PDA

View Full Version : World News Iraq:Half time



Pages : [1] 2 3

matthew
19-10--2006, 12:37 PM
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari countered last week, "This has been slow, but we have been moving steadily forward, actually. We are not stalled or stopped. ... The situation is not as desperate as people think."
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense, told CNN, "We are seeing tremendous amounts of progress."
Citing "progress areas," he pointed to "reconciliation among the groups, disarmament of the militias, economic restoration and infrastructure repair. That is being done, it is being done slowly, gradually, progressively."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/17/iraq.reality.check.3/


Bush has been reluctant to make a major change in course in Iraq, seeing the conflict as a central front in the war on terrorism and insisting that to withdraw prematurely would embolden America's enemies.

He told ABC News on Wednesday that he was willing to give Maliki and the Iraqi government more time -- for now -- to get the situation under control.

"I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. And I'm not patient with dawdling. But I recognise the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run," he said.

Bush expressed interest in seeing the Baker recommendations at a news conference a week ago, when he also said it was important to remain flexible.

"Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change," Bush said. "Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done. We're going to get the job done in Iraq."the report of the 10 members of the Iraq Study Group. We are going to be do our best to reach a consensus but I can't make a guarantee...We will make foreign policy recommendations," he said.







Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1924736,00.html

Not quite...

[no conlusions yet]

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr174.html

I want to thank a distinguished group of Americans, led by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, for your willingness to look at the way forward in Iraq and to provide advice to the administration, to the Congress, and to the American people about the proper strategies and tactics to achieve success

“... I appreciate people's advice, and I appreciate their candor. I am going to meet this afternoon with a group of folks put together by [USIP]. They're going to take a look at Iraq. And the reason I bring that up to you is that it's important for people to share their advice with this administration. It's an important business. And it's not easy. It's a complex task to help a society go from tyranny to freedom.''


Any calmer thoughts of HOPE.. ?
Any calmer thought other than '''Iraq for oil'' etc etc ...

I HOPE so.. but don't count out the possibility of this thread :weed:

Not because there is no hope for Iraq.. there most certainly is i just meant from what i've read people seem to be a bit negative.. Lets hear the positive please. There is always other thoughs.. i'm always being told ''No black and white issues'' ;)

Atomik
19-10--2006, 12:46 PM
Lets hear the positive please. There is always other thoughs.. i'm always being told ''No black and white issues'' ;)Would you ask for positive thoughts if a meteor was about to hit the earth? Really mate, I think the time has come where you need to rethink your position and accept that you might've been wrong. If George Bush is doing it, you can too. :harhar:

matthew
19-10--2006, 12:49 PM
.....

Atomik
19-10--2006, 12:54 PM
You have your own thread to post what ever thoughts you like .. Take the opportunity to have a differing thought on the situation.. Or let this thread be.. it is not designed for people who think like you... cheers.

Why do you think i started my OWN;)You asked a question.


Any calmer thoughts of HOPE.. ?You didn't say only one answer was allowed. ;)

As you were.

:weed:

matthew
19-10--2006, 01:02 PM
.....

Atomik
19-10--2006, 01:05 PM
Any calmer thoughts of HOPE.. ?Not being funny mate, but that's a question, and I answered it. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you wanted. If you want a thread with no contrary opinions, then it's probably best to be clear on that and not ask questions as such. Phrase it, for example, as... "can people post any positive thoughts on the future of Iraq".

matthew
19-10--2006, 01:12 PM
Not being funny mate, but that's a question, and I answered it. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you wanted. If you want a thread with no contrary opinions, then it's probably best to be clear on that and not ask questions as such. Phrase it, for example, as... "can people post any positive thoughts on the future of Iraq".

Your a smart man Stu.. why not post ''Their is no hope'' . I know you're dyemetricaly apposed to my thinking.. why ruin what i'm doing here with your pedantic ways.. can't you clean this thread up please.

phil
19-10--2006, 01:29 PM
I'll have a stab at positive (ish) We fucked up mega big time but cant really pull out immediatly as that would possibly be worse. whichever way you look at it though its one of histories fuck ups with very few, if any, possitive aspects to it

matthew
19-10--2006, 01:38 PM
I'll have a stab at positive (ish) We fucked up mega big time but cant really pull out immediatly as that would possibly be worse. whichever way you look at it though its one of histories fuck ups with very few, if any, possitive aspects to it

:damn: Thanks...

Atomik
19-10--2006, 02:20 PM
Your a smart man Stu.. why not post ''Their is no hope'' . I know you're dyemetricaly apposed to my thinking.. why ruin what i'm doing here with your pedantic ways.. can't you clean this thread up please.Matthew... I'm not being pedantic. You posed a question and I answered it. It's that simple. I didn't realise the thread was closed to non-believers. Please don't pick a fight over nothing mate.

matthew
19-10--2006, 02:27 PM
Matthew... I'm not being pedantic. You posed a question and I answered it. It's that simple. I didn't realise the thread was closed to non-believers. Please don't pick a fight over nothing mate.

I'm not.. i don't mean too. You could have just said 'No hope'.
You questioned why i would ask for positives or more hopeful thoughts. Why should i not ?. I never questioned why you would deciede to have a slightly skewed thread [you may say this is- it was meant to be] .. infact i left that thread alone.



I think the time has come where you need to rethink your position and accept that you might've been wrong. If George Bush is doing it, you can too.


Wrong about what ?. Have i said the strategy in Iraq is correct and should not be changed ?.. NO.

Atomik
19-10--2006, 02:38 PM
You questioned why i would ask for positives or more hopeful thoughts. Why should i not ?Like I said... my view is that it's like asking people to look for something positive about a major disaster.


.I never questioned why you would deciede to have a slightly skewed thread [you may say this is- it was meant to be] .. infact i left that thread alone. You didn't have to. :D


Wrong about what ?. Have i said the strategy in Iraq is correct and should not be changed ?.. NO.:zipped:

I'm leaving you alone with your positive thoughts thread now....

matthew
19-10--2006, 02:40 PM
:zipped:

I'm leaving you alone with your positive thoughts thread now....

Thanks.

matthew
19-10--2006, 03:19 PM
Like I said... my view is that it's like asking people to look for something positive about a major disaster...

After such a wonderful start.. Lets start again :whistle: . I'm looking at the future not the past. It was a comparison and the opposite to your thread. You suggest that there is no way forward and .. You highlight:

Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess.

This is not true. [USIP] has not come to any final conclusions.

That was a incorrect evaluation on what the [USIP] actually said and recomended.

It is hopeful there IS a way forward .. what should that way forward be ?.

Ignore the spin that you place [that anyone who posted on that thread] and see if you can find a way forward. Bush does not conclude there is no way forward and seems to be willing to listen to suggestions . That being the whole point of the [USIP] 'mission'.

Bring our troops home
Stay the course
etc etc

Don't be hopeful if you don't wish to be [pesimistic as that is].. i was merely looking for a more rounded view on this situation not the whole situation just 'the way forward'.

The other suggestion is Bush is doing this for personal gain.. show me the 'evidence' for this

''I think the time has come where you need to rethink your position and accept that you might've been wrong.''

With out information to correct my errors.. how am i supposed to apparently correct my errors. I never quite worked out what i was wrong about to be honest .. but never mind if you have the time and the inclination please forget about the previous few posts and lets communicate..

This is not to much to ask is it ? :o .

mithra
19-10--2006, 05:27 PM
The other suggestion is Bush is doing this for personal gain.. show me the 'evidence' for this


Well, there is the Halliburton connection. Veep Dick Cheyney is their ex-Chairman; they get the lion's share of the Iraqi contracts post invasion. In fact, Bush's cabinet at one point was looking like a retirement home for ex Halliburton staffers.

M

matthew
19-10--2006, 06:15 PM
Well, there is the Halliburton connection. Veep Dick Cheyney is their ex-Chairman; they get the lion's share of the Iraqi contracts post invasion. In fact, Bush's cabinet at one point was looking like a retirement home for ex Halliburton staffers.

M

Ex.. being the operative word imho. I read this about Cheney. Have you any evidence to support this [Haliburton have lions share]?.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

showmet
19-10--2006, 07:18 PM
Any calmer thoughts of HOPE.. ?

I hope that one day, maybe, life in Iraq can get back to being as safe for ordinary people as it was under Saddam Hussein. But that day seems a very long way off:(

matthew
19-10--2006, 07:28 PM
I hope that one day, maybe, life in Iraq can get back to being as safe for ordinary people as it was under Saddam Hussein. But that day seems a very long way off:(

Well i too hope it can get back to being as safe for all people not just a minority, as the case was when Saddam was in power. It does seem a long way off, hence me saying 'Iraq:Half time'. That being a rosey outlook. A hopeful outlook i hope.

