Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 31

I am sure that the interrogation that is sure to come will make him wish that he was dead. Right now he is not being helpful.

Iraq War Post

Hello people,

Been a while since I last visited. Ever since the change in format here I was too lazy to go through the various steps to get back here. So let's say I was lost in the wilderness over yonder.

The capture of Saddam is not such a big deal in many parts of the world except understandably in Iraq and the US. Heck, our local stock market did not even react as widely expected to in all the European markets. It went down instead of up. Then today, the rest of the market woke up out of the 'euphoria' and corrected downwards. The Dow and Nasdaq was down too.

So, what does that tell us? It shows that Saddam is no longer a factor in this so-called war on terrorism. I said at the beginning that I don't think Saddam was involved in those recent acts of terrorism perpetrated against US etc. And I still believe so. It was all a cover for the US to take control over the mid-east oil supply. Saddam happened to be a convenient scapegoat. He was a threat to his people and his immediate neighbors for sure, but don't forget that the US made use of him when it was convenient for them back in the 80's.

And I will make a bold prediction here. There will be NO WMDs to be found at all. Not in the near future, and maybe not in the mid-term. Even if there are some (which I doubt too), it will not be made known to the whole world. Likewise, even if the US can conclusively (99% sure) that there are none to be found, they will also not announce so. WHY? Because either way, that would mean the end of their expedition. Remember the original 'goals' of the attack on Iraq? To get rid of Saddam and the WMD that the US / UK says he has. And the US forces will NOT STAY A DAY LONGER THAN NECESSARY. So now, one of these 'goals' has been achieved. The other ?? Well, maybe they will put out a statement that they will need at least another 5 - 10 years to search and verify that there really are no WMDs.

In the meantime, the US having made so much committments into this expedition expects to reap paybacks in the years to come. Ultimately, control over the region, and unlimited access to the oil reserves. This ambition to control the region and over oil reserves goes back probably as far as the 60's or 70's but there was the Cold War bipolar world then and it acted very effectively to counter the very type of imperialism that we are seeing today.

And the whole world should not breathe too big a sigh of relief over this capture of Saddam. He was not a threat to either you in the Carribean, the American continent, or to me in Southeast Asia. But one guy is, and continues to be ....... Osama bin Laden! So, why is Bush not going after him as hard as he does Saddam??

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

We have what we consider reliable intelligence reports telling us what country he is in. What would you have us do? Invade them too?

Edited: tenaheff on 16th Dec, 2003 - 3:56pm

Page 31 Iraq War Post

And I will make an equally bold prediction. The US will be out of Iraq before July 4, 2004. Yes, it is likely that the new Iraqi government will be much more pro-US than surrounding regimes, but then even France meets that criteria.

NightHawk

Iraq War Post

The reports do not agree with this statement. I heard the US troops will be in Iraq until the year 2006.

"United States and allied troops will have to remain in Iraq for at least "a couple more years" to secure the country's stability and protect its borders against attack, the American commander of those forces said in an interview in Baghdad on Saturday.

Speaking hours before the capture later that day of Saddam Hussein, the commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said the United States was "moving very aggressively to try to hand over responsibility to Iraqi security forces and build their capacity in some key areas." But this transfer would take "awhile," and not be completed by the time Iraq is scheduled to regain its sovereignty, on June 30, 2004."

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/internat...;partner=GOOGLE

Post War Iraq

Ah, you are right. I was thinking of the transfer of government back to the Iraqi people.

NightHawk

Post War Iraq - Page 31

We have what we consider reliable intelligence reports telling us what country he is in. What would you have us do? Invade them too?

If the US is really certain where Osama is, the whole world wants him captured and will totally supported the US in going after him. Remember how the international support was given when Osama was in Afghanistan right after 9/11? And there were no protests at all when the coalition went in to invade it. The support was almost total. Everyone agrees and accepts the fact that Osama is a bad dude.

Now, having said that, I am sure the US or UK or Russia or Israel, etc., all have instruments that can go in and take him out no matter which country he is in. The CIA was notorious for that in the past, all those covert assasinations that included heads of state or senior political figures. You can't tell me there were no such things. From Central America, Latin America, to Africa, Middle east.

Now, if you tell me that the intelligence is not that good, and the CIA doesn't cut it anymore. And they have no idea where Osama is, that he is still as elusive as ever, I will tend to believe you. After all, since the CIA was shackled some years back by the govt, it has not been as effective in its operations or intelligence gathering. But you are here telling me that you guys know which country he is in. Give me a break!

Do you think Bush would not go after him if the US really know where he is? Bush will become superhero. demigod, and all will bow to him, and Democrats won't be able to touch him or even smell him ..... if Osama is captured! Naw, I don't think your intelligence is at all reliable.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 31

Excuse me. I don't this this true. The majority of the Arab world was against us. In fact, in some Arab countries they were actually cheering in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they didn't show that on the news where you live, but they did in the US.

I said we know what country he is in. That doesn't mean we have an exact location where we can just drop in get him and sneak back out. Also, I don't think any intelligence can be 100% accurate. Do you?

As a matter of fact, in the past decade or so, it was made illegal by US law to assassinate a world leader. This was much discussed before the invasion to Iraq, because some would have rather we just assassinate Saddam. I do not know how this plays out with respect to Bin Laden. However, you are being unrealistic in your thinking of our power, if you think we can just go in take out one person and no innocent lives are lost.

We have done a lot of things in the past on our own without international support. You generally have been against our doing that. Now, this most recent post seems to suggest we should just go ahead and do it? So, which is it? Should we only go in with UN support or is it o.k. to go on our own. You see, I don't think you can pick and choose and say, well none of us like Bin Laden so you don't need UN agreement to enter Syria and kill him, but we don't think it is o.k. for you to go in without UN agreement in some other case because we don't feel personally threated by that situation.