The five year anniversry

[Strike For The South]

of the war in Iraq was yesterday.

[Fragony]

That would make today the day after

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?

[Vladimir]

Dear God! When will the bloodshed END (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/01/a_duncanville_soldier_died_in.php)? Bring our troops home! :furious3:

Sorry, a little preemption there.

[Fragony]

What do you think?

I think the intel was right, chemical we know of, and nuclair arms are small they can be everywhere. We have seen the silo's, we know there was a nuclair program.

[Vladimir]

More preemption (http://www.wmd.gov/report/) for the Bush lied, people died crowd. Conspiracy theories don't survive truth.

Read it, I did. :book: Great fun I tell you. :zzz:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Based on the intel we made the right decision. Unfortunate realities plagued that honorable and correct decision. The situation on the ground, had there been said weapons, would have been the same type of quagmire after initial combat ended and we would still be left with a power vacuum to the present day after insurrection began.

I will agree that the decision against fortification with more ground troops after the blitzkrieg was seriously shortsighted. I was on the fence at the time. The blitz, however, was one of the greatest examples of the use of military force in human history.

But the idea that the war was a "bad idea" isn't historically fair.

[Fragony]

Based on the intel we made the right decision. Unfortunate realities plagued that honorable and correct decision.

You believe the honorable part? Based on intel yes but there is no room for honor in any of this. Man is wolf to man.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You believe the honorable part? Based on intel yes but there is no room for honor in any of this. Man is wolf to man.

I'm an American. Of course I believe there is honor in forced democratic transition from tyrrany.

[CountArach]

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?
I'd say No and No. The UN weapon inspectors should have been given time to go through everything and if they found something then everyone should have gone through Diplomatic channels. If that didn't work, then I suppose invasion was the best realistic option.

[Viking]

There is no way Saddam would have the guts to launch an attack on the world police; he'd be signing his own death.

[Big_John]

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?probably no to the first, certainly no to the second. the weapons were pretext in the first place, so even if they had been found, the laser-guided democracy agenda would have gone about the same way.

as to the first question, would war have been the proper way to deal with the iraq problem? difficult to say in retrospect, but i have a feeling diplomacy would have worked better. or a smarter combination of diplomacy and armed forces. we had, at some point, the option of sending hussein into exile, right? wasn't he trying to broker some kind of deal at the last moment? a more peaceful transition to a provisional government under that rubric couldn't have been any worse than this war.

but assuming that was not an option, is there much benefit to the current 'democracy' in iraq over the previous regime? i'm sure you can find iraqis on both sides of that fence.

more importantly, though. does a saddam with certain weapons present a threat that justifies the risk of war? call me pollyanna, but i don't really think so.

[Sigurd]

There has not been a period of time since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that the US lead forces have not been at war with Iraq.
The first Gulf-war resulted in a truce… the war did not end.
This truce would be upheld if Iraq complied with a certain resolution which involved scraping together some documents within a time limit.
The Iraqi did not comply.
For 12 years Sadaam and his ilk defied the resolutions. The truce should have ended 14 days after it was set. That was the initial terms. Yet we looked through our fingers for 12 years.

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.

[Pannonian]

There has not been a period of time since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that the US lead forces have not been at war with Iraq.
The first Gulf-war resulted in a truce… the war did not end.
This truce would be upheld if Iraq complied with a certain resolution which involved scraping together some documents within a time limit.
The Iraqi did not comply.
For 12 years Sadaam and his ilk defied the resolutions. The truce should have ended 14 days after it was set. That was the initial terms. Yet we looked through our fingers for 12 years.

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.
However, there's another thing that should trump all rules of war. It was clear before the war that going in for regime change would be utterly stupid, with predictably awful consequences. Whether or not the rules of war and diplomacy justify an action, surely the rules of common sense should prevail? Even with my bare knowledge of the regional politics there, I still predicted in 2002 that the war would go smoothly, but the subsequent breakup of Iraq would not be good. Others with rather more knowledge went into this in more detail, most of which has since come to be. The metaphor that summed up the situation was "tiger by the tail" - holding on makes the situation worse, but letting go results in an immediate savaging. The only thing to do in that case was to avoid grabbing the tail in the first place, but what do we know of these things?

[Tribesman]

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

[Caerfanan]

forced democratic transition from tyrrany.
Forced democratic transition... That's, err... My words might be a little harsh, but give to someone not educated with "fooding" free access to all the food he wants at once, he'll get diabetis, fat, and die of a heart attack at the age of 35... I think that by giving "freedom" to people who were still thinking about "my community first, the other can all die", the "forced demaocratic transition" is not so good. too fast, and too many useless deads. Just read what you can find about what happens to christians in Irak now... they were better treated before. I'm not saying that it was not a tyrany, but Saudi Arabia has the same kind of tyrany. so I still think that the "before" was the "lesser bad", and that now many guerilla tactics have been developped, and now faced by the soldiers dying every day in Afghanistan


No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .
Absolutely.

