Getting Political with Iraq

[burner69]

After months and months of taking it in turns to blow the crap out of eachother, it seems at last that the Coalition and the anti-coalition rebels are talking.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=613492

Now, I say well done to both sides for this, as very few wars can be won without some degree of talking between both sides.

What do you folks reckon to this? And do you think it'll work?

 

[PvtRyan]

Yes, but as far as I know, these talks are with the members of the old army and Saddam supporters, not the religious nutcases. So they're still as dangerous as ever.

 

[KoreBolteR]

good news. hopefully some peace for a change.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'am glad such things are taking hold. Perhaps now we can come home, end this war, and those who are fighting against us can return home and live in peace.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

IMO. Eventual success in Iraq has never been in doubt.

 

[MJB006]

i think its wishful thinking to believe that these talks will come to any avail. i think the same thing will happen that happens with israelis and palestineans............talks then terrorism

 

[Hot Soup]

IMO. Eventual success in Iraq has never been in doubt.

If by eventual you mean a god awfull amount of dead from both sides through attrition, numerous civilian casulties and not finding wmd then sure "success" by all means.

 

[diluted]

IMO. Eventual success in Iraq has never been in doubt.

Well, that's your opinion, but I have serious doubts about Iraq. Call me a pessimist, but the middle east isn't exactly a very stable place. 10 years from now Iraq could be far worse off than it is now, or even under Hussein. Then again, it could be a shining example of democracy and freedom in the middle east. But who knows.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If by eventual you mean a god awfull amount of dead from both sides through attrition, numerous civilian casulties and not finding wmd then sure "success" by all means.

I think he meant success as meaning the recent, highly successful elections, and the overthrowing of Saddam. I was watching some Congressional testimony from the US Joints Chiefs of Staff and they claim that over 150,000 Iraqis are now trained and performing operations once done by the US. They have even more in the limbo status of still being trained. The main focus now turns to the infastructure of Iraq.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

An Iraq that no longer threatens the world, one that is free where the people are not slaughtered by the Govt.

There's still a handful of extremists over there still killing Iraq's but it obvious their days are numbered.

 

[burner69]

An Iraq that no longer threatens the world, one that is free where the people are not slaughtered by the Govt.

There's still a handful of extremists over there still killing Iraq's but it obvious their days are numbered.

Sorry, but when did Iraq threaten the world?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sorry, but when did Iraq threaten the world?

Kuwait
Iran
Anfal Campaign
Missle attacks against Israel
Saddam Hussein
etc etc etc

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

The UN thought they were a pretty big threat... Along with the rest of the world.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Kuwait
Iran
Anfal Campaign
Missle attacks against Israel
Saddam Hussein

"OMFG LIEK STOP!!! SADDAM DRU ME A PICTAR SHOWING A CUTE LIL PUPPY, A GREEN TREE AND HOUSE WITH LIEK JESUS INNN-IT; LIEK SADDAM DID'NT MEAN ANY HARM WHEN HE CROSSED INTO THE BIKHAITARI MOUNTAIN RANGE AND STARTED TO MASSACRE MOUNTAIN FARMERS -- AND HE WAS"NT FIRING SCUDS INTO TEL-AVIV HE WAS JUST FIRING EXPLOSIVE PUPPIES!!1 -- AND THE FEDAYEEN SUICIDE BOMBERS THAT SADDAM TRAINED AND SENT TO ISRAEL WERE'NT SUICIDE BOMBERS BUT GIFT BRINGERS AND THE ISRAELITES EXPLODED WITH HAPPINESS WHEN TEYH SAW SADDAM CARED SO MUCH!!!1" /end

 

[CptStern]

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

 

[Calanen]

The Euroliberal bandwagon is in full flight, with its adherants chanting the sound byte mantras learned from www.moveon.org and elsewhere.

