|
|
Post by JWK on Apr 26, 2003 21:33:17 GMT -5
First of all, this is not a post aimed at harassing the US, or Americans, its just that Bush seems intent on making a volitile situation in the Middle east. First up, attacking Iraq is foolish is Bush's goals really were to irradicate terrorism. Historically, Hussains's ruthless regime has been the regions main enemy of the Wahhabi strain of Islam that inspired Bin Laden, the Teliban and the september 11 hijackings. And get this, Iran has allways been the most reliable sponsor of the Tajik forces within the northern alliance- esp during the 1990's, when pakistan and the US chose to support some truly ghastly alternatives, up to and including the taliban. The northern alliance frontline forces in the war against terror have excellent reason to regard Iran very fondly- being monetarily reliant. Iran if you forget was condemned by Bush as part of the 'axis of evil" that sponsors terrorism worldwide, but the forces that the US worked with in Afghanistan(and who bore the brunt of casualties and spilled blood for the cause) are in close cahoots with Iran, who happens to be the sworn enemy of Saddam Hussain. Thus, in the name of fighting militant Islam, the US is aligning itself- in military reality- with the seedbed of revolutionary Islam and against the most secular country in the middle east. go figure. If the west is serious about containing Islamic fundamentalism (Of which most of the alleged "terror networks" are born), then logically the US should be seeking an alliance with Saddam, not trying to topple him. Saddam has been fighting Islamic fundamentalism for 30 years, the reason the US aligned themselves with him in the 80's was because he was judged(correctly) as a bulwark against Iran. If Bush is serious about war on terror, the last thing he should be doing is going after Iraq, removing Hussain will not only create the potential for the rise of islamic fundamentalists in Iraq itself, but also destabilise modern arab leaders in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is less deadly then it may seem(i wrote a bit about it in the Bush Vs Churchill thread) as when Baghdad and Kofi Annan met to discuss letting Weapons inspectors back into Iraq, Baghdad was open to the idea, so long as some of the US imposed sanctions were lifted(which by the way have effectively killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians through economic starvation and imposed poverty) but Kofi was forced to walk away from the talks as he was being prevented by the US to adress real security issues. The thing is, if the weapons inspectors are let back into Iraq and find little or no "Weapons of mass destuction", which is quite possible(seeing as how no-one has provided any real proof that these weapons exist) then the US would be left without a leg to stand on in its goal to take out Saddam, aside from Bush's personal vendetta. So if The US could not be there to fight terrorism, then it would have to take out Saddam to restore democracy to the people. Once Hussain was removed from power the real problems would begin as if they were really serious on democracy, that would mean one of the Shia majority would most likely be elected, and considering that in neighbouring Iran the revolutionary Shia reigeme is empowered, this could have drastic consequences. Hmm, im rambling, but i think i got across the fact that i think to invade Iraq would be sheer folly The above was the opening post in 'did someone say Iraq' and was written on sep 7th 2002 there would be problems if he is taken out, he comes from an ethnic minority(17% i think) and like i said before, unless the US wants one of the Shia leaders(who are of similar mindset to the Iranian people, who are Shia as well, and part of the Axis of evil) to get into power they would have to install a puppet politician much like mohammed Karzai in Afghanistan(Whose controll of the country is fairly much non-existant outside of the kabul city limits, with warlord fiefdoms battling again) The region would fall into dissarray, and if a Shia got into power it would inflame ralations with Turkey, Egypt etc. And as i said before as well, this would not be a conflict like the Gulf war, where Saddam had vast expanses of land to defend, it would be one where he withdrew into the cities and effectively disarmed the US' military advantages in the form of tanks and jets, because to use these is densely populated areas would mean high civilian casualties, which im sure the US and Brit do not want. also from sep 7. |
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Apr 26, 2003 21:46:23 GMT -5
so... what have we seen so far in post saddam Iraq?
No weapons of mass destruction found...
civilian casualties because saddams supporters pulled back into densely populated civilian areas...
A democratic Iraq? Ppphhht! The US is in the process of installing another puppet leader, and Colin Powell has openly stated that he will not allow a regime to get into power that is like minded to that of the iranian regime.
