Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That didn't happen until Obama withdrew too many troops. Hello, ISIS.
We were to occupy Iraq for eternity? Why? While Isis may not have over run the country as fast they would have been targeting our soldiers daily. Why is it that we should have continued to put our kids in harms way day after day in Iraq? For what?
The only SOFA the Iraqis would accept was one that put US soldiers and other US personnel under Iraqi jurisdiction (because the Blackwater thugs had been rocking-and-rolling with regrettable lack of oversight, but that's another story).You know damn well that you and yours would be asking for Obama's head on a platter the first time a US serviceman had to answer to an Iraqi court.
Making a mess that can't be cleaned up and then complaining about it is classical Republican politics.
No one is complaining not even Republicans., most people are looking for decisive leadership. Iraq would of been just fine if it was not for Issa. Issa if you have not notice has turned into a regional problem. Not a GW Problem.
Having a support Group in Iran would of deterred ISSA. Obama could of got a SOFA if he pursued it.
No one is complaining not even Republicans., most people are looking for decisive leadership. Iraq would of been just fine if it was not for Issa. Issa if you have not notice has turned into a regional problem. Not a GW Problem.
Having a support Group in Iran would of deterred ISSA. Obama could of got a SOFA if he pursued it.
The only SOFA the Iraqis would accept was one that put US soldiers and other US personnel under Iraqi jurisdiction....
That is correct.
If it's good enough for Germany and Italy and Turkey, then it's good enough for Iraq, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Making a mess that can't be cleaned up and then complaining about it is classical Republican politics.
Like Vietnam? Oh, wait, that was Democrats making a mess and Republicans cleaning it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
No, it doesn't mean that.
From the article:
"Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military."
"The American government withheld word about its discoveries"
"Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleidd
One possible reason why the secrecy, might be if you find some buried munitions with mustard gas you do not want to advertise it, and have terroists finding more of them and turning them into IEDs. That is just a wild guess.
Those are US chemical munitions.
The US sold or transferred chemical weapons to Iraq from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s.
The last thing your government wants is people tracking that down and writing stories about it.
It would be especially bad for Nixon, Carter and Reagan.
As it is, with al Qaeda KNOWN to have been operating in more than 40 countries at the time and there being little evidence that Iraq contained a large portion if any of its activities, a full scale invasion/occupation hardly seems a wise or effective choice of action.
The Clinton Administration was working with al-Qaida up through 1999.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Did he say GAS or WMD?
Please elaborate, the military has been using the abbreviation WMD since the early 60s, the included NBC....Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical.....
Don't let fact get in your way....
I do not ever recall seeing or hearing the term "WMD" not even when I was in Iraq.
But, then, I seriously doubt the US would ever refer to its own arsenal as WMD.
It's sort of like the US only supports "freedom-fighters" and never insurgents or terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
Considering , all the issues are the table at the time. Saddams Hassam Violations and his Regime violating the UN Peace agreement from Gulf War one and the human Rights issue against the Kurds?
Spare us your platitudes about the Kurds.
The Kurds sent a cable to Kissinger:
"There is confusion and dismay among our people and forces. Our people's fate in unprecedented danger. Compete destruction hanging over our head. No explanation for all this. We appeal you and USG [US Government] intervene according to your promises..."
[Note: Emphasis Mine]
Another cable to Kissinger:
"Your Excellency, having always believed in the peaceful solution of disputes including those between Iran and Ira, we are please to see that their two countries have come to some agreement...however, our hearts bleed to see that an immediate byproduct of their agreement is the destruction of our defenseless people.... Our Movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way with silence from everyone. We feel your Excellency that the United States has a moral and political responsibility towards our people who have committed themselves to you country's policy."
[Note: Emphasis Mine]
Several hundred Kurdish leaders were killed, or captured and summarily executed. Kurdish forces suffered heavy losses. Kissinger and the US did nothing.
More than 200,000 Kurds fled Iraq into Iran, but the US and Iran refused to provide any humanitarian assistance, and also refused to allow the UN or any other humanitarian non-governmental organizations help the Kurds.
At Iraqi insistence, the Shah handed over 40,000 of the Kurdish "intelligentsia" to the Iraqis for execution.
The US government refused to acknowledge any of the events, and so refused to allow any of the 40,000 condemned, or those that remained of the 200,000 to seek political asylum in the US, even though each and every single one of the qualified for political asylum under the laws in place in the US at the time.
chemical and biological weapons are CERTAINLY WMD's
and we did find many things
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Conclusory.
What level of enrichment?
Why is that information conspicuously absent and withheld?
France built a nuclear reactor for Iraq. Logically, Iraq would need enriched uranium to operate the reactor. Granted, the Israelis with help from the US bombed and destroyed that nuclear reactor, but just like the US and all other States, Iraq has to store nuclear materials and nuclear waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
Agents or precursors?
The fact that it is reported in "gallons" suggests precursors.
The propaganda game is to use Equivocation Fallacy switching between agents and precursors until people are so thoroughly confused that they accept precursors as the actual agents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
What age and what condition?
Those are probably Czech warheads.
Chemical weapons must be stored in highly controlled environments to prevent break-down of the chemicals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
All radioactive materials are kept in powdered form....so that proves nothing.
Materials with high spontaneous fission rates are often stored as small pellets, like PuWG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional†sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
That's propaganda and disinformation.
The US developed binary technology.
