|
28 Jun 04 - 09:37 AM (#1215484) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: wysiwyg Nicely done. Huzzahs for early turnover are masking the real issues (what a surprise!). <> They don't get command of our HUGE number of troops; <> They DO get to take the blame for deciding how to do those pesky elections; <> When it doesn't work out too well (in time for US elections) they can put in a panic call to Georgy for another "rescue"; <> There's enough USers and other foreigners in the region to take hostages and wage other terrorist acts without having to come over here and buck security, and without having to pay so much in travel expense! Love to know how the insider trading picture looks THIS morning. ;~) Have I got all that about right? ~Susan |
|
28 Jun 04 - 09:42 AM (#1215490) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,TIA Yes, just about right. Plus, where the heck is the 2 to 20 billion of Iraqi oil money that the provisional authority cannot account for? |
|
28 Jun 04 - 09:47 AM (#1215493) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: wysiwyg Well, I know I don't have it. It could be easy to find, tho. In any political mystery, just imagine, what would be the FUNNIEST "solution" if it were true? Often, that's just what turns out to have been so. Proving it-- that's different, but if I lead to what I often suspect is in the other player's hand, I tend to win. ~Susan |
|
28 Jun 04 - 10:14 AM (#1215516) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: ard mhacha Dont ask Cheney,about the missing money, you may get F--K all out of him. |
|
28 Jun 04 - 10:22 AM (#1215520) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Rapparee Nobody gave it to me, and I certainly didn't take it. A couple billion would be nice, but not more than that. I'm not greedy or anything. |
|
28 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM (#1215549) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST Makes Arafat look like a real piker. |
|
28 Jun 04 - 11:10 AM (#1215556) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Ebbie Another chapter. From all accounts, woefully unready. Sow a wind, reap a whirlwind. |
|
28 Jun 04 - 04:44 PM (#1215758) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Frankham The sovereignty is not for Iraqis. it's a political ploy for Bush. The Insurgents are increasingly becoming (if they weren't already) the Iraqi people who find the common "enemy" in American troops. Bush has made promises before that have gone unfunded. His nation building has no real monetary committment behind it. If the congress doesn't fund it, then he can blame them and once again absolve his responsibility for his actions. The oil money was never intended for Iraq. Doesn't this sound like a replay of Vietnam? If the US were to pull the troops out of Iraq and declare it the winner of the war, it would be easy for America to bring in all the corporations it wanted. Isn't that pretty much what happened in Vietnam? Frank |
|
28 Jun 04 - 05:54 PM (#1215811) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: sian, west wales Seems to me that I've also heard that it has been decided that women would be disenfranchised - can't remember if it was from standing for election, or for standing AND voting. Nice one. They had the vote in former elections, before Iraq went pear-shaped ... sian |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:05 PM (#1215819) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bill D we shall, as they say, see.... I hope it isn't just moving a piece of paper from one hand to the other... |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:11 PM (#1215823) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton If this "sovereignty" is such a wonderful thing for the Iraqi people, why do they have to hide in a bunker to do the dirty deed...Ake |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:15 PM (#1215826) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: mg Why is obtaining freedom a dirty deed? Are we on the same planet? Of course they are in bunkers because the bad people are trying to blow them up. Or some bad and some misguided, some following religion that we can not understand. It is dangerous. Not dirty. mg |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:18 PM (#1215827) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert Actually, nuthin' has changed at all in Iraq... Today, Americans were killed, Iraqis were killed, lots of folks were seriously injured, no more people have electricity, the hospitals are still overcrowded. Oh yeah, one thing chnaged. Four mortals fell inside the "green zone" where the US command huddles up supposedly in safety... And the beat goes on... Bobert |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:25 PM (#1215833) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens Akenaton: have you talked to many Iraqis recently? Because I can't help feeling that, if you had, you would have been too ashamed to write your last post. |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:48 PM (#1215852) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Greg...Are you stalking me ? Actually,I was referring to the tactics of the coalition leaders. If this was real sovereignty,and welcomed by the Iraqi people as such,the occasion would have been used as a PR exercise. You must stop believing what politicians say Greg,try using what seems to be a more tha adequate brain on your own account...Ake |
|
28 Jun 04 - 06:55 PM (#1215854) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens Well actually Akenaton, I dont listen to politicians, I listen to the Iraqis i know. i think the quality of information is a little higher. Where do you get your information from? And I'm really surprised that it hasnt occurred to you that people in Iraq might choose to hide in bunkers because they are nervous of getting blown up. Doesn't take that much figuring out. does it? Does "arguing with" mean "stalking" where you live, by the way? I notice you are also unfamiliar with the term "Islamist"....where are you? |
|
28 Jun 04 - 07:16 PM (#1215859) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Greg...Only joking about the "stalking". Still cant agree with your definition of "Islamist". Would this term include the clerics who weild all the political clout? Home for Ake is West Coast of Scotland,plenty midges nae Moslems . |
|
28 Jun 04 - 08:25 PM (#1215890) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Stilly River Sage Susan, Oil prices are fluctuating gradually downward, as predicted at Mudcat by myself and others as we outlined Bush's strategy to fool the Americans into thinking he can do something good for them. In fact he was actually in cahoots with his Saudi friends to raise the price to painful levels so gullible Americans could sigh in relief as the pain subsided, just in time for elections. This "turnover of power" was also scheduled in time for the campaign rhetoric to start cranking up. Seems like Dubya is right on schedule. SRS |
|
28 Jun 04 - 09:44 PM (#1215917) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert It will make the Diebold theft more believable, SRS, to have the gas prices down for the elections. Should take some of the heat off them fixing yet another election... Bobert |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:24 AM (#1215978) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: DougR Bobert, if I didn't know you better I'd think you were a skeptic. For Christ's sake, Mudcatters, you have all been bitching because the U. S. took out Saddam and took over Iraq. Bush said at the time we have no interest in occuping Iraq and today, the government was handed over to Iraqis appointed by Iraqis. Of course the new government is not TOTALLY in control, BECAUSE they have no security forces other than the coilation forces! Jeeze, what kind of logic do you understand? The US never had any interest in annexing Iraq. The only purpose for invading Iraq was to try to bring some stability (read safety for us and other free people)to that country, and free the Iraqi people from a tyrant. I know that many of you don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, but thank goodness the US and Great Britian, along with leaders of her coilation countries do. Aren't liberal thinkers SUPPOSED to be compassionate? That's certainly what you champion, unless the compassion required is contrary to what you want, right? Somehow, I have serious doubts that most of you Mudcatters will ever be satisfied. Look at the half-empty glass, that's what sustains you! DougR DougR |
|
