Iraqi aftermath
Pages
| Author | Topic: Iraqi aftermath |
|---|---|
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, July 25 2003 16:17
Profile
Homepage
Oh, really? I suppose you're proposing that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, the Carolinas would be under the black, white, and green by 2010. :rolleyes: What we're saying is not that we're offering a solution here, but that your typical conservative doctrine of 'give a working solution or shut up' has backfired on you -- the solution you folks gave us for whatever problems there might have been with Iraq is obviously failing. In other words, we told you so. [ Friday, July 25, 2003 16:19: Message edited by: General Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Friday, July 25 2003 22:29
Profile
Maybe, just maybe people have got themselves so used to get 'proper and overall solutions', that the talent to handle emergencies is underdeveloped by now. When the last war ended, my country's women went out to clean their towns from debris and rubble. They used shovels, wheelbarrows and their hands. They had nothing else. But they did it. They improvised electrical wiring, improvised water wells and shared them. Sure, all that had to be redone properly later on, but during the first years it ensured survival and helped restore the energy that was needed to rebuild everything. Maybe the military's engineers could do no more than improvised repairs. Maybe the administration thinks that inefficient and a mere waste of money. But money has been squandered on worse things than such inefficiency. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 05:19
Profile
... Iraq had WMD. They had an entire list of them that they gave to the UN. That much is a known fact. Those WMD have not all been destroyed. Even as lat as '98 were they known to have them. Just recently, the former president stated that he ddin't know if his bombing of Iraq was successful at all. People forget that it was up to Iraq; not the US or UN to prove they still had them. Instead, Hussein wanted to play games. Unfortunately, he lost. At the very least they ahd plans to create more WMD (their programs still existed for the most part); at worst they have WMD somehwere. I figure it's inbetween. Hussein laughed at the UN for a decade; and would have continued laughing if something wans't done. It is a fact that as a matter of policy that Hussein's regime killed, imprisoned, and tortured any who dared to look at him funny. The gassing of the Kurds, and the slaughter of the Shi'ites are just more proof this. The invasion of Kuwait, and war against Iran (admittedly with semi subtle approval of the US for the latter) continues this theory of his wickedness. It is known that Hussein paid terrorists off in Palestine, and it is also known that he hates the US so ter eis no doubt he'd do anything - including providing weapons to terrorists - to strike at the US from behind the scenes. Heck,t eh Us is certainly guilty of just that with their enemies in the past; so I surely wouldn't put it past him. Saddam's regime was an enemy to the US, to the world, to the ME (no country; not even Syrira or Iran really liked him), and most certainly to the Iraqis. The world is much better off without him. Now, as far as the iraqis hating the Coaltion. This link refutes that theory: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/205/nation/Study_Iraqis_oppose_attacks+.shtml As you can see, most Iraqis want the US to stay, and the avst amjority oppose the attacks; though most still have an innate mistrust of the Amerikans ( due to the mixed of Amerikan screw ups & anti Ameriakn propraganda) so gotta watch out for that. It should also be noted that there is no food shortage for the most aprt, most Iraqis have clean water, and electricity is on a good protion of the time. Lack of jobs, and security (mainly do to all thsoe criminals Hussein left out of their cells just before the war) are the main issues facing the Iraqi people right now. As for Amerikans accused of war crimes aainst Iraqis. They should be fully investigated, and is found guilty then dealt with harshly depending on the crime if found guilty of the crime. The problem is peole expected it perfection from the Amerikans - as in no casaulties, perfect handling of the aftermath, and on, and, and on. People forget that the soldiers and the leaders are only human, and many soldiers are barely in their 20s so mistakes of all sorts will happen. This will be a long, and bumpy road. P.S. Gah. That's too long. :confused: [ Saturday, July 26, 2003 05:21: Message edited by: Volourn ] -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 08:49
Profile
Homepage
