The Iraq Thread 2

[Warin 0]

Please continue the Iraq discussion here!

[brgnorway 0]

never mind

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Sorry, but I don't apreciate this move. I like continuity - it makes it easier to go back a few - or for that matter - many pages. The thread worked good. Naturally one has to accept that it "rests" a bit every now and then so we can catch our breath for the next clash! This only serves to hide the "archive" that worked so well.

Of course - this has nothing to do with my name as the initiator of the thread  

§6)No discussion on how the forum is moderated

All comments about how the forum is moderated and your opinions on the moderators should be sent by PM to the moderator whose decision you disagree with

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well Bushs people have come up with a brilliant new theory about what may have happened to the WMD.... They were all looted  

-Independant (be warned- this article may contain traces of socialism)

So let me get this straight...we went to war (and allegedly won) in order to stop Terrorists from getting their hands on Saddams evil weapons but now the weapons have vanished and Bush says they may have been looted (perhaps sold to the highest bidder like certain antiquities)?

Well thanks George old boy. I feel so much safer now  

This thread started with a BBC article so i thought i might as well continue it with one

Quote[/b] ]"Iraq is still a combat zone - that's why we're still taking some casualties."

The stark statement from the commander of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, Lt-General David McKiernan, may have come as a surprise to those who were under the impression that the war in Iraq had ended some time ago.

President George W Bush announced on 1 May that "major hostilities" had halted.

Since then, 40 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq - 12 of them in a spate of attacks carried out in one two-week period.

The attacks stimulated a rash of major US operations, the biggest since the fall of the major Iraqi cities in April.

Thousands of American troops, backed by tanks and air power, deployed into a pocket of terrain around the town of Balad, on the Tigris about 75km north of Baghdad, in a huge four-day combing operation codenamed Peninsula Strike.

Training Camp

About 400 Iraqi potential suspects were detained, though all but 60 were later freed.

Another major operation was launched to destroy a "terrorist training camp" 150km (90 miles) north-west of the capital, with reports that 70 people or more may have been killed in the attack.

Many smaller raids were carried out elsewhere, with the obvious intention of seizing the initiative and keeping the coalition's enemies on the defensive.

How effective that strategy will be in the long term remains to be seen.

But the guerrilla attack on a US convoy only 20km (13 miles) from Balad on Sunday, causing casualties among American soldiers travelling on an open truck on the main highway from Baghdad, signalled that anti-coalition elements were not intimidated by the huge Peninsula Strike campaign.

It also showed how deadly a hit-and-run guerrilla war could be in such terrain.

Military and political analysts single out several factors to explain the resurgence of hostile activity against the coalition forces.

When coalition forces swept into Iraq, they necessarily moved along main strategic routes and left aside large areas of countryside.

Some of these pockets have turned out to contain - or have given refuge to - elements hostile to the occupation forces.

The Americans themselves have consolidated their initial basic occupation and have begun seeking to extend and complete their control, probing into areas they had previously neglected and receiving intelligence about pockets of resistance.

Social improvements needed

The remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and other loyalist forces such as Saddam's Fedayeen (guerrillas) have had time to regroup and catch their breath after the initial invasion.

According to US military officials, they have devised new and more sophisticated ways of striking at the coalition forces, albeit on a local basis and without signs of a centralised national command and control system.

Political observers believe it is vital that efforts to consolidate the security situation should be underpinned by rapid action to improve social and economic conditions, and to fill the huge political vacuum left by the collapse of a strong and all-pervasive dictatorship.

"So far it seems that the violence against the Americans has been rather sporadic and is probably individual acts of violence rather than well-organised and co-ordinated actions," said Adnan Pachachi, a respected veteran Sunni Muslim politician who returned from exile after the regime collapsed.

"But of course that could happen too, because there's a lot of discontent in the country," he warned.

"People are impatient, they had hoped that things would improve quickly and they have not improved.

Need to act quickly

"With the problems of security and living conditions, I wouldn't rule out an explosion," said Mr Pachachi.

"I don't think it's imminent, but the danger signs are there of course, and that's why speed is of the essence.

"I think the installation of an Iraqi government or administration quickly could dispel some of these fears and improve the general situation."

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, is trying to put together an Iraqi interim authority whose members will be appointed by the coalition after a great deal of consultation with Iraqi notables around the country.

Earlier thoughts of having some kind of election by a national convention were discarded because the multiplicity and fractiousness of the vying political contenders meant the process would be very protracted.

But even the more limited political exercise now envisaged will take at least another month before what Mr Bremer calls "some elements of an Iraqi interim administration" will be established.

Coalition officials say they want every Iraqi to be able to identify with that authority and feel that he or she is in some way represented there.

That will be hard to achieve, but the price of failure may be high.

from the Ministry of Truth

[FallenPaladin 0]

Yes, I`ve heard from George W. Bush`s new spiritual ejaculations today. It`s just ridiculous.

[Crazysheep 1]

About 400 Iraqi potential suspects. were detained, though all but 60 were later freed.

Does anyone else get annoyed by the lack of respect for the meaning of words nowadays? Damn newspeak.