[Vladimir]

There is no way Saddam would have the guts to launch an attack on the world police; he'd be signing his own death.

He tried to assassinate a former president. That has been confirmed.


No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

Oil for food. We can trust the UN, right?

[Redleg]

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

Each signatore nation has the right to enforce the conditions of a truce. Be it under an United Nations Mandate or not. We have gone down this debate before, and the conclusion will be the same. The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of a nation to act on its own. Nations had to committed forces to the conflict, Nations operated under the flags of their nations and with a UN Flag. Under the Hague Conventions nations have the right to enforce truces and the resume warfare if the conditions are violated. All nations under the collation signed the truce accords at Safwon, it was not signed just as an United Nations document.

Now that opens up the counter for its a war of aggression, which would force the agruement about pre-emptive wars, and does a violation of a truce necessate a return to hostilities.

[naut]

I wonder if they can match 15.25 years of Vietnam?

[Redleg]

I wonder if they can match 15.25 years of Vietnam?

No - it won't survive the election process by more then 2 years. 2010 should see a complete withdraw from Iraq

[Tribesman]

Be it under an United Nations Mandate or not. We have gone down this debate before, and the conclusion will be the same.
Yes and your claim that fell apart was that America had not and never had signed as being under the authority of the UN .


Each signatore nation has the right to enforce the conditions of a truce.
Since America was in violation of the conditions of the truce it cannot claim that as justification .

[Viking]

He tried to assassinate a former president. That has been confirmed.



A former president as in someone who lost the election two months prior, and who currently were on Kuwaiti soil. ~:rolleyes:

[drone]

War? What war? Congress hasn't declared war since Pearl Harbor.

[Redleg]

Yes and your claim that fell apart was that America had not and never had signed as being under the authority of the UN .


You can claim it fell apart because you wish to win the arguement, however your comment fails to address the key point - The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of any nation. The Hague Conventions deal with nations as individual enities not as some collective agency. The United Nations deals with nations as individual enities also. To claim that the initial conflict was solely a United Nations conflict is incorrect, it only further strenghten the legality of the event. Then United States went in as the United States Military, under United States Command Authority.

Are you attempting to claim that the United Nations trumps National Sovernity? Not even the United Nations has been that bold.




Since America was in violation of the conditions of the truce it cannot claim that as justification .

one can claim a violation by another even while they are in violation, happens all the time. The legality of the issue does not change because one is also violating the truce. Now all you have done is demonstrated that Iraq was also entitled to return to war under the Hague Convention because of a violation by one of the signers of the truce.

You can't present two different types of arguements and debate the merits of both. Your second defeats the premise of you first arguement. Which could make one assume that you know that the first arguement in itself is incorrect.

[Tribesman]

You can claim it fell apart because you wish to win the arguement, however your comment fails to address the key point - The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of any nation. The Hague Conventions deal with nations as individual enities not as some collective agency. The United Nations deals with nations as individual enities also. To claim that the initial conflict was solely a United Nations conflict is incorrect, it only further strenghten the legality of the event. Then United States went in as the United States Military, under United States Command Authority.

Oh the soveriegnty thingy the US command authority , how could I forget .
Hmmm two deployments wasn't there . One whose sole mandate was the expulsion of Iraqi forces under the auspices of UN authority , the second a US deployment to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion . Both passed by congress , one subjecting the forces actions to UN authority , one keeping US authority ...the one with US authority was very limited in scope and not relevant at all to the ceasefire .
Nice try though Red .


Are you attempting to claim that the United Nations trumps National Sovernity?
If you act under an authority then the actions are under that authority , in this case the US ceded the authority to the UN , so the UN doesn't have to trump anything , the hand was given away .

[Redleg]

Oh the soveriegnty thingy the US command authority , how could I forget .
Hmmm two deployments wasn't there . One whose sole mandate was the expulsion of Iraqi forces under the auspices of UN authority , the second a US deployment to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion . Both passed by congress , one subjecting the forces actions to UN authority , one keeping US authority ...the one with US authority was very limited in scope and not relevant at all to the ceasefire .
Nice try though Red .

Not an absolute rebuttal there Tribes. Remember that the Cease Fire was signed by Nations - not the United Nations. The collation put forces into the UN Resolution under their own national authority. The United Nations did not have command authority over the United States. The United States signed the cease fire, which makes it revelant to the ceasefire.



If you act under an authority then the actions are under that authority , in this case the US ceded the authority to the UN , so the UN doesn't have to trump anything , the hand was given away .

Actually the United States did not cede authority to the United Nations. The United Nations does not grant authority, it grants something else.

Edit: Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.