How would you alter the strategy ?. Now that we obviously are in and need a strategy to get out.

Do you think that i'm wrong or right about the part i mention on [USIP] ? .

Gosh to many questions i know, sorry.

Atomik
19-10--2006, 07:31 PM
Well i too hope it can get back to being as safe for all people not just a minority, as the case was when Saddam was in power.It was safer for everyone under Saddam.


How would you alter the strategy ?. Now that we obviously are in and need a strategy to get out. Personally, I'd partition ASAP. It's gonna happen eventually. It's inevitable. Best if the process is as managed as possible. I'd then get the fuck out of there. It's reached the point where there's no other option. Even getting the UN on the ground would do no good at this stage. It's too far gone.

showmet
19-10--2006, 07:40 PM
Well i too hope it can get back to being as safe for all people not just a minority, as the case was when Saddam was in power.
I don't think this distinction makes much sense at all when you look at the numbers involved, frankly. Your chances of survival if you were an anti-Baathist shiite under Saddam were considerably higher than they are now! The numbers of people dying now are just unbelievable and are still increasing.

It's a bloody godawful mess, and no I can't make any suggestions about a possible way forward. None of the options on the table are good, it's just a really bad choice of trying to determine which is going to cause the least amount of further harm.

The only hope I have is just a vague wish that maybe in a decade or so things can get back to how they were before the 2003 invasion. If we can get Iraq back to absolute zero within a generation, it will be an incredible feat.

matthew
19-10--2006, 07:51 PM
It was safer for everyone under Saddam.

No discrimination or bias everyone was happy safe and content ?. Saddam posed no personal threat whatever ethnicity or political persuasion you happened to be ?. You maybe relatively 'safe' under Saddam but he hardly espoused moderation and civility to all, with no discrimination. It is true 'safety' was relatively better 'Under Saddam' but we [i assume] compare that to a 'war' and 'no war' situation . People were not safe under Saddam compared to the vast majority of countries who have elections, and moderate sytems of goverment. And follow international laws and and obligations.



Personally, I'd partition ASAP. It's gonna happen eventually. It's inevitable. Best if the process is as managed as possible. I'd then get the fuck out of there. It's reached the point where there's no other option. Even getting the UN on the ground would do no good at this stage. It's too far gone.


I don't know about 'no other option' but that seems like a sensible option at this point in the 'game'.

matthew
19-10--2006, 07:57 PM
Thanks for the response Showmet / Atomic. I'll think about what you said Showmet [and Atomic]. I don't have a lot of time now. I'll respond further, when i do. Cheers guys.

Atomik
19-10--2006, 08:02 PM
No discrimination or bias everyone was happy safe and content ?Of course not. But the death tool now is through the stratosphere, right across all ethnic groups. Saddam couldn't have killed that many people if he tried!


You maybe relatively 'safe' under Saddam but he hardly espoused moderation and civility to all, with no discrimination. Nobody said it did. So is the virtual breakdown of law, order and the nation state a better alternative?

showmet
19-10--2006, 09:47 PM
No discrimination or bias everyone was happy safe and content ?. Saddam posed no personal threat whatever ethnicity or political persuasion you happened to be ?. You maybe relatively 'safe' under Saddam but he hardly espoused moderation and civility to all, with no discrimination. It is true 'safety' was relatively better 'Under Saddam' but we [i assume] compare that to a 'war' and 'no war' situation . People were not safe under Saddam compared to the vast majority of countries who have elections, and moderate sytems of goverment. And follow international laws and and obligations.

This is precisely my point. The invasion and occupation has actually made the situation worse. Worse than Saddam Hussein. By a very long way. With no foreseeable prospect of things getting back to how "good" they were under the brutal, murderous and repressive regime of one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century.

Stop and think for a moment about what that means.

Do you still think this war was a good idea?

matthew
20-10--2006, 11:52 AM
I don't think this distinction makes much sense at all when you look at the numbers involved, frankly. Your chances of survival if you were an anti-Baathist shiite under Saddam were considerably higher than they are now! The numbers of people dying now are just unbelievable and are still increasing.....

...This is precisely my point. The invasion and occupation has actually made the situation worse. Worse than Saddam Hussein. By a very long way. With no foreseeable prospect of things getting back to how "good" they were under the brutal, murderous and repressive regime of one of the
worst dictators of the twentieth century....



Of course not. But the death tool now is through the stratosphere, right across all ethnic groups. Saddam couldn't have killed that many people if he tried!


I accept that you were less likely to be killed with the relative safety of the Saddam regime preventing muslim jihadists from entering the country. Maybe tensions between the differing ethnic groups was not as prevelant.

These tensions were still there, the possibility for a 'civil war' was still there. It was only that Saddam had the monopoly of violence/power that these tensions did not spill into the 'civil war' or the lesser 'secterian violence', on the scale we have now.

If we had not 'invaded' Saddam and his regime would still be a ''brutal, murderous and repressive'' and he still would be '' one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century..''. Who knows what he would be doing now.

Islamic jihadis would still be killing people, merely in a differing part of the world. We would still need resolutions and sanctions restrain him. He would still be posing a threat and [now with hindsight] fooling the world about WMD.

Saddam and his sons would hold Iraq in there cluches for years and years. killing countless people on the way. No maybe not the No.s now.. but 1 is far to many. We needed to act on the resolutions that brought us to this point in the first place [imho]. He fully understood the implications of his actions and consequences of his action or inaction.

We may have ''exacerbated'' the violence in Iraq.. We certainly did not cause the violence in Iraq. We certainly did not cause the high 'body count' highlighted recently. We all know in war deaths occur.. so we would have killed innocents if we had gone in 'legaly' or as some say 'illegaly'.

Did neither of you want us to go in in the first place ?. I suspect not. Removing the morale hurdle of 'invadeing' and killing innocent civilians. Imho we had to 'invade'.. and i am left with the morale hurdle of deaths occuring because of that.



Stop and think for a moment about what that means.

Do you still think this war was a good idea?.


I have stopped and thought many many times.. and i still think the iraq war was a 'good idea'.

Obviously now the strategy for our 'pull out' is in question.. and what i am thinking about and asking if we have any hope in 'pulling out' soon.

As my first post highlights.. progress is occuring and i have to take some comfort in that.



It's a bloody godawful mess, and no None of the options on the table are good, it's just a really bad choice of trying to determine which is going to cause the least amount of further harm.

The only hope I have is just a vague wish that maybe in a decade or so things can get back to how they were before the 2003 invasion. If we can get Iraq back to absolute zero within a generation, it will be an incredible feat.


I sadly agree with most of what you say.. i don't have as bleak take on the situation but i prety much agree with you.

The level of violence should be like it was in 2003. Infact it should be even better. Given Saddam would not be there. With the added bonus of a fledgling democracy and all that goes with that.


I can't make any suggestions about a possible way forward.

Well i'm struggling myself.:(

Atomik
20-10--2006, 12:39 PM
These tensions were still there, the possibility for a 'civil war' was still there. It was only that Saddam had the monopoly of violence/power that these tensions did not spill into the 'civil war' or the lesser 'secterian violence', on the scale we have now. You could say exactly the same about any number of countries all around the world. Should we storm into all of them, overthrow their governments, create anarchy and leave?


If we had not 'invaded' Saddam and his regime would still be a ''brutal, murderous and repressive'' and he still would be '' one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century..''. Who knows what he would be doing now.Running an evil dictatoship with a much lower boudy count than that created by the current war.


Islamic jihadis would still be killing people, merely in a differing part of the world. We would still need resolutions and sanctions restrain him. He would still be posing a threat and [now with hindsight] fooling the world about WMD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You mean cunningly fooling the world about WMD by repeatedly saying that he didn't possess any? :wall:


Saddam and his sons would hold Iraq in there cluches for years and years. killing countless people on the way. No maybe not the No.s now.. but 1 is far to many.You seem to be suffering from a blind spot in your logic. Yes, Saddam is evil, yes, one death in his name is too many.... but how does it follow that we should overthrow him, even if it makes things worse and results in more deaths? In destroying one Saddam, you've created hundreds. Way to go!


We needed to act on the resolutions that brought us to this point in the first place [imho]. He fully understood the implications of his actions and consequences of his action or inaction.Who gives a shit what he did or didn't understand? It's not about him. This isn't some playground fight where we have to prove a point or lose face. This is about the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis. And I'm pretty damn sure they're not sitting around thinking "Oh, I know my family have all been killed, but Saddam was asking for it really".