When you do something unilaterally claiming to be on the side of right, you are pretty much obligated to do it correctly with minimal screwing up. Saddam was a bad ruler, but that excuse for invading a country has a few obvious holes -- 'why didn't you do it sooner' and 'why did you support him in the 80s'. Saddam wouldn't have been creating WMDs. He didn't have the resources for them to be practical. When you're as starved for cash as the Iraqi military tended to be, you have more pressing concerns than developing delivery systems and doctrine for NBC weapons. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 08:53
Profile
What you're basically saying is "Saddam is a bad man, so he must have helped terrorists." That's Guantanamo Bay logic. Aside from which, the UN weapons inspectors wanted more time. The breakdown of weapons inspections is entirely the fault of the United States. That link doesn't prove anything. In 1949, all polls showed Truman would lose. You may be right, but the country's political landscape is volatile and I'd want to see more facts and figures to be convinced. As to the argument that the planners are only human, that doesn't hold water. Someone in their 20s is still an adult and as such is fully responsible for their mistakes and stupidities. The manifold problems suggest that the troubles are not due to mistakes but negligence in planning. Personally, I believe the invasion should still be criticised. If the Bush administration needs to invade another country to guarantee a second term, it would be better for the citizens of that nation that the invasion is properly planned. Just because something has already happened, it does not follow that it is legitimate. -------------------- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned I'll tell you my story, man Though I wish I'd never been born I'm loose at the seams, I've broken my dreams And my hand it shakes the pen Come on, come on now baby, Let the good times roll again Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 09:34
Profile
Sure. Critcism are warranted. The whole habaloo with WMD sould really be poked at. No doubt about it. But, sorry, anytime one can get rid of someone like Hussein, I'm for it. As for "not doing it sooner'; or "why didn't you do it before"; or 'why did youhelp him in the 80's". Well.. Who are directed that at? I hope it isn't the cureent WH sicne they've only been around for not even 4 years - not much they could do in the 80's. And, it wasn't uniateral. Last I checked there were more than one country involved in this war. It wans't just the States. This was a multilateral war that didn't have the approval of the UN. There's a difference. As for WMD, very few countries before the war denied the fact that Iraq proabbly ahd them or the means to make more. Not even France. However, they were against the the use of force no matter what. Bob, more facts? How 'bout the fact that more Iraqis every day are giving tips to the Coalition to track down weapon caches, and the like withoiut the promise of pay. People also seem to forget that the vast majority of trouble is occuring in the relatively small (compared to the entire country) Sunni Triangle. Now, admittedly, the US screwed up in a lot of ways like not taking more time to get the UN on board (an almost impossible task), or planning much better for the inevitable fall of Baghdad. Sloppiness, indeed. However, it should be pointed out that as far as wars go; this was a relatively "clean" war. Still, it would have been nice to avoid it if it was possible but Saddam wanted to play games. As far as Hussein's ties to terrorism goes you are way off. He admitted to ties with terrorists when he gave money to terrorists' famlieis after they committed suicide bombings. See. No make beleive connections. H edid it as he hated Isreal, and wnated to see them suffer; just as hated Amerika and wnated it brought down to its knees. He couldn't fight them face to face so he most likely would use the next best thing. Do the math. P.S. To clear things up, I am not Amerikan, and don't blindly follow them patriotically. In fact, it's a fact that the US has done some really awful things - ridding the world of Saddam is not one of them. -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 10:38
Profile
Homepage
Point of fact: Saddam is still alive. As is Osama bin Laden. Until proven otherwise. And if Iraq really did have WMD, don't you think they would have used them when they would have had the most effect, as all the American and British troops were jammed in Kuwait? Nothing of the sort ever happened. -------------------- ... Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 496
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 10:50
Profile
