The Real Iraq

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

That said, I think the US is screwed no matter what they do. It should be very interesting to see where this all stands in 5-10 years. I hope for the best.

i think that depends on your definition of "the US".

iowa farmboy on an endless tour? screwed.

CEO of a big oil company or a defense contractor? doin' ok.

this has been laid out in print for all willing to raise their heads out of the sand.

5-10 years, the US is still there in some capacity. no doubt. they need the permanent presence, and the islamic extremists chased them out of saudi arabia, the last major deployment there was in 2003.

the US leadership needs this permanent gulf presence, ask the top civilian controllers of the pentagon. they've lobbied for it for a long time, and their darkest dreams have now come true. unlimited playground, blank cheque, no checks, no balances, no timetable for withdrawal, no end in sight, circumstances spiralling out of control.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

You see Agamemnon, this is exactly what I was talking about. People always going back 20 years where they find something the US did which in hindsight was stupid, and then they use that point to justify their arguement for what is happening today.

****es me off to no end.

20 years is not even a blink of an eye when it comes to these issues... especially when you consider that some of the same people who make the decisions now were making the decisions then.

It's really convenient to not have to go back 20 years. I suppose we should not hold anything against Saddam Hussein for anything that happened 20 years ago.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The US didn't invade Saddam because he was Hitler-like or 'the next Hitler', they invaded because he 'had' weapons of mass-destruction. This isn't a secret, everyone knew at the time that this was the major justification for the war in Iraq (the 'useless' UN didn't buy it, and they were right).

Umm...so conveniently forgotten by the US/Bush bashers

Yes Hussein killing massive amounts of his own people was on the list of reasons to invade.

And considering that the UN was "on the take" I'd say they were at the very least very unreliable.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

20 years is not even a blink of an eye when it comes to these issues... especially when you consider that some of the same people who make the decisions now were making the decisions then.

It's really convenient to not have to go back 20 years. I suppose we should not hold anything against Saddam Hussein for anything that happened 20 years ago.

Depends how you look back. There is a big difference.


Like this.....
George Bush's decision to abide by the UN resolution and keep the very tenuous coalition together and allow Saddam to stay in power, coupled with them allowing Saddam to fly his airforce (helicopters) unrestricted has lead to the problems we have had over the last 4 years in Iraq. Had Saddam been removed from power, there had been no sactions or bloackade and no food for Oil who knows how the middle east would look like today?

where there is actual trying to connect the dots in a logical manner.


Or something like this (which I continually see)...

The US armed and supplied Saddam Hussein throughout his reign of terror giving all his chemical weapons. With the end of the first Gulf War along with sactions Hussein had been removed as a threat to the US. The US imposing sanction and the Food for Oil deal further crippled Iraq. There was no evidence that he had WMD.

The second sound fairly reasonable until you run it up against some facts.

The first sentence clear ignores that China, Russian, France, Brittain, Germany, Canada and several other European countries were doing the same as the US. Also in regards to the Chemical weapons.... they weren't giving him the weapons. They were supplying him with the materials to MAKE the weapons. Things that the Oil industry uses everyday can easily be turned into chemical weapons. Those countries, not only the US, just ignored the "extra" amounts ordered for the Oil industry.

The second sentence forgetting that UN was trying to remove Saddam's threat to his neighbours. 9/11 made the US see Saddam as a direct threat to themselves.

The third sentence iqnores that these sanctions were imposed on Iraq not by the US but by the UN because Saddam refused to allow unhindered inspections by the UN. Had he allowed unhindered inspection the sanctions would have disappeared. The Food for Oil was simply so Iraqi people could eat while Saddam built several palaces with monies from smuggling oil to China, Germany, France and Russia. The UN bagged a lot of money of of that!

The last sentence forgets the first and ignores the facts above. Saddam played chicken with a freight train and the inevitable happened.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The US didn't invade Saddam because he was Hitler-like or 'the next Hitler', they invaded because he 'had' weapons of mass-destruction. This isn't a secret, everyone knew at the time that this was the major justification for the war in Iraq (the 'useless' UN didn't buy it, and they were right).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because their intelligence and motivations are/were suspect that the US should immediately pull all of the troops out of Iraq. Obviously they're committed to the current course of action. That said, I think the US is screwed no matter what they do. It should be very interesting to see where this all stands in 5-10 years. I hope for the best.

Thing is, our local "know it all" Looger thinks the US is at fault for making Saddam the killer that he was, and therefore he could have killed 10 million people and still the US would not be justified in invading Iraq, because after all, they made Saddam the person he was.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

20 years is not even a blink of an eye when it comes to these issues... especially when you consider that some of the same people who make the decisions now were making the decisions then.

It's really convenient to not have to go back 20 years. I suppose we should not hold anything against Saddam Hussein for anything that happened 20 years ago.

