Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city

[reefedjib]

Weak dude, very very weak.

Look okay, I understand things were bad under Saddam, but who are YOU to go into a sovereign nation and declare that you're going to change its government...

Due to the fact that Saddam suppressed and oppressed his people, he had no claim to legitimate sovereignty.

You cannot tell me the objective was to implant democracy in Iraq, yes that might have been a secondary to look good but the fact is, they said "He's got em". It was about WMD's (that were never found) and that's it. Oh and also about links to Al Queada... which there never were either since Saddam deploured radical Islam because it was a threat to his regime...

The public and primarty justification was WMD. The secondary justification was humanitarian intervention. The PRIMARY OBJECTIVE was to spread Democracy:

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

The fact is, you came into a soveriegn country, you killed MANY of its citizens and in the wake of your invasion, havoc insued on a biblical scale in terms of human deaths, and of the absolute brutality... My best friend is Iraqi, and she tells me her family there can't even let their kids play outside for fear of kidnapping or stepping on a mine, that is no way to live, things weren't good during Saddam, but they ain't much better now since people are under threat every day from secterian violence.

We didn't kill very MANY citizens, the insurgents and the terrorists did. War is not a controlled thing, it is chaotic. I think it was predictable that an insurgency would ensue, but for some ridiculous reason Rumsfeld kept denying the reality. This turned into a civil war after the bombing of the mosque in Samarrah. I feel for your friend's family and I hate that so many educated Iraqis have left the country. It is still dangerous.

None the less, they have their freedoms, even if some of them are not in a position to exercise them freely. It will improve.

If its about "Establishing Democracy" then you better start your list of invasions, and I hope you can pay for them too...

In answer to Spud
In answer to Don

And I suppose you could find some way to prove this.

 

[Ron Mars]

It was about WMD's (that were never found) and that's it. Oh and also about links to Al Queada... which there never were either since Saddam deploured radical Islam because it was a threat to his regime...

This is not an accurate statement by any means.

You need to read the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report and the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) report.

From the first page of the Key Findings of the ISG report:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Saddam was knee deep in international terrorism. He worked with terrorists groups of all stripes, including al-Qaeda. Ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

The fact is, you came into a soveriegn country, you killed MANY of its citizens and in the wake of your invasion, havoc insued on a biblical scale in terms of human deaths, and of the absolute brutality...

Complete and total BS. Seriously, you need to read about a subject before you talk about it.

things weren't good during Saddam, but they ain't much better now since people are under threat every day from secterian violence.

Things in Iraq are infinitely better today than under Saddam.

 

[Ron Mars]

You're in denial, mate.

This from a supporter of communism.

Thanks for the yucks!

 

[Jetboogieman]

Due to the fact that Saddam suppressed and oppressed his people, he had no claim to legitimate sovereignty.

Fair enough.

OK so lets start invading all the countries in the world that have suppressed and oppressed their own people, since you claim that was the "Primary Objective".

Shall we start with North Korea the most repressive state in the world? How many casualties do you think are acceptable to "spread Democracy".

I was thinking in that conflict... perhaps 150, 000 American lives lost? 200, 000 injured? I'd say thats a pretty conservative estimate going into battle against one of the largest and most indoctrinated armies in the world. Oh and how will you be paying for all these invasions, Debit, Visa or mastercard?

The public and primarty justification was WMD. The secondary justification was humanitarian intervention. The PRIMARY OBJECTIVE was to spread Democracy:

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly

Primary Objective was to spread democracy? There's no way that's the case, very, very weak. It was meant to make you look good, the primary objective was to take out the threat to national security (that never existed).

It was about WMD's, not democracy.

We didn't kill very MANY citizens, the insurgents and the terrorists did. War is not a controlled thing, it is chaotic. I think it was predictable that an insurgency would ensue, but for some ridiculous reason Rumsfeld kept denying the reality. This turned into a civil war after the bombing of the mosque in Samarrah. I feel for your friend's family and I hate that so many educated Iraqis have left the country. It is still dangerous.

None the less, they have their freedoms, even if some of them are not in a position to exercise them freely. It will improve.

