfield) up to the 50s or 60s when the NATO 7.62mm took over. Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak. This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions. The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM Exactly what assertion was that Amos? And who was responsible for that assertion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM LH, I was concentrating only on the USA. We could have stayed out of it simply by not shipping munitions to England in a passenger ship and denying that we were doing it. History has proved that the Germans were right in sinking the Lusitania.(From their point of view) The fact that we wanted to get into it to support England is another matter." – Kendall "There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface." – Nickhere "Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak. This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions. The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth" – Nickhere. None of the above is "new" – Look up the article in Wikipedia relating to the loss of the Lusitania, the "discovery" last year by the members of Cork Sub-Aqua Club of the ammunition merely confirms what was made public in 1915 when the vessel's manifest became public knowledge – 4.2 million .303 rounds plus some 3" fragmentation shells. The article also goes into the causes of the second explosion: - Ammunition exploding (Highly unlikely) - Coal dust explosion (Possible but unlikely) - Catastrophic failure in the vessel's high pressure steam System (Highly probable and most likely) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM Amos "facts": "The unilateral invasion of a non-combatant sovereign nation is a fact." Please explain the unilateral "fact" and the non combatant "fact" like a good fellow. I recall there were several countries involved in this invasion and that there was frequent combat with Iraq stretching over several years leading up to this invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM Sawz: Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation? What specific combat? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:29 PM Bobert, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and others warned us. The biggest mistake is the ideology that "might makes right". It had to go wrong. Teribus as far as I can know is one of those ideologues that would not defend his position by going over to Iraq and fighting. He would prefer to be an armed-chair soldier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM Alot easier to call up a slaughter from 3000 or more miles away... Lets see: George Bush- 5300 miles away Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away Teribus- 2700 miles away BB- 5300 miles away Saws- +- 5300 miles away Yup, seems like the chickhawks like their action at a safe distance... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:33 AM "Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation?" "Operation Southern Watch was an operation conducted by Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) with the mission of monitoring and controlling airspace south of the 32nd Parallel (extended to the 33rd Parallel in 1996) in Iraq, following the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion of Iraq." As of May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times.[8] Over the same time period, American aircraft had attacked Iraqi targets on 73 occasions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:55 AM And in your jaded, bitter-minded worldview, Sawz, this makes Iraq an aggressor? This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM "Bobert, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter" Eh?? They all told us did they?? Ignoring Bobert because he's a complete and utter muppet, let's look at the other two. Exactly when did they tell us?? Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat?? No they didn't Frank. In fact the very same Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter contributed to UNSCOM's Final Report to The United Nations Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq. Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems. Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003? Ehm??? No he didn't, and I don't actually think that he has come out with a definite answer on this yet - I think he is verging on it, I think it goes to the tune of there might be but most likely there isn't anything and that Saddam Hussein did indeed destroy it all unilaterally - now that to me appears to be a man that is riding every horse in the race. The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing. One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability. Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter. Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme?? Is that the Scott Ritter who had a book to sell?? As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:27 PM There was no reason, and a whole raft of explanations, T. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM Fine, T... Why the Hell did the the UN send in inspectors??? Was that just a game??? I mean, lets get real here.... Thye world was told that Iraq had WMDs... It wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed... That's what they were told...Period!!! So Blix takes inspectors backinto Iraq... You following this, T??? Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want... Any argument yet, T??? Then Bush says, "Screw it, invade anyway..." That's the way it went down... No rerason to rewrite those facts on the ground 'cause we were all witnesses to them... Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it... And that may land some of yer buds in war crimes courts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM We had plenty of reasons but we were only told one. WMD's!!! Tacked on to that reason was 9/11 when the nation was questioning the 1st reason, then after the 9/11 association/reason came a host of other reasons. To late , we were already in the shithouse by then! The other reasons weren't part of the picture until the WDM's conviently evaporated. Then came the other reasons Of course we now now that the were other reasons we wanted to get into Iraq & that those reasons were prior to 9/11 ever happening but those reasons were private & kept private. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:20 AM Two posts, one from Barry Finn (27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM) and one from Bobert (27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM), that make me wonder exactly what planet they were on over the period of time in question. But there again, I believe that irrespective of what either reads, they only ever isolate and take away the bits they want to, the bits that pander to their own particular bias. I'll respond to Barry's offering first: That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America is undeniable, it is a matter of record, as is the fact that this evaluation was made public on the 17th January, 1998. The nature of the threat was clearly detailed and described as follows: 1. A regime that was hostile to the United States of America 2. A regime that possessed WMD, WMD material, WMD technology 3. A regime that had links to, sympathetic to and was a sponsor of an international terrorist organisation, or organisations that were hostile towards the United States of America 4. A regime that would be capable of passing WMD, WMD material, WMD technology to an international terrorist group that was hostile towards the United States of America. The template for this appraisal was formed on Iraq/Saddam's intransigence in complying with the terms of the Safwan Agreements and resulting UN Resolution requirements and his total lack of co-operation with the United Nations UNSCOM Inspectors. So here clearly was a nation governed by a regime that was hostile to the United States of America - that takes care of No. 1 above. It was known to have WMD, WMD material, WMD technology and had a proven track record of using them - that takes care of No. 2 above. Iraq under Saddam Hussein trained, financed and supported terrorist organisations based abroad to attack Israel - that takes care of No. 3 above. Would that regime then be willing and capable of passing on that technology, or capability to a terrorist group in order to attack the United States of America, harm its interests or its allies - You tell me, it is a judgement call, but fast forward to 11th September, 2001 and take note of the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who applauded the attacks carried out that day, then I don't think that Bill Clinton's security advisors had it wrong - That takes care of No. 4 above. Now add to all of that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, which illustrated the vulnerability of the US to asymmetric attack. The Clinton administration was extremely ineffective in their response to this threat, there was no great effort made to involve the UN in enforcing Iraqi compliance to the disarmament programmes required under the terms of UN Resolutions 678 or 687, both of which have been in the public domain since being passed by the Security Council of the United Nations, so I am rather puzzled that Barry Finn attempts to tell us that those requirements were "secret" or kept "private" - They weren't Barry they were there for all the world to read, as were the arguments for "Regime Change in Iraq" outlined in Clinton's Iraq Bill passed in the summer of 1998 which placed regime change in Iraq as a cornerstone of official US foreign policy in the middle-east - Now then Barry don't try and tell me that that was kept "private", because it wasn't, again, it was out there for all the world to read and remember and take note of this Barry all this was is in 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:33 AM OK, now for the other post, let's have a look at Bobert's cherry-picked and overly simplistic effort: There were two inspection campaigns, the first UNSCOM set up in accordance with the Safwan Agreements and the second UNMOVIC which replaced UNSCOM. I mention this because it is important that Bobert should realise what these "teams" were supposed to do: - UNSCOM which stands for United Nations Special Commission (present in Iraq intermittently from 1991 to 1998) - UNMOVIC which stands for United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (present in Iraq from December 2002 to March 2003) Bobert's first Question- first part: "Why the Hell did the UN send in inspectors?" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: The UNMOVIC Inspection teams were invited back into Iraq by Saddam Hussein to complete the work started by UNSCOM. As far as the United Nations were concerned, the Inspection teams went back into Iraq to monitor Iraqi disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, verify that that disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC resolution 1441 had been undertaken and to inspect sites associated with WMD programmes to verify that those programmes had in fact been shut down. Saddam's reasons for inviting those teams back into Iraq were completely different - If you doubt that, fast forward to Saddam's admission while in captivity that he did everything in his power to make the Iraqi people, the international community and his neighbouring states believe that Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons, was there any reason for him to say that to get the US off the hook? I can't see one, he'd already been tried, convicted an sentenced. Bobert's first Question - second part: "Was that just a game?" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned it was just a game, a game that he had successfully played and won before, and one that he thought, and had been advised, that he could play and win again. It most certainly was not a game to the United Nations Security Council, or to the United States of America. And by all means "lets get real here.... The world was told that Iraq had WMDs" - Who by Bobert?? I'll give you the correct answer to that before you feel moved to start throwing "Bobert Facts" about. The world had been told by UNSCOM in January and in March 1999 that Iraq had WMD the status of which could not be confirmed. The world "wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed". Now that hardly flies does it Bobert. It was the "world" organisation, specifically the United Nations that wrote Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 (remember that final, last, last chance) detailing to Iraq what was required for compliance. In fact the verbiage of 1441 goes into the detail of Iraq's non-compliance to all previous resolutions. So take it from me Bobert the "world" was fully aware of all the reasons, it doesn't surprise me for one nano-second that you personally were not. The good Doctor Hans Blix, Bobert, took the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams back into Iraq at Saddam Hussein's invitation purely and simply because the United States of America had made it pretty much understood that if he didn't the US were going to put boots on the ground and remove him - something that GWB's predecessor always fought shy off. Don't dress it up to anything different - the only reason the UN were invited back into Iraq was down entirely to the international pressure applied by George W. Bush. Period!!!! You following this, Bobert??? Bobert's second Question: "Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want...Any argument yet, T???" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: Only that you present the part of the story that suits your view. You cherry-pick a couple of statements and remarks made by Blix, promote their significance way out of proportion and ignore the context in which they were stated and omit what Dr Hans Blix went on to say. Let's take a look at what Dr Hans Blix actually did say Bobert: - "Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active." Remember those words Bobert - IMMEDIATE; UNCONDITIONAL; ACTIVE - "I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course." Remember IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL & ACTIVE Bobert? Date is now 27th January, 2003, UNMOVIC went into Iraq early December 2002 and Iraq is deciding "in principle" to co-operate on matters relating to process?? Not quite what was required was it Bobert. By the bye Bobert "in principle" does not equate to "in fact". And they haven't got round to deciding "in principle" to co-operating on substance - True?? That is what the good Doctor said wasn't it?? You don't have to answer that Bobert it's there in black and white, attempt to argue otherwise you only succeed in making yourself out to be a complete and utter prat. - "I shall deal first with cooperation on process……..Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field……. In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations…….While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. Dr. Blix is registering problems in relation to the co-operation that Bobert states was flawless?? Go on Bobert have a read, that is what he is saying. Access, inspections, aerial reconnaissance, "Iraq has refused…..unless a number of conditions are fulfilled" - Hey Bobert what does the requirement "UNCONDITIONAL" mean to you? What part of it do you not understand?? Blix is quite clear on it though. - Cooperation on substance……..The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains…………Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. So Dr. Blix is stating that there is not the level of co-operation on substance required. That UNMOVIC are not in Iraq to play games of "hide-and-seek". Not quite the picture that Bobert wants to hear about. Well he might not want to hear about it and he can deny it as much as he likes but it does not stop it from being truth, and the truth recorded in Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN. Did Bush say - "Screw it, invade anyway..."?? Got a reference for that Bobert, or is this just another "Bobert Fact". UNSC Resolution 1441 stipulated that there would be serious consequences for any material breach of the terms of that Resolution. I think I noted seven such material breaches on the part of Saddam's regime. President Chirac and his Foreign Minister Villeneuve completely stalled any further action on the part of the UN and the President of the United States of America acted on the best available advice from his Security Advisors and did his job - he looked to the security of the United States of America and the protection of her interests. Oh and of course Bobert has to round it all up with the standard outburst of emotional crap: "Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it..." But there haven't been one million people killed, and so far, Bobert, although asked to do so many, many times, hasn't been able to come up with any substantiation for this figure that he waves about like a flag. Since May 2003, the vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been the result of in-fighting between Iraqi groups and terrorist/insurgent attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. The number according to "Iraq Body Count" provides a maximum figure of 98,729 with deaths during the invasion of 10,079. Every single one of them documented, every incident recorded with details as to name of victim, cause of death and party responsible for those deaths. Bobert's million on the other hand was only ever a "Guestimate" of who might have died based on unverified batch sampling. Once again I will point out the obvious that "might have died" does not equate to "actually died". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM You keep jamming 1998 and 2002-3 as if nothing changed. What actually appears to have happened is that Iraq did disarm as far as WMD is concerned, and Saddam continued to put up a baloney pretense for the purposes of keeping Iran at bay, creating the impression without substance that they still existed. Those of too little wit were inclined to believe his baloney, especially when the Bush administration starting echoing the BS and magnifying it. But it was all BS. Some people saw that, and some did not. You clearly were among the latter, and have been erecting palisades of justification ever since. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM Hi Teribus, Re; Scott and Blix "Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??" This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more. " It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false. "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?" "Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003?" Not many knew what was going on in 03. He wouldn't have known. Saddam was a paper tiger. He was put in place by the US as a deterrent to Iran. He was all talk and no substance as has been shown recently. Blix and Ritter finally realized that their findings were about to be propagandized by the Bush Administration and in their public statements reacted accordingly. "The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing." What US search groups? There are a lot of self-styled groups in the US that claim some kind of information. Many of them are puppets for Bush. "One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability." And it has been shown that Iraq never had that capability. It was smoke and mirrors. "Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter. Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme??" What does pro-Iraqi mean? They don't even have an Iraq. He was never in favor of Saddam as your implication suggests. "As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan." I disagree that the so-called left has any belief of the kind. Actually, reading right-wing propaganda does not constitute objective analysis of the situation. I think your description, "a bit of reading" is accurate. Certainly not a full report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM No, T, as pwer usaul it is ****you**** who has cherry-picked the Blix Report to the UN... What exactly do you not undertsand about the term "The most important" as when Dr, Blix stated, and I quote, "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..." In most English grammer books "most" means "most"... So "most important point" means "most important point"... Nothing else... Not yer usual balh,blah, blah about stuff totally irrelevent to the fact on the ground as of January 27, 2003... Yer arguments, while long and teadious, don't add up to calling for the invasion... They deal with events other than what Dr. Blix actaully said was the "most impotant point" about his ionspection team... Not about "old business" but the reality as of the day of the report... Face it, ol' buddy, you ain't got anything in yer poker hand yet you continue to bet holding off the inevitable of having to admit that you are (and still are) wrong... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM Bobert your post of 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM was unnecessary after all I had said earlier- "The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to" Your post referred to above proves I was correct. Now Stringsingers post: Point 1: "Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??" This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more." - Stringsinger Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit. Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years. In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999. Point 2: "" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false." Oh their reports were based on very good information Frank, very detailed information supplied by the Iraqi Government themselves, supplied by the manufacturing facilities within Iraq, supplied by foreign suppliers of equipment and materials. Only problem was Frank that there were discrepencies that the Iraqis could not explain away. Its all there in the UNSCOM Reports if you'd like to read them - or were the likes of Blix and Ritter and the rest of the UN Inspectors lying too?? Point 3: "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?" Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM No, T... That's where you have it all wrong... One million people have been murdered because you and yer buds dismised not only the Bobert's of the world but also the words of Hans Blix... You, with the blood on your hands, will not minimalize this ****************************fact******************************!!! Do not try this game with me... Do not try this game with history and do not try this game with those who you, yes ******you****** who's lives have been snuffed out becasue you and yer war monging buddies got it so very... ..........................wrong...........................!!! And please spare me any more of yer crap... It is all lies and distortions... It is all about making be able to sleeep at night... You should never ever be able to sleep at night... Blix told you that things were going fine... You ignored him and ordered up the slaughter of a million people... You do not deserve to ever sleep again without the knowledge that you, yes you, are responsible... Now, get off of my cloud... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:16 PM The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm. You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified. This is simply bone-headed warmongering, not to put too fine a point on it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:55 PM Teribus, you say "That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America" Look at what happened, look at what transpired. What is & was fact & what was false are now well known. "Evaluatated"! That evaluation proved to be false! Concocked! Fabricated! We were lied to! We were spooked by the spooks & even they knew it was creepy! We were had! There's no need to go over this. And you ask what planet I'm on? Check yourself out & where you've been for the last 7yrs? Get your head out of the sand, get with the rest of the world, you'll keep the party line, long after the party drops it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:46 AM "The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm." - Amos Now that statement of yours Amos beggars belief. It is complete and utter hogwash and you know it. Iraq was co-operating?? So what was it that UNSCOM was complaining about to the United Nations Security Council?? What was the reason for "Desert Fox"?? Remember the complaints about the status of the 17 "Presidential Palaces" built by Saddam - the ones UNSCOM could not inspect - were they an example of all this Iraqi co-operation??. "You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified." - Amos Eh, No Amos, I don't think so, quite the reverse in fact, go back and read exactly what I have said about what was known in 1998 compared to what was known in 2003 - something to do with their being an "intelligence Black-hole" in the region as far as the US was concerned (That came about thanks to "Peanut" Carter by the bye). By all means Barry let's - "Look at what happened, look at what transpired." - Where before there was uncertainty regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD programmes there is now none. That is what has happened, now is that good or bad. - Where before Iraq under Saddam Hussein acted as a state sponsor for international terrorism instigating trouble in the region, particularly in Israel. The terrorists in the region have now lost an important backer thereby increasing the prospects for peace in the region. That is what has happened, good or bad. - Libya unilaterally renounced and disbanded it's WMD programme, that is what happened. What transpired was the discovery of a hither to unknown, and extremely advanced, nuclear weapons programme. Now was that a good thing or a bad thing. - The secret, illegal and extremely dangerous activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan in the field of nuclear weapons proliferation were brought out into the open and shut down. That is what happened, that is what transpired, good or bad. - According to NIE reports Iran at least temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment programme in 2003. That is what happened and what transpired was that the IAEA got a glimpse of the scale of the secret nuclear programme of Iran. - North Korea was persuaded to resume six-party talks on nuclear abandonment. That is what transpired, what happened was that an agreement was reached and now all parties are working towards a mutually agreed solution. - Syria was ordered to leave the Lebanon by the UN and complied after occupying the country for 27 years. Syrian attempts at acquiring nuclear technology and weapons were stopped dead in their tracks. - "Al-Qaeda" as seen from the perspective of the "Muslim World" was exposed for condemnation by all for the way they conducted themselves in Iraq. Even Al-Qaeda's second in command admitted their total failure in Iraq. Now then Barry all the above came about because the US acted as it did - by taking on and dealing with a "rogue state" it seriously discouraged four others and they are listed above. Throughout the period since the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein oil supplies from the region have flowed uninterrrupted and have in fact increased. Now what would have happened and what might have transpired if the US had not acted: - Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear. - UN sanctions on Iraq would have been withdrawn or just simply ignored. - Iraq would have them rearmed and Russian, China and France would be only too pleased to help them - Nothing would be known about the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan furthering the likelyhood of even wider nuclear weapons proliferation - Libya would now