Things going well in Iraq?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Azure

No WMD? So he DIDN'T use them against his own people?

Wierd, I was positive he gassed a bunch of Kurds right after the Iraq-Iran war.

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

Great thanks for the link...from that site, this gem:

The massacre at Halabja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqi government.


While the United States did not supply full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did approve private business sales of biological weapon precursors to Iraq, according to a 1994 report issued by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (aka the Riegle Report.) It should be noted that the report does not provide proof of U.S. involvement in Iraqi chemical weapons and that the gas attack was carried out by Mustard gas and not a biological weapon. In addition, there is no evidence that Iraq ever used biological weapons in combat during the war with Iran. The US also provided satellite photographs and battlefield intelligence to Iraq which it knew was to be used in "calibrating" Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Iran Furthermore, the US provided dual use helicopters, ostensibly for crop spraying, which intelligence sources believe were used to deploy the chemical weapons in Halabja


Several European nations also participated in arming Iraq, specifically Germany. German chemical companies and German Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) protective gear manufacturers also supplied the Iraqi Army and Rustimiya Officers Academy. Stores of German chemicals and training materials were found in June 2003 by U.S. soldiers in east Baghdad.

Too bad it doesn't mention how the US voted against labelling Iraq a terrorist state after the attack...Blowback anyone?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Great thanks for the link...from that site, this gem:



Too bad it doesn't mention how the US voted against labelling Iraq a terrorist state after the attack...Blowback anyone?

I'm actually old enough to remember when it happened, and I clearly remember people on the news saying that Iran was the country that gassed the Kurds, and that was the idea pushed on everyone at the time. There was no way the U.S. was going to admit that their "ally" would do that.

Magically, around the time of the 1st Gulf War, they started promoting the idea that it was Iraq. For the record, I believe it was probably Iraq, but this shows how they can twist and revise history in anyway to meet their needs.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm actually old enough to remember when it happened, and I clearly remember people on the news saying that Iran is the country that gassed the Kurds, and that was the idea pushed on everyone at the time.

Magically, around the time of the 1st Gulf War, they started promoting the idea that it was Iraq. For the record, I believe it was probably Iraq, but this shows how they can twist and revise history in anyway to meet their needs.

ahhh, but back then, Iran was the enemy and Iraq was an ally of the US (being a secular governement and all)...from the same link:

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [1] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times [2] opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" [3]. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion [4]

i guess we'd better not open the can of worms of how the US removed Iraq from the list of terrorists states so that they could legally supply them with weapons in 1982...by 1990, Iraq was back on the list...I guess the "rape rooms" were shut down for those 8 years when Iraq was allied with the US...unless <gasp> the US simply turned a blind eye to these human rights violations which were the second or third reason for the war on Iraq in the first place?!

Nah, couldn't be that...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

ahhh, but back then, Iran was the enemy and Iraq was an ally of the US (being a secular governement and all)...from the same link:

That's what I meant. There was no way at the time the Kurds were gassed, that the U.S. would admit their ally (ie. Iraq) did it. There was a lot of denial.

[oldschoolcalgary]

com'on, we aren't going let this thread die yet are we? It was just getting interesting...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Of course they are going to let it die, the Bushies are chasing their tail as they try and spin another story of brilliant strategy by the village idiot from Crawford.

[Vulcan]

They've turned our attention to Lebanon. Best we keep our eyes open for the next move.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ What are you suggesting?

[Bingo]

Man some of you can be condescening, and way off the mark if you suggest that everyone that thought going into Iraq was a good idea at the time won't be man enough to admit it's not going well.

Here I am.

And I'm not sure I'd even change my mind now. I might use hindsight to alter the way I went in (boots on the ground count, tactics, etc) but then what country wouldn't change a war plan with hindsight at his disposal.

Post 911 the US just couldn't let another issue fester, and Hussein was certainly an issue. If everything went the complete opposite.

1. US didn't go in
2. He did have WMD
3. And a suitcase bomb exploded in NY

the anti-Bush crowd would have called him a coward and a guy unable to act upon a growing concern.

I just can't honsestly say I would have done any different given the information at the time and the consequences in that chair of being wrong.

