You are pointing this out to ME? How ironic. haha Anyway, Germany was not riven by the presence of three major ethnic groups that were historical enemies. So your analogy (and suddenly you are making World War II analogies!) does not seem apt.
[quote]
I did not say Allawi does not have his closet of skeletons, or that he is somehow above suspicion. You are so casual, or was it careless, with inferences and assumptions. [/quote]
Um, Allawi was “one of us” if you get my drift. So what are you inferring that I am assuming or assuming that I am inferring?
zzzz? You are becoming quite the killer bee aren’t you? Ironic. No. Droll. No. Senile. No. Amusing in an unintentional way. No. Naively clever. No. Oh retarded. I guess that is the word that I will have to settle for (apologies for ending my sentence with a proposition).
No. No. I have never said the Bush team had “expertise” in “nation-building.” The British were so much better than we. No. I said it was necessary to remove Saddam and determine once and for all that he would not be a threat. We did. Now, it was my hope that something better could come after him and that was hardly a high bar to raise. We will see. The fact that you are not more supportive of our efforts in Iraq, however, leads me to wonder why not. I mean you can be against the invasion and against the Bush administration but if you are against our efforts in Iraq NOW, what is the morality governing your decision? Ah bit difficult that. Please refer to Games for more cynical invective. The two of you can make quite the pair of nodding know-it-alls fiddling while the first Islamofascist missile comes streaking over the sky. Bye bye Berlin.
You are pointing this out to ME? How ironic. haha Anyway, Germany was not riven by the presence of three major ethnic groups that were historical enemies. So your analogy (and suddenly you are making World War II analogies!) does not seem apt.
[quote]
I did not say Allawi does not have his closet of skeletons, or that he is somehow above suspicion. You are so casual, or was it careless, with inferences and assumptions. [/quote]
Um, Allawi was “one of us” if you get my drift. So what are you inferring that I am assuming or assuming that I am inferring?
zzzz? You are becoming quite the killer bee aren’t you? Ironic. No. Droll. No. Senile. No. Amusing in an unintentional way. No. Naively clever. No. Oh retarded. I guess that is the word that I will have to settle for (apologies for ending my sentence with a proposition).
No. No. I have never said the Bush team had “expertise” in “nation-building.” The British were so much better than we. No. I said it was necessary to remove Saddam and determine once and for all that he would not be a threat. We did. Now, it was my hope that something better could come after him and that was hardly a high bar to raise. We will see. The fact that you are not more supportive of our efforts in Iraq, however, leads me to wonder why not. I mean you can be against the invasion and against the Bush administration but if you are against our efforts in Iraq NOW, what is the morality governing your decision? Ah bit difficult that. Please refer to Games for more cynical invective. The two of you can make quite the pair of nodding know-it-alls fiddling while the first Islamofascist missile comes streaking over the sky. Bye bye Berlin.[/quote]
You should stop pretending that you actually give a hoot about people in other countries.
The analogy of the German example, and I’m sure your realize analogies do not require identical situations, hence they are only analogous (look it up in the dictionary while you’re thinking about relevance), is that the western powers did a small evil (not purging the Nazi apparatus) over what they perceived to be a greater evil (the communist threat and hence the need for a strong W.German ally. Now, tell me, Fred, can you grasp the notion of analogy?
Allawi was on our payroll, yes, but he was using us as much as the other way around.
Actually, if you go back to my posts and actually read them, I did not state that once the invasion was initiated, we should leave prematurely. On the contrary, I have always maintained that the invaders should not leave a power vacuum in Iraq over which the rest of the ME would then engage in a proxy war, and make it like Lebanon. On the other hand, let’s stop pretending that the White House and Washington has some master plan, but instead has bungled it from step to step. Once again, the fat heads/think tanks/pencil pushers who think like you have made it FUBAR. Stop making it a political sideshow, an opportunity for your industry friends to get fat on private, inefficient, and no-oversight contracts. Just get the job done and get out. But arrogance such as yours will just make certain that Iraq is worse off than before.
