The Iraq Thread 2

[Major Fubar 0]

I mean it wasn't completely about oil.

True. And WW2 wasn't completely about Hitler's expansionist tendencies...

[Supah 0]

Recently noticed something strange. When ever you see images of starving looking iraqi's with barely a shirt on their back rioting there is always a well fed well dressed mullah around.

[Longinius 1]

Thats not something strange. Thats religion.

[PitViper 0]

Bush lied?

[Crazysheep 1]

If you want to talk about the past, fine.  But this thread is about the current Iraq war.  I could go on and on about German crimes against humanity in WWII, but it's just as irrelevant as why we assisted Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

*pulls hair out*

I was responding to your criticisms of France defending Iraq because of their oil contracts, saying criticism is hypocritical because the USA has done exactly the same before, except with violence rather than complaining a lot......so it's related to this gulf war.

[Akira 0]

Thats not something strange. Thats religion.

I think his point was that the fat-cats of the religion...the ones not starving, not having a problem getting water, with clean new clothes, are the ones inciting.

[Crazysheep 1]

I think his point was that the fat-cats of the religion...the ones not starving, not having a problem getting water, with clean new clothes, are the ones inciting.

It's always like that.....the politically minded are always upper class, and stirring up protests can nearly always be classed as political.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Its heating up for the Blair government over alleged 'deception' in the run up to the war and a massive rift has now developed between the BBC and the government ( i wonder what Denoir would make of that) . Basically the BBC accused the government of lieing in relation to its dossiers on the Iraq WMD program, then Alistair Campbell (the cheif British 'spin doctor') accused the BBC of making up lies to discredit the government and got amusingly angry in a written press briefing and a TV interview

- the government is being pressed hard by the media now. hahaha. Good.

[Warin 0]

Bush lied?

That article tries desperately to show that there were no fabrications or exagerations in the Bush Administration rhetoric leading to war. It fails miserably, even if you ignore that the source is a heavily right leaning journal.

The author claimes that:

Quote[/b] ]In the Iraqi weapons case, the administration's critics are hard at work rewriting history. Some of them are even rewriting themselves

What he is doing in his article is trying to downplay the lies of the administration (aluminum tubes, nigerian uranium, Iraqi theater commanders having chemical and biological weapons) and try to lessen the impact of the deception to the American people.

History will tell...

[Cannon Fodder 0]

Alistair Campbell has demanded an apology from the BBC, and apparently it should come "very soon". What's he going to do? Shout at them some more? It's more than likely this will progress to the Press Standards committee... It's very rare to see him slither out from behind the scenes and fight his own corner - but this is the first time an allegation has slipped off teflon Tony and attached itself to Campbell (after all, he is the main culprit in this sorry 'state of affairs'). The BBC are citing a source in one of the many intelligence circles in the UK as justification for their report of the 'sexing up' (a phrase that repulses me every time I type it) of the dossier. According to the report, when the source was asked who was responsible for the dossier's manhandling, he simply replied "Campbell" (no doubt in an ominous, melodramatic tone).

Alistair's reputation, worth very little in the first instance, is now permanently tarnished. I don't think he can London marathon his way out of this one - Tony now faces a difficult decision. Will he sever ties with a man who while simultaneously has been responsible for some of his major propaganda successes, has also been responsible for one of his major propaganda failures (after all, it was merely a matter of time before he fell from grace)?

[FSPilot 0]

MajorFubar

Quote[/b] ]True. And WW2 wasn't completely about Hitler's expansionist tendencies...

Hey, it was also about Japan and Italy's expansionist tendencies.

CrazySheep

Quote[/b] ]*pulls hair out*

I was responding to your criticisms of France defending Iraq because of their oil contracts, saying criticism is hypocritical because the USA has done exactly the same before, except with violence rather than complaining a lot......so it's related to this gulf war.

And I was responding by saying that if you want to talk about the past with different administrations and leaderships we can talk about Germany and Japan in WWII. Gulf War I may of been recent history, but most everything has changed. Different president, different military, different international scenario. And if you think Bush was just finishing Bush Sr.'s business then I'm done talking with you.

[Warin 0]

MajorFubar

Quote[/b] ]True. And WW2 wasn't completely about Hitler's expansionist tendencies...

Hey, it was also about Japan and Italy's expansionist tendencies.  