The Shia are out in the streets calling for the ousting of American troops, and for a unified islamic Iraq. If the majority Shia were to get there way, and an islamic leadership, then it would be one that is inclined to be friendly to there Iranian neighbours. Since America has publicly stated that they wont let this happen....
We are starting to see some of the consequences of invading a nation(and it was an invasion as the grounds they based the assault on have so far yet to be proven) in an unstable region.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 27, 2003 1:28:02 GMT -5
In less than 3 months ALL foreigners in Iaq will become targets of sniper type killings, there will be numerous killings between the Iraqis themselves, I give Chilabi less than a year before he runs or is killed.
The much awaited "Road Map" is a joke and will never get off the ground, which was well known to bush and his zionist leaders from day one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Apr 27, 2003 17:20:37 GMT -5
so... what have we seen so far in post saddam Iraq? No weapons of mass destruction found... civilian casualties because saddams supporters pulled back into densely populated civilian areas.... [/u] LONDON, England (AP) -- Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday. Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported. The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational." The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said. Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said. "Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid," the newspaper reported. "After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the name is clearly legible three times in the documents." One of the pages, dated February 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to plans for the trip from Sudan of the unnamed envoy, who is described in the file as a trusted confidant of bin Laden's, the paper said. The document, signed, "MDA," which the newspaper said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis sought to pay for the envoy's costs while in Iraq "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The message to bin Laden "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him," the newspaper quoted the document as saying. The other documents confirm that the envoy traveled from Khartoum in Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998 and that he stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel. The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said. Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials. The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington. One document, dated September 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No surprise .... I'm sure there's much more to come ..... CFF |
|
|
|
Post by glendo on Apr 27, 2003 17:58:53 GMT -5
i dont beleive it. it is planted evidence. i bet they will plant the WMD evidence too.
|
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Apr 27, 2003 18:30:30 GMT -5
i dont beleive it. it is planted evidence. i bet they will plant the WMD evidence too. LOL ..... I have to tell you, while your response isn't unexpected, it certainly came much faster than even I had expected. Let's try this ......  Imagine ... if you will, if the article hadn't been about finding an Iraqi - al Qaeda link. Instead, what if it had read something like the following - would you still say you don't believe it .... and it was planted? Talk about a damned if you do, damned if you don't attitude ..... *chuckle* *Please take this in the humourous sense it was created ....... if you can't laugh a little ... what's the point ?? /sarcasm ON from CNN - April 27/03 .... Report: Iraqi Certificate of NO WMD Found[/u] LONDON, England (AP) -- Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence that no WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) were ever possessed by the Iraqi's, a newspaper reported Sunday. Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that the Iraqi regieme, under the control of Saddam Hussein, never had any weapons of mass destruction, the newspaper reported. The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational." Journalists found a three-sentence file on WMD in a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said. "Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out the fact they never had any WMD, using white correcting fluid," the newspaper reported. "After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the facts become clearly legible three times in the documents." One of the sentences, dated February 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to suggestions that the Iraqi's had WMD as propoganda, the paper said. The document, signed, "MDA," which the newspaper said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis "wished they had the technical know-how to create such WMD's, but they were still trying to unlock the science of electricity and the Internet." Other documents confirm that Saddam Hussien and his sons were wonderful people and that they often stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel. The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between Aliens from outer space and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said. ;D CFF |
|
|
|
Post by rick1776 on Apr 27, 2003 19:16:06 GMT -5
I can only assume that US military inteligence is based upon documentation dating back to 1776, which apparently was a successful campaign. Is that documentation however relevant in the middle east?
I suppose Bush has secured oil rights (at a human cost) and in that respect hes done the job he set out to do.
Has he ridded the world of terroism? I think not and if anything his actions will probably insite more. Whenever you suppress people and deny them their rights you tend to instill hatred. To believe that the people of Iraq are now free by replacing one dictator by another US sanctioned one is a little naive.
cheers
rick1776
|
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Apr 28, 2003 1:35:35 GMT -5
Forgive me for being sceptical about the neutrality of that article... Not only is it all an emotive expansion on a minor find, but it manages to link all three of the most hated entities in the US right now, Osama, Saddam and France.  This is written for the everyday american who does not want to look in depth at the situation, and who is easily manipulated through the open wound of vulnerability they suffer from after september 11. The fact of the matter is that Saddam, while a vile man, would not get into bed with Osama. He hates everything Osama and the teliban stand for... he fought major and bloody wars against islamic fundamentalism(Iran) and suppressed his own muslim population(the same majority that are today marching in the streets for an Islamic Iraq) A 'link' found does not automatically mean they were striving for the same goals(hell, US and German ambassadors met during WW2, by the logic of that article then the US should have been dubbed evil by association!) What im saying is that even if a meeting took place that does not mean that they were automatically in cahoots. LOL i love how they made great expansions on the possibilities and then added this as a footnote. Just to follow it up with another emotive pullstring, to tug on national pride and get the blood boiling again by demonising the French. Using specific quotes like this shows clearly the articles bias. Excuse my bitterness, but i can't see how the majority of 286 million people can lap this sort of thing up without so much as a thought to question, or at least to see the use of emotive languave to manipulate emotion. Bah! I'll be bitter and cranky before my time!  |
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Apr 28, 2003 4:33:48 GMT -5
JWK, excellent post that. almost took the words right out of my mouth errr, i mean my keyboard... whatever. now cheer up and stay young  smokin |
|
|
|
Post by JWK on May 1, 2003 7:37:16 GMT -5
US troops open fire on crowds twice in 2 days. The first at an anti-US march... and the second on a march protesting the killing of 14 people in the previous march. At the second 2 people died. the US says the crowds "threw rocks and engaged in gunfire first" Iraqi's claim they had no weapons... ...whatever the case, not good PR  |
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on May 1, 2003 7:49:27 GMT -5
The rules of engagement anyone? that was a good propaganda movie. deprived me of sex for 2 weeks (argued with my gf because of it)
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by justan on May 1, 2003 21:01:09 GMT -5
The States has been fighting WW4 since 911. Get your heads around it, believe it, accept it. They are at war!
Bad PR or good PR it doesn't matter.
Until Iraq gets a Puppet government like Germany got a puppet government, like Japan got a puppet government and like Korea got a puppet government they will stay in Iraq.
Question: Now that the States is leaving the land of the prophet, does this mean Osama Bin Laden has no more arguement with America and will leave American interests alone ? yea right
|
|
|
|
Post by who won on May 1, 2003 23:17:44 GMT -5
the best thing the US can do for its own security is get the hell out of other nations business.
Get out of Saudia.
Get out of Korea and the hatred will turn to respect.
No one wants another nation running their business,
The British thought they could civilise the world, but 100 years before the US they seem to have learned.
The French too.
Little did they know, their empire building was the seed for global terrorism.
The US somehow do not appear to understand that.
get out.
On a basic level, there are thingsd natiuons can do. but dictating the future and ruling future of a nation breeds anger and hatred. Who wanhts to be thew subject of an alien nations desire? What kind of self respect should one have?
When the US shoots protesters, they may as well be shot by the party they hated that governed them before.
Get out
Your aim is achieved
gratitude will be won if the US gets out sooner rather than lkater
|
|
|
|
Post by justan on May 2, 2003 10:31:53 GMT -5
Who Won A tad upset Get used to it. PAX AMERICANA is here to stay for awhile, at least until the next American election. and then who knows? The Americans are leaving Saudi Arabia. Korea I believe that South Korean government wants them to stay. The Yanks say they will leave Iraq when they have a secular democratic system in place, meaning last vote doesn't win forever. That could take some time. |
|
|
|
Post by justan on May 2, 2003 12:27:58 GMT -5
On 911 as we watched the events unfold on TV, I was both horrified and fascinated.
For some reason I had a flashback of an old movie I had seen on late night TV. It was called TORA TORA TORA. The story of Pearl Harbour.
In it two Japanese sailors were talking about the raid that had just concluded.
One commented on how successful it was. The other one said that all they had managed to do was to awaken a sleeping giant.
How true back then, how true now.
regards
|
|
