War on Iraq

[Sazar]

Originally posted by ZAnwar
Yeah, sorry. I took it a bit too far. Sorry Sazar (and rest of the members and non-members). Thanks PseudoKiller, for fixing my post!

🙂

all good...

discussions are kewl... but keeping it civil is the key 🙂

 

[Mubbers]

So now wadda we do?

We've got the cities but anarchy is rearing it's ugly head.

Is the severity of this civil disorder something unforseen by the co-alition?

Can we expect to see massive re-inforcements to stabilize the situation?

The war went well but to lose it all now would be a disgrace - your thoughts?

Mubbers

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

the "civil disorder" is just the people's way of saying, "We aren't going to take it anymore!" I don't think it will last. I don't think it is a major threat. You can't believe what the media says. They always try to keep you on your toes to keep you watching to boost ratings.

 

[Mubbers]

Yes that's what we all hope.

The problem is that coalition soldiers are spread pretty thinly so it seems essential to bring Iraqi civil servants and even former/current policemen back into service in order to restore order.

Looting palaces and regime headquarters is fair enough but when it goes as far as hospitals you gotta start worrying a bit - I hope it's just media hype!

Mubbers

 

[kitct]

Of course it's media hype.Just a week or two it was "not enough troops" then "will this be another vietnam?"(thinkin this would take years to take Iraq).For the last 6-7 years I just can't watch it anymore.About 5 minutes and you have all the news for the week!

These people in the press are worse than the guy on the street corner yellin "the world is gonna end next week!".And Next week comes "it will be next week!".And the next week comes "it will be next week!",and on and on.

Next will be wall to wall 24-7 about how we cannot rebuild Iraq!The "experts" will be the very same people who said we couldn't take Iraq w/o the UN! Who,how,where,when,etc.,etc.,etc.Spare me peleeeeasse !!! 😛

 

[muzikool]

Originally posted by kitct
Next will be wall to wall 24-7 about how we cannot rebuild Iraq!The "experts" will be the very same people who said we couldn't take Iraq w/o the UN! Who,how,where,when,etc.,etc.,etc.Spare me peleeeeasse !!! 😛

Exactly. I've already begun to hear it, and it's already ridiculous. Why such cynicism? 🙁

 

[kitct]

Originally posted by muzikool
Exactly. I've already begun to hear it, and it's already ridiculous. Why such cynicism? 🙁

Thats the nature of the press!If 4000 f-14's take off and come back ok,mission accomplished and devestated the enemy,that is NO news.If one plane gets lost or gets shot down or whatever,not only is it news but "can we handle the casualties" or "can we win this war?" or some such doom and gloom nonsense."The only news is bad news."They are by nature "for the(so-called) little guy" even if its "adolph hitler"!They really seem to have a really "warped" view on how they should report news.Actually they don't even "report" the news anymore.From the left its all editorialism and commentary!(Their "opnions").

 

[Mubbers]

Are there any valid comparisons to make here?

What happened when the allies liberated cities across Europe?

It seems to be accepted that the current situation in Iraq is a "natural response" to years of oppression but at what point does this current anarchy cease to be a "fad" and become a symptom of something more sinister - e.g. serious secular warring?

I don't think the above example of Euopean liberation is comparable as in this case it was only a period of five years before democracy was restored. In the Iraq case it may be more accurate to compare this to a civilisation suddenly being re-born with no memory of life before... :huh: But then there is no actual comparison to make as this has never happened before (has it?)

Mubbers

 

[Sazar]

the war is not over... it is still on... just because baghdad has fallen many will state... oh its over...

IMO.. and certainly that of Bush... this is not over till saddam is located... also the fighting continues in many parts of the country...

concerning the looting... that is not half as bad as trying to find a compromise with the kurds... if the kurdish situation is not resolved... iran and turkey are going to be EXTREMELY unhappy... stability in the region is a lot more precarious than it was when the war started...

but the looting is a problem when it comes to the sick and injured and the facilities to help them...

the media does exagerate things.. no doubt.. but @ the same time there is some truth in their reporting...

🙂

 

[muzikool]

Originally posted by Sazar
the war is not over... it is still on... just because baghdad has fallen many will state... oh its over...

