Iraq... What a mess!

[cnredd]

Credit for above...Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

[Moderator Mode]

In the future please adhere to our Forum rules...

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Thank you...

[Moderator Mode]

 

[tototu]

You should notice a link at the begining of the article.:2wave:
Sorry about the entire article. I'll do better next time. Want me to gut it?

 

[cnredd]

You should notice a link at the begining of the article.:2wave:

And you should notice I wasn't talking about the link itself...

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

 

[KCConservative]

Isn't it ironic how fast one of our friends on the far left can't wait to post something bad that happens in Iraq................

When something good happens they never post it...........

Hence my signature.

 

[scottyz]

Wikipedia defines is as a war in which the competing parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth.

I'd say it has been a civil war for a while, but with the bombing of the mosques, and the retalitory bombings in Baghdad, the offical civil war may be on now.

What a mess. Gee, how could anyone have forseen this? Oh wait, everyone did - even GHWB.

I hope things work out for the Iraqis, but it is hard when the war was such a bonehead idea in the first place.

There have been something like 90 attacks on Sunni mosques and there are armed militias roaming around. No doubt there will be retaliation from the Sunni's. It certainly sounds like civil war to me. Our own intelligence agencies forsaw it, Bush sr. even wrote something about it in his book. During our first stint in Iraq Mr. Cheney had this to say...

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many."

 

[oldreliable67]

Saddam won't and never has. Not to mention he was never one that the US ever seriously considered a WMD threat. North Korea, Iran, completely different beast, why not deal with the real threat instead of picking on rediculously obsolete countries.

Anyone who believes that, left unfettered, Saddam would not have had nuclear weapons is being completely fatuous.

 

[Conflict]

Credit for above...Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

Aren't you capable of speaking for yourself?

 

[Conflict]

I just saw laura ingrahm on MSNBC going on and on about how perhaps 5% of our troops are helping to train the Iraquis to conform to our will. It's going well according to her. Her bleeding heart is the decrier of a cherry picked perception of the situation, not the facts.

The facts of the matter are that the conjecture for justification entering this war have changed drastically. We went into this with guns blazing. We were not worried about liberation from the get go and I can attest to that empirically.

It's funny only after we failed to find WMD, which was the basis of our overt tactics, did people start coming out of the wood works defending the liberation of the Iraqui people. Prior to that the orders were "to let nothing stand in your way". Not even the Iraqui people.

This is yet more implanted diatribe by the neo-con administration to obfuscate the fact that this war has yet to be justified in a pragmatic sense... instead they've flip flopped to the PR standpoint in which they try to say "but look what we are doing for the Iraqui people".

In essence they're stating that it is the responsibility of the American taxpayers to dictate our political belief upon a nation that posed absolutely no threat to us.

 

[Conflict]

Anyone who believes that, left unfettered, Saddam would not have had nuclear weapons is being completely fatuous.

Here in the united states we deal with things like proof and evidence. It's the American way. If you don't like it.. then take your *** to Iraq.

Pragmatism

 

[KidRocks]

Anyone who believes that, left unfettered, Saddam would not have had nuclear weapons is being completely fatuous.

Are you for real?

Everyone knows that Saddam had no nukes, nada, zilch, zero!

 

[oldreliable67]

Here in the united states we deal with things like proof and evidence. It's the American way. If you don't like it.. then take your *** to Iraq.

Great way to debate. Not.

Hey, you have your opinion and I have mine. Thats the American way.

Proof? Remember, there are no arguments about Saddam once having WMDs, the only question is what did he do with them. That was the basis of the UN inspections and UN resolutions: Saddam was to account for the weapons that the UN knew he once had. He did not or could not.

BTW, rest assured, if they would take my old used-up 11Bravo body, I would re-up in a New York minute.

 

[Conflict]

Great way to debate. Not.

Hey, you have your opinion and I have mine. Thats the American way.

Proof? Remember, there are no arguments about Saddam once having WMDs, the only question is what did he do with them. That was the basis of the UN inspections and UN resolutions: Saddam was to account for the weapons that the UN knew he once had. He did not or could not.

