Why We're Fighting in Iraq

[FO Seaman]

IG,

Or should I say Dr. Italian Guy. Very impressive for a man of your age.

Congratulations.

Yes. I had to go look at his profile, then I did a double take.

 

[zander_0633]

Alright, we have to take our hats off to Dr. Italian Guy.

 

[bulldogg]

True. History is being made. What people forget is that without liberating Iraq and invading Afganistan we might all be dead from a Nuclear strike or Bio attack.

Hmmm, the possibilities are endless and most definitely an all engrossing unknown quantity. Weapons must somehow be delivered to their target. Without this key element they are all but inert.

I can make "green gas" with $2.30 (local prices ) worth of materials from the local shop here near my house. It paralyses lung tissue and the damage is irreversible but without a delivery system all I do is make a deadly gas that quickly dissipates and harms no one other than the errant mosquito that wanders by at a most inopportune moment.

There were far better reasons for removing Saddam from power. I believe I understand FG's opinion to be the administration's advisors backed the wrong way to sell this and it blew back in their faces. I would agree with that assessment.

He also raises another issue that I would like to draw attention to as well. The inability of people to concentrate having been weaned on 7 second sound bites and the constant buzz of the latest and greatest in both trends of fashion and disaster. I have been of the firm impression that one of the strengths of the education I received in the US was the imparting of the skill of being able to critically reason and draw conclusions based upon inference and reorganisation after weighing and judging the veracity of the material at hand. From what I have seen and read as of late I am of the firm impression this is no longer the by product of the education system. It would appear that this "leave no child behind" juggernaut is spewing out individuals no longer capable of discerning shite from shinola.

But then again maybe I am just in the earlier stages of advanced crusty curmudgeonism.

 

[Missileer]

All you have to do is burn R12 refrigerant, if you can find it anymore, and you've got phosgene gas used in WWI.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/phosgene/basics/facts.asp

http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/2003/phosgene/history.htm

"Phosgene gas was the first chemical weapon used in World War I. However phosgene’s military history was very short lived. Barely half of a year after phosgene was introduced to the battlefield, mustard gas was developed. Since mustard gas had a more developed defense system (gas masks) against phosgene, the use of phosgene as a major chemical weapon quickly diminished. Phosgene however, will continue to be used throughout several other wars in history.

I didn't mean to make this print in bold, large type but it won't refuses to be changed to another size.

The Japanese military during the Second World War between 1937-1945, conducted extremely inhumane experiments with phosgene gas, using Chinese Prisoners of War as subjects. Some of the prisoners were forced to ingest the phosgene in liquid form; meanwhile other Prisoners of War were used as human targets for Japanese to fire phosgene shells upon.

The most recent use of phosgene gas was in 1987 during the war between Iran and Iraq. Iraq was increasingly using mustard gas as a key weapon against Iran. As a counterattack Iran used phosgene gas. 50,000 Iraqi military and civilian causalities resulted from this conflict."

 

[zander_0633]

Well , I think they should try Nuclear bomb.

 

[Italian Guy]

Chief have you read the manifesto of the Neo-Cons aka the Center for A New American Century?? This war and others were laid out in detail with all of their reasoning and its available on the net in a nice 70 something page PDF download. I highly recommend it for reading.

Nothing in life is as simple as a soldier must see it.

Bulldog was referring to this. Must read.

 

[prolific]

Anyone remember the iran iraq war? The u.s had supplied iraqis with wmd's,chemical warheads,conventional warheads,ground scout vehicles and huey helicopters. Even through the allience and the support of the iraqis the u.s had the nerve to secretly supply iran with the same kind of weapons .
The first gulf war was fought because iraq invaded kuwat.Why did they invade kuwait? We all hear that kuwait is the #1 producer of oil. they do this by not only pumping their own oil, but sideways drilling into mass iraqi oil deposits.( kina like that episode of simpsons when mr.burns sideway drills into the school oil deposit).obviously You would get mad if someone steals your profit. kuwait was also invaded because before the british empire was in control of asia, kuwait was part of iraq. it was only when the british discovered oil deposits in kuwait that they made kuwait an independent country rather than the old province of kuwait. Why the hell is there a country that only has 1 city?(Kuwait city). You will also notice that kuwait city is a 2 mile stretch from the shore. the rest? a plain desert.
In 1991 when iraq invaded kuwait, the occupation lasted close to 5 months.By that time it was recognized by 14 countries including france, greece, turkey, ukrane, russia, pakistan and many other arab countries.They recognized that kuwait was part of iraq. the kuwaiti economy was only heavily damaged when the u.s started fighing the iraqis and the iraqis did as much damage to oil wells to try and slow down oil production before they left kuwait and even then the retreating army was massacured by the u.s on a major highway that was being used by iraqis to retreat from iraq. you may find out about this by searching "iraq highway of death." the iraqi army that was fleeing iraq was about 125 000 soldiers. the highway of death claimed more than 300 000 lives. the geniva convention clearly states that a retreating army cannot be attacked. yet the u.s still did and they did not even put any sanctions on the u.s. I bet any one that if anyother country had done an act like that killing 300 000 people mostly innocent, they would be under sanctions for a looong time.
On to the 2001 gulf war, it seems pretty obvious to me that george w bush is a daddy's boy and wanted to make his daddy proud by killing even more iraqis. but the truth of this war is that the u.s did not want saddam to stay in power just becouse saddam wasnt a fan of the u.s. also because high oil prices means an even higher ruduction in u.s economy. how did the u.s solve this? invade the country with the 2nd biggest oil reserve.
the laws for buying oil from an invaded country dont apply for the u.s and iraq is not seeing close to the amout of money that iraq should be making from oil profit. This war had nothing at all to do with wmd's and bush knows it and so to the u.n weapons inspectors. why not attack a country that is really posing the threat that bush is claiming to like iran and north korea? they actually have wmd's.

