Iraq: Quagmire Or Expensive Mud?

[Joe]

The Gulf War actually was provoked by the Kuwaitis, who used slant drilling to mine Iraq's oil. Then when Saddam asked the US if it would mind if he took action, the US basically said they had no opinion. I remember a quote from Bush Sr. saying "Saddam is our man."

And Kuwait offered to make concessions to Iraq, which Iraq did not hesitate to ignore. Iraq had wanted Kuwait since 1960, it just seized upon the opportunity to justify it with slant drilling. And it was Saddam, as I recall, who made the claim that he had a U.S. greenlight for the invasion.

Yes, he's commited genocide and many other atrocities. Maybe he has supported terrorists in the past, but he's not the only country to do so. Saudi Arabia does, Iran, Libya just to name a few. So why Iraq? The oil. North Korea has flaunted it's nuclear weapons, they starve their citizens, government censorship is everywhere.

Well, if it was just about the oil, we could have avoided a rather expensive war simply by lobbying for the dropping of the UN sanctions. Not to mention that if it was about oil, no attempt to hide this would have been made (as you may recall, oil was used as a justification for the original Gulf War, and this justification sat quite well with the American people). And the DPRK is not really relevant to this discussion, unless you consider it a valid military target at this point (in which case you are an utter moron).

[phongn]

Ah, but Iraq doesn't have nuclear missiles that could conceivably (if nothing goes wrong) hit Honolulu.

Too bad for the Great Leader that NMD goes online next year.

[BoredShirtless]

Please explain how Saddam was destabilising the region.

Well lets see, he fough a large scale war with Iran. He invaded Kuwait.

That's after the fact pal. Going by your logic, Germany is destabilising Europe because of WW2

Iraq was NOT destabilising the region through warfare. She HAD in the past, but she WASN'T before the invasion.

By all accounts he thought about invading SA.

Please show me all these accounts.

He appearently ran a retirment home for old terrorists.

Source?

He vocally advertised the fact that he payed large amounts of cash to families of homicide bombers.

I'll deal with this one [again] below.

Subverted UN mandates by selling oil to European countries that were not supose to get oil from Iraq.

Yeah cause we all know the UN is worth a damn to your government. Does the US REALLY consider attempts to get more oil out of the country as something that destabilises the region? How? And if violating UN resolutions is an automatic destabiliser, wasn't your country destabilising the region too by enforcing illegal no-fly zones? So who's to blame for the stability of the region then? The US or Iraq?

Has or had WMD and threaten to use them.

Your source that shows Saddam had threatened to use WMD?

Burned oilfields.

Huh? He was burning his own oil fields before the invasion? You're kidding right?

More or less ran a terror campaign against Shi'ite (sp?) Muslims.

My bad, your right. He was obviously cleaning up the region.

There's no question that Saddam was a very bad man. But "destabilising the region" implies some sort of interference in the affairs of other countries: Iraq was very much keeping to herself.

What do you mean? What's a "greedy eye"?

Tis no secret that Saddam wanted to occupy SA if he could. He wanted to, by all that I have read, to have an effective control both politicaly and economicly in the ME.

Source?

You can also say insurance companies "fund death" by paying out insurance death claims. But let's not play semantical games. Please provide proof which shows he funded terrorism.

Semantic games? Thats your game bud. I said that by paying families (25 grand wasn't it?) he's funding terrorism. How many Palistienians have you seen getting a check Ed McMan style? Even if the family is getting all the money, which I doubt, then he is still inciting by providing an incentive to perform TERRORISM.

What an utterly pathetic play of semantics. Everyone but you knows that "funding terrorism" in this context is a government supplying arms, logistics or money to a terrorist organisation. Compensating families is NOT the same fucking thing. And if you seriously buy the notion that they need money for incentive...from Sun-Tzu: "Know your enemy". There may have been the odd suicide bomber who died for Saddam's money. But claiming that's "funding terrorism" is hair splitting and reeks of desperation.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


Well then. Let the preparations for his trail begin!

Your not reading, your presuming. I said I agreed that the voters should decide. And decide they shall.

What? What did I presume? You said he’d be judged if he lied, I showed he did, so judgement is what he will get.

Poor baby.

Any particular reason for the flame bait?

I'm growing tired of watching you whine whenever someone criticises the US. Take it like a man and don't bitch.

[Exonerate]

The Gulf War actually was provoked by the Kuwaitis, who used slant drilling to mine Iraq's oil. Then when Saddam asked the US if it would mind if he took action, the US basically said they had no opinion. I remember a quote from Bush Sr. saying "Saddam is our man."

And Kuwait offered to make concessions to Iraq, which Iraq did not hesitate to ignore. Iraq had wanted Kuwait since 1960, it just seized upon the opportunity to justify it with slant drilling. And it was Saddam, as I recall, who made the claim that he had a U.S. greenlight for the invasion.

And the US had the chance to step in and prevent the invasion, but did they? An US ambassador basically said the US was neutral and would not interfere with Iraq-Kuwait relations. (Source: http://home.achilles.net/~sal/greenlight.htm)

Yes, he's commited genocide and many other atrocities. Maybe he has supported terrorists in the past, but he's not the only country to do so. Saudi Arabia does, Iran, Libya just to name a few. So why Iraq? The oil. North Korea has flaunted it's nuclear weapons, they starve their citizens, government censorship is everywhere.

Well, if it was just about the oil, we could have avoided a rather expensive war simply by lobbying for the dropping of the UN sanctions. Not to mention that if it was about oil, no attempt to hide this would have been made (as you may recall, oil was used as a justification for the original Gulf War, and this justification sat quite well with the American people). And the DPRK is not really relevant to this discussion, unless you consider it a valid military target at this point (in which case you are an utter moron).

