Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

[Jani.R]

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5094&en=b6593aee0e01d384&hp&ex=1143435600&partner=homepage]Ny Times[url]

Weird that nobody has posted this yet.

[Belrick]

Fancy coming to an American forum and going "I told you so".

Man i remember those American hotheads on other forums back in 2003 adament that there leaders wouldn't pull a Goebbels over there eyes. That the US has always been the good guys yadda yadda yadda.

Strangely enough these days they seem to have melted into the background so c'mon you all, come out and fess up and join the:

"I believed Bush in 2003 because of blind Nationalism" fanclub.

You don't even have to apologise for flaming the rest of the world who only tried to educate you via such means as the internet. As an apology would be admitting guilt and this particular guilty admition carries with it a butchers bill numbering in the tens of thousands of dead.

Oops?

[NewsMan]

Most Americans I know came to grips with this long ago. Now we gotta play with the hand dealt. History will not be good to this administration.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ah, another "Insane King Bush" story. I don't know why they even bother - nobody this side of elementary school could possibly buy into such nonsense.

[shocker1]

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

This is one of many illogical statements in this article. The US would have had many incidents of UN sanctioned aircraft over the UN mandated NO-FLY zone being fired upon by Iraqi forces.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Fancy coming to an American forum and going "I told you so".

Man i remember those American hotheads on other forums back in 2003 adament that there leaders wouldn't pull a Goebbels over there eyes. That the US has always been the good guys yadda yadda yadda.

Strangely enough these days they seem to have melted into the background so c'mon you all, come out and fess up and join the:

"I believed Bush in 2003 because of blind Nationalism" fanclub.

You don't even have to apologise for flaming the rest of the world who only tried to educate you via such means as the internet. As an apology would be admitting guilt and this particular guilty admition carries with it a butchers bill numbering in the tens of thousands of dead.

Oops?

Yeah I remember the days when you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing Rummy talking bollocks in a triumphalist tone.

Now you never see the dumb fcuk.

Funny that.

[Belrick]

What about poor Colin Powell? The bush administration took a proud man whos word carried much weight and honour and made him spout obvious propaganda lies that ultimately destroyed the mans careers and credibility.

History is already beginning to judge Bush and co and there not waiting for him to retire first.

My point is that Bush lied to the American public in order to hide his true motives from them and no matter how obvious they were to those not suffering from nationalism many Americans swallowed it hook line and sinker.

No doubt the same sort of people that believed that Russia invaded Poland to free the people from oppressive land owners. (thats what the common Russian got told)

[Futile Talisman]

[quote=Belrick]What about poor Colin Powell? The bush administration took a proud man whos word carried much weight and honour and made him spout obvious propaganda lies that ultimately destroyed the mans careers and credibility.
quote]


Belrick,

I know your post was genuine, but there has never been a poor Colin Powell, maybe a language barrier exists here but I think I understand your statement.

While 2sheds post is my gut feeling when coming across threads like this,

I will concede that the Secretary was put in a difficult position. Especially, in light of the recent comments made by DDCI McLaughlin, and especially the Secretary's COS while at State (and close friend) US Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson(ret.)

What went on in the days and nights prior to the UN presentation will and to a certain extent come to light. As of now only those who were there in the briefing sessions are the only the individuals truly "in the know."

I dare say that the Secretary was troubled but he and he alone only knows what was in his heart and mind, someday he may choose to tell us, if not, that is perfectly fine, his record of service to this country gives, no, earns him the right to tell us what his sentiments are, at a time and place of his choosing, if that never comes to fruition, then so be it.

General Powell's credibilty is beyond reproach. However, you are correct that DOD - CIA did put him in a jam. He is too much of a gentlemen and soldier to speak on matters of pre-war intelligence relevant to Iraqi Freedom while American troops are fighting and making the ultimate sacrifice in the GWOT. Regardless of whether or not you choose to put Operation Iraqi Freedom in the category of the GWOT.

I belive history will show him to be one of finest and honorable public servants this great nation has had. CIB-RVN, White House Fellow, National Security Advisor, Chairman JCOS during DS/DS, and Secretary of State. His Bio is lengthy, and impressive, above was merely a snapshot of 30 + year career serving his country.

He retirement did not derive from a "destroyed" career, but at his and his wife's decision that his time of service had reached it's conclusion.

Finally, nobody "made" Secretary Powell do anything, he served at the pleasure of the President, that is what happens when you take the job of Secretary of the Department of State.

FT


OUT

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You know, it's interesting - even with all the complexities of the current situation, some people feel it's necessary to base their anti-war argument (and articles) on a lie, and on an alternate version of history. There's is, and always has been ample room to oppose the war on valid grounds - and I've always said that I do hold grudging respect for those members of our Senate that voted against the use of force. It's their job, after all, to do what they think is right. Of course I also respect the pro-war voters, as I think that judged within its temporal context, it was unquestionably the right course of action. The ones I cannot tolerate are the ones perpetuating the lie du jour - that they were somehow deceived and lied to by Bush. That's nothing more than a mechanism to run for political cover. And positing that the American people were lied to by Bush and that's why we supported the war is no better. I feel no need to excuse my personal "yes" vote - I find no reason to apologize. And to whom would I apologize, the very nations who were part of the reason we had to act in the first place? I think not.

Bush is not a king and does not rule by fiat. Congress had access to the same raw intel that Bush had access to, and they overwhelmingly reached the same conclusion as Bush - that the danger of the uncompleted inspection regime, coupled with repeated violations of accords of the cease-fire and UN resolutions represented ample justification for the use of force. I believed that then, and I believe it now. The fact that we completed the inspections and found very little changes nothing. We only know what we know now because we used force. Had we not, we'd still be playing Saddam's game, the UN would still be on the take, and Saddam would still be illegal business partners with the very people who were in charge of inspecting him. That is an intolerable and unsustainable situation.

So I won't be writing any apology letters any time soon. Given the same circumstances, and understanding that the future is not a foregone conclusion, I would do exactly the same thing again. It was the only reasonable course of action, even if it was (and is) extremely distasteful. If we must find somebody to apologize to soothe our collective psyche, may I suggest starting with the UN and some members of the UNSC in particular, who's utter dereliction of duty and corruption led to this mess in the first place. Had they done their job, had they followed through on their own mandates, rather than taking the path of appeasement (and taking cash with the other hand) this could all have been concluded 10 years ago, and with no bloodshed.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Y

Bush is not a king and does not rule by fiat. Congress had access to the same raw intel that Bush had access to, and they overwhelmingly reached the same conclusion as Bush -

You say that but the intel agencies seem to have been conditioned to providing the intel that those at the top (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) wanted to hear - and that is a common characteristic of regimes ruled by dictators such as Hitler, various Roman emperors etc. The same applies to Tony Blair I might add.

[Futile Talisman]

You know, it's interesting - even with all the complexities of the current situation, some people feel it's necessary to base their anti-war argument (and articles) on a lie, and on an alternate version of history. There's is, and always has been ample room to oppose the war on valid grounds - and I've always said that I do hold grudging respect for those members of our Senate that voted against the use of force. It's their job, after all, to do what they think is right. Of course I also respect the pro-war voters, as I think that judged within its temporal context, it was unquestionably the right course of action. The ones I cannot tolerate are the ones perpetuating the lie du jour - that they were somehow deceived and lied to by Bush. That's nothing more than a mechanism to run for political cover. And positing that the American people were lied to by Bush and that's why we supported the war is no better. I feel no need to excuse my personal "yes" vote - I find no reason to apologize. And to whom would I apologize, the very nations who were part of the reason we had to act in the first place? I think not.

Bush is not a king and does not rule by fiat. Congress had access to the same raw intel that Bush had access to, and they overwhelmingly reached the same conclusion as Bush - that the danger of the uncompleted inspection regime, coupled with repeated violations of accords of the cease-fire and UN resolutions represented ample justification for the use of force. I believed that then, and I believe it now. The fact that we completed the inspections and found very little changes nothing. We only know what we know now because we used force. Had we not, we'd still be playing Saddam's game, the UN would still be on the take, and Saddam would still be illegal business partners with the very people who were in charge of inspecting him. That is an intolerable and unsustainable situation.

So I won't be writing any apology letters any time soon. Given the same circumstances, and understanding that the future is not a foregone conclusion, I would do exactly the same thing again. It was the only reasonable course of action, even if it was (and is) extremely distasteful. If we must find somebody to apologize to soothe our collective psyche, may I suggest starting with the UN and some members of the UNSC in particular, who's utter dereliction of duty and corruption led to this mess in the first place. Had they done their job, had they followed through on their own mandates, rather than taking the path of appeasement (and taking cash with the other hand) this could all have been concluded 10 years ago, and with no bloodshed.



Well said 2sheds, but does it give you pause that that Sec State's Chief of Staff and personal friend, has chosen to disclose his sentiments in such forums as the American Enterprise Institute, and I believe the National Press Club, among others, a man whom on the face of thing's has no personal agenda.

Your are also correct that Congressional attempts to place more importance on the PDB than the same raw data they had access to is a pitiful political tactic to step back and say "if I only knew."

The Senate Select Committe on Intelligence, has NIO's as staffers that provide a channel to Langley or Meade should they be given a request for a brief, The Chairman and ranking member of the above committee as well as all of the congress for that matter had enough access to pre-war intel to make an informed vote.

In light of all this I remain behind POTUS at a time of war, however, in the future certain incindents of "cherry picking" are evident. Did POTUS, VPOTUS, or the DCI order that, certianly not. But certain redactions such as State's expert re: aluminum tube -gas centerfuge issue give me the sense that there was a slant by DOD - CIA to present what has been referred to as the "slam dunk" I too will remain by my "yes" vote, while I don't agree totally it was the "the only responsible course of action" I do support that action.

I too will not right letters of apology, but may have some questions once the GWOT phase of Iraq is over.

And yes, if any institution or body is to be held responsible for the coalition need to use force it is the farce of a body referred to the United Nations.

FT

OUT

[Uninen]

Just foreword, this isnt attack on you or your person just said many important things which i feel i need to comment a bit..

Most Americans I know came to grips with this long ago.
If this is true, i just wonder wheres the action? Lying to peoples faces and maybe actual criminal acts and people just sit and do nothing?! Reminds me of all those comments of Germany in 1933-1945: "You must have known and yet you did nothing!? Why didnt you make it stop?"

Now we gotta play with the hand dealt.
Choosing right form and direction of action IMHO is vital. Somebody must pay.

History will not be good to this administration.
Even currently things arent going "well" its just theres nobody in any "official" position really to have balls and to say this shyte wont fly, but to history books along with Hitler and Stalin their on their way, at high speed. In future people will look at these times and think that Saddam was a boy scout compared, if they already dodnt.

And this time "Jan. 31, 2003" mentioned in the "memo" i feel isnt critical or truthful in any manner and the fact was decited soon after 9/11 or even before, just look at the "coaliton" actions and operations to destabilize Iraq post 1991 and the duration and effect of the sanctions on the nation.

[ed316]

These so called "Bush wanted war" articles come out every couple of months.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

These so called "Bush wanted war" articles come out every couple of months.

Probably because there's a good reason for them.

[ed316]

Probably because there's a good reason for them.

People who are anti war from the beginning will jump on anything that suits there cause.

Loch ness sighting pop up now and then to does that mean they exist? Or a good reason for believers to keep on believing?

[fargo]

People who are anti war from the beginning will jump on anything that suits there cause.

Loch ness sighting pop up now and then to does that mean they exist? Or a good reason for believers to keep on believing?

Just like WMD, they proved to be a myth as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sadam needed a kick in the balls, but don't lie to me, be straight, thats what Tony and George got wrong.

[Uninen]

Ah, the "Anti-War" card. I dont think theres too many here who are "Anti-War" its just that some of us dont enjoy the watching the bodybuilder beating up and killing a cripple in a wheelchair for no reason what so ever, other that gain of wealth, power and control.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5943/085invasionhitlerstalin0yb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
This what mostly comes to mind of this all..

[ed316]

Ah, the "Anti-War" card. I dont think theres too many here who are "Anti-War" its just that some of us dont enjoy the watching the bodybuilder beating up and killing a cripple in a wheelchair for no reason what so ever, other that gain of wealth, power and control.


This what mostly comes to mind of this all..