[bn880 5]

A link to part one of this thread: Iraq thread part 1

The world's the limit.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/21/sprj.irq.main/index.html

more Iraq news for today.

1. Hussein is most likely to be alive.

2. One more US soldier killed.

Quote[/b] ]Eighteen U.S. troops have been killed in attacks since May 1, when U.S. President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. Another 37 have died in what are described as nonhostile incidents.

[Bernadotte 0]

From the other thread, when the war was just a week old...

Some War Predictions:

Saddam Hussein is dispersing/hiding his forces and armament throughout Iraq like the Taliban did in SE Afghanistan, but on a much larger scale.

The Allies will be allowed to enter Baghdad relatively unopposed.  

Saddam Hussein and his chiefs will go into hiding like Mullah Omar did in Afghanistan.

Many Iraqis will resist the Allied occupation as the Afghans did against the Soviets, with the help of factions in neighbouring states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  This will accelerate in the second half of this year with the loss of many Allied and civilian lives.

The US will use evidence of Iranian and Syrian interference to pursue invading those nations.

Evidence of Saudi involvement will force the Saudi regime to crack down on their Islamic militants with US assistance just like in Iran in the '70s.  The US will occupy the Saudi oil fields to avoid the same outcome as what happened in Iran.

[Badgerboy 0]

From the other thread, when the war was just a week old...

Some War Predictions:

Saddam Hussein is dispersing/hiding his forces and armament throughout Iraq like the Taliban did in SE Afghanistan, but on a much larger scale.

The Allies will be allowed to enter Baghdad relatively unopposed.  

Saddam Hussein and his chiefs will go into hiding like Mullah Omar did in Afghanistan.

Many Iraqis will resist the Allied occupation as the Afghans did against the Soviets, with the help of factions in neighbouring states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  This will accelerate in the second half of this year with the loss of many Allied and civilian lives.

The US will use evidence of Iranian and Syrian interference to pursue invading those nations.

Evidence of Saudi involvement will force the Saudi regime to crack down on their Islamic militants with US assistance just like in Iran in the '70s.  The US will occupy the Saudi oil fields to avoid the same outcome as what happened in Iran.

Jeebus!

You've been playing with that crystal ball again haven't you!

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html

another US casualty

Quote[/b] ]A U.S. soldier died Sunday in a grenade attack on a convoy in Khan Azad, 12 miles south of the Iraqi capital

[FallenPaladin 0]

We are already used to it...

[Balschoiw 0]

who cares. Oil is running....

Quote[/b] ]Irak exportiert wieder Erdöl  

Erstmals seit Kriegsende ist wieder irakisches Erdöl ins Ausland verkauft worden. In der türkischen Hafenstadt Ceyhan wurden insgesamt zwei Millionen Barrel eingelagertes Rohöl in zwei bereit stehende Öltanker gepumpt. Der Erlös aus dem Verkauf fließt in einen von den USA kontrollierten Fonds zum Wiederaufbau des Irak. Weitere Transporte wurden durch die Explosionen zweier Pipelines nach Ceyhan in den vergangenen Wochen verzögert.

translation:

Irak is exporting oil again

For the first time after the end of the war oil produced in Iraq has been sold abroad. At the turkish harbor Ceyhan 2 Billion barrel oil that had been stored there were loaded onto 2 oiltankers. The money made by selling the oil goes into the US controlled fund for rebuilding Iraq. More transports have been hindered by explosions that damaged 2 pipelines to Ceyhan the last weeks.

No blood for oil ?

Hahaha !

I´m glad Bush found an explanation for the missing WMD´s...

Does anyone here still believe he is not a liar ?

If anyone still believes him I suggest to check his Cincinatti speech and read the Washington Post.

The truth and nothing but Bush´s truth...

[FSPilot 0]

I'm confident that we'll either find them, or find out what happened to them (I've heard reports that they were destroyed shortly before the deadline ended). I know they have them, as they've used them in the past. Heck, we even gave some to them. So we know they have them, we just need to find what happened to them.

I don't really care about Iraqi-Al Queda connections as I know about Hussein's connections with hamas.

He was a bad person and the world is better off now that he doesn't have power, but we do need to find those WMDs because some people apparently didn't think he was that bad a person.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I know they have them

Source pls (and pls send a copy the White House)

...again it´s FS

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I've heard reports that they were destroyed shortly before the deadline ended  I know they have them, as they've used them in the past.  Heck, we even gave some to them.  So we know they have them, we just need to find what happened to them.

You heard they have destroyed them, thus complying with the UN resolution

You know they have them, because they used them in the past and some of them were given to them by the US

HENCE you know they have them, but you need to find out what happened to them

You are merely using deductive reasoning to imply that Iraq may have/had WoMDs, but the proof is nonexistant. You are also claiming that they may have been destroyed before the war - thus complying with the UN resolution, thus making the war illegal, thus the US is a rogue nation defying international law

Make your mind up

[Cannon Fodder 0]

I find it absolutely astonishing that senior officials in the Bush administration are trying to push the notion that 'we' might never find the weapons! It seems almost childish that such an obvious and sly caveat is being pushed in an age where people demand answers. If the possibility that the weapons may have been destroyed was even contemplated (and I'm sure those in the Pentagon would have conducted a feasibility report stressing this exact eventuality), it seems one hell of a gamble to invade a country with at least the idea that the occupying force might never find evidence that legitimises the invasion and exonerates the governments of both the UK and the USA.