Thanks to Volourn for the Ministry of Truth version. Almost as funny as Dick Cheynne turning around NOW and saying he has more 'secret evidence' we aren't allowed to see that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. After the faked yellow cake stuff and other such 'intelligence', we can only marvel at his chutzpah. If Saddam giving money to Palestinian widows and orphans counts as 'financing terrorism', when is it the US starts bombing Saudi Arabia and every other Middle Eastern country - or Boston if we count Irish ones? This is Volourn's BEST argument - desperate stuff indeed. On reconstruction, Bush is resistant as it'll be less swill to parcel out to all his sponsors - Cheynne, Haliburton, etc. 'Conventient' they were presenting the UN as some 'anti-American one-worlder conspiracy' for not accepting pro-war arguments that shown now to be faked up or absurd now Iraq is under occupation. And the US has a pretty dim idea of reconstruction anyway if Kuwait '91 is anything to go by. With all basic utilities down and the air almost unbreathable due to burning oil wells, their first action of reconstruction was to replace gold taps looted from the emir's palace - and him not back from his London casino yet... In terms of resistance to US (and UK) occupation, of course some Ba'athists will fight as it's the history of their party. The cleverer ones will jut change their rhetoric slightly and be awarded a ministy and a compliment of their own secret policemen and torture to put down the Kurds and Shias that want to balkanise the conuntry. Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 12:04
Profile
LOL I, for one, don't beleive that Iraq had tons of WMD. I think it is obvious that was exaggerated. Then again, I never supported the war because of that fact. I supported it because of one less Hussein like regime the better. btw, Don't say if people are going to go after one 'evil' regime; they should go after all 'evil' regime. While; that would be great in a fantasy world; it doest't work in the real world. Rentboy, of course Saddam and Osmaa are alive. I never disputed that fact. However, Saddam's regime in Iraq is very likely over. As for your question. It's simple. I'll use a question to answer your question. Why didn't Iraq use WMD against the Coalition in 1991 when the forces were jammed on their boarders? Answer that question; and you'll know why they may have not used them this time as well. That said, like I said before, Iraq probably has no WMD; but I'm glad it was left alone for the mystery to continue which is one Hussein wanted. X, sorry, that's not my best argument. My best argument are the mass graves, the unjustifed attack on Kuwait, the gasisng of the kurds, and the simple fact that if elft to his own devices he'd do it again once he got the oppurtunity. US has a mixed history when it comes to reconstruction - just liek the UN. Good examples - Japan, Germany, & South Korea Bad examples - I'll let you'll find them; they're all over the place. btw, Bash the President & Vice-President all you want. I'm not worried about them. As a Kanadian, I wanted Gore to win; not Bush. And, I don't care too much about a few of their policies - Guatamo which is very sad indeed, the Patriotic Act, and the stupid tax break that the Amerikans have to suffer through. So, bash them all ye want. I'll help. :D This war was needed inspite of them; not because of them. [ Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:06: Message edited by: Volourn ] -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 496
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 12:36
Profile
It's your best argument as the other don't hold water. As said above, most of the post-invasion ministries are run by someone surnamed al-Tekriti, so there's going to be no difference when it comes to human rights in Iraq. Aside from the very top echelons and slightly changed rhetoric, it's going to be exactly the same people running Iraq exactly the same way - the same secret police, the same torture chambers, the same mass graves, the same disaffected minorities. If anything, a US counter-insurgency campaign will only make things worse. To 'restore order' (though it is not restored), one of the US's first at was to give Saddam's police their jobs back rather than prosecuting them (which at least they did in Germany after they took that over). About the second thing they did (as Saddam once did) was shoot down Shias demanding a representative government, and wave a bogus 2nd 'dodgy dossier' at their sponsors in Iran. This, as much as Ba'athist attempts to retain power, is the seedbed of permanent insurgency. EDIT: The bottom line is that it's an abuse for influential oil magnates like Bush to use 'human rights' as a figleaf for lining their own pockets at everyone else's expense. There is also the small matter of the value of Western democracy when an unpopular war can be imposed by deception and dictat, an ongoing question given continuing casualties in Iraq and a publicly unchanged US foreign policy. [ Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:43: Message edited by: X ] Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 13:00