Like I said whatever fits personal agenda in the beginning.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

People who are anti war from the beginning will jump on anything that suits there cause.

Loch ness sighting pop up now and then to does that mean they exist? Or a good reason for believers to keep on believing?
And people who are pro Bush/ pro invading Iraq won't do the same?:roll:

Found any WMDs yet?
And if it's all about democracy why is the US govt trying to unseat the Iraqi PM Ibrahim Al-Jafaari at the moment?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article354245.ece
So much for sovereignty eh

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well said 2sheds, but does it give you pause that that Sec State's Chief of Staff and personal friend, has chosen to disclose his sentiments in such forums as the American Enterprise Institute, and I believe the National Press Club, among others, a man whom on the face of thing's has no personal agenda.

I remember reading his comments - all I can say on that issue is that I'd suspect that Powell is working up his own political cover story. He and his friends have all kind of hinted around at this "we were fooled / we fell on our swords and did something we weren't happy with". After all, Powell is by no means finished as a viable political candidate (nor are his friends whom he would presumably find "homes" for in any future endeavor) - and I think that while Powell is an honorable man, he is first and foremost a politician.
He didn't get where he's been by being a doofus - he's adept at playing the game, exploiting opportunities and dodging political bullets. I think they make you go to politician school as soon as you put your first star on your epaulets. :)

[ed316]

And people who are pro Bush/ pro invading Iraq won't do the same?:roll:

Found any WMDs yet?
And if it's all about democracy why is the US govt trying to unseat the Iraqi PM Ibrahim Al-Jafaari at the moment?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article354245.ece
So much for sovereignty eh

Iraq needs to form a UNITY government which means people need to come together. They are not going to unite when their is no comprimise. Look into more before saying stuff like that.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Found any WMDs yet?


heh heh, no, but we did get to look for them. And if you'll recall, that is what the war was about.

[budgie]

Ah, another "Insane King Bush" story. I don't know why they even bother - nobody this side of elementary school could possibly buy into such nonsense.



So you still don't believe that the Bush administration (with perhaps the exception of Powell) was set on invading Iraq no matter what? Dude you can only hide your head in the sand for so long...

[Futile Talisman]

[quote=2Sheds_Jackson]I remember reading his comments - all I can say on that issue is that I'd suspect that Powell is working up his own political cover story. He and his friends have all kind of hinted around at this "we were fooled / we fell on our swords and did something we weren't happy with". After all, Powell is by no means finished as a viable political candidate (nor are his friends whom he would presumably find "homes" for in any future endeavor) - and I think that while Powell is an honorable man, he is first and foremost a politician.
He didn't get where he's been by being a doofus - he's adept at playing the game, exploiting opportunities and dodging political bullets. I think they make you go to politician school as soon as you put your first star on your epaulets. :)



Yes, LOL, I respect the man but he did spend much of his time in the District of Columbia AO. I by no means say this to diminish his time spent in RVN, or any officer billet he held during his army career. 4 stars at his age and CJSOC is not done without being a good beltway operator.

"friend's" Armitage did do 4 tours? in RVN as a SEAL IIRC, and has known dislike for SecDef Rumsfeld. So your prediction of a" political cover "story may be true.

FT

OUT

PS 2sheds you verse Robert Byrd on the floor of the Senate, two hours, I'd give a month's pay for even the nosebleed seats.p-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Iraq needs to form a UNITY government which means people need to come together. They are not going to unite when their is no comprimise. Look into more before saying stuff like that.

Well the US sticking its oar in when there has supposedly been a democratic election is not going to help that situation one little bit. Maybe your government needs to look into that more.

[ed316]

Well the US sticking its oar in when there has supposedly been a democratic election is not going to help that situation one little bit. Maybe your government needs to look into that more.

The Kurds and Sunnis don't want Jaafari to be PM because of his unwillingness to do anything about the Shiite militia men. Without these two groups you have no UNITY government.

[Uninen]

Like I said whatever fits personal agenda in the beginning.
Theres no agenda, just whats wrong and right. I mean killing Saddam, nasty but ok, he was the supposed "problem", but destroying the whole nation and driving it to civil war thats down right evil.

[ed316]

Theres no agenda, just whats wrong and right. I mean killing Saddam, nasty but ok, he was the supposed "problem", but destroying the whole nation and driving it to civil war thats down right evil.

Just prove my point.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The Kurds and Sunnis don't want Jaafari to be PM because of his unwillingness to do anything about the Shiite militia men. Without these two groups you have no UNITY government.

And what will the US gov do to interfere if say a Sunni politician is installed instead who may come under pressure from his tribe to go easy on the insurgents/former Baathists etc. At some point you are going to have stop interfering and let the Iraqis get on with it.

[ed316]

And what will the US gov do to interfere if say a Sunni politician is installed instead who may come under pressure from his tribe to go easy on the insurgents/former Baathists etc. At some point you are going to have stop interfering and let the Iraqis get on with it.

and they been doing a good job of it so far. :roll:

Whoever get's to be PM will have to be approve by all three blocs.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

and they been doing a good job of it so far. :roll:

Only in the wildest dreams of the last holdouts in the neocon bunker :)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So you still don't believe that the Bush administration (with perhaps the exception of Powell) was set on invading Iraq no matter what? Dude you can only hide your head in the sand for so long...

Even if I did believe that, so what? What if I believe that Bush cannot be convinced that strawberry the very best flavor of ice cream (which it is, BTW)? That doesn't matter. What goes on inside his head & inside strategy meetings is meaningless - unless it translates into illegal or immoral action outside of his head/room. And nobody, anywhere, at any time has been able to show that.

Bush is not a king and can not do as he pleases. Our system is specifically set up so that if we get some nut in there, that he can't pull a General Jack D. Ripper and launch and invasion to keep the commies from sapping all our precious bodily fluids.

In order for the pretext for the war to have been a lie, or for the process to be so hijacked, everybody from the President down through is administration, including an overwhelming majority of Congress, as well as our free media would have to be in on it.

Now I can see where Bush's opponents would try to spin tales of such a deception - as I said it provides wonderful cover for them. But actually believing that such a deception has occurred, and is ongoing, borders on mental illness IMHO.

[vryhpyammoadded]

You say that but the intel agencies seem to have been conditioned to providing the intel that those at the top (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) wanted to hear - and that is a common characteristic of regimes ruled by dictators such as Hitler, various Roman emperors etc. The same applies to Tony Blair I might add.

Think of American Intel like something between ordering a meal and cruising the buffet. Yes men exist for those special orders but more often the administrations attention is caught by the meal with the best presentation targeted to his tastes.

In Americas case much good intel is provided yet politicians often choose to believe and act based upon there own biases. They focus on data closer to what they desire. Americas intel similarity really is closer matching to the inefficiencies of an Oligarchic bureaucracy than a dictatorship.

[vryhpyammoadded]

These so called "Bush wanted war" articles come out every couple of months.

He did want war. What gets me is how these articles try to slap some NEOCON conspiracy crap on it. There is nothing wrong with Bush wanting war with Iraq. What's more important, is the fact he chose to follow the rules to get that war. There is no story here and the loonies are trying to make one using innuendo, half truths and fabrications. It's all completely laughable they keep harping on this BS but then again, many people continue to demonstrate there lack of wisdom by swallowing it hook line and sinker and I fear their numbers are growing.
Like Stalin and some other tyrants of fame said, tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

[Hollis]

So he wanted to go to war? That implies what? Saddam was no secret that fell on the world over night. Sooner or latter Saddam was going to have to be delt with. The UN all it was going to do was wring it's collected hands. Actually all the UN really does except for certain aid programs.

So who was going to do it. Those who was in business with Saddam for Billions? Those who received $$ from Saddam for terrorism?

Sooner was a far better solution than latter.
Bush tried to prevent war, BUT.... why didn't Saddam reform, that is all it would have taken, Because he had allies and he thought he would win in the great propaganda house, the UN.

Why didn't Saddam defend Iraq like he did in the gulf war? Why wasn't his troops ready. Because Saddam had a plan, to win, but the US did not do what Saddam expected, a 30 day air campaign.

During the 30 days, Iraqi civilian causualties would have been horrifying, Saddam was going to see to that. He would go to the UN, all these lives, the parade of dead children, done by "evil Americans", after all who would tell the world most we murdered by Saddam to create the propaganda. The UN would push for a cease fire. The world would so stuned with the casualties, that all sanctions against Iraq would be lifted. Saddam would win.

Maybe you should read some of the interrorgations of the Iraqi Generals, on why there was NO defense of Iraq. But then..... for all who want to just blame Bush it is easier to blame Bush, than like Saddam to amitt defeat.

[Futile Talisman]

Even if I did believe that, so what? What if I believe that Bush cannot be convinced that strawberry the very best flavor of ice cream (which it is, BTW)? That doesn't matter. What goes on inside his head & inside strategy meetings is meaningless - unless it translates into illegal or immoral action outside of his head/room. And nobody, anywhere, at any time has been able to show that.

Bush is not a king and can not do as he pleases. Our system is specifically set up so that if we get some nut in there, that he can't pull a General Jack D. Ripper and launch and invasion to keep the commies from sapping all our precious bodily fluids.

In order for the pretext for the war to have been a lie, or for the process to be so hijacked, everybody from the President down through is administration, including an overwhelming majority of Congress, as well as our free media would have to be in on it.

Now I can see where Bush's opponents would try to spin tales of such a deception - as I said it provides wonderful cover for them. But actually believing that such a deception has occurred, and is ongoing, borders on mental illness IMHO.

Have to second that, minus the ice cream, look at the congressional voting record for the war, and remember the talking heads yeah a few big names were against it, Scowcroft for example, but there was no major effort to stop the war. Intelligence (maybe cherrypicked) or a DOD-State arm wrestling contest and POTUS siding with DOD does not equate to calling the President of the United States a liar.

We did not find WMD, David Kay's report says that. But (and I have not read the open source report completely) there were efforts at reconstitution. But let's not belabor that point.

The Democrats or Bush's opponents are now saying they and we were lied to, again they had access to Nation Intelligence Officers and proffessional CIA - DIA- NSA officers who are assigned to the Congressional committees with direct contact to Langley,the Pentagon or Meade.

Congress held closed sessions on the matter. I am saying this for the second time in the thread an I apoligize, but asserting that the lack of a PDB Presidential Daily Brief as a member of Congress, especillay both the Senate and House Select Committees on Intelligence and thus "If I had known the facts or what the president knew I would have voted no", is pure political BS and I cannot believe people are buying it.

FT

OUT

[Hollis]

Futile, your confusing them with the facts...........

[Futile Talisman]

Futile, your confusing them with the facts...........

noted Hollis, maybe my screen name is a sign, an attempt to get anybody who listen's to a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi soundbite, and then repeat it before fact checking it and seeing the political two step is just that, futile.

Intelligence is not a science it is an art, a puzzle, you deal with guy's like "curve ball", to get decent HUMIT you gotta deal with the dirtbags and separating the BS from the real stuff is hard, ecspecially if the bad guy is a pro, Cherry picked, redacted, Joe "James Bond" Wilson aside, Bush went with what he thought was right.

Intelligence is never 100%, at the time we did the best with what we had, as 2sheds pointed out.

But the ease at which people call Bush a liar, is not responsible and Monday morning quarterbacking at it's best or worst..................


FT

OUT

[Belrick]

[quote]


Belrick,

I know your post was genuine, but there has never been a poor Colin Powell, maybe a language barrier exists here but I think I understand your statement.

While 2sheds post is my gut feeling when coming across threads like this,

I will concede that the Secretary was put in a difficult position. Especially, in light of the recent comments made by DDCI McLaughlin, and especially the Secretary's COS while at State (and close friend) US Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson(ret.)

What went on in the days and nights prior to the UN presentation will and to a certain extent come to light. As of now only those who were there in the briefing sessions are the only the individuals truly "in the know."

I dare say that the Secretary was troubled but he and he alone only knows what was in his heart and mind, someday he may choose to tell us, if not, that is perfectly fine, his record of service to this country gives, no, earns him the right to tell us what his sentiments are, at a time and place of his choosing, if that never comes to fruition, then so be it.