We may have ''exacerbated'' the violence in Iraq.. We certainly did not cause the violence in Iraq. We certainly did not cause the high 'body count' highlighted recently. We all know in war deaths occur.. so we would have killed innocents if we had gone in 'legaly' or as some say 'illegaly'.Of course we fucking caused it! We acted, our actions resulted in a series of events, those events led to a body count. That's cause and effect for god's sake! Sure, we didn't directly kill all those who're dying, but the actions of Western goverments were the cause of it. And all this was widely predicted.


Did neither of you want us to go in in the first place ?. I suspect not. Removing the morale hurdle of 'invadeing' and killing innocent civilians. Imho we had to 'invade'.. and i am left with the morale hurdle of deaths occuring because of that. Why did we have to invade? To achieve what, exactly?

Sthenno
20-10--2006, 12:51 PM
Why did we have to invade? To achieve what, exactly?
Oil?
:whistle:
*runs and hides*

tekno
20-10--2006, 01:06 PM
Oil?
:whistle:
*runs and hides*

:ditto:

*is there room where you are hiding sthenno?*

Sthenno
20-10--2006, 01:21 PM
Yeah…just shove Madonna out the way…

matthew
20-10--2006, 02:39 PM
You could say exactly the same about any number of countries all around the world. Should we storm into all of them, overthrow their governments, create anarchy and leave?

No, take any country on your list for e.g it has not come to that point yet and it may never come to that point. It is differing pressure and different circumstances for all countries that are playing [and we all seem to have to] a sometimes terrible but necessary game of international co-operation and diplomacy. I'm sure if Coyote was here .. for capitalist reasons. That is the game every country seems to be engaging in in one form or another.. Shit aint it !?.

Everybody seems to predict that 'we' will 'invade' Iran [This goes for many countries] .. if and i believe it never happens.. i doubt people will say ''phew i'm glad those sanctions and resolutions (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm)worked'. they will come up with a differing scenario that precludes any of that. They won't commend international co-operation [including the evil empire that is America]. Ofcourse it is not as simple as i suggest.



Running an evil dictatoship with a much lower boudy count than that created by the current war.

If it was just about preventing or lowering a 'bodycount' then i'd be 100% behind you [not literaly i hasten to add].


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You mean cunningly fooling the world about WMD by repeatedly saying that he didn't possess any? :wall:

Not allowing weapons inspections full and free access. Telling his own army and certain sections of his admin' he had WMD [Who inturn told inspectors/UN that information that was incorrect]. Telling the IAEA another story. Allowing the IAEA see what he wanted to let them see.
The possibility he moved/removed any trace of any WMD a long time ago. The UN believing out of date innacurate information.
I guess he was in a way repeatedly saying he did not posses any.

Did you believe him then ?.
I guess if you did then you have a far superior insight into him and his regime than 25+ countries inteligence services.
Who chose to accept or not accept he was a threat to peace and stability in the region.
I appreciate some countries did come to the conclusion you did. Many who did not [agree with you] still took the decision not to join the coallition. Some still believed he had WMD and or he was a 'threat'.


You seem to be suffering from a blind spot in your logic. Yes, Saddam is evil, yes, one death in his name is too many.... but how does it follow that we should overthrow him, even if it makes things worse and results in more deaths? In destroying one Saddam, you've created hundreds. Way to go!

Well that is the quandry.. 'WE' and the Iraqi goverment need to gain the monopoly of violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physic al_force)/power [for peaceful intent - i guess you may disagree with many principles of that ?].
That is a tough thing to do, given the guerrila war that is going on. Hence the talk of strategy change. Should we not intervene in any situation anywhere in the world, incase we inflame / exacerbate a already hostile entity like the the Al-Quaeda network or Dictator ?. They [Al-Quaeda] operate in countries that don't have our presence they just use other grievances of the local population [e.g a countries law allowing the altering of a religous faith]. Also having there own personal [completly irrational] Jihad.. wich i hope we can agree [and i know you know] was going on even before North America was even 'North America'... the UN was invented and international politics/diplomacy was as it is today.


Who gives a shit what he did or didn't understand? It's not about him. This isn't some playground fight where we have to prove a point or lose face. This is about the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis. And I'm pretty damn sure they're not sitting around thinking "Oh, I know my family have all been killed, but Saddam was asking for it really".

[Imho] I think your mind is outside what the course of events and the resolutions meant. He did understand this . In effect it is a playground game.. a very dangerous and lethal game .. That many many many countries are playing with each other.. It brought us all the wars in the last ?? 600 years say.
If it was simply: well if we enter any country and intervene in any situation we must promise nobody [innocent] is going to die. If we can't meant that promise then we should not enter any country and not intervene. Sometimes we [as in the international community] don't or not enough [Darfur]. I'd like and i'm sure most of us would like to live in the world you live in Stu, but i/we don't.


Of course we fucking caused it! We acted, our actions resulted in a series of events, those events led to a body count. That's cause and effect for god's sake! Sure, we didn't directly kill all those who're dying, but the actions of Western goverments were the cause of it. And all this was widely predicted.

I suspect it was ''widely predicted'' that thousands/millions of people would die in WW1 WW2 The Korea police action Bosnia etc etc etc .. IF Saddam had played this terrible playground game EVERY country and know individual groups play .We all came to amicable peaceful solutions to the worlds problems.. Then that would be great.



Why did we have to invade?


Resolution 1441 and the many many other resolutions pretaining Iraq and the Middle east.



To achieve what, exactly?


A stable and progresive peaceful democracy. Opening a country back up to the rest of the world.. Hope for millions of people.

I repeat:

Did neither of you want us to go in in the first place ?. I suspect not. Removing the morale hurdle of 'invadeing' and killing innocent civilians. Imho we had to 'invade'.. and i am left with the morale hurdle of deaths occuring because of that.



Oil?
:whistle:
*runs and hides* :ditto:

*is there room where you are hiding sthenno?*


Wrong thread ;) but explain please.. .. it seems i have many errors of judgment to figure out [i don't mean that sarcasticaly by the way - honest :o ].

Sthenno
20-10--2006, 02:50 PM
As you say, wrong thread! I have nothing to say that hasn’t been said in the relevant places by posters much more eloquent than I. I was just being silly…well, as silly as you can be with things of this magnitude. Which is, to be fair, not very.

*bimbles off…*

matthew
20-10--2006, 02:57 PM
As you say, wrong thread! I have nothing to say that hasn’t been said in the relevant places by posters much more eloquent than I. I was just being silly…well, as silly as you can be with things of this magnitude. Which is, to be fair, not very.

*bimbles off…*


At this point you can say what ever floats your boat..i was only kidding about staying on topic.
You call the above [mine] eloquent ?.. don't let that stop you :whistle:
Fair enough though .. i'd have liked to have heard what you had to say.. but never mind.

Sthenno
20-10--2006, 03:01 PM
I know, I only meant that what I have to say isn’t any different from what has already been said by many, so it felt a little pointless to reiterate.

matthew
20-10--2006, 03:07 PM
I know, I only meant that what I have to say isn’t any different from what has already been said by many, so it felt a little pointless to reiterate.
I must get this handbook you all seem to have :harhar: . Is it on amazon ?. ;)

Atomik
20-10--2006, 03:10 PM
No, take any country on your list for e.g it has not come to that point yet and it may never come to that point. Bollocks. There are far worse regimes on the planet where diplomacy has already failed. An "evil dictarorship" is clearly not sufficient reason for invading a country.


Everybody seems to predict that 'we' will 'invade' IranNot me. It'll never happen. Hot air.


[This goes for many countries] .. if and i believe it never happens.. i doubt people will say ''phew i'm glad those sanctions and resolutions (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm)worked'. they will come up with a differing scenario that precludes any of that. They won't commend international co-operation [including the evil empire that is America]. Ofcourse it is not as simple as i suggest. That doesn't make sense.


If it was just about preventing or lowering a 'bodycount' then i'd be 100% behind you [not literaly i hasten to add].So you're saying we're sacrificing tens of thousands of lives (at a conservative estimate) on a point of principle? Again, strange that this principle doesn't seem to apply to other dictatorships around the globe.


