The Iraq Thread 2

[walker 0]

Hi all

Now that the Kurdish intelegence have helped the US Army find Sadam  (a fact that seems to have been lost in all the HooHaaa) US intelegence being so incompetant. Perhaps they can now ask the Kurds to find the WMD.

I think it would help if we state the current position:

(1)WMD and the threat of Sadam

The initial given reason for the War was a preemptive strike to defend the US and other countries alied to the US against the possiblity of WMD being used either by his friends who were terrorists or by his own millitary using intercontinental rockets

(2)Regime change

A secondary reason for the war was to remove a tyrant, Sadam, and his powerbase, the Baath party, from power.

In the first these aims the coalition has failed.

(1a) Failure to find WMD and ICBMs

No WMD has been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.

No inter continental rockets have been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.

We know the WMD existed in the past because the chemicals and plant to make them were sold to Sadam by the current US Vice president.

We know they had the rockets because the Russians gave them the medium range rockets and their very educated workforce (many of the worlds top scientists were educated in Iraq) were working on extending the range of these missiles. The UN found some and destroyed them.

Neither of these were found so either they were given to terrorists in which case attacking Sadam was a real big booboo or they were given to Syria or Iran both nations could now in theory obliterate Israel with them, another big booboo.

A more likely probablility is that they were destroyed by the UN as has been said by the Sadam govenment when it was in power and most world inteligence services including the CIA believed.

Political consequences of the TBA's and TBA2's private inteligence departments failure to correctly access the Iraq threat

TBA = The Bush Administration

TBA2 = The Blair Administration

Political Consequences of Coalition Failure to find WMD

WMD was the pretext for War (with it Sadam and Iraq was seen as dangerous to the coalition countries)

If the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD.

It does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour)

Or were stupid (criminal neglegence)

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them

by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US.

Otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

In the seconday aim of removing Sadam and perhaps the Baath Party the coalition has been successfull.

(2a)The coalition with the help of Kurdish intlegence has found Sadam

We knew he existed because there were pictures and film of him shaking hands with members of the curent US administration after he gassed the Kurds in Halabja.

Political Consequences of Coalition Sucess in finding Sadam.

In finding Sadam the coalition has removed a continuous focus of resistance and threat to any future democratic government in Iraq.

In finding Sadam the Coalition are not seen as loosers.

When those who back winners see you are not a looser they switch sides.

If you find the person who you blame the war on it means people whos country you bombed resent you less.

This will regain some of the initiative. It must not be alowed to slip by self congratulatory backsliding.

STILL TO DO

Failing to rebuild a country after you smashed it apart in a war makes the people who live there resent you.

If you can not even find the WMD, for which you fought the war, they resent you more.

If while you are failing to find the WMD you smash up the wrong peoples houses or shoot their inocent family members, friendly fire happens accepted but it dont alter how people feel, they will resent you more.

The 750,000 dolars in the suitcase was Sadams daily bribe money where is the rest? It belongs to the Iraqi people and can be used to help reconstruct the country.

Failing to adress the economic, social and political needs of Iraqis would mean a former Evil Tyrant, Sadam will begin to be seen as a Robin Hood.

Some History

Before GW2 Sadam was not involved in funding the training or attacks of any Terrorist orgnisations. He was singularly hated by Al Queda as he was the head of a secular state founded around the communist ideals of Baath party. Al Queda was initialy grown by the CIA as a conduit and control system for anti communist activity in Afghanistan but it went rogue in the 90s.

After GW2 Sadam got out with LOTS of money much in offshore numbered accounts and at least 3 container loads of Dollars were seen leaving the Iraq National Bank in the days before the US secured Bahgdad. Sadam's pocket change.

US inteligence has found evidence to believe that the former enemies Al Queda and Sadam had found common cause in attacking the coalition.

Al Qeda after the fall of Afghanistan could afford to do one attack somwhere in the world every 6 months.

With Sadam's economic backing it was managing 1 or 2 a month.

Sadam had perhaps a few thousand fanatical supporters in his own country via his money he had access to the Al Queda

Sadams money is unacounted for; it may have already been transfered to AlQueda (let us pray it has not)

As a result of the inept actions of the US intelegence there has been a growing local Iraqi resistance, with the capture of Sadam the coalition gained some initiative it must now make use of it to further its New War Aims.

