4 years on [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Hawkmoon

21st March 2007, 03:52

An estimated total spend by the coalition forces of $500,000,000,000, the loss of more than 35,000 civilian lives, as well as several thousand coalition troops killed, not to mention the countless thousands who will suffer from injuries or post traumatic stress perhaps for the rest of their lives and I have one simple question.

What has the illegal attack on Iraq by the American lead coalition actually achieved?

The negatives are obvious, as you clearly point out.

There are a couple of positives, however small they may seem in comparison.

One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing. Ofcourse, tens-of-thousands of people dying to achieve this goal leaves it a somewhat hollow victory.

Two, I'm sure the Kuwaiti's are pretty happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. He invaded them once and I'm sure they were pretty nervous about it happening again.

Wars are terrible things. Unfortunately, we humans are stunningly good and making them happen. Curse of the species I suppose. It would be nice to think that we could learn from the past. Doesn't happen too often, however.

I think there's a pretty good chance that the last two humans on earth would try to kill each other. Maybe the last one standing will finally understand the futility of it all.

CarlMetro

21st March 2007, 17:42

Hazell B

21st March 2007, 19:04

One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing.

Yes, it does have to be good.

However, aren't we now just looking at another dictator in a posh suit in the shape of Bush? He's simply gotten rid of a nasty bit of work and put himself pretty much in his place. Has the killing slowed down this past four years?

It's going to take a lot longer than four years to convince me this war was for the good of all people, not just a few.

btracer

21st March 2007, 19:08

4 years on and i still wish our troops all the luck in the world regardless of whether they should be there or not.

schmenke

21st March 2007, 21:03

I recall this study causing some controversy a few months ago...

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

"...deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003, ..."

Hawkmoon

22nd March 2007, 00:21

However, aren't we now just looking at another dictator in a posh suit in the shape of Bush? He's simply gotten rid of a nasty bit of work and put himself pretty much in his place. Has the killing slowed down this past four years?

No we are not. The US President is democratically elected and has a maximum term of 8 years. A dictator holds power by force and is ruler for life. Look at Castro in Cuba. He's been in power for decades and now that he is nearing the end of his life he simply hands power over to his brother. The people of Cuba have absolutely no say in the matter.

The same was true of Iraq. The only way Saddam was leaving power was in a pine box. He would either be taken out (as was the case) or he would die an old dictator leaving power to his sons.

You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.

ian959

22nd March 2007, 03:21

The US President is democratically elected...

That's open to debate given the problems of the voting system the first time Dubya got voted in.

Schultz

22nd March 2007, 03:58

The negatives are obvious, as you clearly point out.

There are a couple of positives, however small they may seem in comparison.

One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing. Ofcourse, tens-of-thousands of people dying to achieve this goal leaves it a somewhat hollow victory.

Two, I'm sure the Kuwaiti's are pretty happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. He invaded them once and I'm sure they were pretty nervous about it happening again.

Wars are terrible things. Unfortunately, we humans are stunningly good and making them happen. Curse of the species I suppose. It would be nice to think that we could learn from the past. Doesn't happen too often, however.

I think there's a pretty good chance that the last two humans on earth would try to kill each other. Maybe the last one standing will finally understand the futility of it all.

Tbh, the invasion of Kuwait is very much a small and insignificant story in my opinion. There is alot that most people don't know about the story up until Kuwait's invasion. The two countries had a long history of disagreements and tense relations before the invasion occured, and i'm not even convinced Saddaam wanted to invade Kuwait. My understanding is that Iraq just wanted some concessions, and for Kuwait to end it's slant drilling. Not to mention Kuwait was taking well over their OPEC oil quota. Kuwait was pissing alot of countries off.

Iraq has been divided in all it's history (you can blame the Brits for that), so maybe a dictator was necessary to keep it together. In fact, that's the reason George senior didn't go after Hussein. Obviously not very good communication within that family, because George W certainly didn't take his advice.

oily oaf

22nd March 2007, 07:09

I'm not a political animal and even less of an authority on US foreign policy so I could be way off beam here but I've always been of the opinion that this little adventure bears all the hallmarks of "unfinished business" whereupon George Jr has been hellbent on completing the task that his old man baulked at in 1991 regardless of just cause or legitimacy.

Irrespective of motive the stark facts are that the entire episode has resulted in one of the most tragic episodes in the turbulent history of the Middle East.

Once again it's the hapless civilian population that bears the brunt of mindless, futile aggression and whenever I see the almost daily news reports of further atrocities with the accompanying footage of the broken bodies of women and small children it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach to be honest with you.

Eki

22nd March 2007, 07:25

Iraq has been divided in all it's history (you can blame the Brits for that), so maybe a dictator was necessary to keep it together.
Yes, it's similar to the former Yugoslavia. Communism and Tito held it together, once they were gone, the whole thing collapsed. Saddam might have been somewhat biased towards the Sunni because of family ties, but he was religiously moderate compared to many of those trying to gain power now.

Camelopard

22nd March 2007, 11:46

Share holders in Halliburton would be very happy 4 years on. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the $500,000,000,000 went into their pockets!!!!

555-04Q2

22nd March 2007, 12:06

4 years on.... and STILL people bring this topic up.... :z

We are waiting for Bush and Blair to stand for war crimes against humanity, lying and not giving a toss who or how many people have died in a war that they had no right to start.

Saddam was dealt with, if only the 2 stooges could now be dealt with.

Hazell B

22nd March 2007, 19:26

No we are not. The US President is democratically elected and has a maximum term of 8 years. A dictator holds power by force and is ruler for life.

You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.

I see what you mean, but looking at here and now it appears to be a case of one dictator taking over from another. The fact that it won't last forever isn't much consolation to the dead ...... and who's to say what will follow?

Dead is dead, voted for or not :(

reidy_fan

22nd March 2007, 20:08

Bush wanted to finish what his father couldnt, unfortunately Bliar got dragged along like a puppy dog. The fact is that neither of them are out there in the front line dying for these 2 halfwits, it is the ordinary people that signed up into the army to defend their countries that are dying, they never signed up to defend Bush's oil.

The scottish people withh be sending a wee message to Bliar in the scottish elections by booting his party out of Scotland, we have lost far too many boys in this war. Bring then home NOW

CarlMetro

22nd March 2007, 21:29

The scottish people withh be sending a wee message to Bliar in the scottish elections by booting his party out of Scotland, we have lost far too many boys in this war. Bring then home NOW

In a recent opinion poll only 30% of the people questioned supported the war, compared to more than 65% at the beginning of the attacks. It also found big variations in regional support levels with the lowest being the South East of England at 18% but the highest being Scotland where the poll results showed 42% still supported the illegal invasion.

SOD

22nd March 2007, 21:43

That's open to debate given the problems of the voting system the first time Dubya got voted in.

The electoral college elects the USA president.

Funny how the Dawa party is the main party in a 'democratic Iraq" when during Gulf War 1, The Dawa-ists were branded terrorists.

fandango

22nd March 2007, 21:46

No we are not. The US President is democratically elected and has a maximum term of 8 years. A dictator holds power by force ....... You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.

Excuse me for picking the through your post, but I reckon Hazel has a point. The election of the US President may be democratic, but that doesn't matter much if you're from Iraq. What choice are these people really getting with their "liberation"? Sure, things may change for iraqis, but that depends on the whims of US citizens. At the moment Bush is a democratically elected president in the USA, but not in Iraq.

Brown, Jon Brow

22nd March 2007, 22:07

The scottish people withh be sending a wee message to Bliar in the scottish elections by booting his party out of Scotland, we have lost far too many boys in this war. Bring then home NOW

Bringing the troops home now would almost certainly send Iraq into all out civil war. It would be more immoral to exit Iraq now after we helped put them is this mess, we need to sort it out before we leave.

BTCC Fan#1

23rd March 2007, 01:12

555-04Q2

23rd March 2007, 10:22

The electoral college elects the USA president.

Funny how the Dawa party is the main party in a 'democratic Iraq" when during Gulf War 1, The Dawa-ists were branded terrorists.

Tell that to the African American parties who's voters were stuck off the voting roll to guarantee Bush won the election :down:

Gore won the election and Bush stole it. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for the reasons and evidence why.

Hazell B

24th March 2007, 19:39

In a recent opinion poll only 30% of the people questioned supported the war, compared to more than 65% at the beginning of the attacks.

I read the actual questions in an Iraq poll (perhaps not the one you are mentioning though) and the wording left me saying yes when I'm against the war :mark:

It said something like "Do you agree that the US and UK led invasions of Iraq have helped aid safety and downgraded the threat from SH for the people of that country?"

Talk about a loaded question :s

Eki

24th March 2007, 19:47

I read the actual questions in an Iraq poll (perhaps not the one you are mentioning though) and the wording left me saying yes when I'm against the war :mark:

It said something like "Do you agree that the US and UK led invasions of Iraq have helped aid safety and downgraded the threat from SH for the people of that country?"

Talk about a loaded question :s
I couldn't answer that question. I'd have to say YES, the invasions have downgraded the threat from SH but they have NOT helped aid safety for the people of Iraq.

Bebee

26th March 2007, 09:55

That's a lot of money that could have helped towards some of the more pressing issues/problems we're facing now... :s

Drew

27th March 2007, 18:36

Yet the whole Iran capturing British navy personnel thing, comes as a shock.

But still, all money spent helps the economy, in some way or another.

Brown, Jon Brow

27th March 2007, 20:00

That's a lot of money that could have helped towards some of the more pressing issues/problems we're facing now... :s

Think of all the money we have made securing Iraq's oil :\

Dave B

27th March 2007, 20:28

I read the actual questions in an Iraq poll (perhaps not the one you are mentioning though) and the wording left me saying yes when I'm against the war :mark:

It said something like "Do you agree that the US and UK led invasions of Iraq have helped aid safety and downgraded the threat from SH for the people of that country?"

Talk about a loaded question :s
What a rediculous question. Of course Saddam's less of a threat now: he's dead!

Whether that's improved safety and security in Iraq is a completely different kettle of fish...

tinchote

27th March 2007, 22:12

But still, all money spent helps the economy, in some way or another.

