Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 102

Firstly, the 130,000 death toll figure is extremely conservative. A recent Lancet report, which is a far wider-spanning study than any previously done, places the figure of total deaths at above 650,000. This includes civilian and military personnel on both sides. I think it is important not to understate the scale of this disaster.

Whether the US should stay in Iraq should not be determined by the number of US deaths. I think the more important point is what is in the best interest of the Iraq, since our governments took the high ground and decided to invade for no legitimate reason. I can hope that Bush has chosen to stay in Iraq for this long because he was genuine in an attempt to help the country move forward. But clearly, the US, British and Coalition forces are not welcome by most Iraqis. They are viewed as an occupation force, which they are. People should rise up against them. Would you rise up to Iraqi forces if they occupied the US? No country likes being occupied so this resentment is no surprise.

Iraq is a complete failure and even the most conservative supporter has to admit this. While there might be a large number of Iraqis allegedly involved in security, I doubt most of these are adequately trained. The problem is a lot of police and military personnel are involved in the death squads and reprisal killings. I don't think anyone really knows how this will pan out, but the US and its coalition partners have to drastically scale back their involvement. Bush has to stop leaning on the Iraqi government and any guidance must come from a world body like the UN. There is no room for a pushy occupier to tell a sovereign government how they should run their country. I fear there will be a lot more bloodshed while this hopeless power vacuum still exists.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on one final point Konq. While Saddam was a monster and deserves his punishment, Iraq was a much safer place under the tyrant. I fear it will take another strong leader to stabilise this torn country.

Iraq War Post

To me this is yet another piece of evidence that says if you are going to go to war with a country and try to change its ways or ideology, commit completely. Do not go half way and expect a great result. The US has seen this in Vietnam, Korea and now most likely Iraq. War is ugly business and unfortunately or fortunately, the media's coverage of war has totally changed what can and cannot be done. The media only used to do "fluff" pieces that made everything we did seem right and just. Since Walter Chronkite showed us the dead in Vietnam and started the criticism of the government, there was no turning back.

Basically, in modern history, what needs to be done to totally dismantle a government and public ideology and turn it in a different and lasting direction has only been done one time to my knowledge. That is Japan (you can argue about the former Yugoslavia, but there are still Kfor forces there). What was done to the Japanese people immediately after the war was oppressive by todays standards. At the time, it would have simply been looked at as "just rewards". What was nearly immediately done to their military machine could not be done today, but it worked. It also took 7 Years to complete.

https://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanwork...occupation.html

I have come to the personal conclusion that no nation will now be successful at occupying another country and changing its ideology. There is no way to do what is necessary in totally destroying the pervious regime and appear to be better than the old regime. Bush and Co tried to do this with the playing deck of criminals, but that really was not enough. They needed to root a few more levels down and that means a lot of government sanctioned killing. They needed to play with a 50 deck chute! It also takes time to 'force feed" the new desired ideology and governments just are not willing to make that commitment. It plainly cost too much money, not to mention the bad press about being a oppressive occupying force. Bush has spent a fortune in trying to solve this problem and it just is not going to work. We are now trying to figure out what is the "best direction of failure". Sad really.

So we will hear about oppressive regime's and reporters will tell us how bad they are and we will say the UN should do something about it. The UN will put sanctions that will basically be worthless and not adhered to by the dictator. The dictators will be allowed to kill their people off as they wish, as long as they don't infringe on another country's souverenty and have the smarts to oppress the freedom of speech/press throughout their country to avoid upsetting the "civilized" countries.

I hate to say it, but it is almost better if we had not invaded Iraq. Not because it was not a nobel cause, but because the way the game is played today, there is no way to win and that is the really sad truth of it all.

Edited: Vincenzo on 14th Nov, 2006 - 10:37am

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

I think what you are referring to is something dubbed "total warfare". Americans today haven't had a cause in which to stand be behind total war.

Total is the complete annihilation of another countries ability to function as a country in the same fashion they did before, which would be what started the war. This type of war should have been waged in Afghanistan, and we should have stayed out of Iraq. Few people today have the stomach for what total war involves. However, if they cause were right, americans would back it. Being attacked on our own soil was cause to wage total war against the country we knew was responsible, instead, we saved back troops for Iraq.