Profile
Actually, most of the administration was in power in the 1980s. Rumsfeld even sold Iraq weapons. The war was sold to us on the basis that Saddam had WMD, not that his was a repressive regime. And if it's not practical to invade every oppressive dictatorship, why pick Iraq? There's evidence Hussein paid suicide bombers, but there is no evidence of links with Al-Qaeda. Quite the reverse, so all the innuendo that he might give WMD to Bin Laden is false. -------------------- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned I'll tell you my story, man Though I wish I'd never been born I'm loose at the seams, I've broken my dreams And my hand it shakes the pen Come on, come on now baby, Let the good times roll again Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 13:16
Profile
Homepage
"Rumsfeld even sold Iraq weapons." Yes, that's the first-hand evidence the US had of Saddam possessing them. It's like giving someone a gun and calling the police saying they threatened you with it. :P "why pick Iraq?" Well, I guess it would be because Iraq, other than many third-world countries with oppressive regimes, has oil. And Bush's campaign was mostly financed by the US oil industries, afaik. :P -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 14:25
Profile
I think the main reason why Iraq was picked, and not Iran, Syria, or even North Korea is ebcause of Hussein's history. All of these countries don't have the cleanest of rulers with regards of how they treat their own people. However, Hussein's regime has the history of doing the following: using WMD, conquering a neighbour (Kuwait), starting a bloody eight year war with another neighbour (Iran), and breaking UN resolution after UN reslolution. That's why it was attacked; and the others weren't. Hussein put a bullseye on his back; played chicken; and subsequently lost. -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 16:32
Profile
Plus, if we had attacked North Korea instead, you would all be saying "Why didn't we attack Iraq or Iran? Saddam even has the history." -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 17:01
Profile
Homepage
No, we wouldn't be. I don't think any of us were for a war in the first place. And Iran is a threat now? I'm beginning to doubt that you even know what you're talking about. Voulorn, you are aware how much you sound like Wilhelm II, aren't you? [ Saturday, July 26, 2003 17:03: Message edited by: General Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 463
|
written Saturday, July 26 2003 19:30
Profile
To address a statement made previously, there wasn't a coalition in the recent invasion, at least compared to the Gulf War. This time, it was just the US, some reluctant Brits, and a few countries who said, "Yeah, you can use your own airbases to fly bombing missions on Iraq from." -------------------- Let the soul trading begin. Posts: 431 | Registered: Monday, December 31 2001 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 01:48
Profile
Oh, the coalition actually included about 30 countries, but most were penniless sub-Saharan nations trying to curry favour or non-entities in terms of power such as Iceland and Palau. Davey, in case you hadn't noticed, North Korea does have history and WMD (cf Yongbyon.) There was the Korean war, and Kim Jnr.'s career as mastermind of terrorist bombing campaigns against South Korea and its embassies. -------------------- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned I'll tell you my story, man Though I wish I'd never been born I'm loose at the seams, I've broken my dreams And my hand it shakes the pen Come on, come on now baby, Let the good times roll again Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 496
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 05:29
Profile
:rolleyes: Volourn, aside from actually using WMD, every one of the reasons you gave for invading Iraq applies equally to Israel - which has (by regional standards) large, unchallenged CW stockpiles and is the only nuclear power in the Middle East (if we except US and the UK, who shouldn't really be there). It even has an aparthied-style system of movement control and widespread, judicially-sanctioned use of torture, something Tom Ridge is keen on introducing to the USA "against terrorists" too. Human rights was hardly an issue when Bush was looking to restart his daddy's war. (And I'll add that it was the US that principly encouraged and supplied Saddam's war against Iran, inc. supplying top secret satellite intelligence at key times, in revenge for the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage crisis; this in turn created the conditions that led to the invasion of Kuwait, which senior US diplomats on the ground also encouraged.) For someone who says they don't support Bush, you're surprisingly keen to parrot his in-credible post facto self-justifications. Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 11:41