BTW, rest assured, if they would take my old used-up 11Bravo body, I would re-up in a New York minute.

There was never any proof that Saddam had WMD's.... there was only his insinuation that he possessed chemical warheads (in which case he has never had the ICBM capability to deliver them).... which was nothing more (in my opinion) than political posturing.

The UN never stated that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.

 

[oldreliable67]

Are you for real?

Everyone knows that Saddam had no nukes, nada, zilch, zero!

Read a bit more carefully. I said, left unfettered. Like Conflict, you need to remember that there are no arguments about Saddam once having WMDs, the only question is what did he do with them. That was the basis of the UN inspections and UN resolutions: Saddam was to account for the weapons that the UN knew he once had. He did not or could not.

Former inspector Scott Ritter, who went to create quite a stir in his criticisms of all things US with respect to Iraq, in his resignation letter:

"The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions. As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today." And,

"the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the residency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces. This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability . .. "

Source.

On March 11, 2003 a column in the Washington Post by frequent Bush critic Richard Cohen first admonished the Bush administration for oscillating between regime change to disarmament to bringing democracy to the Arab world. He accused the Bush administration of a “tour de force of inept diplomacy.’ But he then proceeded to acknowledge that it was necessary to go to war anyway. “Sometimes peace is no better, especially if all it does is postpone a worse war,” and that “is what would happen if the United States now pulled back…Hussein would wait us out…If, at the moment, he does not have nuclear weapons, It’s not for lack of trying. He had such a program once and he will have one again – just as soon as the world loses interest and the pressure on him is relaxed.” In the meantime, Mr. Cohen wrote, Hussein would “stay in power – a thug in control of a crucial Middle Eastern nation…He will continue to oppress and murder his own people…and resume support of terrorism abroad. He is who he is. He deserves no second chance.”

Based on a lot of evidence, my opinion is that left alone, Saddam would have pursued his well-documented interest in obtaining nukes.

 

[Conflict]

that there are no arguments about Saddam once having WMDs,

Source? Saddam was merely being defiant to UN inspection. The UN never found anything that was of such emergence.

Based on a lot of evidence

Where's the evidence?

 

[oldreliable67]

there was only his insinuation that he possessed chemical warheads...

Hans Blix disagrees. Google for his January 2003 comments on the 122 mm rockets equipped to handle chem warheads.

Even Scott Ritter, in addition to his comments in his resignation letter, said the following:

"Ritter’s tirades about the alleged lies of the Bush administration[xiii] read strangely, even in retrospect, when one considers what he wrote in 1999. At a minimum, he asserted, Iraq had maintained “the capability to produce, weaponise, store and employ chemical weapons” and had not accounted for hundreds of tons of precursor chemicals used in making the nerve agent VX. It had similarly retained capacities in the areas of biological weapons, ballistic missiles and the ‘intellectual infrastructure’ for nuclear weapon manufacturing."

Source.

 

[Conflict]

Hans Blix disagrees. Google for his January 2003 comments on the 122 mm rockets equipped to handle chem warheads.

Even Scott Ritter, in addition to his comments in his resignation letter, said the following:

"Ritter’s tirades about the alleged lies of the Bush administration[xiii] read strangely, even in retrospect, when one considers what he wrote in 1999. At a minimum, he asserted, Iraq had maintained “the capability to produce, weaponise, store and employ chemical weapons” and had not accounted for hundreds of tons of precursor chemicals used in making the nerve agent VX. It had similarly retained capacities in the areas of biological weapons, ballistic missiles and the ‘intellectual infrastructure’ for nuclear weapon manufacturing."

Source.

Why are you posting an Australian website to back your claims? I doubt Mr. Van Gelder is too involved in the situation.

You're source is not only questionable... it's down right inconceivable. We are dealing with issues of United States Military Intelligence here. If you are not prepared to deal with the facts of the matter as it pertains to the American people and their sacrifices in the war in Iraq than perhaps you should move to Australia instead of Iraq.