Of course, just imagine all the new hummers & SUVs bought by military contractors ;)

Eki

28th March 2007, 13:07

Here's what the new Iraqi police do on their spare time:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261864,00.html

Enraged Policemen Go on Revenge Killing Spree in Northern Iraqi Town

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

BAGHDAD — Off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men, police and hospital officials said.

The policemen began roaming the town's Sunni neighborhoods on foot early in the morning, shooting at Sunni residents and homes.

Eki

28th March 2007, 13:08

viper_man

28th March 2007, 14:36

courageous

29th March 2007, 20:52

Tell that to the African American parties who's voters were stuck off the voting roll to guarantee Bush won the election :down:

Gore won the election and Bush stole it. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for the reasons and evidence why.

Plus of course the little fact that the whole electoral collage system is based on counting a black man's voice less important than a white man.
BUT, we are going off topic!

Bringing the troops home now would almost certainly send Iraq into all out civil war. It would be more immoral to exit Iraq now after we helped put them is this mess, we need to sort it out before we leave.

On the face of it, that makes sense - but the west has been interfering with middle east politics for centuries & every time we somehow manage to make it worse; lest we forget that Bin Laden et al were actually trained/financed by us [not U.S. - the west as a whole] when they were Russia's enemy.

We have proven our incompetency enough - if the people want change, they will revolt but it has to be THEIR choice.

Drew

29th March 2007, 22:17

Of course, just imagine all the new hummers & SUVs bought by military contractors ;)

What's good for the American economy is good for the world's economy. Have we not learnt anything from the wall street crashes? :p :

555-04Q2

30th March 2007, 11:19

You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.

A fixed election to get bush into power and tens of thousands of people killed because Bush is an idiot.

Yeah, sounds like a great democratic moment :(

FrankenSchwinn

30th March 2007, 16:38

well, some people can see the good that came from this war: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=84325

Eki

3rd April 2007, 12:18

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263504,00.html

Iraqis: McCain Market Visit Simply 'Propaganda'

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

BAGHDAD — Iraqis in Baghdad said Tuesday that U.S. Sen. John McCain's account of a heavily guarded visit to a central market did not represent the current reality in the capital, with one calling it "propaganda."

Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances at the Shorja market that the Republican congressmen visited on Sunday, said the Republican congressional delegation greeted some fellow vendors with Arabic phrases but he was not impressed.

"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," he said. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."

Thamir said "about 150 U.S. soldiers and 20 humvees" accompanied the McCain delegation.

FrankenSchwinn

3rd April 2007, 17:07

yeah, and mccain then said that it was all peaceful in iraq..... something like "the market is nice and safe"....

BrentJackson

3rd April 2007, 20:08

Tell that to the African American parties who's voters were stuck off the voting roll to guarantee Bush won the election :down:

Gore won the election and Bush stole it. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for the reasons and evidence why.

And had any one senator stood up and backed the Black Electoral Caucus (who disapproved to the results and its congressmen said so) than there would have been a forced recount. And yes, when you look at the actual votes tallied, Gore did win, and by a considerable margin - CNN says 80,000 votes.

FrankenSchwinn

3rd April 2007, 21:40

SOD

3rd April 2007, 21:43

And had any one senator stood up and backed the Black Electoral Caucus (who disapproved to the results and its congressmen said so) than there would have been a forced recount. And yes, when you look at the actual votes tallied, Gore did win, and by a considerable margin - CNN says 80,000 votes.

the same senators have no problem standing up and demanding democracy for other countries.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 21:52

on a comedy show (daily show) there was an interview with gore but there were some parts that were edited out. the next day the host decided to show the parts that were edited and the one part he asked gore if 9/11 would have happened if he had been president. gore just sat there and stared at the host dead in the eyes and said nothing. it actually sent chills down my spine....
What I've read is that it took al Qaeda 9 years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks. No president could have stopped them (well, maybe George Bush Sr. if he had changed the course of US foreign policy).

555-04Q2

4th April 2007, 10:49

And had any one senator stood up and backed the Black Electoral Caucus (who disapproved to the results and its congressmen said so) than there would have been a forced recount. And yes, when you look at the actual votes tallied, Gore did win, and by a considerable margin - CNN says 80,000 votes.

Indeed :up: So much for a democratic voting system :down:

FrankenSchwinn

4th April 2007, 16:21

What I've read is that it took al Qaeda 9 years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks. No president could have stopped them (well, maybe George Bush Sr. if he had changed the course of US foreign policy).

i heard that if you wear your seatbelt, it makes it harder for aliens to steal you away in their ship!

Camelopard

5th April 2007, 01:27

Eki

5th April 2007, 09:08

The Sydney morning herald ran a good article last weekend on the hard life of an American in Iraq holed up in one of the former palaces in the green zone.
Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/party-time-in-baghdads-war-zone/2007/03/30/1174761751665.html

Yes, especially since Saddam was accused of living in a palace in luxury while the Iraqi people suffered.

Even the dinner table conversations follow a similar protocol that was probably used under Saddam's rule when even the walls had ears:

"In conversation at their tables, they observed an unspoken protocol. It was always appropriate to praise "the mission": the Bush Administration's campaign to transform Iraq into a peaceful, modern, secular democracy where everyone, regardless of sect or ethnicity, would get along. Tirades about how Saddam had ruined the country and descriptions of how you were going to resuscitate it were also fine. But unless you knew someone really, really well, you didn't question American policy over a meal."

Eki

9th April 2007, 11:46

I know it's subtle, but I wonder when will the Americans take the hint and leave. It should be obvious that they have worn out their welcome:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264860,00.html

Demonstrators Mark 4th Anniversary of Baghdad's Fall

Monday, April 09, 2007

BAGHDAD — Tens of thousands marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall.

The rally was called for by powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government.

A day earlier, the renegade cleric issued a statement ordering his militiamen to redouble their battle to oust American forces and argued that Iraq's army and police should join him in defeating "your archenemy."

On Monday, demonstrators marched from Kufa to neighboring Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route.

Some at the rally waved small Iraqi flags; others hoisted up a giant flag 10 yards long. Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."

BrentJackson

9th April 2007, 16:19

Of course they'd say that Eki. Muqtada Al-Sadr will be a big shot in Irag and will probably in the middle of one heckuva war.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 09:23

I find it incredible when people talk of Blair and Bush in the same way they talk about Saddam. Do these people really think they are in the same league?!

I think a lot of people seem to forget how bad Saddam was. Without him incharge, and out of the picture, that alone means the war wasn't a complete waste of time money, and most importantly, lives.

To those people who think we should withdraw the troops, and yet go on about how we've wrecked the Iraqi's lives, should stop and think about things. Whether going to war was right and wrong, you have to take responsibility for your actions, and try and make it right. Walking away half way through a job, because it's getting tough, is not the responsible way to do things!

You can't go and invade a country, cause chaos, turn it upside down, and then just walk off!

Eki

10th April 2007, 09:55

You can't go and invade a country, cause chaos, turn it upside down, and then just walk off!
You should think about that before you invade. What did they expect would happen? They were told there would be chaos and mayhem but they didn't believe or care.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 10:40

You should think about that before you invade. What did they expect would happen? They were told there would be chaos and mayhem but they didn't believe or care.

I agree completely with you.

However, two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you trying to say that because it was wrong to invade a country, you should just leave it in the chaos you caused? Or do you agree with me that you should stay and sort out the mess you created?

As I said previously, forget about whether it was right or wrong to go there in the first place - you can't change history. What do you do now? Stay and take responsibility for you actions, or run away and leave the country in a mess which you created?

Eki

10th April 2007, 10:57

Are you trying to say that because it was wrong to invade a country, you should just leave it in the chaos you caused? Or do you agree with me that you should stay and sort out the mess you created?

I say you should do as the people of that country want you to do. Right now it seems that many, maybe even the majority, of both Sunni and Shiia Iraqis want the occupation forces out. I don't think the presence of the American military necessarily helps the situation, because they seem to be viewed as a common enemy to the Iraqi sects and a reminder of the humiliation the Iraqis went through when they lost the war.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 11:04

I say you should do as the people of that country want you to do. Right now it seems that many, maybe even the majority, of both Sunni and Shiia Iraqis want the occupation forces out. I don't think the presence of the American military necessarily helps the situation, because they seem to be viewed as a common enemy to the Iraqi sects and a reminder of the humiliation the Iraqis went through when they lost the war.

I'm not sure if thats the case everywhere in Iraq. But as I say, I'm not sure! If you have any source, reliable and not biased preferably I'd be interested in reading it.

I don't think governments or leaders should necessarily do what the majority of it's public want. As generally the public aren't as well informed of the consequences of such actions. My understanding is the iraqi politicians agree with the way the coalitian troops are going about things in terms of staying put until the infrastructure is set up.

I don't see how the loss of all the coalitian troops will help situations. It would mean there would be no one policing the country. Things are very bad at the moment, but it would be even worse without anyone policing the area. Some say that there are only bombs and fighting because they are attacking the americans, but basically when they leave they will be attacking the iraqi soldiers/police who have been working with the americans.

I guess our views differ in that I believe you should take responsibility and sort it out, rather than just walk away, which as you say is what you think they should do :)

I guess at the end of the day neither of us are in a position to state which way is better.

CarlMetro

10th April 2007, 11:08

Mark

10th April 2007, 11:09

Perhaps a referendum is in order? It would also give the US/UK forces a decent excuse to get out.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 11:16

I couldn't agree more :up:

George W has stated that American troops won't leave Iraq until it is established as a demorcratic country. Is that what the Iraqi people want? Has anybody actually asked them what they want, either before the war or now?

Isn't that common sense though? It's like do you have to ask a child whether they want to eat or starve? Though maybe you would rather starve if you had to go through significant pain to have something to eat.

I think the way the iraqi celebrated when Saddam was toppled suggests they were happy Saddam was beaten. What the Iraqi's don't like is all the violence and fighting, which is dragging on.

I don't think Iraqi's oppose having democracy. Though it's debateble whether they would have wanted Saddam beaten to get to a democracy, if they knew they would have to go through all this fighting. But I don't think it's in question that they want to be a democractic country, but at this cost? That's a question I don't have the answer too. Have you heard otherwise? :)

CarlMetro

10th April 2007, 11:34

BDunnell

10th April 2007, 11:53

I'll grant you the fact that the majority of Iraqi people celebrated when Saddam fell, but as I've explained before, he could have been 'taken out' by the SAS in 1991 and I have no doubt that the same could have been achieved this time around with the billions of dollars, thousands of troops and 10's of thousands of civilian and military casualties.