General Powell's credibilty is beyond reproach. However, you are correct that DOD - CIA did put him in a jam. He is too much of a gentlemen and soldier to speak on matters of pre-war intelligence relevant to Iraqi Freedom while American troops are fighting and making the ultimate sacrifice in the GWOT. Regardless of whether or not you choose to put Operation Iraqi Freedom in the category of the GWOT.

I belive history will show him to be one of finest and honorable public servants this great nation has had. CIB-RVN, White House Fellow, National Security Advisor, Chairman JCOS during DS/DS, and Secretary of State. His Bio is lengthy, and impressive, above was merely a snapshot of 30 + year career serving his country.

He retirement did not derive from a "destroyed" career, but at his and his wife's decision that his time of service had reached it's conclusion.

Finally, nobody "made" Secretary Powell do anything, he served at the pleasure of the President, that is what happens when you take the job of Secretary of the Department of State.

FT


OUT

Cheers i appreciate you insight. Still a bad over all result for the man though.

[Belrick]

So he wanted to go to war? That implies what? Saddam was no secret that fell on the world over night. Sooner or latter Saddam was going to have to be delt with.

Why?

The same reason Russia dealt with Finland due to the Finnish shelling of Leningrad?

Who's the criminal, the well dressed man who launches the first punch under false pretenses or the scruffy looking foreigner with shifty eyes lying on the ground beaten to a pulp?

I bit of honesty and soul searching is order rather than reliance on nationalism. If in doubt read a history book and discover that what Bush did isn't new.

[Hollis]

me thinketh your history books is full of assumptions too. BTW was your history book written by Michael Moore? I wanted Saddam gone in the gulf war. What took so long?



Why?

The same reason Russia dealt with Finland due to the Finnish shelling of Leningrad?

Who's the criminal, the well dressed man who launches the first punch under false pretenses or the scruffy looking foreigner with shifty eyes lying on the ground beaten to a pulp?

I bit of honesty and soul searching is order rather than reliance on nationalism. If in doubt read a history book and discover that what Bush did isn't new.

[DaveDash]

*Yawn* this isn't even news worthy. It's just the left preaching to the choir.

Heck when this story came out here it was front page, wow, big deal. The NYT, who according to the article, extensively examined the documents and I barely heard a peep out of them.

Clearly if the NYT thinks this isn't even news worthy then it isn't. They'd be all over something like this if there was any merit to it.

Roosevelt wanted to go to war too, didn't turn out to be such a bad idea in the end.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Who's the criminal, the well dressed man who launches the first punch under false pretenses or the scruffy looking foreigner with shifty eyes lying on the ground beaten to a pulp?

rofl Oh man, that imagery is too funny. Saddam as working class hero - that had to come from some lefty focus group somewhere. There's poor dark skinned Saddam just back from his minimum wage job - and in walks the nasty white Monopoly Man, with his top hat and monocle - and punches him for no reason! Oh! the nerve!



I bit of honesty and soul searching is order rather than reliance on nationalism. If in doubt read a history book and discover that what Bush did isn't new.

I don't see anybody here justifying US action on the basis of nationalism. What I have seen is a series of clearly stated arguments which outline exactly why the war started.

But it's too easy to just come in here and condemn one course of action (i.e. war) - without fully fleshing out your suggested alternatives. Luckily, Iran provides you with a perfect opportunity to show us a better way. So, presuming that the conditions are roughly the same (i.e. we think we know they're after WMD, they deny it - only inspections can tell) - if Iran goes down the same road and will not allow inspections, or restricts them so severely that they are functionally useless...what's to be done? You're in the driver's seat Mr. President Belrick - what do we do?

[NewsMan]

If this is true, i just wonder wheres the action? Lying to peoples faces and maybe actual criminal acts and people just sit and do nothing?! Reminds me of all those comments of Germany in 1933-1945: "You must have known and yet you did nothing!? Why didnt you make it stop?"


Half the country did say "no more...", just not quite enough. As for the hand dealt as it is: I have no choice but to try to find a silver lining for the sake of the men and women over there dying. Nothing would be more tragic then to pull support from the servicepeople over there doing the best they can with a hand full of low clubs.

[DaveDash]

This war hadn't really finished after the 1991 cease-fire.

U.S. aircraft were still flying every day over Iraq. They were being fired at every day. They were dropping munitions on Iraqi military targets every day.

It just wasn't all over our TV screens anymore. The Iraq war between the United States has consisted of numerous operations, Operation Desert Shield, Operaton Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc.

Bush Jnr did not start it. He's finishing it.

[Uninen]

I think one can support the troops yet abbandon the regime that makes lots of bad decisions or at least make it heard that after this is over "you" are nolonger welcome to lead us.

And many people actually do this, well some at least ive seen, they wish well for the troops and want the safe home yet say the "Bush time" is over.

Also if it half that too much, i mean i would start to wonder am i making the right thing if only 20% of my countrymen were opposed to this (i mean theres no way of 20% of population being tree-hugging anti-war hippies..). And if half of my people would say this is not right, i would have to come to the conclusion that there is something terribly wrong in what i am doing and im not talking of failed PR.

[Uninen]

This war hadn't really finished after the 1991 cease-fire.
That is correct. Cause aggression was continued by US even after that.

U.S. aircraft were still flying every day over Iraq. They were being fired at every day. They were dropping munitions on Iraqi military targets every day.
And there really wasnt any justification to this, going on in air space of indipendent nation from 1991 till 2003 when it was invaded again in full force, the Iraqis were more than in their right to "attack" (actually defend their air space against) the invaders. Let face it, no nation is going to tolerate non friendly military aircraft in its air space let alone if those attack the population and the military of the nation or and engage in reconnaisance efforts.

It just wasn't all over our TV screens anymore. The Iraq war between the United States has consisted of numerous operations, Operation Desert Shield, Operaton Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc.
Operation Warden, Desert Fox etc. theres many more.

Bush Jnr did not start it. He's finishing it.
Finished something his daddy started. And whats more the Iraqis were kind of given the greenlight back in 1990 to take over Kuwait or lead to believe that there would be no real response, little did the Saddam know that there would be wild stories going on how Iraqis rape and kill Kuwaitis and how their going to go and invade Saudi Arabia and so on all kinds of BS stories not to mention the fact that largest and most powerful alliance and army fielded since 45 would be poised against him. Futhermore, the UN resolutions gave permission to protect Saudia Arabia against this supposed Iraqi invasion that was supposedly comming (a lie) and to liberate Kuwait from the "occupation" by Iraq, there was nothing about more than decade long sanctions, lies about all kinds of brutality that didnt happen nor about permission to lie about the state of the WMD they had. And one more thing, any claim Iraq has or had on Kuwait is actually quite legimate. Much more so than any supposed claim Israelis have on Palestine anyways. And the bottomline, the war should have ended in 1991 in the liberation of Kuwait and not like its now going in a civil war and break up of Iraq in somewhere post 2006...

[DaveDash]

That is correct. Cause aggression was continued by US even after that.

Sure. The U.S. didn't start it by invading Kuwait however.

Also Saddam had a record of expansionist aggression and using chemical weapons, sitting on some of the worlds largest oil reserves, with a large military poised next to the largest (Saudi Arabia)

Completely justified in my opinion.

I can see why they didn't get rid of him in 91, and I can also see why they got rid of him in 03.



And there really wasnt any justification to this, going on in air space of indipendent nation from 1991 till 2003 when it was invaded again in full force, the Iraqis were more than in their right to "attack" (actually defend their air space against) the invaders. Let face it, no nation is going to tolerate non friendly military aircraft in its air space let alone if those attack the population and the military of the nation or and engage in reconnaisance efforts.

Sure they had the right to defend themselves. I would have done the same if I was them, but by the same account, it wasn't the U.S. who started this by invading Kuwait was it?

No Kuwait invasion, no U.S. presence.



Finished something his daddy started.

Finishing something Saddam started.



And whats more the Iraqis were kind of given the greenlight back in 1990 to take over Kuwait or lead to believe that there would be no real response, little did the Saddam know that there would be wild stories going on how Iraqis rape and kill Kuwaitis and how their going to go and invade Saudi Arabia and so on all kinds of BS stories not to mention the fact that largest and most powerful alliance and army fielded since 45 would be poised against him.

Bollocks he was given a green light. He just completely miscalculated the world reaction to him obtaining most of the Oil Reserves in the middle east.
The U.S. response at the time was one of neutrility, which was in accordance with State Department policy, does not equal 'Green Light'.

Propaganda happens in war. Get used to it. Doesn't mean the war is unjustified. Look at all the propaganda during WW2 on the behalf of the allies.



Futhermore, the UN resolutions gave permission to protect Saudia Arabia against this supposed Iraqi invasion that was supposedly comming (a lie) and to liberate Kuwait from the "occupation" by Iraq, there was nothing about more than decade long sanctions, lies about all kinds of brutality that didnt happen nor about permission to lie about the state of the WMD they had.

Prior to 91 that is true. You cannot say that the invasion of Saudi Arabia was a 'lie'. Saddam had the will and the means to invade and capture the Saudi Arabian Oil fields close to Iraq. Whether he could have managed it is another story, but as 9/11 has showed [and also WW2 to a certian extent] it's better to be proactive rather than reactive.



And one more thing, any claim Iraq has or had on Kuwait is actually quite legimate. Much more so than any supposed claim Israelis have on Palestine anyways. And the bottomline, the war should have ended in 1991 in the liberation of Kuwait and not like its now going in a civil war and break up of Iraq in somewhere post 2006...

Legitimate to whom? The Iraqis? It was not legitimate to the international laws and standards which most of this world tries to adibe by.
Just because you've owned something once upon a time doesn't make it a legitimate excuse to go to war over it, otherwise my country, New Zealand, would probably still be at war with the native population who resided here before European settlers.

The war should have ended in 1991 yes - with the removing of Saddam, someone who was clearly insane with delusions of power, in an area where one of the worlds most valuable commodities, that benefits the entire world, is located heavily.

Oil doesnt just fuel your car you know. Plastics, everything.

Stablity in the region benefits the entire world. Im all for a war to keep that stability in place.

The sanctions that effected the Iraqi people were unfortunate - but at the end of the day - it was Saddam, not Bush Snr who started the whole mess. The blame lays on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. Don't be so ignorant to try and slice it any other way.

[Uninen]

Sure. The U.S. didn't start it by invading Kuwait however.
Yes, but continued it to the point beyond all sanity and reason with continued oppression and aggression towards Iraq post 91.

Also Saddam had a record of expansionist aggression and using chemical weapons, sitting on some of the worlds largest oil reserves, with a large military poised next to the largest (Saudi Arabia)
Well true, but he was also fighting scores of domestic and foreign terrorists and regional troublemakers, namely Kurds and Iranians and Iranians themselfs used and manufactured chemical weapons, all this on western technology on both nations.

Completely justified in my opinion.
I really cant agree.

I can see why they didn't get rid of him in 91, and I can also see why they got rid of him in 03.
There was no justification nor real reason not in 91 nor in 03, this would and did only result in destabilization of whole region and nation.

Sure they had the right to defend themselves. I would have done the same if I was them, but by the same account, it wasn't the U.S. who started this by invading Kuwait was it?
Kuwait was "freed". The mission was at end there, there was no reason or justification to continue the hostilities against legimate Iraqi nation.

No Kuwait invasion, no U.S. presence.
Like said, defence of Kuwait doesnt justify prolonged aggression against Iraq on their own territory.

Finishing something Saddam started.
That is debatable.

Bollocks he was given a green light. He just completely miscalculated the world reaction to him obtaining most of the Oil Reserves in the middle east.
The U.S. response at the time was one of neutrility, which was in accordance with State Department policy, does not equal 'Green Light'.
Maybe so, but it feel there was still a bit of over reaction. Saddam urgently needed funds, and tryed to get that from Kuwait but was and is not the madman his labeled as.

Propaganda happens in war. Get used to it. Doesn't mean the war is unjustified. Look at all the propaganda during WW2 on the behalf of the allies.
Yes at war, but the war was at its end in 91, at least that what was supposed to happen, sad it didnt and we know where that all lead.

Prior to 91 that is true. You cannot say that the invasion of Saudi Arabia was a 'lie'. Saddam had the will and the means to invade and capture the Saudi Arabian Oil fields close to Iraq. Whether he could have managed it is another story, but as 9/11 has showed [and also WW2 to a certian extent] it's better to be proactive rather than reactive.
I seriously feel Saddam never had any such plans, and what becomes to being reactive i never cease to wonder why didnt the Iraqis strike while the build ups were going on. Must be that they really had no ill will or plans against Saudi Arabia.

