Add Reply
Related Information to Post War IraqPost War Iraq - Page 103 of 171
A more honest assessment of Iraq draws cheers - Page 103 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 7th Dec, 2006 - 5:08pm
Posts: 1362 - Views: 101299
versus 
So, now that the USA left Iraq can the country rebuild herself and become stable? Related Information to Post War Iraq
Post War Iraq - Page 103
The whole thing really reminds me of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a relatively quiet country under Tito's watchful thumb. Tito was able to keep 3 groups (Serbians, Bosnians and Croatians) that hated each other under control and peaceful. Perhaps this was Saddam's position. The only thing about Tito was that he was far less oppressive then Saddam. Tito's people enjoyed more freedom under socialism that most of the Russian satellites. However, we all know what happened after Tito died... Interesting how history repeats itself.
Konquerez, I certainly do see a Kurdistan, Shiistan and Sunnistan in the future. My biggest fear is that there will be one less of them by the time they get around to drawing the boarders.
Arhvic, it certainly is a fine mess.
What I was trying to point out was that the UN had threatened "serious penalties" for a dozen years. I expect that the US President will have a plan ready to enact those "serious penalties" even if we don't use them. Bush Sr, Clinton and GWB's administrations had invasion plans. I am sure all of the tried to secure the oil wells to protect the US economy. That said, someone finding a map of Iraq oil well locations on Cheney's desk doesn't shock me in the least. I suspect there was at least one person in each of the mentioned administrations that had drawn up a invasion senario. I expect that the US President will have these plans because if the UN decides to go in, the US will supply the majority of the support. I just don't see this as a big Cheney-Haliburton Invasion for Oil Scam. I am sure we will never agree on that...
I did a bit of reading on Mr Ritter (used google though...personal preference). He is not exactly the most reliable resource, although he certainly would be knowledgible. Mr. Ritter:
| QUOTE |
| In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind? I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in. Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left? I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything. Are you being investigated for espionage? I've been called a spy of Israel since 1996, and since I made my documentary film in 2000 the FBI has investigated me as an agent of Iraq. The FBI has also opened up an investigation into my wife calling her a KGB spy. So there is this form of harassment taking place. |
| QUOTE |
| But in 1999, Ritter confounded get-Saddam hawks who thought he was in their camp when he published "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All." In it, Ritter repeated his charge that UNSCOM's mission had ultimately been compromised by Washington's use of the inspections to spy on Saddam. But the bombshells were his assertion that Iraq was no longer a military threat and his call for the U.S. to quickly give Iraq a clean bill of health and lift its harsh sanctions, which he asserted were killing thousands of innocent Iraqi children. His solution: a Marshall plan to rebuild the country. Ritter seems to have completely reversed himself regarding Iraq's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 he warned a joint hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees that "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." And in a December 1998 article for the New Republic, Ritter stated, "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed." Yet he now says Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are largely dismantled and pose little or no threat. |
https://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/...r/index_np.html
Sounds like he got a bit too personally involved. The people that lost their lives because of the starvation is truly bad, but that is not what he job was in Iraq. His job was to inspect for weapons. Seems like he realized that there was no chance that Iraq would comply fully, so this was his idea. Give them the clean bill of health and go to a Marshall Law state in order to save the starving. A noble cause, but that is not what he was there for. He even has a book and to get some PR on the book it helps to be pretty sensational. I just find him lacking as being that credible. I am sure there are a great deal of thruths to his statements, but there seems to be evidence of fabrication.
However, they all state that there were little infractions. These little infractions are none the less infractions and at the point when Hans Blix provided his report, he knew it too and tried to down play them in his closing.
| QUOTE |
| The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant and not controversial. It will require monitoring which is ongoing, that is open-ended, until the Council decides otherwise. By contrast, the task of disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination under UNSCOM and the IAEA supervision of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn almost eight years later, at the end of 1998. If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation," unquote, with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming. |
https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq....pt.1/index.html
Simplified, it says that Iraq (as of the 3 month mark after 1441 acceptance) has not fully complied with the resolution. I really do not envy Mr Blix's position at all. On the one hand, if he gives Iraq a "clean bill of health", there is no war, but he would be the fall guy if there were later found to be bio weapons that were passed over. It would probably tear him apart if they were used to kill people. I know it would me. If he says that they didn't meet the resolutions, he KNOWS there will be war. So, he does what most all of us would do and that is to say Iraq seems harmless now, but we really would like more time to resolve the missing bio and chemical components.