[Adrian II]

Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.Welcome back, Redleg. :bow:



https://img395.imageshack.us/img395/7486/laurelhardyyq1.gif (https://imageshack.us)
You probably missed Tribesman, huh? :beam:

[Redleg]

Welcome back, Redleg. :bow:

You probably missed Tribesman, huh? :beam:

LOL

Never really been away - new job keeps me very busy with lots of travel. Got sort of a mini vacation this week. One that doesn't cost me my vacation time but I still get paid.

Life is grand

[Lemur]

Paid vacations are the bomb. And why is everyone so glum? It's been fire years of triumph!

Hitchens does a nice retrospective (http://www.slate.com/id/2186740/) on our glorious victories in Iraq.

-edit-

Joe Klein has an astute evaluation (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/hillary_on_iraq_1.html) of where the candidates are on Iraq:

So we now have a pattern. Obama's chief economic advisor (Austan Goolsbee) and a prominent foreign policy advisor (Power) have now told the truth on two important issues, trade and Iraq respectively. Their truth contradicted some of the overheated rhetoric their boss was using on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton--whose actual positions on trade and Iraq are probably the same as Obama's advisors--has attacked Obama in both cases for saying one thing and believing another...when she is doing the exact same thing.

You'd hope for something better in a crucial election year, but hey, this is politics. For what it's worth, I score this contretemps slightly in Obama's favor: At least his advisors know the truth about these issues and are impolitic enough to be honest about it.

I am certainly disappointed that Clinton didn't use this opportunity to address the Iraq problem for real--to say, "Look, even though Samantha Power called me a monster, what she said about Iraq is true. Both Senator Obama and I would like to be able to pull a brigade a month out of Iraq, and I'm sure we'll both try to do that. But truth in advertising requires me to say to you that it's a best case scenario. I have no idea what the situation on the ground is going to be on January 20, 2009. I have no exact idea how we can use the prospect of our withdrawal to leverage the Iraqis into getting their political act together, but it's the only real leverage we have--and a new President needs to point the military and our diplomats in that direction. So my policy will be different from John McCain's, which is to use Iraq as a permanent U.S. base in the region. That's a bad idea. Permanent U.S. bases would be a permanent irritants in the region. So we're going to try to leave. But it won't be easy and it won't be as quick as we'd all like it to be."

Update: Matt Yglesias notices that John McCain has gone back to his old, irresponsible, incendiary baloney-slicing on Iraq. You may recall that on the night McCain won the Republican nomination, he--accurately--emphasized sectarian violence as the major threat if the U.S. didn't leave Iraq carefully. Now he's back to his utterly bogus "victory" or "defeat" in the war against Al Qaeda. Once again--and I'll keep on saying this as long as McCain keeps on trying to scare and hoodwink the public--Al Qaeda in Iraq is down to less than 5000 fighters...acccording to its own estimates in captured documents. There is a reason for that: most Sunnis in Iraq have turned against the salafist-jihadi extremists. To be sure, it will require a continuing effort to chase after the terrorist remnants, which is why both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will keep a small residual special operations force in Iraq. But Al Qaeda in Iraq is--happily--no longer the biggest problem in Iraq. There is no chance that it will "win" or take over the country...even though it retains the capacity to launch suicide bombers, as was the horrific case today in Karbala.

The real problem we face now is that "Iraq" isn't really a country and "Iraqis" don't get along with each other very well. The big question is, how much bloodshed will it take to sort out that 90 year disaster...and how much more American blood should be contributed to this tribal struggle. It is outrageous and dishonorable that John McCain continues to purposely oversimplify this situation for imagined political gain.
Upshot: Everyone is saying things they don't mean to win the election. Shocking, I know.

[Vladimir]

Cherry picking Lemur's post.


Fear

I don't get it: Who is afraid? When you hear the wolves howling in the wood and one of them attacks, you don't cower in fear, you hunt the wolves!

and




Blood

Soldiers die all the time. No one cares about it in less it's thrown in their face.

[Adrian II]

LOL

Never really been away - new job keeps me very busy with lots of travel. Got sort of a mini vacation this week. One that doesn't cost me my vacation time but I still get paid.

Life is grandGood to hear that. And like the man said, paid vacations be da bomb.

[El Diablo]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

People seem to flip flop between getting rid of a tyrant, human rights abuses to kurdish nationals, WMD and Iraq was not adhereing to UN mandates as reasons for invading.

Now if these are the reasons there are far worse examples in the world today.

Zimbabwe, Darfur and Tibet to name three.

Whist the troops stationed in Irag have my full sympathy, I feel that the warmongers that put them there are perhaps up for war crimes. If not for illegal invasion (without full UN mandate) then for bombing of civilians and civilian targets. To even holding "terrorist targets" illegally.

And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.

[Tribesman]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

Because it was there .:yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

People seem to flip flop between getting rid of a tyrant, human rights abuses to kurdish nationals, WMD and Iraq was not adhereing to UN mandates as reasons for invading.