Legitimate to whom? The Iraqis? It was not legitimate to the international laws and standards which most of this world tries to adibe by.
Just because you've owned something once upon a time doesn't make it a legitimate excuse to go to war over it, otherwise my country, New Zealand, would probably still be at war with the native population who resided here before European settlers.
Yes, Iraqis, also i suggest you dig up a bit what kind of "nation" and "people" the "Kuwaitis" are..

The war should have ended in 1991 yes - with the removing of Saddam, someone who was clearly insane with delusions of power, in an area where one of the worlds most valuable commodities, that benefits the entire world, is located heavily.

Oil doesnt just fuel your car you know. Plastics, everything.

Stablity in the region benefits the entire world. Im all for a war to keep that stability in place.
Not again this whole "mad Saddam thing", thats just propaganda speaking. Also even if Saddam would have controlled the Kuwaiti oil for a reasonable price, the problem was that Saudis and Kuwaitis were selling the oil at so ridicilously low price that it was bringing about the doom of Iraqi nation.

The sanctions that effected the Iraqi people were unfortunate - but at the end of the day - it was Saddam, not Bush Snr who started the whole mess. The blame lays on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. Don't be so ignorant to try and slice it any other way.
It takes two to tango, and the goals and aims of US or BUSH (neither of them) were selfless nor just.
Financial benefit or prospect of it makes them "tik", the oil industry not to mention American military-industrial complex benefited greatly from the war, just look at all high tech us weaponry sold to Gulf States since 1991.

So on.

[Belrick]

rofl Oh man, that imagery is too funny. Saddam as working class hero - that had to come from some lefty focus group somewhere. There's poor dark skinned Saddam just back from his minimum wage job - and in walks the nasty white Monopoly Man, with his top hat and monocle - and punches him for no reason! Oh! the nerve!


What do you mean "no reason?"

We now know that Bush was using WMD as an pretense to invade and we also know that for a fact the US has taken control of Iraq's resources, torn up iraq oil contracts with other nations, reverted the sale of Iraqi oil back to US dollars etc etc.
So take the blue pill and change your post to read, "white Monopoly Man, with his top hat and monocle - and punches him and grabs his wallet".

Yes the Iraqi war is expensive, but whos paying? The Bush and Co dynasty? Halliburton? Or money loaned to the American tax payer by Japanese and Chinese?

[ed316]

Uninen, look up UN resolutions regarding Iraq. Your anti-Americanism reeks bad.

[Belrick]

But it's too easy to just come in here and condemn one course of action (i.e. war) - without fully fleshing out your suggested alternatives. Luckily, Iran provides you with a perfect opportunity to show us a better way. So, presuming that the conditions are roughly the same (i.e. we think we know they're after WMD, they deny it - only inspections can tell) - if Iran goes down the same road and will not allow inspections, or restricts them so severely that they are functionally useless...what's to be done? You're in the driver's seat Mr. President Belrick - what do we do?

Depends. Power corrupts. If i had the power of POTUS would I;

A: Be like Bush, create a false casus Belli to launch an invasion of no threat to my own country in order to gain material wealth. (Sad thing is, if Iraq had of had WMD capable of hurting the US then Bush would never of invaded, ironic yes?)

or

B: Be like Roosevelt, stick my military in his face (eg: moving the pacific fleet to Pearl Harbour) and basically stick myself and my nation in the firing line of any furthur agressive moods by the foreign power through embargoes etc. Thereby either forcing them to wither back down or launch a pre-emptive strike.

Now while i don't know how i would act i sure as sh!t know which one i'd rather be known alongside in the history books.

[Belrick]

Uninen, look up UN resolutions regarding Iraq. Your anti-Americanism reeks bad.


What has US resolutions got to do with the Iraqi conquest when it was the US who invaded despite going against the US? How is Iraq flaunting UN regulations any worse than the US complete disregard for it's rulings?

[ogukuo72]

March 29, 2006 Remembering Saddam's Slow War

By Austin Bay (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/austin_bay/)
The latest quip accusation that the United States "rushed to war" with Saddam's Iraq conveniently ignores 12 years of combat, terror and crime.

Perhaps The Slow War -- Saddam's war against the U.N.-mandated sanctions and inspections regimen that halted Operation Desert Storm -- has slipped from public historical memory. It shouldn't, for The Slow War is the long, violent bridge connecting Desert Storm to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
From March 1991 to March 2003, Saddam fought The Slow War savvily and savagely, utilizing an array of political, military and economic ploys. Moreover, by early 2003, Saddam believed he was winning.
[/URL]
The Iraqi dictator had reasons to make that calculation. Recall the fall of 2002 -- and the growing realization that the entire post-Desert Storm sanctions regimen had withered. The curious lack of political will on the part of key Security Council members (France and Russia) to keep Saddam properly caged was increasingly evident.
What the world didn't know, and wouldn't learn until early 2004 when the Iraqi Interim Government began naming names, was how effectively Saddam had corrupted the Oil for Food program. Oil for Food, a program designed to provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people, had in fact become an insidious economic weapon in The Slow War, used to buy political influence and corrode the entire sanctions policy.
A recent article in "The Economist" quoted former Saddam crony Tariq Aziz as telling interrogators that Saddam had given France and Russia millions of dollars in contracts "with the implied understanding that their political posture ... would be pro-Iraqi." In other words, mass murderer Saddam was bribing his way to a political victory that would have reversed his battlefield defeat in Desert Storm.
A post-9/11 irony also encouraged Saddam's view that he was winning The Slow War: Al-Qaida used the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Those troops and support facilities played a key role in maintaining the sanctions regimen. The United States was in a strategic political bind. Remain in Saudi Arabia and enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions sanctioning Saddam, or give superficial credence to al-Qaida's global agit-prop campaign that U.S. troops threatened Mecca.
Slow doesn't mean "not dangerous." Fighting The Slow War was tough duty, requiring fast reactions and quick decisions.
U.S. and British pilots patrolling the northern and southern "no-fly" zones over Iraq called their missions exactly what they were: combat missions. In 1997, I spoke with a pair of U.S. Air Force pilots who had been flying missions in the northern zone.
"We're painted all the time," one young captain told me. He was referring to Iraqi air defense units "painting" his aircraft with radar. The pilot's preferred response was an immediate volley of missiles and bombs to suppress Iraqi defenses. However, my chagrined source said the rules of engagement regarding the location of Iraqi defenses sometimes limited his preferred response.
Iraqis would position anti-aircraft weapons near a mosque or a school, and a counter-attack risked damaging those "peaceful" buildings. An off-target missile handed Saddam an easy and emotionally effective propaganda victory of the ilk, "See, the bad Americans bomb mosques and kill children."
Of course, the no-fly zone in the north was created to keep Saddam from committing further genocide against the Kurds, but an explosion and a crater make for great television images -- a sensational immediacy -- that obscured the terrible facts.
I argued in early 2003 that the Bush administration needed to end The Slow War with a victory. Enforcing the U.N.'s Desert Storm mandates mattered. Those resolutions demanded that Saddam end his depredations against ethnic and religious groups in Iraq (Kurds and Shias) and required him to end (completely) his weapons of mass destruction programs. He also had to destroy WMD delivery systems.
Though no WMDs turned up, Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspection regimen and was in violation of the other requirements. Besides, it was past time to pull the dictators' guns away from the heads of Arab moderates. Toppling Saddam began the reconfiguration of the Middle East, a dangerous, expensive process, but one that is laying the foundation for true states, where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy and where terrorists are prosecuted, not promoted.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Page Printed from: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/remembering_saddams_slow_war.html (http://www.rcpblog.com/mmgr/adclick.php?n=a021ed6f) at March 29, 2006 - 06:56:37 PM CST

Here's a nice little article that'll explain things better than I can.

My PERSONAL opinion, it was necessary to take down Saddam Hussein, WMD or not. He was just too much of a factor of instability in the middle of the Middle East.

[ed316]

What has US resolutions got to do with the Iraqi conquest when it was the US who invaded despite going against the US? How is Iraq flaunting UN regulations any worse than the US complete disregard for it's rulings?

Read the resolutions and you will find the anwser to your anwser. you will find that UN pass a law saying Iraq "face serious consequence". There was no disregard all the green light was given. Read the last UN resolution. I doubt it since that would prove you were wrong all along. With each resolution it had consequences.

[Belrick]

Now lets pretend you are the POTUS and you wanted Iraq's resources for yourself.

1:Could you get it through diplomatic means?
-No, other nations such as Russia, China, France and Germany have already beaten us to it. As soon as the current embargo ended it would be those nations, not the US that benefited the most.

2:Is it a good thing for the US for Iraqi oil to be traded in Euros?
Hell no, could cause major repucussions on the US economy.

3:Is Iraq militarily weak?
Yes, a peice of cake walk over requiring even fewer troops than the last war.

4:Is Iraq diplomatically weak?
Yes, she is isolated with no friends and no one to come to her aid in a time of war.

5: Could Iraq initiate MAD?
No, we know from intelliegence and UN inspections that Iraq has no WMD to threaten us or our troops with.

6:Would the American public support an invasion to gain material wealth?
No, that would not be tolerated at all.

-Will then have to come up with some cover story to convince the American public that the invasion is neccessary, fear being the primary tool to utilize...

[Belrick]

Read the resolutions and you will find the anwser to your anwser. you will find that UN pass a law saying Iraq "face serious consequence". There was no disregard all the green light was given. Read the last UN resolution. I doubt it since that would prove you were wrong all along. With each resolution it had consequences.

What ruling did the UN pass that gave the US the green light to carry out those consequences? Please cite this UN regulation.

*taps foot*

[Uninen]

My PERSONAL opinion, it was necessary to take down Saddam Hussein, WMD or not. He was just too much of a factor of instability in the middle of the Middle East.
Saddam was the factor that kept Iraq whole and peaceful and Iran at bay, that STABILITY, not instability.

And these UN resolitions are just tailor made tools for US just look at the whole UNSCOM deal, there had been no wmd since 94 since still in 03 they were "looking" for them, cause it suited the US agenda, and if the US didnt get resolution it wanted it just ignores them or uses a veto so there wont be a "resolution" about the subject.

[DaveDash]

Yes, but continued it to the point beyond all sanity and reason with continued oppression and aggression towards Iraq post 91.

Sanity and Reason? There were logical reasons for keeping Saddam Hussein in check demonstrated by his willingness on more than one occasion to go to war with his neighbours.
He'd tried Iran, He'd tried Kuwait, you think he'd just play nice after that? Is that a risk you're willing to take?
In a post 9/11 world it became apparent that purely reacting to problems didnt make them go away.



Well true, but he was also fighting scores of domestic and foreign terrorists and regional troublemakers, namely Kurds and Iranians and Iranians themselfs used and manufactured chemical weapons, all this on western technology on both nations.

German Technology actually.



I really cant agree.


Because you have it stuck in your head that this is all the United States fault, which is ignoring the historical facts.



There was no justification nor real reason not in 91 nor in 03, this would and did only result in destabilization of whole region and nation.

I've already been over this. Im not going to repeat myself.



Kuwait was "freed". The mission was at end there, there was no reason or justification to continue the hostilities against legimate Iraqi nation.

That was one operation in an ongoing war. That was the mission AT THAT TIME.



Like said, defence of Kuwait doesnt justify prolonged aggression against Iraq on their own territory.

You're not grasping the big picture. It had nothing to do with Kuwait, it had everything to do with the entire region.



That is debatable.


No, this is NOT debatable. Unless you live in another world to me, Saddam was the aggressor who invaded Kuwait.



Maybe so, but it feel there was still a bit of over reaction. Saddam urgently needed funds, and tryed to get that from Kuwait but was and is not the madman his labeled as.

Saddam got into huge debt in the first place because of his aggressive war that HE started against Iran. It's no excuse.



Yes at war, but the war was at its end in 91, at least that what was supposed to happen, sad it didnt and we know where that all lead.

It wasn't at its end, it was at a cease-fire. Similiar to North Korea/South Korea today. Major hostilities ceased.
It was only a matter of time before they resumed, and, in fact, a miracle they didnt.
All it would have taken was for one U.S. pilot to have been shot down and captured over Iraqi territory. The current pentagon war plan during the perod of 1991-2000 would have led to full scale escalation.



I seriously feel Saddam never had any such plans, and what becomes to being reactive i never cease to wonder why didnt the Iraqis strike while the build ups were going on. Must be that they really had no ill will or plans against Saudi Arabia.

It doesnt matter if he had plans for that or not. The fact is he had the potential, and the allied forces didnt know that.
Iraqi forces made at least one incursion into Saudi Arabia during the opening phases of the war, if they had competent leadership they could have overwhelmed the coalition forces at the beginning of the buildup prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
It was a real fear in Coalition planning that this would happen.



Yes, Iraqis, also i suggest you dig up a bit what kind of "nation" and "people" the "Kuwaitis" are..

I know a lot already, since one of my good friends is a Kuwait National (Palestinian Born - and with no real allegance or sympathy for the Kuwait people).



Not again this whole "mad Saddam thing", thats just propaganda speaking. Also even if Saddam would have controlled the Kuwaiti oil for a reasonable price, the problem was that Saudis and Kuwaitis were selling the oil at so ridicilously low price that it was bringing about the doom of Iraqi nation.

Perhaps Mad isn't the correct word, but he was irrational and unpredictable.

The Kuwaitis and Saudis were not selling oil at a ridiculously low price. Saddam tried to up his oil prices after he found himself in large debt with no access to any more sea ports after HIS AGRESSION against the Iranians. The Kuwaitis and Saudis to keep OIL MARKETS STABLE increased production.



It takes two to tango, and the goals and aims of US or BUSH (neither of them) were selfless nor just.
Financial benefit or prospect of it makes them "tik", the oil industry not to mention American military-industrial complex benefited greatly from the war, just look at all high tech us weaponry sold to Gulf States since 1991.

This is true for every country. Provided the world goes round and people are generally getting more well off, I don't have a problem with it.

Ever since the rise of America as a sole superpower and the end of the cold war, scientific studies have shown that there there is generally less poverty, starvation, and conflict through-out the world today than there was before.

The American superpower machine is generally an economic machine as opposed to a militaristic one, a machine that most people benefit off, including me right now sitting in Auckland New Zealand. My life is better because of it, and so is yours.

Could they do better? Yes. The world however is an unfair place, and I would label you as naive if you expect countries to act in the interests of others first.
The main difference is the United States, while acting it it's own interests, happens to have many mutually benefitial interests of other nations and generally respects core principals such as Democracy.

What is happening in Iraq now is a good thing. Much better than what happened in 1991. There is a real effort to reconstruct and give these people a better way of life, fronted by the American tax payer, and I respect them for that.

[California Joe]

It's not the war I have a problem with. It's the clusterf*ck after that I have a problem with. Lets say we buy into the whole "spreading democracy to the Middle East" line. If we left tomorrow there would be a civil war. In the aftermath the majority would probably elect some theocratic asshole in the Iran mold based on sheer numbers of like minded Iraqis. If we held a true winner take all election and everyone voted, the same thing would happen. BUT, this type of democratic outcome would not be favorable to us. So what do we do, bleed to overthrow a tyrant, then turn over the country to religious zealots that hate us? Even if they are elected by the people? The scenario of a real democracy is flawed from the start.

[DaveDash]

It's not the war I have a problem with. It's the clusterf*ck after that I have a problem with. Lets say we buy into the whole "spreading democracy to the Middle East" line. If we left tomorrow there would be a civil war. In the aftermath the majority would probably elect some theocratic asshole in the Iran mold based on sheer numbers of like minded Iraqis. If we held a true winner take all election and everyone voted, the same thing would happen. BUT, this type of democratic outcome would not be favorable to us. So what do we do, bleed to overthrow a tyrant, then turn over the country to religious zealots that hate us? Even if they are elected by the people? The scenario of a real democracy is flawed from the start.

Well it's better to try isn't it? You're country would be a lot different today if people thought 'Well screw it. It's not worth the price'

[Uninen]

Sanity and Reason? There were logical reasons for keeping Saddam Hussein in check demonstrated by his willingness on more than one occasion to go to war with his neighbours.
He'd tried Iran, He'd tried Kuwait, you think he'd just play nice after that? Is that a risk you're willing to take?
In a post 9/11 world it became apparent that purely reacting to problems didnt make them go away.
Against Iran he was acting more or less in benehalf of US and the "region".

German Technology actually.
Among others, American technology was nice represented in his A-Bomb building program tho. So on.

Because you have it stuck in your head that this is all the United States fault, which is ignoring the historical facts.
Its not solely but frankly, there was never a attemp to solve this mess without suffering and bloodshed. Possibilities however were endless and Saddam did his best, giving up all WMD so on. In the end it just made the destruction of the Iraqi nation so much easier.

I've already been over this. Im not going to repeat myself.
Yes.

That was one operation in an ongoing war. That was the mission AT THAT TIME.
By that time the war should have been ended, see the UN resolutions.

You're not grasping the big picture. It had nothing to do with Kuwait, it had everything to do with the entire region.
Oh i do see it, all of it actually. And i dont like it.

No, this is NOT debatable. Unless you live in another world to me, Saddam was the aggressor who invaded Kuwait.
My world is is called "facts and truth", not "Pentagon smoke screen".

Saddam got into huge debt in the first place because of his aggressive war that HE started against Iran. It's no excuse.
The war with Iran, it was to protect the regional and international interest against these crazy ass religious fanatics that took over Iran, and at the time USA was more than happy for Iraqs efforts and actually sided and took active part in operations against Iran, and when sometimes the Iraqis in error attacked American military in the gulf like nearly sunk that FF with Exocet ASM's it was no biggie. Also, this debt gives a REASON, not too valid one but shows it was a calculated gamble, not act of an madman.

It wasn't at its end, it was at a cease-fire. Similiar to North Korea/South Korea today. Major hostilities ceased.
It was only a matter of time before they resumed, and, in fact, a miracle they didnt.
All it would have taken was for one U.S. pilot to have been shot down and captured over Iraqi territory. The current pentagon war plan during the perod of 1991-2000 would have led to full scale escalation.
Yes well, i feel and many with me i think that A PEACE should have been made in 91. And the Koreas, the insanity of it all, people trying to unite their nation lose millions of dead on a bloody stalemate caused by super power politics in which nobody gained nothing nor lost, except those who gave their lifes.. the futility of it all.

It doesnt matter if he had plans for that or not. The fact is he had the potential, and the allied forces didnt know that.
Iraqi forces made at least one incursion into Saudi Arabia during the opening phases of the war, if they had competent leadership they could have overwhelmed the coalition forces at the beginning of the buildup prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
It was a real fear in Coalition planning that this would happen.
So should the rest of the world attack and destroy India, Pakistan, France, Israel, UK, US, Russia and China because these nations posess nuclear weapons and have potential to cause great damage and huge number of deaths? I think not. Also it is really pitty the Iraqis just sit by and do nothing, i would have driven them to sea, but then again this goes to prove Iraqis didnt want trouble nor anything more they already had. Also those incursions you mention, are you serious, fighting in abbandoned border down, two Iraqi divisions fighting elements getting terminated by a battalion of marines and air power that hardly counts as serious treath.

I know a lot already, since one of my good friends is a Kuwait National (Palestinian Born - and with no real allegance or sympathy for the Kuwait people).
Then you know it is a elitist and racist system with absurd laws so on and that work "dictartor" best describes the ruler? Nothing "nice" to defend i might add.

Perhaps Mad isn't the correct word, but he was irrational and unpredictable.

The Kuwaitis and Saudis were not selling oil at a ridiculously low price. Saddam tried to up his oil prices after he found himself in large debt with no access to any more sea ports after HIS AGRESSION against the Iranians. The Kuwaitis and Saudis to keep OIL MARKETS STABLE increased production.
Iraqis and many observers and by now historians see this differently. In a way i earlier told you about, also there were Iraqi reports of Kuwait actually stealing Iraqi oil.

Ever since the rise of America as a sole superpower and the end of the cold war, scientific studies have shown that there there is generally less poverty, starvation, and conflict through-out the world today than there was before.
I wouldnt bet on that nor i see any great change. Other than there is no ballancing power and USA can do whatever it pleases. Helping Ruandans and Somalis isnt / wasnt in that list tho.

The American superpower machine is generally an economic machine as opposed to a militaristic one, a machine that most people benefit off, including me right now sitting in Auckland New Zealand. My life is better because of it, and so is yours.
To me its increasingly militaristic, has been so ever since 45. And my way of life really hasnt ever been that much affected by any US input. Other than that the in ww2 my granpa had to fight communist army which was hell bend in destroying our nation and people and sending the survivors to siberia, communist army which at our front had plentiful supply of american gear, transports and weapons of different kinds. And thats not so positive influence now is it?

What is happening in Iraq now is a good thing. Much better than what happened in 1991. There is a real effort to reconstruct and give these people a better way of life, fronted by the American tax payer, and I respect them for that.
See Joes post below where you first said this, it sums it up nicely.

[ed316]

What ruling did the UN pass that gave the US the green light to carry out those consequences? Please cite this UN regulation.

*taps foot*


http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

Enjoy.


http://www.un.org/documents/titlesc.gif

http://www.un.org/documents/home.gif (http://www.un.org/english/index.html)http://www.un.org/documents/docctr.gif (http://www.un.org/documents/index.html)http://www.un.org/documents/about.gif (http://www.un.org/aboutun/)
Resolutions2006 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm)
2005 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions05.htm)
2004 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html)
2003 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html)
2002 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm)
2001 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm)
2000 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2000/sc2000.htm)
1999 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm)
1998 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/scres98.htm)
1997 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1997/scres97.htm)
1996 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1996/scres96.htm)
1995 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1995/scres95.htm)
1994 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1994/scres94.htm)
1993 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1993/scres93.htm)
1992 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1992/scres92.htm)
1991 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm)
1990 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm)
1989 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1989/scres89.htm)
1988 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1988/scres88.htm)
1987 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1987/scres87.htm)
1986 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1986/scres86.htm)
1985 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1985/scres85.htm)
1984 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1984/scres84.htm)
1983 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1983/scres83.htm)
1982 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1982/scres82.htm)
1981 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1981/scres81.htm)
1980 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1980/scres80.htm)
1979 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1979/scres79.htm)
1978 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1978/scres78.htm)
1977 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1977/scres77.htm)
1976 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1976/scres76.htm)
1975 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1975/scres75.htm)
1974 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1974/scres74.htm)
1973 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1973/scres73.htm)
1972 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1972/scres72.htm)
1971 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1971/scres71.htm)
1970 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1970/scres70.htm)
1969 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1969/scres69.htm)
1968 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1968/scres68.htm)
1967 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm)
1966 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1966/scres66.htm)
1965 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1965/scres65.htm)
1964 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1964/scres64.htm)
1963 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1963/scres63.htm)
1962 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1962/scres62.htm)
1961 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1961/scres61.htm)
1960 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1960/scres60.htm)
1959 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1959/scres59.htm)
1958 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1958/scres58.htm)
1957 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1957/scres57.htm)
1956 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1956/scres56.htm)
1955 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1955/scres55.htm)
1954 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1954/scres54.htm)
1953 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1953/scres53.htm)
1952 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1952/scres52.htm)
1951 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1951/scres51.htm)
1950 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1950/scres50.htm)
1949 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1949/scres49.htm)
1948 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1948/scres48.htm)
1947 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1947/scres47.htm)
1946 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1946/scres46.htm)

Some of our documents are in PDF format and can be read online or printed using the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader.
If you do not have this software installed on your system, you may download it from Adobe's website (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html).

[Mastermind]

Before people can be 'rehabilitated' they have to have once been 'habilitated'. That means, you can not make a ballarina out of a turd. So it is with Iraq and the entire ME.

[California Joe]

Well it's better to try isn't it? You're country would be a lot different today if people thought 'Well screw it. It's not worth the price'

Are you retarded? The American Revolution in no way compares to this except there are a few Brits about. The Iraqis can vote for whomever they please. We have bled to give them that right. But the point is they won't vote for someone friendly to us which kind of throws a wrench into the whole rosey portrait of the Middle East as a great democratic experiment.

