Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-03-21 06:24:18

PatMeebles said:

Nobody at the UN was laughing at Colin Powell.

Then you didn't see the footage that will forever be etched in my mind: Colin Powell, with a look of anger and frustration, as the UN eruped with laughter in response to the WMD case he was presenting. I remember seeing that on TV and thinking: "How could anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, give these WMD arguments any credence?" Despite our many conflicts with UN interests over the years, I cannot think of one instance in the organization's 48 year history where people openly laughed the United States and the arguments it was presenting. This should have been a red flag to everyone, but apparantly, this footage was not repeated 1% as much as the Dean Scream by our supposedly "liberal" news media.

PatMeebles said:

France gave us the intel on the alluminum tubes (which led to a really racist cartoon of Condi Rice). In fact, German, French, Jordinian, Russian, etc. intelligence all said that he had the weapons. And the State Department, despite what most people have said, was right on board in believing that Chemical Weapons were there.

I realize that there were officials both in the Democratic Party here as well as in other countries who made such claims. That so many different sources would be complicit in a view that proved to be so utterly false is a reason for both suspicion and concern; the fact that a person like myself, with no resources, could determine from the beginning that Hussein had no WMD's post-9/11 using basic common sense reasoning, is still further reason to be disturbed.

PatMeebles said:

And, if the new documents are found to be authentic (which they're looking to be), Saddam had open ties with Al Qaeda affiliated networks in Asia, and was training people in three locations in Iraq for clandestine operations,

I will shit a brick if such reports are proven authentic.

What made the Iraq/Al Qaeda association seem particularly asinine to me from the outset was that the Middle East has in the last generation been balanced between two major forces: fundamentalist theocracies, and military dictatorships. The fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda would "team up" therefore, defies common sense. (I know there are several instances historically where a shared enemy can make strange bedfellows, but this situation simply does not fit that mold.)

The only possibly credible reports that I have heard on this subject to support your viewpoint say that after having no relations for years, Bin Laden reached out to Iraq for backing in the mid-90's, and despite some minimal low level communication, Iraq ultimately never responded. If these reports are true, this is because Hussein knew that Bin Laden's overtures were certainly duplicitous and deceitful, as the two powers shared diametrically opposed interests in every internal aspect of the region.

PatMeebles said:

and was actively involved in a chemical weapons program as late as 1997.

1997 I could believe. (As I suggested in an earlier post, after Iraq's military embarassment of Kuwait, the economic deterioration from sanctions had a gradual and not immediate effect).

But by the time 9/11 rolled around, Saddam Hussein had no realistic ambition to invade a nursery school. He had his hands full with internal concerns, mainly preserving his power by presenting himself as still an invincible dictator to those under his control. (Ironically, the US used that against him to make the war happen, counting on the fact that he wouldn't save himself by admitting he had no WMD's, because he knew such an admission would have weakened his position internally).

PatMeebles said:

I also don't think that al qaeda will be friends with Iraq at all. 1) Zarqawi has completely ruined that chance and 2) The religious parties didn't win an outright majority, so they need to form a coalition, which means that Islamic fundamentalism will not run the country.

Unless...

1). A full-scale civil war erupts, and the current government collapses

2). The Sunnis can never be brought into the process, and the Shiites vote for fundamentalist leaders in the wake of growing anti-US sentiment

Again, though, this is a case where I sincerely hope the future reflects your optimism more than it does my pessimism.

PatMeebles said:

Now to your last post...

"Was it truly a realist policy to ally ourselves with Hussein in the 80's? When Iraq attacked Iran, the West supported Saddam Hussein, seeing him as the lesser of two evils."

That is a textbook case of realism.

It would have been more realistic to see that supporting the side that attacked first would have many negative consequences, one of which was to strengthen Iran's theocracy, the opposite of our intention. Staying out of the conflict would have been the most realistic strategy, because both Hussein AND Khomeni would have been weaker in the long run had we done so.

In otherwords, your assertion that supporting Iraq against Iran is a textbook case of realism implies that the textbook definition of realism includes shortsightedness. I would argue that foresight into the realistic long-term consequences of our actions is an essential cornerstone of realism.

PatMeebles said:

What you wrote about Iran is really interesting. I knew that the people were fed up; I just didn't know that Iranians were actually able to get away with so much. Do you have any links that goes further into that?

As luck would have it, I just found one last night, which eerily echoes my comments (down to what I said about metal bands being in Iran):

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/iran;_ylt=AngCbYa1oPQxxnb_XIi9H.6LFMsF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg--

PatMeebles said:

The problems with desertion in the Iraqi army lost any real seriousness since they got good at fighting. Yes, there were desertions in the beginning (I think the first falluja assault was a good example), but their morale is high now, especially after successfully diffusing (or delaying, from your point of view) a civil war without any casualties.

I recently posted a thread to rttp which concludes with an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that the US claims of Iraqi troops levels are completely inconsistent and not to be trusted: http://www.returntothepit.com/view.php?formid=27712

PatMeebles said:

Now, your point about Iraqi journalists on the ground brings up a question: If the military were able to buy stories on the front page written by Iraqis, then what's stopping Al Qaeda or anti-Bush AP reporters from doing the same? I'm not saying that's always the case; far from it. I just don't buy all the negativity as well as ALL the optimism,

Agreed.

PatMeebles said:

although I think there's more optimism than negativity in the end.

Every report out of Iraq I have read recently has been negative. For the optimism in Iraq to outweigh the negativity as you suggest, the amount of anti-US propagandist influence would have to be exponentially greater than the pro-US propagandist influence, which would inherentally prove my side of the argument anyway, if you think about it.

PatMeebles said:

I haven't seen any stories on Iraqis not trusting the Iraqi military. I know of one interview with a single iraqi blogger, but that's it.

"Religious and ethnic militias and criminal organizations have infiltrated police in some areas, further undermining the fledgling force's effectiveness and credibility. Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority has accused some units of the Shiite Muslim-dominated force of kidnapping, torturing and murdering Sunnis." Sectarian militias replaced Iraqi government forces in some areas after one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines was bombed. In other areas, Shiite militiamen or members of Sunni insurgent groups have infiltrated police and military units. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/6/06; Knight Ridder, 2/24/06)

That, plus the fact that many people are afraid of the US leaving (as you've pointed out), are clear signs that Iraqis do not trust their military.

[default homepage]

[print][

11:57:33am Apr 27,2024
load time 0.06463 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]