CrazySheep

Quote[/b] ]*pulls hair out*

I was responding to your criticisms of France defending Iraq because of their oil contracts, saying criticism is hypocritical because the USA has done exactly the same before, except with violence rather than complaining a lot......so it's related to this gulf war.

And I was responding by saying that if you want to talk about the past with different administrations and leaderships we can talk about Germany and Japan in WWII.  Gulf War I may of been recent history, but most everything has changed.  Different president, different military, different international scenario.  And if you think Bush was just finishing Bush Sr.'s business then I'm done talking with you.

LOL.  You really kill me

The current Iraq conflict is intimately tied to US Foreign Policy through the two previous republican presidents before Shrub.

Reagan swept to power when Carter was seen to be inefficient and ineffectual after the Shah was ousted by Khomeni.  Reagan then decided that Iran was the enemy, and pretty much backed Saddam through his war with Iran.  Bush Sr. had his cronies dupe Saddam into invading Kuwait (We wont get involved in Aran-Arab conflict), and then tried to bolster his sinking popularity with Gulf War 1 (For all the good it did him.  just like Jr will be, Sr was a one term president).  This set Saddam up as a 'madman' and is a direct precursor of the current conflict.  Trying to say that Bush Sr has nothing to do with the current conflict is.. for lack of a batter word, totally blind.

[FSPilot 0]

This just proves my point that some people still think, despite years of horrible persecution and torture of his own people, some people still think Saddam Hussein wasn't a madman. The world is a better place now that he's not in power.

[Warin 0]

This just proves my point that some people still think, despite years of horrible persecution and torture of his own people, some people still think Saddam Hussein wasn't a madman.  The world is a better place now that he's not in power.

You selectively read posts, dont you?

No one is saying Saddam was a good guy. No one is trying to say that Iraq wont be a better place now that he's gone.

What people are (rightly) saying is that the United States lied and misrepresented the truth, deliberately, in order to conduct a war to oust him. And that is what is wrong, not that Saddam is gone.

[hellfish6 7]

This just proves my point that some people still think, despite years of horrible persecution and torture of his own people, some people still think Saddam Hussein wasn't a madman.  The world is a better place now that he's not in power.

We all know Saddam was a nutjob - but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that he was at his nuttiest when he had the backing of the US. Who turned a blind eye to his gassing of the Kurds and Iranians? Who gave him access to those weapons in the first place? Who suggested that military action against Kuwait would resolve the Iraqi oil theft?

[FSPilot 0]

Warin

Quote[/b] ]What people are (rightly) saying is that the United States lied and misrepresented the truth, deliberately, in order to conduct a war to oust him. And that is what is wrong, not that Saddam is gone.

Ok, so what did you mean by

Quote[/b] ]This set Saddam up as a 'madman' and is a direct precursor of the current conflict.

I assume it meant that he wasn't a "madman" before or after the first gulf war, but I could be wrong.

Hellfish

Quote[/b] ]Who turned a blind eye to his gassing of the Kurds and Iranians?

The whole world. I didn't see Germany and France doing anything about it.

Quote[/b] ]Who gave him access to those weapons in the first place?

Not just the US, a lot of countries.

Quote[/b] ]Who suggested that military action against Kuwait would resolve the Iraqi oil theft?

Probably Kuwait. Either way it wasn't just the US, a large coalition took military action against Iraq.

[PFC_Mike 2]

While everyone just stood there and watch the Baathists slaughter the Iraqis, the US, France, Germany, and Russia deserve the most blame. Who taught him tactics? Who sold him his kalishnikovs and t-55's and BMP's? Who sold him those gold-plated MP5's? Who built his bunkers and set up special oil contracts? WHO GAVE HIM A FREAKING REACTOR?

There were a lot of non-oil related reasons for GW2 that were still lacking in moral value. A US-controlled Iraq allows the US to rebase aircraft and troops. It also allows the US to tighten screws on the Saudis. With a cheap supply of oil and no dependency on Saudi bases, the Saudi regime can't support terrorism and militant islam without severe repercussions.

[PFC_Mike 2]

My question to everyone: Is the world better off with or without the war? I think yes. Civillian casualties pale in comparison to the number of innocents murdered by Saddam.

As for WMD, the notoriously unreliable Debkafile maintains that they were transfered to Syria. If you were Saddam, would you keep them? They would only justify the war. At most, you might kill a few dozen US troops and would rally public opinion against you.