[DaveDash]

Against Iran he was acting more or less in benehalf of US and the "region".

What the hell, no he wasnt. The United States originally didn't support Saddam until he started losing. They wanted stablity.
You need to read some history. I can quote you some books when I go home. [I have a few very good middle east history books written by an ex British intelligence officer].



Among others, American technology was nice represented in his A-Bomb building program tho. So on.

Saddam didn't go around nuking people. He gassed them using German made technology.
His Nuclear Weapons program was actually developed by the French and Italians, not the Americans.



Its not solely but frankly, there was never a attemp to solve this mess without suffering and bloodshed. Possibilities however were endless and Saddam did his best, giving up all WMD so on. In the end it just made the destruction of the Iraqi nation so much easier.

Did his best. Yeah right. So Saddam is just really looking out for his people. What a load of complete utter bull****.
Saddams whole existance was centered around him staying in power, with a Stalin like worship.

Saddam bought about the destruction of his nation himself and himself alone.

If someone murders someone, and is arrested, it's the polices fault is it?



By that time the war should have been ended, see the UN resolutions.


YOU see U.N. resolutions. Only in small part of them were to remove Saddam BY FORCE. Something that 30+ nations, not just the United States, agreed upon.
The other part of the U.N. resolutions were making sure he didn't get Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the sanctions.



Oh i do see it, all of it actually. And i dont like it.


In your own words you said you 'do not see' a logical or meaningful reason, so I don't believe that in the slightest.



My world is is called "facts and truth", not "Pentagon smoke screen".

Fact is the Pentagon was duefully concerned about an invasion of Saudi Arabia due to Saddams erratic and unpredictable behaviour. That is a fact.



The war with Iran, it was to protect the regional and international interest against these crazy ass religious fanatics that took over Iran, and at the time USA was more than happy for Iraqs efforts and actually sided and took active part in operations against Iran, and when sometimes the Iraqis in error attacked American military in the gulf like nearly sunk that FF with Exocet ASM's it was no biggie. Also, this debt gives a REASON, not too valid one but shows it was a calculated gamble, not act of an madman.

I've already refuted the madman claim. He was irrational and unpredictable from a western perception however. And stop playing him up as some sort of champion, you make yourself lose any sort of credibility as being an unbiased source.

The U.S. supported Saddam sure, only after he started losing. The first people in line to support him were France and Russia, his biggest buddies since the 70's.



Yes well, i feel and many with me i think that A PEACE should have been made in 91.

And let Saddam build up his military again and invade someone else? He had a record of doing that, you know.
Whatever happened, happened at his feet. Why are you trying to lay the blame of someones actions on everyone but the man himself?



And the Koreas, the insanity of it all, people trying to unite their nation lose millions of dead on a bloody stalemate caused by super power politics in which nobody gained nothing nor lost, except those who gave their lifes.. the futility of it all.

There are other ways to unite a nation rather than full scale invasion. My nation was united diplomatically.



So should the rest of the world attack and destroy India, Pakistan, France, Israel, UK, US, Russia and China because these nations posess nuclear weapons and have potential to cause great damage and huge number of deaths? I think not.

If these countries aggressively begin invading their neighbours then yes, the rest of the world should attack them.
If the U.S. decides it wants oil and invades Canada I hope the world has the balls to stand up to the U.S. - however thats an extremely unlikely scenario.



Also it is really pitty the Iraqis just sit by and do nothing, i would have driven them to sea, but then again this goes to prove Iraqis didnt want trouble nor anything more they already had. Also those incursions you mention, are you serious, fighting in abbandoned border down, two Iraqi divisions fighting elements getting terminated by a battalion of marines and air power that hardly counts as serious treath.

The Iraqis tried the best they could with what they had. The reason they failed so miserably was because of the paranoid command and control structure Saddam set up, which made him completely micromanager the war, and the fact that all his commanders were too **** scared to report him the truth incase they were executed.



Then you know it is a elitist and racist system with absurd laws so on and that work "dictartor" best describes the ruler? Nothing "nice" to defend i might add.

It's not Kuwait the world cared about, it's the oil underneath it. It could have been anywhere, which is something you're not quite grasping in your blind hatred towards these places.



Iraqis and many observers and by now historians see this differently. In a way i earlier told you about, also there were Iraqi reports of Kuwait actually stealing Iraqi oil.

Who are these so called observers and historians? I have quite a few history books at home on the matter, and they tend to disagree.



I wouldnt bet on that nor i see any great change. Other than there is no ballancing power and USA can do whatever it pleases. Helping Ruandans and Somalis isnt / wasnt in that list tho.

The U.S. has this thing called a Democratic society stopping it from doing what 'it pleases'. It's not some dictatorship, war on Iraq was declared by the American people (congress) no one man.



To me its increasingly militaristic, has been so ever since 45. And my way of life really hasnt ever been that much affected by any US input. Other than that the in ww2 my granpa had to fight communist army which was hell bend in destroying our nation and people and sending the survivors to siberia, communist army which at our front had plentiful supply of american gear, transports and weapons of different kinds. And thats not so positive influence now is it?

If anything it's less militaristic. Go study some history and get some facts behind you. The U.S. tried to invade Canada in Spain for occupational gains. It hasnt tried anything like that in years. It is an economic force, if you think it's militarisitic you really have no concept of history.
Go take a look at the Romans, or the Nazis, or the Ottomans, etc,etc,etc.

Even relative in todays world they are by no standards militaristic. They're just the only country you hear about.
Im sure the French in Africa are performing military operations for the good of the people, the Russians in Chechnya, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

I see where the blind hatred comes from now. Lend-Lease :rolls eyes:.

[DaveDash]

Are you retarded? The American Revolution in no way compares to this except there are a few Brits about. The Iraqis can vote for whomever they please. We have bled to give them that right. But the point is they won't vote for someone friendly to us which kind of throws a wrench into the whole rosey portrait of the Middle East as a great democratic experiment.

Im not retarded. My point was, that you missed, was that just because things may not work out is not a reason to try.
If they dont vote for someone that is friendly to you - it doesnt matter - you have still given them the chance for them to chose who they want.

Just like the Palestinians have been given that chance. It's not the end of the road, once the people feel the burder of voting in an extremist government they have the chance to vote in someone else, thanks to the gift thats been given to them.

And yes you have bled, but incase you havn't noticed they're bleeding too - in much larger numbers than your soldiers ever did. In a way, the more they bleed the more winning will mean to them.

Also one thing you should make note of, is that despite the place being a mess, its your soldiers, their soldiers, and their civilians doing the fighting so your firefighters and police don't have to do it back home. Regardless of whether terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion, they CERTAINLY are there now.

[Apathy]

South Korea.

After 3 years of war, a ceasefire was called. South Korea was in ruins and what little infrastructure we had was gone. Millions were dead and almost everyone was poor. The first government became corrupt and oppressive. It failed to rebuild the nation or improve the economy. Voting was rigged and opposition was suppressed. Students protested this and were shot. Soon after the shootings, the first government was overthrown and a second democratic government took it's place in 1960. Although democratic, it was unstable and failed to improve the economy. A year later, a military coup occured and the second government was overthrown. A military dictatorship was set up and a five-year plan was carried out. The economy grew rapidly. US and Japanese capital helped the growth of the economy.


20 years after the Korean War, South Korea had transformed from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in Asia. It took 20 years to rebuild a nation that didn't even have an infrastructure.

Now you're asking me why I told you this little story. Well it's because Iraq is kinda like South Korea only less ****tier. South Korea has little natural resources of its own, while Iraq sits on the second largest oil deposit in the world. South Korea was almost completely destroyed by the war, Iraq is relatively intact. All Iraq needs right now is a good government who can unite the people and expand the economy.

[California Joe]

Im not retarded. My point was, that you missed, was that just because things may not work out is not a reason to try.
If they dont vote for someone that is friendly to you - it doesnt matter - you have still given them the chance for them to chose who they want.

Just like the Palestinians have been given that chance. It's not the end of the road, once the people feel the burder of voting in an extremist government they have the chance to vote in someone else, thanks to the gift thats been given to them.

And yes you have bled, but incase you havn't noticed they're bleeding too - in much larger numbers than your soldiers ever did. In a way, the more they bleed the more winning will mean to them.

Also one thing you should make note of, is that despite the place being a mess, its your soldiers, their soldiers, and their civilians doing the fighting so your firefighters and police don't have to do it back home. Regardless of whether terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion, they CERTAINLY are there now.

Frankly, I like your idealized version of what may happen, but from a political, national security standpoint it's no where near that simple. Why replace one asshole dictator with an Ayatollah? Once they vote in an extremist government they won't be given the chance to vote them out. What justification does that give us that we did the right thing. The Iraqis were bleeding before we got there, but it was different Iraqis doing the bleeding. Sure the terrorists are there now. The foot soldiers with a yen to kill an American or a Brit etc....for Allah....The masterminds are still behind the scenes, patiently waiting for another 5 years before they strike again. This isn't a short term engagement for them. They are prepared for the long haul.

[Apathy]

Frankly, I like your idealized version of what may happen, but from a political, national security standpoint it's no where near that simple. Why replace one asshole dictator with an Ayatollah? Once they vote in an extremist government they won't be given the chance to vote them out. What justification does that give us that we did the right thing. The Iraqis were bleeding before we got there, but it was different Iraqis doing the bleeding. Sure the terrorists are there now. The foot soldiers with a yen to kill an American or a Brit etc....for Allah....The masterminds are still behind the scenes, patiently waiting for another 5 years before they strike again. This isn't a short term engagement for them. They are prepared for the long haul.

Punch them in the head, run away, let them forget, come back, punch them in the head, repeat.

That's basically what they're doing.

[Uninen]

What the hell, no he wasnt. The United States originally didn't support Saddam until he started losing. They wanted stablity.
You need to read some history. I can quote you some books when I go home. [I have a few very good middle east history books written by an ex British intelligence officer].
Stability and security which would be present when the religious fanatics of Iranian islamic revolution would be dealt with, but to American dismay, Saddam nor Iraqi military really wasnt up for the job despite their rather modern armory as they would soon find out.

Saddam didn't go around nuking people. He gassed them using German made technology.
His Nuclear Weapons program was actually developed by the French and Italians, not the Americans.
Actually after destruction of Osirak, and failed attemps to get reactor from Italy the Iraqis started non reactor based enrichment program for their A-Bomb and the project was massive and totally on US tech, plans actually too! And the Germans sold the technology with full American knowledge btw, there was no objections. And also something like Chemical weapons i really dont get what the fuzz is about, they have been used in war before and after. And will be used.

Did his best. Yeah right. So Saddam is just really looking out for his people. What a load of complete utter bull****.
Saddams whole existance was centered around him staying in power, with a Stalin like worship.
Those painting and statues and shyte, their all over Arab world, its Arab thing, not "Stalin thing". And seeing what happened in Iraq after his demise, it propably wasnt that bad of an idea to keep Baath party and Saddam in power.

Saddam bought about the destruction of his nation himself and himself alone.
By getting rid of WMD in 3 years and enduring another 9 years of sanctions after that and the the total destruction of the nation by Americans as thanks for the cooperation. Yeah, bad Saddam all his fault.

If someone murders someone, and is arrested, it's the polices fault is it?
Are you feeling ok?
[QUOTE=DaveDash]Fact is the Pentagon was duefully concerned about an invasion of Saudi Arabia due to Saddams erratic and unpredictable behaviour. That is a fact.
Im not certain about this, are they doing too much or too few drugs in Pentagon?

I've already refuted the madman claim. He was irrational and unpredictable from a western perception however. And stop playing him up as some sort of champion, you make yourself lose any sort of credibility as being an unbiased source.
Not anymore so than your Mr.President. I think the problem really was that Saddam was a PUPPET.

The U.S. supported Saddam sure, only after he started losing. The first people in line to support him were France and Russia, his biggest buddies since the 70's.
I dont know about the first part but the France and USSR you are correct about, but what does it have to do with anything?

If these countries aggressively begin invading their neighbours then yes, the rest of the world should attack them.
If the U.S. decides it wants oil and invades Canada I hope the world has the balls to stand up to the U.S. - however thats an extremely unlikely scenario.
USA is doing this very thing, AROUND THE GLOBE, ever since 45. To insert these "democratic" goverments and bring "freedom" (should really read elitistic capitalist regimes) which whom they make "good brother deals" then. Money controls everything, even international politics. Also i fail to see how doing this shyte in GLOBAL SCALE in somehow not as bad as "invading Canada" or Mexico.