So yeah ... here I am ... no tail between my legs, and no shame in the fact that it didn't go as well as it could have.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Post 911 the US just couldn't let another issue fester, and Hussein was certainly an issue. If everything went the complete opposite.

1. US didn't go in
2. He did have WMD
3. And a suitcase bomb exploded in NY

You're not actually implying a link between Saddam and Al-Queda are you?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man some of you can be condescening, and way off the mark if you suggest that everyone that thought going into Iraq was a good idea at the time won't be man enough to admit it's not going well.

It goes both ways Bingo. Those on the side that support the war are just as bad.

Here I am.

There you are. Good on you for showing up and taking your lumps, although I wouldn't say anything was directed towards you in the first place. You're more of a Switzerland supporter than you are a US kind of guy.

And I'm not sure I'd even change my mind now. I might use hindsight to alter the way I went in (boots on the ground count, tactics, etc) but then what country wouldn't change a war plan with hindsight at his disposal.

I'm disappointed to hear you say that. After all the stuff that has come out in the wash and how the lies have been exposed, I can't believe that doesn't change your mind.

Post 911 the US just couldn't let another issue fester, and Hussein was certainly an issue. If everything went the complete opposite.

1. US didn't go in
2. He did have WMD
3. And a suitcase bomb exploded in NY

Bought into the fear angle have you? Bingo, LOOK OUT BEHIND IT! IT'S ****ING USAMA BIN LADEN AND HE'S GOT A NUKE!!! Sorry, I had to do it. Seriously, if a terrorist organization was going to get a nuke they would have got one a long time ago. They would have bought one from one of the Soviet Republics. Developing a weapons plan is so costly and time consuming, it's just easier to buy one and be done with it. For chrying outloud, Pakistan is the country that gave the **** to North Korea, so why the hell wouldn't they give it to their buddies like al Qaeda? There is no serious threat in that shape or form. But it does make for a good headline and gives O'Reilly a bunch of topics to natter on and on about!

the anti-Bush crowd would have called him a coward and a guy unable to act upon a growing concern.

You mean like the Bushies are doing or did to Clinton?

I just can't honsestly say I would have done any different given the information at the time and the consequences in that chair of being wrong.

So yeah ... here I am ... no tail between my legs, and no shame in the fact that it didn't go as well as it could have.

Based on the information that the White House cobbled together, or the information the military was trying to tell the world? I seem to remember the military commanders saying that Iraq was no threat and that going in would be a mistake. Zinni got canned for saying so. I think the media just got caught up in the vaccuum of FauxNews and followed their lead. At the time, none of the other media outlets knew that FauxNews was really the White House and vice versa. I guess hindsight is helpful in that regard.

[Bingo]

hey you guys have hindsight now and yes it's an easier argument to make, but that's not the question.

at the time ...

yes I would have gone in.

The guy repeatedly threatened the US
The guy defied UN inspections suggesting he had the weapons everyone feared
The guy had oil wealth to pretty much acquire what he wanted
And he was situated in a part of the world that was ripe for future terrorist activity with the flush out happening in Afghanistan.

I would have gone in.
Think I still would.

and no I'm not implying a link between al Quaeda and Hussein at the time but if one comes to light it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

On September 10th I was actually more anti-US than pro, but that changed a day later and it hasn't changed back. I'm very pro-US now and I doubt that will change. the world is a dangerous place, and leaving a growing concern to gather dust proved to be a very fatal decision five years ago. I'm about solving problems and though the US has made mistakes at least they're making a stand which was needed.

all of the rest of the bs ... I'm leaving it. We've been around and around 100 times and almost all of it can be refuted then proven then refuted, it's a complete mess.

Just wanted to show up with the implied "all supporters are now underground hiding sitting in their own filth" premise.

[oldschoolcalgary]

first of all there were no WMDs in Iraq (check the MacKay report)...now supporters of the invasion will say "they were moved to syria/Iran/pakistan"

but there is absolutely no proof of that...there's as much proof that saddam moved them to Mars...a few hundred old mustard gas shells whose existence was already know by the weapons inspectors? That's it?

There were plenty of voices who stated clearly before the war that the WMD threat was overblown. The powers that be simply chose to ignore those findings. Why do you think the coalition was a shadow of that from the first Gulf War?

