 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 03 Mar 09 - 03:56 PM Sawzaw, simply as a point of information: the results of a public opinion poll, no matter how scrupulously conducted, say nothing about what the actual likelihood of success or failure (however these are defined) may be. The poll only measures the level of confidence of the respondents. But I doubt they have much expertise or any first-hand knowledge. And what might be "success" for one person (say, "a stable, neutral Iraq") might well be "failure" for someone else (who, for example, might demand "a stable, democratic, U.S.-aligned Iraq"). Opinion polls measure opinions and little else, and they don't always do that very well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM Close your eyes Bobert, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm Not Listening" Myths of Iraq During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines. No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future. Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost." Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media: Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary. Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance. Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists. Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned. The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen. The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success. Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope. The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus. Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women's rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues. Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror. But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful. The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines. To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant. The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening. While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM The only thing thing that I seem to know nuthin' about are the following ******* BOBERT FACTS ******: Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:46 AM "outside interference" covers a multitude of sins Amos (think nuclear) and is not only restricted to a physical presence or invasion. Cornerstone of US policy in the gulf region has always been that no single country in the region shall be permitted to exercise hegemony over the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:19 AM The Carter Doctrine does not apply to Iraq, Teribus; it was limited to preventing outside interference, notably by the USSR, in US interests relating to Saudi Arabia, foremost, and secondarily the rest of the Persian Gulf region. It cannot be used as a justification for unilateral invasion absent a precipitating offensive move on the part of another country. It was the Reagan corollary that extended it to internal matters, which is surely what the Iraq invasion was about. This shifted the Carter doctrine and placed the self-anointed mantle of "arbitrary police of other nations" on the shoulders of America, wanted or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM Now James "Peanut" Carter was someone Bobert said he voted for. Bobert also reckoned that Carter was one of the best Presidents the US ever had. OK Bobert you were asked a question. Tell us what the "Carter Doctrine" was? Another question that both Bobert and Barry ducked. What was the aim of the Iraq Bill that one William Jefferson Clinton Introduced and had passed? Iraq a mistake Bobert - HELL NO!! Carter succeeded in only one thing - In making the US a laughing stock. He also seriously damaged the capability for the US to gather meaningful intelligence in one of the most crucial areas of the planet - The Middle-East. Clinton although constantly warned of the dangers elected to bury his head in the sand and win popularity contests instead of looking to the security of the United States of America. His reluctance to act resulted in five major attacks. Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:37 AM 400 Up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 07:16 AM Exactly, Barry... That is common sense... Some thing that Sawz seems to know nuthin' about... I mean, lets get real here... Sheesh!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:03 AM If people thought that George Bush made the right move his ratings wouldn't be the lowest we've seen in this century, he could've jumped off a dime at his exit time. If the parachute didn't open he'd break his neck from the fall MacWar would've won he Bush been right. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:02 PM A whole bunch of posturing an rhetoric but nothing to back it up. Polls don't mean anything but your unsubstantiated opinions do? The phenomenons known as "BOBERT FACTS" are the only thing that means anything? Screw what the great liberator Obama said, only what Bobert says is true. Maybe they mean something to you but they are based on you own personal spin. "There was never any real justification for going into Iraq" I have shown you the pre Bush Administration list of reasons but you ignore it. Want to see it again? How about the Clinton Administration's Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998? How about the Carter Doctrine? "The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality" Now pray tell us what this "BOBERT FACT" is based on? Have you got any news yet on the bad gas we sold Saddam to gas the Kurds with and that M16 and other booty we gave him for gassin' those insolent Kurds that were tryin to over throw him? HMMMMMMMMMMM? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM Well, sure, Sawz... The only way that Obama can get US the heck out of Iraq without the right winged warmongers spending millions in hate ads is to change the story to their liking... Doesn't make the Iraq war any righter (pun intended)... This is the current crop of PR, this time from Obama, to soften up the reaction so that we can get out... Politics... Not reality on the ground... The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality... Reality, Part B... There was never any real justifictaion for going into Iraq... If people were asked the if they thought going into Iraq was a good idea the polls would be very different... It's all in PR and how the questions are asked... People aren't that much different than rats in Skinner's Box when it comes to polls... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Mar 09 - 01:23 AM Polling Data In the long run, will the U.S. mission in Iraq be seen as a success or a failure? Source: Rasmussen Reports Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Feb. 4 and Feb. 5, 2009. No margin of error was provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM I wouldn't know JG if she passed me in the street but I understand from listening to broadcasts that since she is hardly likely to need the money it will be left to her sons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,AR Date: 18 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM At least some good news although sad. I know Teribus was touched by this story recently. Reality TV star Jade Goody is expected to make almost £1 million from the TV and magazine rights to her wedding. It's been revealed that she has finalised deals with OK! magazine and Living TV for exclusive coverage of the event. The magazine deal is reportedly worth more than £700,000 with a further £100,000 coming from the sale of the TV rights. Her publicist Max Clifford said: "They (Living TV) have an ongoing relationship with Jade but then of course because of what's happened to her, that has become much more sensitive and complicated. "What I suggested is they film the wedding, and then that's it. There won't be more episodes of the series they have been filming." 27-year-old Jade was told by doctors last weekend that her cervical cancer was terminal and that she has just months to live. Her wedding to boyfriend Jack Tweed is due to take place this weekend at a country house hotel in Essex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:40 AM Well, Dave... Ya' wonder why T used the USSR and China as justifications for the the US endless thirst for war... I mean, why not the Germans in WW II??? I mean, if yer gonna use one bad country to justify your own badness, ehy, lets just call it like it is... And what it is is the the US just can't seem to get enough killing to keep it satisfied... And the bad thing about it is that there have sho nuff been some very bad countries that have gotten away with alot of bad stuff that the US had absolutely no interest in??? (No oil, Boberdz...) Oh??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:02 AM I don't have any Marxist pals and the use of such a term shows a decided ignorance of political theory and a profound knowledge of right-wing ideology. I have been doing that which you have (eventually) got around to asking for years. I have supported those who wanted freedom from UK rule and hegemony (I often use Cyprus as an example) and wholeheartedly condemn the USSR and China for the way it treated people in the past and nowadays. I don't work on the basis of ideology but on what people's actions are. My condemnation of countries who invade other countries is unequivocal. And I don't even ask you if you will now condemn the USA for all those deaths you talked about. I know you will because I believe you are a very fair man.....and I mean that most sincerely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM So then Folkiedave let us here you roundly condem your Marxist pals the USSR & China in the same terms you seem to reserve for the Government of the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 17 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM ere are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. Sorry, how does that arise Teribus? You seemed to indcate the USA hadn't been guilty of anything - helping a country here, assisting a country there, a little mild overthrowing of democratically elected governments occasionally. Nothing serious like. Now apparently "with some justification" they are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Bit like I suggested. Do those figures include Vietnam by the way? Cos' the numbers are a bit low otherwise. And by the way when interfering in the democratic affairs of another country one death is too many. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:35 AM "the stats are not substantiated by facts" - Care to give us some then Frank?? Your usual left wing waffle doen't really provide much information. For example taking Folkiedave's examples of US "Invasions": 1. Bay of Pigs 1961 - Any details relating to the US Army, Naval and Airforce Units assigned to this invasion and the numbers involved? It was an attempted US invasion of Cuba wasn't it? 2. Dominican Republic 1965 - I've given you quite a bit of information on this one Frank, in addition I believe that 41 US ships were involved in the blockade, the 82nd Airbourne were also involved ashore, alongside Brazilians, Hondurans, Paraguayans, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans and 3 guys from El Salvador. What did the mighty US need with those guys Frank?? It was a US invasion wasn't it?? Have got substantive information that neither the OAS or IAPF were involved?? If so how come it was the Brazilians who were the last to leave?? Were they there on holiday?? Get the drift Frank?? I could go on but won't. Here are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. During the same period the USSR and China could with some justification be accused of the deaths of millions due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. And Frank it doesn't matter how much you wriggle those statistics are fact and nothing is going to change that. "Workers of the world unite.. Eh??" load of bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM "there is no democracy in Iraq today" A specious and uncolorable argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM The idea that the US is least culpable in invasion is pure fantasy. Once again, the stats are not substantiated by facts. Who is doing the counting? The UN security council is different from the other branches of the UN. The biggest threat to the US is the idea that invading foreign countries makes it safe. The Vietnam War was escalated by Johnson who believed in the "domino theory". Here is what Wiki says about the Bay of Tonkin. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On 2 August 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) engaged three North Vietnamese P-4 torpedo boats, resulting in damage to the three boats. Two days later the Maddox (having been joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy (DD-951) reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese vessels. This second report was later concluded to be in error.[1] Together, these two incidents prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Southeast Asia.the Bay of Tonkin This was assuredly a pretext for an invasion of magnitude by the US. The Vietnam War did not discourage China or Russia who were rejected by the North Vietnamese. The "domino" theory did not hold water and was later refuted by those who were involved. The incident was based on a mistake. Sonar picked up misinformation on who the attackers were. They were whales. Actually, The Bay of Pigs was a clandestine operation supported by the Kennedy Administration. The mafia was even involved which there is some support for the idea that this is what caused JFK's assassination. The money to finance the Iraq war was managed so poorly that a billion dollars was lost in transit that the taxpayer had to fund. The idea that the USSR has to be compared to the casualty list of the US is a specious argument. Both nations have had their share of extensive bloodshed. BTW there is no democracy in Iraq today unless you consider Shari'a law to be that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM "All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit." Got what wrong exactly Folkiedave?? Before answering: - Actually read the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions particularly 678 and 687. - Actually read the final reports from UNSCOM to the UN Security Council delivered in January and March 1999. - Then take the trouble to learn exactly what it was that was considered to pose the greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the attacks of 11th September 2001. You will then find out that they got it spot on. "Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders?" Well no I haven't Folkiedave. The US has "invaded" very few countries in the post-Second World War era. Certainly a damn sight fewer than Soviet Russia, or China. Your list of US "invasions" resulted in far fewer casualties, in comparison to their Soviet counter-parts, resulted in no "occupation" of foreign soil and were extremely short in duration. But let's have a look at your contenders as "invasions" shall we. "Since 1960.........." - Why only since 1960 Folkiedave?? Bay of Pigs 1961 - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? It was an unsuccessful attempt by a force of Cuban immigrants to the US who were exiled from Cuba to invade southwest Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces and overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Dominican Republic 1965 - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? Initial US intervention due to responsibility to protect and evacuate US citizens from a "civil war" situation. The United States along with the Organization of American States (OAS) formed an inter-American military force to assist in the intervention in the Dominican Republic. Later, the Inter-American Peace Force (IAPF) was formally established on May 23. In addition to the United States military presence, the following troops were sent by each country; Brazil 1130, Honduras 250, Paraguay 184, Nicaragua 160, Costa Rica 21 military police, and El Salvador 3 staff officers. Some 6,500 people from many nations were evacuated to safety. In addition, the US forces airlifted in large relief supplies for Dominican nationals. The fighting continued until 31 August 1965 when a truce was declared. Most American troops left shortly afterwards as policing and peacekeeping operations were turned over to Brazilian troops, but some U.S. military presence remained until September 1966. Vietnam (1959 - 1974) "Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they?" - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, the Vietnam Conflict, or often in Vietnam the American War occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Care to tell who it was that invaded Vietnam in what was known as the Third Indochina War Folkiedave?? "Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war." - Well so much left-wing froth and indignation. What the US intervention in Vietnam did achieve was to discourage the Kremlin and Beijing from further attempts at expansion in South-East Asia, the SEATO alliance held when many planners in the Kremlin thought it would fold. While Vietnam was starting another "communist inspired insurgency" was being defeated in Malaysia. The US invaded Indonesia?? Really - don't think so Folkiedave, same goes for your other candidates. Want to compare notes on the Soviet invasions and occupations that followed the end of the Second World War Folkiedave?? Travel to eastern Europe Folkiedave and ask