We should also remember that allegations still continue to run against the governments of both the USA and the UK. The British government, with Tony Blair's Labour party, are still very much under fire with several high-profile resignations (Claire Short and Robin Cook to name the most [in]famous) and continuing accusations of the 'sexing up' of a 12 year old dossier used to legitimise the invasion. Much of the 'sexing up' appears to lie at the door of 'spin doctor' (read:liar) Alistair Campbell - this does not mean we should diregard Tony Blair's pivotal role in this sorry mess.

Yes Saddam was an absolute monster, yes he deserved to be displaced as he was a brutal and sadistic dictator and yes the Iraqi people deserve to be free. On that front, the invasion can be justified (for the time being) as it has seemingly benefitted the population of Iraq. What can never be excused, however, if the deliberate deciet of the the general public of both the UK and the USA over the capability of Iraq's weapons program. The capability to launch a devastating attack in a mere 45 minutes? A lie. We should never, ever, forgive the fact that a government can lie to it's electorate in the face of such a contentious issue like the invasion of another country.

[Harnu 0]

I'm a Newbie to this thread, so I have to ask. What conclusive proof did Saddam give that all his WMD's were infact destroyed?

[Balschoiw 0]

Very well said Cannon Fodder.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What conclusive proof did Saddam give that all his WMD's were infact destroyed?

Counterquestion: Was he technically able to give a proof like that ?

Just for my noisyness: Do you think the US , Russia or any other country could give a comprehensive list of their chemical, bio or nuclear weapons ? A list covering all the materials used to make such wepaons, a list of any facility (even short time storages) where such things have been made, stored, etc ?

Be honest.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

I think the question should be: What conclusive proof did the coalition forces have that Saddam actually had a capable WMD program? (Besides fuzzy and laughable Satellite images that turn out to be mushroom farms and ridiculous tapes depicting 'intercepted' phone calls. Or perhaps you'd prefer an outdated 12 year old PHd thesis, with key phrasing edited?)

If you're going to invade another country, don't you think the onus is on the invading party to support their claim?

That's almost like myself turning up on your doorstep and saying: "Prove to me you didn't assault someone 5 years ago."

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]What conclusive proof did Saddam give that all his WMD's were infact destroyed?

Counterquestion: Was he technically able to give a proof like that ?

Just for my noisyness:  Do you think the US , Russia or any other country could give a comprehensive list of their chemical, bio or nuclear weapons ? A list covering all the materials used to make such wepaons, a list of any facility (even short time storages) where such things have been made, stored, etc ?

Be honest.

So he didn't give any conclusive proff that WMD's were infact destroyed? What do you mean, "Was he technically able to give a proof like that ? "

And for the second part of your post, we would probably, but half-assed.  And that wasn't my question.  I don't care where he stored it, where it was made, how it was made, I'm asking what proof did he have that what was made, was also destroyed?

Quote[/b] ]I think the question should be: What conclusive proof did the coalition forces have that Saddam actually had a capable WMD program? (Besides fuzzy and laughable Satellite images that turn out to be mushroom farms and ridiculous tapes depicting 'intercepted' phone calls. Or perhaps you'd prefer an outdated 12 year old PHd thesis, with key phrasing edited?)

I never said we had conclusive proof.  What we did have were the Satellite Imagery (Interpreted by experts), 'intercepted' phone calls, that quite well could have been Iraqi military.  We also had the fact they they kicked out the UN Inspectors, the fact he has used chemical weapons before, but this has all already been said.  Let's not continue in circles like the last thread did for how many pages?

I was asking a simple question, which should recieve a simple answer, not misdirected into counter-questions.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let's not continue in circles like the last thread did for how many pages?

I was asking a simple question, which should recieve a simple answer, not misdirected into counter-questions.

The way I see it the whole picture of the Iraqi war is so complex and has so many interests to it that you are not likely to "solve" it in a couple of pages or replies.

Basically, the burden of proof has been forced on the former Iraqi regime by US and the "coalition of the willing" instead of the one throwing threats and accusations. Wouldn't you say it would be more reasonable if US presented the "proof" like they did during the Cuba Crisis?

When you do something as serious and grave as waging a war on someone - a war that ultimately will result in innocent people getting killed and mutilated - shouldn't you at least try to present decent proof to support your allegations?

[turms 0]

If you are accused of robbery, for example, can you receive a jail sentence becouse of the lack of evidence that you did not do it?

Or is the bourdon of proof at the prosecutor?

[Harnu 0]

Perhaps the concept of a simple yes or no question is beyond some of you.

Did Iraq, provide conclusive proof, that it had destroyed any or all weapons of mass destruction that it had.

Now it's quite simple, yes they did, or no they didn't.

Not "counterquestion" or "don't you think that" or "shouldn't it be...".

I wasn't asking for an argument. I'm asking for one, single word. Either yes, or no.