Difference being Saddam "did not" change during those 20 years. The US did happen to take a different approach to dealing with him, though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

Scott Ritter went from:

You mean this Scott Ritter?

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."

and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Then after being barred from inspections in Iraq, Ritter decides to take a completely different stand, AFTER he had first said that Iraq had not gotten rid of the WMD. Given the fact that Ritter wasn't allowed back into Iraq...

He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998

but still claimed after the ban that Iraq continued to have WMD, tells us that either Scott Ritter is an idiot, or he is flat out lying.

You see it would be pretty hard to say that Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD program, given that you're not allowed to inspect the sites anymore, and until 2000, Ritter wrote books of why Iraq should be disarmed. He even blamed the US for not infiltrating UNSCOM and gathering intelligance in order to help them get a regime change in Iraq.

However, he also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998.

But then, in 2002, Ritter suddenly changed his stance. Instead of remembering what he said back in 1998.....

"out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." - September 3, 1998.

And completely turned around to say this......

But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited…

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

Directly showing that he himself is a hypocrite.

Given that it would be pretty hard to change your stance since you have resigned from the UN and have no inside knowledge of that WMD program anymore. Yet Ritter still decided to take a different approach. Lying much?

the US spying on iraq isn't the issue. it's that they infiltrated and discredited UNSCOM, which no longer could claim a right to be in iraq. period.

They did? I thought your precious Scott Ritter said that they didn't?

All quotes taken from Wikipedia.

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

suppose it depends on the list.

http://www.kilowattage.com/articles/..._countries.php

iraq's #4, iran's #3, canada is #2.

lists vary. iraq's high on them all.

Thanks for proving my point, Canada(Alberta) is #2 in the world. Why doesn't the US invade us instead?

why invade when you can just buy? iraq wasn't playing ball. we are.

Exactly. You just proved the who "blood-for-Oil" arguement wrong. Why not just buy instead of invade?

what the hell are you talking aboot? saddam was supported by the US during the worst of his purges, attacks, and gassings. nice try.

Therefore Saddam could have killed 10 million people, and yet you still wouldn't agree with taking him out, because the US was actually supporting him.

[Looger]

isn't it funny how ritter's tune changed when the actual situation changed - desert fox commenced on dec 16th - 19th 1998, just after UNSCOM was booted.

this is also, incidentally, when the information situation changed.

you've got it right there:

in sep 98 ritter was frustrated by UNSCOM not doing its job. in 2002, he was describing events AFTER desert fox, after iraq changed how much it complied.

the rest of your post is not worth replying to.

and wikipedia - is not a trusted source.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Difference being Saddam "did not" change during those 20 years. The US did happen to take a different approach to dealing with him, though.

But they have not taken a different approach in their general foreign policies of propping up, arming, and/or supporting questionable regimes, as well as invasion of foreign countries.

The invasion of Iraq just shows that they haven't learned anything in the past 20 years, as if that is even an important window of time.

[Azure]

isn't it funny how ritter's tune changed when the actual situation changed - desert fox commenced on dec 16th - 19th 1998, just after UNSCOM was booted.

Ritter was gone by then. How the hell would he have a flying clue what was going on? And only two years later does he change his stance. From 1998 to 2000, Ritter wrote numerous books outlining the reasons why Iraq still is a threat.

in sep 98 ritter was frustrated by UNSCOM not doing its job. in 2002, he was describing events AFTER desert fox, after iraq changed how much it complied.

Again, how does he get his hands on the information at hand? Desert Fox ended in 1998, yet Ritter for two years still thought that Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat. Then suddenly, without having any reason to change his stance, even given that he voted for Bush in 2001, Ritter went against the invasion and directly contradicted his words he himself spoke in 1998.

the rest of your post is not worth replying to.

Basically telling me you have no idea what you're talking about.

and wikipedia - is not a trusted source.

For Christ's sake, I only used the quotes from numerous Ritter comments throughout the years. Any other website will verify that for me. If you find a mistake, show it too me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But they have not taken a different approach in their general foreign policies of propping up, arming, and/or supporting questionable regimes, as well as invasion of foreign countries.

The invasion of Iraq just shows that they haven't learned anything in the past 20 years, as if that is even an important window of time.

Did not the invasion of Iraq directly go against, "arming, and/or supporting questionable regimes?"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ritter was gone by then. How the hell would he have a flying clue what was going on?

Who knows. Maybe he had friends in the business? Insider knowledge that you and I might not be privy to? Just because he wasn't involved in the program officially doesn't mean he moved to a deserted island.

I don't know much about Scott Ritter, but if he was saying "Iraq was disarmed" before then it appears he was right. I think his resumé, your nifty little timeline and the exact dates and reasons as to why he might have changed his mind are irrelevant now. He was right.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who knows. Maybe he had friends in the business? Insider knowledge that you and I might not be privy to? Just because he wasn't involved in the program officially doesn't mean he moved to a deserted island.

I don't know much about Scott Ritter, but if he was saying "Iraq was disarmed" before then it appears he was right. I think his resumé, your nifty little timeline and the exact dates and reasons as to why he might have changed his mind are irrelevant now. He was right.

Was he right? Anyone could change his mind at one time, then have everything work out for him, and I'm not supposed to call him a hypocrite?

Ritter contradicted everything he said and did while he was an inspector, after he resigned. That gives me every reason to think of him as a liar.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Was he right? Anyone could change his mind at one time, then have everything work out for him, and I'm not supposed to call him a hypocrite?

Ritter contradicted everything he said and did while he was an inspector, after he resigned. That gives me every reason to think of him as a liar.

You can call him Father Christmas or think of him as Aunt Jemima for all I care. In the end it turns out that he was right. Why, what, how, who, when he changed his mind is kinda pointless, don't you think?

I mean even if you want to go so far as to claim he'd lied, been bribed, blackmailed or forced to say Iraq had been disarmed, Iraq was still disarmed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You can call him Father Christmas or think of him as Aunt Jemima for all I care. In the end it turns out that he was right. Why, what, how, who, when he changed his mind is kinda pointless, don't you think?

I mean even if you want to go so far as to claim he'd lied, been bribed, blackmailed or forced to say Iraq had been disarmed, Iraq was still disarmed.

Simply because the US couldn't find any WMD, right? Of course there is no theory as to whether or not they could have been moved or even destroyed prior to the intial invasion in 2003.

Ritter is an idiot; anyone that will directly contradict their own words, just to try and change their stance has had no clue what they were talking about in the first place.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Simply because the US couldn't find any WMD, right? Of course there is no theory as to whether or not they could have been moved or even destroyed prior to the intial invasion in 2003.

Well come on now, you are trying to have it both ways. Here you are saying "maybe the WMDs were destroyed" but then you call Ritter an idiot but he said they were destroyed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well come on now, you are trying to have it both ways. Here you are saying "maybe the WMDs were destroyed" but then you call Ritter an idiot but he said they were destroyed.

Scott Ritter is a smoke screen here. It's the same old tactic of attack and discredit the individual rather than the evidence presented. Ritter was but one person involved with UNSCOM, and even if he was proven to be corrupt (which is very very debateable in its own right) there is still an entire body that stated the same thing. The inspectors all said that everything was going as planned and that destruction of agents and equipment was taking place as expected. Yes, it was a cat and mouse game, but weapons inspections always had been. All you have to do is examine SALT to see how many games the AMericans and Soviets played with each other. They set the standard and everyone else lives up to that standard.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm...so conveniently forgotten by the US/Bush bashers

Yes Hussein killing massive amounts of his own people was on the list of reasons to invade.

And considering that the UN was "on the take" I'd say they were at the very least very unreliable.

I think Africa is a pretty good case for how little America cares to intervene physically for the 'good of the people'.

Hussein was activily 'killing massive amounts of his own people'? Compared to what? Canada?

I would venture a guess that FAR more Iraqi's have died in the 3(?) years of American occupation (in order to 'maintain stability') then in the 10 years prior of Saddams rule (in order to 'maintain stability'), and if not FAR more then certainly it is within comparable realms. Does that mean Bush needs to be removed from power?


Claeren.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I think Africa is a pretty good case for how little America cares to intervene physically for the 'good of the people'.

Hussein was activily 'killing massive amounts of his own people'? Compared to what? Canada?

I would venture a guess that FAR more Iraqi's have died in the 3(?) years of American occupation (in order to 'maintain stability') then in the 10 years prior of Saddams rule (in order to 'maintain stability'), and if not FAR more then certainly it is within comparable realms. Does that mean Bush needs to be removed from power?


Claeren.

Dying with the cause of promoting freedom and dying in a cause to perpetuate the rule of a tyrant are a wee bit different me thinks.. no?

[HOZ]

I think Africa is a pretty good case for how little America cares to intervene physically for the 'good of the people'.

Invade a Muslim Oil producing nation? I think you and the rest of you anti-war people have guaranteed that will not happen again


Hussein was activily 'killing massive amounts of his own people'? Compared to what? Canada?

Please inform the RCMP that we have a genocidal murder(s) on the losse that has killed 2 million plus people and has forced out 3-4 million from their homes


I would venture a guess that FAR more Iraqi's have died in the 3(?) years of American occupation (in order to 'maintain stability') then in the 10 years prior of Saddams rule (in order to 'maintain stability'), and if not FAR more then certainly it is within comparable realms. Does that mean Bush needs to be removed from power?

I have 2 million for Hussien. How many people have died during and since the American invasion? Better yet split it up into those thatthe American soldiers have actually killed versus the terrorists!!!!

I WIN