the people living there if they want to have the Russians back, I dare say you'll find more than a few there who could show you their scars and be more than willing to tell you who were responsible for them - but that's not the sort of history you would want to hear of acknowledge is it Folkiedave??. As for your remark - "Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side." - I'm pretty sure that you, and the likes of you, do wish that I would give it a rest. Becomes pretty embarrassing when every time you trot out the usual myths, lies, misrepresentations and half-truths that someone calls you to task for it. The history that you say is not on my side is the rather selective version that the socialist left cling to in order to bolster their prejudices. Now how about that list that defines the Left's march to the "Brave-New-World" since the defeat of Nazi Germany, eh Folkiedave - Shall we take the USSR first Dave: The following are "Invasions" proper Folkiedave, not quick "in-and-out" affairs lasting a couple of months where few died. What we're talking about here is brutal use of military force, thousands of deaths, permanent military bases and occupations lasting years, where the political will of Soviet Russia was ruthlessly imposed upon the subject nations. - Bulgaria - Romania - Poland (Twice although second time round by proxy) - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia - Hungary (Twice) - Czechoslovakia (Twice) - Yugoslavia - Albania - East Germany - Angola - Mozambique - Vietnam - Indonesia - Afghanistan China next, eh Folkiedave??: - South Korea - Tibet - Vietnam Shall we now compare the death tolls for each?? Followed by the durations?? Who's side is history on now Folkiedave?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:12 AM "yer confusion" I think you need to go back and read your own words Bobert because you are clearly confused about whet you said. Bobert one day: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Bobert another day: "No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html You are throwing up a smoke screen because you are unable to answer simple straightforward answers, yet you seem to think you know all the answers. Where did any of your "facts" about: "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" "Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle" appear in any of the sources you cited. What was the other booty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:15 AM Did ya' read the Ricks editorial yesterday, Sawz??? Get the book "The Gamble"... You could use a little truth to mix in with yer confusion... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 16 Feb 09 - 04:05 AM ..... which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. Which apart from controlling oil are..............? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM The Carter Doctrine The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:10 AM Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 10/10/2002. "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Now this much is undisputed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:01 AM HR 114: The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq: * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:00 AM Bobert: I see quite clearly that you asserted "with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle" Now you are backing off and saying it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16? What news source provided this information? Now how about the assertion that "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" and how was Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle? What was the other booty? What news source provided this information? Washington Post _________ The New York Times __________ TV news __________ The untruth zone __________ Pravda ______________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM Apparently you didn't read a post along the way, Sawz... It was a set of gold plated "spurs" and an M-16 (un plated)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal. But there are other things like the "bad gas" that you claim the US sold to Saddam that need to backed up with something credible. You see, I research before I make an assertion. The closest things I can find to your assertion is a Dutch guy that got jail time for selling tons of ingredients to Saddam for making the bad gas and one of the ingredients came from a company in Baltimore. U.S. authorities say the defunct company, Alcolac Inc. effectively supplied both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Alcolac pleaded guilty in 1989 to knowingly violating export laws in the case of a shipment of thiodiglycol that ultimately went to Iran. Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs. The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government. Do you think these could have been hyped until it turned into the US selling the poison gas and Bio WMDs? Also WMDs was not the only reason for going after Saddam. You base your assertions on that as if it were fact and then build this whole thread on it as if it was a fact. Maybe WMDs were the main reason or considered the most important reason but not the only reason. Another thing is that is perfectly possible for someone to be incorrect about some things and correct about other things. Often people try to use false logic of saying that if someone was incorrect about one thing it proves they were wrong about other things. That either they are stupid or a liar. That is a logical fallacy. I have seen instances where I agreed with Amos or Bobert, I said so and was not struck by lightning. Another logical fallacy is to assert that because a plurality of people believe something to be true, it must be true, a famous Amos ploy. How many people thought the earth was flat? They were wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:04 PM Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit. Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders? Since 1960.......... Bay of Pigs 1961 Dominican Republic 1965 Vietnam (1959 - 1974) Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they? Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war. Overthrowing regimes or installing puppet regimes in Indonesia, Guatemala, backing the right-wing regimes in El Salvador, bombing Libya. CIA overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Chile. Come to the UK and take a look at my friend Luiz's scars where Pinochet's thugs tortured him. Invading Panama 1989 and overthrowing Noriega. My that did a lot to stop drug-running didn't it! Reagan even managed to upset his best (possibly only) friend Mrs Thatcher by invading a Commonwealth state. My those heavily armed Grenadans posed a real threat to the USA didn't they? Was it their armed aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines? Supersonic Bombers? Or did they just invade a tiny island in the Caribbean because they could? Countries are invaded on a whim, nothing to do with threats to the USA and their allies. Often to overthrow a regime the USA simply doesn't like or to protect US big business. Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 09 - 08:56 AM "there are lots of nasty people in the world." - Very true Folkiedave, very true. "Now why pick on Iraq?" - Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship." - Burma was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator." - Zimbabwe was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around?" - The Democratic Republic of the Congo was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate." - No it is not the job of the United States of America to go round putting the wrongs of the world right, and I do not believe that I have ever said that it was. That little job is supposed to fall on a rather useless and ineffectual organisation known as the United Nations, who if memory serves me correctly: - Did absolutely nothing in Rwanda - Did absolutely nothing in the Balkans - Did absolutely nothing in Tibet - Did absolutely nothing in Cambodia - Did absolutely nothing in Darfur - Did absolutely nothing in Burma - Did absolutely nothing in Zimbabwe - Were doing nothing in Iraq until the USA stated if you do not act we will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:16 AM The problem is Teribus, there are lots of nasty people in the world. Now why pick on Iraq? Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship. Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator. Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around? Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:54 AM Ah Bobert, Had the US and GWB not acted as they did: - The UN sanctions would have been lifted completely in 2002, or just conveniently ignored by Saddam's trading partners as was found to be the case when the UN "Oil-For-Food" scandal broke. - Russia, China, France and North Korea would have had no problems at all in re-equipping Saddam's armed forces in exchange for Iraqi oil concessions, so by 2004 at the latest, Iraq would have been more than ready. - The reason Saddam would want to "mix it" with Iraq is simple Bobert. There is no way on God's earth that Saddam would sit back and let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without first doing something to prevent it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM Yo, Sawz... Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16... Who cares??? Problem I have is giving gifts to folks who you are are gonna later string up and vilify... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM First of all, T, "Fu*k Off"... I'll outthink yer sorry butt any day of the week so please spare us the the condescending crap... Really... Sp here's the deal... Exactly why would Saddam ahve wanted to mix it up with anyone??? Think about it... The US discovered (duhhhhhh...) that Iraq didn't have jack when it came to WMDs... It really didn't have jack in the way of anything that would be considered modern weaponry... That is fact... That is not opinion... So your theory is that a severaly crippled Iraq would take on Iran??? Really??? That would have been a completely insane move on Iraq's part... Lastly, nothin' wrong with my critical thinkerator but I an worried that yer's is "out of order"... Please tell us why a severely depleted Iraqi military would have taken on Iran... Por favor... And stop the condescending crap... You, afterall, are the one on the wrong side of history... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM Well Folkiedave why don't you ask some Iraqi that question? You were one of those opposed to the thing from the beginning - Yes?? You were one of those who were quite content to let the Iraqi people suffer under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein The last Iran v Iraq war cost 1,300,000 lives. Now tell me FolkieDave how many would have been killed in a second Iran V Iraq War if GWB had not acted?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that. And at the last count over 4,200 dead Americans and a further 699 or so from coalition forces to vouch for its failure. Is it simply a numbers game? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM OK lets put the question in even simpler terms, for those who are slightly uncomfortable with the concept. For all you tossers who have lambasted the US administration for altering the state of affairs in Iraq - OK got the group who should be responding to this??? Exactly what would have been Saddam Hussein's reaction been to Irans attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?? Lets hear some sort of response people??? You have after all been extremely forth-coming in your opinions before. Bobert - you're excused - the mental exercise may prove too taxing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM Oh, I don't keep every article but you can bet that it was in the Washington Post... I believe it was some time around 1982-83 and I recall that it was Donnie Rumsfeld who presented the gifts to Saddam... Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM A surge is an increase. Now where is the news article about "Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle..." Hmmmmmmmmm???? Washington Post _________ The New York Times __________ TV news __________ The untruth zone __________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:23 AM What the price is/was/could or could not have been is no justification to this war, that's just film floating on the surface. Weither or not Iran & Iraq would've had a go at each other is not our call nor a reason to invade. We hold no corner on predicting the future much less dictating the future. One million LIVE Iraqi's would not vouch for this war. You are joking aren't you? Almost every Iraqi has lost someone close to them or has had someone dear to them mained or scared. Some have lost entire extended families for no other reason than they were breathing the air surrounding their homes. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:03 AM Sorry, T... Iy sounded like you were equating the current price of oli to the US/UK invasion??? I even reread that part about a theoretical Iraq/Iran war and what the price of oil would be if that was the case rather than the US/UK/Iraq war??? I'm sorry that you have gone back accross the truth line into the untruth zone... Just know that you are welcome over here anytime you need to catch yer breath from singing the company fight song... Yo, Sawz.... So in your own words, define surge... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:52 AM Huh?? What on earth are you yabbering on about Bobert?? Your last post made absolutely no sense at all - which really shouldn't come as all that much of a surprise as few if any of your posts do, composed as they mostly are of lies, mis-representations, myths and half-truths. Ignored the question posed to boot - again not unusual. Iraq a mistake Bobert? - Not in the least, and there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:13 PM "Yer supposed definition of "the surge" is laughable, Sawz." I never defined anything Bobert. I just pasted and pointed you to the actual written plan. Laugh all you want. Are you still chuckling over the mythological gold plated M 16 given to Saddam? Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Show me the article about the gold plated M16 in the Washington Post, The New York Times or the TV news. Show me the news that says America sold the "bad gas" to Iraq. In the New York Times there was an article about where it came from and did not mention that it came from the US. Why is that Bobert? And where is the most populated place on earth? Is that somewhere in the NYT WAPO or TV news? Where? I missed it. You think all these Bobert facts are credible when you can't back up any of them except with threats of bodily harm because they are all in your mind. Is that laughable? Just another Bobert funny story you tell, another stink bomb so you can go over and mess with Tbus and call him a jerk. You don't believe this stuff yourself. You just make believe you do for trolling purposes, for your entertainment. Something tells me you have to get buzzed up on some good shit first so reality gets all blurred and your fingers don't hit the keys you are aiming for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:48 PM What??? The Iraq war was about oil??? What a surprise... I never thought of that, T... Not... You Bozo... That's what we tried to tell you a long time ago and all we got was alot, Imean alot, of UN Resoultion 1441 and all that usaul crapola but... ...Hey, welcome on board, mate... Now yer seeing the real deal... Glory days... Stop the presses!!!! T finally gets it!!! One down, two to go.... Hey, bb 'n Sawz... Yer boy just come over to the side of truth!!! Better jump quick while we are still acceptin' new members to "The Truth"... Man, glad to have ya, T... Pull up a nice comfy chair and prepare to do some battle with yer ol' buds... Cowabunga... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:23 PM Question for all you who think that Iraq was a mistake, How do you think the second Iran v Iraq war would be going now?? My reckoning is that it would now be in its third or fourth year. Who do you think would be winning and what would the price of middle-east oil be per barrel? (currently around $34 per barrel). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM The "Surge" didn't work what work was we paid the Iraqi's to spot fighting amongst themselves & that's the only way "we can keep any semblance of peace"! We will be able to pull out our combat troops but we will be there "keeping the peace" a lot longer than we've been at war. We will continue to piss money into Iraq like "Niagara Fails". We will probably spend as much on health care for vets over their lifetime as we have spent on the war. We will pay for "Bush's Blunder" for generations & still we will only be paying off the interest & at a high % rate to boot. We will have lost any respect in the region for who knows how long & the blood we let there will fertilize a crop that will that will forever be bitter to our tastes. This was not just a mistake, it was a failure in human development, a disaster in humanity. Not only was it a failure to communicate, it was akin to spitting in the eye of God. We were landscape engineers designers planning a graveyard in order to raise a new crop of terrorists. "This was a good thing"? You must be mad! And now we will commit to the same mistakes in Afganistain. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM exactly... |