And would the rest of the UN agree? Even if sanctions were dropped, Iraq would still be in control of their oil fields, meaning they control the supply. In the original Gulf War, oil was part of it, but also, Iraq invaded another country, which we haven't seen today. Has Iraq been massing troops on the Kuwait border again? Bush is backed by many oil companies, and IIRC, his family has significant shares in one also. He has plenty incentive to go after Iraq for the oil.

My part on the DPRK is why invade Iraq, then not the DPRK, which potentially is a greater threat? Why not Saudi Arabia, which has many terrorist ties? There are a dozen of countries you could go after if you were really going after states that sponsor terrorism. And no, I don't think we should go after the DPRK as of yet.

[Joe]

And the US had the chance to step in and prevent the invasion, but did they? An US ambassador basically said the US was neutral and would not interfere with Iraq-Kuwait relations. (Source: http://home.achilles.net/~sal/greenlight.htm)

Then the ambassador and/or the State Department fucked up considerably. The geopolitical importance of Kuwait was exceedingly obvious then and it is exceedingly obvious now. It doesn't make any sense for the Bush administration to just forget this fact.

We should have taken this opportunity, I will admit.

And would the rest of the UN agree? Even if sanctions were dropped, Iraq would still be in control of their oil fields, meaning they control the supply. In the original Gulf War, oil was part of it, but also, Iraq invaded another country, which we haven't seen today. Has Iraq been massing troops on the Kuwait border again?

Getting the sanctions dropped would not have been enormously difficult, given the fact that America was their primary supporter. And Iraq certainly wouldn't have been too stingy with its oil, given its poverty.

Oil wasn't merely a part of Gulf War I, we stopped the invasion precisely because of the oil.

Bush is backed by many oil companies, and IIRC, his family has significant shares in one also. He has plenty incentive to go after Iraq for the oil.

Actually, the release of Iraqi oil to the market means lower prices, which will in the long run hurt the American oil companies the left is so certain Bush is working for.

My part on the DPRK is why invade Iraq, then not the DPRK, which potentially is a greater threat? Why not Saudi Arabia, which has many terrorist ties? There are a dozen of countries you could go after if you were really going after states that sponsor terrorism. And no, I don't think we should go after the DPRK as of yet.

Because the nuclear destruction of Seoul is not an option. As for Saudi Arabia, what would we have done, staged an invasion of Saudi Arabia from...Saudi Arabia? In the future we may invade the KSA, or we may just take a harder line with them in other ways. But the invasion of Iraq was necessary to allow us to do so in the future.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah, but Iraq doesn't have nuclear missiles that could conceivably (if nothing goes wrong) hit Honolulu.

Actually if North Koreas possibul nuclear weapons are anything like first generation US and Soviet weapons both fission and fusion they wont fit on there long range missiles and likely not even on a unmodified SCUD B

[Sam Or I]

That's after the fact pal. Going by your logic, Germany is destabilising Europe because of WW2

Iraq was NOT destabilising the region through warfare. She HAD in the past, but she WASN'T before the invasion.

This is a very bad arguement. The difference between Germany after WWII and Iraq is IRAQ STILL HAD THE SAME LEADERSHIP! I bet if Hitler and the Nazi Party were still incharge of Germany, the region would be pretty damn unstable. The fact of the matter is that Iraq was destabalizing the region, the leadership and its party has shown to be very aggressive

[BoredShirtless]

That's after the fact pal. Going by your logic, Germany is destabilising Europe because of WW2

Iraq was NOT destabilising the region through warfare. She HAD in the past, but she WASN'T before the invasion.

This is a very bad arguement. The difference between Germany after WWII and Iraq is IRAQ STILL HAD THE SAME LEADERSHIP!

So?

I bet if Hitler and the Nazi Party were still incharge of Germany, the region would be pretty damn unstable.

You don't know that. But it's a bet you'd probably win.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq was destabalizing the region,

Please show this "fact" that Iraq was destabalising the region to a degree which required invasion and occupation.

the leadership and its party has shown to be very aggressive

The US government is even more aggresive. Your point?

[Sam Or I]

Please show this "fact" that Iraq was destabalising the region to a degree which required invasion and occupation.

Off the top of my head, the cease fire Iraq broke at the end of the war with the no fly zone. How many skirmishes did we have, about one every 4 or 5 months due to Iraqi pot shots over the 10 years. Israel clearly considered Iraq the biggest outside threat, like or hate Israel, it is still a major Middle East player. Iraq is the only country at that point in time willing to start a war with Israel. Then there are the Kurds, with out the no fly zone which saw Iraq as a threat. Kuwait obviously was afraid of a retalation eventually.

[BoredShirtless]

Please show this "fact" that Iraq was destabalising the region to a degree which required invasion and occupation.

Off the top of my head, the cease fire Iraq broke at the end of the war with the no fly zone. How many skirmishes did we have, about one every 4 or 5 months due to Iraqi pot shots over the 10 years.

Iraq didn't break the cease fire, it was the US and British. They where the ones violating UN resolutions and international law by enforcing illegal no-fly zones. The fact is, Iraq was completely within its right to shoot at US planes:

Affirming the commitment of all Member States
[BoredShirtless: Member States=the coalition of countries who fought Iraq]
to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

Israel clearly considered Iraq the biggest outside threat, like or hate Israel, it is still a major Middle East player.

So? Should we excuse countries from proving their assertions simply cause they're powerful? Might makes right huh.

Iraq is the only country at that point in time willing to start a war with Israel.

Uhm...no.

Then there are the Kurds, with out the no fly zone which saw Iraq as a threat.

Buddy, the no-fly zones did absolutely jack shit.

Kuwait obviously was afraid of a retalation eventually.

Who cares what Kuwait's afraid off.

[Knife]

That's after the fact pal. Going by your logic, Germany is destabilising Europe because of WW2

Iraq was NOT destabilising the region through warfare. She HAD in the past, but she WASN'T before the invasion.