29 Jun 04 - 06:59 AM (#1216096) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Doug....I dislike personal abuse,but in your case I'm prepared to make an exception. From your posts on this matter, you are either a shortsighted fool or a person with a very nasty agenda. I wont give my opinion on which I think you are, but the sight of you lecturing thoughtful people on compassion,makes me feel a bit queasy. No one can view the daily pictures of death and destruction,torture and abuse,without feeling very sorry for the Iraqis. To see them manipulated and used as pawns by both Islamic fundamentalists and Western interests is disgusting to me and many other good people who post here...Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 08:53 AM (#1216149) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus With regard to pictures of death and destruction, torture and abuse, how loud were your protestations when all of those were happening, on a much larger scale, during Saddam Hussein's reign Akenaton? Bobert, Who were the four mortals who fell inside the "green zone"? Did they trip? Were they injured? By the bye, Bobert, some facts and figures relating to the supply of electricity in Iraq today, compared to pre-war levels: Pre-war -- 3,300 to 4,400 megawatts per day October 2003 -- 4,518 megawatts per day June 2004 -- 4,300 megawatts per day Target -- 7,000 megawatts per day Up to 3,400 megawatts per day of Generator POTENTIAL is offline each day due to scheduled maintenance, equipment breakdowns and sabotage (A note for Bobert - that does not mean you subtract 3,400 megawatts per day from the above. What we are talking about is Generator capacity is offline. The figures above are what is being produced) In Southern Iraq, Electrical output now actually exceeds demand. In Northern Iraq and in Southern Iraq power supplies are stable. They never were under Saddam Hussein's rule as he used electrical distribution as a political weapon against his own population, Baghdad always had electricity, the Sunni triangle always had electricity, but that was at the expense of others. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 09:15 AM (#1216167) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens I think it is always legitimate to ask the Akenatons of the world "Where were you when Saddam was gassing the Kurds", just as it is always legitimate to ask the DougR's "when are you going into Sudan then?". Both groups will have answers to these questions, but it is often informative to find out what they are. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 09:17 AM (#1216168) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: beardedbruce too true, greg. I tried to bring up the Sudan, but the Bush-bashing was far more important- that, and what the VP said in a heated conversation... |
|
29 Jun 04 - 12:59 PM (#1216346) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Teribus...I think you know very well that I and many others were protesting against Saddam and other Middle Eastern tyrants,when the good old USofA were still using him as a hitman. People with a revolutionary agenda were killed en masse in Saddams Iraq, so why should I support him. Whether getting rid of Saddam will be a good thing for the West,is another question,and remains to be seen.Everyone can see the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism growing all over Iraq since the fall of Saddams regime.The real threat to the West was I.F. not Saddam. Greg..Although Saddams' gassing of the Kurds is completely indefensible,I dont see a lot of difference in the coalition killing innocent women and children in Falluja,as they both try to justify their actions in the same way. Regarding sovereignty,surely you are not all so naive as to think America has invested so much money and young lives,simply to walk away. Im afraid our leaders are much more subtle and devious than many of you seem to think...Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM (#1216369) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens You deflect the question, Akenaton. Were you protesting about the gassing of the Kurds? Give us the dates of the posts, if you were. Incidentally, yes I can see a distinction between that gassing and what the USA did in Fallujah. Pretty obvious,I would have thought. What Ali Chemical(as the Kurds call him) did was to wipe out a whole population as a reprisal, or example. (As happened in a town in Syria as well, this is not a uniquely Saddam habit). The USA did not try to kill the whole population of Fallujah. I have little doubt that if they had tried to, they would have succeeded. You may not have noticed, but the Yanks have a rather scary superiority in the arms technology area. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM (#1216370) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus Akenaton, I can assure you that I have no idea whatsoever what protests you, and all those others, were engaged in regarding Saddam and all those other Middle eastern tyrants. Mainly for the reason you have offered no information regarding those protests - no need to worry on that score, neither have any of the others. Things I did notice though were the demonstrations and protests by you, and others like you, when someone came forward declaring that it was time that Saddam Hussein should be removed. Your protests and demonstrations were loudly in unison against such action taking place. Now you tell me that you campaigned and protested for Saddam's removal - That does not ring true to my ears, or reasoning. Exactly when did the good old USofA "use" him (Saddam) as a hitman by the way? So, everyone can see the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism growing all over Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime, can they Akenaton? I see no evidence of it. Are you talking about Sadr's crowd, Sistani and his followers (a much larger proportion of the Shia community) will have nothing whatsoever to do with Sadr, they have acted so and successfully marginalised Sadr, whose rantings over the recent months were nothing more than a very ill-timed attempt at a grab for power. Where are all these "rivers of blood" that they have been hammering on about in Iraq and elsewhere? It ain't going to happen, because it is in no-ones interest that it should happen immaterial whether you are an Iraqi citizen, a member of the Interim Government, a member of the Iraqi police/security forces or a member of the coalition forces. The media keep going on about the situation in Baghdad, Fallujah, Karbala, Ramadi - what about the other 8,000 towns and villages in Iraq - what's happening there Akenaton? Nothing, people are getting on with their lives and are beginning to prosper for the first time in damn near four decades, refugees are returning to Iraq in the hope of a better life among their own kith and kin - are you really thrying to tell me that they are all overnight going to become Islamic fundamentalists - No bloody way - you're dreaming. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:34 PM (#1216380) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton HELP!!! |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:42 PM (#1216385) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens Come on Akenaton, the dates and locations of these protests against Saddam , you cant have totally forgotten. Just roughly will do. Was it posts to Mudcat? In the streets somewhere? Letters to the papers? Give us a hint. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 01:45 PM (#1216387) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton To hell with it ,I dont need help.. Teribus and Greg are facts freaks,but facts can be too easily twisted to mean whatever you want them to mean. I prefer to use my own "thought machine"and sometimes I find myself talking absolute crap,but usually if I write as I feel I dont go far wrong...Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:01 PM (#1216403) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Greg...Iv only been posting on the Mudcat a short time ,although I'm sure it seems much longer to most of you. There's not many mass protests here in Argyll,but privately I was always against Western support for the regime in Iraq and the one in Saudi,even when we were assisting him in the conflict with Iran..Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:05 PM (#1216407) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens Absolutely right on Ake me old pal, dont let facts get in the way of the higher truth. But I could have sworn it was you I saw you at the mass Kurdish Solidarity Barbecue at Otter Ferry. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:08 PM (#1216409) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Im sorry to be posting so much ,but Iv one question for the facts men. Why did you feel Saddam such a threat to the West?....Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:16 PM (#1216413) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: greg stephens Akenaten: is that question meant to be directed to me? Try Teribus, he's your men. Or possibly Tony Blair. I've never thought Saddam represented any threat to the West whatever. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:17 PM (#1216414) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: mg How can you ask? Anyone who does things like that, and there are others, is a threat to the west, a threat to every man, woman and child on the face of the earth until they are eliminated by whatever means required. Behavior like that wants to spread, and what you think can be contained, ultimately can not be. It does not take a whole lot of evil people to contaminate the earth. One evil person contaminates the earth. And those who won't for whatever reason stand against evil (and there are plenty of good reasons, including fear), but for reasons known only to themselves and God stand against those who would go up against evil, are almost as bad. mg |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:18 PM (#1216416) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Your geography is beginning to worry me Greg,(much better than your politics) I await the arrival of the "Ali Babas" in August with trepidation!! |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:19 PM (#1216418) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Boab I've been on Mudcat for a fair length of time now, and never before have I come across such a conglomeration of "America right or wrong " guff. It is glaringly obvious that if the political establishment in the USA declared tomorrow that the Moon belonged to the US, it would be taken as Fact by the likes of Teribus, Doug R., et al.. Can't all you red-white and -blue wavers from both sides of the pond get it straight? You were LIED to. You are STILL being lied to. Doug R.---in another, similar thread I note that you expected dissent from the "naysayers". A touch of sly wordsmithing to deflect any such dissent? The truth is---and you all do know it---we were all told that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", and you Americans were also fed with the crap which assured you that Iraq was a "threat to the security of the USA". This was a statement, by the way, that Bush and co HOPED was true. They based their babblings on the fact that it was they themselves--along with Britain, France and some others---who had been the suppliers of such "weapons" in the days when Saddam was seen as a buffer between Iran and the oilfields. What the UN inspectorate ascertained was that all such weapons had, indeed, been destroyed, and there was no substantial attempt being made to acquire more. That the UN is now trying to renew some kind of co-operation with this abominable "coalition" [read "Uncle Sam and his toadies"]in trying to retrieve something from the wreckage they have created speaks volumes for their concern for the people of the Mid-East--and of the World. What has happened over the last two or three days is nothing more than pantomime and farce for the benefit of the aforementioned flagwavers, and for those who are sick of blood and destruction and will grasp at any straw which seems to offer hope. Not much hope, by the way, for the Islanders of Diego Garcia , who were removed forcibly from their home prior to the first Gulf "war" in order to make way for the American Military. Robin Cook [ no favourite of mine!] as British Foreign Secretary "re-instated the right" of this people to return to their homes. The Bush-Blair fiasco put a stop to that, and they still are exiled from their home. Small wonder that Cook resigned from the mangy pack. There will be a US military base on Diego Garcia till the cows come home, and the biggest American "embassy" on Earth will last just as long in Baghdad---if the Iraqi resistance can't get past the tanks,that is [or the oil runs out].. Saddam will get his come-uppance, if he really is going to be passed to the Iraqis. Those who really do have the weapons of mass destruction will not, sadly. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 02:34 PM (#1216429) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Mary...Please excuse me if I dont answer your question, as I dont wish to upset someone so obviously kind and good hearted. It woul be fine if this world was filled with people like you,but unfortunately I have Greg and Teribus to contend with. At last I seem to have some reinforcments in the form of Boab,Praise be to Allah...Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 04:50 PM (#1216519) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,london In case it hasn't occurred to anyone, the US was supporting Sadaam Hussein in the eighties, in the Iran-Iraq war And Osama Bin Laden, when he was involved in the war in Afganistan. No-one who comes in peace, has a gun in their hand. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 05:08 PM (#1216532) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: ard mhacha Seen on Channel 4 News [UK] to-night,Iraqis who were tortured under Saddam were also imprisoned by the US,whilst condemning Saddam they vowed to join the forces of resistance to the US puppet government. Other Iraqis questioned were strong in their condemnation of the US occupation. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 05:34 PM (#1216550) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf In general, Teribus, I reckon you're put upon by unwarranted knee-jerk reaction from, well, a number of posters who ought to be above such things. However: "Exactly when did the good old USofA "use" him (Saddam) as a hitman by the way?" Hitman may be too strong a word, but you've acknowledged the existence of the cold war, yes? You surely can't deny that the US used Iraq for its ends & without any particular consideration for its people? It supported Saddam in times past, in the interests of what it considered its best interests. Not world peace, Ter (or Doug if it comes to that! *g*). I don't blame them for that. I don't believe in the innate generosity of human nature. OTOH, I also don't have much faith in the long-term view of the average politico either! But your expression of your p-o-v is not aided by absolutist & pedantic choice of arguments (I read the "business ethics" thread last night - sorry, but LH (if I've remembered correctly) had you bang to rights when he said "if water is necessary to life, it does not follow that the purpose of life is to drink water..."). On the whole, I tend to agree with you rather more than with, say, Bobert (sorry Bob! *g*), but your position often lacks pragmatism and/or balance. Implying that the US didn't use Saddam is foolishness. Splitting hairs over the use of the word hitman is no different. Your points would be far better served by a more realistic & gracious assessment of your opponents points, than by nitpicking & pedantry! Regards Rædwulf |
|
29 Jun 04 - 05:44 PM (#1216560) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Ake - with all due respect (having crossed words with you a couple of times before on MC), coming to an argument in this place armed with good intentions & no facts is about as sensible as turning up in a Rangers pub wearing Celtic colours (or similar sporting example of your choice)! I don't doubt that you were as much against Saddam in general, as you were against the invasion. However, I must ask you the same question that I have asked other anti-war protestors. It is estimated that, in the 12 years or so since GWI, Saddam caused the death of in excess of 1 million Iraqi's, either directly or through, frex, manipulation of sanctions. It is 15 months or so since Saddam's fall. In that time, we can reasonably expect (then existing conditions prevailing) that another 100,000+ Iraqi's (mostly vulnerable elderly, women, or children) would have died. This dwarfs the casualty total of GWII & its aftermath. How would you have dealt with Saddam? Sanctions didn't work, their removal would not have served the Iraqi's any better. What was your solution? Because I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer from the anti-war brigade (& I've asked this question here previously!). Regards Rædwulf |
|
29 Jun 04 - 06:05 PM (#1216573) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Raedwulf...I'm sorry to tell you ,but I believe you are beginning to show early signs of statesmanship. This comes as quite a shock to one you have abused horribly in the past.Surely the old warrior is not to become a limp wristed intellectal....A concerned wellwisher. |
|
29 Jun 04 - 06:15 PM (#1216584) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf A statesman... Hmmmmm... Should I feel insulted, ake? BTW, I don't think I ever abused you horribly in the past. Surely it was just a frank exchange of views? (Damn! Now I really am starting to sound like a statesman! Worrying...) On the plus side, I can assure you that there is nothing limp about my wrist! ;) R |
|
29 Jun 04 - 06:35 PM (#1216595) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Raedwulf...I cross posted, and missed your question. I take back the statesmanship bit. My obections to the war were mainly that it seemed certain to increase the terrorist threat to the West. Corrupt regimes like Saddams'can only survive with the help of a large section,usually a powerful section of the population. In Saddams case corruption had trickled down through the Baath party and the military,into middle class society.If these societies are not proped up by outside interests,(America and UK)they usually evolve into something else.In the case of Iraq that would probably have been an Islamic Republic,and that would not have suited the West.This to my mind was the probable real reason for the war,but the effect has been to bring that Islamic Republic even closer. Im afraid there are no quick political fixes in this world and sometimes evolution is the only way...Ake |
|