Profile
Homepage
I read the article that Volourn had a link to. It didn't say anything about whether the Iraqis want Americans to stay. It says they "have little faith in the former exiles appointed to transitional councils" and "express deep ambivalence about Western-style democracy". Anyway, about the justification of the war... I didn't love Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, I don't love the present Qatar or Saudi Arabia government either. So. Why Iraq & Afganistan? I ask again, why isn't Saudi Arabia on that list? Or Israel, for one. It hasn't got a clean human rights record either. If the justification of the Iraqi war has moved from USA's self defense to the elimination of "bad guys", then what is this elimination based on? It's very selective justice. If you are on Bush's side, the bad things are justified but if you are a bad guy, they aren't. That's what makes me worried the most about this "war on terror". EDIT: And, who decides who's in charge in these post-US war countries and chooses what changes are made? I haven't seen any real election in Afganistan or Iraq yet. [ Sunday, July 27, 2003 11:44: Message edited by: Milu ] Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 12:00
Profile
Homepage
To make my point more clear (hopefully): Our state, Finland, has its own police force. Laws apply to the police force, otherwise the police could become corrupt. Moreover, if the police force had immunity from prosecution, then at least theoretically, unsatisfied citizens could elect another leaders that would want to change this system. One nation, the United States, decides to become the police force of the world. Its leaders decide that it's their job to oust all bad guys. The United States armed forces have immunity from prosecution in the International Criminal Court. A very small portion of the world's population has the right to participate in the election of the government of the U.S. Not good. Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 13:46
Profile
Just to let you know, I'm not too worried about Bush's reasons for the war. Just my reasons. As for Isreal goes; yup, they have committed some horrible deeds. No doubt about it. -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 17:29
Profile
Milu, I agree about the freedem from prosecution; I think we should be as open to it as anyone else. Volourn probably does too; he doesn't seem to be a die-hard Bush fan anyway, plus he's not even American. Custer, "Why not North Korea or Iran?" is pretty much the slogan of many anti-war anti-Bush types; I apologize for assuming that the people here are the same way. As for North Korea, I think they're next, whether we (as a country, and the government included) like it or not. It is basically our duty to help South Korea, and North Korea, I'm sure, would love to get its hands on its southern neighbor. If we must go to war with them, I will be behind it 100%. Heh. That reminds me of some stuff on Spiderweb before the war... all that Armageddon stuff... something about how as soon as we were enmeshed in Iraq, North Korea would pull out its nukes and declare war on us, then ally itself with most of the Middle East, starting World War III and detroying all human life, all because we declared war in order to remove Saddam from power... I'm still waiting for WW3 though... -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, July 27 2003 17:43
Profile
Homepage
As the Onion put it, "Booooooom! There goes Anchorage!" [ Sunday, July 27, 2003 17:45: Message edited by: General Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3247
|
written Monday, July 28 2003 07:30
Profile
The ME will not side with NK. It won't happen. NK has gotten on the nerves of almost ever country including their traditional allies, the Chinese. Many of the ME gov't are too busy trying to keep power away from those who want to see them lose it inside their own boders - Saudi Arabi, and Iran are the big two here. NK, as long as they ahve the ruler they do, will probably have almost zero support if they got to war with the US - just like Saddam. No governemnt risked one of their soldiers for Saddam's government's safety. I wonder why... -------------------- Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Posts: 19 | Registered: Monday, July 21 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, July 28 2003 09:45
Profile
Getting back to Iraq, my principal reason for being against the war with Iraq is that 40% of the Iraqi population is dependent on food aid. When the war started, that food aid stopped. The war went on for a good three weeks, and very little aid poured in afterwards. I'd say three weeks is a sufficient amount of time for a whole lot of people to die. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |