Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[SteveThaiBinh]

...it was basically like giving Saddam a heads up that we were coming in, and telling him "you better hide your WMD's or get them out of country quickly, as well as prepare your troops."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There weren't any WMDs.

[metadigital]

...it was basically like giving Saddam a heads up that we were coming in, and telling him "you better hide your WMD's or get them out of country quickly, as well as prepare your troops."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There weren't any WMDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if there were he had time to hide them. "

[Lucius]

...it was basically like giving Saddam a heads up that we were coming in, and telling him "you better hide your WMD's or get them out of country quickly, as well as prepare your troops."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There weren't any WMDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if there were he had time to hide them. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why hide something that isn't there. "

[Darth Flatus]

You can't conclusively say they weren't there.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Why hide something that isn't there.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly so why give the inspectors the run around have they spied on and escorted everywhere other than where they want to go. I'd bet money that he was relying on the UN and especially France to keep everyone off his back and that no way would there actually be a war just lots of empty threats like the UN usualy ammounts to.

[11XHooah]

Which is exactly why the United States had to take the initiative and go to war without the UN's approval.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Exactly so why give the inspectors the run around have they spied on and escorted everywhere other than where they want to go. I'd bet money that he was relying on the UN and especially France to keep everyone off his back and that no way would there actually be a war just lots of empty threats like the UN usualy ammounts to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Possibly he was trying to avoid appearing weak. Possibly he had so surrounded himself with toadying yes-men that he really didn't understand the situation. Possibly he was consumed with irrational paranoia to the point of being unable to understand anything. Who knows?

 

Maintaining now that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is no better than claiming that the US moon landings were faked. Well, if he had done this, and made a deal with them, and used the shadowy network to move them here, and disguised them there, and so on and so on. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not a threat to the US. The war was illegal.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Possibly he was trying to avoid appearing weak.  Possibly he had so surrounded himself with toadying yes-men that he really didn't understand the situation.  Possibly he was consumed with irrational paranoia to the point of being unable to understand anything.  Who knows?

 

Maintaining now that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is no better than claiming that the US moon landings were faked. Well, if he had done this, and made a deal with them, and used the shadowy network to move them here, and disguised them there, and so on and so on.  There were no weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq was not a threat to the US.  The war was illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not claiming that only pointing out his behaviour indicates he was acting like he was hiding something. Which is reason enough to be in a situation where he couldnt hide anything and you could search totally free of scrutiny and interference. So whether or not he was a threat he did everything he could to appear like one so I dont feel they are particularly unjustified especially given the vested interests of countries like France.

[213374U]

This "legal" or "illegal" war stuff I find pretty amusing. Amusing in a sad, absurd sense. To think that just because a bunch of morons dressed in expensive suits approve of it, a war becomes any more legitimate is just stupid.

[Commissar]

You can't conclusively say they weren't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the panel appointed to investigate intelligence failures - appointed by Bush, mind you - conclusively said they weren't there.

[metadigital]

You can't conclusively say they weren't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the panel appointed to investigate intelligence failures - appointed by Bush, mind you - conclusively said they weren't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is absurd. The UK has evidence in the public domain that clearly shows the disparity between the intelligence and the stated intelligence by the coalition governments.

 

It demonstrates that the intelligence given from the Intelligence Community (secret services, MI5, MI6, CIA, etc) had been pruned of all qualifying adjectives, like "allegedly", and all grading of the intelligence was replaced with exclamations. There is even a famous addendum, now totally discredited -- but never really believed, where the claim that Saddam Hussein could attack the UK within 45 minutes. They even plagerised some doctoral thesis from the interet -- the guy was interviewd because he was angry about it. And they had taken all his qualified assessments out of the text, too. (They famously had copied large sections verbatim, including an obvious spelling mistake.)

 

There was a deliberate and demonstrable effort to misrepresent the facts and assessments -- what for? The only feasible answer to that is the US had a prior agenda, and the UK was looking for evidence to back it up.