As you can see, iraq and the u.s went from close allies to enemies.

 

[bulldogg]

The Iranian C-130 sale pre-dates the Iraq-Iran war. They were sold along with the F-14's to Iran before the overthrow of the Shah.

 

[prolific]

sry my mistake about the c-130's

 

[bulldogg]

Geneva Convention protection of a retreating Army only applies if they have throw down their arms. The soldiers killed in southern Iraq were not retreating. They were dug in, in bunkers and they were armed. They had opportunity to surrender or retreat and they did not. I know because I was there, after the fight, tagging bodies for internment. What I saw were burned, dismembered, concussed, dead soldiers in tanks, at gun emplacements, dead fingers still holding their rifles.

I suggest before you spout off anymore of this garbage you educate yourself because you're stepping into a pit with at least one man who was there and won't truck any crap from someone who wasn't there quoting and pontificating from a source who was also not there.
:evil:

EDIT:

From the source...
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.genevaconventions.org

Art. 41. Safeguard of an enemy hors de combat

1. A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.

2. A person is hors de combat if: (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party; (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

3. When persons entitled to protection as prisoners of war have fallen into the power or an adverse Party under unusual conditions of combat which prevent their evacuation as provided for in Part III, Section I, of the Third Convention, they shall be released and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety.

I have just spent the better part of the last hour reading the Geneva Conventions from stem to stern and there is NOT ONE WORD about protection of an Army in retreat. The above quoted paragraph is as close as it gets. Unless there is a cessation of hostilities or armistice there is no protection for retreating. You must throw down your weapons and surrender in order to receive protection or be wounded or unconscious unable to defend yourself.

There are a lot of people who THINK they know what this document says and have never read it. If any of you have not read this document and feel the urge to invoke its name to support your position it would behoove you to find out first hand what it says so you don't embarass yourself.

As for the numbers... 300,000 dead... yeah riiiiiiiiiiight.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html#5. The Highway(s) of

We conclude that between 8,000 and 10,500 were killed in ground force operations, while the Gulf War Air Power Survey concluded that the ground war "total could easily have been as high as 10,000" (Keany and Cohen, GWAPS, 1993, p. 249, ft. 19).

Our estimate of Iraqi casualties in the ground war comprises several subordinate estimates:

* As many as 250 Iraqis were killed in probing attacks and artillery exchanges before the start of the ground war;

* More than 200 were killed in the 29 January - 1 February "Battle of Kafji" (including action against three Iraqi brigades);

* Between 800 and 1,250 were killed in preparatory artillery barrages and breaching operations at the start of the ground war (including 250-500 buried alive in their trenches);

* Between 800 and 1,000 were killed in the 25-27 February "highway of death" incidents (which are addressed separately in an Appendix to this report);

* 700 or more were likely killed in the controversial post-war attack on a military caravan of 600+ vehicles near the Rumaila oilfields; and

* 5,500-7,000 were killed in other battles and engagements -- the "ground war" proper -- conducted by the USMC and Army XVIII and VII corps (in conjunction with allied forces).

 

[NavyBrat88]

Well I dont see any mention of the plane that was found in the desert either. The Iraqis had 12 years to hide the WMD's they had. They're most likely in Pakistan right now.

 

[zander_0633]

Why would the Iraqis hide them in Pakistan?