Saddam was a complete ryhmes with punt. He killed maybe 200,000 of his own people. He killed like 100,000 Iranians, used chemical weapons on them. He ran a state much like the Third Reich, with Security Services people that committed the most heinous acts of torture on people. He gassed the Kurds. Did not threaten the world? He invaded Kuwait and Iran. And if America did not stop him in 92, he would have been able to pretty easily take over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, UAE. He tried to start all out war throughout the Middle East by firing ballistic missiles into Israel in the hope they would retaliate. He defied UN sanctions and broke every peace treaty and agreement that he signed after Gulf WAr I, and the UN just played the 3 stooges game as the UN inspectors went in, were stuffed around, kicked out again, allowed back...it was a comedy show to him.

But eventually in the post 911 war - America was not going to let a loose cannon like Saddam stick around anymore. It was just an unacceptable risk, so he had to go. 20 million people would have continued to live under the terror of Saddam, perhaps for the rest of their lives had America and its allies not acted. That anyone would try and defend Saddam and say he had some sort of inalienable right to torture, maim and kill as many people as he wanted to without outside interference is just nuts.

In addition, now that we are there - the country is at a tipping point, about to get on its feet. If the USA and its allies do not stand fast - the place will descend into anarchy, and could even be invaded by Iran or Syria.

And people keep saying, America only helps countries for oil....this is the silliest argument of oil. Where was Europe's oil when the USA came to help it fight the Nazis in WW2? Or Korea's oil against North Korea, or South Vietnam's oil ? How about the oil in Bosnia/Herzegovina, or the Cold War Defence of Europe, or in defence of those in Kosovo. And then when America did have the oil, in 1992, they wanted it so much, that they gave it back to Saddam. And now, in 2003 - people say, America only helps where there is oil... Americas record does not bear this out.

No1 votes for terrorists. They do what the like. They blow stuff up and kill people. Syria and Iran, and Al Quada have been pouring money and weapons into Iraq to destabilise it, and Euroliberals in the Western World are the Fifth Column cheering them on. Remnants of Saddam's Army, and Baathis security apparatus have nothing to lose either, and our part of the joke. All of these elements, must be crushed, and sovereignty granted and remain at all times with the Iraqi people. The average person in the street does not want to be part of an insurgencyh. They just want to go to work, go home and sleep and have some time off on the weekends. It takes very few (like 10k or so) terrorists to cause absolute havoc.

So try and think of the bigger picture. And if you say, no matter what Saddam did or does, we should never invade fine. But lets be honest about things and throw the doctored facts away.

 

[CptStern]

saddam killed 800,000 iranians ...soldiers mostly, during the war .but then again, Iraq lost almost as much ...oh and the chemical weapons were supplied by this guy on behalf of this country

 

[Nofuture]

Kuwait
Iran
Anfal Campaign
Missle attacks against Israel
Saddam Hussein
etc etc etc

Don´t forget, the US helped Saddam a lot.
So the US helped Saddam to threaten the world. Nice, isn´t it?

 

[Nofuture]

Call me a pessimist, but the middle east isn't exactly a very stable place.

Yes, I agree, it isn´t. Mainly because of the countries like USA doing all they can to control the Middle East oil supply and to support Israel.

 

[Nofuture]

In addition, now that we are there - the country is at a tipping point, about to get on its feet. If the USA and its allies do not stand fast - the place will descend into anarchy, and could even be invaded by Iran or Syria.

Come on, its a lie, not all countries are like the USA, keen on invading others!!!!! :flame:

Syria and Iran, and Al Quada have been pouring money and weapons into Iraq to destabilise it, and Euroliberals in the Western World are the Fifth Column cheering them on.

Any evidences, sorces?

 

[No Limit]

I think he meant success as meaning the recent, highly successful elections, and the overthrowing of Saddam. I was watching some Congressional testimony from the US Joints Chiefs of Staff and they claim that over 150,000 Iraqis are now trained and performing operations once done by the US. They have even more in the limbo status of still being trained. The main focus now turns to the infastructure of Iraq.

That 150,000 figure is disputed; the number is closer to around 25,000. The following article states around 40,000 but I think that is still a little over what it really is:

http://occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9095

Before you claim this is a liberal source this comes directly from the New York Times which requires registration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04military.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oi!

saddam killed 800,000 iranians ...soldiers mostly, during the war .but then again, Iraq lost almost as much ...oh and the chemical weapons were supplied by this guy on behalf of this country

Not true.