29 Jun 04 - 06:50 PM (#1216601) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: McGrath of Harlow Anyone who does things like that... But the people who do things like that are frequently supported to the hilt by our leaders, just as Saddam was at the time he was gassing people. If he'd just stuck to that kind of thing he'd still be in power and be seen as a valued stabilising factor in the region. It'd be good to think that the shock of September 11th might have made the USA, in particular, draw the line under that phase of its history, and cease providing any kind of support to state terrorism. But that just isn't the case - and in fact the evidence indicating the use of torture as a routine procedure by US agencies, and outsourced to compliant states, just reinforces that. |
|
30 Jun 04 - 04:51 AM (#1216835) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus GUEST,Boab, regarding your post of 29 Jun 04 - 02:19 PM: 1. "You were LIED to." Were we lied to in 2002 and the early part of 2003? I don't think that we were. I think that what intelligence was available was evaluated and in the aftermath of 9/11 the bias was always going to be towards the worst case scenario. In this context, the recent revalation that the Russians specifically warned the US Government that Saddam Hussein was supporting plans for attacks of a similar nature to 9/11 in the US should be taken into account. The information regarding Iraqi WMD came from UNSCOM and the IAEA, they were not invented by either US or UK intelligence services. In September 2002, the evidence supporting the belief that Saddam Hussein did have WMD and did have active WMD programmes running was sufficiently convincing to most of the worlds leaders, France, Germany and Russia included. So, was I lied to? - No I was not. 2. "You are STILL being lied to." In what way am I still being lied to? 3. "The truth is---and you all do know it---we were all told that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", and you Americans were also fed with the crap which assured you that Iraq was a "threat to the security of the USA"." As stated above UNSCOM reported that Iraq had WMD, weapons systems capable of delivering them and stockpiles of chemical/biological agents. As to the "threat to the security of the USA", well we now know where that came from - none of us knew that at that time - The US was specifically warned by Russia. It was not a case of, "Bush and co HOPING it was true", given a specific warning from a quarter so heavily involved in Iraq, what would you have done Boab - ignore it? And please, don't keep coming out with all this clap-trap about the US supplying Iraq with chemical/biological weapons, it just does not stand up. US assistance to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War was mainly in the form of intelligence and surveillance, very little in terms of military hardware. The people who supplied that were the French (same people who gave Saddam his nuclear power plant) and the Russians, the Iraqi Army's inventory was almost exclusively Russian, Warsaw Pact and Chinese military hardware. 4. "What the UN inspectorate ascertained was that all such weapons had, indeed, been destroyed, and there was no substantial attempt being made to acquire more." Please provide me with a reference to this report, because I have never heard of it. What I have heard, with regard to chemical/biological weapons, that reflects what you state above, is that that is the OPINION of Dr. Hans Blix, not quite the same thing at all as the UN inspectorate ascertaining anything. With regard to Iraq's nuclear programme, I believe that the IAEA did establish that Iraq's nuclear capability had indeed been destroyed in a verifiable manner, what work in this area that remained outstanding was centred on whether, or not, there was any attempt being made on the part of the Iraqi government to reconstitute that programme. 5. The UN, it's co-operation with the abominable "coalition" & the UN's concern for the people of the Middle-East and of the World. The UN has had a remarkably consistant record since its formation. Unfortunately it is a record of monumental fuck-up after monumental fuck-up. They are always too damn little and too damn late. The Iraq fiasco, to which they were largely responsible for through inertia and lack of resolve is about to be followed by another - In the Sudan. Their Secretary General is currently in Khartoum, so is Colin Powell - which one of the two arrived and gave President Bashir the warning that if the Sudanese Government does not rein in the Arab militias operating in Dharfur, the international community will act? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Kofi Annan. The UN knows full well that it cannot afford another Rwanda, the UN also knows full well that it cannot act without the full support of the USA. While France, Russia and China will talk - the US and the UK will act, and it's action that may well be required in the Sudan. 6. "What has happened over the last two or three days is nothing more than pantomime and farce for the benefit of the aforementioned flagwavers, and for those who are sick of blood and destruction and will grasp at any straw which seems to offer hope." What has happened over the last few days is far from a pantomime, or a farce. What has happened over the last few days is that Iraq has regained its status as a sovereign state, albeit with an interim government. Something is now in place that the Iraqi people can align themselves to that offers far better prospects than those offered by the insurgents. It also provides a "Civil Power" to which aid and assistance can now be given. 7. "the Islanders of Diego Garcia , who were removed forcibly from their home prior to the first Gulf "war" in order to make way for the American Military." I don't know, Boab, whether, or not, you deliberately meant to imply that the Islanders of Diego Garcia were forcibly removed in order to make way for the American Military due to the requirements of the first Gulf "war". I think that both you and I know very well that the US have had a military base on Diego Garcia for over forty years. I fully support the Islanders right of return, and it will be a very shoddy act on the part of the British Government if anything other than that is proposed or adopted. |
|
30 Jun 04 - 01:53 PM (#1217153) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Keith A of Hertford Well argued, as ever Teribus. Can I share part of an interview in last week's New Scientist withHussain Al-Shahristani, who was impisoned for refusing to work on nuclear weapons for Saddam. He spent 11 years in Abu Ghraib, was tortured himself but witnessed worse, including a man having his bones drilled with electric drills. He said "The most painful thing in those torture chambers was to hear the screams of children being tortured to extract confessions from their fathers." Keith. |
|
30 Jun 04 - 03:35 PM (#1217232) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus Raedwulf, The points made in your post of, 29 Jun 04 - 05:34 PM, are well taken. With regard to US/Iraq relations and the "Cold War" years, while the US did help the Ba'athist coup, that was done - at the time - because it represented the lesser of two evils from the US point of view. Subsequent to the "Six Day War" (1967), however, diplomatic relations were broken off between the United States of America and Iraq and were only re-instated on 26th November, 1984. During the period 1984 to 1990 diplomatic relations existed between the USA and Iraq, but were broken off after Iraq's attempted annexation of Kuwait. That has remained the case right up until the recent appointment of Negroponte as the new US Ambassador to Iraq. From 1967 up until 2003, Iraq was firmly regarded as being on "friendly" terms with first, the USSR, and latterly Russia, and "hostile" to the United States, except for a very brief period (1984 - 1990) during the Iran/Iraq War when the United States stepped in to prevent Iraq's defeat. In doing this the US were not alone, in terms of military assistance Iraq got a great deal more assistance from France and Russia than from the USA. Under such circumstances it is rather difficult reconcile that state of affairs with the statement made that the good old USofA used Saddam as a hitman. Patently they did not, the facts would seem to indicate that the good old USofA along others, saved Saddam from an extremely humiliating defeat. For the pure and simple reason that - at that time - it was in the best interests of all parties who regarded the Persian Gulf region as being vital to do everything in their power to re-establish the status quo prior to the start of hostilities. A good parallel in history would be British and French support of Turkey in the mid-1850's in order to curb Russian expansion. I freely admit that the above was rather a strange way of "using" Saddam, particularly as the US had no part in prompting Saddam into attacking Iran in 1980, that was entirely his own idea - but in no way does it equate to the US using Saddam as a "hitman", the latter implies a rather closer relationship than I believe has ever existed between the USA and Iraq. Please don't take the above as nitpicking, or pedantry, it is only my honest attempt to explain my point of view on the matter. |