The purpose of binary projectiles is not to maximum potency....that is an impossibility.
The purpose of binary warheads is safety, ease of transportation, longer shelf-life, easier maintenance, and the use of PAL technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
* The “Polish 17″ chemical weapons — definitely WMDs.
The Mosul Chem Lab — inconclusive, straining credulity that none of Saddam’s chemical weapons ever passed though there.
The Sarin Shell — definitely a WMD.
The Mustard Shell — not a WMD itself, but indicative of hundreds of shells known to be unaccounted for and later found to be 75% filled and usable WMDs.
The Sarin Shell is not a "WMD." That's just ridiculous and a gross abuse of the term.
The bulk of the arsenal was acquired from the mid-1960s to the 1980s from the US and Czechoslovakia, and some from France.
It wouldn't be unusual for ordnance or artillery commanders to bury munitions during war, especially if they were believed or known to be duds. Clearly much of that ordnance was buried during the Iraq-Iran War, and then other warheads were buried during the Gulf War.
Seriously, they're going to stick a rusty 155mm round into a tube and fire it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
FROM THE ARTICLE
"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
What did Iraq do to us?
Sold oil in Euros.
Remember, you're the country that wasted $Millions trying to murder Prime Minister Nehru of India for Declaring Neutrality While Non-White.
You spent $Billions trying to murder Castro and invade Cuba for Nationalizing Industries While Non-White.
Truman tried to murder President Arbenz of Guatemala for Building Electric Power Plants While Non-White (Eisentyrant overthrew Arbenz, but let him live).
Conducting Trade in Currencies Other Than USD While Non-White is surely a heinous offense and Crime Against Humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
Exactly so. The lie was that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., WMDs or no WMDs.
But he was a threat. Not only was he a threat to the US Standard of Living and Life-Style, he was a threat to the Saudi royalty.
Iraq selling oil in Euros emboldened Iran to announce its oil bourse, and Bush shouted, "Nukes!" Iran backed down, but then every time Iran announced it was going to proceed with its oil bourse, Bush or Obama shouted "Nukes!" Iran has gone ahead anyway. Too bad for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Nice job of conveniently ignoring the fact there was no good reason to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Nope the best thing would have been had Bush simply stayed out of Iraq, we had no valid reason to invade when we did....
No reason you're aware.
It's sad, really, that you don't understand how your world works.
Do you think that might be why there is for the most part a news black-out in the US about the upcoming succession battle for the Saudi throne?
The princes in-line for the throne aren't exactly pro-American.
Omigod if they defect to the Euro, your lives will be total Hell-on-Earth.
Try buying a barrel of oil for 90 Euros when 1 Euro = $3 USD.
Yeah, that's right, it makes a barrel of oil $270.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
You think future historians will look at the Iraq war as the right decision? That's an interesting point of view.
That depends on the overall success of your Geo-Political Strategy.
To dumb down your Geo-Strategy, you can fly from NYC to Tripoli, rent a car, and then drive to Vladivostok via Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran and Tashkent and see nothing but US flags and McDonald's.
If you actually achieve that, yes, Iraq will be hailed as "the right choice at the right time."
If you fail, then someone will be blamed, probably Obama or the next president.
Meanwhile....
Nope the best thing would have been had Bush simply stayed out of Iraq, we had no valid reason to invade when we did and the mess is direct result of our invasion and destabilizing the country.
We had not left when Bush was still in office, the government he left behind did not work as we found out. I agree the entire Nation is built upon three warring factions and Saddam while a monster had it under control. Personally I believe the best scenario would have been to give the North to the Kurds, they earned it and still are, give the south to the Shias since that who mostly lived in the area and give the middle to the Sunnis since that was traditionally their part of the Nation. Then let them deal with their own issues.
The government of Iraq insisted that if we stayed that American Troops must be subject to Iraqi laws and subject to be tried in their courts and they would not drop the stipulation and that was unacceptable. I agree with getting out and as I have stated many times here this mess was going to occur no matter when we left, so it was time to go.
Clinton? It takes two to make a deal, they wanted us gone and they got it, now they want help. I say help them with intel, air power, advisors and equipment, and that is that, they need to learn to fight for their own Freedom.
There are so many issues here. Bush didn't even believe there were WMD's if you recall him joking about them.
Everyone knows SH made chemical weapons and we had taken great efforts to eliminate much of them, which was accomplished. I have no doubt there were some missed but they were no longer a strategic threat as SH was worried more about keeping his money pipeline flowing than making something that would bring his country down.
If you recall there was a great push by all the Bush execs about "Yellow cake" of the radioactive variety. This was billed as a huge WMD issue and was soundly false. Care to show us the nukes he was sooo close to making? They didn't exist.
The greatest danger our troops faced came from the extensive us of DU - depleted Uranium in our shells, this is highly radioactive and I think against the rules of war. It has also poisoned many of the natives as well as out own troops. Look for that story and you will likely find nada.
Face it Bush et al made up the scare in order to get us in a war we didn't belong in, so his friends could make billions on weapons and oil.... that is all it was about. We lost 4400 brave souls so some coward a$$holes could get richer. Iraq lost hundreds of thousands and we don't even acknowledge that as significant, and we wonder why the middle east doesn't like us.
It is absurd some are still trying to validate an obscene war. We broke a country and the world will pay. It would be very wise that we get independent of oil, and no the Keystone pipeline won't help. Renewables is the best option. and yes they do work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