I think this is a crucial point.

The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was obvious for all to see, but a lot of people seemed to realise rather late in the day — more precisely, when they realised that getting rid of him would suit their current agenda. As someone who cares passionately about human rights, but also doesn't believe in unnecessary military intervention, I find the human rights justification for the conflict pretty sickening. Why weren't George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al pressing for Hussein to be removed from power when his regime was actually committing the human rights abuses that are always cited nowadays?

The conflict in 1991 was, in my view, justified because of the invasion of Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein had been killed or removed from power in the course of that war, I for one would have found it acceptable (I was young at the time, but can say that with the benefit of hindsight). It would also have prevented the human rights abuses on the part of his regime that followed. There is no doubt that more than one definite opportunity existed to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the 1991 campaign. The question must be asked as to why. Maybe the coalition at the time feared that it would lead to the sort of instability that we see in Iraq today, but the aftermath of the 1991 conflict was, in its own way, just as damaging and chaotic as a result of leaving him in power. Getting rid of him in 2003 cannot be justified merely on the basis that we should have done so in 1991 but failed to do so.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 12:15

I'll grant you the fact that the majority of Iraqi people celebrated when Saddam fell, but as I've explained before, he could have been 'taken out' by the SAS in 1991 and I have no doubt that the same could have been achieved this time around with the billions of dollars, thousands of troops and 10's of thousands of civilian and military casualties.

America, and the UK, seem to be hell-bent on making Iraq into a western country, with western ideals and a western style government buty has anyone actaully asked them if that is what they want? Maybe they do? Maybe the one thing they all dream of is to be just like those in the west? Then again maybe it's the last thing in the world they want?

As for pulling out when thwe job is only half done? How can we be sure to what degree the task is complete? Does anyone actually know what the task is in the first place? Is it to make Iraq a peaceful and democratic country? If it is then our troops will never leave, and all the time they are there there will be no peace.

If I remember correctly the original reason for the illegal attack on Iraq by coallition troops was to remove the threat os WMD's. Well we didn't find any so we decided to remove the bloke in charge, to stop him pressing the button, just in case he'd hidden them all under his bed. We've done that, and got rid of most of his family and sypathisers too, so I say job done. Now get our troops out of their country and let them do the rebuilding that they need to do.

People always go on about American and Britain. Can we not forget the coalitian troops is made up of 60 different nations or something ridiculous! I think Iraqi's want to live in a democratic country, without a civil war going on. I think it's common sense.

John Boulton has said just recently that once there is the infrastructure in place for Iraqi soldiers/police to be able to police themselves, and govern themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start. That is when the task is done I'm guessing :)

It was only in this country where WoMD were talked about as the main cause for going to war. In America this wasn't a big deal. Bringing an end to Saddam, and ending the threat of a potential dictatorship who would happily use nuclear weapons to kill people in his nation was given the reasons for going to war over there.

As I've said, your attitude of - we've got rid of Saddam, so lets get out, is irresponsible. We've created chaos in Iraq, so now it's our responsible to sort it out. It's called taking responsibility for your actions I believe.

Blair and Bush have messed up by going to war in the first place, but they should now try and sort out the mess they've created

:)

BDunnell

10th April 2007, 12:21

People always go on about American and Britain. Can we not forget the coalitian troops is made up of 60 different nations or something ridiculous!

That hardly matters when one considers how the push for war was led by the US and UK. They, the US in particular, are by far the 'dominant partners' in the whole venture.

Mark

10th April 2007, 12:24

But how many nations contribute a significant number? I'm sure many of them are just have a dozen 'advisors' or diplomats. AFAIK only the USA and UK have troops on the ground in any numbers.

Mark

10th April 2007, 12:25

Blair and Bush have messed up by going to war in the first place, but they should now try and sort out the mess they've created

:)

But there comes a point where the very presence of foreign troops is exactly what's creating the 'mess' in the first place. What if the only way to sort it out is to get out?

raphael123

10th April 2007, 13:56

But there comes a point where the very presence of foreign troops is exactly what's creating the 'mess' in the first place. What if the only way to sort it out is to get out?

If thats the only way for the violence to stop - then I guess that's what needs to be done.

However I don't think the idea of leaving a country with no proper infrastructure is the way forward. I think the coalitian have a job to do in making sure the country is ready to cope with the potential violence, when it loses around (250,000?) troops who are currently trying to keep the peace and fight out the remainder of Saddams 'troops'. As more and more iraqi's are trained to police the country, they should slowly start taking over the coalitian soldiers duties.

Can you imagine the gap being left if all coalitian troops left. I really don't see how that would solve all the problems.

Regarding the fact the US and UK lead the war, my point that another 60 (is it 62?) nations backed the war, suggests a large number of prime ministers/presidents agreed with it, even if the general public tend to be against it (though they were for it before the war started).

Eki

10th April 2007, 15:06

However I don't think the idea of leaving a country with no proper infrastructure is the way forward. I think the coalitian have a job to do in making sure the country is ready to cope with the potential violence, when it loses around (250,000?) troops who are currently trying to keep the peace and fight out the remainder of Saddams 'troops'. As more and more iraqi's are trained to police the country, they should slowly start taking over the coalitian soldiers duties.

It's not that simple. There are many different groups fighting each others and the coalition, not just remainder of Saddam supporters. There are various Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc.

CarlMetro

10th April 2007, 15:33

I really don't see how that would solve all the problems.

It won't solve all the problems, it will stop any further loss of life between the coalition troops though. Put yourself in their place, how would you feel being attacked by those very people you came in to 'rescue'.

The biggest problem top be solved cannot be solved until coalition troops pull out because they are the biggest problem to too many Iraqi's. I'm not saying that if we pulled our troops out by the end of this month that everything would suddenly return to normal in Iraq, far from it in fact, but keeping coalition troops there only adds to the problems Iraq faces in the future.

So far we've been there four years, how much longer should it take? At what point do we say 'OK, everything's alright now, lets bring our troops home'? How many more troops and civilians have to die?

BDunnell

10th April 2007, 15:41

So far we've been there four years, how much longer should it take? At what point do we say 'OK, everything's alright now, lets bring our troops home'?

I would suggest when George W. Bush feels Iraq is safe enough to go on his annual vacation there.

raphael123

11th April 2007, 09:08

It's not that simple. There are many different groups fighting each others and the coalition, not just remainder of Saddam supporters. There are various Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc.

Exactly, so who would be the guys trying to keep the order if all the coalitian troops pulled out at the same time?

They would simply all fight each other, and the iraqi's soldiers (how many are there now? maybe 1/5 of the way there?) trained by the americans/british etc, would be trying to do the job which over a quarter of a million american soldiers couldn't do.

How exactly would that help? Apart from obviously cut the lives lost of Americans and coalitians. But it was them who caused this mess. Surely they should take responsibility.

raphael123

11th April 2007, 09:13

It won't solve all the problems, it will stop any further loss of life between the coalition troops though. Put yourself in their place, how would you feel being attacked by those very people you came in to 'rescue'.

The biggest problem top be solved cannot be solved until coalition troops pull out because they are the biggest problem to too many Iraqi's. I'm not saying that if we pulled our troops out by the end of this month that everything would suddenly return to normal in Iraq, far from it in fact, but keeping coalition troops there only adds to the problems Iraq faces in the future.

So far we've been there four years, how much longer should it take? At what point do we say 'OK, everything's alright now, lets bring our troops home'? How many more troops and civilians have to die?

But it was the coalitian troops (not them individually, but their 'leader') who caused the mess.

I wouldn't ever put myself in that situation because of what is happening. I wouldn't want to be trying to 'rescue' people who were trying to kill me at the same time, and didn't want me there.

As I stated earlier, John Boulton has stated that when the infrastructure is in place for the Iraqi's to govern and police themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start leaving.

And I know you say that it's the coalitian troops causing a lot of the fighting, because they are trying to get them out of Iraq, but then answer my question I've put to Eki. In the end it's a lose lose situation isn't it? So you got to pick the way which is best long term, which is making sure Iraq can cope with these criminal, gangs, terrorists etc without the coalitian, and then leaving. Rather than leaving tomorrow and letting the terrorists etc take control of Iraq, or have 4 different groups fighting each other for control - basically a civil war

CarlMetro

11th April 2007, 10:07

The fighting between the various Iraqi factions won't suddenly stop when the coalition forces leave, the only thing that will stop is the loss of life within the coalition forces.

We could stay there another 20 years, train millions of Iraqi's to be police and army, but it won't stop the civil war from happening. The various factions are making it fairly clear now, with almost daily car bombs and attacks on their own countrymen, that there is serious conflict between there individual beliefs and wants.

All we are doing is wasting money and lives in a country that is making it very clear that it doesn't want us there. Yes we made the mess, and shouldn't have done so in the first place, but we've done all we should do, it's now time to leave.

raphael123

11th April 2007, 10:17

That's fair enough. I see where your coming from completely.

I guess it's a difference of opinion, neither of us know which is the best way.

I'm not saying that training up millions of Iraqi's will mean there won't be any fighting. However I do think, considering it was us who caused the mess they are in, it is our responsibility to make sure they have some sort of infrastructure in place to try and cope with the continued violence, so they can have some hope of sorting it out, rather than leaving them with absolutely no hope of dealing with the problems ahead once the coalitian troops leave Iraq.

I don't think your way of pulling them out ASAP is taking responsibility for your (not you personally of course) actions. Even if it is the easy option, and most popular one, doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

Each to their own :)

Eki

11th April 2007, 10:46

America, and the UK, seem to be hell-bent on making Iraq into a western country, with western ideals and a western style government buty has anyone actaully asked them if that is what they want? Maybe they do? Maybe the one thing they all dream of is to be just like those in the west? Then again maybe it's the last thing in the world they want?

There was an opinion poll among the Iraqis on what kind of democracy they want. The Saudi-Arabian kind of democracy was the most popular, the Iranian kind of democracy was second and the Western kind democracy was third.

raphael123

11th April 2007, 11:43

There was an opinion poll among the Iraqis on what kind of democracy they want. The Saudi-Arabian kind of democracy was the most popular, the Iranian kind of democracy was second and the Western kind democracy was third.