The ostensible reasons put forward were two-fold: 1) Iraq had not complied with the strictures placed upon it as a result of the truce following Gulf 1. 2) Iraq was continuing covert efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction up to and including efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. The first point is demonstrable and inarguable. It was also, in the opinions of many of our Allies, insufficient to warrant a renewal of hostilities. The second point has been largely overturned by better intelligence. Iraq had discontinued its efforts to develop nuclear weaponry and had, at a minimum, frozen its efforts to stockpile other WMDs. Yes, there were WMD-classified weapons discovered in Iraq following the invasion. However, many of these appear to have been lost stockpiles, poorly stored materials, or flat out useless. The best read on things now is that Western Governments generally, and the USA in particular, were listening to sources of dubious credibility and giving their assessments too much weight -- a poor decision making practice.

Iraq did not need to be our next stop in the war on terror -- al queada presence in Iraq was fairly "token" and Saddam was NOT their biggest fan by any means. My personal view is that Iraq was chosen as a weak target that, once toppled, would place Iran (easily the biggest threat in the "axis of evil) in the position of having US bases and troops close at hand on both its Eastern and Western borders and that it was a geopolitical pressure ploy. It was not sold that way to the public because the general US population wouldn't see it as a valid approach in the war on terror. The General public in the USA doesn't like to think/do things in such a brutally practical fashion.

The war was handled brilliantly. The underestimation of chaos following the overthrow of Saddam and the failure to provide the 500-600k troops needed to suppress violence from the get-go was just a stupid move -- and one we're still paying for. Heck, we didn't even demobilize Sddam's army properly, we just let them go home without even outprocessing them for weapons and the like as we mustered them out. :wall: The occupation was poorly managed from the outset. I am frankly amazed we've been able to turn it around as well as we have after the completely insufficient efforts at the outset.


Now if these are the reasons there are far worse examples in the world today.

Zimbabwe, Darfur and Tibet to name three.

The first two are, morally, certainly every bit as bad as Saddam's regime. I think you are correct -- at least on a purely moral level -- that action in those areas is no more or less justified.

AN Iraq-style action in Tibet means war with China. At the least, this is NOT a decision to take lightly. Nor do I believe it is the same kind of genocidal repression seen in Darfur and Rwanda -- it's not even as bad as Burma.


Whist the troops stationed in Irag have my full sympathy, I feel that the warmongers that put them there are perhaps up for war crimes. If not for illegal invasion (without full UN mandate) then for bombing of civilians and civilian targets. To even holding "terrorist targets" illegally.

It was not an "illegal" invasion. Iraq's failure to abide by the terms of the truce from Gulf 1 -- in the old strict legal approach through such things -- means that hostilities should not have ended and that the USA (as signatory to that truce) was acting "legally" in its invasion of Iraq. Whether or not you think we SHOULD have acted on our strict legal right to do so is a separate issue (and far more arguable). You are certainly correct in asserting that the UN did NOT agree with the decision to resume violence.

Civilian targets? We go to great lengths not to target civilians. Missions are cancelled and millions of dollars worth of ordinance dumped or re-targeted at nothing to minimize such casualties. When and where investigations determine that civilians have been targeted, we prosecute the offenders.
This process is, of course, imperfect. Weapons misfire or become damaged en route; poor intelligence may lead us to attack an area we believe to be of legitimate military importance that is not, investigations into episodes may run short of clear evidence, etc. The only way to avoid civilian casualties in a war zone is not to fight. I assume you're not enough of a pollyanna to believe that likely or intelligent.


And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.

Actually, the same legalistic interpretation that means we were legally correct to invade Iraq probably could be used to justify and attack on the United States. There are a number of UN resolutions with which we are not in compliance, etc., so the UN could, I suppose, authorize the use of force against us. I don't think that would be prudent.

[Redleg]

And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.


Now only North Korea, and China can theoretically attack the United States. Since these are the only nations that have a current cease fire that involves the United States as an opposing force. Can you prove that the United States has violated that cease fire agreement? I happen to know both sides have violated the cease fire numerous times over the last 60 odd years.

Iraq did not just break UN rules, it violated a cease fire agreement that the United States was involved in as a signatore nation.

Read the argument carefully before making assumptions that are not in evidence.

[Redleg]

Actually, the same legalistic interpretation that means we were legally correct to invade Iraq probably could be used to justify and attack on the United States. There are a number of UN resolutions with which we are not in compliance, etc., so the UN could, I suppose, authorize the use of force against us. I don't think that would be prudent.

My arguement is not based upon the United Nations - but an even older document - the Hague Conventions.

So no legalistic interpretations of violations of UN resolutions or charter articles is not my arguement.

Now if we want to discuss that aspect of the UN - all nations are subject to attack because of their failure to comply with the UN. Which also demonstrates its main weakness - it has no command authority.