By extension you allowed insurgents to run free that were once tightly controlled by Saddam and terrorists to come to Iraq who were not there before, you knocked out their infrastructure causing massive plight in the cities and collateral damage did occur. You created the mess in Iraq.

That's all you've got? A ****ing picture.

 

[Manc Skipper]

As Colin Powell quoted at the time, " You broke it, you own it." Now pay up.

 

[reefedjib]

Fair enough.

OK so lets start invading all the countries in the world that have suppressed and oppressed their own people, since you claim that was the "Primary Objective".

Shall we start with North Korea the most repressive state in the world? How many casualties do you think are acceptable to "spread Democracy".

I was thinking in that conflict... perhaps 150, 000 American lives lost? 200, 000 injured? I'd say thats a pretty conservative estimate going into battle against one of the largest and most indoctrinated armies in the world. Oh and how will you be paying for all these invasions, Debit, Visa or mastercard?

Did you read the links I posted on this topic?

In answer to Spud
In answer to Don

Primary Objective was to spread democracy? There's no way that's the case, very, very weak. It was meant to make you look good, the primary objective was to take out the threat to national security (that never existed).

It was about WMD's, not democracy.

Absolutely NOT. It was always about instilling democracy in the Middle East and having it spread...which it is doing. Our primary objective in invading Iraq is a COMPLETE SUCCESS. Mind you that there is a HUGE difference between the justification and the objective. Rumsfeld recently said that without the WMD justification we would not have invaded. Ok, fine. But that objective was the answer to the question, what do we do after we have taken down the regime? What do we leave in its place? The old Cold War strategy would have been to install another strongman and disengage, because building a true democracy is really, really messy - everyone knows that. We chose instead the messy solution, but it was the Idealist solution and the solution that aligned our interests with our principles.

What have we gotten out of the invasion?

• Oil contracts? Nope.
• Free oil? Nope.
• Discounted oil? Nope.
• Puppet regime? Nope.
• Bulwark against Iran? Nope.
• Pro-American Iraqi population? Nope (other than the Kurds).
• A Middle East Democracy? You got it.

By extension you allowed insurgents to run free that were once tightly controlled by Saddam and terrorists to come to Iraq who were not there before, you knocked out their infrastructure causing massive plight in the cities and collateral damage did occur. You created the mess in Iraq.

Regime loyalist Baathists and Republican Guard started an insurgency. When we disbanded the Army (a majority Sunni power structure that HAD TO GO to allow consensual government and security), the ex-Army Sunnis joined the insurgency. Meanwhile, Shia were forming/expanding their Hezbollah-modeled militias. Terrorists came from Saudi Arabia like flies to ****. Result - Civil War.

I would not say that we "allowed" these elements to form and act. It is not as if we invited them to cause havoc. I will say that the security vacuum we created, invading, cutting the head off the snake, disbanding the Army, gave them their opportunity.

We ABSOLUTELY DID NOT knock out their infrastructure. We worked hard to rebuild it. Insurgents continually attacked it. It was already in total **** shape, due to previous sanctions. It takes a LONG TIME to rebuild infrastructure capability. They are building a subway line outside of DC right now and it is a 12 year plan.

However, I agree: we are partially responsible for causing the mess in Iraq, most significantly our invasion.

• 1980-1988 US military goods supplied Iran-Iraq War (US)
• 1991 Gulf War (US led coalition)
• 1991-2003 US driven UN sanctions (UN)
• 1991-2003 Oil for Food program and associated corruption and illegal goods transfers. (UN, France, Germany, Russia)
• 2003-2011 US invasion, decapitation, disband Army, counterinsurgency (US and partners)

However, do not discount or blame the US for the actions of the Iraqis <Sunnis, Shia> and terrorists. They are also responsible.

We are responsible for creating the security vacuum.

That's all you've got? A ****ing picture.

I looked for a recent poll of Iraqis that asked the question whether they were happy to be free, happy that we deposed Saddam and his regime. I could not find one. I have seen them in the past (~2008) and the results are mixed.