The Iraqi's used soviet made R-17 SCUD Missles, which could accomplish a minimum distance of 275ft, and a maximum range of 300km.

More then 300 Iraqi Scud Missles were launched against the Iran, and more then 157 were fired into the states vicinity of Kuwait. More then 67 were fired into Tel-Aviv, and roughly 18 fell short of Jeurusalem once shot down by the Patriot Missle Systems.

Here are graphs and information about the SCUD type R, and its missle line from R-11 (early Soviet war design) to the R-17.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/sws_scud010426.shtml

Check your facts Stern.

Oh, and here's a little more to back it up:

By the time the first Gulf War began, Iraq had already proved its missile prowess. In the 1980's, Iraq had fought and won a major conflict with Iran in which Iraqi missiles proved to be a major factor. Iraq had also secretly loaded missile warheads with chemical and biological payloads and was even attempting to top a missile with a nuclear warhead. This brief essay describes Iraq’s purchase of SCUD-type missiles from the Soviet Union, Iraq’s efforts to extend their range, Iraq’s drive to develop a more advanced solid-fuel missile with the help of Argentina and Egypt, and Iraq’s program after the first Gulf War to keep its missile activity going.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Don´t forget, the US helped Saddam a lot.
So the US helped Saddam to threaten the world. Nice, isn´t it?

Take the blinders off -- Iraq bought weapons off of the Soviets. In 1994, there was a 60-minutes investigation on the weapons used by Iraqi Forces, proving that nearly 95.3% of the weapons were Russian made.

 

[kirovman]

this guy

Donald Rumsfeld also sold Viagra as CEO of Pfizer...

Seen that video before, so was USA all friendly with Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait?
I seem to remember they supported Iraq in the war with Iran, and applauded the use of chemical weapons against them.

But as a key reliable oil supplier, I can see how US was quick to leap to Kuwait's defence.

Edit: My lame claim to fame is my Dad's friend had a drink with Donald Rumsfeld, and apparently he put his feet up on the table and he had big holes in his shoes.

 

[CptStern]

ya too bad the iraq-iran war was in the early 80's ..not as you would like to claim, the 90's

oh and the US armed both sides of the conflict ...that's what the iran-contra affair was all about (well half of it at least)

oh and kerberos you may want to read the "shaking hands with saddam" link, it's chock full of factual goodness tallying up all the little dirty deeds the US was involved with saddam ..oh and did I mention it's from the national security archives ...it's indisputable

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Not true Kirov. We did'nt support Saddams operation against the Iran.

so was USA all friendly with Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait?

No. The UN was apparently friendly however with Iraq once that Oil-for-Food program went into effect.

I seem to remember they supported Iraq in the war with Iran, and applauded the use of chemical weapons against them.

You seem? No, you dont remember. The United States did not support Iraqs war against Iran, and did not applaud the use of Chemical Weapons against them. (The Kurds rather)

Once Iraq's war failed against Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Thats pretty aggressive and arrogant for a country like Iraq.

But as a key reliable oil supplier, I can see how US was quick to leap to Kuwait's defence.

Kuwait is not at all our key oil supplier -- http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/974699510.shtml

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edit: My lame claim to fame is my Dad's friend had a drink with Donald Rumsfeld, and apparently he put his feet up on the table and he had big holes in his shoes.

Edit: My lame claim to fame is my Dad's friend who had a drink with the Queen of Australia, and apparently she put her feet up on his table and allegedly, had smashed mice caked on the boots grills.

 

[kirovman]

Not true Kirov. We did'nt support Saddams operation against the Iran.



No. The UN was apparently friendly however with Iraq once that Oil-for-Food program went into effect.



You seem? No, you dont remember. The United States did not support Iraqs war against Iran, and did not applaud the use of Chemical Weapons against them. (The Kurds rather)

Once Iraq's war failed against Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Thats pretty aggressive and arrogant for a country like Iraq.



Kuwait is not at all our key oil supplier -- http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/974699510.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), allegedly also supplying weapons [3] (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php).