Fifty years and a shitload of Priministers and Paralaments later. Iraq is still ruled by the same bunch of assholes as it was in the 90's or even 80's.

Knife wrote:

By all accounts he thought about invading SA.


Boredshirtless wrote:
Please show me all these accounts.

I can't find anything right now, so I conceed this point.

Knife wrote:

He appearently ran a retirment home for old terrorists.


Boredshirtless wrote:
Source?

Well lets see, Abu Nidal was found dead in Iraq, Abu Abbas was caught in Iraq just to name a few.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/ ... 150217.asp
http://www.iht.com/articles/93424.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/spec ... 4928c.html

Yeah cause we all know the UN is worth a damn to your government. Does the US REALLY consider attempts to get more oil out of the country as something that destabilises the region? How? And if violating UN resolutions is an automatic destabiliser, wasn't your country destabilising the region too by enforcing illegal no-fly zones? So who's to blame for the stability of the region then? The US or Iraq?

Why is it always a black and white fallacy with the UN. I may not like the thing but it has uses and it doesn't have to be an all or nothing with the UN and the US goverment. Violating the UN resolutions is a destabilizing factor. The UN resolutions represent the cease fire for crying out loud. Violate the resolutions and you violate the cease fire. How the hell do you get more destabilizing than that?

The no fly zones are a thread amongst themselves. They were there, I don't have any particular stance on them. Iraq agreed (albeit with a gun to their head) to have them there. It was a containment policy. Wasn't the best one but...

Your source that shows Saddam had threatened to use WMD?

Intell intersepts right before the war that said that chemical weapons could be used if the US attacks. Weather the commanders used them or not (which they obviously didn't) the treat was still there.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2003/3/19/1s.html

Dr David Kay briefed Congress on the situation as well. According to Dr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, they had multiple indications including intersepts that orders to launch chemical weapons if the Americans invade were given. To be fair though, many were sceptical of his findings.

Brigidier General Vincient Brooks, deputy director of ops for US Central Command, aknowledged that intell suggested that Iraqi's were ordered to use chemical weapons and that intell showed front line Iraqi's with numerous chemical suits.

Now it could have been a bluff, but even a bluff is a threat if we don't know he didn't have them there or ready to use. Honestly, I don't know if Iraq had them at that point. They actualy could have destroyed them by then. But it was still a threat.

Huh? He was burning his own oil fields before the invasion? You're kidding right?

Yup and burning all of that crude didn't do anything for the economy of the area nor did it do anything for the ecology of the area. Nope, not destabilizing at all.

There's no question that Saddam was a very bad man. But "destabilising the region" implies some sort of interference in the affairs of other countries: Iraq was very much keeping to herself.

Or interference with international organizations that mandated their good behaviour. Or finacing terrorism. Or selling oil illegally.

Source?

Conceeded that one already due to lack of sources.

What an utterly pathetic play of semantics. Everyone but you knows that "funding terrorism" in this context is a government supplying arms, logistics or money to a terrorist organisation. Compensating families is NOT the same fucking thing. And if you seriously buy the notion that they need money for incentive...from Sun-Tzu: "Know your enemy". There may have been the odd suicide bomber who died for Saddam's money. But claiming that's "funding terrorism" is hair splitting and reeks of desperation.

Bull shit. You think that those people over there living in poverty that normally wouldn't go fundie would, when they found out that their families would become more or less rich in that part of the world. You can't seriously stereotype all Palestinians into crazy bomb wearing fundies, can you? I don't but when in desperate situations including poverty, you don't think that 25 grand would sway anyone?

Besides, every article I dug up on google on the subject mentioned that Palestinian representives of the Arab Liberation Front were the ones who went around delievering the checks. So Saddam writes them, gives them to a terrorist organization and then the terrorist organizations deliever them to the families of the homicide bombers. Sounds like a nice little infrastructure to me.

What? What did I presume? You said he’d be judged if he lied, I showed he did, so judgement is what he will get.

You're presuming that he should get a trial when I agreed with the original article that the voters would judge in the next election.

I'm growing tired of watching you whine whenever someone criticises the US. Take it like a man and don't bitch.

About as tired as I get when you go off half cocked about the evils and barbarity of the US. If I recall, all I did is make a statement about the author of the article in the original post. Whining and bitching wasn't part of it.

[Vympel]

The no fly zones are a thread amongst themselves. They were there, I don't have any particular stance on them. Iraq agreed (albeit with a gun to their head) to have them there. It was a containment policy. Wasn't the best one but...

Iraq never agreed to the no fly-zones, they were unauthorised and against the very resolution that the US used as justification for them, which affirmed all Iraqi rights, including sovereignty. Furtherore, the resolution in question was not a Chapter VII resolution- i.e. it could never be used to authorize force.

Intell intersepts right before the war that said that chemical weapons could be used if the US attacks. Weather the commanders used them or not (which they obviously didn't) the treat was still there.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2003/3/19/1s.html

Dr David Kay briefed Congress on the situation as well. According to Dr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, they had multiple indications including intersepts that orders to launch chemical weapons if the Americans invade were given. To be fair though, many were sceptical of his findings.

Brigidier General Vincient Brooks, deputy director of ops for US Central Command, aknowledged that intell suggested that Iraqi's were ordered to use chemical weapons and that intell showed front line Iraqi's with numerous chemical suits.

Now it could have been a bluff, but even a bluff is a threat if we don't know he didn't have them there or ready to use. Honestly, I don't know if Iraq had them at that point. They actualy could have destroyed them by then. But it was still a threat.

It's not a threat if they'll be used against you only *if* you attack. That's circular reasoning ("we must attack Iraq because of what they'd do if we attack Iraq"). The authorizations to use chemical weapons were in case Iraq was provoked, not an out of the blue we'll do it when we feel like it thing.

Yup and burning all of that crude didn't do anything for the economy of the area nor did it do anything for the ecology of the area. Nope, not destabilizing at all.