Any thoughts on who would keep the order if the coalitian troops pulled out?

Who would try and control the Saddam supporters, Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc...??

:) :)

Eki

11th April 2007, 17:40

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/11/iraq.red.cross.ap/index.html

Red Cross: Iraq situation 'ever-worsening'
POSTED: 5:55 a.m. EDT, April 11, 2007

GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The situation for civilians in Iraq is "ever-worsening," even though security in some places has improved as a result of stepped-up efforts by U.S.-led multinational forces, the international Red Cross said Wednesday.

It is difficult to determine the numbers of people killed in shootings, bombings and military operations, but the overall picture of what is happening the country has been steadily deteriorating, with numbers of refugees swelling, medical staff fleeing and other problems growing, a key official said.

"It is clear that the security situation has improved in certain instances," especially in southern Iraq, said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC.

But the central region, including Baghdad, remains greatly affected, despite American efforts to secure the capital.

"Whatever operation that is today under way, and that may be taken tomorrow and in the weeks after, to improve the security of civilians on the ground may have an effect in the medium term," Kraehenbuehl told reporters. "We're certainly not seeing an immediate effect in terms of stabilization for civilians currently. That is not our reading."

He said it was so dangerous for Red Cross workers to move around in Baghdad, however, that "we don't have on a day-to-day basis a full picture of absolutely every situation."

Kraehenbuehl spoke in releasing a new ICRC report titled "Civilians Without Protection: The ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Iraq."

"The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population," said the report. "Every day dozens of people are killed and any more wounded."

raphael123

12th April 2007, 08:15

I don't think anyone argues the fact the situation over there is dire Eki, and thank you for the article, very interesting :) I was just wondering, to those people who think we should pull out ASAP, who would be attempting to keep order there? And who would try and control the Saddam supporters, Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords etc?

555-04Q2

12th April 2007, 10:45

Any thoughts on who would keep the order if the coalitian troops pulled out?

The coalitian forces shouldnt have been in Iraq in the first place. Bush and Blair lied about their reasons for going to war with Iraq who had never killed an American citizen before and the Iraqi people are paying the price for Bush's oil and construction greed.

The coalition forces need to stay in Iraq and fix the mess they started.

raphael123

12th April 2007, 10:49

The coalitian forces shouldnt have been in Iraq in the first place. Bush and Blair lied about their reasons for going to war with Iraq who had never killed an American citizen before and the Iraqi people are paying the price for Bush's oil and construction greed.

The coalition forces need to stay in Iraq and fix the mess they started.

Couldn't agree more!!

And though I do completely understand the understanding behind the opposite view, which is to pull out ASAP, but no one seems to be able to say who would keep the order there without the infrastructure in place. The only people seem able to say is that 'oh well...when the coalitian pull out, the fighting will naturally stop as people are only fighting because the americans are there'.

I'm not sure how true that would turn out to be I must admit!

555-04Q2

12th April 2007, 10:50

People always go on about American and Britain. Can we not forget the coalitian troops is made up of 60 different nations or something ridiculous!

Correct, but Bush and Blair instigated the WOMD cr@p and lied to the international community. That is why people go on about the USA and GB.

555-04Q2

12th April 2007, 10:52

Couldn't agree more!!

And though I do completely understand the understanding behind the opposite view, which is to pull out ASAP, but no one seems to be able to say who would keep the order there without the infrastructure in place. The only people seem able to say is that 'oh well...when the coalitian pull out, the fighting will naturally stop as people are only fighting because the americans are there'.

I'm not sure how true that would turn out to be I must admit!

Unfortunately, I think the fighting will go on in Iraq for many more years, whether the coalition forces stay or if they go or even if a true democracy is created with an elected president. Sadly, no nation can be rebuilt with the problems experienced in Iraq at the moment.

CarlMetro

12th April 2007, 11:02

The only people seem able to say is that 'oh well...when the coalitian pull out, the fighting will naturally stop as people are only fighting because the americans are there'.

I don't recall anybody saying that the fighting will stop, in fact I think you'll find that people have said just the opposite to that.

The fall of Bagdad and Saddams regiume was more than four years ago, even if you said that for the next two years we did nothing else but sweap the floor and clean the windows, we have still been training Iraqi army and police for two years. If you joined the British army you'd receive a six week basic training, at which point you could be called to active service, followed by a six month additional training for whichever corps you joined, such as Paratrooper, Infantry, Artillery etc. Obviously regiments such as REME require longer training times but the basic principle is that from join-up date to basic soldier takes just six weeks.

So in two years, how many soldiers should we have trained by now? How long do we have to hold their hands before we let them take control of the problems we face? If they're not ready now, will they ever be?

raphael123

12th April 2007, 12:25

Good point CarlMetro. We have been there 4yrs now. I'm going on the assumption that the Americans and the coalitian troops will now when the infrastructure is best ready to cope with the withdrawal of all coalitian troops, rather than us guys who post on here :)

Obviously they have said that they are not at this stage yet. When there is evidence to suggest that the iraqi's are ready to take over the role that the coalitian troops currently do, then I guess that will be when they are ready.

Leaving them with a mess to sort out and no infrastructure in place though - that is definately not the answer.

To sum it up, I don't think me or you are in a position to know when they will be ready compared to the people out there in Iraq. They obviously don't think that is now - so we must continue to take responsibility for our actions :)

Also CarlMetro, just out of curiousity, as you are one of the people who think we should get out now - who do you suggest takes over from trying to keep order in Iraq? And stop the fighting between the different groups currently in Iraq? Or do you think no one is needed to try and keep some kind of order? Or is it your opinion that we should pull out and let them get on with it themselves? And if so, what do you say to those who say we should take responsibility for our actions? :)

Eki

14th April 2007, 20:42

Where are they now?

Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war is in the World Bank. And they said the UN is corrupt:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266052,00.html

Documents May Give Wolfowitz New Lifeline in World Bank Scandal

Saturday, April 14, 2007

By Richard Behar

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz’s career was hanging by a thread today, but new revelations in internal bank documents released by the bank seemed as if they would provide him a stronger lifeline.

Since Thursday, the 24-member board of directors of the bank – the world’s largest and most influential anti-poverty institution — has been locked in meetings that might decide whether to censure or sanction Wolfowitz — or even demand his resignation.

The issue: whether Wolfowitz broke or bent bank rules in 2005 to enable a large salary hike for his girlfriend, a longtime bank staffer named Shaha Riza, at the same time that he helped to arrange her transfer to the U.S. State Department to avoid a conflict of interest. Her net wages jumped from $132,660 to $193,590 by 2006, which made her – by far — the highest paid person at the State Dept.

Eki

16th April 2007, 20:52

Yeah, but who would have believed those surrender monkeys:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266291,00.html

Report: France Told U.S. of Al Qaeda Hijack Plot Before 9/11

Monday, April 16, 2007

PARIS — France's foreign intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that Al Qaeda was preparing a hijacking plot likely to involve a U.S. airplane, former intelligence officials said Monday, confirming a report that also said the CIA received the warning.

Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Usama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French spy service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001. The documents included a Jan. 5, 2001, intelligence report warning that Al Qaeda was at work on a hijacking plot.

Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi, the former chief of staff for the agency's director at the time, said he remembered the note and that it mentioned only the vague outlines of a hijacking plot — nothing that foreshadowed the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies."'

raphael123

17th April 2007, 08:28

Eki, I'm not sure I understand the exact purpose of you posting that article. It's quite well known that there were some intelligence which suggested al-quaeda were planning something. However nothing like this had ever been seen, nothing even comparable. I'm sure if there was a wiff of intelligence on something like this now, the US and any other country under threat would take that information much more seriously. The plots the UK have unravelled in the past few years show that any intelligence they have on such plots are taken seriously.

Even if the U.S had information that the Al-Quaeda were planning 'something', but didn't have a clue when, where, what it would be. Just the fact they were planning 'something' doesn't really give them much to go on. The U.S weren't to blame for the attacks - the terrorists were. Let's not forget it.

All the attack did was make Bush and Blair take the issues of extremism and terrorists more seriously, hence the following wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, a war to combat terrorists and extremists.

Schultz

17th April 2007, 14:31

All the attack did was make Bush and Blair take the issues of extremism and terrorists more seriously, hence the following wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, a war to combat terrorists and extremists.

Woah! Didn't you mean to say "to produce terrorism and extremists"? Because thats whats happened. If terrorism in Iraq existed at all, it certainly wasn't of the type of organisation that Al Quaeda is. Bin Laden and any Islamic fundamentalists would have been well and truly opposed to Sadaams secular regime. It is his governments iron fist that kept organisations like Al Quaeda out of Iraq. But now the country is essentially in anarchy. A basically free, ungoverned society for any organisation to put their stamp of authority on.

Afghanistan I can understand. To an extent. What I don't understand is why they went in so half heartedly. They should have Bin Laden right now, and they should have had more effect on a country which is still a failed state, and is still dependent on opium exports which the United States knows is the only way to support Afghanistan's economy. And you know what? There is only one reason the US did not contribute more resources to Afghanistan - because they were already planning for the Invasion of Iraq.

raphael123

17th April 2007, 15:10

Eki

17th April 2007, 15:26

fighting against Terrorisms, Extremism and dictatorship isn't wrong.

But it's stupid if it produces more terrorists and extremists than it gets rid of. It's like trying to put out fire with gasoline. What was the cause of terrorism in the first place? American troops in the Middle East and their support to Israel. What did the Americans do? They took MORE troops to the Middle East and supported Israel even more.

Schultz

17th April 2007, 15:43

Schultz

I was referring to extremism in Iraq (or would dictatorship be more appropriate?), and was relating terrorism to afghanistan. Not really terrorism in Iraq (though there are terrorists there).

I'm surprised you blame Tony Blair and George Bush for the existence of terrorism when you say I should have said they 'produced' terrorism and extremists. Your a perfect example of someone who has forgotten who the bad guys are. Yes, going to war in Iraq was wrong, but fighting against Terrorisms, Extremism and dictatorship isn't wrong.

And as I've stated, 9/11 just bought the fight against these evils to the forefront.