The thing that really bothers me is that Blix sees what will happen if he can't give Iraq a full pass. Saddam has to know what is coming by the resolution that was failed that basically called for a attack of Iraq if the resolutions were not in full compliance. The missing chemicals and biological agents had always been a sticking point and would be the trigger for Bush and Co to invade. Why didn't Iraq acknowledge the missing materials and give us some story on them...any story that is even half way plausible? Do anything, just don't continue to ignore the missing material...that is what those inspectors have been there for the last 12 years to find! Perhaps Saddam really didn't understand the game at that point. I know I did! I remember telling a co-worker that Iraq had better fill out the compliance papers in triplicate and triple check all the submissions, because if they forget to dot a T, there is going to be war.
The sad part to all this is what will be the result. You are already beginning to witness it. N. Korea and Iran in particular. Note how the administration is handling these now...going through international diplomatic channels. I have heard calls for why is the US wasting time in Iraq when the problem is there. The only thing I can see for each of those situations is a bunch of sanctions and resolutions that will be ignored. Well, it will be a long time again before the US throws itself into a major conflict. The US will support the UN, but someone else is going to have to call for action. For better or worse, I see the US taking a huge step back from the international forefront (as much as a superpower can) and just focusing on the economy. If the terrorists are smart, the will leave the US be, because only another attack on US soil will raise the ire of the people again, IMO.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 
86.3%
Sponsored Links:
Iraq War Post
Vincenzo I agree with a lot of what you say. I have no doubt all the US presidents who dealt with Saddam after he wasn't an ally had a similar plan.
But don't underestimate Blix. If anything, he was pulled by the UN (read: the US) to find weapons. He asked for more time because he knew Iraq had nothing. Yes, he had that on his head, but he is also a professional who wont compromise his career for the sake of a hawkish US president. And good on him for it. Blix knew there was no WMDs, he also knew Bush's excuse for invading was nonsense. So why should he put his professional reputation on the line?
I sure as hell wouldn't.
| QUOTE |
| Sounds like he got a bit too personally involved. The people that lost their lives because of the starvation is truly bad, but that is not what he job was in Iraq. His job was to inspect for weapons. Seems like he realized that there was no chance that Iraq would comply fully, so this was his idea. |
I disagree with this assessment. I think Ritter's biggest problem was that he believed his brief so whole-heartedly until he realised it was just a sham. Ritter changed his tune because he didn't want to be seen as a US pawn, like Richard Butler. Weapons inspectors do have a conscience, just like us human beings. If I was in Ritter's position and saw what he alledges, I would have done the same thing. I believe Ritter because it has since been proven that he was right.
Iraq did actually comply far more than they are ever given credit for. They didn't hide anything from the last weapons inspectors, that is very important to remember. There hasn't been any proof whatsoever of missing material. This is a myth perpetuated by conservatives. If there was missing material it would surely have been found to proove whatever Bush was trying to proove. This isn't speculation, its fact. And as far as previous UN resolutions are concerned, they pre-date 1441, so they are void.
I won't ever defend Saddam. What I am saying, which most Americans seem to conveniently ignore, is that Saddam gassed and killed most of his victims while he was being supported by the US, UK and other Western allies. So it's alright for evil dictators to kill their population while they are on our side, but not when they are against us. This is a gross hypocrasy which I resent.
Edited: arvhic on 18th Nov, 2006 - 12:46amInternational Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Post Date: 18th Nov, 2006 - 11:42am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics
STORM OVER BLAIR 'IRAQ DISASTER' REMARKS
British Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a storm Saturday after apparently admitting that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain was "a disaster."