[El Diablo]

To Seamus Fermanagh I thank you for a cool, calm and collected disection of question I have posed, often people get "excited" about these kind of issues and think that by not approving of the war I am American bashing - I most definatly am not. I accept most of your answers and reasons and some of them I did not know. Thank you.

I am somewhat of a pessimist though and as my opinion (and thus not even remotely based on fact) it seemed to me that excuses wre found to go to war. It seemes to be a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted to invade on the pretense of WMD and then when you get there and find none shrug shoulds and blame some wishy-washy thing known as "intelligence".

If you mate at the pub gave you the heads up "intelligence" that your neighbour was sleeping with your wife, you go over and give him a bloody nose and then finding out that the intelligence was wrong just shrug and go sorry? Don't think that would cut the mustard. Perhaps a poor anaolgy...

As for Redleg you may feel that you are the innocent party but as for what has the US MILITARY (note not the US people) has in the past bombed the Chinese Embassy (by "accident" with one of their smart bombs). So yes I would say thay have had reason to attack the US.

I also note your comment that Tibet would mean going to war with China and that was one of my points - as long as you are strong enough you can do whatever you want? Does that make what ever the US does right - regardless of what the UN thinks? Who looks after Bush and his warmongers?

[Redleg]

.

As for Redleg you may feel that you are the innocent party but as for what has the US MILITARY (note not the US people) has in the past bombed the Chinese Embassy (by "accident" with one of their smart bombs). So yes I would say thay have had reason to attack the US.

Didnt say the United States was innoncent did I. Remember I alreadly stated that China and North Korea have a cease fire with the United States through the UNited Nations truce at the end of hostilities) and that its been violated several times by both sides.

So your arguement here is noted as a nothing, because it has been addressed already.



I also note your comment that Tibet would mean going to war with China and that was one of my points - as long as you are strong enough you can do whatever you want? Does that make what ever the US does right - regardless of what the UN thinks? Who looks after Bush and his warmongers?

Who mentioned Tibet? Is Tibet even a nation? Last I heard it was a province in China. Can China suppress a revolution within their own nation - last I heard according to international law - a nation is allowed to do so, just as long as the world feels that its not violating international sensibilities in doing so. In fact nothing in the United Nations Charter prevents suppression of internal conflicts.

I know you are trying to reach an arguement that would demonstrate that might does not mean right, but that was never my position. Really you must present a better counter to my position then this.

If a nation has a cease fire agreement with another nation and one nation violates that cease fire - by the Hague Convention - the war can be resumed by either party. It especially is true if both nations are in violation. This is not a might makes right, but a key article of the Hague Convention. A legal techincality converning the rules of war. This document is older in International Law then the United Nations Charter. I wonder if you realize that a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States since the conclusion of Desert Storm. Now it wasn't called a war because that offends so many people and is not politically correct in this modern age, but what do you call combat missions into Iraq by the United States? How many air sorties were conducted in Iraq by the United States between 1992 and 2000?

Now some will argue that because it was an United Nations resolution that only the United Nations can address the cease fire agreement. However to agree to that postion one has to recongize that the United Nations has command authority over the armed forces of the nation involved. I dont know of any nation that recognizes that the United Nations has command authority over the policies and practices of their nation. Does the United Nations have command authority of the military of the United States? Does the United Nations have command authority over any military? Does the United Nations have the ability to enforce any of its resolutions?

Who looks after President Bush - he has to answer to the American People. Now who gave President Bush authorization to use force against Iraq?

I know the answer to that question - the point is do you.

[El Diablo]

Fair that the Hague convention is older than any UN mandate and in fact the UN itself. However a piece of legislation being older does not in anyway make it more important or superior.


Posted by Redleg
Is Tibet even a nation? Last I heard it was a province in China. Can China suppress a revolution within their own nation - last I heard according to international law - a nation is allowed to do so, just as long as the world feels that its not violating international sensibilities in doing so. In fact nothing in the United Nations Charter prevents suppression of internal conflicts.

Does anyone actually think that China is not violating international sensibilities here? This is a significant point as the attrocites that Sadam committed on his people was also touted as a reason for the invasion.

I realise that a war between the US and China would probably end in the extinction of the human species. My point being that the US government has been looking for excuses for an invasion of Iraq.


I wonder if you realize that a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States since the conclusion of Desert Storm.

No I was not aware of this. That is a very significant point thank you for informing me of that.

However does that then make the US an occuping force? In the same way that in WWII France had a puppet government (please no calls that I am comparing the US military to the Nazi's that is not my point) is the govenment in charge of Iraq a puppet regime? I know the US military are there still there because of all the unrest there, but as a "war on terror" surely it is counter productive to have people being killed daily with the "it is the US's fault" as the easy target to blame? I can not help but feel that future suicide bombers (being disenchanted civilians) are being created with every Mother, Father, Brother or Sister that is being killed in the violence.

Has Al Qaida just gained a massive recruitment area that previously was not that fruitful?