Iraq was not destroying it's oil fields before the war.

I'm too tired to argue all this all over again after the usual marathon gargantuan debates with adamantium-cranium (Kast), suffice to say Iraq is part of a bizarre situation where all the 'in our national interest, Iraq was a threat, blah blah blah' arguments are actually WEAK compared to arguing for humanitarian intervention. Arguing for the benefit of the Iraqi people is the one truly sincere argument one could make, in my view. Unfortunately, that argument was not made, and I get no indications that the Iraqi people ver figured into this at all.

[MKSheppard]

Stuart Slade's Board

Don't know how accurate or verifiable from this:

SF has been conducting continuous night OPS in that area to take out ambushers. But all of our units need to also counter-attack when fired on.Here is an e-mail from one SF operator in the AO that was forwarded to me today...
signed, UW

Hey Guys, sorry it's been so long since I've sent anything but a quick note
to you individually. However things have been pretty hectic since the end
of hostilities and the start of the real war. Despite what the assholes in
the press like to say over and over:
1) We did expect some armed resistance from the Ba'ath Party and Feydaheen;
2) It isn't any worse than expected;
3) Things are getting better each day, and
4) The morale of the troops is A-1, except for the normal bitching and
griping. My brief love affair with the press, especially the guys who had the cajones
to be embedded with the troops during the fighting, is probably over,
especially since we are back being criticized by the same Roland Headly
types that used to hang around the Palestine Hotel drinking Baghdad Bob's
whiskey and parroting his ridiculous B.S. I'm in Baghdad now, since SpOpComm 5 relocated here from Qatar. It looks,
sounds and smells about the same but at least you can get Maker's Mark at
the local OC. We came up in mid-June to help set up operation Scorpion and
Sidewinder. It represents a major (and long overdue) shift in tactics.
Instead of being sitting ducks for the ragheads we now are going after the
worthless pieces of fecal matter. (Sentence deleted) have a combat mission coordinating a bunch of A teams,
seeking, finding and rooting out the mostly non-Iraqis that are well-armed,
well-paid (in U.S. dollars) and always waiting to wail for the press and
then shoot some GI in the back in the midst of a crowd. The only reason the GIs are pissed (not demoralized) is that they cannot
touch, must less waste, those taunting bags of gas that scream in their
faces and riot on cue when they spot a camera man from ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN or
NBC. If they did, then they know the next nightly news will be about how
chaotic things are and how much the Iraqi people hate us. Some do. But the vast majority don't and more and more see that the GIs
don't start anything, are by-and-large friendly, and very compassionate,
especially to kids and old people. I saw a bunch of 19 year-olds from the
82nd Airborne not return fire coming from a mosque until they got a group of
elderly civilians out of harms way. So did the Iraqis. A bunch of bad guys used a group of women and children as human shields.
The GIs surrounded them and negotiated their surrender fifteen hours later
and when they discovered a three year-old girl had been injured by the big
tough guys throwing her down a flight of stairs, the GIs called in a MedVac
helicopter to take her and her mother to the nearest field hospital. The
Iraqis watched it all, and there hasn't been a problem in that neighborhood
since. How many such stories, and there are hundreds of them, ever get
reported in the fair and balanced press? You know, nada. The civilians who have figured it out faster than anyone are the local
teenagers. They watch the GIs and try to talk to them and ask questions
about America and now wear wrap-around sunglasses, GAP T-shirts, Dockers
(or even better Levis with the red tags) and Nikes (or Egyptian knock-offs,
but with the "swoosh") and love to listen to AFN when the GIs play it on
their radios. They participate less and less in the demonstrations and help
keep us informed when a wannabe bad-ass shows up in the neighborhood. The
younger kids are going back to school again, don't have to listen to some
mullah rant about the Koran ten hours a day, and they get a hot meal. They
see the same GIs who man the corner checkpoint, helping clear the
playground, install new swingsets and create soccer fields. I watched a
bunch of kids playing baseball in one playground, under the supervision of a
couple of GIs from Oklahoma. They weren't very good but were having fun,
probably more than most Little Leaguers The place is still a mess but most of it has been for years. But the
Hospitals are open and are in the process of being brought into the 21st
Century. The MOs and visiting surgeons from home are teaching their docs
new techniques and One American pharmaceutical company (you know, the kind
that all the hippies like to scream about as greedy) donated enough medicine
to stock 45 hospital pharmacies for a year. Safe water is more available.
Electricity has been restored to pre-war levels but saboteurs keep cutting
the lines. And The old Ba'ath big shots are upset because they can't get
fuel for their private generators. One actually complained to General
McKeirnan, who told him it was a rough world. The MPs are screening the 80,000 Iraqi police force and rehabbing the ones
that weren't goons, shake-down artists or torturers like they did in East
Berlin, Kosovo and Afghanistan. There are dual patrols of Iraqi cops and
U.S./U.K./Polish MPs now in most of the larger cities. Basra has 3.5
million inhabitants. Mosul is a city of 2 million. Kirkuk has 1 million.
How many and hundreds of other small towns have not had riots or shootings?
The vast majority. The six U.K. cops were killed in a small Shiite town by the ex-cops they
were re-habbing. According to a Royal Marine colonel I talked to, the town
now has about twenty permanent vacancies in its police force. Mick, he's a
big potato eater from Belfast named Huggins and knows how to handle