I guess he was in a way repeatedly saying he did not posses any.
Did you believe him then ?. I guess if you did then you have a far superior insight into him and his regime than 25+ countries inteligence services. Yes, it was blindingly obvious to any fool that he didn't have WMD. It was also blindingly obvious that America was going to invade, whatever happened. Just like it was also blindingly obvious that the region would descend into sectarian civil war and end up being partitioned by default. Of course despite the fact that people like me were predicting all these things long before the war, people like you still seem to insist that we didn't know what we were talking about, and America knew better. Even though we were right. Remarkable. How bad does it have to get before you admit that the whole thing was one huge fuck-up?


Who chose to accept or not accept he was a threat to peace and stability in the region.*snigger*

Are you serious? He was about the only bloody thing holding the region together!


They still believed he had WMD and or he was a 'threat'.Yes. That's what happens when you listen to a country that's putting its own dogma and propaganda before objective reality.


Well that is the quandry.. 'WE' and the Iraqi goverment need to gain the monopoly of violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physic al_force)/power [for peaceful intent - i guess you may disagree with many principles of that ?]. Too late. Iraq will fall apart and we'll leave it to the warlords and other factions. It's just a matter of time.


Should we not intervene in any situation anywhere in the world, incase we inflame / exacerbate a already hostile entity like the the Al-Quaeda network or Dictator ?Not if it's blindingly obvious that our intervention is only gonna make things worse. Any fool coulda told you what would happen in Iraq. Anyonew who thought things would end up any different was a blind optimist.



[Imho] I think your mind is outside what the course of events and the resolutions meant. He did understand this . In effect it is a playground game.. a very dangerous and lethal game .. That many many many countries are playing with each other.. It brought us all the wars in the last ?? 600 years say.Huh?


If it was simply: well if we enter any country and intervene in any situation we must promise nobody [innocent] is going to die. If we can't meant that promise then we should not enter any country and not intervene. Sometimes we [as in the international community] don't or not enough [Darfur]. I'd like and i'm sure most of us would like to live in the world you live in Stu, but i/we don't.You're missing the point. I've never argued against the principle of violent intervention, so please don't put words in my mouth (again). In Iraq, it was obvious from the start that the venture had little to do with the alleged WMD and would be entirely counterproductive to the supposed war goals of democracy building and protecting the citizens in the longer term. The price that is currently being paid is far, far too high... even if the alleged war goals could have been achieved. And the final nail in the coffin is that there's a very good chance Saddam (or his sons) could've been bribed into operating a more civilised regime within time. Certainly one that's no worse than the Saudis, who we seem to have no problem with.


I suspect it was ''widely predicted' that thousands/millions of people would die in WW1 WW2 The Korea police action Bosnia etc etc etc .. IF Saddam had played this terrible playground game EVERY country and know individual groups play .We all came to amicable peaceful solutions to the worlds problems.. Then that would be great. And WWII achieved something. The war in Iraq has just made things worse.


Resolution 1441 and the many many other resolutions pretaining Iraq and the Middle east.Ah, so we're going to war on the basis of ignored UN resolutions? I take it you support us invading Israel then?


A stable and progresive peaceful democracy. Opening a country back up to the rest of the world.. Hope for millions of people..... flying pigs.


Did neither of you want us to go in in the first place ?. I suspect not. Removing the morale hurdle of 'invadeing' and killing innocent civilians. Imho we had to 'invade'.. and i am left with the morale hurdle of deaths occuring because of that.We 'had' to invade if there was the slightest reason to believe that we could make things better at a reasonable cost of lives. There wasn't and we couldn't.

Friggin' hell, Matthew. No WMD. Tens of thousands dead. The prospect of civil war, allied withdrawl, defacto partition and the handing of power to Iran and Syria.... and you still can't accept that this war was a foolish mistake and an unmitigated disaster?

showmet
20-10--2006, 03:13 PM
Not allowing weapons inspections full and free access. Telling his own army and certain sections of his admin' he had WMD [Who inturn told inspectors/UN that information that was incorrect]. Telling the IAEA another story. Allowing the IAEA see what he wanted to let them see.
The possibility he moved/removed any trace of any WMD a long time ago. The UN believing out of date innacurate information.
I guess he was in a way repeatedly saying he did not posses any.

Did you believe him then ?.
I guess if you did then you have a far superior insight into him and his regime than 25+ countries inteligence services.

Well I think you mean UNSCOM / UNMOVIC, the IAEA declared Iraq with a clean bill of health - they were absolutely nowhere near being nuclear weapons capable and the whole world knew this.

I think the people to believe, those who had the best access, the best experts, on the ground in Iraq over a very long period, and who used information from the various intelligence services to aid in their investigation, are the UN weapons inspectors UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC. If you read their reports at the time you get a nuanced and detailed explanation of precisely what capabilities Iraq likely still had left. I was prepared to accept this at the time as very likely to be quite near the truth. As it turned out they over-estimated Saddam's remaining capabilities (I'm glad they chose to err on the side of caution, this was prudent). They believed there may be still some remaining old stockpiles of chemical-filled artillery shells and some non-weaponised precursor chemicals left over from the period before the 1991 war. In other words, nothing meaningful. While he could've used these, if he still had them (which he might've, we could'nt know) it would've been impossible for Saddam to pose as much of a threat to life as an invasion would. It was clear to anyone who read UNMOVIC's reports at the time that Iraq was 95% disarmed of proscribed weapons and materials. (As it turned out, Iraq was 100% disarmed). It was perfectly obvious that an invasion would cause more harm than Saddam was capable of, even if he'd been left in power for decades. With continuing UN inspections we could've limited Saddam's threat without causing death and destruction on the unprecedented scale we have.

These arguments are pretty old hat and irrelevant now. The fact remains that hindsight has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what many were saying at the time - that invasion would make a bad situation CATASTROPHIC - was true. War was absolutely the wrong decision from an humanitarian perpective. Period.

Coyote
20-10--2006, 03:20 PM
The whole situation has been rather effective at dividing folks and getting them to squabble over it....keeping them occupied with matters that dont really change the overall situation in the world regardless of which side you take.

Sthenno
20-10--2006, 03:35 PM
I was wondering when you were gonna turn up…
:p
Oi Madge, shift it, I’m coming back in…

Atomik
20-10--2006, 03:37 PM
The whole situation has been rather effective at dividing folks and getting them to squabble over it....keeping them occupied with matters that dont really change the overall situation in the world regardless of which side you take.I thought you didn't believe in changing the world? :harhar:

matthew
20-10--2006, 03:49 PM
Well I think you mean UNSCOM / UNMOVIC

Forgive my error.. nobody is perfect.



These arguments are pretty old hat

I agree with you.. my perspective is clearly not as nuanced as yours or Doks, i can appreciate that. I'm not hear to convince you of anything .. merely giving my opinion by responding to what you say. As imperfect as it is.
Have i read every scrap of data ?.. no. Has anybody ?... No. I'd hoped we would be on the future rather than the past.. but anyhoo never mind.


I think the people to believe, those who had the best access, the best experts, on the ground in Iraq over a very long period, and who used information from the various intelligence services to aid in their investigation, are the UN weapons inspectors UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC. If you read their reports at the time you get a nuanced and detailed explanation of precisely what capabilities Iraq likely still had left. I was prepared to accept this at the time as very likely to be quite near the truth. As it turned out they over-estimated Saddam's remaining capabilities (I'm glad they chose to err on the side of caution, this was prudent). They believed there may be still some remaining old stockpiles of chemical-filled artillery shells and some non-weaponised precursor chemicals left over from the period before the 1991 war. In other words, nothing meaningful. While he could've used these, if he still had them (which he might've, we could'nt know) it would've been impossible for Saddam to pose as much of a threat to life as an invasion would. It was clear to anyone who read UNMOVIC's reports at the time that Iraq was 95% disarmed of proscribed weapons and materials. (As it turned out, Iraq was 100% disarmed). It was perfectly obvious that an invasion would cause more harm than Saddam was capable of, even if he'd been left in power for decades. With continuing UN inspections we could've limited Saddam's threat without causing death and destruction on the unprecedented scale we have.

Very very persuasive. I appreciate the detail of the response. Thankyou.
The only point i make is that these are choices and decisions many countries made. If all people thought like you and it was all as staright forward as you suggest.. then that would be great. Life is not like that, people are not like that. I inherently [and it seems many countries do] disagree with you. I give you full credit you do a far better job of a persuasive arguement than i do.



The whole situation has been rather effective at dividing folks and getting them to squabble over it....keeping them occupied with matters that dont really change the overall situation in the world regardless of which side you take.