Were the people of Iraq safer in day to day life under Sadam?


Does the United Nations have the ability to enforce any of its resolutions?


True also - but that does not mean that you can just do want you want too?
Thats what bullies do.

[Veho Nex]

HURRAH HURRAH HURRAH

4 MORE YEARS 4 MORE YEARS!!

https://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg250/jkarinen/1201316659503.jpg


Now that that is out of my system, I take it this is a debate on the war an im joining this so late its going to be fun.

The man above me is not going to compare Nazi's to American but to take the devils side I will.

Note: Remember 97.7% of statistics are made up on the spot

We americans since 9/11 have increased in our hatred of the middle eastern races

Have followed our fearless leader despite his incompetencies

Have still signed up for the army to fight in the most retarded excuse for a war since desert storm and before that vietnam.

Had no intention of freeing the Iraqi people only installing a puppet president as we soon plan to control the world while china moves in on all SE asian countries and russia just sits up there sipping vodka.

I know I may sound off my rocker right now but maybe thats cause its 10:pm and I just had like 12 cups of coffee and 4 5hour shots for the hell of it, I'm surprised im not dead yet. Danke and Good night I hope to get some sleep.

[Redleg]

Fair that the Hague convention is older than any UN mandate and in fact the UN itself. However a piece of legislation being older does not in anyway make it more important or superior.


No but it also means you can not ignore it.



Does anyone actually think that China is not violating international sensibilities here? This is a significant point as the attrocites that Sadam committed on his people was also touted as a reason for the invasion.


It was one of many reasons. Along with the cease fire conditions.



I realise that a war between the US and China would probably end in the extinction of the human species. My point being that the US government has been looking for excuses for an invasion of Iraq.


Nice that Saddam decided to bluff and had his hand called. THe conflict with Iraq was shapped over a period of 10 years since Desert Storm.



No I was not aware of this. That is a very significant point thank you for informing me of that.

Just to be clear it was never a declared war - just an ongoing series of air sorties against Iraq air defense postions and a few other targets.



However does that then make the US an occuping force? In the same way that in WWII France had a puppet government (please no calls that I am comparing the US military to the Nazi's that is not my point) is the govenment in charge of Iraq a puppet regime? I know the US military are there still there because of all the unrest there, but as a "war on terror" surely it is counter productive to have people being killed daily with the "it is the US's fault" as the easy target to blame? I can not help but feel that future suicide bombers (being disenchanted civilians) are being created with every Mother, Father, Brother or Sister that is being killed in the violence.


People will have differing opinions about the Iraq government. There is some validility in calling the current government of Iraq a puppet government of the US. As time progress hopefully this puppet preception goes away and Iraq truely has its own government. THe United States broke the infrastructure of Iraq - we now have an obligation to restore it.



Has Al Qaida just gained a massive recruitment area that previously was not that fruitful?

Seems from recent reports that Al Qaida is having a difficult time. Recruits might be up, the danger is not the number of recruits is that they are getting better training from actual combat.



Were the people of Iraq safer in day to day life under Sadam?


Right now - yes, in the future the answer would be no



True also - but that does not mean that you can just do want you want too?
Thats what bullies do.

Nations have the ability to do many things. Iraq had an obligation to meet the requirments of the ceasefire, one could say that they did not meet them, this is the arguemnt that President Bush used. Now I happen to agree with that assessment. Others disagreed. I dont see Iraq as an attempt to bully - but an attempt to follow through.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No but it also means you can not ignore it.

Technically, if there were a conflict between our obligations under Hague and our obligations under the UN charter, the USA is supposed to defer to those obligations placed upon us by the UN under article 103.

Since the UN is toothless, 103 is moot de facto, but at least in de jure terms we're supposed to do what we're told.



Nice that Saddam decided to bluff and had his hand called. The conflict with Iraq was shapped over a period of 10 years since Desert Storm.

If not longer. Socio-political conditions going back at least to the Iraq/Iran war -- if not longer -- also play into this.


Just to be clear it was never a declared war - just an ongoing series of air sorties against Iraq air defense postions and a few other targets.

Saddam's non-compliance with the strictures imposed by the truce did provide the legal framework for these ongoing efforts.


People will have differing opinions about the Iraq government. There is some validility in calling the current government of Iraq a puppet government of the US. As time progress hopefully this puppet preception goes away and Iraq truely has its own government. THe United States broke the infrastructure of Iraq - we now have an obligation to restore it.

I don't think of it as a puppet government since it doesn't really do what we want across the board, but I do understand your point of reference. I also concur with your assessment of our moral obligation. We broke it, we bought it.


Seems from recent reports that Al Qaida is having a difficult time. Recruits might be up, the danger is not the number of recruits is that they are getting better training from actual combat.