terrorists after twenty years fighting with the IRA. He sends his regards
and says he'd love to have you here. Thinks you'd make a great police
chief, even though the cops would be more frightened of you than the local
hoods (then he laughed) I heard one doofus on MSNBC the other night talk about how "nearly 60" GIs
have been killed since 01 May. The truth is that 21 GIs have been killed in
combat, mostly from ambush, from 01 May through 30 June, Another 29 have
been killed by accidents or other causes (two drowned while swimming in the
Tigris). The [MSNBC turd] is the same jerk who reported on the air that "dozens of
GIs" were badly burned when two RPGs hit a truck belonging to an Engineer
Battalion that was parked by a construction site. The truck was hit and
burned, three GIs received minor injuries (including the driver who burnt
his hand) and three warriors of Allah were promptly sent to enjoy their 72
slave girls in Paradise. Hell of a way to get laid. A mosque in that shithole Fallujah blew up this morning while the local
imam, a creep named Fahlil (who was one of the biggest local loudmouths that
frequently appeared on CNN) was helping a Syrian Hamas member teach eight
teenagers how to make belt bombs. Right away the local Feyhadeen propaganda
group started wailing that the Americans hit it with a TOW missile (If they
had there wouldn't have been any mosque left!) and the usual suspects took
to the streets for CNN and BBC. One fool was dragging around a piece of tin
with blood on it, claiming it was part of the missile. The cameras rolled and the idiot started repeating his story, then one of my
guys asked him in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore around
his face that made him look like a girl. He was a local leader of the
Feyhadeen. We took the clown in custody and were asked rather indignantly
by the twit from BBC if we were trying to shut up "the poor man who had seen
his mosque and friends blown up." I told the airy-fairy who the raghead
was and if he knew Arabic (which he obviously didn't) he'd know he was a
Palestinian. I suggested we take him down to the local jail and we'd lock
him and his cameraman in a cell with the "poor man" and they could interview
him until we took him to headquarters. They declined the invitation. Guess
what played on the Bullshit Broadcasting System that evening? Did the
Americans blow up a mosque? See the poor man who is still in a state of
shock over losing his mosque and relatives? Yep. Our friend the
Palestinian. Our search and destroy missions are largely at night, free of reporters and
generally terrifying to those brave warriors of Allah. The only thing that
frightens them more is hearing the word "Gitmo". The word is out that a
trip to Guantanimo Bay is not a Caribbean vacation and they usually start
squealing like the little mice they are, when an interrogator mentions
"Gitmo". No wonder the International Red Cross, the National Council of
Churches and the French keep protesting about the place. They know it has
proven to be very effective in keeping several hundred real fanatical
psychopaths in check and very frankly would rather see them cut loose to go
kill some more GIs or innocent Americans, just to make W. look bad. We have about 200 really bad guys in custody now and probably will park them
in the desert behind a triple roll of razor wire, backed up by a couple of
Bradleys pointed their way, if they decide to riot. Maybe a few will get to
Gitmo but most are human garbage that wouldn't take on your five-year old
grandson face-to-face. The more we go after them and not vice-versa I think
we will see the sniper attacks go down. Yeah, they'll get lucky now and
then, but it's showtime, fellows. Our first objective is to get the die-hards off the street (or make them too
scared to come out in them) and destroy their caches of weapons (we have
collected more than 227,000 AK-47s and that is only the tip of the iceburg;
Curly bought nearly a million of them from our pal Vladimir), then cut off
their money supply, mostly from Syria and Lebanon. We must continue to get
public services up and running, so the local families can get water, sewage
and garbage service; electricity, public transportation; oil fields and
refineries working and a dinar that won't halve in value every month. It's going to be a long haul (remember it took 10-15 years in Japan and West
Germany) but if we don't stick with it, nobody else will, and we'll have
some other looney running the place again. This place has greater potential than Saudi Arabia (bunch of goat- herders
who struck black gold) or Iran (weird dudes who can't run a rug bazaar much
less a major country). I keep telling myself even the Democrats can't be that self-destructive.
But then I look at the current line-up. The cream of the crap. If that
lying lesbian bitch ever gets elected we're really in trouble.
By we, I mean the whole world. She'll slide just plain Bill in as the
Secretary-General of the U.N. and then the whole world will be trying to
take our great country . . . the greatest ever (and that's coming from an
ex-deleted) . . . down and civilization with it. Armageddon, here we come. Remember, it's located on the outskirts of
Jerusalem. Enough of that cheery speculation. The good news is that General Schoonmaker
is going to appointed Chief Army and the old man is coming to Tampa to run
the SpOps desk at CentComm. He's tops and will be getting his second star.
To me it means that SpOps will be more predominant in future operations and
after 18 years as a GB maybe I'll have a shot at a bird-level combat
command. The old man asked me to come to MacDill and be his ACS but I told
him after I spent four months changing the diapers of the media types, I
wanted to go back to action. Hence, my current gig. As the movie quoted
old General Patton, "God help me, I love it." I do. Nothing more
satisfying than working with the BEST damn soldiers in the world, flushing
real human poop down the drain and giving some folks a chance at trying
freedom for a change. They may learn to like it and then my
great-great-grandson won't have to worry about some maniac trying to destroy
the planet.