You are a perfect example of one of those poor people who have unfortunately bought in to this "us or them" mentality. It is simply not that plain and clear. Maybe you don't know this but their were infact three countries which were involved in the original war fighting in Iraq. They were Britain, the USA and Australia. To me this is as much about opposing Australia's involvement as America's. If i was to follow your line of thought i would be making the statement that my own country are one of the bad guys. I am living in a free democracy and I disagree with the way my government has dealt with the post S11 era.

Yes dictatorships can probably be seen in general as 'bad', but seriously. and cost-benefit analysis would surely have to show that the whole operaion in Iraq has left the middle east more unstable; it has made life for the Iraqi people more dangerous; and it has most certainly lead to increased feeling of hatred towards many western countries, especially the United States. I also assume it has increased the danger western populations face from terrorism.

The United States went into Iraq for purely strategic national interests. Not because of WMD's or terrorism or anything like that. We all got duped.

Camelopard

18th April 2007, 03:54

Afghanistan I can understand. To an extent. What I don't understand is why they went in so half heartedly. They should have Bin Laden right now, and they should have had more effect on a country which is still a failed state, and is still dependent on opium exports which the United States knows is the only way to support Afghanistan's economy. And you know what? There is only one reason the US did not contribute more resources to Afghanistan - because they were already planning for the Invasion of Iraq.

The west has failed to learn from the Soviet Union's debacle in Afghanistan. One could say that their involvement in Afghanistan was a direct cause of the eventual break up of the Soviet Union.

Also the west still fails to understand the politics of the area, I would say that most Afghanis relate to their tribe before their country, just like in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

raphael123

18th April 2007, 08:04

You are a perfect example of one of those poor people who have unfortunately bought in to this "us or them" mentality. It is simply not that plain and clear. Maybe you don't know this but their were infact three countries which were involved in the original war fighting in Iraq. They were Britain, the USA and Australia. To me this is as much about opposing Australia's involvement as America's. If i was to follow your line of thought i would be making the statement that my own country are one of the bad guys. I am living in a free democracy and I disagree with the way my government has dealt with the post S11 era.

Yes dictatorships can probably be seen in general as 'bad', but seriously. and cost-benefit analysis would surely have to show that the whole operaion in Iraq has left the middle east more unstable; it has made life for the Iraqi people more dangerous; and it has most certainly lead to increased feeling of hatred towards many western countries, especially the United States. I also assume it has increased the danger western populations face from terrorism.

The United States went into Iraq for purely strategic national interests. Not because of WMD's or terrorism or anything like that. We all got duped.

There's no denying going to war was the wrong way to go about things. I don't think you'll find I've stated I support the war, though I do support the troops out there.

All I've said is 9/11 made Bush and Blair take terrorism and extremism more seriously, and try and combat that. Is that incorrect? No

You seem to think that is wrong (tackling terrorists and extremism such as the regine Saddam had)?

I know the war wasn't the right way to go about it in Iraq, and as you rightly point out, things are worse at the moment, it's the long term you have to look to.

I support Blair and Bush in the fight against terrorism and extremism, even if I'm not in agreement with the way they went to war. Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

Camelopard

18th April 2007, 12:47

Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

I'm curious to know which 'majority' were in favour of the war to start with. Certainly here in Australia the majority was against going to war, but little johnny is so far up george w's ars* that he had little option but to do what the yanks were doing. He also desperately wanted to be deputy sheriff in the South Pacific and hoped to get 'brownie points' from the usa for helping do their dirty work.

War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

Schultz

18th April 2007, 14:42

I'm curious to know which 'majority' were in favour of the war to start with. Certainly here in Australia the majority was against going to war, but little johnny is so far up george w's ars* that he had little option but to do what the yanks were doing. He also desperately wanted to be deputy sheriff in the South Pacific and hoped to get 'brownie points' from the usa for helping do their dirty work.

War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

I contest that. I would have thought the majority was FOR the Iraq war. Especially considering successive polls have found that US support in Australia is higher than in most countries. In fact I'm sure that most were for the war, but i'm too tired to research it up.

Schultz

18th April 2007, 15:07

There's no denying going to war was the wrong way to go about things. I don't think you'll find I've stated I support the war, though I do support the troops out there.

All I've said is 9/11 made Bush and Blair take terrorism and extremism more seriously, and try and combat that. Is that incorrect? No

You seem to think that is wrong (tackling terrorists and extremism such as the regine Saddam had)?

I know the war wasn't the right way to go about it in Iraq, and as you rightly point out, things are worse at the moment, it's the long term you have to look to.

I support Blair and Bush in the fight against terrorism and extremism, even if I'm not in agreement with the way they went to war. Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

I don't understand your point on extremism. Extremism is just a way of thinking to me. Extremist beliefs are just those which are more... well, extreme. By nature Middle Eastern States are extremist as they have generally been Islamic states. They have been so extremist in fact, that it has taken an iron fisted leader called sadaam Hussien to keep a secular country together. You cannot fight extremism. You can only breed it. And you know what, we cannot beat terrorism either, because extremism leads to people taking more desperate measures than we are able to stop. If we cannot stop an Iraqi suicide bomber infiltrating the most fortified parliament in the world then we cannot stop terrorism or 'extremism'. So what are we doing there?

By the way, extremism is just one of those words the US likes to use to take away the perception that the people fighting the US in Iraq are people, but instead blood thirsty evil-doers. Its just one of those buzz words that is designed to oversimplify what is happening in Iraq, to make sure the American public know that the US is fighting a war it needs to fight.

What do you see as the future for Iraq? Because the way i see it, America has just succeeded in breeding a new class of hatred towards America in a country that will eventually fall to Islam, under strong Iranian influence.

And don't feel stupid because you supported the war originally. The US administration would have picked (and made up) information that made the best case for war and fed it to the public.

Eki

18th April 2007, 18:31

You cannot fight extremism. You can only breed it.
I think the only ways you can fight extremism are moderation and tolerance. You have to lead by being an example. If you adopt extreme measures to fight extremism, you become an extremist yourself, and those you are fighting will see you as a mirror image of themselves (i.e. similar, but left is right, if you know what I mean) and think what they are doing is OK.

raphael123

19th April 2007, 11:20

I suppose it's a difference of opinion. I think terrorism does need to be tackled, rather than just leave them to it. And by extremism, I mean such as the regime Saddam had in Iraq, which I think too should be tackled, rather than left alone. The same applies to Mugabe in Zimbabwe. I think we should try and get him out of power. I'm not saying go to war, but apply some sort of pressure on the guy! You seem to think we should leave him to it :( I should have made my point on 'extremism' more clear, sorry :)

I actually agree with you Eki with what you say - lead by example! War definately is the last option.

However, it's easy to say that now. What I'm interested in hearing from you guys, is what should be done now rather than why it was wrong to go to war.

However no one seems to have a solution on the course of action that should take place now, they seem to prefer to say the obvious and say the war shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Eki

19th April 2007, 11:34

I think terrorism does need to be tackled, rather than just leave them to it.

Of course, but it should be tackled in more subtle way behind the scenes and get only the "bad guys" and not the innocents around them. The extremists are few in the beginning, so it's important that you win the hearts and minds of the more moderate before the extremists do. If you go all guns blazing to the Middle East and kill let's say 100 moderates as "collateral damage", those 100 could have 2 moderate friends or family members each that now become extremists and want to revenge their loss at all costs. That means 200 new "terrorists" have just born.

Mark in Oshawa

20th April 2007, 16:47

The death of Saddam Hussein is one thing that has been achieved, but according to a report I was reading recently, this could have happened in the original 1991 attack when a small group of SAS soldiers was despatched to 'take him out' and could have achieved their objective easily but were told not to proceed.

I would love to see the proof of this. First off, the UK and your civilzed nations do NOT believe in using assassin's, and what is more, most military units will not participate in any action that targets a civilian leader. That said, Hussein wasn't really a civilian in any stretch, more like a mad dog that the SAS would have loved to put down. That said, if Mossad couldn't knock him off, I don't see how the SAS ever were close enough to do the job, and I have the utmost respect for the SAS, but I don't believe they could have done it. Where is your proof?

As for this thread, it is just another plantive whine about how terrible Americans are and how self assured and smug all libreals are about how this has turned out. In the first 3 months, most of these self righteous libreals were awful quiet as it looked like Iraq was going to be conquered and looked after with little loss of life. As it turns out, life is never that simple, but it is easy to be a genius when you are pointing out what is wrong after the fact.

I thought the war was fought for the right reasons (ridding of the world of this lunatic rogue regime ) but with the wrong execution or plan for what would happen after. Lets just say Bush has found out that the path to hell is paved with bad intentions, or empty rounds from a war fought with too few troops or not enough ferocity....

As for those who just oppose it because the Americans are the worlds bad guys, well, nothing logical or noble will change your mind, for you have all the answers......just ask you.

Eki

20th April 2007, 18:39

Now they are building a wall. What next:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267281,00.html

U.S. Builds Wall to Separate Factions in Baghdad

Friday, April 20, 2007

BAGHDAD — U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area "trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation," the military said.

When the wall is finished, the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah, located on the eastern side of the Tigris River, will be completely gated, and traffic control points manned by Iraqi soldiers will provide the only means to enter it, the military said.

"Shiites are coming in and hitting Sunnis, and Sunnis are retaliating across the street," said Capt. Scott McLearn, of the U.S. 407th Brigade Support Battalion, which began the project April 10 and is working "almost nightly until the wall is complete," the statement said.

It said the concrete wall, including barriers as tall as 12 feet, "is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence" in Baghdad.

Mark in Oshawa

20th April 2007, 20:13

Schultz

21st April 2007, 03:58

they'll just fire mortars over now.