|
30 Jun 04 - 06:32 PM (#1217347) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Ter - Ta. It's nice to know someone can get through occasionally! ;) & *BG* The only things in your latter post I'd quibble with (perhaps it's me indulging in nit-picking now? *g*) are these: 1) Interesting facts, but no attribution, as you so often complain of! And since when did the published word ever reveal the entire truth about behind-the-scenes skullduggery? Even now the UK maintains the secrecy of some documents, despite the expiry of the supposed "30 year rule", or whatever the given nominated classified period is (Pardon me, BTW, but the correct phrase for that escapes me at the moment - I'm sure you know what I'm referring to). Moreover, does the US have a similar rule over de-classifying sensitive information? I ask from a state of ignorance. I am, however, cynical enough about politicians to believe that there are some decisions & processes that are either never recorded, or the evidence for which can never be found (IIRC, don't HMS Challenger's logbooks conveniently fall into that category?). Will we ever know the truth about Saddam & the US? I doubt it, in my lifetime at least! And, yes, I admit that it is very easy to be cynical. But just cos I'm cynical, don't mean I'm wrong! In fact, I'm bound to be right eventually. See, I know people too... ;) 2) "the lesser of two evils from the US point of view" - that's an opinion, Ter. What's more, you surely can see that it's only a nice way of saying "my best interests"? Which is exactly the point I made originally. Whyever the US offered their temporary support, it was because it was in their best interests at the time. Naturally, that will equate to the lesser of any available evils. Whether the end result is an objective positive or negative is beside the point. Subjectively, they always pick the best overall option (to which the cynic adds: "for them"!). |
|
30 Jun 04 - 07:00 PM (#1217356) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Gareth Hmmm ! SH may well have been, in the past, a "friend" of the US of A. That does not make his actions moral or supportable. If your dog turns out rabid it is your duty to see that it is put down. On those 'Catters who have lived in countries where rabies is endemic will know exactly what I mean. Gareth |
|
30 Jun 04 - 08:31 PM (#1217386) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Metchosin My Mum is showing signs of senile dementia, should I shoot her now or wait until after her Birthday? She hasn't bitten anyone yet. |
|
30 Jun 04 - 09:10 PM (#1217395) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Ebbie If the reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who caused thousands/millions of deaths, why are we and have been so selective in choosing who to remove from power? Stalin murdered his millions, Id Amin killed his hundreds of thousands and Papa Doc, his thousands. Each of these lovely people died a natural death. The US and its cohorts did not feel compelled to overthrow them. Why? |
|
30 Jun 04 - 09:13 PM (#1217396) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Larry K You have convinced me. Let's bring back Sadaam. Life was so much better in Iraq when he was in charge. Kids were flying kites in the street and Sadaam enjoyed a 102% aprooval rating. Most of you see those mass graves in Iraq as half empty. I see them as half full. In my heart of hearts I know that Sadaam could fill those graves in no time flat if we only gave him a second chance. After all, Sadaam never lied to us. Bush, Kerry, Clinton, France, Germany, Russia all said there were WMD's. Sadaam was the only one who said the didn't have any. Sadaam is the only one telling the truth. Maybe Kerry could nominate him for VP. The current Prime Minister of Iraq has a 70%- 80% aprooval rating from the Iraq people. What do they know. Clearly the Mudcatters on this forum know what is better for them than they do. It is nice to know after getting back from vacation that the more things change the more they stay the same |
|
30 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM (#1217450) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: mg Because, in response to Ebbie's question, innocent civilians might have gotten hurt. They might have raised our taxes. Haliburton was not involved. They didn't have oil/coconuts/the remotest concept of freedom. Besides their culture is different than ours. Someone might have lost an election. Other countries might not have liked us then. mg |
|
01 Jul 04 - 12:06 AM (#1217460) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Amos LArry the K: Don't be ridiculous. I haven't seen a single post in all th emotnhs of the war that propsoed reinstating Saddam or his party. Or have I missed one? A |
|
01 Jul 04 - 02:20 AM (#1217498) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Teribus Ebbie, In answer to your question, posed in your post of, 30 Jun 04 - 09:10 PM. 1. I think the US was selective in the case of Saddam Hussein because they were specifically warned about him. That information regarding the warning given by the Russians is the only "new" piece of information that has come to light in months, and it is very relevant. 2. During the time of Stalin's worst purges, the USA was strictly isolationist in its view of world politics. 3. Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Pol Pot, etc, etc, lasted as long as they did because the international community stood by the Charter of the United Nations as it stood at the time, i.e. they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of member states. Saddam would have been in the same category had he not invaded Kuwait. I believe things have altered now and the UN can act in cases of apparent genocide. That is why there is so much tap-dancing going on at the moment regarding classifying what is happening in the Sudan region of Darfur. If the UN calls it genocide they are then compelled to act, and for reasons best known to themselves, the UN hates being forced to act. |
|
01 Jul 04 - 04:44 AM (#1217551) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Keith A Also, because we can't right every wrong should we never try to right any? Keith. |
|
01 Jul 04 - 01:53 PM (#1217755) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Keith...Who decides whats right and wrong? In the case of the Iraq war the USA and UK decided to invade a failed state which was in the process of implosion. Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go IMO,as the West had been forced to withdraw support from the tyrant. The vacuum left by any revolution, or action from Iran would soonhave been filled by Islamic fundamentalism.This left the West with no option but to invade to protect its interests,under the cloak of "democratisation" and protection of the Iraqi people. The only people the West cares for are those who keep the machine working...Ake |
|
01 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM (#1217771) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: mg That's crap. mg |
|
01 Jul 04 - 02:33 PM (#1217781) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Well Mary as your an expert ,I must agree..Ake |
|
01 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM (#1217785) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton None of us know the real reason that America and Britain went to war, but one thing I do know . A gamble of that magnitude was never made for humanitarian reasons...Ake |
|
01 Jul 04 - 02:53 PM (#1217794) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Ake - last comment, damn right! As to who decides right & wrong, to steal a line from that famous peacenik Napoleon ;), God is on the side of the big battalions as a rule! So the West is always right... (Even when it's quite horribly wrong...) :( |
|
01 Jul 04 - 03:24 PM (#1217813) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Thanks Raedwulf...Been feeling a bit fragile since being savaged by Teribus. Consider yourself hugged...Ake |
|
01 Jul 04 - 04:46 PM (#1217881) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf *g* Cheers Ake! The world would be a better place for more hugs! Iraq would probably be a better place for more hugs. Even Teribus might be a better... place...? for more hugs! ;) Don't mind Ter, Ake. He's a big (Mud-?)pussy-cat. Just remember there's nothing wrong with us evil-minded, furry bastards (Oh, & that we're in charge...)! *BG* |
|