I disagree [i would, right] it informs the way we think and feel. Plus it can inform the way we vote, or choose not too [as the case maybe ]. If i was more pesuasive than i am, and you all suddenly became less hostile to the Bush and Blair policies.. or i became more convinced by your arguement. the world certainly the country would differ.

Atomik
20-10--2006, 04:13 PM
If all people thought like you and it was all as staright forward as you suggest.. then that would be great. Life is not like that, people are not like that.You're correct. Dogma, ignorance and rhetoric seem to play an unfortunately large role in shaping foreign policy for a number of nations.


I give you full credit you do a far better job of a persuasive arguement than i doThat's coz of the facts we have on our side. ;)

matthew
20-10--2006, 04:50 PM
Bollocks. There are far worse regimes on the planet where diplomacy has already failed. An "evil dictarorship" is clearly not sufficient reason for invading a country.

I know that is always not sufficient. I think sometimes though, our own perception is not the reality of the situation. Like i'll mention later, certain realities are said by those in the know and we/you may or not agree with the evaluation. Does it make them false or true or maybe wishful thinking on their part ?. Sometimes imho it comes down to inconveniant truths. I know sometimes it is hard to budge my opinion. how about you ?.


Not me. It'll never happen. Hot air.

Fair enough.. generalisation on my part. I prob' should have said 'it seems everybody'.


That doesn't make sense.

Does this help:

It is about trusting and not trusting resolutions and sanctions when it suits people. The perception of the good guys and the bad guys will remain the same .

[This goes for many countries] .. if and i believe it [the invasion of Iran] never happens.. i doubt people will say ''phew i'm glad those sanctions and resolutions (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm)worked'. they will come up with a differing scenario that precludes any of that. They won't commend international co-operation [including the evil empire that is America]. Ofcourse it is not as simple as i suggest.

If not, i can't help you i'm afraid.


So you're saying we're sacrificing tens of thousands of lives (at a conservative estimate) on a point of principle? Again, strange that this principle doesn't seem to apply to other dictatorships around the globe.

It is differing pressure and different circumstances for all countries that are playing [and we all seem to have to] a sometimes terrible but necessary game of international co-operation and diplomacy. I'm sure if Coyote was here .. for capitalist reasons. That is the game every country seems to be engaging in in one form or another.. Shit aint it !?.



Yes, it was blindingly obvious to any fool that he didn't have WMD. It was also blindingly obvious that America was going to invade, whatever happened. Just like it was also blindingly obvious that the region would descend into sectarian civil war and end up being partitioned by default. Of course despite the fact that people like me were predicting all these things long before the war, people like you still seem to insist that we didn't know what we were talking about, and America knew better. Even though we were right. Remarkable. How bad does it have to get before you admit that the whole thing was one huge fuck-up?

It is not about just what America thinks or does.

If you think, no other country has a brain and can't have independant thoughts that disagree quite strongly with your POV and choose to do something that America chose to do. Are they all puppets on a string ? [I thought you disliked CTs ?] .

Then sorry we ar on not on the same page.

I respect you have not faultered with your POV.. and you think you are 100% or darn near 100% correct...and i am quite clearly wrong. Maybe you can suggest a forward strategy that will WORK.

Way to much sarcasm.:o



*snigger*

Are you serious?

Yes i am serious..


He was about the only bloody thing holding the region together!

If you say so.. that is not petulance on my part. I'm just saying 'if you say so'.


Too late. Iraq will fall apart and we'll leave it to the warlords and other factions. It's just a matter of time.

Hope Stu' Hope.. maybe you could atleast attempt some hope.. ?.


And WWII achieved something. The war in Iraq has just made things worse.

You and i can say that NOW. Living through it i think you may have thought otherwise. i dunno ?. The Iraq war a longer process due to it not being a conventional war. These things do drag on unfortunatly.

[I]I think the people to believe, those who had the best access, the best experts, on the ground in Iraq over a very long period, and who used information from the various intelligence services to aid in their investigation

I'll agree with Showmet on that point..[as posted earlier]

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari countered last week, "This has been slow, but we have been moving steadily forward, actually. We are not stalled or stopped. ... The situation is not as desperate as people think."
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense, told CNN, "We are seeing tremendous amounts of progress."
Citing "progress areas," he pointed to "reconciliation among the groups, disarmament of the militias, economic restoration and infrastructure repair. That is being done, it is being done slowly, gradually, progressively."



Ah, so we're going to war on the basis of ignored UN resolutions? I take it you support us invading Israel then?

Does the resolutions regarding Israel have the possibility of a war ?. I hear this one a LOT but have not been directed to the resolutions that make the point ?. I have not read all of them.

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html anything more ?.

That is what i mean when every situation and country [as far as resolutions go] is not the same. Please fill in my gap of reference with the resolutions that may lead to war.




We 'had' to invade if there was the slightest reason to believe that we could make things better at a reasonable cost of lives. There wasn't and we couldn't.

Well it is all a matter of opinion.. on that one i agree with you. On this one i don't.


Friggin' hell, Matthew... Tens of thousands dead.

I don't do body count Stu.. my opinion does not sway that much by how many die or not. I hope it does not with you either. As i think your opinion on other conflicts would alter. It sounds horrible [and it just might be] and i understand it is a privelage to be so cold.


The prospect of civil war, allied withdrawl, defacto partition and the handing of power to Iran and Syria....

Are they all prospects ?. ''Including handing of power to Iran and Syria''
I think i disagreed with that earlier. Is that what WILL happen or MAY happen ?. As i don't think it is fair to grasp things that are one of many scenarios and claim them to be true. Like you say though i should not put words in your mouth.


and you still can't accept that this war was a foolish mistake and an unmitigated disaster?

Not at the moment Stu.. sorry.

matthew
20-10--2006, 04:57 PM
That's coz of the facts we have on our side. ;)

Steady on with that ego :eek: ;)

Coyote
20-10--2006, 05:09 PM
I was wondering when you were gonna turn up…


:waves::p

I thought you didn't believe in changing the world? :harhar:

I dont :harhar:

But I do enjoy occasionally pointing out the emperor is wearing no clothes :D

Atomik
20-10--2006, 05:21 PM
I know sometimes it is hard to budge my opinion. how about you ?.Nah, I'll budge in a heartbeat if I'm wrong.


.. if and i believe it [the invasion of Iran] never happens.. i doubt people will say ''phew i'm glad those sanctions and resolutions (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm)worked'. they will come up with a differing scenario that precludes any of that. They won't commend international co-operation [including the evil empire that is America].That's because we aren't witholding military force for any moral reason. If America thought it had the resources to go into Iran and achieve its goals, it'd do it tomorrow. It's not holding back in order to give diplomacy a chance - it's holding back because it has no other option.


If you think, no other country has a brain and can't have independant thoughts that disagree quite strongly with your POV and choose to do something that America chose to do. Are they all puppets on a string ? [I thought you disliked CTs ?] .It's not a conspiracy to assume that governments act in what they perceive to be their best interests. I actually believe that America was stupid enough to believe Iraq had WMDs. I think they wanted them to have them, so they chose to accept flimsy evidence. I also think the (perceived) economic and strategic reasons were fairly compelling. Plus we know the Bush family has a grudge against Saddam. Blair, OTOH, was a stupid idealist who bought into the myth of a moral war.

Let me turn the question around. Are you saying that countries never do things for the wrong reasons?


I respect you have not faultered with your POV.. and you think you are 100% or darn near 100% correct...and i am quite clearly wrong. Maybe you can suggest a forward strategy that will WORK.

Way to much sarcasm.:o Not at all mate. I do believe I'm darn near 100% correct. Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to perceive a clear path outta this mess. I'm not a blind idealist - if leaving troops in Iraq would help, I'd support it. No point calling for withdrawl if it'd just make things work. But a military presence appears to be counterproductive at the moment. I'm sorry to say that I think a blood-letting is probably the only way we'll end up with any form of stability. I think we need to withdraw and look at what's left in the ruins once the smoke has cleared. Not ideal, but we shoulda thought about that before toppling the Iraqi government.


If you say so.. that is not petulance on my part. I'm just saying 'if you say so'.It ain't rocket science. He kept Iraq together (brutally) despite its ethnic mix for 25 years. We remove him and it falls apart. That seems pretty clear.


Hope Stu' Hope.. maybe you could atleast attempt some hope.. ?.I'd love to mate, I really would. Nothing would please me more than to see everyone get behind the Iraqi government and make it work. Whether you believe the war should've been fought or not, the Iraqi government is currently the only chace for stability and peace. I'd support it and hope for the best, despite reservations about its autonomy and political allegiance. But regardless... it ain't gonna happen. The Iraqi government is a house of cards that's gonna collapse without Western troops to support it. Not that they're managing to do much of that even now.