 

[Italian Guy]

Kuwait was part of iraq. it was only when the british discovered oil deposits in kuwait that they made kuwait an independent country rather than the old province of kuwait

Interesting. Kuwait would be part of Iraq only because Kuwait was made independent by the British. Ha ha ha. Now the question is: Who made Iraq, Syria, Jordan etc independent States? Who drew their borders after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Yeah it was Paris and London. =Hence Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc should all belong to Turkey, the once head of the Ottoman Empire. Come on, let's be serious. Two thirds of the countries of Africa were made up by the French and the British. Does that mean Chad or Niger are not independent and sovereign countries today? Would it be ok for Tanzania to invade Malawi or it wouldn't?

Why the hell is there a country that only has 1 city?(Kuwait city). You will also notice that kuwait city is a 2 mile stretch from the shore. the rest? a plain desert

Mmmh let's see. Tiny countries with just one main city, other than Kuwait:

Europe:
San Marino
Vatican
Luxembourg
Liechtenstein
Malta
Andorra
Monaco
Cyprus
Asia:
Singapore
Maldives
Bhutan
Qatar
Bahrain
Africa:
Gibuti
Equatorial Guinea
Sao Tome & Principe
Capo Verde
Burundi
Rwanda
Lesotho
Swaziland
Gambia
Americas:
Dominica
Saint Kitts & Nevis
Grenada
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
Antigua & Barbuda
Barbados
Jamaica
Saint Lucia
Belize
Oceania:
Nauru
Palau
Tuvalu
Samoa
Tonga

Well I know we can argue about their relative importance as countries but you can't say they're not legitimate and sovereign countries. At the UN Kuwait has one vote, just like the US or China. Kuwait is actually bigger (both in size and population) than most of the above-mentioned countries, and Kuwait has other towns as well, not just Kuwait City, though that's surely the most important of them.

In 1991 when iraq invaded kuwait, the occupation lasted close to 5 months.By that time it was recognized by 14 countries including france, greece, turkey, ukrane, russia, pakistan and many other arab countries.They recognized that kuwait was part of iraq

Mmm, same Western and Arab countries that subsequently endorsed and supported the War Operations, I guess.

But the truth of this war is that the u.s did not want saddam to stay in power just becouse saddam wasnt a fan of the u.s. also because high oil prices means an even higher ruduction in u.s economy. how did the u.s solve this? invade the country with the 2nd biggest oil reserve.
the laws for buying oil from an invaded country dont apply for the u.s and iraq is not seeing close to the amout of money that iraq should be making from oil profit. This war had nothing at all to do with wmd's and bush knows it and so to the u.n weapons inspectors.

Not about oil, IMO, and in the opinion of experts. I won't enter the WMD's issue because I've discussed it too many times before.

 

[zander_0633]

My country is on an island!

 

[Blackwatch]

Gentlemen, I too am a Vet with three honorable discharges, but that is NO reason for special previlage or consideration of views....it cannot be worn as a shield because it was never intended to be one....

This war has been brewing for years and years, so it will take years and years to solve....Vladamir Putin said something interesting a few years ago "The U.S. and the USSR were so busy 'fighting' the Cold War, they forgot to watch the Islamic fanatics"....

The fighting in Iraq is just one front in this war...there will be others....

One of the jobs I had in the Army was NBC NCO (54 Bravo), so I do know a bit about WMD's....(I was also 11 Bravo [Infantry] and 12 Bravo/12 Charlie [Combat Engineer/Ribbon Bridge]).....Iraq's WMD's show NO evidence of have been destroyed, either by Sadaam's people or by the Allies....and chemical weapons must be burned at a very high degree to be destroyed....you can't bury them as the containers will fall apart long before the chemcials break down....and Sadaam did have VX nerve agent along with Sarin and Soman....look to Syria as they are the same political idelogy (combination of communist and Islam and nationalism)....very large truck convoys were photographed leaving Iraq well before the bombs started dropping.

 

[Forrest_Gump]

prolific, when one frames his argument with the statements:

The u.s had supplied iraqis with wmd's,chemical warheads...

This war had nothing at all to do with wmd's...

it gives one the impression that you want things both ways. Come on, which is it, did the US supply him with WMD's (a point I don't argue), or did he not have WMD's (a point still in contention). As far as I know, he didn't use all of it, and by what I have read from people more knowledgable than I both here and in publications that can be found with a little surfing, he certainly did not destroy what he did not use on the Iranians or the Kurds.

I am not trying to flame you on this, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it. Though I do ask that you cite your sources for the rest of the assertions that you have made.

A discussion will remain productive only as long as all parties deal in facts.
​

 

[Marinerhodes]

I will not join the debate here except to point out this:

It is not always what you find that makes the biggest difference. It can also be what you do not find that makes a bigger difference.