IMO.. and certainly that of Bush... this is not over till saddam is located... also the fighting continues in many parts of the country...

concerning the looting... that is not half as bad as trying to find a compromise with the kurds... if the kurdish situation is not resolved... iran and turkey are going to be EXTREMELY unhappy... stability in the region is a lot more precarious than it was when the war started...

but the looting is a problem when it comes to the sick and injured and the facilities to help them...

the media does exagerate things.. no doubt.. but @ the same time there is some truth in their reporting...

🙂

I agree. The war is not over and there is much yet to be done. I feel that the U.S. has been very careful in how they've handled situations thus far (i.e. making sure that the marines are not occupying, but liberating), and it will have to continue to be careful in the coming days (and probably weeks). Physical combat might not last too much longer (we all hope), but the overall purpose hasn't been carried out yet.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by muzikool
I agree. The war is not over and there is much yet to be done. I feel that the U.S. has been very careful in how they've handled situations thus far (i.e. making sure that the marines are not occupying, but liberating), and it will have to continue to be careful in the coming days (and probably weeks). Physical combat might not last too much longer (we all hope), but the overall purpose hasn't been carried out yet.

what overall purpose ?

the reason we went to war was to destroy the 'threat' that saddam posed to the US...

we have seen just how potent that threat was... with the demolition of most of the Iraqi troops... and the lack of WMD's...

in days to come... our lads will have to curb the looting and restore order to the populace... without seeming heavy handed...

the looting only serves to make it more expensive for US... the people who are really paying for this war... the tax payers...

 

[muzikool]

Originally posted by Sazar
what overall purpose ?

the reason we went to war was to destroy the 'threat' that saddam posed to the US...

we have seen just how potent that threat was... with the demolition of most of the Iraqi troops... and the lack of WMD's...

What is going on is not called "Operation U.S. Safety," it is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It's interesting to me how little was said by the media or anyone else in regards to this. Initially, we were going to Iraq to get rid of WMD, in order to eliminate a threat. At least that's what the public was led to believe. We didn't press the U.N. to approve of force because Hussein was murdering his people, but because we believed he had WMD. But once this thing got started, it was being called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Why? Because the Iraqi people were oppressed by an evil dictator. Did we go into Iraq to remove a dictator who was murdering his people? Yes, but the American people would need more reason than that, because they aren't the ones living under Hussein's regime. The American people need to feel threatened by Hussein, and so Bush gave the people a reason to feel threatened. So we go off to get rid of WMD that are likely there based on reliable evidence. (Some people want the evidence in front of their noses, but they can't always have that can they?) In the meantime, we're liberating a million people whose lives absolutely sucked.

Honestly, I will be fine if WMD are never found. Maybe some people just don't have compassion for their fellow human beings, but I do, and if a million people will have a better life from now on, then that is a much better thing than finding some banned weapons. Why does everything have to be about us? Why does Hussein's regime have to be threatening us personally in order for us to do something? Operation Iraqi Freedom is more than just about finding WMD, more than just eliminating a threat to us, more than just about us period.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by muzikool
What is going on is not called "Operation U.S. Safety," it is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It's interesting to me how little was said by the media or anyone else in regards to this. Initially, we were going to Iraq to get rid of WMD, in order to eliminate a threat. At least that's what the public was led to believe. We didn't press the U.N. to approve of force because Hussein was murdering his people, but because we believed he had WMD. But once this thing got started, it was being called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Why? Because the Iraqi people were oppressed by an evil dictator. Did we go into Iraq to remove a dictator who was murdering his people? Yes, but the American people would need more reason than that, because they aren't the ones living under Hussein's regime. The American people need to feel threatened by Hussein, and so Bush gave the people a reason to feel threatened. So we go off to get rid of WMD that are likely there based on reliable evidence. (Some people want the evidence in front of their noses, but they can't always have that can they?) In the meantime, we're liberating a million people whose lives absolutely sucked.