[Vympel]

Sounds like a rant from a defensive blowhard poser talking out of his arse, to be honest. Could've been written by anyone.

[MKSheppard]

Sounds like a rant from a defensive blowhard poser talking out of his arse, to be honest. Could've been written by anyone.

Still though - it strikes me as a bit more honest than the stuff that M113GAVIN and Hack write these days.,

[BoredShirtless]

That's after the fact pal. Going by your logic, Germany is destabilising Europe because of WW2

Iraq was NOT destabilising the region through warfare. She HAD in the past, but she WASN'T before the invasion.

Fifty years and a shitload of Priministers and Paralaments later. Iraq is still ruled by the same bunch of assholes as it was in the 90's or even 80's.

We all know they're the same arseholes. But were the arseholes destabilising the region is the question.

He appearently ran a retirment home for old terrorists.

Source?

Well lets see, Abu Nidal was found dead in Iraq, Abu Abbas was caught in Iraq just to name a few.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/ ... 150217.asp

Did you read the article?

But yesterday, Iraq's secret-service chief, Taher Jalil al-Habbush, said Nidal shot himself in the mouth as Iraqi authorities prepared to detain him for interrogation.

I've never heard of a retirement home where the personnel INTERROGATES the retirees. Another good one:

At the press conference today, al-Habbush said agents learned more about Nidal's entry into Iraq after the shooting. "After this incident, we discovered that Sabri al-Banna entered the country with this Yemeni passport using this picture [at this point, al-Habbush exhibited the passport]. We found several entry visas in his passport: one for Jordan, one for Yemen, and one for Iran via al-Mundhariya, [Iraq]," al-Habbush said.

Seems like he was very much an unwelcome guest in the country.

http://www.iht.com/articles/93424.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/spec ... 4928c.html

Very true, Iraq WAS destabilising the region by supporting the PLO. But I don't see why Iraq should be singled out for special attention here becase every single Arab country in the ME, the Persians, and you the Americans, are shaking the same boat.

Yeah cause we all know the UN is worth a damn to your government. Does the US REALLY consider attempts to get more oil out of the country as something that destabilises the region? How? And if violating UN resolutions is an automatic destabiliser, wasn't your country destabilising the region too by enforcing illegal no-fly zones? So who's to blame for the stability of the region then? The US or Iraq?

Why is it always a black and white fallacy with the UN.

What are you talking about? I asked you several questions while showing the manner in which both Iraq and the US served the UN. Please don't dodge my questions.

I may not like the thing but it has uses and it doesn't have to be an all or nothing with the UN and the US goverment.

Well it should be "all" IMO. Why is it acceptable that the US gets to pick and chose? Can't you see how destabilising that is for the rest of the world?

Violating the UN resolutions is a destabilizing factor.

Exactly. Concession that the US was destabilising the Middle East through incursions into Iraqi air space and engaging the Iraqi's and thus violating several UN resolutions, accepted.

The UN resolutions represent the cease fire for crying out loud. Violate the resolutions and you violate the cease fire. How the hell do you get more destabilizing than that?

I completely agree.

The no fly zones are a thread amongst themselves. They were there, I don't have any particular stance on them.

How convenient.

Iraq agreed (albeit with a gun to their head) to have them there. It was a containment policy. Wasn't the best one but...

Vympel fielded this one.

Your source that shows Saddam had threatened to use WMD?

Intell intersepts right before the war that said that chemical weapons could be used if the US attacks. Weather the commanders used them or not (which they obviously didn't) the treat was still there.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2003/3/19/1s.html

Dr David Kay briefed Congress on the situation as well. According to Dr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, they had multiple indications including intersepts that orders to launch chemical weapons if the Americans invade were given. To be fair though, many were sceptical of his findings.

Brigidier General Vincient Brooks, deputy director of ops for US Central Command, aknowledged that intell suggested that Iraqi's were ordered to use chemical weapons and that intell showed front line Iraqi's with numerous chemical suits.

Now it could have been a bluff, but even a bluff is a threat if we don't know he didn't have them there or ready to use. Honestly, I don't know if Iraq had them at that point. They actualy could have destroyed them by then. But it was still a threat.

Again, Vympel.

Huh? He was burning his own oil fields before the invasion? You're kidding right?

Yup and burning all of that crude didn't do anything for the economy of the area nor did it do anything for the ecology of the area. Nope, not destabilizing at all.

Give me a V! Give me a Y!...Need I say his name?

What an utterly pathetic play of semantics. Everyone but you knows that "funding terrorism" in this context is a government supplying arms, logistics or money to a terrorist organisation. Compensating families is NOT the same fucking thing. And if you seriously buy the notion that they need money for incentive...from Sun-Tzu: "Know your enemy". There may have been the odd suicide bomber who died for Saddam's money. But claiming that's "funding terrorism" is hair splitting and reeks of desperation.

Bull shit. You think that those people over there living in poverty that normally wouldn't go fundie would, when they found out that their families would become more or less rich in that part of the world. You can't seriously stereotype all Palestinians into crazy bomb wearing fundies, can you? I don't but when in desperate situations including poverty, you don't think that 25 grand would sway anyone?

Like I already said, there would have been the odd Palestinian who did it for Saddams money. But on a macro level, the Palestinians are NOT blowing themselves up for money; they're doing it for freedom.

Besides, every article I dug up on google on the subject mentioned that Palestinian representives of the Arab Liberation Front were the ones who went around delievering the checks. So Saddam writes them, gives them to a terrorist organization and then the terrorist organizations deliever them to the families of the homicide bombers. Sounds like a nice little infrastructure to me.

How else was Saddam meant to pass on the money? In person?

What? What did I presume? You said he’d be judged if he lied, I showed he did, so judgement is what he will get.

You're presuming that he should get a trial when I agreed with the original article that the voters would judge in the next election.

"Trial" within your context; through the next elections. Please be more careful.

I'm growing tired of watching you whine whenever someone criticises the US. Take it like a man and don't bitch.

About as tired as I get when you go off half cocked about the evils and barbarity of the US. If I recall, all I did is make a statement about the author of the article in the original post. Whining and bitching wasn't part of it.

My sincere apologies then.

[Knife]

We all know they're the same arseholes. But were the arseholes destabilising the region is the question.

Yes, they were the same assholes who invaded Kuwait. Thats pretty destabilizing.

Did you read the article?

Snip article excerps

I've never heard of a retirement home where the personnel INTERROGATES the retirees. Another good one:


Snippity snip

Seems like he was very much an unwelcome guest in the country.

Nice selective copy. How about the paragraphs above it...

The circumstances of Nidal's end are murky and raise doubts over whether he in fact committed suicide. The Palestinian newspaper "Al-Ayyam" last week was the first to announce his death, in an article that said he died of multiple gunshot wounds. Later news reports described his body as "bullet-riddled."

An Arabic-language daily in London, "Asharq Al Awsat," described a shoot-out in which Nidal was downed by four bullets.