01 Jul 04 - 09:20 PM (#1217991) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus akenaton - 01 Jul 04 - 01:53 PM "Who decides whats right and wrong?" Purely a matter of choice for the individual depending on the circumstance Akenaton "In the case of the Iraq war the USA and UK decided to invade a failed state which was in the process of implosion." Really old son, how did you come to that conclusion? Do you honestly mean to tell the world at large that Iraq was invaded on a whim? Just for once, listen to what you are saying and acknowledge the fact that according to your criteria you would be perfectly happy with Saddam Hussein firmly in power in Iraq and the world as it was two years ago - not many in Iraq would agree with you. "Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go IMO,as the West had been forced to withdraw support from the tyrant." Damn right son, it is only your opinion, and bloody ill informed at that. Do you question my grounds for stating that? If so then kindly explain how you arrive at the fact that Saddam's regime had only a few years to go. Oh yes the big bad "WEST" had been forced to withdraw its support - When? How? Why? Something to do with him invading another country perhaps? Where on earth is your bleeding heart compassion for the 605 Kuwaiti citizens that your pal Saddam had abducted from their homes, never to see the light of day again - their bones are amongst those uncovered in a few of the mass graves discovered in the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow. Oh yes, Islamic Fundamentalism - your favourite phrase - your answer to all the worlds ills - Mary Garvey is completely and utterly correct - Your talking crap. Not a single structured arguement of case, merely utterances without reasoning or foundation. Action from Iran!!! The twelve old gits who control Iran are struggling hard enough to keep their own population on their rather narrow and backward track, let alone export their brand of government elsewhere in the region, let alone the world. High time you got yourself out of your cosy, over-subsidised little enclave out there in the western highlands and toddled out to take a look at the rest of the world - and see how it lives. You are nothing but a disillusioned idealist - you wanted Communism to work, but alas it didn't, so you vainly scramble around looking for something else that might trip up the only system that seems to work - dig out pal - you're on a fools errand. Have a hug. By the bye, I believe the quote was from Voltaire: "God is not on the side of the big battalions. God is on the side of the best shots" courtesy of Bernard Cornwell |
|
02 Jul 04 - 06:52 AM (#1218225) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: AKS "...information regarding the warning given by the Russians ..." Now that is scary, didn't know the US were that desperate! I haven't been thinking very highly of the results of their Intelligence lately, but this is extraordinary; to trust 'Russian information'!?! AKS |
|
02 Jul 04 - 07:41 AM (#1218245) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Teribus...I think a little less water in your "over subsidised" Scotch might put you in a better mood. The structured arguments which you ask for demand acceptance of fact and figures and opinions provided by politicians on both sides . One thing I have learned in my little enclave is never believe a politician. I never pretend what I write are anything other than opinions, but at least they are MY opinions Regarding Iran, the West seemed to think them enough of a threat,to bury their "principles" and assist the tyrant Saddam in his war against them. Where you get the idea that I support Communist govt I dont know... a rogue opinion perhaps? Youll need to watch out for the thought police You are as guilty as any one else in this *entertaining* little forum, of passing an unsubstanciated opinion when it comes up your humph. Regarding Mary ,she seems a very nice "Christian" lady ,who dosn't know her arse from her elbow.....Just an opinion...Ake |
|
02 Jul 04 - 12:39 PM (#1218450) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Ebbie ------You can see the full report at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04902r.pdf WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday. The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings: -In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces. -Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations. -The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts. -The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped. -The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May. |
|
02 Jul 04 - 05:30 PM (#1218617) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Ter - *sigh* I agree with a lot of what you've just said to Ake. But your delivery could use some work! If you take that tone with people, it's not really surprising that you wind up in a siege situation where everyone instantly assaults your point-of-view, never mind whether you have a case or not! Ake - Ter was unnescessarily rude, but he was also largely right. I would be interested to know on what basis you believe that Iraq "was in the process of implosion"? That "Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go", or on what basis "the West had been forced (my emphasis) to withdraw support from the tyrant"? I know of no evidence, apart from wishful thinking, that suggests any of these arguments are remotely plausible! Incidentally, you know full well that Saddam had happily survived several years of sanctions unaffected, and it is to be noted that many of those opposed to the war were also opposed to sanctions & insistent that they should be lifted. Saddam was killing @80,000 Iraqis year on year. Your notion of "evolution" might eventually have been borne out, but at what cost? How many more hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis before your hoped for implosion? And how is the aftermath of the war better or worse for the Iraqs than that hypothetical "implosion". One uprising had been tried, failed, & cost (I think) considerably more lives than GWII has, or probably will. A successful revolution, a descent into chaos, & yes, probably a Fundamentalist government almost as bad the original... How many lives would that little lot have cost? "More lives than GWII has, or probably will", I suggest. History shows that revolutions generally produce chronic instability or succeeding repressive governments. Saddam himself achieved his position effectively by revolution. "Benevolent" invasions have usually provided a better solution & more quickly. I never thought the war was a good thing. I did think it was the best course, if only because it was the least of available evils. It was a profound mistake to have used WMDs as an excuse, & frankly if Daddy Bush had had the balls to do job properly first time round, we wouldn't be having this discussion now! But that's politicos for you, & the Bushes are not a particularly 'ept' example of the breed! |
|
02 Jul 04 - 05:39 PM (#1218622) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Ter - Napoleon/Voltaire - You may be right. Certainly, the quote you give is more or less right for Voltaire. "God is on the side, not of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots." is the Oxford Library of Words & Phrases version. However, that is not to say that Napoleon (or some other general) didn't turn the quote on its head! |
|
02 Jul 04 - 05:45 PM (#1218623) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: DougR Whassamatta you folks? You bitch because the coilition unseated Saddam, you claimed all Bush wanted was the Iraqi's oil (which was pure horse pucky and I don't think even your Idolized filmmaker charged that), now the coilition has turned over the governing of Iraq to Iraqis and you bitch about that! Never satisfied. DougR P. S. Greg Stevens I tried to PM you but you don't show up as a member. What goes? |
|
02 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM (#1218656) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS ARTILLERY SHELLS FOUND BY POLISH TROOPS IN IRAQ A hand-out photograph made available by the Polish Army on July 2, 2004 shows artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq on June 16, 2004. Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq definitely contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, the Polish army said on Friday. REUTERS/Polish Army/HO |
|
02 Jul 04 - 06:45 PM (#1218657) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: beardedbruce NO, not a valid source. The SRS rule says that any information that disagrees with the SRS viewpint is invalid, just because of the source. |
|
02 Jul 04 - 06:48 PM (#1218660) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Raedwulf...Several reasons for implosion. the sanctions policy which was causing extreme hardship to the Iraqi people. Mostly children and the sick.....The increasing corruption of the Saddam regime,wasting money on grand personal schemes,palaces ect. The deterioration of the countrys' infrastructure,obsolete power stations ,oil installations, hospitals ect,plus pressure from the Shia and Kurds for political representation. Saddams actions had become so outrageous that even the Westwere forced to abandon their closest ally in the Middle East.The Wests position had become untenable. This brings us back to the real reason for the war ,and you have agreed with me earlier that it was not humanitarianism. I was not saying that I thought an Islamic revolution to be a good thing,but if we go to war ,the motives aught to be clear. And in my opinion ,the most likely reason that we attacked Iraq, was to protect our interests. This "benevolent" Invasion has done more than butcher a few thousand Iraqi men women and children,it has opened the door for Western style "democracy",and signalled "fight or die for Islam...Ake |