Consequences for the War on terror

Before GW2 Al Queda was significantly weakened by the attacks in Afghanistan. Afgahanistan had a sufficient force of Coalition trops there to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban. Effort was being made to rebuild the country and remove it as an Al Queda recruiting base. Since GW2 the number and quality of these troops has been reduced to feed in to the increasing demand on troop numbers in Iraq.

The mistake of fighting a war on two fronts

Any one with a brain can see that is fighting a war on two fronts always costly and considered a strategic error.

As a result the US and the Coalition members are in more danger of terrorism than before GW2 or are the higher number of attacks my imagination? It may even include a WMD threat. Let us just pray the WMD was not there in Iraq in the first place.

TBA and TBA2s failure at a time of War

So both TBA and TBA2 have failed us at a time of war by increasing the number of enemies the coalition faces and by failing to deal with those dangerous enemies. Where is Bin Laden? Maybe Kurdish intelegence can help the Coalition find Him.

The single biggest sin a democratic administration can make is failure in war. It is considered a terminal error.

Still we live in democracies we can get rid of lame duck administrations. I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitamacy if they atempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.  It is a cheaper option than having them continue on unable to govern.

TBA2 Tied up in ivestigations

Allready the UK government has had to spend months of adminstration time and money explaining its actions with regard to the whistle blower Dr David Kelly and its PR department has wasted more doing a hatchet job on the reporter Andrew Gilligan. All for what to say it did not lie when it said the Iraqis had WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes (it was refering to WW1 style Gas shells that it could fire maybe 25 miles) but it left everyone with the impression this was WMD that could be fired on UK bases in Cyprus. The results of inquiry are due out this month. Then there is the inquiry into the UK going to war on inccorect evidence to be started.

TBA Tied up in ivestigations

In the US the investigation into which whitehouse official revealed the identity of the CIA agent in charge of finding ilegal nuclear weapons materials is due to start early next year. As is the investigation into failures of US inteligence in the run up to GW2. The CIA has allready made it clear they blame TBA's private inteligence firm. Why TBA employed that bunch of amatuers is beyond me.

Legal consequences for TBA and TBA2 of not finding WMD

It maybe that Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings in pursuit of a wrongful war if no WMD is found. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the adminstrations not US and UK tax payers. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an adminstration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

We then come to the matter of investigating a possable war crime this would be for the future Iraqi government or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Sadam was a worth while venture.

They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD to stand a chance of staying in power and prevent our taxpayers from having to cough up for their (mistakes or lie) does not matter which.

Kind Regards Walker

[Pipski 0]

According to the Beeb his supporters in the area have been very upset that Saddam didn't `open fire on the Americans' or resist arrest in any more demonstrative way than getting into a hole. Maybe, just maybe, this will demonstrate to them that this man is not a demigod with the wisdom of Solomon, the craft of Odysseus and the strength of ten ordinary mortals, just a depraved, egomaniacal, bullying, cowardly psychopath.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Breaking News on BBC24 cable and satelite

More terorism this time Kuwait

Blasts heard In Kuwait city

[edit]Kuwait reporting blasts heard were sound of a jet breaking the sound barrier[/edit]

Seems Sadams Money is still helping AlQueda

Regards Walker

[Apollo 0]

Well ,it is known that Bush wan't his troops returned early 2004 ,so there will definatly be left a hughe vacuum of control in Iraq.Given Iraq's countless of seperatist groups ,it's lack of water and electricity ,it's bombed down infrastructure i think the U.S will leave behind Iraq in an effectivly worse state.I surely doubt that when most of the U.S trops leave that the new "democratic" gouverment of Iraq will be able to maintain order and control of the qountry.The new Iraq goverment just hasn't got the police force and millitary to control such a country ,let alone be able to push certain groups's withing the country like the Kurds and the Shiite's to abbide to them.Especially the Kurds ,they have a big number of millitia's who fought in the war.

Saddam could old his country toghether by the sword.Giving the fact that there are so many opposite groups within Iraq ,e.g Shiite's harte Sunni's ,Kurds hate the other Iraqi's ,all are seperated among a number of clan's who each have their own goals to.Iraqi nationalism doesn't exist really unless in the head of a few sunni Iraqi's.The Shiite's in the south have more in comman with their neighbour Iran instead of the Sunni Iraqi.Saddam or another ,i think that Iraq can only be held toghether by the sword.