It's not Kuwait the world cared about, it's the oil underneath it. It could have been anywhere, which is something you're not quite grasping in your blind hatred towards these places.
Do you see and understand what you are saying here? THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Its very true however, i think this was some sort of lapse from you to admit this?

Who are these so called observers and historians? I have quite a few history books at home on the matter, and they tend to disagree.
Populistic english language propaganda publications tend to do so, are you sure what you have in your hand isnt the todays editon of "SIGNAL"?

The U.S. has this thing called a Democratic society stopping it from doing what 'it pleases'. It's not some dictatorship, war on Iraq was declared by the American people (congress) no one man.
Yes, what a good job have you been doing in your "democrazy" to stop this dangerous madman that you call your president. And to the record, if you compare US system to lets say to the nordic, it hasnt even seen democrazy.

I see where the blind hatred comes from now. Lend-Lease :rolls eyes:.
No this was to show that if theres something to be gained, USA will make deal with Anti-Christ himself.

[Futile Talisman]

Frankly, I like your idealized version of what may happen, but from a political, national security standpoint it's no where near that simple. Why replace one asshole dictator with an Ayatollah? Once they vote in an extremist government they won't be given the chance to vote them out. What justification does that give us that we did the right thing. The Iraqis were bleeding before we got there, but it was different Iraqis doing the bleeding. Sure the terrorists are there now. The foot soldiers with a yen to kill an American or a Brit etc....for Allah....The masterminds are still behind the scenes, patiently waiting for another 5 years before they strike again. This isn't a short term engagement for them. They are prepared for the long haul.

Well said, the attempt at democracy in Iraq I feel is something that will never come to fruition. Despite a bloody war in the 1980's, fatwas from Shiite clerics will call and pray for unity with their shiite brethren. Iran has been operating in this AO for a very long time, as CJ said, they do not operate on our timelines and do not have the sense of time we have.

They do not have policy but a message to wait for the time to do one's duty, this could be from 15, 25, or even a thousand years, we see things in fiscal quarters and yearly draw downs. Iran will covertly operate in the south, money will be spent, this will not be overt, and the fighters have incredible patience, the masterminds are willing to wait, it is the heart of the Middle East.


There is an old Middle Eastern saying, forget where exactly I heard it, but it goes something like this,

"In the Middle East a year is but a heartbeat, a decade but a pause, and a century is merely a period of time in the eternal land of the Prophet"

Like CJ said, they are ready for the long haul and know the American mind, unfortunately we forget quickly, became complacent, and then react.

This will indeed be a generational struggle.

FT

OUT

[DaveDash]

Stability and security which would be present when the religious fanatics of Iranian islamic revolution would be dealt with, but to American dismay, Saddam nor Iraqi military really wasnt up for the job despite their rather modern armory as they would soon find out.

The last thing America wanted was Iraq getting their hands on Iranian oil.



Actually after destruction of Osirak, and failed attemps to get reactor from Italy the Iraqis started non reactor based enrichment program for their A-Bomb and the project was massive and totally on US tech, plans actually too! And the Germans sold the technology with full American knowledge btw, there was no objections. And also something like Chemical weapons i really dont get what the fuzz is about, they have been used in war before and after. And will be used.

100% wrong. Their tech was mostly French. The U.S. had no involvement in their weapons programs. Just google around, you'll see pictures of then Prime-minister Chirac visiting Osirak.
After the destruction of Osirak they went back to the French, not Italians, but the new French Prime Minister told them to bugger off.
They restored their enrichment program from destroyed Osirak, not U.S. technology.

The German company (I forget the name) sold Chemical weapons technology to Iraq without the German government being aware at the time, let alone the American. I have numerous sources on this at home, combined with documentaries and interviews that I have personally witnessed about the people INVOLVED in the program.



Those painting and statues and shyte, their all over Arab world, its Arab thing, not "Stalin thing". And seeing what happened in Iraq after his demise, it propably wasnt that bad of an idea to keep Baath party and Saddam in power.

Completely missed the point. Saddam worshipped Stalin and based his rule on that fact.
Ok so let me get this straight, it's ok for hundreds of thousands of people to die through ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mismanagement (schools and hospitals were barely functioning in Saddams time, particulary after the Iranian war) than it is for thousands to die in Iraqis struggle for freedom?



By getting rid of WMD in 3 years and enduring another 9 years of sanctions after that and the the total destruction of the nation by Americans as thanks for the cooperation. Yeah, bad Saddam all his fault.


Saddam would never have had to deal with sanctions or destruction of his nation if he didn't invade Kuwait in the first place.
And it wasn't just the Americans. France or Russia could have vetoed those U.N. resolutions at any time - they didn't.



Im not certain about this, are they doing too much or too few drugs in Pentagon?

Your credability is getting worse and worse.



Not anymore so than your Mr.President. I think the problem really was that Saddam was a PUPPET.

Im not American. He is not my President. Do you even read what I type?

Saddam was hardly a puppet. He was the master of coups and governered by the Americans own admission one of the most secure and secretive governments on the planet.



I dont know about the first part but the France and USSR you are correct about, but what does it have to do with anything?

Nothing. You bought up the subject first.



USA is doing this very thing, AROUND THE GLOBE, ever since 45. To insert these "democratic" goverments and bring "freedom" (should really read elitistic capitalist regimes) which whom they make "good brother deals" then. Money controls everything, even international politics. Also i fail to see how doing this shyte in GLOBAL SCALE in somehow not as bad as "invading Canada" or Mexico.

Comes back to my point of being an economic power rather than a militaristic power. They did some nasty **** by supporting tin-pot dictators in the name of the cold war, but that was pre 9/11 thinking.

Now, incase you havnt noticed, they're actually trying to rebuild nations democratically such as they did with Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Those places wernt completely rosey to begin with but I think youll agree with me that they didnt turn out too bad.



Do you see and understand what you are saying here? THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Its very true however, i think this was some sort of lapse from you to admit this?

The world runs off oil. Vehicle propultion, plastics, the works. It is vital to our well being that nothing disrupts the flow of oil.
Unlike you im not searching for some idealistic high ground. Im quite happy with the way the world works economically with the United States as the leader.
People die, wars happen, they're always going to happen so long as humanity exists, the fact is however the world has been far more stable with a powerful United States at the helm than it has been with any other country.
See WW1 and WW2 for details.



Populistic english language propaganda publications tend to do so, are you sure what you have in your hand isnt the todays editon of "SIGNAL"?

So all my sources (many authors I have are somewhat anti-american in their stance, btw) are wrong and all yours a right. You wont even name them.



Yes, what a good job have you been doing in your "democrazy" to stop this dangerous madman that you call your president. And to the record, if you compare US system to lets say to the nordic, it hasnt even seen democrazy.

Again you show you are incapable of actually holding intelligent debate. I have mentioned a few times now I am not American.
The United States is a representative republic. It is just as democratic as the system my country uses, the Parlimentary Democracy, just a little different.



No this was to show that if theres something to be gained, USA will make deal with Anti-Christ himself.

The Russians were hardly the anti-christ at that moment in time. You'll also note the United States got into a 40 year conflict with that said state.
The elected official of the U.S. at that period was quite fond of the Soviets, but future ones were not.
Again your ignorance is showing when you label a nations entire history based on one politian or one brief period in time.

Completely out of context too, by the way.

[DaveDash]

Well said, the attempt at democracy in Iraq I feel is something that will never come to fruition. Despite a bloody war in the 1980's, fatwas from Shiite clerics will call and pray for unity with their shiite brethren. Iran has been operating in this AO for a very long time, as CJ said, they do not operate on our timelines and do not have they sense of time we have.

They do not have policy but a message to wait for the time to do one's duty, this could be from 15, 25, or even a thousand years, we see things in fiscal quarters and yearly draw downs. Iran will covertly operate in the south, money will be spent, this will not be overt, and the fighters have incredible patience, the masterminds are willing to wait, it is the heart of the Middle East.


There is an old Middle Eastern saying, forget where exactly I heard it, but it goes something like this,

"In the Middle East a year is but a heartbeat, a decade but a pause, and a century is merely a period of time in the eternal land of the Prophet"

Like CJ said, they are ready for the long haul and know the American mind, unfortunately we forget quickly, became complacent, and then react.

This will indeed be a generational struggle.

FT

OUT

I'm not discrediting this and in fact, agree with it.

Getting all dismayed by the current situation however is ignoring history and ignoring the fact that the current leader of the United States isn't 'forgetting' any time soon, something which many of his critics tend to ignore.

No U.S. President in the past 30 years has actually stuck around to see something through.

Lebanon - Pull Out
Iraq 1 - Pull Out
Somalia - Pull Out

You finally end up one with the guts to actually stick around and do something (and hence, those pesky journalists too) and everyone comes down on him like a ton of bricks.

[Futile Talisman]

I'm not discrediting this and in fact, agree with it.

Getting all dismayed by the current situation however is ignoring history and ignoring the fact that the current leader of the United States isn't 'forgetting' any time soon, something which many of his critics tend to ignore.

No U.S. President in the past 30 years has actually stuck around to see something through.

Lebanon - Pull Out
Iraq 1 - Pull Out
Somalia - Pull Out

You finally end up one with the guts to actually stick around and do something (and hence, those pesky journalists too) and everyone comes down on him like a ton of bricks.

Agree with some of the above, Desert Storm was not a pull out, the Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait and the mission was accomplished. Did we make a mistake in allowing Saadam air assets (helicopter gunships) to attack the kurds, yes.

He is willing to stick it out in the terms of the GWOT, but what I think the point that is trying to be made is that we thought we could do Iraq like Afghanistan, minimal footprint, sepecial operations, and air power. We now find ourselves in MOUT and border security operations.

I will stick by POTUS as I have said before, but seeing Iraqi Freedom through means a shiite government with possible ties to Iran.

In 5 years time we may be training, aiding and fighting along side the Sunni insurgents to prevent Iranian hegemony. Really, that is a viable possibilty, pro shiite radical government installed, who are the indigs. we are going to look to in order to destabilize the regime we installed into power.

It is a vicious cycle.

Post war planning is also is Monday Morning quarterbacking,

*not disbanding the Iraqi (non RG units)

*more troops on the ground to secure the country once major combat operations ended

We are where we are at, I support POTUS and the troops, but for the region, this will not spark a spread of democratic ideals.


The reason the journalist are allowed to come down on the President like a ton of bricks is that the public permits it, 30 second soundbites and brief images is news these days. The oppostion can stand on the sidelines and not offer an alternative because we have not demanded they do so.


FT

OUT

[NewsMan]

South Korea.

After 3 years of war, a ceasefire was called. South Korea was in ruins and what little infrastructure we had was gone. Millions were dead and almost everyone was poor. The first government became corrupt and oppressive. It failed to rebuild the nation or improve the economy. Voting was rigged and opposition was suppressed. Students protested this and were shot. Soon after the shootings, the first government was overthrown and a second democratic government took it's place in 1960. Although democratic, it was unstable and failed to improve the economy. A year later, a military coup occured and the second government was overthrown. A military dictatorship was set up and a five-year plan was carried out. The economy grew rapidly. US and Japanese capital helped the growth of the economy.


20 years after the Korean War, South Korea had transformed from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in Asia. It took 20 years to rebuild a nation that didn't even have an infrastructure.

Now you're asking me why I told you this little story. Well it's because Iraq is kinda like South Korea only less ****tier. South Korea has little natural resources of its own, while Iraq sits on the second largest oil deposit in the world. South Korea was almost completely destroyed by the war, Iraq is relatively intact. All Iraq needs right now is a good government who can unite the people and expand the economy.


Wow... great post.

[DaveDash]

Agree with some of the above, Desert Storm was not a pull out, the Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait and the mission was accomplished. Did we make a mistake in allowing Saadam air assets (helicopter gunships) to attack the kurds, yes.

He is willing to stick it out in the terms of the GWOT, but what I think the point that is trying to be made is that we thought we could do Iraq like Afghanistan, minimal footprint, sepecial operations, and air power. We now find ourselves in MOUT and border security operations.