• Iraqis are mostly happy Saddam is gone (including Sunnis although not as much)
• Iraqis are confident that the future will be better
• Iraqis LOVE their new freedoms
• Iraqis are very concerned about security
• Iraqis are pissed about the lack of electricity.
• Iraqis want the US to leave.
• Iraqis want the US to stay and train Army and Police

Here is a recent poll I found, from Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, October 23 – 30, 2010, that asked only about Iraqi issues, not US involvement. It is very interesting. Note that this is before the government was formed after Sadr joined the State of Law party, with Maliki. Also note that the mere fact that polls are being taken and the Iraqi citizens can express their opinion is only possible as a result of our invasion - they are determining the direction of their country. This does not go unnoticed by the rest of the Middle East.

• They both trust the National Government, Army and Police, yet also hold them responsible for lack of security.
• They want a stronger central government than a strong provincial government.
• They hold the provincial government responsible for services like electricity.
• Basra in particular so not like their provincial government and think it is completely corrupt. I guess Basra is their Chicago.
• Iraqis think they are going in the wrong direction.
• Ordered list of top four biggest problems:
  • Security
  • Services
  • Unemployment
  • Government Corruption

 

[Ron Mars]

As Colin Powell quoted at the time, " You broke it, you own it." Now pay up.

We've paid up in full quite some time ago.

 

[Mason66]

I was using google image search, not concerned with the website.



Weak dude, very very weak.

Look okay, I understand things were bad under Saddam, but who are YOU to go into a sovereign nation and declare that you're going to change its government...

You cannot tell me the objective was to implant democracy in Iraq, yes that might have been a secondary to look good but the fact is, they said "He's got em". It was about WMD's (that were never found) and that's it. Oh and also about links to Al Queada... which there never were either since Saddam deploured radical Islam because it was a threat to his regime...

The fact is, you came into a soveriegn country, you killed MANY of its citizens and in the wake of your invasion, havoc insued on a biblical scale in terms of human deaths, and of the absolute brutality... My best friend is Iraqi, and she tells me her family there can't even let their kids play outside for fear of kidnapping or stepping on a mine, that is no way to live, things weren't good during Saddam, but they ain't much better now since people are under threat every day from secterian violence.

If its about "Establishing Democracy" then you better start your list of invasions, and I hope you can pay for them too...



And I suppose you could find some way to prove this.

Who is going to kidnap their child? Who are they afraid of?

As for the WMDs, Hussein said himself he had them.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

As for the WMDs, Hussein said himself he had them.

Yet there not here. :2bow:
Where could they be? :ssst:

Covered up... by a mass conspira-see?

 

[Mason66]

Yet there not here. :2bow:
Where could they be? :ssst:

Covered up... by a mass conspira-see?

It doesn't matter if they were there or not.

The man himself said he had them.

Should we have called him a liar and wait for him to use one?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

It doesn't matter if they were there or not.

The man himself said he had them.

Should we have called him a liar and wait for him to use one?

 

[Ron Mars]

Yet there not here. :2bow:
Where could they be? :ssst:

Covered up... by a mass conspira-see?

Once again you've stepped into a conversation without knowing the facts. These are direct quotes form the key findings of the ISG report.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Iraq’s decisions in 1996 to accept the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) and later in 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA spurred a period of increased activity in delivery systems development. The Delivery Systems pace of ongoing missile programs accelerated, and the Regime authorized its scientists to design missiles with ranges in excess of 150 km that, if developed, would have been clear violations of UNSCR 687.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam’s continuing desire—up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)—for a long-range delivery capability. Procurements supporting delivery system programs expanded after the 1998 departure of the UN inspectors.

Iraq also hired outside expertise to assist its development programs.

ISG uncovered evidence that technicians and engineers from Russia reviewed the designs and assisted development of the Al Samud II during its rapid evolution. ISG also found that Iraq had entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The posters in this thread make me so, so sad for my country. We invade a country, smash its cities and its infrastructure, and look how you people are responding to a request for pay for the damage we caused.

Millions of people don't have reliable access to running water and electricity because we blew up the infrastructure that delivers it. Pssh, they should expect it, it's war!

Yeah. A war we ****ing started.

We've paid for it in the lives of those who where killed or maimed liberating that country.