So your defense of your analogy is that while it is a poor one, by definition, it is still an analogy? Okay. Got me on that one. I admit that your analogy is poor. We are in agreement.
So he is an innocent victim of the evil US and its inept machinations?
God. Must I?
[quote]
I did not state that once the invasion was initiated, we should leave prematurely.[/quote]
Half the time, I have no idea what you are saying. Not leave prematurely. Okay. We agree. I guess.
Gosh. Can you point me to a few of these quotes stating such? I seem to have missed out.
bungled… okay… bungled… okay… bungled… okay…
So Bechtel and Halliburton are still in Iraq? getting rich?
??? but not prematurely? haha What are you smoking?
Arrogance like mine may be preferable to vacuous stupidity like yours. I hope I did not criticize you prematurely. I know how you hate anything to occur prematurely…
Fred, are you at least willing to admit that four years on “we” had a much more realistic view of where Iraq would be at this point than “you guys” did?
Depends. Tell me where you think Saddam would be today, doing what and with whom if we had NOT invaded? Would sanctions have held up? What would have happened to all the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia? I will not deny that Iraq is a mess but I still see the whole thing as being necessary. I also think that the Sunnis needed a dose of reality and that they are getting one. Perhaps, only when the fight has gone on for the needed length of time will the parties finally come together to achieve some sort of peaceful and equitable settlement. I am all for giving war a chance to coin O’Rourke’s book title and I think that the Israelis and Palestinians, rather than being split up, need to be thrown together to sort this mess out once and for all. I am tired of the Palestinians and their grievances. I am also tired of those of the Sunnis and even those of the Iranians. Unfortunately, their problems have become our problems, and that is unacceptable to me. They used to export their problems to the West; I think that we need to send them back and let them deal with them. I think that is happening now. When and if the Muslim world and Middle East are finally ready for modernity, then we can all move ahead. Until then, there is no use coddling them in their unenlightened views.
So, what’s your view on where to go forward? I hear a lot about what went wrong. What do you want to do now? stick it out? or cut and run? and for how long are you willing to stick this out? And under what circumstances?
I am always very confused as to the willingness of the Democrats to fight in Afghanistan but not Iraq. I fail to see the difference. I am not suggesting that you subscribe to those views, but…
I am so tired of the “cut and run” line it needs balance maybe “stay and die”
There is a huge difference. The enemy was and is in Afghanistan, more so now than ever. The americans had their chance to take them down on many occasions but money and men were diverted to Iraq. Is it possible Fred that you believe there is still WMD’s in Iraq? That Saddam was the mastermind behind 911? That Bin Laden and Saddam were best buddies? That the americans didn’t sell Saddam the biological weapons to attack Iran and the Kurds and all his other domestic enemies?
Don’t be confused by a possible justified war in Afghanistan and a personal vendetta by baby bu$h in Iraq.
Iraq is broken…america broke it. There is no easy fix but the Iraq people themselves are asking for the occupiers to leave.
Since america is spending billions of dollars on this adventure why not bring your guys home, let them heal, spend some time with the family and write Iraq checks for the equivalent to the money that would be spent if you were still there. See what they can do with their country.
Of course this might be the reason you would want to stay in a war stance.
Which enemy? Define yourself. Taliban? al Qaeda? Islamofascists? Islamofascist terrorists?
Prove that.
Yes, I think that it is possible.
Nope. Never did.
Nope. That they might cooperate with each other is a different matter.
The US sold Saddam bioagents. Saddam never used biological weapons against anyone anywhere. He attacked Iran and the Kurds with chemical weapons. These were sold to him by Germany.
I think that you seem to be the one that is confused here and supremely confused at that.