There were those who criticized the rebuilding plan...but were summarily "retired"...Shinseki anyone?

The Iraq "threat" was a manufactured one. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, a dictator, but he certainly was not the imminent threat he was made out to be...how many innocent Iraqis have paid the price for that? Iraqis who were just as much victims as those who died during 9/11 I might add...10 000? 20 000? 30 000?

I'd say that the proverbial "pound of flesh" has been exacted...and then some...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

first of all there were no WMDs in Iraq (check the MacKay report)...now supporters of the invasion will say "they were moved to syria/Iran/pakistan"

but there is absolutely no proof of that...there's as much proof that saddam moved them to Mars...a few hundred old mustard gas shells whose existence was already know by the weapons inspectors? That's it?

There were plenty of voices who stated clearly before the war that the WMD threat was overblown. The powers that be simply chose to ignore those findings. Why do you think the coalition was a shadow of that from the first Gulf War?

There were those who criticized the rebuilding plan...but were summarily "retired"...Shinseki anyone?

The Iraq "threat" was a manufactured one. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, a dictator, but he certainly was not the imminent threat he was made out to be...how many innocent Iraqis have paid the price for that? Iraqis who were just as much victims as those who died during 9/11 I might add...10 000? 20 000? 30 000?

I'd say that the proverbial "pound of flesh" has been exacted...and then some...

You replying to me?

I didn't say they were moved to Syria. Could have been, but I don't know. Enough was going on in Iraq to justify several UN resolutions and a bewildered Iraqi force to carry gas masks.

Sometimes good intel turns out to be bad intel and that was the case in my mind.

Tenet and the CIA wasn't giving Bush all the information, and countries like Britain and Russia were backing it up. Tough call. They weren't there so it's easy to say they shouldn't have gone in. But I didn't have that luxury when I supported the war, and unlike 1 in 3 Americans I consider it pretty weak to just change my mind now that it isn't going as well.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The guy repeatedly threatened the US
The guy defied UN inspections suggesting he had the weapons everyone feared
The guy had oil wealth to pretty much acquire what he wanted
And he was situated in a part of the world that was ripe for future terrorist activity with the flush out happening in Afghanistan.

I would have gone in.
Think I still would.

Sure he threatened the US. He also wanted to have a hand to hand combat with Bush. Lots of sources showed he had been reduced to a paper tiger.

Sure he gave the UN inspectors a hard time, but he was shown to be pretty much clean. He wanted to give the impression he had these WMD to protect himself from his enemies surrounding him and the US. Backfired, I admit.

I believe his wealth had been seriously curtailled by the embargo Iraq was under.

Iraq was certainly ripe for future terrorist activity. Just look at what's happening there now. I read an article before the invasion outlining the various social and religious groups anxious to revenge past wrongs with support from Syria and Iran. Sadam was brutal but kept them in check.
Now the El Quida have moved in, it's pretty much a clusterfata.

I admit letting my emotions getting charged up watching the news before the invasion but I also saw what Bush's propoganda machine was doing and so stepped back and understood the whole war was ripe to become another folly like Viet Nam. With all their attention on Iraq, they haven't even cleaned up Afghanistan yet.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You replying to me?

I didn't say they were moved to Syria. Could have been, but I don't know. Enough was going on in Iraq to justify several UN resolutions and a bewildered Iraqi force to carry gas masks.

Sometimes good intel turns out to be bad intel and that was the case in my mind.

Tenet and the CIA wasn't giving Bush all the information, and countries like Britain and Russia were backing it up. Tough call. They weren't there so it's easy to say they shouldn't have gone in. But I didn't have that luxury when I supported the war, and unlike 1 in 3 Americans I consider it pretty weak to just change my mind now that it isn't going as well.

Bingo-yeah, I was replying to you...sorry, should have been more clear.

I appreciate your response - you are correct. There was bad intel. At the same time, a lot of that intel was "cherry picked" in order to foment a particular action...

I have a different view of your last comment - I think it takes a very strong person to step back and revisit the past and admit errors were made...as they say, "those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them".