[FSPilot 0]

And that's exactly why he didn't use them in GW2. Then Bush would be the good guy, as opposed to Saddam who people seemed to favor.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Who turned a blind eye to his gassing of the Kurds and Iranians?

The whole world.  I didn't see Germany and France doing anything about it.

Because France and the US were, for all intents and purposes, controlled by the US at the time - they relied on the US, to varying degrees, for economic, political and military well-being. Of course they weren't going to throw a fit about a bunch of guys gassing each other thousands of kilometers away when they've got the whole Soviet Army sitting right across the border and a McDonalds on every corner. In the Cold War, you had little to gain and much to lose by questioning US policy.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Who gave him access to those weapons in the first place?

Not just the US, a lot of countries.

Again - at the behest of the US. I'm sure French, German, British and American chemical companies weren't raising issues of humanitarianism and ethics when the US was saying "Well, we know he's a jerk, but he's our jerk, so let's give him some gas. He'll use it on the Iranians and maybe - just maybe - we can destabilize the Iranian government enough to put the Shah back in there". The chemical companies, looking over their shoulder to make sure that this great news, these huge new profits, were really true just saw Uncle Sam winking and smiling at them.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Who suggested that military action against Kuwait would resolve the Iraqi oil theft?

Probably Kuwait.  Either way it wasn't just the US, a large coalition took military action against Iraq.

That's just plain conjecture on your part about Kuwait encouraging the Iraqis. And it WAS just the US. For all intents and purposes, nobody else really fought in the Gulf War I. Come on - the French and British sent a token force that saw limited action. The Arab States (including the GCC, Egypt, Syria and even the Saudis after Khafji) sat on the sidelines cheering the Americans on. When 90+% of the force used had a big ole Stars 'n' Stripes on it, you can bet that it was an American military that liberated Kuwait. Everyone else was there to wave their flag and scream "Look! We're important and helpful too! Give us oil!"

I mean, you hear GWB talking about how it was a "Coalition" effort to take out Saddan in OpIF. Yes, I suppose the legal definition of a coalition would be two or more countries fighting for a common goal. But come on - Australia and Poland were the only other countries that contributed any kind of force to the war, and even then just a few hundred specops or aircrews. That hardly makes it a coalition in my book. That's like saying poop smells kind of stinky. While it does meet the definition, it doesn't accurately describe what it was.

[hellfish6 7]

And that's exactly why he didn't use them in GW2.  Then Bush would be the good guy, as opposed to Saddam who people seemed to favor.  

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that maybe they just DO NOT EXIST!

[FallenPaladin 0]

Yes, exactly. The US intelligence had proof that there were WMDs in Iraq and they knew exactly where they were hidden. Before the invasion of course. 

Now they are soooo incompetent that they allow Saddam with a enormous convoy of mobile laboratories of all kinds and trucks filled with thousands of liters of gas and other trucks with tons of rockets and other WMDs to drive to Syria. Where are those nice satellites used to capture the proof for Colin Powell`s speech when you need them?  

It`s so laughable! G. W. Bush lied to his country and his believers are clasping to straws because they don`t want to realize that their leader is not better than so many criminals on other places.  

[USSoldier11B 0]

Aside from the argument about why this war is being fought. (which even the most consevative pro-Bush Admin. of us agree has little to do with WMD.) I think the conflict is being handled very well by CENTCOM. I really deplore how the liberal elements of the news media are attempting to "Vietnamize" what's happening. I guess the "shock and awe" media orgasm has subsided and now that nothing dramatic has happened they are nitpicking U.S. actions and casualty reports because there is nothing else to report. Sure is a load of crap given the fact that they were begging to be imbedded with combat units a few months ago. American news media doesn't care about "news" all they care about it selling the story. Hence the attempted PFC Lynch media orgy. If there is one thing I dislike about my own nation it is our media. (not that I like yours *coughBBCcough* either)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]*coughBBCcough*

I find it funny that USSoldier11B accuses the BBC of (what amounts to) liberal anti american, anti war (terrorist scum loving?) bias and Denoir accused the BBC of pro government, one sided and unquestioningly positive war reporting. And now the B.Liar governments chief propaganda man accuses the BBC of lieing about the British government and debasing its standards in its reports on the pre war intelligence given to the public to justify war.

When the British government ,Denoir and USSoldier11B are all disliking the BBCs reporting and accusing it of bias then it must be doing something right

[USSoldier11B 0]

yeah, well at least I'm being fair. No bias here, I hate all media equally.