You haven't posted any evidence... again you've only posted further diatribe that does nothing more than attempt to play to the semantical role of perception, not the simple pragmatic rule of fact (or law) that you so eloquently avoid.

You can post every op-ed column that you wish but the fact is that you CANNOT substantiate a damn thing.

I'm done here. THis is pointless. I'm tired of people like you attempting to insult the intelligence of the American People.

 

[oldreliable67]

Source? Saddam was merely being defiant to UN inspection. The UN never found anything that was of such emergence.
Where's the evidence?

cnredd posted quite a lot of the evidence complete with links a while back. Rather than redo all of his stuff, I'll paste this excerpt:

"In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors found WMDs...That is fact...What does that have to do with the war?...keep reading...

The inspectors were then kicked out by Cindy Shee....whoops!...wrong thread!...I mean, "Saddam"...

In 2002/3 the new team of weapons inspectors showed up...Before we get any further, an explanation must be made...

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

I will say it again because some of the forum members are not up to speed with this...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

This part is really important, so I will type slower....

The fact that they weren't found IS the problem!...The 1998 inspection team PHYSICALLY saw them...So the question is "Where are they NOW?"...The burden of proof fell on Saddam to PROVE what happened to them...NOT for the inspection teams to FIND them.

Remember...According to the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq, the U.N. had agreed not to lift sanctions until Iraq's full compliance had been verified.

Anyone want to guess why the sanctions were STILL on Iraq at the time of the war?...Simple...Iraq was not in FULL COMPLIANCE. If the 2003 inspection team was allowed to continue, would "full compliance" have been met?...Nope...Saddam didn't grant them "unfettered access", which means the actual inspections would never have been complete...Just like the previous inspection team's...THAT is what Saddam was counting on...another "shell-game" that would've ended with the UN giving in...

You may want to believe otherwise, but history has shown this to be the case...The term "This time we mean it!" has been used by the UN before, and every single time Saddam laughed at them...

If the US didn't throw in the monkey wrench, the UN would've lifted sanctions WITHOUT full compliance, and this would be more proof to the world that the UN is toothless...Their resolutions are meaningless...

So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

Saddam's burden of proof was not met...He provided no sources for his claim that everything was destroyed...And when some people say "There were no WMDs", they are saying, "Even though Saddam didn't prove that he got rid of them...I believe him when he says that he did." "

And here is an excerpt from an actual UNSCOM report:

49. The Commission has a certain degree of confidence in the accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war. The Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors. Outstanding issues remain. These include the accounting for 2,000 unfilled and 550 filled special munitions.

50. The Commission has a lesser degree of confidence in accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally. These include 15,900 unfilled and 100 filled special munitions, the CW agent VX and 50 tonnes of a precursor for the production of VX. Nevertheless, the Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 13,660 special munitions and about 200 tonnes of key precursors. However, residual questions remain with respect to proscribed items destroyed unilaterally. The presentation by foreign suppliers of information on the delivery of munitions and precursors requested by UNSCOM could be helpful in the verification of this area.

51. The priority should be given to the resolution of the most important outstanding issues. These include: material balance of chemical munitions (including verification of the expenditure of special munitions in the 1980s, which is required to increase a degree of confidence with respect to Iraq's declarations of chemical weapons remained in Iraq in 1991; the accounting for 550 artillery shells filled with mustard; verification of the unilateral destruction of R-400 chemical and biological aerial bombs); accounting for the production of the chemical warfare agent VX, and; verification of the completeness of declarations provided by Iraq on the material balance of CW production equipment removed from the Muthanna State Establishment (MSE) prior to the UNSCOM inspections.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Want more?

 

[oldreliable67]

You can post every op-ed column that you wish but the fact is that you CANNOT substantiate a damn thing.

You don't believe Scott Ritter? I thought he was a favorite of people like yourself. BTW, why would it matter where his resignation letter was published? That source just happened to be the first one up on Google. So, get real.

Waiting for your reaction to the portion of the UNSCOM report posted above.

 

[oldreliable67]

I'm done here. THis is pointless. I'm tired of people like you attempting to insult the intelligence of the American People.