The war was characterized by extreme brutality, including the use of chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq. Very little pressure was brought upon Iraq by the world community to curb such attacks or to condemn its earlier initiation of hostilities. Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources.

Well it's not applause of chemical weapons, but it's arguing the legitimacy of their use.

And I thought the Kurd gassing was an internal Iraq affair (not that it justifies it).

Also proves I did seem to remember, too

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, we did'nt applaud either.

Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources.

Which is false -- because the Chemical Weapons launched at Iran, were purchased off of the Soviet Black Market.

Check the sources I posted -- and look around the sites. Everything is there.

The war was characterized by extreme brutality, including the use of chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq.

There choice of brutality -- there choice of attack. Iraq did it all.

 

[kirovman]

No, we did'nt applaud either.



Which is false -- because the Chemical Weapons launched at Iran, were purchased off of the Soviet Black Market.

Check the sources I posted -- and look around the sites. Everything is there.



There choice of brutality -- there choice of attack. Iraq did it all.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not their responsibility.
All I'm saying is it's a bit of a U-turn in the US's policy on Iraq.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If you are suggesting a U-turn, it happened when the first Scuds were launched.

Perportedly, your sources argue we favored a war with Iran -- but why?

My sources argue we never favored Iraqs war with Iran. But why?

Simple. Because Iraq on the initiating of there campaign, fired there first five missles into Tel-Aviv.

 

[kirovman]

If you are suggesting a U-turn, it happened when the first Scuds were launched.

Perportedly, your sources argue we favored a war with Iran -- but why?

My sources argue we never favored Iraqs war with Iran. But why?

Simple. Because Iraq on the initiating of there campaign, fired there first five missles into Tel-Aviv.

You are saying Iraq launched 5 scuds in 1980 at Tel Aviv?
I cannot find that in any of your sources, let alone anything on google. Please direct me.

 

[CptStern]

Not true Kirov. We did'nt support Saddams operation against the Iran.

yes you did ..read "shaking hands with saddam"

No. The UN was apparently friendly however with Iraq once that Oil-for-Food program went into effect.

that made zero sense

You seem? No, you dont remember. The United States did not support Iraqs war against Iran, and did not applaud the use of Chemical Weapons against them. (The Kurds rather)

yes they did, yes they did, wrong time frame

Once Iraq's war failed against Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Thats pretty aggressive and arrogant for a country like Iraq.

you're pull "facts" out the wazoo ...Iraq invaded kuwait in 90, the iraq-iran war was over by 88. Iraq's war with Iran didnt "fail" it was a stalement as neither side could gain any ground. Saddam was the aggressor, he attacked Iran ..Iran tried to bring him to justicve for crimes against humanity, the US vetoed the resolution

 

[Nofuture]

Don´t forget, the US helped Saddam a lot.
So the US helped Saddam to threaten the world. Nice, isn´t it?

Take the blinders off -- Iraq bought weapons off of the Soviets.

The USA helped Saddam a lot!!!

For a case you can´t find the right passages :

"Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

... the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. "

and so on...

My sources argue we never favored Iraqs war with Iran. But why?

Oh, you did favor this war!!! :flame: :

Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General:

"The U.S. helped maneuver Iraq into a position where it was one of those twenty-two Arab nations importing more than half its food, and I have always believed that we maneuvered it, as well, into attacking Iran, in that god-awful war that cost a million young men their lives for no purpose. After the collapse of the Shah's regime in 1979, Iraq thought that Iran couldn't defend itself, but didn't take into account the passion that twenty-five years of suffering had created in the population - a passion so strong that you had fifteen-year-old kids running barefoot through swamps into a hail of bullets, and if they got near you, you were dead. They had a pair of pants and a rifle, and that was about it. Meanwhile, Iraq, which was supported by both the Soviet Union and the United States, had artillery it could mount shoulder to shoulder and armored vehicles with cannons and machine guns. But the war was still a stalemate."