[11XHooah]

You can't conclusively say they weren't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the panel appointed to investigate intelligence failures - appointed by Bush, mind you - conclusively said they weren't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is absurd. The UK has evidence in the public domain that clearly shows the disparity between the intelligence and the stated intelligence by the coalition governments.

 

It demonstrates that the intelligence given from the Intelligence Community (secret services, MI5, MI6, CIA, etc) had been pruned of all qualifying adjectives, like "allegedly", and all grading of the intelligence was replaced with exclamations. There is even a famous addendum, now totally discredited -- but never really believed, where the claim that Saddam Hussein could attack the UK within 45 minutes. They even plagerised some doctoral thesis from the interet -- the guy was interviewd because he was angry about it. And they had taken all his qualified assessments out of the text, too. (They famously had copied large sections verbatim, including an obvious spelling mistake.)

 

There was a deliberate and demonstrable effort to misrepresent the facts and assessments -- what for? The only feasible answer to that is the US had a prior agenda, and the UK was looking for evidence to back it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps the reason is that our real target is Iran. Just think about it. They are a threat because right now they are threatening to start up nuclear programs. The U.S. is now flanking Iran, so we could just move in from both sides, forcing Iran to fight a two front war.

 

Edit: Iraq also borders Syria, which is now testing SCUD's that will carry their biological/chemical weapons. These could be used against Israel or anyother neighboring country. So it's possible that we will go there to, and Iraq will serve as a base of operations.

Edited June 3, 2005 by 11XHooah

[Kaftan Barlast]

It's ironic. Iran had a strong movement for increased secularisation and democracy in the 90's but as the US propaganda in Iran was initiated by the Bush goverment, it gave the fundamentalists the perfect excuse to declare this movement as mere puppets of a foreign regime, effectively halting the democratic progress.

 

 

I believe this was just a case of clumsiness and failiure to study the situation beforehand. But there are theories that this was deliberate because the neocons does not believe in liberation by any other means than force, and that a non-US dependant goverment is unacceptable.

[metadigital]

It's ironic. Iran had a strong movement for increased secularisation and democracy in the 90's but as the US propaganda in Iran was initiated by the Bush goverment, it gave the fundamentalists the perfect excuse to declare this movement as mere puppets of a foreign regime, effectively halting the democratic progress.

 

I believe this was just a case of clumsiness and failiure to study the situation beforehand. But there are theories that this was deliberate because the neocons does not believe in liberation by any other means than force, and that a non-US dependant goverment is unacceptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US has demonstrated a willingness to approach the complex political scenarios of the Middle East with all the subtlety of the metaphorical sledgehammer to crack the walnut. (The UK is not blameless, either, but at least their is an appreciation that some political situations can't be fixed within a presidential term of office.)

 

The Middle East became the sewer of satraps because the West was too lazy and self-interested to get involved in any meaningful way, choosing the easy option to prop up whatever convenient despot happened to be in government in order to maintain the status quo, rather than implement decent foreign affair initiatives to encourage democratic processes and prevent concentration of too much power in the hands of too few of the wrong people. (Can you say "President Marcos was propped up by the US to maintain a military base in the Philippines, just near China" with me boys and girls?)

 

The truth is that Iran is actually a totally different country to the bugbear of the eighties-nineties. Over half the population are teenage or younger (a dividend from the attritious wars with Iraq) and they are not particularly interested in any Jihad with the West. (But I'm sure the US will find some way to isolate the moderates and escalate the lunatic fringe into a position of power ... on current form.)

 

You might as well say Turkey is not a democracy.

[random evil guy]

This "legal" or "illegal" war stuff I find pretty amusing. Amusing in a sad, absurd sense. To think that just because a bunch of morons dressed in expensive suits approve of it, a war becomes any more legitimate is just stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

couldn't you say the same thing about all legislation...?