You and i can say that NOW. Living through it i think you may have thought otherwise. i dunno ?.Well Hitler was in the process of rolling through Europe and beyond, killing millions along the way. That's a pretty compelling reason to go to war. Saddam was a contained threat, whose worst atrocities were behind him.


The Iraq war a longer process due to it not being a conventional war. These things do drag on unfortunatly. It's not a war though. It's a fiasco. WWII was fought to protect nation states. The Iraq was is destroying a nation state, with no viable alternative in place. Look at Somalia if you want an example of what happens to a country in that situation.


Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari countered last week, "This has been slow, but we have been moving steadily forward, actually. We are not stalled or stopped. ... The situation is not as desperate as people think."If you really believe that, then good luck to ya. Try this for size:



In Baghdad a surge in sectarian killings has forced the Pentagon to review its entire security plan for the capital, Major General William Caldwell, a US military spokesman, said yesterday.

"The violence is, indeed, disheartening," he told reporters. The US has poured 12,000 additional US and Iraqi troops into Baghdad since August only to see a 22% increase in attacks since the beginning of Ramadan.

"Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations in sustaining a reduction in the level of violence," Gen Caldwell said.
Or perhaps you've missed the breaking news...


The Shia militia led by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today seized control of the southern city of Amara in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by the country's powerful unofficial armies.




Does the resolutions regarding Israel have the possibility of a war ?. I hear this one a LOT but have not been directed to the resolutions that make the point ?. I have not read all of them.
What a ridiculous argument! Israel ignores UN resolutions, and we ignore it. Iraq ignores UN resolutions, so we pass new ones authorising the use of force. And you argue that we don't invade Israel because a resolution hasn't been passed. That's a donkey chasing its tail.


I don't do body count Stu.. my opinion does not sway that much by how many die or not. I hope it does not with you either. As i think your opinion on other conflicts would alter. It sounds horrible [and it just might be] and i understand it is a privelage to be so cold.Well that's lunacy. By that logic, we could exterminate the entire planet on a point of principle.


Are they all prospects ?. ''Including handing of power to Iran and Syria''
I think i disagreed with that earlier. Is that what WILL happen or MAY happen ?. As i don't think it is fair to grasp things that are one of many scenarios and claim them to be true. Like you say though i should not put words in your mouth.Iran and Syria are the regional powers. If the US pulls out, they're the only players left in town. No betting man believes that the US has any long-term plans to remain in Iraq at this point. They know they've fucked up and they're looking for an exit strategy.

PlutoPete
21-10--2006, 11:58 AM
one positive step forward would be for the british and american troops to stop inciting sectarian violence by using undercover operatives dressed as arabs to cause mayhem that the iraqi factions then blame on each other.

matthew
21-10--2006, 12:10 PM
Nah, I'll budge in a heartbeat if I'm wrong.
I think that maybe with small issues.. but major ones :zipped: :faint:. Forgive me if that is rude.


That's because we aren't witholding military force for any moral reason. If America thought it had the resources to go into Iran and achieve its goals, it'd do it tomorrow. It's not holding back in order to give diplomacy a chance - it's holding back because it has no other option.

If you said 'No political will' or 'No public support or stomach for it' near the upcomeing election, i'd agree. Lack of resource, that one is a bit shacky for me to agree with. I think they could easily find the resources. It takes political support for it to be effectively resourced that is true. The resource is there if the backing is there imho.


It's not a conspiracy to assume that governments act in what they perceive to be their best interests. I actually believe that America was stupid enough to believe Iraq had WMDs. I think they wanted them to have them, so they chose to accept flimsy evidence. I also think the (perceived) economic and strategic reasons were fairly compelling.

As this is the the foundation of your belief, i'll not comment to much. i think we have been over that now.


Plus we know the Bush family has a grudge against Saddam.

CT imho... I agree he has no love for him .. but to extrapolate anything further imho is CTs.


Blair, OTOH, was a stupid idealist who bought into the myth of a moral war.

Maybe, but there was a vote he could have been defeated. He was not the only advocate for it. Plus there has been a election since for 'people to teach him a lesson'. Obviously support has dwindled.. but that is down to the reporting of the events imho. I know everything is not rosey.. but obviously this thread is supposed to be about HOPE so i'll stick with that for now.


Let me turn the question around. Are you saying that countries never do things for the wrong reasons?

Intentionaly! , possibly. Democratic countries, i'd still like to believe they do them for the right reasons. These reasons maybe selfish.. but i'd also like to believe removing the right left spin from the general publics personal agandas/beliefs/perceptions.. democratic countries try and maintain international cohesion. Not always with success obviously.


Not at all mate. I do believe I'm darn near 100% correct.

:zipped: :faint:.



Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to perceive a clear path outta this mess. I'm not a blind idealist - if leaving troops in Iraq would help, I'd support it. No point calling for withdrawl if it'd just make things work. But a military presence appears to be counterproductive at the moment. I'm sorry to say that I think a blood-letting is probably the only way we'll end up with any form of stability. I think we need to withdraw and look at what's left in the ruins once the smoke has cleared. Not ideal, but we shoulda thought about that before toppling the Iraqi government.

[I]Hope ?...

I'd love to mate, I really would. Nothing would please me more than to see everyone get behind the Iraqi government and make it work. Whether you believe the war should've been fought or not, the Iraqi government is currently the only chace for stability and peace. I'd support it and hope for the best, despite reservations about its autonomy and political allegiance. But regardless... it ain't gonna happen.

I appreciate your opinion this is what i wanted for this thread. It is on topic. Thankyou.


It ain't rocket science. He kept Iraq together (brutally) despite its ethnic mix for 25 years. We remove him and it falls apart. That seems pretty clear.

:zipped:


The Iraqi government is a house of cards that's gonna collapse without Western troops to support it. Not that they're managing to do much of that even now.


If you really believe that, then good luck to ya. Try this for size:

It was a mere e.g of Showmets opinion. Is my e.g a incorrect assesment then ?...but your e.g a true reflection of the situation. Both can't be true can they ?.


What a ridiculous argument! Israel ignores UN resolutions, and we ignore it. Iraq ignores UN resolutions, so we pass new ones authorising the use of force. And you argue that we don't invade Israel because a resolution hasn't been passed. That's a donkey chasing its tail.

Saddams resolution violations and the resolutions concerning aggresive action were in place before the last 'war'. He spent the last decade or more playing cat and mouse. He could quite easily have prevented this current action.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html I think these go far beyond resolutions placed upon Israel. Is Israel not subject to the same level of Un resolutions for their actions ?. Imho Israel / Iraq are two completly different kettles of fish. I think i can appreciate you have strong feeling over Israel so i won't go there to much.


Well that's lunacy. By that logic, we could exterminate the entire planet on a point of principle.

With hindsight i'd think differently .. going through events as they happen i don't so to alter opinions with how many people are dying is not something i do. I can't explain any better than that, sorry.


Iran and Syria are the regional powers. If the US pulls out, they're the only players left in town. No betting man believes that the US has any long-term plans to remain in Iraq at this point. They know they've fucked up and they're looking for an exit strategy.

If you accept Bushs and Blairs rhetoric of 'staying the course'.. and the acceptance a exit strategy and a change in startegy is what they want [it seems abundantly clear this is true]. It is ONE scenario, not the ONLY scenario. That was all i was saying really.

matthew
21-10--2006, 12:11 PM
one positive step forward would be for the british and american troops to stop inciting sectarian violence by using undercover operatives dressed as arabs to cause mayhem that the iraqi factions then blame on each other.

Were do you get that from ?.

Atomik
21-10--2006, 12:20 PM
I think that maybe with small issues.. but major ones :zipped: :faint:. Forgive me if that is rude.
I don't think it's rude. I just don't think you know me that well.


If you said 'No political will' or 'No public support or stomach for it' near the upcomeing election, i'd agree. Lack of resource, that one is a bit shacky for me to agree with. I think they could easily find the resources. It takes political support for it to be effectively resourced that is true. The resource is there if the backing is there imho.You're wrong. They're having difficulty even finding sufficient troops to maintain the occupation of Iraq. No way in hell have they got the manpower or the strategic base for an invasion of Iran.


CT imho... I agree he has no love for him .. but the extrapolate anything further imho is CTs.S'mot a conspiracy theory mate. It's basic human nature. And anyway... Bush senior is on record as saying he's sorry he didn't topple Saddam when he had the chance.