Camelopard

22nd April 2007, 04:06

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/home-truths-about-bushs-iraq-war/2007/04/20/1176697087497.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Again some interesting points in the following article by Alan Ramsey in this weekends Sydney Morning Herald. It is a longish article with references to 'the war on terror' by former Labour Minister in the Blair Government and now the British Government's representative in Australia (High Commisioner), Helen Liddell and at the end on the article some points about he use of 'contaractors' in Iraq used by companies like Blackwater Inc. and Tripple Canopy. It seems that some of these contractors are there for the 'fun' and not to help rebuild Iraq:

Helen Liddell arrived in Canberra last July as the Blair Labor Government's appointee as British High Commissioner to Australia. She used to be a minister. This week, in a speech to our National Press Club, Liddell had the temerity to tell the inconvenient (if obvious) truth about the invasion of Iraq.
"We have never seen Iraq as part of the war on terrorism," she told her audience on Wednesday, in answer to a question. "Certainly, at the moment, we are engaged in a war on the streets in Afghanistan, in Iraq, against terrorism, but our raison d'etre for our involvement in Iraq has not been about terrorism. We have always said, all along, that you cannot defeat what is going on in some parts of the world today by military might alone …"
Good heavens, woman, go wash your mouth.

Next day, when John Howard emerged in his walled Parliament House courtyard to let loose his latest fear campaign, this time about the dying Murray-Darling rivers system, another inconvenient truth which has been inconvenient for far longer than our Prime Minister wants you to think about, he was asked, in the last question of his press conference before he scuttled back into his office: "Mr Howard, was Helen Liddell wrong when she said that Iraq is not part of the war against terrorism?"

Howard replied: "Well, the British High Commission is telling my office - and I don't know whether it's telling anybody else - that she was quoted out of context. But that is a matter for her and the British High Commission. I do know this, that the British Government believes that Iraq is very much a part of the war against terrorism, because the head of the British Government, namely the British Prime Minister, had this to say in February this year …" And on and on he went, blah blah blah, slithering around what Liddell had actually been asked at the press club and what she had actually replied.

The question had been: "High Commissioner, one of your Government's ministers, Hilary Benn, this week told a New York audience that the term 'war on terror' was sending out the wrong message and was, in fact, encouraging terrorists. Does this not suggest the military strategy encompassed by this term, particularly in Iraq, has been a bit of a failure?"

Benn is Tony Blair's Secretary of State for International Development. He ranks 14th in Blair's inner cabinet of 22 ministers. After her initial response, what Liddell, in her answer, had gone on to tell her Canberra audience about her Labor colleague's New York remark was: "Indeed, Hilary Benn makes this point, that you cannot defeat what is going on in some parts of the world today by military might alone. You have to use the techniques of soft power. You have to use this debate about values and this narrative about values, whilst at the same time recognising that our societies are under threat from certain kinds of terrorism and taking the legislative and security responses necessary.
"Words, phrases, like 'war on terror', these are tabloid slogans, and I can understand why they're used, but the real fight against terror will not be just through the legislative process. It will also be about winning hearts and minds and convincing people that our modern liberal societies have something to offer them, whilst at the same time recognising and respecting their true religious beliefs. Islam is a peaceful religion."

Three questions later, Iraq was raised again.

Q: "If I can just go back to Iraq. Prime Minister Howard famously accused the Democrats in the US of giving encouragement to terrorists by suggesting a troop withdrawal from Iraq. It's a charge levied at Labor here as well. What do you make of the argument?"

Liddell: "Well, the great thing about democratic societies is the people will decide, based on the rhetoric that comes forward during election campaigns. The involvement of Australia in Iraq is very important to the UK. We've watched what Mr Rudd has said and we will await developments and see what happens. But basically, at the end of the day, we have to take our decisions based on what is right for the UK and what the policy options are that we think are best. The great thing about democracies is it's not for me as an outsider, as a foreigner, to say what I think about other democracies. Up to you guys."

So no, Helen Liddell was not "quoted out of context". And the British High Commission, without comment, re-released her speech which already had been circulated by the press club. Plain English is plain English. Read it and fulminate, if you will, Prime Minister. But some honesty on Iraq, please, without debauching another Anzac Day.

Here's something else to chew on... continued in next post..

Camelopard

22nd April 2007, 04:08

part two:

Here's something else to chew on.

Early this week, The Washington Post published a 4000-word article on an investigation into some shootings in Baghdad nine months ago. Our Prime Minister might read it in the context of the "war on terror" he and his ministers parrot, however tabloid the phrase, and the inconvenient truth of just who it is that helps feed this war in the travesty that has become Iraq in the four years since Howard committed to its invasion for base political motives.

The Post article began: "On the afternoon of July 8, 2006, four private security guards rolled out of Baghdad's green zone in an armoured security vehicle. The team leader, Jacob C. Washbourne, rode in the front passenger seat. He seemed in a good mood. His vacation was to start the next day.
"I want to kill somebody today," Washbourne said, according to the three other men in the vehicle. Before the day was over, the guards had been involved in three shooting incidents. In one, Washbourne allegedly fired into the windshield of a taxi for amusement.

"The full story may never be known. But an investigation by the Post provides a rare look into the world of private security contractors, who fight a largely hidden war in Iraq. Many come for big money and operate outside most of the laws that govern US forces. The US military has brought charges against dozens of soldiers and marines in Iraq, including 64 servicemen linked to murders. Not a single case has been brought against a security contractor."
The four guards were employed by Triple Canopy, a company founded by retired US special forces officers. It fired three of the guards, including Washbourne, who earned $US600 ($720) a day as a "team leader". Nobody was charged with anything.

Triple Canopy's contract was to provide security for "executives of KBR Inc, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation", which has multibillion-dollar US Government contracts in Iraq. Australians might remember KBR as the former Dick Cheney company that built the Darwin to Alice Springs railway for the Howard Government and the former Olsen Liberal government in South Australia.

Then there is Blackwater USA.

The weekly magazine The Nation was founded in 1865 and describes itself as "America's oldest and most widely read weekly journal of progressive political and cultural views, opinion and analysis". Ten of its 14 editorial executives are women, including the editor and publisher.
The magazine's April 2 issue ran a 5000-word extract, headlined "Bush's Shadow Army", from a new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. The article makes the Post investigation of last July's shooting incidents in Baghdad look like child's play.
The author of the book is Jeremy Scahill "who reports on the Bush Administration's growing dependence on private security forces, such as Blackwater USA, and efforts in Congress to reign them in."

According to Scahill, when the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned last December, there were an estimated 100,000 private contractors in Iraq.

Scahill writes: "Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the Government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy. The Administration in turn have shielded contractors from accountability, oversight and legal constraints. 'We have over 200,000 troops in Iraq, and half of them aren't being counted,' says the Democrats' Dennis Kucinich, a leading congressional critic of war contracting."

Of the "shadowy mercenary company, Blackwater USA", Scahill writes: "Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power and protection within the US military apparatus. This company's success represents the realisation of the life's work of the conservative officials, including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush Administration's war team. While initial inquiries have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration's praetorian guard.

"Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious right and the Republican revolution of 1994. At its founding, its vision was 'to fulfil the anticipated demand for government outsourcing in firearms and related security training.' In the following years, Prince, his family and his political allies poured money into the Republican campaign coffers, supporting the party's takeover of Congress and the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency.
"Almost overnight, following September 11, the company would become a central player in a global war. In just a decade Prince has expanded his headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina, to 7000 acres [2800 hectares], making it the world's largest private military base, with 2300 personnel in nine countries and 20,000 other contractors at the ready …"

Gets Australia's political pygmies with their "war on terror" into perspective.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................

At least Helen Liddell as a representative of the British Government isn't telling Australia what to do, unlike her counterpart the US ambassador Tom Schieffer did a few years ago:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939717516.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939717516.html)

and here,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927663494.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927663494.html)

Camelopard

22nd April 2007, 04:16

Hey ...it sort of worked in Belfast didn't it?? When you have two sides bound and determined to kill each other, a wall is the best way to calm things down. Cyprus has one too. When people wont discuss their grieveances without violence, you may have to separate em. Heck Eki, you should like this, it beats the Americans killing them....

Not the sort of thing the US was saying in the early 1960's when the Berlin Wall was erected as the "antifaschistischer Schutzwall", Anti fascism protection barrier.

Eki

22nd April 2007, 10:05

According to Scahill, when the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned last December, there were an estimated 100,000 private contractors in Iraq.

Scahill writes: "Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the Government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy. The Administration in turn have shielded contractors from accountability, oversight and legal constraints. 'We have over 200,000 troops in Iraq, and half of them aren't being counted,' says the Democrats' Dennis Kucinich, a leading congressional critic of war contracting."

Of the "shadowy mercenary company, Blackwater USA", Scahill writes: "Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power and protection within the US military apparatus. This company's success represents the realisation of the life's work of the conservative officials, including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush Administration's war team. While initial inquiries have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration's praetorian guard.

"Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious right and the Republican revolution of 1994. At its founding, its vision was 'to fulfil the anticipated demand for government outsourcing in firearms and related security training.' In the following years, Prince, his family and his political allies poured money into the Republican campaign coffers, supporting the party's takeover of Congress and the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency.
"Almost overnight, following September 11, the company would become a central player in a global war. In just a decade Prince has expanded his headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina, to 7000 acres [2800 hectares], making it the world's largest private military base, with 2300 personnel in nine countries and 20,000 other contractors at the ready …"

Reminds me of Hitler's Sturmabteilung in the 1930s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

The Sturmabteilung or SA (German for "Storm division", usually translated as "stormtroop(er)s" ), functioned as a paramilitary organization of the NSDAP — the German Nazi party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s.

Also the SA maxims sound familiar:

* "Terror must be broken by terror" [1]
* "All opposition must be stamped into the ground" [1]

BDunnell

22nd April 2007, 11:02

I would love to see the proof of this. First off, the UK and your civilzed nations do NOT believe in using assassin's, and what is more, most military units will not participate in any action that targets a civilian leader. That said, Hussein wasn't really a civilian in any stretch, more like a mad dog that the SAS would have loved to put down. That said, if Mossad couldn't knock him off, I don't see how the SAS ever were close enough to do the job, and I have the utmost respect for the SAS, but I don't believe they could have done it. Where is your proof?

I don't have proof of that, but a USAF pilot did once tell me, in all seriousness, that his flight had a motorcade in its sights that they believed contained Saddam, and was ordered not to fire.

As for this thread, it is just another plantive whine about how terrible Americans are and how self assured and smug all libreals are about how this has turned out. In the first 3 months, most of these self righteous libreals were awful quiet as it looked like Iraq was going to be conquered and looked after with little loss of life. As it turns out, life is never that simple, but it is easy to be a genius when you are pointing out what is wrong after the fact.