“The single most pertinent statement on this issue was by Henry Kissinger. When the Iran-Iraq war began, over a million very young men lost their lives in that war. Henry Kissinger said at the beginning of that war, eight years the war, “I hope they kill each other”. And that was exactly our policy. What could be better – have them kill each other – then who has to worry about that region anymore, you know? And don’t think that is not exactly our policy all over the world where there are poor peoples living today. That’s the solution to over-population – call it triage, whatever you want to call it. Let them kill each other, let them die. And they are dying all over Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where the masses of poor people live. They are expendable there as they are expendable here.”

 

[kirovman]

I think he got confused between the Gulf War (1990-1991) and Iraq-Iran War/First Persian War (1980-1988).

The start of the Gulf War campaign was launching SCUDs at Israel, Saudi, etc, (NOT Iran-Iraq War as implied before. Even the special-ops website source acknowledges it) and that swayed the US.

The Iran-Iraq war involved SCUDing Iran only, as far as I know.
Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant or something near the end of the war I think.

But yes, Rummy shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. Doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it?

The US supported Iraq pretty much right up to the start of the Gulf War conflict, because they saw their interests in the region threatened.

 

[redhollowpoint]

saddam killed 800,000 iranians ...soldiers mostly, during the war .but then again, Iraq lost almost as much ...oh and the chemical weapons were supplied by this guy on behalf of this country

just because we supply weapons to countries, doesnt mean were responsible for them, iraq (saddam) did not have to implement the chemical weapons, your trying to place the responsiblity on the US, when saddam and his people are soley to blame, I however dont agree with the US sending chemical weapons to saddam or any third world country, I do however see the line between the US's responsiblities, and Saddams responsiblities.

 

[redhollowpoint]

I think he got confused between the Gulf War (1990-1991) and Iraq-Iran War/First Persian War (1980-1988).

The start of the Gulf War campaign was launching SCUDs at Israel, Saudi, etc, (NOT Iran-Iraq War as implied before. Even the special-ops website source acknowledges it) and that swayed the US.

The Iran-Iraq war involved SCUDing Iran only, as far as I know.
Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant or something near the end of the war I think.

But yes, Rummy shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. Doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it?

The US supported Iraq pretty much right up to the start of the Gulf War conflict, because they saw their interests in the region threatened.

Wouldnt you protect the US's assets, our economy, our way of life is dependent on foreign interests, we need to protect those interests.

 

[Calanen]

The New York Times IS a liberal source. It and Los Angeles Times are the broadsheets for the loony left now.

And as for the person who goes on about sources - Al Quada in their video said that they spend 275k US a week in Iraq etc. Captured Iraqi dissidents have said that they were trained and financed by Syria.

And as for Syria not invading any1, 'like the US' - how about Lebanon. Or how about, when all the Arab nations invaded Israel in 1947 and in 1973. Or Syria firing rockets down into Israel from the Golan heights. Its not like America invaded Sweden. They invaded the country run by a murderous dictator who killed 100s of thousands of people. And yet still people defend Saddam. Im surprised that the loony left is not seeking for a new UN Declaration on the Rights of Genocidal Dictators

'Whereas the people of old Europe agree, that a dictator who has by his own political skill, managed to subvert the rule of war and democratic participation, SHALL be left alone in quiet enjoyment, to commit acts of genocide, breach international treaties, murder 100s of 1000s of people. And whereas, the French and Russian Government will become most annoyed at said invasion of dictator, because it may mean there loans t such a regime will not be paid off. Dictators are people too. Give them a chance to fulfill their dreams of murdering 100s of 1000s of innocent people, using chemical weapons on them, invading neighbouring countries and pursuing atomic weapons. If you were a dictator, wouldn't you want that special chance? Support the rights of murderous tyrants the world over, who should always be left alone..oh, unless they are Nazis in which case....USA PLEASE COME AND SAVE US!!!!'

 

[No Limit]

The New York Times IS a liberal source. It and Los Angeles Times are the broadsheets for the loony left now.

I love this loony left you keep talking about. Want to disprove anything they said before making such accusations?

 

[redhollowpoint]

oh god im trying to think of those newyork times scandals, i cant think of the specific names, but they have cited incorrect sources, and didnt there CEO or head honcho guy leave because of these scandals?