have a nuclear weapon that nobody knew about, a weapon that was totally annonymous - sort of like a gun with all marks removed, a weapon that could not be traced. - Syria would still be present in Lebanon and would be actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons aided and abetted by Dr.A.Q.Khan and the North Koreans. - By now 2009 the second Iran/Iraq War would be in its third or fourth year. There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein would have stood by and allowed the Iranian nuclear programme to advance as far as it has without doing something about it. The only course of action open to him would be to attack Iran, with the resulting closure or severe restrictions to oil supplies sailing through the Straits of Hormuz. - Iraq would have resumed WMD production and would still be sponsoring terrorist organisations. - Al-Qaeda would still be "dining-out" on the Kudos from 9/11, it would have got stronger and would now have numerous avenues to explore with regard to obtain a WMD for an attack or attacks on the US or Israel, especially from a source who had a weapon that nobody knew about. - Which way Pakistan might have jumped doesn't really bear thinking about. Don't know about you Barry but I know which picture looks better and is better for the entire planet - you may disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:14 AM Oh Barry, correction to my previous mail under the section of what would have happened and what would have transpired if the US had not acted, where I stated: "- Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear." That of course is incorrect because had the US not acted there would have been no UNMOVIC, there would have been no return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, the missile development programme would have proceeded unchallenged, serving as the thin end of the wedge as a tester which would then be followed by other proscribed activities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM Yes, Iraq was an agressor. What happened in Kuwait? "This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal." During Clinton's "peace time" over 7000 American lives were lost in the military. What sort of thickheadedness caused that? Did you protest back then? No? Was it because you did not have a political axe to grind? Hey mr Blowhard Bobert, What were the reasons for going to war with Iraq? Here is one but it does not support your single minded accusation that WMDs were the reason: Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:36 PM So, Sawzall, you support a policy of unilaterally invading nations guilty of mismanagement? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM Yo, Sawz, First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good... As to why we invaded Iraq??? Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established... We invaded Iraq because the neo-cons convinced a less-than-curious George W that we needed to... He bought their story lock-stock-'n-barrel... The neo-cons look at the world as a big Monopoly board and they thought that if they could gain a real foothold somewhere in the Middle East that the US would have access to the oil there... Some folks would use the term "geo-political" for purdy much the same thing... The neo-cons were convinced that Iraq was ripe for a MCDonalds on every corner and would be the easiest of the Middle Eastern countries to have half a chance of of selling an invasion to the rest of the world... It didn't have to be Iraq for them... Iran would have made them happy, too, but the story wasn't there... Too many transitions and here they had Saddam, who had been in power for decades... And they had the Kuwait history... So Iraq was to them the perfect storm... Well, they got that part right... Iraq has been the perfect storm and bogged down out nation for at least a decade... So, that is why Bush ordered up a senseless war and a war that should get him the title of "Worst President Ever"... Okay, some folks would argue that Vietnam was as bad or worse and in terms of out losses it was worse... What makes Iraq worse than Vietnam is that Vietnam was a model of what not to do yet Bush, not known for his intellectual curiousity, didn't heed the lessons of Vietnam... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM "Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established." By whom, when and where? They were enumerated long before GWB showed up on the scene. Bobert shifts his claim the "the war is lost" to "it was wrong". Bobert 20 Jul 07 Anyone else notice that every day the Bushites push back the date that ***The Surge*** will work??? Seems like it's been moved back twice this week from Septmeber to next summer??? At that rate, give the Bushites another week an' it will be sometime in the next century... Face it folks... The surge ain't gonna work... This is a civil war we are now in the middle of... We ain't gonna win this one... Might of fact, this is alike rootin' for the home team late in the 4th quarter and down by 4 touchdowns... Yeah, I think we can all relate... Yeah, we hope that we just get one more touchdown but understand that the game is lost... Iraq is lost... The folks sayin', "Oh geeze, we just can't afford to loose" won't change this very simple truth... Iraq is lost... Better just dig in, bite the bullet and make the most of it... So I would think the question at hand isn't about whether or not the war can be won but what to do now... That involves a major paradyme switch... There are things that a militarially defeated US can do... Lot's of them... BUt they can't do them until they give up this false hope that **the surge*** will bring victory, or stability... That won't happen... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM Sawz: The surge coincided with the awakening of the local tribes to the fact that Al Qeda was not their friend, and Bush's surge got a lot of credit for pacification that actually should be laid at the door of the locals. But even if Bobert's assessment was mistaken, it seems to me--since you have given your man so much endless slack for so many boneheaded misunderestimations and mistakes--that Bobert deserves a bit of slack as well. You're in Obama country, pal. That means re-unification and reaching across the grat Divide. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM Yeah, Obama country where Obama says we won and we are going to do as we please. All the while esposing bipartisanship and unification. Bobert likes to blurt out these absolute statements based on his own strange ideas of how things really are and when it starts looking like the statement was wrong, he gets all huffy and puffy and tries to dredfine his statement. I could be wrong on this but I believe anybody who thinks they are always right is arrogant. I merely point out the incorrectness in people's statements and I get stereotyped as some sort of monster that is always wrong. Ad hominem. Argument against the person instead of the factuality of what they have presented. Yes, I have been wrong on several occasions. I usually try to admit that I was wrong rather than bluster along and get hostile defending my mistaken ideas. Nobody is right all of the time and nobody is wrong all of the time. Things need to be considered on an individual basis. This is what I believe to be open minded thinking. And I always try to avoid telling people that they are stupid, just mistaken, unknowledgeable or unwilling to admit to truth. Did the surge work or was it the awakening that worked? I think the real heart if the matter is "Would the awakening have worked without the surge? If could be that the awakening would have worked on it's own but I don't think it would have. Nor would the surge have worked without the awakening. The Sunnis saw the light and finally got the determination but could they have defeated Al Quaeda alone? Was not arming them part of the surge? I think the chances are that if not for the surge, Iraq would still be a war zone. All in all I believe the surge was a positive thing but it has to be derided by those who made closed minded assertions that it will not work, It cannot work, it is all a lie etc. Likewise, those that were against the war and made absolute statements that the war is lost, we can't win etc, must now focus only on WMDs to assert that the war was wrong when in fact there was a plurality of reasons for the war that go back way before GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:05 PM I haven't shifted anything since 2002, Sawz... The war was both wrong and lost... No shift... Both are true... The Surge itself didn't work... It wasn't more boots on the ground but an entire shift in strategy... It also didn't hurt that the "Anwar Awakening" was occuring at the same time as the Surge... But a couple things, other than the Anwar Awakeining cornerstone occured.... The US began making cash payments to Sunnis not to shoot at US and the US, under David Patreas, put our military in neigborgoods 24/7... Both were smart... But it was the Sunni's realizing that they didn't want al qeada in their country that was the biggie... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:33 PM "Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit." Teribus, perhaps my memory is not as clear as you state but I'm not making things up like you are. "Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years." This is not true. The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US. They overcame any "running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation. " In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999." Yes and they determined that WMD's were not there. Plans for them may have been instituted by Saddam but the reality of achieving these goals were impossible. Point 2: "" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." Which proved to be nonsense. These were distorted beyond comprehension for political purposes by both Bush and his British lackey. The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false." The reports said nothing about WMD's except that it was assumed that Saddam would like to have acquired them which he was unable to do. The UNSCOM Reports are open to interpretation. And we did know that Bush was lying. The Reports change from time to time anyway. Point 3: "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." And these were determined to be false. "Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC. This is a pointless argument. They were not officially found except by those who attempted to capitalize politically on this misinformation. The reports you suggest were manufactured for political consideration by those who favored the invasion of Iraq. The proscribed missile development program was not tenable. Yellow Cake was not found in Iraq. This is a lie that instituted an embarrassment for the Bush Administration. It was a forged claim by Italian operatives and used as a pretext for the invasion. Actually, the Bush Administration pulled out the UNSCOM inspectors because they wanted to invade Iraq in spite of the fact that Blix and Ritter stated that the Iraqis That fact is not hogwash. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:49 PM "The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US." - Complete and utter MYTH "They (UNSCOM??) overcame any "running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation." - Yes they did Frank and delivered the Reports based upon that objective appraisal of the situation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January and in March 1999. From those reports based upon that objective appraisal came verbatum the detail contained in the dossier present to Parliament in September 2002, the UNSCOM Reports by the bye Frank are quoted as a reference. So UNSCOM were lying?? Why?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM "The US began making cash payments to Sunnis" Paying them $10 a day to fight al-Qaida was part of the surge. Bobert: It's been a while since you told one of those funny stories. Tell us again how wrong this is: The sudden burst of violence failed to dampen Iraq's election spirits, however, with mobile phones up and down the country beeping long into the night as various parties sent out mass text messages trying to win votes. The sectarian slaughter that consumed the country from 2004 to early 2007 has given way to poster wars. Interest in the polls has also broadened. Many Iraqis were too scared to participate in the last provincial election because of the violence. In any case, most Sunni Arabs boycotted them in protest at the US-led occupation. This time round the mood is more up-beat. Standing on a street corner in the market town of Baladruz in Diyala, Kisma Mohammed studied a patchwork of posters on a shop wall emblazoned with the faces of election hopefuls and party leaders "I will go and vote provided I am in good health," the 48-year-old housewife said. Like many fellow Sunni Arabs, she will be casting a ballot for the first time in her life. Two years ago Mrs Mohammed and her family moved to Baladruz from a nearby village because of the level of killings. Now, thanks to the transformed security situation and the participation of the Sunnis, turnout is expected to be as high as 70 per cent. "I ask you to go to the elections, men and women, to really take part in building Iraq," Mr al-Maliki told a rally last week of 2,000 supporters inside a football stadium, in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. The past Sunni boycott deprived Iraq's second-largest group of a balanced representation in the country's provincial councils. Instead, the majority Shia Arabs and Kurds, who were discriminated against under Saddam Hussein's regime, enjoyed a greater share of power, even in provinces with a relatively strong Sunni presence such as Diyala. Now the struggle is for space on shop fronts and blast walls, although Iraqi democracy is not without its dirty