|
03 Jul 04 - 01:57 AM (#1218786) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: sledge For more info on the above try going to:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm It all becomes a bit less dramatic. |
|
03 Jul 04 - 03:26 AM (#1218799) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Thomas the Rhymer At least 11, 056 civilians killed in Iraq by the war. Is this justifiable? I just don't see how... ttr |
|
03 Jul 04 - 11:48 AM (#1218914) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Ebbie Greg Stevens, DougR? Check out the spelling. |
|
03 Jul 04 - 01:37 PM (#1218949) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Raedwulf Doesn't really answer me, Ake, I'm sorry. Saddam had been surviving sanctions for several years already. He didn't give a damn about "his" people dying. It was to his benefit. Good press for the efforts of his friendly bleeding-heart liberals in trying to get the sanctions lifted. By your reckoning, & on your evidence, I would say that Saddam had at least 5 years, & probably 10 or more. In fact, I think that given the status quo, it would only have been once Saddam died (or retired), that the regime might have fallen. As long as Saddam was in charge it was fixed & immovable. I would agree that our motives for going to war should have been clear, & that they weren't. I've already said that. But Thomas says "At least 11, 056 civilians killed in Iraq by the war", & wonders about the justification. Would you both have been happier if we hadn't invaded? Because, if we hadn't, a lot more Iraqi's can be reasonably expected to have died in that time, if Saddam had kept his average up! I think the war has done much more than butcher a few thousand Iraqi's. I think it's also saved a a great many more. I think it's given some kind of hope to a nation. I don't think it's signalled fight or die for Islam. It has, certainly, provided a focus for the fanatics, increased their activity & swelled their numbers. On the other hand, I am also of the opinion that there is more reason now to hope that it may have also woken the American government (not Bush & his cronies, but the whole governmental structure) to the fact that their long pursued policies in the Middle East are probably not "in their best interests". There may yet be a sea-change in American foreign policy. We can but hope. Apparently, the was an article in the Daily Telegraph this week which pointed out that Beirut is now a tourist destination. Twenty-five years ago, it was a war-torn no-go area. Surprising how things can change, isn't it! |
|
03 Jul 04 - 05:14 PM (#1219020) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: CarolC Here you go, GUEST, 02 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM (and beardedbruce)... http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040702_209.html (Reuters) "But the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and another 16 of the rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agents. The reason for the discrepancy in numbers was unclear... ...In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger. The statement said an Iraqi civilian had led the soldiers to the rockets in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad on June 16. "Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces," the statement said." |
|
06 Jul 04 - 05:17 AM (#1219790) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus Ebbie, In response to your post of, 02 Jul 04 - 12:39 PM, on the GAO report, I would like to make the following comments: -In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces. At the height of their summer, the above was not unexpected, power generation has been restored to pre-war levels, and the situation is improving as money is being spent on overhauling and up-grading the system. It wasn't before, it was being spent on breaking sanctions to import 384 rocket motors (import prohibited, founf by UNMOVIC), it was being spent on Palace's for Saddam Hussein, it was being spent on research, developement, testing and construction of missile systems, it was being spent on sponsoring suicide bombers in Palestine, it was being spent on suppressing and terrorising the Iraqi people. How many of those 18 provinces are actively involved in the insurrection? I think you will find it very few. -Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations. I'm surprised that the amount spent is as high as you state. The work that money is allocated to pay for consists, in the main, of fairly long term projects so the money will be disbursed in staged payments over a period of time as the work progresses - that is normal business practice. It's not if you are the sort of person who pays someone to do a job for you the total amount before they actually start the work. -The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts. Again not so surprising, do you remember that just before, or just after, Saddam's Presidential election (in which he polled 100% of the vote), the amnesty Saddam granted to all those serving criminal sentences - the political prisoners, persons abducted and others Saddam, or his sons, did not want wandering the streets, they weren't so lucky - they were executed and dumped in mass graves. What do you think the effect would be in any country with regard to its legal system under such circumstances? -The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped. Again not surprising, they have been the focus of insurgent attacks now for months. People still wish to enlist and now that there is an interim government, delivered on time, with the prospect of an elected government taking office next year, this is a situation that will be turned round. Everybody was told since before day one that this would not be done in any time-span that could be described as short - things don't happen overnight, so don't expect unrealistically that things should - take a look at what happened after the end of the second world war if you want some examples. -The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May. Again that was to be expected in the run-up to 30th June. The CPA was brutally frank in their predictions and warnings on this subject. The number of attacks should also be viewed alongside the nature of those attacks and their selected targets to determine the purpose behind them. They will prove to be as effective in Iraq as they have been in Palestine. Again due to the existence of a sovereign Iraqi government it will not take long for the bulk of the Iraqi people to turn against those carrying out those attacks. A new Iraqi government holds out and offers the people of Iraq hope - the "insurgents" offer them nothing except the prospect of civil war and the continuation of the misery they have endured for decades - It will not take long for the people of Iraq to recognise that. AKS - 02 Jul 04 - 06:52 AM Regarding the warning given by Russians to the US on Saddam's future intentions. Under the circumstances what use would you have made of that information? I get the distinct impression that you think they (US security agencies) should have ignored it/dismissed it out of hand, purely because of the source. But then you would be ignoring the fact (God another fact, I know Akenaton hates them) that the country that has had the closest ties, economically and militarily, to Iraq over the past thirty-odd years is Russia. Of course that would count for nothing in your criteria for evaluation - You'd be wrong, badly wrong. Akenaton and Raedwulf, If Saddam had only another five to ten years left, the most likely turn of events, on his death, would have been that one of his sons would have suceeded him, as happened in Syria, another Ba'athist Republic. That, with regard to the Iraqi people in particular, and for the region in general, I believe would have been a turn for the worse, not the better. |
|
06 Jul 04 - 03:15 PM (#1220121) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Teribus...Thanks for your posted opinion on Iraq post Saddam. It was a veritable oasis in a desert of facts. You see... Its not so difficlt, and now you've done it once,it will be much easier the next time. The step you have taken can change your life forever. No longer need you confine yourself to dusty subjects like ,grain quotas ,what colour we paint our bombs, or how many coats of whitwash give the perfect finish to the battalion coal supply. You can now tackle more taxing points,such as ,Mudcatters birthdays, the sex lives of Llamas, the sex lives of hampsters, witches, silly womens stuff,and ultimately,after a decent interval of course, folk music. After this metamorphysis, Im sure all Muddcater wil want to give the "new " Teribus, a great big hug....Ake |
|
08 Jul 04 - 02:11 AM (#1221142) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: AKS Teribus: "...country that has had the closest ties, economically and militarily, to Iraq over the past thirty-odd years..." And you think that they would now let the US into that position? Maybe as a gesture of good will - or what?!! AKS |
|
