Iraq, terrorism and Defence spending

[walibe]

Would the "scale that has been done by the US" extend to the families, sons, fathers, brothers etc of those killed by actions such as the bombing of the restaurant where the US knew full well there would be many innocent civilians present? How about the shooting of the truck containing only women and young children at the checkpoint where a stop sign in Arabic wasn't considered necessary? How many terrorist groups were active and had ground-level support in Iraq before the war and how many are active now? What was the level of rape and ethnic conflict including murder and 'cleansing' of the population in rural areas of Afghanistan?

Oh please, do the hundreds of thousands who died under the Sadam regime not matter? The death toll would of continued to rise well past the numbers killed during the war. You have to look at both sides. Don't try playing the ethnic card, it doesn't work. The people of the U.K didn't see 'ragheads' they saw the work of Sadam, and it certainly was not pretty.

Too often the long-term effects of military action is not taken into account. We are seeing a perfect example now with the surprise shown by the US government at the level of hostility to US and British soldiers from groups most definitely anti-Saddam before the war. More US soldiers have been killed by 'hostile fire' since the war was declared 'over' than were killed during full-scale conflict. That's certainly an interesting definition of an effective 'preventative' measure to prevent Americans getting killed, unless you consider the lives of soldiers killed in Iraq worth less than Western civilians killed in terrorist attacks.

Actually look beyond the headlines. Hostility has been shown towards the Americans due to their heavy handed method of rule. Deaths amongst the British have been far lower due to our very down to earth methods which we learned in Ireland. The majority of our troops no longer wear helmets for example and many travel in un-armoured vechiles. The result has been such a success that the Americans have re-evaluated themselves after looking at the British methods. Also, please understand that thgings are turning. Many of these attacks are being carried about by foreign terrorists rather than the population which is showing disgust at the attacks on its oil and water infrastructure.

The lives of our servicemen and woman have not been lost just for the freedom that we enjoy but for the people of Iraq. Do not take this away from them!!!! Your problem is with the government, NOT the men and woman of our armed services who have done a hell of alot more for this country than yourself!

PJ

[Zathras]

Originally posted by walibe
Oh please, do the hundreds of thousands who died under the Sadam regime not matter? The death toll would of continued to rise well past the numbers killed during the war. You have to look at both sides. Don't try playing the ethnic card, it doesn't work. The people of the U.K didn't see 'ragheads' they saw the work of Sadam, and it certainly was not pretty.

So your beloved Tory government who did brisk business supplying Iraq and Saddam with weapons systems and many components that went on to be used in the CBW programmes there cared about the "hundreds of thousands" who died under Saddam? Did the Americans (I've got a lovely photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam being pally) care about this when they stocked Saddam up with weapons to attack Iran? How many Tory MPs supported the Early Day motion condemning Saddam for the gassing of the Kurds in Falluja? I'll tell you: not a single member of the then cabinet. That was whilst many people who were opposed to the last war were campaigning against Britain's trade links with Saddam and calling for official condemnation of his actions. My mother was arrested (but released without charge) at one of the rallies against Falluja that the then government considered an embarrasment to a country at the centre of a lucrative trade deal. People protesting against Saddam were considered a 'nuisance'. If you are so simplistic as to miss the difference in being anti-war and anti-Saddam then there's little hope of constructive debate here.

Let's look at the situation after Gulf War One, when Bush senior and Major decided it was best to leave Saddam in power, despite all his atrocities and behaviour because of the destabilising effects on the region his removal would bring about. After GW1 Saddam was constrained to relatively small-scale actions, albeit still rather nasty stuff. Despite the portrayal, weapons inspectors were hugely effective in removing 90% of Iraq's CBW arsenal, so much so that in the only war since Iraq could not even muster a single chemical weapon, nor could traces be found after the war. There were many different ways of dealing with Saddam the human-rights violator as opposed to Saddam the WMD-toting madman, including ideas we discussed on these forums before the start of the war. Under no circumstances was it the 'all-or-nothing' 'we invade or thousands die' decision you're portraying it as.

It's rather interesting to note the escalating clashes of warlords and the devastation of rural Afghanistan, including the manyfold increase of instances of rape and other 'terror' crimes, plus the three-times increase in Opium production not getting any coverage on Western TV, just like we didn't see much of Falluja or other Saddam-based atrocities until it became useful for the West. The concept of the war being waged for human rights purposes came right at the very end of the push for public support, after other avenues had been exhausted. Even now the US government maintain the war was about securing the West's safety from WMD - human rights abuses were simply a convenient way of selling it.

Many of these attacks are being carried about by foreign terrorists rather than the population which is showing disgust at the attacks on its oil and water infrastructure.

I understand all about the heavy-handed attitudes of the Americans bringing about initial attacks, plus the fact that the US were patrolling the Saddam-supporting heartlands of Iraq. However the increase in violence in the south around Basra, a traditionally staunch anti-Saddam area, is extremely indicative of the swing in the opinion of the people there from the coalition being 'liberators' to the coalition being 'occupiers'. Basra still largely lacks water supplies, electricity and fuel many months after the war ended, and it is the frustration of the people that is being shown in the current wave of attacks. I wonder how 'heavy-handedness' had anything to do with the attack on the UN building - I hardly see UN staff walking around in helmets and raiding homes and villages. That attack and the many others all suggest a swing in the basis of the attacks from Saddam loyalists to the disgruntled Iraqis in general. What, the Iraqis are getting annoyed that they have no water, electricity and fuel and no promised self-run government of their own? Who'd have thought? They're turning to terrorism? But surely that's the thing we went in there to stop?!? Now there are foreign terrorists active in Iraq? You state the war has facilitated terrorists setting up shop there? But wasn't the idea that we fought terrorism, not brought about a situation for it to flourish? Something's not quite right.

Your problem is with the government, NOT the men and woman of our armed services who have done a hell of alot more for this country than yourself!

How the hell do you know what I've done for my country or the value I've put in? Would I be a better person for this country had I left school at 16 and joined the military? Would you consider me a better person if I gave up my work for charity and joined the TA? The very idea that members of the armed forces are more valuable or have contributed more to our society than other public servants such as teachers, doctors, nurses, civil servants is quite frankly pathetic. I could have lived quite happily for all my life, not affected by the level of our military, and I owe just as much to the doctors, teachers, even the refuse-collectors who have helped my life be a pleasant and liveable one as I do to a squaddie. I've had a lot more direct contribution from the former group, I can tell you. Note also that nowhere have I criticised the general members of our armed forces or questioned their level of commitment to their job. I find it interesting that you infer that I have done so or am in some way disparaging of them. It isn't their decision where they get sent or what they do, and once the war was unstoppable they had my full support and still have my full support in their role as policemen and peacekeepers in Iraq. Those making the larger decisions further up the ladder are the ones I have criticised.

[walibe]

I understand all about the heavy-handed attitudes of the Americans bringing about initial attacks, plus the fact that the US were patrolling the Saddam-supporting heartlands of Iraq. However the increase in violence in the south around Basra, a traditionally staunch anti-Saddam area, is extremely indicative of the swing in the opinion of the people

FFS - Read the above post - these were done by foreign terrorists i.e not Iraqi.

.

as I do to a squaddie

You also need to learn about the ranks of our armed forces clearly.

you infer that I have done so or am in some way disparaging of them.

It comes across very clearly in your previous posts.

[Zathras]

Originally posted by walibe
FFS - Read the above post - these were done by foreign terrorists i.e not Iraqi.

What were done by foreign terrorists? All the attacks in the south? How do we know that if we haven't caught those responsible? It's sheer speculation but either way there's something wrong, no? Either the population we've gone in to 'liberate' are turning against us as they're seeing the reality on the ground, or we've made Iraq a place where it's easy for foreign terrorists to propagate and gain support. Doesn't quite fit in with the 'prevention' of terror you proclaimed military action lead to.

You also need to learn about the ranks of our armed forces clearly.

I'd love to see why you infer I am lacking in knowledge about the various ranks of our military. Last time I checked, squaddie was a perfectly understandable term referring to certain echelons of the military. If you prefer I list each rank by name the next time I talk about soldiers then you're being rather pedantic.

It comes across very clearly in your previous posts.

Care to give me any examples, or does the sole use of the word 'squaddie' label me as a hippie-military-hater now?

[walibe]

We will continue this in a new thread.

Care to give me any examples, or does the sole use of the word 'squaddie' label me as a hippie-military-hater now?

Try the tone your taking and the use of the word squaddie? Why not call them, I dunno - SOLDIERS?

Its pretty much accepted the attacks were by foreign terrorists, there have been huge influxes and cells have been confirmed in those areas.

[Zathras]

Ah, so you haven't found any actual examples then, just the 'tone'? Spare me. I also didn't know squaddie was a derogatory term, in fact talking to a Falklands war veteran here in the room with me he said they frequently referred to themselves and other fellow soldiers as squaddies and he considered it a more colloquial term that evoked a more friendly and personal reaction than the generic 'soldier'. Anyway, Iraq war stuff to the other thread, cleaning up semantics in here in here.