[213374U]

I suppose you could. But then again, most legislations don't deal with the instrumentalized slaughter of thousands of people...

[11XHooah]

In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini died. The US hoped this would lead to a new revolution against the fundamentalist regime. The Islamic Assembly of Experts appointed Ayatollah Khameini as the new spiritual leader. A new constitution created a functional, rather than ceremonial presidency and President Rafsanjani assumed elected office. Rafsanjani pursued a more liberal policy, repairing relations with Iraq and resuming diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Britain, and opening opportunities for foreign trade and investment. The Islamic revolutionary Guard was absorbed into the military, thus weakening Islamist pressure.

 

The break up of the Soviet Union opened new opportunities for Iranian trade and regional influence. Iran opened relations with the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union. Of particular interest and concern to Iran is the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan since one-fourth of the Iranian population are Azeris, Iran has lent support to Azerbaijan in its fight against US backed Armenia.

 

During the Gulf War between Iraq and the US coalition, Iran remained neutral in an effort to avoid any further adverse economic consequences, as it attempts to rebuild its economy. However, this has not deterred the Iranians from opposing US interests whenever and wherever possible. In 1992 Iran helped establish Hezbollah (the Party of God) which operates against Israel from bases in Lebanon and Syria, and continues to provide arms and financial support.

 

While the reformist Rafsajani had often been at odds Ayatollah Kameini, voters in 1997, elected another moderate president, Mohammed Khatami. This has been seen in the West as a signal that Iranians are rejecting strict fundamentalism and seeking a return to modernization.

 

Iran has acquired and tested medium range missiles, capable of reaching targets throughout the Middle East region and has raised concerns about possible intentions to develop nuclear weapons. In 2002, Iran and Russia announced plans to construct additional nuclear power plants and to complete the Bushear plant. These plans have provoked protests from the US and other Western states. However, Iran claims to have a severe power shortage.

 

According to the U.S State Department, U.S. complaints about Iran include:

 

Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD Involvement and support of international terrorism.

 

Support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process

Threats and subversive activities against its neighbors

 

Iran

[metadigital]

... According to the U.S State Department, U.S. complaints about Iran include: 

[1]Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD Involvement and support of international terrorism.

[2]Support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process

[3]Threats and subversive activities against its neighbors

[4]Iran

[11XHooah]

... According to the U.S State Department, U.S. complaints about Iran include: 

[1]Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD Involvement and support of international terrorism.

[2]Support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process

[3]Threats and subversive activities against its neighbors

[4]Iran

[Lucius]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like this choice of reference. It's exactly what I was thinking.

[11XHooah]

It would seem that I'm the only one who supports America around here.

[random evil guy]

It would seem that I'm the only one who supports America around here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you say(well, write) that as if you are surprised... :D

[213374U]

It would seem that I'm the only one who supports America around here.

Does that bother you?

 

It shouldn't. Look at it this way. People who bitch and moan about how Evil the US are accomplish nothing. At the end of the day, things still go the way the US have them go. Think that while some people's opinions may bother you, they are just opinions. They only have the importance you give them. On the other hand, those people can't do jack to change the facts they are pissed at...

 

No, I'm not pro-american. But I'm not anti-american either. I just reckon that the US is not the first empire in History, and I know that historical periods in which there are strong hegemonic empires are more stable than those without.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It would seem that I'm the only one who supports America around here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that bother you?

 

It shouldn't. The Bush administration's foreign policy has been a disaster and is widely discredited, so of course any international forum like this one will have many critics. But Bush has already lost the argument: the world no longer looks to the US for leadership, and the opposition to any future wars of aggression will be stronger and more successful. The world will be a more peaceful place a a result, and that of course benefits the US and you.

[11XHooah]

No, it doesn't bother me. I don't really care what other countries or the UN thinks about America. I'm blessed to be part of such a great nation, and I'm proud to have the honor and opportunity to fight for it.

 

I just felt like stating the obvious :D