Good points. I actually think that this is one aspect of the war strategy that did work well for the USA's WoT. Iraq may not have been an AQ hotbed when the balloon went up, but it became a cause celebre once it had. Thus, whatever else was malfed up, Bush really did get to "fight them over there" -- we got to fight AQ in a warzone with troops rather than in our streets with civilians. AQ has seen a lot of that wave of recruits killed or disillusioned too. In fact, according to AQ's own numbers, their forces in Iraq have been so degraded that we could establish the custumary 10-1 suppression ratio with only half the troops we currently have deployed there. If only the rest of Iraq would get its "caca in ligne" we'd be well into a draw-down mode. Unfortunately, Redleg, you are correct that the Darwinian principle of combat means that the remaining few probably are pretty damn good opponents.


Nations have the ability to do many things. Iraq had an obligation to meet the requirments of the ceasefire, one could say that they did not meet them, this is the arguemnt that President Bush used. Now I happen to agree with that assessment. Others disagreed. I dont see Iraq as an attempt to bully - but an attempt to follow through.

I agree that Saddam more or less necessitated this -- allowing it to fester forever would not have been wise. I'm unsure that Iraq was the correct next step given the then-current situation in our WoT. I've alwasy wondered if a greater degree of effort in the Phillipines/Indonesia -- and perhaps a bit more friendly support in de-radicalizing Pakistan -- might not have generated a better payoff.

Nevertheless, we did invade, we did oust Saddam, we did smash up Iraq. We are obligated to help them to rebuild and allowing ourselves to lose there will have even greater negative consequences than will our success there (and yes, our success would/will have a few negatives as well -- no hope for it). We are, for good or ill, committed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All that stuff you just wrote

I entirely agree with the previous post.

[Redleg]

I agree that Saddam more or less necessitated this -- allowing it to fester forever would not have been wise. I'm unsure that Iraq was the correct next step given the then-current situation in our WoT. I've alwasy wondered if a greater degree of effort in the Phillipines/Indonesia -- and perhaps a bit more friendly support in de-radicalizing Pakistan -- might not have generated a better payoff.

Nevertheless, we did invade, we did oust Saddam, we did smash up Iraq. We are obligated to help them to rebuild and allowing ourselves to lose there will have even greater negative consequences than will our success there (and yes, our success would/will have a few negatives as well -- no hope for it). We are, for good or ill, committed.

Oh when the plan broke out I was for it in principle, however if I remember correctly I believe I also stated it would require more troops then the plan that Rumsfield and Bush wanted to do. To bad Bush didnt listen to his military advisors on that point.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh when the plan broke out I was for it in principle, however if I remember correctly I believe I also stated it would require more troops then the plan that Rumsfield and Bush wanted to do. To bad Bush didnt listen to his military advisors on that point.

Quite true. We had plenty of resources to kick over the apple cart with all the "force multipliers" you could hope for. We needed a LOT more boots in the aftermath to truly suppress things (which many military folk had noted) and that part wasn't done right.

[Vladimir]

What the Crime Dog said.

It's important to note that Saddam was damned either way. He just had a greater probability of survival by defying the US and UN. He had a habit of misjudging our response and was most likely hoping that if we did invade, it would be another Somalia. The strategic implications and considerations in this Iraq thing were huge.

Also Iraq's infrastructure was in a state of decay long before we ever attacked them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So THE SURGE should have happened right before Saddam's government collapsed? I agree in hindsight.

In hindsight I still would have voted for the war.

[Vladimir]

So THE SURGE should have happened right before Saddam's government collapsed? I agree in hindsight.

In hindsight I still would have voted for the war.

Maybe, but if Adrian's thread is correct... If we actually remember the lessons learned from the war this time, then then the extra lives lost won't be in vain.

[Brenus]

“We needed a LOT more boots in the aftermath to truly suppress things (which many military folk had noted) and that part wasn't done right.” I only partially agree with this.
The number of troops needed to defeat a decayed army was rightly estimated, and even, for a short period of time, enough to control a population who welcomed the US and UK troopers…
The main problem came from the Civilian Administrator who just showed a lack of common sense at an incredible level…
Not only the post conquest administration succeeded to alienate a welcoming population, failed to resolve the aftermath of the bombing campaign but aggravated the situation in term of water supplies, electricity etc… The speed to protect the Oil Fields and Refineries just increased the resentment and gave the impression that the war was not about freedom Iraq but Grabbing Iraqi Oil.

In alienating and banning the BASS party members from offices, this stupid man just cut the US and UK troops from trained administrators, mostly laic and nationalist and potential enemies of Al-Qaeda… And he even let the soldiers going with their weapons. To be honest, I don’t think it will change something if he hadn’t, I do remember (well, I got pictures of it), every Iraqis Family has weapons any way.