Iraq has been broke since Saddam started the war with Iran in 1979/80. It was broken even more by his invasion of Kuwait and the allied response. It was broken even more by sanctions and Saddam’s unwillingness to comply with ceasefire requirements.
There is no easy fix and the Iraqi government which was duly elected for the first time ever by its people has asked the US to stay.
Strange that al Qaeda calls Iraq the central front. Do you dispute that they view it as the central front? If thugs are attacking a nation, the best solution is to give the nation to the thugs? Would this be akin to the police turning over banks to robbers so that there can be “peace?”
I am sure you are far too clever for me or anyone else on this forum for that matter. Smirk. Double smirk.
The Taliban and al Qaeda are the reason most of the countries went to war in Afghanistan.
[quote]The americans had their chance to take them down on many occasions but money and men were diverted to Iraq.
Prove that. [/quote]
I admit that I can only go by the media reports that I have read over the last 6 years, in this respect we are in the same position as you cannot prove me wrong. Please feel free to try.
There is very little chance that a secularist like Saddam and an extremist like Bin Laden would “cooperate” with each other. Especially with Saddam in bed with the U.S.
UH? no that is not the entire truth, Germany and many other countries including the U.S. Both bioagents and chemicals were sold to Iraq, the CIA even gave intelligence to the Iraqies(sp?) on how to use the stuff against Iran in July '84. That was detailed by Bob Woodward and the WAPO in '86. I also remember reading something about an Iraqi national being the head of a chemical company in Florida selling tons of cyanide to Iraq in the 80’s but I cannot prove that.
and if that wasent enough I dug up Senator Riegle’s report on the situation in '94 when the forces in Iraq then found the chemicals that were used against them came from america.
I am by no means far to clever for anyone else on this forum, everyone I have read here has very well thought out positions and arguments and I tip my hat to all of them.
So you won’t mind if the UK pulls out it’s military and withholds further logistical support then. Simple question, Fred.
Yes or no?
[quote=“Fred Smith”]4. Britain hosts US troops because it is in the interests of Britain to do so. When it is not, the US will be out. Britain is nobody’s dog’s body.
[/quote]
Bullshit.
Britain hosts US troops because it’s military and nuclear capabilities are too closely linked to the that of the US.
It is very interesting to note that the US has been pressuring the UK to accept more troops recently in lieu of the ever increasing pressure from the US for the UK to host “Son of Star wars” facilities in the UK.
Obviously, “Son of Star wars” is not a UK priority or even a UK interest.
While I have no problem with US troops in the UK, the US benefits more from it having a presence on the island. The UK is seen as a nice little low cost aircraft carrier from which to project forces from.
Not quite. But it has frowned upon and pressured European countries to cancel many arms development projects. If this is encouraging European countries to develop and invest in better or bigger militaries, it really is a strange way to go about it.
The point being that with a weak Europe militarily (one which still can’t be trusted), the US is able to project more dominance into the areas it needs to without any resistance. This is of crucial importance to its middle east objectives where “disagreeing nations” are of little threat to US interests. Some academics on both sides of the Atlantic agree that it’s working very much in the US’ favour for Europe not to have strong militaries at present.
I could go on and on with lists of individual technologies which have been absorbed by the US, pre- war to now. I know exactly where and when many of the technologies were developed and which countries developed them.
Recent examples include much of the technology for your JSF project and the Trident missile system, all of which have to be bought from the US.
Now I understand that British (and other) companies have made money developing technology for these systems, but the fact that during arms procurement the government has to buy back the technology from the US; and the fact that the US holds the key to these systems for further development is not very fair, especially as when upgrades are concerned, as the US stands to gain billions for technology, much of it that it didn’t even develop.
The US over the past 30 or so years has been trying to pressure many of it’s allies to buy US and cancel there own home grown projects. Many of them, including the UK, have - and at a price. Locked into nuclear capabilities and arms technology supplied to the US, the UK has now little choice politically to support the US in its aims around the globe. I wish that UK ministers had the backbone to stand up to the US 40 years ago to keep developing it’s own independent nuclear technology and missile systems instead of working alongside the US.
Interesting that the Trident system is up for renewal soon. I bet the contractors Stateside are rubbing their hands together with glee.
Am I the only one who can see an ulterior motive here?
Utter bollocks. See above.
Ideally, I’d like to see 3.2% GDP spent on the military with less privatisation. I would like to see further distance from the UN and closer ties to NATO. I would also like to see a further distance from an EU rapid reaction force.
The UK is perfectly capable of spending 3.2% on the military, but instead under the Labour Government, most of what could be spent on the military is instead wasted on keeping French farmers subsidised, the Euro afloat and the Germans on benefit, so yes, the UK is a dog’s body.
Not only this, I would like to see further technology transparency for UK companies developing arms alongside the US. You can see what we have and are free to use/copy/redevelop it. It is only fair that we see what you have and are allowed to do the same. This is a very one sided agreement as it stands.
Not only this. The UK should not back down from developing home grown material in return for discount purchases from the US. Billions of pounds have been wasted in the past developing arms only for the government to bow down to US pressure to buy US, often for mediocre material (see apache supplied to UK) which is not up to the job; or is for a totally different role.
I would also like to see further distance from the US. While I firmly believe that the UK military should still work alongside the US in certain theatres, the UK should be able to “unplug” itself from US military involvement seamlessly.
Unfortunately, with the damage that Tony Blair has done to the armed forces during the past 10 years, there is little chance that this will ever happen.
and the al Qaeda leadership has called Iraq ground central, the main theater, etc. etc. So, IF you think that al Qaeda is the reason why most nations went to war in Afghanistan, why not Iraq which the organization itself has called the main theater?
You made the assertion that the US diverted forces from Afghanistan and somehow hindered our effort in Afghanistan. YOU prove YOUR point. When you have something, then I will respond to it. That is how it normally works when YOU make an assertion.
Why? Had Saddam not cooperated with terrorists before? Had Saddam not met with any al Qaeda representatives EVER?
Cannot prove that? Bit of a refrain for you isn’t it? So go to www.iraqwatch.org and check out the details of who sold what and when to Saddam. Let me know if you find anything to support your claims. What you will find from these two sites is that the US sold less than 1 percent of Saddam’s conventional weapons to him and mostly in 1982-83 when Iran looked set to take Basra and perhaps keep heading down the Gulf. The US also sold Saddam less than 3.5 percent of his chemical, missile and nuclear technology, equipment and supplies. Germany sold 50 percent. OF the US share, however, a large portion was made up by supercomputers which “could be used” for dual purposes as well as other equipment that “could be used” for dual purposes including military. Of all the nations, Germany was considered instrumental to his production of these wmds, none of the other nations even came close and certainly not the US. While the US did sell Saddam a number of bioagents, given that he never deployed biologicial weapons, the matter is less serious in my view.
1994? What was going on in 1994? Yes, please do supply Senator Riegle’s report on that…
I was being sarcastic when I suggested that you were far too clever…
[quote]
Your smirks however are very familiar [/quote]
and the al Qaeda leadership has called Iraq ground central, the main theater, etc. etc. So, IF you think that al Qaeda is the reason why most nations went to war in Afghanistan, why not Iraq which the organization itself has called the main theater?
[/quote]
Only after the U.S. and her lapdogs invaded Iraq. You are moving the history chronology goalposts, Freda, to support your ‘argument’.
Not at all. I did not state that al Qaeda was IN Iraq prior to the invasion but they are there now. SO, ERGO, the same nations will want to fight it there as equally they want to in Afghanistan. Right? AND it is not as if al Qaeda would not be no where. IF we were not fighting them in Iraq, we would be fighting them somewhere else. More in Afghanistan? Back in Algeria? In Europe?
Fred, you totally avoided the question, or did you forget how to read again. Look up the dictionary yet?