So when hte U.S troops leave in spring 2004 ,Most of the control on the ground for the New Iraqi goverment will be lost.Iraq will come a new sort of Afhanistan ,where multiple seperatist group's (in Afhanistan Warlords) fight a civil war for control of certain region.Afcourse ,they will still supposedly abbide to the new Iraqi president ,but only in name.Effectivly the new Iraqi goverment will only have control of Bagdad ,Bagdad international airport and some oilwell's exploited by US contractor's. (and maybe even a harbor)

I'm pretty sure that the Kurds will "volunteer" to maintain "order" themself's in their home region's. And you can't say no to a large millitia army that you can't beat.

[Longinius 1]

http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=89098

Swedish article about how the pictures of the captured Saddam is a breach of the Geneva convention. Before reading this I was actually thinking back to the time when Iraq showed pictures of captured American soldiers, and every American and their dog was outraged about it. Well, now the tables are turned and the US is doing the same thing they found so terrible.

Quoted from the article:

- The pictures of Saddam during private doctors exams are humiliating. That is a breach of the third Geneva convention, said Ove Bring, professor in human rights.

- They could just as well have showed stills of Saddam, or pictures of him walking down a hallway. That would have been equally good as evidence, says Bring.

- Americans are a bit unsensitive and uninformed about these things, says Ove Bring.

No matter what Ove Bring says or thinks, he raises an interesting point. America can do whatever they want, but god help you if you try the same thing yourself.

I wonder what the US would say if someone held their citizens captured on a small island, refusing to make formal charges or even classify the people as prisoners. Anyone willing to bet they would be called terrorists and hunted down?

[Scorpio 0]

Saddam or another ,i think that Iraq can only be held toghether by the sword.

That's a very good point. These muslim countries usually cannot live with a democratic government. There are more rights, but more corruption. I think Iraq can only be successful if it becomes an Islamic Republic or even a dictatorship (although Saddam went way too far with his power). I'm not saying don't give the Iraqi people their rights, but more like give the power to a kind and humble leader, because if you give it all to a madman like Saddam, thats pretty obvious whats going to happen...and if you split the power, there will be much corruption and arguments among the powers.

And about the factions you mentioned...there doesn't really seem to be much tension between them, in my opinion. The Shi'as have always hated Sunnis, and the Kurds usually get along with both. Not that it sounds easy, but if there is a fight amongst warlords then I think a little encouragement and speeches would calm them down. Iraqis are supposed to be humble people.

But let's see what'll happen...personally I fear there still won't be much peace for a year or two.

[Pipski 0]

These muslim countries usually cannot live with a democratic government.

I choose to believe that you just phrased yourself badly there?

If you create a position of absolute power, no matter how humble and kind your leader, it will attract the kind of person you do not wish to see in power. Power corrupts and absolute etc. etc. Politics already draws the biggest charlatans and slimebags, introduce a dictatorship and you're going to see even worse.

At the end of the day you need a system whereby all the ethnic groups in a region can get along because if you split it up the same tensions will develop into cross-border conflicts. This has been seen time and again. Also, as long as there is contact and communication between members of different groups in the general population there is a degree of insulation against inflammatory propaganda from governments or vested powers. Dividing a region reduces contact between the peoples and lends itself to the demonization of other ethnic groups.

Frankly, I see no reason why democracy can't work in Iraq. Iran is - slowly, painfully slowly - becoming more democratic before the will of the people, and knowing what they know of corruption and dictatorship, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi people are going to have similar impulses.

[Acecombat 0]

Well democracy in such countries often leads to corrupt leaders as well who worry about nothing excpet the next election and rack up money for 4 years for the next campaign

[eisa01 0]

http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=89098

Swedish article about how the pictures of the captured Saddam is a breach of the Geneva convention. Before reading this I was actually thinking back to the time when Iraq showed pictures of captured American soldiers, and every American and their dog was outraged about it. Well, now the tables are turned and the US is doing the same thing they found so terrible.

Quoted from the article:

- The pictures of Saddam during private doctors exams are humiliating. That is a breach of the third Geneva convention, said Ove Bring, professor in human rights.

- They could just as well have showed stills of Saddam, or pictures of him walking down a hallway. That would have been equally good as evidence, says Bring.

- Americans are a bit unsensitive and uninformed about these things, says Ove Bring.