Page 102 Iraq War Post

I question whether this invasion was a noble cause. I am not convinced Coalition of the willing removed Saddam because they cared about Iraqis. If that were the case they would have done this years ago, when the US and UK were his allies and he was at his worst. I think this is more about freeing oil markets and changing the shape of the Middle East to become more friendly/compliant with Western interests.

The reasons why I believe this is:

a) Coalition partners made several excuses to try to justify invasion, but their first plank was WMDs. We now know that Iraq never had these and the Bush Administration and intelligence organisations knew this. The British Government desperately dressed up its now infamous dossier which has cost Blair severely. The coalition refused to wait for weapons inspections teams to carry their duties because they knew they wouldn't find anything. They refused to go through the UN because there was no evidence to facilitate the WMDs lie.

The second major lie was Saddam's links to Al-Quaeda. This was always dismissed as ludicrous by journalists, experts and those who have followed Iraq for some time. Bin Laden hates Saddam and vice versa. Saddam runs a secular regime, Bin Laden is a fundamentalist. There was never a link, it was a blatant nonsense and a desperate attempt by the Coalition of the willing to scare the world in believing Iraq's invasion was necessary.

c) The third reason, note: AFTER the other two failed, was that Saddam's removal was to liberate Iraqis. There was also noise about Iraqis wanting democracy, which I have never recalled any Iraqi acknowledging. If this was the first and only reason for invasion, it would have received cautious support by the International community. But by the time this PR manoeuvre was employed, everyone knew Coalition didn't give a stuff about the people. Furthermore, if you care about the welfare of the people, why savagely and unnecessarily destroy all its infrastructure? Things like hospitals do not need to be bombed to win a war against a much weaker opponent. Shock and Awe does not sound like the actions of a noble cause to me.


Furthermore, the Iraq invasion had been planned by neo-cons even before September 11. Cheney, who deals with energy issues in the US, was the key figure involved. He has oil maps and foreign suitors (read competitors of the US) for potential oil contracts in Iraq. Cheney tried to suppress this information from the public but an FOI and protracted court hearing has uncovered them, years after the initial request.

Cheney's Iraq oil field maps

This link is to a more chilling and rather biased assessment of Cheney's push for Iraqi oil. While I don't endorse the sentiment, the facts can easily be verified.
Cheney's Iraq plans

I agree with you on this mate. Gone are the days where a nation can successfully impose its will and ideologies on others. While they may be able to do this in a military sense, I doubt it will be accepted by the people. That's why it is no longer acceptable to wage war on ideology.

Konq I agree with most of what you say with the exception that Afghanistan was responsible for the September 11 attack. Is that what you implied?

Most of the bombers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's family still lives there. Saudi Arabia is a US ally and the world's largest oil supplier, so let's attack Afghanistan? The Taliban were actually in secret negotiations with the Clinton Administration over the installation of a gas pipeline. It's not like they have suddenly emerged out of the woodwork as evil terrorists! Afghanistan harbours a lot of terrorist activity because it was left with a massive power vacuum after the Soviet war. The Taliban had filled this. Now it is a mess with regional warlords and a resurgent Taliban dominating much of the control. If Bin Laden was being sheltered there post Sept-11, does that mean the whole country should be invaded? Pakistan is another key player that provides shelter for Al-Quaeda, but yet again, they are a US ally.

Iraq War Post

Perhaps I am a bit of a pragmatist. For me, it was pretty simple as to why there was war. UN resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284 and most importantly in the end 1441 were the basis for war.

That was Colin Powell's conclusion to the UN Security Council. You can read the entire report here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj....ript/index.html

Yes, Powell does talk about WMD's and al-Queda links. However, that was supporting evidence to the fact that Sadam was asked point blank to follow 1441 or follow serious consequences. Now perhaps it is much like a child that has been threatened with a consequence that never happens and they grow bolder. Maybe. If so, shame on the UN for playing the charade that long! However, if Iraq follows resolution 1441, there is no invasion. If Iraq followed any of the preceding 16 resolutions, there is no war. It doesn't matter how much bad intel the Bush administration had or how many maps of oil fields resided in Cheney's office...there would have been no war. All they had to do was let inspectors in to Iraq with full access to sites intented for inspection. Inspectors in = "shock and awe" out. No matter how bad the administration wanted to invade, they couldn't as long as Sadam followed the guidelines of the resolutions.