Giving up, eh? Can't stand it when you're wrong?

It seems very much as though you haven't done your homework and have relied on others for your opinions.

 

[Conflict]

You don't believe Scott Ritter? I thought he was a favorite of people like yourself. BTW, why would it matter where his resignation letter was published? That source just happened to be the first one up on Google. So, get real.

Waiting for your reaction to the portion of the UNSCOM report posted above.

Read through the thread. You've attempted to pull out every stop that you can. I've stated my case. Let's let the jury decide if you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a no brainer. I'm done here. No offense but you are a waste of time. An apologist. You are not concerned with facts. You speak of evidence yet you only provide subjective testimony which has the detriment of conflict of interest written all over it. That is the way of the Bush Administration and their fanatical supporters. Good Night, and Good Luck! :2razz:

 

[oldreliable67]

Read through the thread. You've attempted to pull out every stop that you can. I've stated my case. Let's let the jury decide if you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a no brainer. I'm done here. No offense but you are a waste of time. An apologist. You are not concerned with facts. You speak of evidence yet you only provide subjective testimony which has the detriment of conflict of interest written all over it. That is the way of the Bush Administration and their fanatical supporters. Good Night, and Good Luck! :2razz:

I've offered UNSCOM reports and the words of Scott Ritter and Hans Blix (people generally regarded as critical of the US effort). That is hardly an 'apologists' speaking. You, on the other hand, have provided only invective designed to denigrate. You are wrong and you know it.

 

[jfuh]

Anyone who believes that, left unfettered, Saddam would not have had nuclear weapons is being completely fatuous.

Is that whay I argued? No, I said Saddam was never one that the US ever considered to have the capacity for a nuclear threat. In fact Iraq very much did not have the nuclear capability to threaten the US. Saddam had no delivery system that could reach the US be it missle, naval, or air power. No such system.
Now did Saddam have nuclear systems at all? No. Did he try to persue such technology? Most deffinetely yes.
Was Saddam succesful in obtaining such technology? To be fair, there's no evidence to suggest for or against that is sufficient and fully credible. Though till this day it seems like he hadn't aquired such technology at all.

 

[oldreliable67]

Did he try to persue such technology? Most deffinetely yes.

Which is exactly what I asserted that he would continue to do if left unchecked, "Anyone who believes that, left unfettered, Saddam would not have had nuclear weapons is being completely fatuous."

You are correct in all other respects: Did he have nukes at the time of our invasion? No. Did he have a delivery system for nukes, even if he had them? Sort of: sharing them with terrorists for physically smuggling them into a target country (which was our main fear), and short-range missles that could have been capable of hoisting them - but nothing that would reach our shores.

 

[easyt65]

The feud between the factions is ancient and religeous-based. It has been simmering for a very long time. The fact thatthey have put their differences aside for this long in order to work together to form this democratic goverment is an accomplishment in itself! They have come together because there was something far worse than each other needing to be fought - Hussein! Now that he is gone, it is back to squabbing with each other. Again, the fact that they are still working together is a big accomplishment and promising.

The bombings of each others' mosques are fueling the tensions, though. They need to quickly see that it is the insurgents who are doing this, trying to force their hand into civil war, meaning the U.S. pulls out, the collapse of the new goverment, and the Iranians going full-bore trying to take over with nothing less than a puppet-Iranian dictator/leader in power of the mess that comes out of it all.

They have way more to lose if all that happens than if they continue to hold all of this together. I just hope and pray that they can do just that and form a unique nation of democracy in the middle east...but the dividing lines of religeon and hundreds of years of hatred may be stonger than the unifying bonds of democracy and freedom.

 

[GarzaUK]

.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us.It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

Who wrote this?? I'm going to have to give him a slap. This guy is a stupid historian.

Congress did not declare war on Germany, other way round.
Ireland was not an ally it was neutral. Northern Ireland was, but not the Republic of Ireland. OH yeah what about the Welsh, don't leave them out.

These are basic things any respectable WW2 historian would know. That's why when i read the above I stopped reading, there was no point.