But yesterday, Iraq's secret-service chief, Taher Jalil al-Habbush, said Nidal shot himself in the mouth as Iraqi authorities prepared to detain him for interrogation.

Suicide by machinegun? Or how about this possibility.?.

Wilkinson said also that there is a small possibility that Saddam's regime came to consider Nidal an embarrassment and eliminated him to send a signal that the government no longer chooses to harbor his brand of terrorism. "Again that, you know, may seem to have a certain plausibility, but I'm not convinced by the reasoning, because in the past, certainly, Saddam has found it useful to have some client terrorist groups [on] hand. And Abu Nidal obviously had a lot of affinity with Iraq," Wilkinson said.

Hmmm.

Very true, Iraq WAS destabilising the region by supporting the PLO. But I don't see why Iraq should be singled out for special attention here becase every single Arab country in the ME, the Persians, and you the Americans, are shaking the same boat.

The concept of 'everyone else does it so why can't I' is not an acceptable excuse. I already mentioned that I think that SA and others should be dealt with in one way or another. But I see you agree in essence now.

What are you talking about? I asked you several questions while showing the manner in which both Iraq and the US served the UN. Please don't dodge my questions.

Does the US REALLY consider attempts to get more oil out of the country as something that destabilises the region?

Yes, when the money that comes from that oil is not used for humanitarian needs but is either stached or used for military purposes. He was only able to sell his oil so he could feed his people, instead his people starved (as humanitarian groups liked to remind us as if its our fault) and the infrastructure of Iraq degraded.

And if violating UN resolutions is an automatic destabiliser, wasn't your country destabilising the region too by enforcing illegal no-fly zones?

What UN resolution specificly outlawed the no fly zones? Honestly, I don't know?

Well it should be "all" IMO. Why is it acceptable that the US gets to pick and chose? Can't you see how destabilising that is for the rest of the world?

I think it should be none but I digress, the UN didn't choose and there by the US had to make the choice. Ten years, 17 resolutions, no change in the situation. If anything the UN unwillingness to make a decision was as destabilizing as Iraqs actions.

Exactly. Concession that the US was destabilising the Middle East through incursions into Iraqi air space and engaging the Iraqi's and thus violating several UN resolutions, accepted.

Awaiting the specific resolution that is in violation with no-fly zones.

How else was Saddam meant to pass on the money? In person?

Middle East Mail service? Anything but a terrorist group. If he sent it via the UN I would shrug it off that he's just an asshole. He is sending the money via a terror group that obviously has some semblence of ties with his goverment or he wouldn't be giving the money to them to deliever.

"Trial" within your context; through the next elections. Please be more careful.

Both me and the article were talking about weather he'd be canned in the election and you jump in with trial. Not trial by election, just trial. You be more careful please.

My sincere apologies then.

Acepted.

[Vympel]

What UN resolution specificly outlawed the no fly zones? Honestly, I don't know?

Resolution 688 is the one the US relied on to attempt to argue that it's no-fly zones were authorized by the UN. 688 calls on Iraq to protect the rights of various communities, nothing more.

Not all Resolutions can include the use of force- 688 is one of them. Only resolutions specifically passed under the terms of Chapter VII can ever lead to the use of force. Resolution 688 was not passed under Chapter VII; quite the contrary, it reaffirms 'the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq"

[Knife]

Oh found it. SCR 687. Reading it now.

[Vympel]

Oh found it. SCR 687. Reading it now.

*points to his previous post*

[Knife]

Ok, just skimmed through the contents of SCR 687 through about 1483.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

and read through 687. Now obviously the UN did not set up the no-fly zones but the US and UK use 688 to justify it though there is the conflict with Chpt 7 of the UN charter (though Article Two sets forth that the UN can implament or advise in relation with Chpt 7, if I read it right so there is another loop hole I guess).

That being said, there is not another mention of the no-fly zones in any of the resolutions after 688 and in fact there isn't a mention of them in 688 either. This is a nitpick, I know, but if the No-fly zones are in violation with UN mandate, why is there not a resolution on it?

Where are the charges, per say, of the UN against the US on the situation?
It seems that the UN endorsed it by defacto by ignoring the issue as it relates with its mandates.

BTW, these resolutions read like stero instruction. Yeuck.

[Vympel]

This is a nitpick, I know, but if the No-fly zones are in violation with UN mandate, why is there not a resolution on it?

A UNSC resolution would be pointless considering the US/UK would've had instant veto power on it, though perhaps there were General Assembly (useless) resolutions? Don't know.

I suspect the attitude was one of "don't ask don't tell", which goes along well with the US never attempting to use Iraq's air defenses firing on US/UK aircraft as a justification for full-fledged military action. I don't know if the no fly zones helped the Kurds and Shi'ites or not (I hear not, and the Turks could have them lifted whenever they asked so they could traipse around Northern Iraq)- my only problem with them was using them as a war justification, which is clearly ridiculous.

[Knife]

As a war justification??? *shrug* Probably not. I was an advocate of cleaning up our messes. Truely it should have been done sometime in the last decade but now we have it here.

It is interesting though that both sides of the issue use UN resolutions to define their position and the resolutions don't say anything about it at all.

[BoredShirtless]

We all know they're the same arseholes. But were the arseholes destabilising the region is the question.

Yes, they were the same assholes who invaded Kuwait. Thats pretty destabilizing.

How?

snip

Suicide by machinegun? Or how about this possibility.?.

...yes? Penny for your half-finished thought?

Wilkinson said also that there is a small possibility that Saddam's regime came to consider Nidal an embarrassment and eliminated him to send a signal that the government no longer chooses to harbor his brand of terrorism. "Again that, you know, may seem to have a certain plausibility, but I'm not convinced by the reasoning, because in the past, certainly, Saddam has found it useful to have some client terrorist groups [on] hand. And Abu Nidal obviously had a lot of affinity with Iraq," Wilkinson said.

Hmmm.

Hmmm. What are we hmmming about?