[quote]Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that “mistakes were made” after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.
“The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces,” Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television. [/quote]
Of course, mistakes have been made. Mistakes would have equally been made had we not invaded and attempted to continue the sanctions regime. How soon everyone forgets how much of a lightning rod this was at the time. First, it was all the starving women and children without sufficient medical care and now it is all the ones being blown up by car bombs. Of course, in neither case was the primary force for bad the US, but nonetheless you would not know that listening to the discourse here and elsewhere. I almost ALMOST would prefer the US to suddenly go isolationist just for oh five years just to see what would happen. Of course, we would suffer a lot from that too, but I would just love to see the absolute terror that would ensue when people really understood what would happen under those circumstances and what a force for good the US is. I am also amazed that the violence and instability in Iraq is blamed on the US to the degree that it is. Millions have died in Iraq; there were three wars; Saddam was an absolute pig. Today, the ones causing the violence are to be “rewarded,” while the ones attempting to stop the violence are to be criticized for not planning better? And if you think the violence in Iraq is bad now, I wonder what would happen when and if the US finally decides to leave ala the Democrat’s “plan.” You ain’t seen nothing yet baby. I also seem to recall a time when the Democrats were soundly behind removing Saddam once and for all. Now, they are fluttering with the public-relations wind or claiming that the plan was good, but the execution was so poor and inept. This was the same old song and dance with Hurricane Katrina and the federal response. Where are the objective barometers? Where is the constructive criticism? Where is the support that comes from a full and comprehensive understanding of the stakes involved?
Anyway, we will not be leaving Iraq now; we will not be leaving in 10 years. We are stuck for the long haul and in the long run it will be good for all concerned.
[quote=“fred smith”]Of course, mistakes have been made. Mistakes would have equally been made had we not invaded and attempted to continue the sanctions regime. How soon everyone forgets how much of a lightning rod this was at the time. First, it was all the starving women and children without sufficient medical care and now it is all the ones being blown up by car bombs. Of course, in neither case was the primary force for bad the US, but nonetheless you would not know that listening to the discourse here and elsewhere. I almost ALMOST would prefer the US to suddenly go isolationist just for oh five years just to see what would happen. Of course, we would suffer a lot from that too, but I would just love to see the absolute terror that would ensue when people really understood what would happen under those circumstances and what a force for good the US is. I am also amazed that the violence and instability in Iraq is blamed on the US to the degree that it is. Millions have died in Iraq; there were three wars; Saddam was an absolute pig. Today, the ones causing the violence are to be “rewarded,” while the ones attempting to stop the violence are to be criticized for not planning better? And if you think the violence in Iraq is bad now, I wonder what would happen when and if the US finally decides to leave ala the Democrat’s “plan.” You ain’t seen nothing yet baby. I also seem to recall a time when the Democrats were soundly behind removing Saddam once and for all. Now, they are fluttering with the public-relations wind or claiming that the plan was good, but the execution was so poor and inept. This was the same old song and dance with Hurricane Katrina and the federal response. Where are the objective barometers? Where is the constructive criticism? Where is the support that comes from a full and comprehensive understanding of the stakes involved?
Anyway, we will not be leaving Iraq now; we will not be leaving in 10 years. We are stuck for the long haul and in the long run it will be good for all concerned.[/quote]
Again, I think you miss the point. No need to get all defensive.
No solution is perfect. Fine, we’re not asking for perfection. We’re asking for accountability and not denying that plans didn’t work.
The administration had no plan. let’s admit it. they came in unprepared, thinking it was a cakewalk. There was miscommunication between the State Dept. and the Pentagon. The Pentagon was arrogant to the point of incompetent. Washington tried to micromanage. To use another German history example, it was ANALOGOUS to the French upping the Maginot Line when the German switched to mobile combined tactics.
No one ever said Saddam should stay in power. Let’s stop waving that straw man (a term you oft like to use) in our faces. It was the way things were justified. But I believe that many of us said that once there was a power vacuum, the Allies had to stick it out.
And in all this, I blame the Iraqis themselves too. They’re trying to take advantage of this situation to consolidate their power, engage in sectarian violence that had been suppressed like in Yugoslavia (which we seem to be avoiding, and in a pullout premature would probably lead to a similar situation, different scale perhaps). Meanwhile, they bite the hand that feeds, manipulating the people as always with a easy vilification of the US/West in order to distract the Iraqi people from their own problems or the machinations, failures, corruption, incompetence, greed of their leaders.
Was responding to JB. See my answer. Read his question. Understand?
All ears…
Not my intention.
But the plan you seem to have had a problem with most was disbanding the armed forces. This had occurred without any action on the part of the US government and there is no way that a democratic Iraq with the Kurds and Shias now in control was going to accept Sunni control of the armed forces. Do you see that?
The problem is really that you always fight the last war right? There was a plan. The plan was for the Iraqis not to become overly dependent on the US for peacekeeping ala Kosovo and Bosnia. It was a much bigger country. Also, given the Muslim and Arab sensibilities of foreign armies on their soil, how exactly do you think that a much bigger “footprint” would have gone over. Finally, more forces would not have stopped the insurgency. Better intelligence does. No insurgency has been defeated by more forces. Finally, this was not supposed to end with Iraq. We were supposed to at the very minimum roll up Syria. That we have not has contributed greatly to the problem. This is a regional war. We have been playing defense and that is not the way to win. Iran must be taken out. Syria must go. I have said this all along. After the PR black eye of not finding wmds, we were constrained in our course of action. We could no longer move with justification against the other two. That merely underlines, however, how convinced we all were that we would find wmds. Once we did, we would be able to get the support of the rest of the world to move on Iran and Syria. I truly believed this and that is why I find this “Bush Lied” argument so facile.
Oh JB. Come one now. Just when and how was anyone going to move against Saddam? You know the drill. You have seen the UN in action. You have seen the Europeans, Canadians, et al and how and when have you ever seen them act? This is really so ludicrous that it is beyond belief. How many more years (12 with Iraq) do you think that the Euro 3 will continue to engage in “dialogue” with Iran? Do you think that Germany, France and the UK would ever move to act against Iran? and if so, what do they have to act with?
I had been more optimistic, perhaps foolishly so, but I still go back to Kenneth Pollack’s book on why we needed to invade Iraq despite knowing all of these things and he predicted full well what we would face. I do believe that many in the administration had read his work and were familiar with his scenarios so I disagree with this “no plan” myth. I am a neocon yes? I always knew that we would be there for the long haul with at least 35,000 to 50,000 troops for 60 years. I have consistently stated this from the very beginning. Why would I do so had I not perceived the conditions on the ground that would have necessitated doing so? The fact is that the Iraqis like the Iranians are not like us. THAT is again, precisely why given their “sensibilities” we had to go in with a small footprint and turn over operations to them as soon as possible. While we have seen the negatives of that, we have not yet perceived the positives because I believe in the long run we have forced the Iraqis to pay a terrible price to grow up and that is precisely what they need to do. Is it fair? Is it kind? no. no. no. but there is no alternative. Now, you admit that we are “stuck” and I would go so far as to even call this a “quagmire” of sorts as we are facing a civil war no matter how you slice it. But it is not a civil war that we have to lose. It is not a hopeless situation. We need, however, to distract attention from Iraq and those players who act there with such impunity by raising the heat in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We have never done so to the degree needed to convince these actors of our deadly seriousness. They must be dealt with brutally. Too bad (half joking only) we cannot bomb some of our own news agencies to send that point home loud and clear.
after which he provides this quote… Maybe you have read it?
[quote]Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that “mistakes were made” after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.
“The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces,” Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television. [/quote]