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/18/...lair/index.html
Post Date: 25th Nov, 2006 - 8:30am / Post ID: #
Page 103 Iraq War Post
| QUOTE (JB @ 15-Apr 03, 12:29 PM) |
| This may seem like a dumb question but I often wonder about these parts of the war... - How often do soldiers shower? Being in that sun all day with all that equipment must make you stink' - How much does an average pack, equipment, etc weigh on a soldier - Does a truck carry their water? Can't imagine carrying water for all those miles - How do they use the 'toilet' and how would women handle that? How would they handle 'time of the month' in those situations? |
To answer your questions:
Some soldiers do not have the opportunity to shower for weeks at a time. It's not one of their priorities.
I am sure that after carrying around protective gear weighing well over 100lbs, they don't smell like a bundle of roses at the end of each day. I remember one time I put on SOME of my husbands gear. Now, I am small, (5'2 and 145lbs) but I packed on a good majority of the stuff that he has to wear just to protect himself, not any of the extras. I couldn't walk. I literally could not move. Now, you have to keep in mind that these are for the better part men out there... Although women do go as well... so carrying this gear isn't as rough for them.
In my husbands case, he is a plumber/constructioner, they always have water because they are trained to make any water potable. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all soldiers. Some have to take WHAT they can, WHEN they can. If this means carrying their water for miles, then that is exactly what they will do.
My husband will probably kill me for this one... (not literally)
Two years ago my husband was deployed to Africa for 7 months. They were in the middle of NOWHERE. So, to go to the toilet, they went outside, dug a hole, did their business, covered it up, and prayed no one found the same hole. It's sort of funny in a way, but could you imagine having to hold yourself up for 15-30 minutes just squatting? Well they got creative, and they found two large bricks to put on either side of the hole... it was comfortable, but atleast their little legs didn't hurt afterwards.
Please keep in mind that I am not a Soldier. I am a soldiers wife. I only know these things because of the situations my husband has been in.
Post Date: 27th Nov, 2006 - 2:26am / Post ID: #
Iraq War Post
Even the citizens in Iraq are getting upset now. They are tired of being told that its not a Sectarian war when it is. Its extremely obvious now that Sunni and Shiite clans are opening declaring war on each other. To bad it took that for people to see what it is over their now. Two sects that have always hated each other, the Sunni's and the Shiites are now in a civil war that was only prevented by a strong dictator named Saddam Hussein. Not that he was good by any means, but he held the country together by force. Now, it looks like that won't even be possible. Both sects are now running suicide bombings on each other! The latest threat was by the Shiites who vowed vengeance against the Sunni for the recent execution of two Shiite politicians in front of their children. This is what they want, the death of the other group. They don't want us there any more. If they wanted us there before, they don't know, by their own words. To add, several of the suicide bombings have been by the "thankful" Iraqis who come up "thanking us" then blow themselves up. They aren't dancing in the streets for us anymore, they are dancing on our graves.
Post Date: 30th Nov, 2006 - 11:33am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq
HILLSIDE CROSSES MARKING FALLEN SOLDIERS STIR DEBATE
Hundreds of white wooden crosses planted on a quiet suburban hillside have prompted a debate over whether they honor or exploit the memory of troops killed in Iraq.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/29/hillside...s.ap/index.html
Post Date: 6th Dec, 2006 - 12:24pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq - Page 103
IRAQ STUDY GROUP: PULL MOST TROOPS FROM COMBAT BY '08
In a highly anticipated report being released Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group will call for a dramatic shift in war policy by urging the Bush administration to set a target of moving most U.S. troops out of their combat roles by early 2008, according to two sources who have seen the executive summary of the report.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/ira...roup/index.html
Post Date: 7th Dec, 2006 - 5:08pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 103
A more honest assessment of Iraq draws cheers
After almost four years of prickly denials from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that anything was wrong with the Pentagon's plan in Iraq, it was refreshing Tuesday to hear his successor acknowledge that things are not going so well. During a Senate confirmation hearing, Robert Gates conceded that U.S. forces aren't winning and that new approaches need to be considered.
Ref. Read More...
TOPIC: Post War Iraq