[DaBeeeenster]

OK. So, I think it's time for a bit of a precis of the arguments. Walibe; can you provide answers to the following questions please.

- Saddam Hussein was conducting an oppressive regime throughout the 80s, 90's and early 21st Century, yet it was only after he invaded Kuwait that he was deemed a menace and a tyrant. Indeed, the British and American governments were supportive of his regime during the Iran/Iraq war. Given that there are NO links between Hussein and 9/11, what suddenly changed in 2003?

- The stability of both Iraq and the surrounding regions has collapsed following the war being "won". It is a hotbed of terrorist activity being conducted both by native Iraqis as well as foreign terrorists wanting to get a Western soldiers scalp. Indeed, given the fact that Iraq has not been responsible for a single terrorist act in recent years, yet has suffered dozens and dozens since the invasion began, surely the unarguable fact is that Iraq is , in its current state, a new birthplace of terrorism. How can you suggest that this war in any way helps the prevention of terrorism?

- Iraq has been a strategic goal for the Republican party for years. The Project for a New American Century (a right wing think tank) outlined very clearly in a strategy document how the US needed greater influence in the Middle East, and especially Iraq. Do you REALLY think that this is about the humanitarian effort? Recent estimates in the Congo rate the death toll at over 4 million. If we are so interested in helping out in humanitarian disasters, why are we in Iraq?
I refer you to a quote made by Paul Wolfowitz in May of this year:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

This is a quote from a PNAC document:

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Is the Iraq war really about "liberating the people"?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Zathras
Ah, so you haven't found any actual examples then, just the 'tone'? Spare me. I also didn't know squaddie was a derogatory term, in fact talking to a Falklands war veteran here in the room with me he said they frequently referred to themselves and other fellow soldiers as squaddies and he considered it a more colloquial term that evoked a more friendly and personal reaction than the generic 'soldier'. Anyway, Iraq war stuff to the other thread, cleaning up semantics in here in here.

You'll find that some black people call their black mates 'rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish'.
Does this mean it's right for me to refer to black people as rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish? It is widely accepted that I am not.

[DaBeeeenster]

PLEASE can we stay on topic!

[Zathras]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
You'll find that some black people call their black mates 'rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish'.
Does this mean it's right for me to refer to black people as rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish? It is widely accepted that I am not.

People that saw my many threads on the use of language and political correctness both here before the nuke and at theotherplace will know that I am 100% in agreement with you on the use of derogatory terms such as the one you mention, and also golliwog, paki, pikey etc etc. However there is a difference between a colloquial term that is neither insulting nor derogatory and the other nastier phrases I've just mentioned. The guy I was talking to last night liked people referring to him as a squaddie as it made him and his colleagues appear to have more of a human side and less like the inapproachable warrior that the term soldier brought about. One can look at the use of the term 'bobbie' to describe a policeman - often used by both the media and the police themselves in the phrase 'bobbies on the beat'. How about the phrase 'lollipop ladies' or 'lollipop men' as opposed to 'crossing assistants'? Is the former term derogatory to those doing the job or does it evoke a more friendly familiar image? Do you want to ban the use of all colloquial language?

[Saracen]

This thread is about Iraq, terrorism and defence spending, not the colloquial and/or derogatory use of language.

As DaBeeeenster asked, please stick to the topic. I spent half an hour last night sorting out another thread that had been taken completely off-topic to create this one, and don't wish to have to do it again.

For the derogatory-terms discussion, please start another thread.

I'll delete, without further warning, any more posts in this thread that go totally off-topic.

Thankyou.

[walibe]

Many thanks for the new thread.

On another note. Do you guys feel that Americas blindness towards the slaughtering in Israel are hypocrytical when then campaign for the end of terror and invade Iraq?

[DaBeeeenster]

IMHO one of the main reasons the threat of terrorism has increased is the support (both financially and militarily) that America provides to Israel.

Walibe, can you answer my three questions posted above?

[walibe]

Sorry didn't notice this in the creation of the thread.

- Saddam Hussein was conducting an oppressive regime throughout the 80s, 90's and early 21st Century, yet it was only after he invaded Kuwait that he was deemed a menace and a tyrant.

There was no way we could of invaded Iraq without a reason, the slaughtering of a population by its dictator is not a good enougth reason it seems, just look at Zimbabwe. Ethnic cleansing is effectively happening there and the world does not act. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 gave the world what it needed but the reseloution would only go so far as to allow the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The french apposed anything else so the removal of Sadam was a no go issue at the time.