No matter what Ove Bring says or thinks, he raises an interesting point. America can do whatever they want, but god help you if you try the same thing yourself.

I wonder what the US would say if someone held their citizens captured on a small island, refusing to make formal charges or even classify the people as prisoners. Anyone willing to bet they would be called terrorists and hunted down?

I hate double standards like USA shows in this example  I'm absolute sure we all have our double standards, but that's not an excuse. But when I think about it for a minute, I understand that rules have to be bent sometimes

Anyway here's another story about it on Channel NewsAsia:

Quote[/b] ]Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949 requires that countries protect prisoners of war in their custody from insults or public curiosity, an issue raised vehemently by Washington earlier this year when Iraq aired videotapes of captured American soldiers.

And some more about his POW status also from Channel NewsAsia:

Quote[/b] ]The United States promised that captured former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein will be accorded privileges stemming from the Geneva Conventions, even though he has so far refused to cooperate with his interrogators.

But US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stopped short of saying the ousted Iraqi leader who has been eluding US troops for nine months will be granted formal prisoner of war status.

[Pipski 0]

Well democracy in such countries often leads to corrupt leaders as well who worry about nothing excpet the next election and rack up money for 4 years for the next campaign  

lol, only in such countries?

[toadlife 3]

Showing Saddam on TV was very necessary. Without doing it, no one would believe he has really been captured. Hell, many Iraqi's still don't believe it!

What should they have done, shower him, dress him up in some nice new clothes (perhaps an Armani Suit?) and then show some video of him?

Saddam is lucky bastard to be caught by U.S. forces. How do you think he'd be treated if a band of Kurds nabbed him?

Edit:horrible spelling

[eisa01 0]

That's why I pointed out that rules have to be bent sometimes and I'm still pissed off about Guantanamo...

Anyway I'm happy happy he was caught, we need some justice in the world. Hope he get's life inprisonment as I personally feel that is worse than death penalty.

[Jamesia 0]

I'm not convinced thats saddam.

It would solve a lot of problems for the US if they did 'find' saddam, so i think they are just using some kind of actor/ lookalike, and making it all up. Just like the moon landings.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not convinced thats saddam.

They confirmed his identity through DNA testing .

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not convinced thats saddam.

They confirmed his identity through DNA testing .

Not that I'm disputing that its not him, but as Denoir pointed out in a previous post, it takes at least 48 hours to get a basic DNA result.

Notice how no US officials are talking about positive DNA results. It was just Iraqi council leaders getting excited again. When the results are acutally confirmed, then I'm sure the US will start quoting it.

[denoir 0]

Showing Saddam on TV was very necessary.

So was showing captured US POWs, from Iraqi point of view

Having said that, I don't think showing a POW on TV constitutes a violation of the Geneva conventions. Perhaps it is in bad taste - but hey, it's war - it's seldom in 'good taste'.

Longinius' point still stands however. Over the POWs the Americans were outraged by what they called violations of the Geneve accord. This is infact, necessary or not, the exactly same thing.

Edit: On another topic, there seems to been pro-Saddam demonstrations around Iraq. In Baghdad Iraqi police broke up the demonstration by firing warning shots.

[ralphwiggum 6]

What should they have done, shower him, dress him up in some nice new clothes (perhaps an Armani Suit?) and then show some video of him?

i was looking for that 'doctored' image of saddam by US forces, but couldn't find one.

just to look back on the issue of AWOL WMD,

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not convinced thats saddam.

I had my doubts to ,here are the reasons why:

1: Why the hell would Saddam have stayed in Iraq? He had the cash and the time ,he could have been in North korea or any other rouge country by now.Same goes for his sons.Regaining power? Heck even Saddam must have known that that would be impossible.

2: Saddam is captured by the U.S and examined by the U.S only ,no Brittish or German or any other examinator.And for the U.S it would be the long needed boost they need because of all the men they are losing in Iraq ,a sort of sign that that war did have a use and possitive effect.What resource's do the U.s have for such an examination? Do they know for sure what's the original DNA of Saddam?

Their are imposter's enough ,same goes for Qudai and his brother.

3: Albeit ,if found ,why would Saddam let himself be catured? Why not fight to the end or commit suicide in his position? They only thing he'll get now is a show-trial in the U.S and then a horrible punishment ,nothing to look forward to especially in the position of an U.S hating person like Saddam.