Honestly, I will be fine if WMD are never found. Maybe some people just don't have compassion for their fellow human beings, but I do, and if a million people will have a better life from now on, then that is a much better thing than finding some banned weapons. Why does everything have to be about us? Why does Hussein's regime have to be threatening us personally in order for us to do something? Operation Iraqi Freedom is more than just about finding WMD, more than just eliminating a threat to us, more than just about us period.

thats a rather odd statement considering the fact that saddam's oppresive regime has NEVER been brought under question..

the reason it is called operation iraqi freedom is because it is easier to sell that than the fact we are going into a country after supposed WMD;s...

if you honestly think you will be fine if WMD's are never found... you may be in for a rude awakening... that is the ONLY reason we went in there... removal of saddam naturally is NOT something people will oppose... but the attack of a country is something people are not happy with... hence the lack of support for the US invasion...

if we had been going in solely to rescue the people... that would be nice... but once the euphoria of 'victory' wears off... questions will be raised... why were OUR soldiers and OUR tax payers money used for this incursion if there are no WMD's...

I don't know of many people who were happy with saddam (a power installed through our graces btw... and a one time ally) recently... but he was considered a THREAT... him and his WMD and other programs (incl. nuclear ambitions)...

if the WMD's do not exist... then we are in deep doodoo... internationally that is... no matter what spin you read...

violation of UN resolution 1441 == reason US wanted to use force..

btw... when it comes to human rights records... our nation is not a standard bearer... even though we release our own human rights watch thinger every year and hold others to our standards...

I am proud of this nation and what it stands for.. but I also hold it accountable for actions which I consider are not in the best interests.. whether it be of OUR nation or the interest of foreign nations... this is a GLOBAL community now...

in conclusion 🙂

we NEED to find WMD's... regardless of how you may feel about it... many nations have hinted @ this... as has the Kofi Annan...

 

[Mubbers]

The cynics amongst us suggest that WMD are certain to be found in Iraq. If they didn't exist before the war they most certainly will after it, you'ld think that if you were a cynic.

However I tend to agree with Muzikool. The real reason for the war might have been to find WMD or it might not. It was certainly one valid reason and most definietly the easiest one to sell the war on. However as the by product of this whole thing has been to rid the Iraqi peope of Saddam Hussain then a good thing has occurred.

This is probably the best thing that has occurred. When WMD (cynical prophecy) are found then we can also say that another good thing has occurred and thus the war was a just war.

To most in Iraq though I wouldn't mind betting that they are happy enough that Saddam is gone.

The UN though is almost a spent force and as for other nations, if by this you are meaning france, Russia and Germany then you should also say that they are already finding ways to appease the US and thus take a share in the rebuilding that will follow.

c'est la vie

Mubbers

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Mubbers
The cynics amongst us suggest that WMD are certain to be found in Iraq. If they didn't exist before the war they most certainly will after it, you'ld think that if you were a cynic.

However I tend to agree with Muzikool. The real reason for the war might have been to find WMD or it might not. It was certainly one valid reason and most definietly the easiest one to sell the war on. However as the by product of this whole thing has been to rid the Iraqi peope of Saddam Hussain then a good thing has occurred.

This is probably the best thing that has occurred. When WMD (cynical prophecy) are found then we can also say that another good thing has occurred and thus the war was a just war.

To most in Iraq though I wouldn't mind betting that they are happy enough that Saddam is gone.

The UN though is almost a spent force and as for other nations, if by this you are meaning france, Russia and Germany then you should also say that they are already finding ways to appease the US and thus take a share in the rebuilding that will follow.

c'est la vie

Mubbers

the other nations stated from day 1 of the war they will actively help in the rebuilding of iraq and with humanitarian aid...

I can't recall any of them saying saddam was a good man... the reasons for not engaging in the war and supporting the US were varied... political in some cases... economic in others... and btw... germany... would they have been allowed to bring weapons and assist on the field in iraq ? I dunno bout that...

bush claimed iraq was an imminent threat... do a search in the archives of the news articles in the days leading up to the war... you will see what I mean...

there is no question saddam;s removal will help... but consider this... his removal will lead to the lifting of the sanctions which had caused most of the poverty in the first place... 🙂

now... the us and britian asked for the resumption of the oil for food deal... after having it stopped not so long ago...