This is revisionist history. I, for one, and many people like me, was convinced this was going to be a disaster and always felt it looked like being even in the early days of the military campaign, because it was clear what was going to happen afterwards.

And I would add that there has always been a certain smugness on the part of those on the right and their belief in how the whole Iraqi population would be grateful to the Coalition for invading. I would contest that this has been rather more damaging.

I thought the war was fought for the right reasons (ridding of the world of this lunatic rogue regime ) but with the wrong execution or plan for what would happen after.

Forgive me, but I have to ask again — where does one draw the line when it comes to removing unpleasant regimes?

BDunnell

22nd April 2007, 11:06

Not the sort of thing the US was saying in the early 1960's when the Berlin Wall was erected as the "antifaschistischer Schutzwall", Anti fascism protection barrier.

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. There is a certain irony about bringing peace to a city or country by building a wall when one thinks of Berlin. The difference, as it seems to me, is that I'm sure those who are in favour of building this wall in Iraq have such a clear view of what is right and what is wrong that they would argue that the East Germans were wrong to build the Berlin Wall, because they were an oppressive, totalitarian regime, while the Americans are right to build this wall because they are a free, democratic regime. The trouble is that not everybody thinks that way.

Camelopard

23rd April 2007, 01:40

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903764.htm

Maliki orders stop to Baghdad wall

By David Hardaker
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered a halt to the construction of a US military-built wall designed to separate Shiite and Sunni communities in Baghdad.
Mr al-Maliki says he wants alternatives found to protect a mainly Sunni area of the Iraqi capital.
The US military said last week it would build a five-kilometre security wall around the Adhamiya quarter of east Baghdad.
Mr al-Maliki says he fears the wall might have repercussions similar to other walls, apparently referring to once-divided cities such as Berlin.
Iraqi politicians have opposed the US plans to build walls in areas of Baghdad, accusing Washington of hardening Iraq's sectarian divide.

It makes you wonder if the US bothered to speak to the Iraqis before deciding on this course of action..........

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 02:43

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. There is a certain irony about bringing peace to a city or country by building a wall when one thinks of Berlin. The difference, as it seems to me, is that I'm sure those who are in favour of building this wall in Iraq have such a clear view of what is right and what is wrong that they would argue that the East Germans were wrong to build the Berlin Wall, because they were an oppressive, totalitarian regime, while the Americans are right to build this wall because they are a free, democratic regime. The trouble is that not everybody thinks that way.

Big difference here guys, the East Germans put the wall up on their own to keep their people from defecting. IF you think East Germany was a paradise, only read the history books of the hell that was the DDR. Lets face it, if you have two warring factions who are more or less in a state of agitation with bombings and shootings but not outright warfare, a wall is one way of controlling and checking movement from one community to the other. IN the case of the DDR and Berlin, there was peace and the city of Berlin left to its own devices would have been fine. IT was only when the West got things the East didn't have, like the vote, consumer products and freedom that the people in the Stasi wanted a wall. ENTIRELY different situation, and the fact I have to tell you this seems a little silly..but if you are going to link the Berlin Wall to a Baghdad Wall, well, then you asked for it.

As for the presumption that how far does one go to get rid of a unpleasent regime, well, I don't usually advocate invading sovereign nations, but you and I both know Saddam pretty much was begging for a chance to keep tweaking the Americans. He was playing a game where he had no WMD's but wanted the world to think he might have them. A silly game....because Bushie was looking for someone's @ss to kick. Of course, Bush screwed up the peace after Saddam's ouster, but that is something that historians 50 years from now will be in a better place to assess the point in of all it.

Eki

29th April 2007, 09:25

4 years on Saddam Hussein has become a martyr and Iraqis talk about the "good old days":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/28/saddam.birthday.ap/index.html

Hundreds celebrate Saddam Hussein's 70th birthday
POSTED: 8:34 p.m. EDT, April 28, 2007

OUJA, Iraq (AP) -- Hundreds of people brought flowers and unlit candles to Saddam Hussein's tomb Saturday to mark what would have been his 70th birthday.

Children wore white, along with badges bearing Hussein's portrait, and sang songs and poems as cake was served in Hussein's burial place, an ornate building with a marble floor that he had built for religious events in this Tigris River village.

The supporters said they were mourning the state of their country along with the ousted leader, who was hanged December 30 for crimes against humanity.

"We came with candles but won't light them because the candle of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein, has gone as a martyr," said Fatin Abdul Qadir, the director of a children's charity in nearby Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. "We will light them when Iraq is liberated again."

Banners decorated buildings in the center of Tikrit, with one reading, "We congratulate the Iraqi resistance and the Iraqi people on the occasion of the leader's birthday."

Hussein's tomb was covered with flowers and an Iraqi flag.

"The martyr has gone, but he is still immortal in our hearts," Abdul Qadir said. "Baghdad flourished during his days, not like now."

schmenke

30th April 2007, 23:07

...I thought the war was fought for the right reasons ....

What, you mean ridding Iraq from weapons of mass destruction?...

SOD

2nd May 2007, 17:10

I First off, the UK and your civilzed nations do NOT believe in using assassin's, and what is more, most military units will not participate in any action that targets a civilian leader. .

didn't stop Mi5 from recruiting loyalist terrorists to carry out the desires of the fanatics within Mi5.

no doubt the CIA is performing similar tricks.

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 10:37

What, you mean ridding Iraq from weapons of mass destruction?...

Liberating Iraq, and getting rid of Saddam, and yes, ridding the man capable of using weapons of mass destruction :)

Camelopard

3rd May 2007, 14:09

I'm in a melancholy mood, makes me think of of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5btZWbViPA

Hard to believe this is nearly thirty years ago! (Woodstock!)

Could be be used today, the yanks just don't ever learn.....................................

schmenke

3rd May 2007, 14:35

Liberating Iraq...

Iraq is liberated? :confused:

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 15:12

Iraq is liberated? :confused:

Not yet, but the removal of Saddam was necessary to at least attempt liberating Iraq.

Getting rid of Saddam in itself, I think goes some way to justifying the war.

There should be no doubt about Saddams mentality. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population. Was he a danger to the world? I believe it is fair to assume he was!

Is the world a better place without Saddam? I think it is. Western publics would not have forgiven their political leaders if Saddam had been left in power and had then come to hold the world to ransom with horrific weapons.

And as has been pointed out, there have been 1000's of deaths in Iraq, but Tony Blair hasn't sent his troops out to kill. A lot of these deaths are caused by Iraqians, and the terrorists there. Once again, I think we are in a situation where we seem to forget who the bad guys are, and blame the people trying to do the right thing, and liberate Iraq, and fight terror.

SOD

3rd May 2007, 15:25

Liberating Iraq, and getting rid of Saddam, and yes, ridding the man capable of using weapons of mass destruction :)

there's about 10 other "leaders" who are capable of using WMD.

Would have been better for the CIA not to have championed Saddam in the 1950s, and for the west to have not armed Saddam in the 1980s.

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 15:25

Not yet, but the removal of Saddam was necessary to at least attempt liberating Iraq.

Getting rid of Saddam in itself, I think goes some way to justifying the war.

There should be no doubt about Saddams mentality. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population. Was he a danger to the world? I believe it is fair to assume he was!

Is the world a better place without Saddam? I think it is. Western publics would not have forgiven their political leaders if Saddam had been left in power and had then come to hold the world to ransom with horrific weapons.

And as has been pointed out, there have been 1000's of deaths in Iraq, but Tony Blair hasn't sent his troops out to kill. A lot of these deaths are caused by Iraqians, and the terrorists there. Once again, I think we are in a situation where we seem to forget who the bad guys are, and blame the people trying to do the right thing, and liberate Iraq, and fight terror.

you dont make any sense.....

who gave saddam the means and the know how to do all the things he did...the US UK and germans etc....

Iraq is worse off now than when Saddam was in power...

the biggest threat to peace in the world is blair and bush....

now i dont support this but, the guys who are attacking the brits and the US forces are defending their country as WE ARE THE invaders of the country, not the liberators and how can the US government say they want to spread democracy when the US is actually a REPUBLIC?????????????????

there is a big difference between a republic and a democracy, run country

also this is a war which bush wanted because he is a fooking mad man wanting more oil

IT MAKES ME SO MAD WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS WAR WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO....THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING AND IRAQIS AND HOW CAN WE THE WESTERN WORLD CALL OUR SELVES CIVILISED WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 15:31

What, but forhget th African nations where civilians are still being killed in their thousands after 20years??? Why isn't that a hot topic?

because the Brits and US governments dont see anything worth having in africa

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 15:35

you dont make any sense.....

who gave saddam the means and the know how to do all the things he did...the US UK and germans etc....

Iraq is worse off now than when Saddam was in power...

the biggest threat to peace in the world is blair and bush....

now i dont support this but, the guys who are attacking the brits and the US forces are defending their country as WE ARE THE invaders of the country, not the liberators and how can the US government say they want to spread democracy when the US is actually a REPUBLIC?????????????????

also this is a war which bush wanted because he is a fooking mad man wanting more oil

IT MAKES ME SO MAD WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS WAR WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO....THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING AND IRAQIS AND HOW CAN WE THE WESTERN WORLD CALL OUR SELVES CIVILISED WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes:

And Britain and America aren't the people doing the majority of the killing, not even close. It's mainly the terrorists.

Saddam dead is better. I'll say it again. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population.

How anyone can say the world was better off with this man ruling a country is beyond me.

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 15:36

schmenke

3rd May 2007, 15:39

...all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing...

...for oil.

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 15:44

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes:

And Britain and America aren't the people doing the majority of the killing, not even close. It's mainly the terrorists.

Saddam dead is better. I'll say it again. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population.

How anyone can say the world was better off with this man ruling a country is beyond me.

you have misunderstood me my friend

the brits and the americans aided saddam in the iran war...we GAVE HIM THE WEAPONS AND THE MEANS to gas and kill the kurds.....

also because isreal is just as bad as the US government..think they can do what they want willy nilly

Iraq was invaded by the madman Bush who along with the jewish think tank in washington thought that they could do it for the sack of a bit of extra cash and alot of other things

Iraq WAS A SAFER PLACE THEN AS THERE WAS NO ROADSIDE BOMBS AND NO HUGE CIVIL WAR GOING ON AND IS WORSE OFF NOW BY THE ACTIONS OF THE INVASION.....

yes saddam wasa evil man, but bush is as bad if not worse than him...bush is a killer just like saddam was

and how much money has bush spent on this war, when he could give the american population free health car and feed the homeless eh????