4:Why hiding in/near Tikrit ,of all places it would be the first place the U.S would search down.

enough reasons for suspicion ,and it's not that the current U.S goverment doesn't dare to lie their ass off.Can we still trust them after the "solid proof" they tried to put forward in the UN 10 times. (and lets not forget about the staged interview with that guy supposedly from ansar al islamia who declared that Iraq had very good contact's with Al-Quaida ,all an U.S sham)

[Scorpio 0]

So have the US officials said that there are posotive DNA results?

And can anybody give us an insight as to how they'd know that it is actually Saddam's DNA? How would they know which is which?

[quicksand 0]

Normally I would be the last person to belive anything told by americans officialities but still let`s think about is a second..

If this is a conspiracy by americans and Saddam is still at large what would americans actually gain? I mean what`s keeping Saddam from making a short statemant prooving he`s not in american custody..

One way or the other the truth would emerge..And then the credibility of America will fall to the ground..Insurgency will be twice as motivated seeing the trickery that America had to resort to break their will..So they don`t win very much...

But you raised the same point as I did a few pages ago..What kept a man with 1 billion in the pocket to disapear forever..I mean sheesh we are talking about 1 BILLION DOLLARS  ...That`s a hell of alot money..And him wanting to direct himself the insurgency is not a valid point..it would have been alot better if he sat is some place safe with his phone giving orders and transfering money..Time will tell...

[Pipski 0]

So have the US officials said that there are posotive DNA results?

And can anybody give us an insight as to how they'd know that it is actually Saddam's DNA? How would they know which is which?

I'm not too sure what your question is precisely. If you mean `how did they get a sample of guaranteed Saddam DNA to compare to this guy?' then I have no idea! However, if they do have a sample that is known to have come from Saddam before he went awol then the throat swab taken from the guy they've arrested can be compared using RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphisms) or, much more likely these days, PCR (polymerase chain reaction). In broad terms the sample will be amplified using primers that select for variable number tandem repeats and then seperated on a polyacrylamide gel using electrophoresis. Comparison of the pattern of bands resulting with those from the guaranteed Saddam DNA will make any differences obvious and indicate a negative. If they look the same, positive.

[Jamesia 0]

Normally I would be the last person to belive anything told by americans officialities but still let`s think about is a second..

If this is a conspiracy by americans and Saddam is still at large what would americans actually gain? I mean what`s keeping Saddam from making a short statemant prooving he`s not in american custody..

Maybe they've heard rumours sadam is dead or he won't be coming back or something. Maybe he was killed in a firefight but the americans want the show of putting him on parade, because they know that they cant have another Osama Bin Laden.

I just think that it would be easy for the americans to lie and say that they have captured sadam like this when they infact havent.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ] I mean what`s keeping Saddam from making a short statemant prooving he`s not in american custody..

Matters of Safety?

I mean ,if he's still alive ,and the U.S used a false Saddam ,wouldn't that make it a lot easier for Saddam to hide ,as nobody's seeking for him?

(this afcourse is all hypothetical)

[Powerslide 0]

Why would North Korea want him? Why would anyone want him for that matter? Because North Korea is a problem they wan't disposed of dictators? That's preposterous. There is no question it's Saddam and it really doesn't matter that they got him, the violence won't end. As far as earlier claims that Saddam was controlling or initiating attacks on the US; how much communication and control could he have living in a hole, he would be lucky if he could coordinate going to have a shit in there. Having him in custody is a moot point, he was finished long ago. So what about the WMD's........? I would sooner see those then a washed up dictator.

[Harnu 0]

Showing Saddam on TV was very necessary.

So was showing captured US POWs, from Iraqi point of view

Having said that, I don't think showing a POW on TV constitutes a violation of the Geneva conventions. Perhaps it is in bad taste - but hey, it's war - it's seldom in 'good taste'.

Longinius' point still stands however. Over the POWs the Americans were outraged by what they called violations of the Geneve accord. This is infact, necessary or not, the exactly same thing.

Edit: On another topic, there seems to been pro-Saddam demonstrations around Iraq. In Baghdad Iraqi police broke up the demonstration by firing warning shots.

Well at this stage of the game, would you belive the US Government if they said they had Saddam and provided no visible evidence? I could see a lot of skeptisicm.