Rather off topic, but... I always enjoy Rumsfeld's response to journalist questions like: Where is the enemy now and where are our forces targetting next? The look on his face was often priceless during those sessions. That aside, "Shock and Awe" showed just how full of himself he could be at times or all the time for some of us.

Please note the quantity of resolutions. Resolution 687 was the first that mentioned inspections. That resolution was passed 4/3/91 by the UN. Not even Clinton was in office at that time! The resolution states that there could be military actions against Iraq should it not follow the resolution. While I have a lot of contempt for Clinton's morality, I have no doubt that you would have been able to find a map of oil fields on at least one of his cabinet members desk at some time. You see, we made a threat and even if we hoped not to enact it, there certainly was a plan to back it up in the Bush Sr, Clinton and as you know the Bush Jr Administrations. A US president cannot have a problem with oil flow into the country. That would absolutely destroy the economy and I have faith that Clinton was on top of that as well (I am sure he saw the lesson taught to Jimmy Carter and Bush Sr about ignoring the economy and the success that others have had in mothering it). If there were to be an invasion (UN or US led), the US had to make sure that the oil fields were protected and that would require maps and a plan. I am sure they had both.

Strangely enough, it is this type of inuendo that got GWB and Powell into trouble.

Was Clinton in on the WMD charade too? Here is a quote from a speech to the US people on why he was bombing Iraq back on December 16, 1998:

What? We ALL know now that there NEVER were WMD's. There NEVER were any programs. Did Clinton have Bush's failed intel? Did Clinton hand over the "lie" to the new administration to keep it going? Perhaps, Sadam gave up all his plans for weapons after those bombs? But, how could Clinton blow up those buildings and kill a few civilians? Hmm... If I am Michael Moore, I got a movie here! You might be interested to read Clinton's address to the US people:

https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories...ts/clinton.html

Sure doesn't sounds like he "thinks" there are weapons there...he sounds pretty positive. Actually, he is so sure that there are weapons that that is not even a topic of discussion. Of course, he is smart enough not to elaborate on his grounds (supporting evidence for a nuclear, biological or chemical program) for this aggession. He keeps it straight and talks only about the infractions by Iraq on the resolutions signed for peace. Smart guy, Bush and Co. should have paided attention!

The thing is that if there were truly no weapons (there is no disputing that we can't find anything but some bad mustard gas rockets that they weren't supposed to have), Sadam went to great lengths to make us think there were weapons. If there were weapons, we were certainly too late and perhaps we should have made "the move" somewhere around resolution 4 or 5. In the end, it is a bad decision on Sadam's part for playing a game where there can only be a bad ending for him and the only question is "how long is he allowed to play the game?". Just think, he gave his fiefdom and life away because he wouldn't let inspectors come in and inspect for plans and weapons that weren't there...what a idiot.

The al-Queda tie was sketchy at best and that it why it was last on Powell's agenda. When you read Powell's transcript it feels like a Dan Brown novel that has lots of individual facts woven into a fantastic false statement. You could call it a lie. I am not sure that is the right wording tough.

So for me, the war started because parts of the UN Security Council were getting tired of being made a fool of resolution after resolution. If UN wants to be taken seriously, their resolutions need teeth. They need to stand behind their very own charter (one of the goals of the UN):

The preamble of the UN Charter has some very amiable goals that are quite noble in their aim. I definitely think they are worth a fight! Perhaps even a noble fight?

https://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

If you wade through the allegations of terrorism and such, even GWB's speech to the UN Security Council in my mind hit the nail on the head. If only he would have just said this and left all the other stuff out (like Clinton before him):

I have no problems with the use of the term total war. However, I am not sure that anyone has the stomach for total war if it is going to show up on a TV screen for public scrutiny. What I was trying to show was that many levels of Japan's political machine were either killed from result of a war crimes trial or simply killed themselves. There were approximately 2000 that had to die to allow for the old ideology to be washed away. Thousands...not just one deck of cards worth. I have little doubt that no civilized country is up to the purging necessary for a ideology change. A regime change can happen with no problem, we are pretty good at that (the US has got some nice toys), but we cannot ensure that the same types that we just threw out wont get back in without a total purging and that means a lot of killing and that doesn't show up to well on the 10pm news.