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 16:02

SOD

3rd May 2007, 16:03

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes: .

The gun-shop owner & the US govt thought that it was perfectly OK for Cho Song Ho to own a gun.

What does anyone need a gun for these days? You can't protect yourself against NSA/FBI/CIA spying with guns. :)

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 16:09

[quote="SOD"]The gun-shop owner & the US govt thought that it was perfectly OK for Cho Song Ho to own a gun.

lets thank the NRA shall we..

then you have a large percentage of people in the US who support the war in Iraq are the people who support the death penalty. yet for some odd reason are against abortions...contradiction at the highest level lol

RALLY TEAM GB

3rd May 2007, 16:13

and no i am not anti american,,just the ones who support Bush and his mad man thinking

"lets block stem cell research....yet put more money towards killing more of our troops and iraqis so we can have more money when i leave office as my daddy told me to"

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 16:48

Originally Posted by raphael123
Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech?

i dont think you want me to get into this one..i may upset you even further

You haven't upset me, it seems like your the one who's upset here :(

Feel free to tell me what you think, you tease :p :

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 16:55

please not that i am no peace freak or what not, but it just fooks me off when people say that the war in iraq is a good thing.......

all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing

thats my rant over with

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

And I hardly think that America's poverty problems can be compared to that of Iraq. Sorry, but no

BDunnell

3rd May 2007, 17:05

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

BDunnell

3rd May 2007, 17:06

Would have been better for the CIA not to have championed Saddam in the 1950s, and for the west to have not armed Saddam in the 1980s.

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?

Eki

3rd May 2007, 17:12

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?
Not likely. In Iraq they only had enemies. Shiites who were an enemy of Saddam now want to be friends with Iran who is an enemy of the US who was an enemy of Saddam who was an enemy of Iran. Well, maybe they were friends with the Kurds who were enemies with Turkey who is a friend of the US. Confused? You won't be after this episode of Soap.

raphael123

3rd May 2007, 17:14

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

BDunnell

3rd May 2007, 17:25

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

airshifter

3rd May 2007, 21:32

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.

The western powers did create Saddam, and I'll be the first to admit that. Those same people were for the most part wanting to rid Iraq of him in the Gulf War, but the political influence of the European nations had a large part in not desiring to do so. I'm sure both would have done things differently if they knew what the end result would be.

BDunnell

3rd May 2007, 21:44

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

raphael123

4th May 2007, 10:32

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

That's not what I'm saying at all!
I'm not saying there shouldn't be an inquiry into any wrong doings or mistake at all. I think I've actually said we should learn from our mistakes. In most cases, there is an inquiry, and we do learn from these mistakes.

I'm just stating your attitude of 'well, they should have done it years ago' or 'well they shouldn't have let him in the army in the first place' doesn't help things at all. You have to accept mistakes were made, as they can't be changed, and make sure you've learnt from them, and then make the best possible decision now, without making another mistake!

How on earth going back to decisions made years ago, wrongly or rightly, is going to help things NOW is beyond me. Everyone knows we should have removed Saddam in 91, so saying now, in 2007 'well we should have done it in 91' isn't going do much to help is it?

It's the attitude, when discussing what we should do in Iraq now, people scream 'we shouldn't be there in the first place' I find annoying- how on earth is that going to be helpful? We need to look to the future, rather than look back at descisions made 20yrs.

But that doesn't mean I don't think we should learn from our mistakes, I think we SHOULD do. But I don't think, when making a decision now, we should just say 'we should have done it right 20yrs ago'. That's not helpful, and doesn't solve anything.

RALLY TEAM GB

4th May 2007, 14:55

raphael123

tell you what..if you are so behind bush and this war and all the other idiots who support it, why dont you go to iraq and do your bit for the war?????

airshifter

4th May 2007, 15:51

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

Most of the post Gulf War resolutions addressed the humanitarian issue, including 1441. Some have available transcripts of discussion comments at the UN website. Since most if not all come from the UN representatives, it's not always a direct insight as to the government leaders but it should be a fairly accurate representation of that governments desires and concerns.

I personally don't think any world leader disregarded the human issue, it's just that they differ in the approach to solving it. Similar to the issue in Darfur today, there is no easy solution that all of the world would support. I know for quite some time they even avoided the use of the term genocide when speaking of Darfur.

Many of Bush's public addresses voiced the concerns for the people of Iraq, as I'm sure did leaders of other countries.

RALLY TEAM GB

4th May 2007, 16:04

Mark in Oshawa

4th May 2007, 16:34

Rally Team, you just keep on spouting off your crap, you have no cogent argument I see. It is really simple on why polticians lie and obscure what they do, because trolls like yourself are so cynical, and so bloody obnoxious about how things work in this world, you cant handle the truth.

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world. Saddam had the weapons to gas the Kurd's, and use on Iran in his wars with them, so spare me the BS about how he NEVER had them. I heard that one too.

We live in a world where 20 Al Quaida terrorists flew 4 planes into the World Trade Center. America wanted revenge, but they also wanted to change the culture of the Arab world. Was this foolish? Maybe naive, it is never foolish for wanting a chaotic and often violent part of the world to treat human beings with decency. Is this part of the world floating with oil? Ya, it is, but the thing is, America has spent a lot more fighting this war than they have gotten back in oil, which is, NIL. NOTHING. NADA. America don't get the oil from this part of the world really. I bet those of you in the UK might know where it is going, go look at your cars. It is the contient of Europe that gets the lion's share of this oil. Yet I don't see many people in Europe having any appreication for that.

So now the Americans mainly are the targets in Iraq for a stupid war that maybe they should have stayed away from, but all the intelligence in the world was saying there was a threat. Saddam was NOT shy about funding terrorism in the past, and while there are no real concrete evidence that Saddam was talking to Al Quaida, we all know how poor intelliegence is in this part of the world don't we? So Bushie got a little naive and invaded with the help of Blair. Did I think it was a good idea? No, because as we have seen, fixing Iraq after the war was always my concern, but I also knew that Saddam would hook up with someone to hurt someone. He was killing over 20000 people a year in his regime, so it wasn't exactly a tea party living in his country. The Shiites and Kurds were not crying when they saw him run off believe me. Where was all your righteous indingnation for those dead? Where is all your concern for those living in Iran under another tyranny that will punish women by death for adultry? How about punishing women for not wearing veils and holding hands with their husband? Where is your violently angry posts about that? Hypocrite, this is an anti Bush/Blair fest, we cant talk about HUMAN RIGHTS????

The real problem with those who object to this war is they ignore the fact that the war WAS LEGAL (under the terms of the UN resolutions to end the first Gulf War, the final option for NOT obeying them was a continuation of the invasion of the FIRST Gulf War), they ignore the fact that American oil companies and America itself are NOT making money off of this. The oil prices going up is making money for the oil companies, but this is more to do with the price fixing that occurs when the OPEC nations adjust their production to keep the supplies at a level where THEY make money. THis happens anyhow, oil or no oil, and the Russians trying to flood the market with oil is part of this contraction on part of the OPEC nations as well. To make simplistic and stupid statements that many of you make, is to ignore the fact that the world is a complicated place, it is run by flawed but often earnest men and women, and the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Iraq is a mess, yes, but yelling about how bad George W Bush is, and how stupid Tony Blair was for following him ( Blair followed him because all the intelligence he was shown obviously scared the hell out of him ) is just pointless, and stupid. Iraq is NOT the basketcase many of you think it is, but it is a small area around Baghdad where most of the problems are now occurring. Many of the terrorists in the area are Al Quaida now, and if they want to fight the US and the UK over there, it is better than in Kent or Maryland now isn't it? That is what is happening now. So rather than pointing fingers about how sad this is going on for over 4 years, why don't you opponents of this war say what you would do now to fix things? Pulling out is just telling the Arab world we don't have the guts to stand behind our princples of human rights and democracy. Nice thing to do, encourage a bunch of dictators that you are afraid of a fight. That sort of thinking was around in 1938, and we all know how THAT turned out.

No, you can yell and scream how stupid war is, I won't disagree.
You can complain that Bush is an idiot, I will say maybe, but he is gone in 18 months too.
You can complain how stupid Blair is, well, I must say I disagree, but I don't always like him either.
You can state how you are worried about the Iraqi people, I say you are full of crap, because you were not likely as mad about things there before Saddam was removed.

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

BDunnell

4th May 2007, 17:10

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world.

The UN inspectors managed perfectly well, as it turned out.

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

Sorry, but your level of self-righteous anger is doing your argument down, in my book at least. While I agree that the post to which your rant responds is a very simplistic view of the situation, and not one that I hope I would put across, calling those of us who oppose the war 'leftist fools', 'hypocrites' and 'childish', and accusing us of having 'wee minds' does your cause no good at all in my eyes. If you want to be called names back, so be it.

SOD

4th May 2007, 17:30

"Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO."

fixed version:

Just have an argument. It likely hurts their wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just oil companies.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that extra bottom line and many more are still willing to keep doing it (lucky them). Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

:D

airshifter

4th May 2007, 20:49

the speeches which bush made, did not voice his concern for the people of iraq...he couldnt give a rats arse bout them...aslong as he gets his blood stained hands on the oil he dont care

anyone who supports him is as bad as he is

You should attempt dealing in facts. They can be found on the internet at times, and often are hidden in books as well.

The Bush speeches, and the actions of the US during the entire post Gulf War period, supported increased humanitarian aid to Iraq. Both the US and UK pushed the Oil For Food Program, which did just this, even though they had to tolerate illegal oil trade and price fixing to allow the aid to happen.

If you look at facts, you will also find that the majority of the price fixing kickbacks to Saddam also came primarily from the countries that opposed the war. It was their greed for oil that funded Saddams illicit trade, not the greed of the US or UK.

BDunnel,

For the record, I don't think your view is one of the simplistic closed minded ones. I can't speak for Mark in Oshawa, but I felt his comment was aimed at those without any valid points of fact, rather than the people like yourself engaging in actual fact based discussion.