In todays up todate world, 9/11 showed American it needed to act quickly. Its widely thought Sadam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction at some stage but they have disapeared and this a worrying thing which the Americans are playing down. Lets say they were exported to Siria, whats to stop these weapons or their core components falling into the hands of terrorist cells who could use these in direct attacks at the centre of a heavly populated area. Thats the scary thing, but American and the UK don't seem to be letting on much about their investigations into the surrounding countries.

Siria also has almost as evil a regime as Iraq had and its people looked on envious (for what we could see) of the situation in Iraq but they will not be invaded or saved despite the fact they too live in the poor conditions seen in Iraq.

Do you REALLY think that this is about the humanitarian effort?

Yes, more so than you think, but not 100%. Iraq will not give the U.S influence in that region as the country once rebuilt will probably end its ties with the U.S. Countries like Kuwait already suffer terrorist attacks because of its links with the U.S. Iraq is already starting to see the first terrorist strikes. The people have largely tried to get back to normal but the terrorists and Sadam hardliners are the ones causing problems, the ones killing soldiers and destroying infrastructure in an attempt to see the Americans pushed out, this will not happen for a long time, America will throw numbers at this if it needs to.

Is the Iraq war really about "liberating the people"?

For a large part yes. Weapons of mass destruction was the only ones anyone could agree on. Not everyone would agree on the humanitarian suituation. Lets not forget even though the U.K and U.S cut their links with Iraq a long time ago, the French were still supplying this nation up to the Gulf war (and it seems more recently some of its arms companies may of unofficially) but it also appears the Russians did too. The coallitions task this time was the over throwing of the Regime, they didn't care about the weapons they new may not exist, this would only be their justification at the end of the war.

PJ

[spikegifted]

The reasons for the US going into war with Iraq should not be used as reasons for the UK to go to war. The very fact that UK joint forces with the US is solely based on the assumption that Iraq has WMD. Well, we all know where we're heading with that.

The reasons why the US and the UK are amongst the favorite Muslim/Arab terrorist targets is not surprising at all. For the US, it is obviously it aggressive military stance and it's policy toward projecting its military might in the Middle East to 'protect its national interests'. Since when has the Middle East became US's 'national interests', I don't know... However, lets not forget the biggest reason why certain Mr bin Larden hates the US is because of US forces basing themselves in Saudi soil, which, of course, led to the events of September 11. Another reason why the US isn't too hot with a number of Arab nations is due to its blind support for Israel. And we all know how much the Arab like to have the Israel disappear.

The UK is a slight different story. Thanks to generations of political genius, the UK has chosen to blindly support US policies. Take our current PM, he chose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US on not only after September 11, but way after that. And guess what, we got dragged into a bottomless pit, for no good reason.

If you half think the US administration's reason for going to with Iraq is the right-thing-to-do, you really should go and have a cold shower. You can't export democracy. Democracy is derived from cultural, social and historical bases. Simply going in with guns blazing and 'give' an other country democracy will not work. The best you can achieve is a system that looks like democracy, but actually not. The troops in Iraq are being slowly wasted. The conditions of the Iraqis are no better now than they were prior to 'liberation' and they are unlikely to improve for years to come as the social unrest created by the act of invasion has upset the balance and the infrastructure to such an extent that it will take years to return to the level of operation efficiency seen prior to the war.

To justify this war based on humanitarian grounds is just naive. As we can see, winning the war may be relatively easy, but keeping the peace is difficult. Can you seriously suggest that the humanitarian situation in Iraq is better now than it was before the war?

This is according to the CIA World Fact Book, which was updated on August 1, 2003:

Government type:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Constitution:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Legal system:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Suffrage:
formerly 18 years of age; universal; note - in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Executive branch:
chief of state: in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Legislative branch:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Judicial branch:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Political parties and leaders:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Political pressure groups and leaders:
in transition following April 2003 defeat of SADDAM Husayn regime by US-led coalition

Economy - overview:
The military victory of the US-led coalition in March-April 2003 resulted in the shutdown of much of the central economic administrative structure and the loss of a comparatively small amount of capital plant.

Exchange rates:
Iraqi dinars per US dollar - 0.3109 (2002), 0.3109 (2001), 0.3109 (2000), 0.3109 (1999), 0.3109 (1998), note: fixed official rate since 1982; market rate subject to wide fluctuations

Telephone system:
general assessment: an unknown number of telecommunication facilities were damaged during the March-April 2003 war

So I guess humanitarian has improved since Saddam's days, then...

[walibe]

So I guess humanitarian has improved since Saddam's days, then...

Well people arn't taken into the streets and shot for supporting an opposing party so I would have to say yes it is. The south for the first time has its own water supply now as well (all be it from Kuwait) and will benefit from the Oil sales which Sadam kept for himself.

PJ