tricks. On one road into Baquba, Diyala's capital, a candidate's picture has been decapitated; graffiti has ruined another, while a third is in shreds. Parties are also wooing voters with phone cards and cash concealed in election paraphernalia. In an attempt to win favourable media coverage, the Government has even proposed offering free land to Iraqi journalists. One great fear is that Diyala, with its rich blend of Shia and Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen - and once the hub of al-Qaeda activity in Iraq - will be hit by renewed violence, along with other flashpoints such as Mosul. To pre-empt the threat, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers voted earlier this week so that they can be on duty tomorrow. With US and British troops taking a backseat, it will mark a big test of Iraq's security capability. If they succeed in policing a peaceful election it could strengthen President Obama's resolve to pull all American combat forces out within 16 months. In Diyala the main election issues are typical of the country as a whole: the fight against corruption and a perceived failure by incumbent politicians to invest in projects to improve services. The Diyala council denies corruption allegations, but locals say running water and power are scarce, sewage is a problem and unemployment is high. At present the provincial council is headed by a Shia governor. Of its 41 seats, 14 belong to the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) - the only Sunni party to take part in the last election - while 20 are held by a coalition of Shia groups and 7 by Kurds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM New York Times: "The surge, clearly, has worked, at least for now: violence, measured in the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis each week, has dropped by 80 percent in the country since early 2007, according to figures the general provided. Civilian deaths, which peaked at more than 100 a day in late 2006, have also plunged. Car and suicide bombings, which stoked sectarian violence, have fallen from a total of 130 in March 2007 to fewer than 40 last month. In July, fewer Americans were killed in Iraq -- 13 -- than in any month since the war began. The result, now visible in the streets, is a calm unlike any the country has seen since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003. The signs -- Iraqi families flooding into parks at sundown, merchants throwing open long-shuttered shops -- are stunning to anyone who witnessed the country's implosion in 2005 and 2006. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM On February 16, 2008, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed told reporters that the surge was "working very well" and that Iraq has a "pressing" need for troops to stay to secure Iraqi borders. He stated that "Results for 2007 prove that – Baghdad is good now". As the surge forces proceeded to clear entire towns and neighborhoods of terrorist groups, the Sunni Arab civilians were offered a deal. If they would establish a local security force, and stop future terrorist operations, the U.S. would provide weapons, training and cash. If the local guard force could not do the job, the U.S. and Iraqi troops would be back, and that could be very bad for the neighborhoods. This had been tried before in Sunni Arab areas, but not with complete success. This time around, there was a widespread attitude change among the Sunni Arabs. The feeling was that the whole terror campaign had been a failure, and the only way out now was to turn on the terrorists. It was always obvious that the Americans could go anywhere and kill terrorists. But now the Iraqi army and police, made up largely of Kurds and Shia Arabs, was also able to fight. This was something new, and the Sunni Arabs didn't want to be on the receiving end of more counter-terrorist operations carried out by Kurdish and Shia Arab troops. So far, the Sunni Arabs have 60,000 paid local guards, and another 12,000 volunteers. Many of these guys had previously worked for terrorist organizations. That's where the cash payments came in. U.S. intel knew that a lot of terrorism was carried out by men doing it for the cash, as much as because they wanted get the Americans out, and Sunni Arabs get back into power. The surge attacks began last April. By August, the Sunni Arab and al Qaeda terrorist organizations were broken and on the run. Their situation only got worse going into the Fall. The number of attacks plummeted, as did U.S. and Iraqi (military and civilian) casualties. Earlier in the year, 3,000 Iraqis (uniformed and civilian) were dying a month. Now it's about 500 a month. Another important, but less reported, aspect of the surge campaign, was the attention paid to Shia Arab militias. Several of these were supported by Iranian Shia radicals, who were encouraging, and sometimes paying, Iraqi Shia to kill Americans and Iraqi security forces. By late Summer, these Shia militias were getting a lot of attention. Leaders were being arrested, and terrorism supplies (bombs, weapons in general) were being confiscated. Names and biometric data was collected on members of the militias. These guys knew what they meant. They were no longer anonymous. Now the Americans knew who they were, and where they lived. That made many Shia Arab militiamen less enthusiastic about attacking anyone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM Sep 6, 2008 Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams." Maybe Bobert's dreams are wilder than Obama's wildest dreams |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:23 PM Bobert: This is just a sidebar. It is on the aljazeera.net website'a FOCUS: IRAQI ELECTIONS Timeline: Iraqi Elections For the first time since 2005, Iraqis are heading back to the polls to vote in new provincial elections that are likely to reshape the political landscape. Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the 2005 elections, are expected to make a strong showing. Here is a timeline of key political events that have shaped the Iraqi political process since US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003........... Excerpt: May 20: Ahmed Chalabi, the one-time Pentagon favourite and a prime instigator of the Iraq invasion, has his Baghdad offices raided by US forces. This marks a turning point in relations. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iraq/2009/01/200912981139534809.html HMMMM I don't see Al Jazz beating up on GWB. Could it be that they don't know what is going on in their own part of the world? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM January 18, 2009 PETER BEINART IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Admit it: The Surge Worked. Okay, I admit it! Oh, wait, he's not talking about me: "It's time for Democrats to say so. During the campaign they rarely did for fear of jeopardizing Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency. But today, the hesitation is less tactical than emotional." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM The only part aboout the surge that worked was the PR... "The Surge" was elevtaed to 9/11 status in terms of the PR that was put into it... To most folks who really are clueless abotu the complexities of the Iraq war "The Surge" was strictly about more "boots on the ground"... This is not the real story and it has been simplified for Bubba consumption... The real story doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so with the average Joe's attention span it's really a story that he can't or won't follow... The real story is about a shift in strategy away from our troops hiding in the Green Zone at night to setting up base camps in neighborhoods where they could get to know the people and have a presence at night... That could have been done without more boots on the ground... The rst of the story is the Anwar Awakeing which, of course, doesn't fit neatly into you "Surgers" bumper stricker length view of real events... And paying folks not to shoot at us was the 3rd leg of the stool... This is the real story but, like I said, by the time you tell it, most of America has gone back to watching sports or off to the mall... That's why the Dems just left it alone... Biden did try to tell the real story in his debate with Ms. Sarah but it was too long to hold the audience... So the Dems just did the expedient thing and recognized that the truth wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker and just relinquished the point... That's more a commentary on Joe Public than the realities opf the Surge... Historians will trump the PR people and one day there will be books expalining what happened but right now the PR folks are still riding in 1st place... But that doesn't make them right... Certain lies just have longer shelg lifes... The Surge is one of them... And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:27 AM Washington post August 12, 2008 Peter Mansour: How The Surge Worked Given the divisive debate over the Iraq war, perhaps it was inevitable that the accomplishments of the recently concluded "surge" would become shrouded in the fog of 30-second sound bites. Too often we hear that the dramatic security improvement in Iraq is due not to the surge but to other, unrelated factors and that the positive developments of the past 18 months have been merely a coincidence. To realize how misleading these assertions are, one must understand that the "surge" was more than an infusion of reinforcements into Iraq. Of greater importance was the change in the way U.S. forces were employed starting in February 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus ordered them to position themselves with Iraqi forces out in neighborhoods. This repositioning was based on newly published counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized the protection of the population and recognized that the only way to secure people is to live among them. To be sure, some units conducted effective counterinsurgency operations before the surge, including Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tall Afar in 2005 and Col. Sean MacFarland's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, in Ramadi in 2006. More generally, however, the coalition approach before 2007 was focused on rapidly shifting security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. As sectarian violence spiraled out of control, it became increasingly evident that Iraqi forces were unable to prevent its spread. By the fall of 2006, it was clear that our strategy was failing, an assessment courageously stated by Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in their year-end review of the Joint Campaign Plan. The arrival of additional U.S. forces signaled renewed resolve. Sunni tribal leaders, having glimpsed the dismal future in store for their people under a regime controlled by al-Qaeda in Iraq and fearful of abandonment, were ready to throw in their lot with the coalition. The surge did not create the first of the tribal "awakenings," but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success. The tribal revolt took off after the arrival of reinforcements and as U.S. and Iraqi units fought to make the Iraqi people secure. Over time, in areas where there were insufficient forces to provide security, U.S. commanders extended contracts to Sunni (and some Shiite) tribes that volunteered to stand up against al-Qaeda in Iraq. These payments ensured that tribesmen could feed their families until the economy recovered and services improved. Payments generally followed the commencement of tribal rebellions and were not, as some claim, their cause. As U.S. units established smaller outposts and destroyed al-Qaeda havens, the area under Iraqi and coalition control expanded. Security improved dramatically after the last surge units arrived and the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, under Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commenced a relentless series of operations to drive insurgents out of their long-held sanctuaries. Improved security led to greater Iraqi confidence and lessened the need for, and acceptance of, Shiite militias that for too long held sway in many neighborhoods. When the Mahdi Army instigated a gun battle in Karbala last August that forced the cancellation of a major Shiite religious observance, the resulting public pressure compelled Moqtada al-Sadr to declare a unilateral cease-fire. Without the improved security conditions created by the surge, this cease-fire would not have been declared; nor could it have been observed, because the militia would still have been needed to protect Shiite communities from terrorist attacks. The increase in U.S. forces, moreover, was dwarfed by the concurrent expansion of Iraqi forces by more than 140,000 troops. Over time, Iraqi units grew more capable and increasingly took the lead in providing security, backed by coalition advisers, ground forces, intelligence and air power. Operations this spring in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere -- though not always smooth -- have demonstrated the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi army. Without the change in strategy and additional forces provided by the surge, the effort to improve the capabilities of Iraqi forces would have died stillborn, swallowed by the sectarian violence that was ripping Iraq apart by the end of 2006. The Iraq war is not over, but our war effort is on a firmer foundation. In the end, the Iraqis, appropriately, will determine their future. The surge has created the space and time for the competition for power and resources in Iraq to play out in the political realm, with words instead of bombs. Success is not guaranteed, but such an outcome would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of Multi-National Force-Iraq and their ongoing efforts, along with their Iraqi partners, to turn around a war that was nearly lost less than two years ago. |