Edited: Vincenzo on 15th Nov, 2006 - 10:10am

Post War Iraq

Representative John Murtha is receiving a stong push to become majority leader in the house from Pelosi. Here is a statement from his website that might give a clue as to what is to come:

https://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_...qtrascript.html

Looks like we will be pulling out. He has made no doubt of his desire to exit Iraq and redeploy somewhere else (now that is pretty interesting). From the tone of the message, I would say he would likely set a agressive timetable. I just wonder where that somewhere else is?

Good luck Iraq!

Post War Iraq - Page 102

Vincenzo, It has never been proven that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441. In fact you would argue to the contrary. Hans Blix, in his reports to the UN, stated that he didn't believe Iraq had disclosed all its material documenting previous weapons programs. But he also said there was no evidence Iraq had any WMDs and that the weapons inspection process should continue. We now know that Iraq didn't have a weapons program and their submissions were probably accurate to this effect.

Do you want to know why the US and Britain were so confident of finding Iraqi weapons? It's because both these countries, amongst others, supplied Saddam with materials and agents to produce WMDs to begin with. Now Britain is trying to censor the Iraq submissions, I wonder why?

This information is quite accessible and easy to research. Just goto Wikipedia and type keywords, such as "Resolution 1441". Here is a passage from that website I will post for your convenience.

Resolution 1441 dates other prior UN resolutions, therefore there is no point raising them for debate. Furthermore, it was the US and Britain who determined that Iraq had been in breach of this resolution and that military action was required. This WAS NOT a Security Council conclusion. Therefore, Iraq was NOT in breach of 1441. It is as simple as that really. Who on earth makes the US and Britain the umpires of the world?

At any rate, you must have a new resolution to cast an act of war based on the breach of 1441. That is how politics works in every democratic arena I know. We all know the US pretty much controls the UN, but they certainly have no right to tell the rest of the world that Uncle Sam can change the rules as he pleases.

Debate will continue to linger between those who support the war - the US Administration, Tony Blair, John Howard and conservative Americans, and those who don't - the rest of the world.

Regardless of the legalities, the US, Britain and Coalition conducted an act of invasion on a platform of lies.

Was Clinton any better? Hell no. His Administration pushed the UN to starve Iraqis and destroy a country to keep one rich tyrant in check. His Administration's brutal sanctions policy on Iraq led to well over a million deaths in that country through starvation and lack of basic medicines. Clinton also used Iraq for political convenience. Remember Desert Fox?

The four-day bombing campaign in 1998 occurred at the same time the US House of Representatives was considering articles of impeachment against him. A coincidence? I don't think so. Let's also not forget that the Clinton Administration and Britain were conducting sorties into the illegitimate "No Fly Zones" for so many years it became the longest running military operation since Vietnam.

Furthermore, there has always been a lot of misinformation about previous weapons inspectors and Iraq's compliance.

Yet again, Wikipedia explains:

I agree with you in that the West was way too late. That was the ridiculous thing about this whole invasion. Saddam should have been removed when he was shaking hands with Mr Rumsfeld all those years ago. That was when he really was a tyrant who used WMDs. Now he is a helpless old man who will finally be punished, but I think you will agree with me in saying the damage is well and truly done.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 102

Arvhic, regarding a comment earlier about Afghanistan being responsible for 9/11. If I implied that Afghanistan was responsible, then I didn't mean too. I was merely saying that we knew Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and they refused to help us catch him when the Taliban knew where he was. One could still question that war, but at the time, it was justified.

I think we are seeing now why it was a bad idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Was he a bad man? Yes. But what he did was hold an unstable region together, holding three warring Islamic groups together by force. Not having that force is the reason we will likely see a three state country, one part for every group, Sunni, Kurd, Shiite.