Maybe, but there was a vote he could have been defeated. He was not the only advocate for it.Prime Ministers set the agenda. Their parties and civil servants follow.


Intentionaly! , possibly. Democratic countries, i'd still like to believe they do them for the right reasons. These reasons maybe selfish.. but i'd also like to believe removing the right left spin from the general publics personal agandas/beliefs/perceptions.. democratic countries try and maintain international cohesion. Not always with success obviously.I agree. But the fallacy is to assume that they do so without being clouded by ideology and rhetoric.


It was a mere e.g of Showmets opinion. Is my e.g a incorrect assesment then ?...but your e.g a true reflection of the situation. Both can't be true can they ?.
No, they can't. The situation in Iraq is a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Any fool can see that. It's just whether they choose to admit it publically.


Saddams resolution violations and the resolutions concerning aggresive action were in place before the last 'war'. He spent the last decade or more playing cat and mouse. He could quite easily have prevented this current action.This isn't about Saddam. It's about millions of innocent people. I sincerely doubt Saddam could've prevented the allied invasion, as he seems to have realised himself.


I think these go far beyond resolutions placed upon Israel. Is Israel not subject to the same level of Un resolutions for their actions ?. Imho Israel / Iraq are two completly different kettles of fish. I think i can appreciate you have strong feeling over Israel so i won't go there to much. Your argument is ridiculous. One country should be penalised for repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions but another shouldn't? What's the difference? Actually, I'll tell ya. We know Israel has WMD.

matthew
21-10--2006, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomik
I don't think it's rude. I just don't think you know me that well.


Maybe not, but i think i've a grasp of you to a degree. I've read a lot of what you have said. I'm not going to be rude and point out individual e.g. I'm just saying my impression seems to be different than your own. You knowing yourself better than i do.. i'll leave it at that. Just a perception Stu'... sorry.

Quote:
You're wrong. They're having difficulty even finding sufficient troops to maintain the occupation of Iraq. No way in hell have they got the manpower or the strategic base for an invasion of Iran.

America has about 3 million men and women in uniform. It might be the case of troop rotation that could be true. Not enough or lack of resource , i don't think so.
The troop levels have fluctuated. The levels of Iraq troops goes up. I think they are not stretched to the point of being over stretched. I think the call to 'bring the boys home' prevents or hinders other troop deployments in politicaly sensive situations. Unless desperatly needed. Imho like i said imho '''No political will' or 'No public support or stomach for it' '' as far as Iran goes.

Quote:
S'mot a conspiracy theory mate. It's basic human nature. And anyway... Bush senior is on record as saying he's sorry he didn't topple Saddam when he had the chance.

'Carrying on the job' mmm well that could be true. Bush senior wanted and did all he could to invade Iraq. There leads onto another theory. That does not explain the UN communitys actions..

Quote:
Prime Ministers set the agenda. Their parties and civil servants follow.

The vote was not free.. that is true. The revolt was just not strong enough. If he did not want to risk anything. He would not have gone with a vote on military action for erm, well when was the last time a vote was given on military action ?.

Quote:
the fallacy is to assume that they do so without being clouded by ideology and rhetoric.

I accept that.. but that is true of us all.

Quote:
No, they can't. The situation in Iraq is a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Any fool can see that.

The points you highlighted do not reflect the overall assesment of the situation. I think both your e.g and mine can be true at the same time. Mine reflects the overall picture, yours reflects a certain part of the situation.

Quote:
It's just whether they choose to admit it publically.

Shoot you are always 100% correct.. i'll ignore what they say and think they are delusional shall i ?. ;)

Quote:
This isn't about Saddam. It's about millions of innocent people. I sincerely doubt Saddam could've prevented the allied invasion, as he seems to have realised himself.

He is the head of those millions of people.. It HAS to be about him imho. I think yor at risk from a delusion he could not have prevented this from occuring. It would take a year to go through 10+ plus years to figure out who is correct. It is your opinion, i'll respect that.

Quote:

Your argument is ridiculous. One country should be penalised for repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions but another shouldn't? What's the difference?

Like i said two differing situations..

Quote:
Actually, I'll tell ya. We know Israel has WMD.

So do we so does other nations. Should we all have resolutions placed upon us. Don't cop out by saying 'it is a nice idea' that aint fair Stu'.;)

Atomik
21-10--2006, 01:16 PM
Shit matthew, fix the quote tags and I'll read that and respond.

showmet
21-10--2006, 01:55 PM
Saddams resolution violations and the resolutions concerning aggresive action were in place before the last 'war'. He spent the last decade or more playing cat and mouse. He could quite easily have prevented this current action.

Actually he couldn't. He said that Iraq had no WMD and was complying with the resolutions in question - and he wasn't bluffing. If you read the UNMOVIC reports from 2002-3 you will see just how far Saddam was going to facilitate the inspectors. The few technical violations remaining were because Iraq could not provide documentation proving it had destroyed some small quantities of proscribed materials - they had been destroyed, but it was impossible to prove it, so Saddam remained technically in violation. He could have done nothing more than he did to prevent the invasion.

PlutoPete
21-10--2006, 04:17 PM
Were do you get that from ?.
the times online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788054,00.html
these soldiers were arrested dressed as arabs, a british tank squad then attacked the jail to free them. If they were on legitimate operations why would we attack a legitimate police station killing legitimate police officers in order to free them

Atomik
21-10--2006, 04:21 PM
the times online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788054,00.html
these soldiers were arrested dressed as arabs, a british tank squad then attacked the jail to free them. If they were on legitimate operations why would we attack a legitimate police station killing legitimate police officers in order to free themThat's a huge leap of logic, to say the least.

matthew
23-10--2006, 10:57 AM
.....

matthew
23-10--2006, 11:01 AM
Shit matthew, fix the quote tags and I'll read that and respond.

It won't let me edit that post so i'll put it [fixed] here..

If you can delete that other post go for it...



I don't think it's rude. I just don't think you know me that well.



Maybe not, but i think i've a grasp of you to a degree. I've read a lot of what you have said. I'm not going to be rude and point out individual e.g. I'm just saying my impression seems to be different than your own. You knowing yourself better than i do.. i'll leave it at that. Just a perception Stu'... sorry.



You're wrong. They're having difficulty even finding sufficient troops to maintain the occupation of Iraq. No way in hell have they got the manpower or the strategic base for an invasion of Iran.

America has about 3 million men and women in uniform. It might be the case of troop rotation that could be true. Not enough or lack of resource , i don't think so.
The troop levels have fluctuated. The levels of Iraq troops goes up. I think they are not stretched to the point of being over stretched. I think the call to 'bring the boys home' prevents or hinders other troop deployments in politicaly sensive situations. Unless desperatly needed. Imho like i said imho '''No political will' or 'No public support or stomach for it' '' as far as Iran goes.



S'mot a conspiracy theory mate. It's basic human nature. And anyway... Bush senior is on record as saying he's sorry he didn't topple Saddam when he had the chance.

'Carrying on the job' mmm well that could be true. Bush senior wanted and did all he could to invade Iraq. There leads onto another theory. That does not explain the UN communitys actions..



Prime Ministers set the agenda. Their parties and civil servants follow.

The vote was not free.. that is true. The revolt was just not strong enough. If he did not want to risk anything. He would not have gone with a vote on military action for erm, well when was the last time a vote was given on military action ?.



the fallacy is to assume that they do so without being clouded by ideology and rhetoric.

I accept that.. but that is true of us all.



No, they can't. The situation in Iraq is a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Any fool can see that.

The points you highlighted do not reflect the overall assesment of the situation. I think both your e.g and mine can be true at the same time. Mine reflects the overall picture, yours reflects a certain part of the situation.



It's just whether they choose to admit it publically.

Shoot you are always 100% correct.. i'll ignore what they say and think they are delusional shall i ?. ;)



This isn't about Saddam. It's about millions of innocent people. I sincerely doubt Saddam could've prevented the allied invasion, as he seems to have realised himself.

He is the head of those millions of people.. It HAS to be about him imho. I think yor at risk from a delusion he could not have prevented this from occuring. It would take a year to go through 10+ plus years to figure out who is correct. It is your opinion, i'll respect that.





Your argument is ridiculous. One country should be penalised for repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions but another shouldn't? What's the difference?


Like i said two differing situations..



Actually, I'll tell ya. We know Israel has WMD.