I have no doubt saddam was siphoning off money for his own agenda's... I would be daft not to... 🙂

but to stop it and then resume it? a bit odd...

personally I believe there should be wmd's in iraq... uk/france/us provided enough of the materials.. and all should have lists to corroborate the info... russia also helped with munitiions and missles... and they need to be found... to backup what our commander in chief said...

 

[Mubbers]

Had the other nations had their way Iraq would not require rebuilding. Thus stating their intention to help rebuild is just pure hypocrisy. These countries were prepared to let coaltion forces take all the risks (physical and political) yet still they want a piece of the cake afterwards. Some would call that cowardly.

Interesting question about German soldiers. I think (but may be wrong) that until the first Gulf War their constitution forbade any of their soldiers to be stationed outside their own borders. The posting of German soldiers in the Gulf for Desert Storm was only allowed because they were in a non-combative role. I.E. field support etc...

I'm not sure when the santions were first imposed but at the time I guess it seemed a logical step. Bad Saddam - impose sanctions! Saddam be good. Except he wasn't was he? Tough choice - do you then say "oh well bollocks to that, might as well lift the sanctions..." or do you keep them going. In the case of the former it sets a very bad example or in the case of the latter you just hope that eventually he reforms.

Also I would argue that the imposition of sanctions was an entirely predictable outcome of the behaviour of the Iraqi regime. No doubt they had plenty of warnings and had they wished to do so they could have enitrely avoided these sanctions. I don't think we can hold ourselves responsible for the poverty that ensued in Iraq - not in relation to sanctions anyway.

Like you say the rise of Saddam is in part due to western powers.


Yes all that fannying around with the Oil for Food programme seemed a bit pointless. Although I doubt much oil has been exported recently anyway.

Mubbers

 

[Friend of Bill]

I would like to extend my personal recognition to the American, British and Australian troops for a "job well done." Fair winds and following seas.

SnookBooger sends//BT🙂 🙂 🙂

 

[kitct]

Originally posted by Sazar
... this is not over till saddam is located...
🙂

I have to totally disagree w/this statement.Where is hitler?

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by kitct
I have to totally disagree w/this statement.Where is hitler?

dead... proven...

dna testing @ a later time proved this...

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Mubbers
Had the other nations had their way Iraq would not require rebuilding. Thus stating their intention to help rebuild is just pure hypocrisy. These countries were prepared to let coaltion forces take all the risks (physical and political) yet still they want a piece of the cake afterwards. Some would call that cowardly.

Interesting question about German soldiers. I think (but may be wrong) that until the first Gulf War their constitution forbade any of their soldiers to be stationed outside their own borders. The posting of German soldiers in the Gulf for Desert Storm was only allowed because they were in a non-combative role. I.E. field support etc...

I'm not sure when the santions were first imposed but at the time I guess it seemed a logical step. Bad Saddam - impose sanctions! Saddam be good. Except he wasn't was he? Tough choice - do you then say "oh well bollocks to that, might as well lift the sanctions..." or do you keep them going. In the case of the former it sets a very bad example or in the case of the latter you just hope that eventually he reforms.

Also I would argue that the imposition of sanctions was an entirely predictable outcome of the behaviour of the Iraqi regime. No doubt they had plenty of warnings and had they wished to do so they could have enitrely avoided these sanctions. I don't think we can hold ourselves responsible for the poverty that ensued in Iraq - not in relation to sanctions anyway.

Like you say the rise of Saddam is in part due to western powers.


Yes all that fannying around with the Oil for Food programme seemed a bit pointless. Although I doubt much oil has been exported recently anyway.

Mubbers

the point of the sanctions is what I question...

if you look @ who suffered and continued suffering since 1991... its not saddam... he has his palaces... its the peoples... the sanctions certainly did not help those people... and what had they done?

heck if not for this war... saddam would still be around and the sanctions would have done nought...

the implementation of the post-gulf war 'cease-fire' had some flaws in it... unfortunately... and saddam should have had his power curbed @ the cease fire...

things not done... are being fixed now... but in the 12 odd years... the main sufferers have been the iraqi peoples...