08 Jul 04 - 04:22 AM (#1221167) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus AKS - I'll answer your question after you've answered mine. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 09:01 AM (#1221307) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert Speaking of unanswered questions, I still have one out there. Since out reasons for invading Iraq (killing over 10,000 civilains, injuring ewns of thousands of civilians, killing over 800 of US service people and seriously injuring upwards of 20,000 US serive people) has been reduced down to Saddam was a bad man, why didn't we just assasinate him? Oh? Against the law? Hmmmmmm? Reread the numbers of casualties in the last paragraph before playing that card. Now my pal, Dougie, says that we "lefties" aren't happy that Iraq has been turned over to the Iraqis. Well, first of all, these Iraqis weren't elected, but appointed by the Bush folks. Second, what makes anyone think fir one minute that Iraq has been turned over to anyone? This will prove to be nuthin' more than a political smokescreen by the Bush folks. They are very good at smokescreening responsibility for their screwups. But the patterns are starting to get predictable. They either lie or blame it on Clinton... Now I'll be the first to say that it would be very nice to have sometyhing that looks like peace (or even no war) in the Middle East but it *can't* happen with current administartion's thinking. These guy's *cowboy* foriegn policy has alienated the world community to such an extent that these guys can't fix their massive screw ups. Can John Kerry? Maybe and maybe not. But the current crew *can't*!... Reality is that no matter how long the US stays in Iraq and no matter how many American working class kids are killed and how many of American working class tax dollars are squandered, without a massive effort by the world community, Iraq will slip into a civil war when the US pulls out. Those of us on the anti-war side of the equation pointes this out during the debates in the run-up-to-war yet no one from the other side responded because they were too busy beating the Big Three Drum (mushroom clouds, WMD, Saddam/Al Quida/9-11). Now the sad reality is hovering and waiting to roost and I'm still not hearing any real plan for creating *this* democracy in Iraq. And I'm still waiting on an answer on the Saddam assasination question. And I'd still like to know why the US didn't real Saddam back into the fold. (Oh yeah, we don't do that with bad men...) We don't? When did that policy go into effect? Bobert |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:06 AM (#1221381) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: GUEST,Grandmother I just found this site. I am thrilled. I wondered what young people were thinking about. The media gives the impression that all you do is take drugs and have sex with each other. I love the involvement you show and the wit and humor. I am old and have little (no) contact with young people anymore. Your banter made my day. Love and hugs to all of you. Irene |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:17 AM (#1221386) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus Bobert, Your "unanswered" question has been answered on numerous occasions. Tell us Bobert exactly what do you believe would have resulted from the assassination of Saddam Hussein? |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM (#1221395) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert Well, T-Bird, fir one thing... you wouldn't have a drum left to pound... (Not so fast, Bobert! Have you no respect for Bush's PR team?) Ahhhh, strike that one T-zer. You'd be pounding some other drum... Bobert |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:45 AM (#1221400) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: beardedbruce As usual, Bobert, you duck the question. Why are you so afraid that we might find out what you really think about something? |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:46 AM (#1221401) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Teribus Just as I thought Bobert - you haven't got a clue. Not much use as an alternative solution then is it. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:56 AM (#1221418) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert Well, just for starters. A lot of dead folks would still be alive... Except Saddam, of course... But certainly wouldn't have been worse than what we are seeing now, that's fir sure... Bobert |
|
08 Jul 04 - 01:29 PM (#1221508) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Grandmother...Welcome to Mudcat... Im sorry to tell you that all the young opeople here are very old indeed,and the rest of us are sad bastards who get our jollies being offensive and trying to humiliate one another. My advice...Have another bash at sex and drugs ...much more fun.. Love Ake.. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 03:28 PM (#1221599) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert Ahhhhh, hi, Ake's granny... Listen to yer grandchild... But if yer gonna have another bash at sex and drugs, be sure to throw in a little Foghat or Molly Hatchet just fir added spice... Bobert |
|
08 Jul 04 - 03:50 PM (#1221614) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: mg oh heavens, here is what would have happened. After a suitable period of subdued morning, Uday would have seen the error of his ways and asked for a meeting with Colin Powell to discuss ways of integrating his country back into the more or less civilized world. First he would have gone through the prison rolls and released those prisoners he felt he safely could, and worked on rehabbing the rest, in the best sense of the word. Then he would have tackled the problems one by one, fixing the oil pipelines to get the money flowing better once sanctions were lifted. He would have had his country full of of engineers work on the damaged sewage and water and electricity works. Gotten the hospitals re-equipped; likewise schools. Some of the first oil revenues would have gone to help the agricultural sector, with improved refrigeration, sanitation etc. His brother in the meantime would have decided that public life was really too much for him, and would have devoted himself to rebuilding the hanging gardens (no, it was for hanging plants, silly people) and otherwise living a quiet family life. mg |
|
08 Jul 04 - 04:28 PM (#1221637) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Mary... I take it that post was Fundamentalist Christian satire, a completely new concept on Mudcat. This place is going to the dogs since Teribus started expressing opinions. Oh for the days when we could safely nod off, as we ploughed through the reams of facts and usefull information supplied by our more intellectually challenged brethern....Whatever next ....Ake |
|
08 Jul 04 - 04:38 PM (#1221647) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: akenaton Bobert....Granny and I both thank you for your support (we sure need it) Granny thinks she'll stick with just the sex meantime, but is a little curious about Foghat and Molly Hatchett...A bit of Triolism perhaps??...Ake. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 06:42 PM (#1221730) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: Bobert No, T-Bird, I do have a clue. First of all, there was no need even to assasinate Saddam or attack Iraq. We tried to tell yout side that during the run-up-to-war but you all defended every danged thing that dribbled out of Bush's mouth. Yup, every drop of drool. Gotta hand it to you folks. When it comes to "true believin'" ya' all's up to the task... But there you all were talking about aluminum tubes that you were sure would soon be translated into mushroom clouds... But let's say that Bush had decided that Saddam had to go and assasinated him. What would have most likely happened is someone in the Baath Party and very close to Saddam would have stepped in to fill the void and business would go along purdy much as usual. But then two different scenerios would have come about: 1. Bush would have sent someone from the State Department to try to get the new guy to play nicer than Saddam was percieved to have been playing. If this had occured this envoy could have reminded the new guy that the US had more bullets. Hint, hint... 2. Or Bush could have just made the new guy the new and improved boogie man, kept up the sanctions and crossed his fingers that the new and improved guy would be, ahhhh, new and improved... Either way, upwards of 20,000 Iraqi's and 800 Americans would still be alive and well. Either way, Iraq would not be spinning out of control. Either way, terrorist wouldn't have this made-for-them theater for their misdeeds. Bobert |
|
08 Jul 04 - 06:51 PM (#1221735) Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty From: beardedbruce Bobert, It is unlikely that any change in the leadership of Iraq would have been peaceful. The chances are that far more than 20,000 Iraqis would have been killed in the fight for political power. And the terrorists would have a made-for-them theater for their misdeeds. Maybe YOU need to listen to SRS, and try "the process of simply thinking about human nature in the context of the power struggle ". Just my opinion, of course. |