I will stick by POTUS as I have said before, but seeing Iraqi Freedom through means a shiite government with possible ties to Iran.

In 5 years time we may be training, aiding and fighting along side the Sunni insurgents to prevent Iranian hegemony. Really, that is a viable possibilty, pro shiite radical government installed, who are the indigs. we are going to look to in order to destabilize the regime we installed into power.

It is a vicious cycle.

Post war planning is also is Monday Morning quarterbacking,

*not disbanding the Iraqi (non RG units)

*more troops on the ground to secure the country once major combat operations ended

We are where we are at, I support POTUS and the troops, but for the region, this will not spark a spread of democratic ideals.


The reason the journalist are allowed to come down on the President like a ton of bricks is that the public permits it, 30 second soundbites and brief images is news these days. The oppostion can stand on the sidelines and not offer an alternative because we have not demanded they do so.


FT

OUT

I generally agree with everything you've said here, but not completely.

I think democratic ideals HAVE sparked in the region. Iran (from the peoples perspective), Saudi Arabia, Egypt have all changed. While many Arabs will look at the situatoin in Iraq and see a mixed bag, the spark has already begun.

There have been other effects as well, look at the 180 Libya has done. Protests in Lebanon against the undemocractic actions there, carrying U.S. flags in support. Protests in the Ivory Coast against the French, carrying U.S. flags of support.

Also I would challange you to find a official statement from the Whitehouse saying this is going to be anything like Afghanistan. Most of the time I was hearing statements about how this is going to be a long haul - except perhaps from Rumsfield who was a little optimisitic but quickly changed his tune.
Many Republicans and many in the media said Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, in and out, and those statements have been wrongly affiliated with the adminisitration.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Dam good thread people!

[Royal]

Dam good thread people!

Hmmm

This is why I generally stay out of the Rants section.

A bunch of nutters with an agenda and no ability to see what's in front of their noses arguing with another bunch of nutters with an agenda and no ability to see what's in front of their noses.

Hey ho.

[Hollis]

I think democratic ideals HAVE sparked in the region. Iran (from the peoples perspective), Saudi Arabia, Egypt have all changed. While many Arabs will look at the situatoin in Iraq and see a mixed bag, the spark has already begun.


I think that is the big point. Freedom is a unquenchable flame, it grows. Oppression has been trying to abate it sense the beginning of time. Regardless of what some think that outcome will be, Freedom at least will simmer. It is human nature to atleast want the same or more freedom. Iraqi people will eventually determine the face of political Iraq to their preference. Same with Iran, any where in the world. The problem is time, on how long it will take. There are those here on this forum who support the oppression with their own political pandering, inability to take positive action and own perverted sense of loyalty. But none of this is new to struggle for Freedom. History is being repeated again as we try to move forward. In the States partisan politics creates a unholy alliance with the forces of oppression for their own political gain. There there are those that are so obsessed with USA bashing that they aid oppression elsewheres in the world.

If the USA is the home of terrorism, why do million, each year, risk their lives and freedom to escape INTO the USA (along with other western countries)? Why aren't they trying to get into Iran, Syria, and those other countries? Look at the Immagration to Europe, rather from Europe, WHY? If the west and the USA is the heart of satan, why they prefer to behere at great personal risk. Where is all of this oppression of personal liberaties in the West as compared to other places.

[California Joe]

Bottom line is that if they are allowed the freedom to elect who they want it will not be Ahmed Chalabi or some other ****head used car salesman the current adminstration thought they could control. It will become a theocracy with guys like Al Sadr making policy, and their policy is not in line with our wishes. If the entire region becomes like Iran we are going to be looking at a serious nuclear weapons problem in the not so distant future.

[Uninen]

The last thing America wanted was Iraq getting their hands on Iranian oil.
Iranian oil wasnt the subject, as Americans werent getting that anyhow, but securing the Iraqi and Gulf states oil was.

100% wrong. Their tech was mostly French. The U.S. had no involvement in their weapons programs. Just google around, you'll see pictures of then Prime-minister Chirac visiting Osirak.
After the destruction of Osirak they went back to the French, not Italians, but the new French Prime Minister told them to bugger off.
They restored their enrichment program from destroyed Osirak, not U.S. technology.
Osirak was french i dont deny that but what happened after Osirak was destroyed was based on American technology see here:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/Calutron.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html


In July 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, news from Iraq confirmed what I had concluded twelve years earlier: That Iraq had decided to use the calutron electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) process to produce highly enriched uranium, i.e., the very same process that was actually used to produce the uranium-235 that was fissioned in the atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima in August 1945.

With hindsight, we can interpret this initiative of Dr. Jafar as an attempt to establish a scientific link with Oak Ridge, the laboratory where the World War II calutron plant was built, and where a couple of wartime calutrons were still in daily operation, despite the fact that they were nearly forty years old.

In one interview, Hamza discussed how Iraq sought computer programs in the 1970s to design magnets for the EMIS program. Many of the programs obtained by Iraq were of U.S.-origin. According to Hamza:

"We tried to get some standard U.S. magnet design programs. We found two or three at CERN. These were originally American programs, but CERN used them to design their own magnets. Jaffar brought with him the entire CERN library when he came back to Iraq in 1974. We also sent some people back to CERN and they also brought back some tapes.

Another source of programs was a library at Belfast, in Northern Ireland. There is a library there, which has an international repository of [computer] programs. You can join in and gain access for a couple of thousand dollars a year, so we joined that library -- I was the corresponding member ... we [also] purchased a professional package from some companies that designed magnets for CERN. One of them was a Swedish company. I forget the name. The other was German. I don't remember its name, either. According to Jaffar, these two contracts would result in an EMIS magnet, but each, by itself, would not" (May 27, 1999 interview of Khidhir Hamza).

Iraq had difficulty in finding programs compatible to its computer systems. According to Hamza, "the only problem [with the CERN magnets] is that they were installed on CDC computers in Geneva and we had to install them on IBM. We had to do a lot of changes in the command systems in the program, which we did" (May 27, 1999 interview of Khidhir Hamza).

Another publication of ISIS by David Albright, Corey Gay and Khidhir Hamza entitled "Development of the Al-Tuwaitha site: What if the public or the IAEA had overhead imagery?" [Al-Tuwaitha] is to my knowledge the only document apart from ISRI-95-03 which is highlighting the contradiction between the huge Iraqi nuclear weapon program, the fantastic information gathering capabilities available to the intelligence agencies of the great powers, and the claim that Iraq's effort was discovered only AFTER the Gulf War.
Much of the information is today classified how and from where they get the ideas and info on the "calutrons", but it is generaly agreed they got blueprints for those and maybe even for atomic device from American archives.

The German company (I forget the name) sold Chemical weapons technology to Iraq without the German government being aware at the time, let alone the American. I have numerous sources on this at home, combined with documentaries and interviews that I have personally witnessed about the people INVOLVED in the program.
Sure. I really dont believe nor does anybody sane that this all could happen under the watchful eyes of German and American inteligence services during the cold war, get real.

Completely missed the point. Saddam worshipped Stalin and based his rule on that fact.
Ok so let me get this straight, it's ok for hundreds of thousands of people to die through ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mismanagement (schools and hospitals were barely functioning in Saddams time, particulary after the Iranian war) than it is for thousands to die in Iraqis struggle for freedom?
The schools and hospitals were crippled by the UN / US action and because the sanctions, before that the Iraq healtcare and education systems were the best in the middle east not including Israel.
Also theres no "ethnic cleansing, genocide" there. Just propaganda talk, sane person would name what you call by those names as fight against trators, terrorist and rebels, i think fancy modern word here is "insurgents" waging a illegal war against their own legimate state and nation, its people.

Saddam would never have had to deal with sanctions or destruction of his nation if he didn't invade Kuwait in the first place.
And it wasn't just the Americans. France or Russia could have vetoed those U.N. resolutions at any time - they didn't.
Because American pressure. And also, once the santions were in place the security counsil could only undo those by a resolution that that would remove them, this of course wasnt on Americans things to do list and they could and would always use their veto to nullify any efforts to ease the sanctions. Also the the purpose of the original santions was to put pressure against Iraq during Kuwaiti crisis and war and in 91 that need was gone, but Americans were to extend their effect, purpose and duration to effect the destruction of Iraqi civilization.

Your credability is getting worse and worse.
Says you? You need really to read and understand what im telling you, there is nothing incredible in these things.

Im not American. He is not my President. Do you even read what I type?
Yes and sorry of course, your a Kiwi. But you really blindly side with the American agenda on these issues and fail to see the truth.

Saddam was hardly a puppet. He was the master of coups and governered by the Americans own admission one of the most secure and secretive governments on the planet.
This is my point, and because he was no puppet of the Americans this made him "dangerous" and unwanted to the Americans and was the reason he was dealt with, unlike their other cruel rulers in the middle east who are American lapdogs.

Comes back to my point of being an economic power rather than a militaristic power. They did some nasty **** by supporting tin-pot dictators in the name of the cold war, but that was pre 9/11 thinking.
That still continues.

Now, incase you havnt noticed, they're actually trying to rebuild nations democratically such as they did with Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Those places wernt completely rosey to begin with but I think youll agree with me that they didnt turn out too bad.
Yes, all of these nations now are servants of American cause and wealth, thank god Germany is again starting to look for its own and european intrests too taking a moral stance when one is needed.

The world runs off oil. Vehicle propultion, plastics, the works. It is vital to our well being that nothing disrupts the flow of oil.
Unlike you im not searching for some idealistic high ground. Im quite happy with the way the world works economically with the United States as the leader.
This is the world which against allies fought against in ww2, a world where theres one nation that does what it pleases at the expence of all others, how ironic.

People die, wars happen, they're always going to happen so long as humanity exists, the fact is however the world has been far more stable with a powerful United States at the helm than it has been with any other country.
See WW1 and WW2 for details.
See above, one empire ruling supreme, this is not a good thing. This isnt freedom nor is it just or justice. Its just the same kind of dominance over others that Nazis and Communist seeked.

So all my sources (many authors I have are somewhat anti-american in their stance, btw) are wrong and all yours a right. You wont even name them.
I didnt say that but these ones you present seem to be "bit" off. Also i cant give out of hand any single source as i have been watching the Iraq closely since the invasion of Kuwait, thats 16 years now and gathered this knowledge.

Again you show you are incapable of actually holding intelligent debate. I have mentioned a few times now I am not American.
The United States is a representative republic. It is just as democratic as the system my country uses, the Parlimentary Democracy, just a little different.
Not true, not any of that, sorry.

The Russians were hardly the anti-christ at that moment in time. You'll also note the United States got into a 40 year conflict with that said state.
Yes they were, with Pol Pot the Josif Stalin is the most evil person who has ruled a nation on this earth and has caused unimaginable pain, suffering and death, pretty much like USA too, we just cant point the blame there for any single person.

The elected official of the U.S. at that period was quite fond of the Soviets, but future ones were not.
Not that they were that fond of them and Trumman certainly wasnt its just that they sold their soles to devil to for political, mititary and financial gain, nothing new there.

Again your ignorance is showing when you label a nations entire history based on one politian or one brief period in time.

Completely out of context too, by the way.
I really cant name that many good deed by either, the "Soviets" or "USA". Countless evil deeds and wrong doings tho. All part of this insane power struggle.

[Belrick]

Frankly, I like your idealized version of what may happen, but from a political, national security standpoint it's no where near that simple. Why replace one asshole dictator with an Ayatollah? Once they vote in an extremist government they won't be given the chance to vote them out. What justification does that give us that we did the right thing. The Iraqis were bleeding before we got there, but it was different Iraqis doing the bleeding. Sure the terrorists are there now. The foot soldiers with a yen to kill an American or a Brit etc....for Allah....The masterminds are still behind the scenes, patiently waiting for another 5 years before they strike again. This isn't a short term engagement for them. They are prepared for the long haul.

You are one step awaying from clicking and answering your own questions. A nations leaders mirrors its people (unless theyve been conquered of course). If a leader is unpopular enough with the masses, wether he be the greatest President ever or a brutal dictator then the people WILL over throw them in time.

Remember it was Iraqi's who held SH power for him, not some Hessian mercenaries.

So a harsh ruler like Saddam would never be able to rule New Zealand any more than a bra burning socialist like Helen Clark could ever rule Iraq.