Very true, Iraq WAS destabilising the region by supporting the PLO. But I don't see why Iraq should be singled out for special attention here becase every single Arab country in the ME, the Persians, and you the Americans, are shaking the same boat.

The concept of 'everyone else does it so why can't I' is not an acceptable excuse. I already mentioned that I think that SA and others should be dealt with in one way or another. But I see you agree in essence now.

I only agree with the following: the region is unstable because of interference in the I/P conflict by many countries, yours included. I do NOT agree that the I/P conflict can be used for invading Iraq [or any other ME country].

What are you talking about? I asked you several questions while showing the manner in which both Iraq and the US served the UN. Please don't dodge my questions.

Does the US REALLY consider attempts to get more oil out of the country as something that destabilises the region?

Yes, when the money that comes from that oil is not used for humanitarian needs but is either stached or used for military purposes.

Proof?

He was only able to sell his oil so he could feed his people, instead his people starved (as humanitarian groups liked to remind us as if its our fault) and the infrastructure of Iraq degraded.

Uhhhmmm....how ISN'T this the fault of the UN sanctions? Were they suffering like this BEFORE 91?

It also seems like you're suffering from some sort of delusion that Iraq should have invested everything she got into food and infrastructure. What about her military? Would the US or UN have defended Iraq if the Kurds where to have attacked? Methinks not.

Not to sound patronising, but running a country is tricky. You have to look after the people, but also the countries interests. And sometimes they don't align. It would NOT have been in Iraq's interests to let her military slide, especially with so many enemies.

And if violating UN resolutions is an automatic destabiliser, wasn't your country destabilising the region too by enforcing illegal no-fly zones?

What UN resolution specificly outlawed the no fly zones? Honestly, I don't know?

UN Resolution 687. Be careful now, do not try running back with some silly notion that just because the words "no fly zones" isn't there, they're legal. PLEASE read the resolution.

Well it should be "all" IMO. Why is it acceptable that the US gets to pick and chose? Can't you see how destabilising that is for the rest of the world?

I think it should be none but I digress, the UN didn't choose and there by the US had to make the choice. Ten years, 17 resolutions, no change in the situation. If anything the UN unwillingness to make a decision was as destabilizing as Iraqs actions.

Rubbish. But I don't have the time or desire to start another argument which has been done to death.

Exactly. Concession that the US was destabilising the Middle East through incursions into Iraqi air space and engaging the Iraqi's and thus violating several UN resolutions, accepted.

Awaiting the specific resolution that is in violation with no-fly zones.

So you really ARE expecting a resolution with the words "no-fly zones" ...will this do?

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

How else was Saddam meant to pass on the money? In person?

Middle East Mail service? Anything but a terrorist group. If he sent it via the UN I would shrug it off that he's just an asshole. He is sending the money via a terror group that obviously has some semblence of ties with his goverment or he wouldn't be giving the money to them to deliever.

Mail service! Through the UN! Bwwwhahahahah!!!

"Trial" within your context; through the next elections. Please be more careful.

Both me and the article were talking about weather he'd be canned in the election and you jump in with trial. Not trial by election, just trial. You be more careful please.

What other bloody trail did you think I meant?

My sincere apologies then.

Acepted.

Ok.

[Knife]

How?

How having the exact same guy who invaded Kuwait still in office after ten years? Come on.

...yes? Penny for your half-finished thought?

Wilkinson said also that there is a small possibility that Saddam's regime came to consider Nidal an embarrassment and eliminated him to send a signal that the government no longer chooses to harbor his brand of terrorism. "Again that, you know, may seem to have a certain plausibility, but I'm not convinced by the reasoning, because in the past, certainly, Saddam has found it useful to have some client terrorist groups [on] hand. And Abu Nidal obviously had a lot of affinity with Iraq," Wilkinson said.

The possibility that Saddam turned against Nidal after he'd been there and moved to eliminate him. Various reports say between one and bullet ridden. Now one bullet COULD indicate suicide but it could also indicate an assasination. Bullet ridden indicates that it wasn't suicide.

I only agree with the following: the region is unstable because of interference in the I/P conflict by many countries, yours included. I do NOT agree that the I/P conflict can be used for invading Iraq [or any other ME country].

But you just said;

Very true, Iraq WAS destabilising the region by supporting the PLO. But I don't see why Iraq should be singled out for special attention here becase every single Arab country in the ME, the Persians, and you the Americans, are shaking the same boat.

Proof?

With out digging through all the articles, may I put forward the claim of just about every lefty hummanitarian organizations allegations that America is starving Iraqis. Even though durring this, the UN initiated the oil for food programe.

Uhhhmmm....how ISN'T this the fault of the UN sanctions? Were they suffering like this BEFORE 91?

No, its the fault of the leadership of Iraq for not complying with the UN mandates.

It also seems like you're suffering from some sort of delusion that Iraq should have invested everything she got into food and infrastructure. What about her military? Would the US or UN have defended Iraq if the Kurds where to have attacked? Methinks not.

Iraq was supposed to under the oil for food programe. Food and medicine.

UN Resolution 687. Be careful now, do not try running back with some silly notion that just because the words "no fly zones" isn't there, they're legal. PLEASE read the resolution.

688 actually. I have been boning up on it this morning.

So you really ARE expecting a resolution with the words "no-fly zones" ...will this do?

Actually yes, a resolution with the issue of no-fly zones would be just fine. All this wrangleing over if the no-fly zones are illegal or not would be cleared up if the UN would take on the issue. 687 doesn't adress the issue and the loop hole (or so the US says) for the no-fly zones are in 688.

Mail service! Through the UN! Bwwwhahahahah!!!

I thought it funny too.

What other bloody trail did you think I meant?

You said originally;

Well then. Let the preparations for his trail begin!

That doesn't sound like a comment on 'trial by election' rather a statement of 'lets get the impeachment going'.