Iraq in ruins
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
Date 20 March 2003 � 1 May 2003
Location Iraq
Result Coalition victory
Ba'athist Iraqi government overthrown
Occupation of Iraq until June 2004
New Iraqi government established
Iraqi insurgency and sectarian conflicts
This is winning a war, and winning it convincingly. If the USA had just left then and not occupied Iraq there would be no question at all on their military success. The problem lied in them staying and fighting against the insurgency and doing it in an incredibly inept and ham fisted way. The war was never about WMDs, it was an action to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic parliamentary government. This would then lead to other Middle Eastern nations looking to Iraq and overthrowing their own dictatorships.
Of course, it didn't work out that way, but to deny the overwhelming military victory because the USA lead an incompetent occupation is ridiculous. No matter how you spin it, the Coalition met all their military goals, and even post invasion the Iraqi government is still in power so they also defeated both the Sunni and Shia insurgencies. If the current insurgency/invasion succeeds, it is against the Iraqi government.* |
WMDs and terrorism NOT the casus belli Iraqi?
WOW, you are a remarkable and magnificent revisionist!!!
from wikipedia ~(link provided)
Coalition expanded intelligence[edit]
On May 30, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."[85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Legal_justification
How is the suppressing of Islamic fundamentalism and militancy in the Middle East going?
Despite many attempts to link the previous government to international terrorism not tangable links to El Qada were found, why?
Because Hussain was doing a terrific job keeping it out of Iraq!
Last edited by 3.14159 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Only if you don't count the Australian ABC, amongst others as the Western Press then yes you have a point.
But shhhh, it's a conspiracy  
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Interestingly, the coalition went into Iraq due to the potential existence of WMD and Saddam's criminal treatment of his own people, oh and those terrorists (which really had nothing to do with Iraq). While in Syria we have a leader who has actually used WMD on his own people and where there most definitely exists a terrorist problem. The former was a flimsy case for war but the coalition did it anyway, the latter a much stronger case, and as yet no action.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: | | Wokko wrote: |
Date 20 March 2003 � 1 May 2003
Location Iraq
Result Coalition victory
Ba'athist Iraqi government overthrown
Occupation of Iraq until June 2004
New Iraqi government established
Iraqi insurgency and sectarian conflicts
This is winning a war, and winning it convincingly. If the USA had just left then and not occupied Iraq there would be no question at all on their military success. The problem lied in them staying and fighting against the insurgency and doing it in an incredibly inept and ham fisted way. The war was never about WMDs, it was an action to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic parliamentary government. This would then lead to other Middle Eastern nations looking to Iraq and overthrowing their own dictatorships.
Of course, it didn't work out that way, but to deny the overwhelming military victory because the USA lead an incompetent occupation is ridiculous. No matter how you spin it, the Coalition met all their military goals, and even post invasion the Iraqi government is still in power so they also defeated both the Sunni and Shia insurgencies. If the current insurgency/invasion succeeds, it is against the Iraqi government.* |
WMDs and terrorism NOT the casus belli Iraqi?
WOW, you are a remarkable and magnificent revisionist!!!
from wikipedia ~(link provided)
Coalition expanded intelligence[edit]
On May 30, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."[85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Legal_justification
How is the suppressing of Islamic fundamentalism and militancy in the Middle East going?
Despite many attempts to link the previous government to international terrorism not tangable links to El Qada were found, why?
Because Hussain was doing a terrific job keeping it out of Iraq! |
I fully understand the excuses given for invasion, but they were just that, excuses. I also don't think that Polish troops took Gleiwitz station and broadcast anti-German messages, but that was the excuse for Germany to invade. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
Only if you don't count the Australian ABC, amongst others as the Western Press then yes you have a point.
But shhhh, it's a conspiracy |
Checked every Iraq story on the ABC and didn't find any reference to the Quds forces of Iran and the USA joining up to fight in Iraq. Plenty of stuff about possible US intervention and the insurgents moving on Baghdad though.
I find RT to be much better for international news. News about Russia/Ukraine however tends to have a certain slant to it. 
Didn't mention any conspiracy though, what are you smoking? |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Thanks for telling me your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh lookie, another let's bash America thread, yippeee Kyyia motherfuka, I'll be back
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
I fully understand the excuses given for invasion, but they were just that, excuses. I also don't think that Polish troops took Gleiwitz station and broadcast anti-German messages, but that was the excuse for Germany to invade. |
So your likening Operation Iraqi Freedom to Germany's invasion of Poland?*
Wow!
* A 6 year war by "insurgent" Poles (with the aid of proxy allies).
Insurgent because their Governments had fallen and were replaced by "legitimate" invader (like what the US did in Iraq) 
In both cases Germany and the US argued that as "insurgents" they did not come under the remit of the Geneva Convention
The summary execution and/or imprisonment of French and Polish Resistance fighters and what happens Gantano Bay and spring to mind as examples of what happens when Governments use "excuses" as justification for invading a Sovereign country.
Last edited by 3.14159 on Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wokko's right though, WMDs weren't the reason for the Iraq war, that was just the expressed pretense.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
He also claims the war was won in 2003.
President Obama says 'America's war in Iraq will be over' with decision to pull all troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
Oct 21, 2011 - |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
the second "reason" for invading was lraqi Government links to El Qada, there were none, Hussain wouldn't tolerate them and it wasn't till several years after the invasion that an Iraqi chapter was formed.
Last edited by 3.14159 on Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So what was the actual reason Iraq was invaded in the first place?
(surely not because it has oil?) |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I wouldn't presume to know the exact motivation, but things like WMD and support for terrorism were clearly just trumped up pretenses. The fact is the wolves of America wanted to go to war, it wasn't to find WMD (why would they care, really?), or to prevent terrorism (there were no real links), it was for their own reasons. As I say I won't presume to know what they were but, a show of strength after 9/11, the irrational idea that they could reshape the Middle East to be more friendly to the West, and yes oil, and money more generally, all may have had something to do with it.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | I wouldn't presume to know the exact motivation, but things like WMD and support for terrorism were clearly just trumped up pretenses. The fact is the wolves of America wanted to go to war, it wasn't to find WMD (why would they care, really?), or to prevent terrorism (there were no real links), it was for their own reasons. As I say I won't presume to know what they were but, a show of strength after 9/11, the irrational idea that they could reshape the Middle East to be more friendly to the West, and yes oil, and money more generally, all may have had something to do with it. |
Good points. It's actually not beyond the realms of possibility that the whole thing was a considered response to the 9-11 bombings in order to raise morale amongst the populace at home. They just needed to find a credible arab target.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | FMD, I'm starting to think Nostradamus was right, it's just a matter of when. |
I wonder about this too.
Although I think WW1, WW2 and WW3 for Nostradamus are what we call the Franco-Prussian War, WW1 and WW2. 
_________________
Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