IMO, this all goes back to the idea of "blowback"...and seemingly, each successive administration, both Republican and Democrat I might add, do not seem to see how past actions end up having consequences down the road.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I have a different view of your last comment - I think it takes a very strong person to step back and revisit the past and admit errors were made...as they say, "those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them".

Well sure ... but the average American has that luxury ... a president doesn't.

Pulling out creates a much bigger problem in my mind. You get bad intel, you act on it, it doesn't turn out to be true, but you can't let the insurgents think you're weak or you get a Black Hawk Down reaction and a bolstered terrorist network.

Should he have admitted that they had bad intel and they although there could be some positives out of the war, the bottom line is that they went in on WMD and they weren't there. I would have.

However, the bad intel thing isn't a cherry pick from the administration according to a NYT article and Berstein from the Post? it was bad presentation from the CIA brass itself where they cherry picked the outcomes and presented it as THE case.

Big difference.

Either way ... I'm not convinced that this can't work out in the end. I think there is some truth to the filter affect and that many targets are coming to Iraq to engage the US there and not filtering all over the world.

At least i hope so.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure he threatened the US. He also wanted to have a hand to hand combat with Bush. Lots of sources showed he had been reduced to a paper tiger.

Sure he gave the UN inspectors a hard time, but he was shown to be pretty much clean. He wanted to give the impression he had these WMD to protect himself from his enemies surrounding him and the US. Backfired, I admit.

I believe his wealth had been seriously curtailled by the embargo Iraq was under.

Iraq was certainly ripe for future terrorist activity. Just look at what's happening there now. I read an article before the invasion outlining the various social and religious groups anxious to revenge past wrongs with support from Syria and Iran. Sadam was brutal but kept them in check.
Now the El Quida have moved in, it's pretty much a clusterfata.

I admit letting my emotions getting charged up watching the news before the invasion but I also saw what Bush's propoganda machine was doing and so stepped back and understood the whole war was ripe to become another folly like Viet Nam. With all their attention on Iraq, they haven't even cleaned up Afghanistan yet.

Well great ...

he was shown to be a paper tiger, but we didn't know that then. I didn't. Bush didn't ... the UN didn't. Amazing that you did.

Like I said ... he acted like he had them, he had the world passing resolutions as if he had them, and being the man in the chair you just couldn't risk that.

I felt that way then, and I won't change my angle with more knowledge. Not fair.

I don't blame Clinton etc for letting bin Laden fester, he was half a world away and the threat level to the west seemed pretty remote. But they/we get smacked and you have to take on problems before they take on you.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well great ...

he was shown to be a paper tiger, but we didn't know that then. I didn't. Bush didn't ... the UN didn't. Amazing that you did.

Like I said ... he acted like he had them, he had the world passing resolutions as if he had them, and being the man in the chair you just couldn't risk that.

I felt that way then, and I won't change my angle with more knowledge. Not fair.

I don't blame Clinton etc for letting bin Laden fester, he was half a world away and the threat level to the west seemed pretty remote. But they/we get smacked and you have to take on problems before they take on you.

Pretty sure that the UN did know that there were no WMD. Other reports also said this and I can't believe Bush didn't know about these. Nevertheless all we and even the US Senate got were the reports that suited Bush's agenda. I was hardly alone in smelling a rat.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Pretty sure that the UN did know that there were no WMD. Other reports also said this and I can't believe Bush didn't know about these. Nevertheless all we and even the US Senate got were the reports that suited Bush's agenda. I was hardly alone in smelling a rat.

actually pretty sure they didn't ... Hans Blik (sp?) final report stated he suspected that Iraq wasn't being honest with their inspectors and that he believed there was an issue.

and Bush agenda?

you toss that out there like he's published a manifesto. He hasn't. You can believe this is all a master plan and an agenda if you want, I certainly can't "prove" there isn't or wasn't one any more than you can prove there was.

As much as anti-Bush people refuse to see it ... could be as simple as reported. Tenet and the CIA reported a pro invasion package that Bush and the house saw and decided to go ahead. It matched the Russian and British intelligence and it was good enough to go in. It was a bi-partisan agreement at the time, something that even Hillary Clinton has refused to back down from.

conspiracy theories and agendas and Neo-Con world ruling plots are great for movies, but may not play out the real world.