So do we so does other nations. Should we all have resolutions placed upon us. Don't cop out by saying 'it is a nice idea' that aint fair Stu'.;)

Atomik
23-10--2006, 11:16 AM
America has about 3 million men and women in uniform. It might be the case of troop rotation that could be true. Not enough or lack of resource , i don't think so.Put simply, you're wrong. You'd be pushed to find any serious military commentator that would agree with your analysis.


The troop levels have fluctuated. The levels of Iraq troops goes up. I think they are not stretched to the point of being over stretched. I think the call to 'bring the boys home' prevents or hinders other troop deployments in politicaly sensive situations. Unless desperatly needed. Imho like i said imho '''No political will' or 'No public support or stomach for it' '' as far as Iran goes.Again, you're simply wrong.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0319/p04s01-woiq.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2099408

"To a civilian, it may not make sense that a war involving 130,000 troops could strain the 1.4 million-strong U.S. military to its breaking point. Military officers often say that "amateurs study tactics—professionals study logistics.""


'Carrying on the job' mmm well that could be true. Bush senior wanted and did all he could to invade Iraq. There leads onto another theory. That does not explain the UN communitys actions..They... those that followed America... allowed themselves to be convinced by American 'intelligence' that Saddam was a threat.


The points you highlighted do not reflect the overall assesment of the situation. I think both your e.g and mine can be true at the same time. Mine reflects the overall picture, yours reflects a certain part of the situation.That statement is just downright delusional. There's now an avalanche of opinion rapidly heading towards a consensus that the Iraqi war is a disaster and the security situation terminal.


He is the head of those millions of people.. It HAS to be about him imho. I think yor at risk from a delusion he could not have prevented this from occuring. It would take a year to go through 10+ plus years to figure out who is correct. It is your opinion, i'll respect that.Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. One man does not a country make. It is not about Saddam... it's about the lives of millions or Iraqis. And he could not have prevented the war, because America were set on it... as Showmet has more than adequately illustrated.

Mr Tenet [CIA director], asked in the run up to the invasion of Iraq how confident he was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, told President George Bush that it was a "slam dunk", according to an account by the journalist Bob Woodward


So do we so does other nations. But those nations aren't already in breach of numerous UN resolutions. If you're going to site resolution breaches as sufficient justification for war with Iraq, you need to be consistent.

* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

matthew
23-10--2006, 12:06 PM
Actually he couldn't. He said that Iraq had no WMD and was complying with the resolutions in question - and he wasn't bluffing. If you read the UNMOVIC reports from 2002-3 you will see just how far Saddam was going to facilitate the inspectors. The few technical violations remaining were because Iraq could not provide documentation proving it had destroyed some small quantities of proscribed materials - they had been destroyed, but it was impossible to prove it, so Saddam remained technically in violation. He could have done nothing more than he did to prevent the invasion.

I have seen.. i knew he was not being completly untruthful.. and i do believe he was attempting to prolong and gain time to get his records in order. When you have been that manipulative with the facts for that amount of time. Ofcourse at the last minute, he may just have ran out of time.

If he:
Kept his records upto date. Not played games for 10 years. Been more co-operative. I agree given more time and further co-operation .. this situation could have turned out different. Imho these inspections were hampered hindered all along the way. In the end it took the invasion to cross the ts and dot the is.. hence the certainties/knowledge now 'No WMD'.
If Saddam had any thought for his people after the first Iraq war.. he should have worked harder and not resumed ANY resumptions of his previous endeavours.

At the end of the day imho and what makes me resume the POV i have is that ''It was his own bloody fault''.


proactive engagement on the part of Iraq would be in its own best interest and is a window of opportunity that may not remain open for very much longer. Iraq should make every effort to be fully transparent - with a demonstrated willingness to resolve issues rather than requiring pressure to do so. The international community will not be satisfied when questions remain open with regard to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; the world is asking for a high level of assurance that Iraq is completely free from all such weapons, and is already impatient to receive it. The sooner such assurance can be provided by the inspecting organizations, the sooner the prospects of a peaceful resolution will translate into a plausible reality.

Atomik
23-10--2006, 12:12 PM
I have seen.. i knew he was not being completly untruthful.. and i do believe he was attempting to prolong and gain time to get his records in order. When you have been that manipulative with the facts for that amount of time. Ofcourse at the last minute, he may just have ran out of time.So what you're basically saying is that Saddam had no WMD, we invaded Iraq on a false pretext leaving tens of thousands dead.... and it's all Saddam's fault? :rolleyes:


At the end of the day imho and what makes me resume the POV i have is that ''It was his own bloody fault''."He"? "Him"? This isn't a childhood scuffle in the playground. This is inernational politics and war. It isn't about one individual.... it's about diplomacy, nation states and millions of innocent civilians. Even if you assume that "it" was "his" fault (which in itself is a remarkably simplistic interpretation), then was it the fault of the tens of thousands who've been killed? Or the millions living with the aftermath of the war? Do you think they'd feel comforted by the notion that Saddam was "asking for it"? Fuck the Iraqi people, Saddam's messing us around, so let's teach one man a lesson at the expense of tens of thousands of lives? Incredible.

matthew
23-10--2006, 12:56 PM
Put simply, you're wrong. You'd be pushed to find any serious military commentator that would agree with your analysis.

"To a civilian, it may not make sense that a war involving 130,000 troops could strain the 1.4 million-strong U.S. military to its breaking point. Military officers often say that "amateurs study tactics—professionals study logistics.""


Certain people and ceratin sections of the media [Mos' Def' the Independant]. Have been citing ''Current U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq Are Unsustainable'' since 2004. Those factors you highlight are not the only factors, lets not say they are. I respect the notion that a indederminate troop deployment is unquestionably unsustainable. At this point in time, with further progress in Iraq soldiers/police No.s. The factors i have highlighted are a key factor. Come mid 2007 pushing onto 2008. I'd accept that these predicictions imho will hold more weight. Just it seems any increase in violence and seeming on a regular basis .. ''troop levels'' are said to be 'stretched'. So sorry if i don't quite believe it at this point in time.



They... those that followed America... allowed themselves to be convinced by American 'intelligence' that Saddam was a threat.


Imho they were reading the same reports provided by all the inspection teams that have been surrounding this issue for the last decade or so.

We can come to our own conclusions imho. Going through the maze that is our opinion. We may have to accept our differences.

Now admit that Iraqi goverment and 70% of the Iraqi people want a democracy and are free from Saddam. These being the innocent millions you speak of. It is the other 30% that cause all the shit.


That statement is just downright delusional. There's now an avalanche of opinion rapidly heading towards a consensus that the Iraqi war is a disaster and the security situation terminal.

I can imagine there is... i read and seen that avalanche.


Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. One man does not a country make. It is not about Saddam... it's about the lives of millions or Iraqis. And he could not have prevented the war, because America were set on it... as Showmet has more than adequately illustrated.

If that one man is unwilling to remove himself or be 'bribed out of goverment' or maintain normal diplomatic relations on a par with the majority of the world..then imho it IS him that a country makes. Unless you count a revolution. I know now it is about millions of innocent people. Who brought this upon those millions of people ?.

I think the crux is you think Saddam could have been given more time and maybe more incentives to remove his brutal regime. Imho he had many opotunities but chose not to accept any of it. You only have to hear his words over the last year.. to know the guy was unrepentant.


Mr Tenet [CIA director], asked in the run up to the invasion of Iraq how confident he was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, told President George Bush that it was a "slam dunk", according to an account by the journalist Bob Woodward

He along with the majority of the UN.. off record. Obviously they have to take the advice of independant inspectors. His comments have been put down to a few words that are i agree slightly ''yea ha american' that is for sure. It does not detract from countless others around the world who agreed with him.. We should not rely on media reports [journalists] that set there own agenda and NEVER waver from that position to any great degree. If i read the Indy for the last 3 years and believed every word.... I'd prob' have a differing opinion than i do now. If he said that or not has been in question.. it is a well known phrase of his..and i think the journo thought 'i bet he said that'.. his opinion was/is a bit more nuanced that that..


But those nations aren't already in breach of numerous UN resolutions. If you're going to site resolution breaches as sufficient justification for war with Iraq, you need to be consistent.

I know.. but how many of those are outdated and don't lead to aggresive security council actions that could bring on a 'war'. I might be wrong but imho the key nations that are intent on a secretive aggresive action.. are well known. I understand your feelings about Israel.. and i doubt i'm going to provide justifications/explanations further, than instead of citing those resolutions. highlight ones that could lead to resolutions pretaining to the possibility of 'war'..

It should be noted that as of September 2006, no resolution concerning Israel was made under Chapter VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charte r) of the UN Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Is rael_and_Palestine