Concerning Iraq's support of Terrorism, who can actually say what contacts were made where? No one can be 100% certain that there was or was not a link. Supposition and hypothesis abound in regards to this.

Concerning WMD. Yay, Nay, hi, bye, it matters not. He had other weapons and items that he was not supposed to have (something about missles with a range greater than XXX miles). Combine that with the fact that he kept kicking the inspectors out every so often, combined with the threats and media propaganda that was tossed about.

Let us go back to the one thread about free speech: Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed.

Not really applicable to this whole situation but you can start there as to one of a multitude of reasons why things happened.

 

[major liability]

For the crude oil , showing military power in middle east and stimulating domestic economy rising.

I agree. Iran and North Korea were MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better targets if we wanted to make the world safer. And don't think conditions for the North Korean populace weren't worse than those for Iraqis under Saddam. Look at a lot of Africa. A lot of those countries are worse off than Iraq was. Saddam was a despot, but if you stayed out of his way you had a stable country to live in. Unless you were a Kurd... But that was a long time ago.

Anyways, my point is, the time to remove Saddam was during the first Gulf War before he slaughtered the rebels incited by Bush I. Doing it later was pointless and got the US armed forces tangled up in two Middle Eastern countries. You can bet Iran and North Korea are breathing easier with us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course, you should know that I never trusted Bush about the WMDs in the first place. The only ones Hussein had were the ones WE GAVE HIM. Intelligence failure my ass, this was for oil and revenge. What the hell was Saddam going to do to us? Nothing. He was incapable of a strike against the US. Iran is the one that will get terrorists a dirty bomb. Saddam was a secular leader, he was surpressing the very groups we're fighting now within his borders.

 

[TBA_PAKI]

I agree. Iran and North Korea were MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better targets if we wanted to make the world safer. And don't think conditions for the North Korean populace weren't worse than those for Iraqis under Saddam. Look at a lot of Africa. A lot of those countries are worse off than Iraq was. Saddam was a despot, but if you stayed out of his way you had a stable country to live in. Unless you were a Kurd... But that was a long time ago.

Anyways, my point is, the time to remove Saddam was during the first Gulf War before he slaughtered the rebels incited by Bush I. Doing it later was pointless and got the US armed forces tangled up in two Middle Eastern countries. You can bet Iran and North Korea are breathing easier with us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course, you should know that I never trusted Bush about the WMDs in the first place. The only ones Hussein had were the ones WE GAVE HIM. Intelligence failure my ass, this was for oil and revenge. What the hell was Saddam going to do to us? Nothing. He was incapable of a strike against the US. Iran is the one that will get terrorists a dirty bomb. Saddam was a secular leader, he was surpressing the very groups we're fighting now within his borders.

Probably the best post I have read in this thread!

But I do agree that CIA did failed in IRAQ in case of POST-WAR Intelligence scenario!

 

[Forrest_Gump]

Saddam was a secular leader, he was surpressing the very groups we're fighting now within his borders.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. The Sunni's are a minority group in Iraq (CIA Fact book cites 32%-37%) and were in charge when Saddam was ruler. The Sunni's also make up the vast Majority of the homegrown Terrorists we are now fighting in Iraq. I would like to see your reference to your statement about how Saddam was "surpressing" the Sunni's.

the time to remove Saddam was during the first Gulf War

Yes that was the time. It's to bad that the UN would not back any mandate that would have done that. As for the Current War in Iraq, UN madates after Desert Storm dictated his removal due to his continued aggressive behavior, and treatment of his own population.

Iran is dangerous, and needs to be delt with. Armchair Generals will argue that we should have fought there first, but how do you suppose we would have been able to do that without a friendly country, with an infastructure, on one of its borders? Also there existed no UN resolution calling for a change of government in Iran, and the Iranian's weren't shooting at US aircraft, and playing games with the UN (re-arming using all the money from the oil for food program to buy guns instead of food).

Korea is also dangerous. And again the Armchair Generals love to talk about how we should "go in and deal with them". Anyone who who has bothered with history, and listened to what is heard from China, knows that the minute we (pretty much anyone) tries to invade Korea they will suffer the military wrath of China.

If you have a problem with what is happening in Africa, well...The UN has had troops on the ground there for almost 50 years. If the European countries (who are the root of most of the problems in Africa) cared in the least, they would actually do something about it.

As I have said many times in the past. Nothing happens in a vacuum. People need to quit forming their opinions based on sound bites. Read, research, and look around. The world we actually live in, the "real world" is NEVER seen on TV news programs.

Personally, since I have 2 that are in harms way, I wish that the US would never have to fight again. But that day is far off.