The five years just showed a US President / Administration in denial and in doing that, refusing to take the adequate actions or measures to tackle the problem.
The administration didn’t understand the real nature of the unrest and let the door open to Al-Qaeda to pretend to represent the Iraqis…

So five later, we come back with the alternative:
Withdrawal US Vietnam Way or USSR Afghanistan Way… or endless anti-guerrilla operations…

The only good thing is the end of Saddam’s dynasty… Still something…

[Vladimir]

The US chapter of the BASS (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/index) party is different than the Iraqi and Syrian chapters.

[seireikhaan]

I'd just like to stick my head in here and offer my opinion. For a long while, I've heard from a lot of people(not neccessarily these forums) comparing Iraq to Vietnam. They are along the same pattern, but we're seeing a couple very major differences, militarily.

1) Al Qaeda is not the Vietcong. AQ is simply not going to have the long term success, imo, that the Vietcong had, for one major reason. The 'Cong made sure they kept the people on their side. AQ, on the other hand, is violating one of the primary thesi of guerilla warfare-they're turning the people against them with heavy handed tactics. We've seen how AQ has been suffering more lately, and a lot of people attribute it to the surge, which is partially true. But even more so, the people of Iraq aren't viewing them in the same light. Guerilla warfare ABSOLUTELY requires that you have support of the people, or at least some people. Otherwise, it simply fails. After a while, people only tolerate having so many relatives blown up just trying to go the the market or losing limbs because of a roadside bomb.

2) The US is finally beginning to comprehend HOW to better combat guerilla warfare, which didn't happen in 'Nam. We're finally enlisting local militias to help us out, and we're doing a better job of working WITH Iraqi's as opposed to above them. If we're ever going to get out of Iraq with success, we've got to work with their forces so as to better prepare them for combat and to aid their progress in training. Ultimately, what we're seeing is ultimate democratization of warfare- anyone can be a target, anyone can be a militant, and deciphering who is and isn't is paramount. More than anything, occupying forces in the modern century MUST convince the populace of the occupied country that they're the 'good guys', and that they are the ones who should be getting popular support. We've seen in the last 50 years that well executed geurilla warfare is potentially unbeatable when defending homelands-from Mao in the Communist revolution, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan(on multiple occasions:sweatdrop: ). Therefore, modern tactics, more than anything, must be focused on the propaganda and pacifying the people, because an angry populace can ensure guerilla warfare can beat just about any of the best modern technology in the world.(well, minus a nuke, but that isn't going to happen, hopefully).

And just to give credit where credit is due, much of the previous statement can be mostly attributed to military historian Bevin Alexander, in his book The Rules of War. Mr. Alexander, of the publication date, worked in the Smithsonian.

[Vladimir]

Has anyone here thought of the potential negative effects of success in Iraq (and Afghanistan)? The greater our "success" the greater the consequences could be. Would it be a victory for the enforcement of UN resolutions? Would people think that the US, UN, and other nations should actively pursue the same policy? Would nation building become fashionable?

I hate to pick on poor Pandora (such a lovely girl, bless her heart) but this is something that could have real, negative long tern consequences.

In the US we have a tendency to want to go home and forget that bad things happen in the world. Would this be enough to cause a paradigm shift like after WW II?

[Pannonian]

Oh when the plan broke out I was for it in principle, however if I remember correctly I believe I also stated it would require more troops then the plan that Rumsfield and Bush wanted to do. To bad Bush didnt listen to his military advisors on that point.
Whether or not the massive military force was there at the start wouldn't have made much difference. The invasion was stupid, not because there was insufficient force to carry out the objectives, but because of the regional politics. There were a number of countries in the region, all with minorities whom they could barely keep in check, which they could do only because there was big bad Iraq in the middle whom everyone could hate and fear. "If you're not a good patriotic Turk/Iranian/whatever Saddam will get you." Not only was Saddam a convenient bogeyman with which to scare these troublemakers into keeping (reasonably) quiet, his Iraq was also weak enough that there wasn't actually any realistic need to fear him.

With this extremely convenient and comfortable state of affairs, why was there any urge to go and stir things up? The only way that things would work out even better would be if Saddam's Iraq was replaced by an even stronger, but pro-US Iraq. Was there any realistic chance this was going to happen? Instead, in place of Saddam's buffer state, there is now a void that draws neighbouring countries in, in perhaps the most strategically important region in the world. More boots on the ground woudn't have changed this.

[Tribesman]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=30552894

[Lemur]

Dear Lord, Tribesman posted a link. A real, html-compatible link. And the post contained no smilies. Hey, wait a minute ... no smilies, a real link? Who are you, and what have you done with Tribesy?

[Redleg]

Dear Lord, Tribesman posted a link. A real, html-compatible link. And the post contained no smilies. Hey, wait a minute ... no smilies, a real link? Who are you, and what have you done with Tribesy?

LOL

[Vladimir]

Twice in one day? Mommy I'm scared :hide:

That's cool though.

[Viking]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=30552894

Teach the children to spread love and democracy. :2thumbsup: