Iraq has become an 'al-Qa'eda battleground'

[DaBeeeenster]

The coalition's failure to establish law and order in Iraq has enabled al-Qa'eda to turn the country into a "battle ground", an influential Commons committee has said.

The foreign affairs select committee said a "vacuum" has been created in parts of the country into which criminals and militias have poured.

The MPs concluded that an insufficient number of foreign troops deployed to Iraq has contributed to the deterioration in security.

Thoughts? Any members of the pro-war group thinkt that things were still worthwhile?

[Big RICHARD]

Yeah! Cos now that these areas are full of criminals and militia (I take this to mean terrorist militia) we can bomb them and rid the world of these people!

[SilentDeath]

Only problem is the american army is stupid and cant even tell the difference between civilians and militia.

Before the war I stated that there attacks would be nowhere neat as neat-and-tidy as they could-and-SHOULD be for any modern warfare.

Yes I think I could even do better myself, If I had one decent plane and lots of ammo, I could rid iraq of all the terrorists without harming more than 5 civilians. How would one do this? lots of ways.. but all involve:
- not cuting corners
- not deciding that its ok for some people to die

The attitude that the US has is that ther is always casultys in war. does NOT have to be that way.

I would blame lack of training for the american army [infact didnt more friendlys die in the first few days than iraq army/militants?, nade in one of the command tents, plane crashes etc.. just some examples] and the people at the top orgainising all of the attacks.

[Pete]

The attitude that the US has is that ther is always casultys in war. does NOT have to be that way.

I would blame lack of training for the american army [infact didnt more friendlys die in the first few days than iraq army/militants?, nade in one of the command tents, plane crashes etc.. just some examples] and the people at the top orgainising all of the attacks.

errr i think the definition of war is people dying cause of an arguement? theres gonna be casualties in war casue theres bullets and bombs
i think u mean they reckon there has to be civilians dying, which is a nay
trouble is terrorists and saddam husseins buddies dont want to stand out from a crowd of innocent civvies do they?

i think you are right bout the more people dying of friendly fire thing

but then again,
the idea of the initial attacks was to take out key commanders and leaders with laser guided missles, thus killing mabye 10-15 people (or they 'meant' to only kill that many...) on the first night of bombing, oweing to idiotic americans firing at us brits and there selve we lost prolly around 25-30 in the first few days,
now just think if the american army indulged in some eye tests mabye only a few dozen would have died in the first week or so...

as for al queda peeps in iraq
of course theres gonna be al queda in iraq by now its an easy way for them to satisfy there lust to kill americans and brits, spanish and the rest

and they can make it look like iraqie militia doing all the attacks, so the pussys dont get retaliated on, our sas lads and the royal marines are still in afganistan arnt they?
infact they say there gonna have bin arse bagged by the xmas
Thanks for listening and getting confused at my pants punctuation and grammar
Pete

[FarmerJon]

The trouble is that the war was mishandled incorrectly from the start. If the US government (and Mr Lapdog Blair) had waited for the UNs authorisation rather than jumping in in order to secure the oil as first priority, then a lot of things could and would have been done differently.
I think the trust of the Iraqi people would have been better obtained, and thus the distinction between insurgents and Al Quaida (just wish i could spell it ) would be easy to make, which would have stopped a lot of the uncertainty there is about who is causing the problems there....
just my 2p

[nichomach]

Thoughts? Any members of the pro-war group thinkt that things were still worthwhile?

Depends on what the response is. The key issue is that having won the war, the coalition is busily losing the peace; they entered with a broad degree of support from the Iraqi population which they've largely squandered through gross mishandling of relations with the Iraqi population and significant underestimation of the forces required to provide adequate security. Now the last of these is certainly amenable to being remedied, and that would help address the first problem as well. It's this sort of thing that makes me scratch my head when we're told that MORE battalions are being cut from the army; the only cure for this is boots on the ground and we're reducing the number of troops available. So my answer is that it could still be worthwhile, but it depends on whether the US get a clue, and we get sufficient forces in place.

[arsen]

Only problem is the american army is stupid and cant even tell the difference between civilians and militia.

im not sure its so simple as everyone who wears a big red X on their chest is a bad guy, most of the war was fought not knowing who the enemy was, and as for the militia and such, they could be people walking by in the street one minute, the next with rifles shooting at you,

[Blub2k]

Very quiet thread this one, not surprising really.

[Clingy]

What I do not see is a realistic alternative option here. You even have the benefit of hindsight! So, say you were the leader of the worlds most powerful country and and you have intelligence to suggest that a mad dictator was stock piling chemical weapons. This madman had used these WMD on his own people (Kurds and Marsh Arabs). Many people were trying to persuade you that this madman had voluntarily destroyed these weapons. Now this is the same madman that invaded a tiny neighbouring state, fired medium range missiles into Israel and waged a long and bloody war against it's largest neighbour. The intelligence even suggest he is training terrorists that have recently murdered 5000 of your countrymen.

Now....you are going to wait for the UN.... .

You see, the difficulty I have, although I recognise mistakes have been made, is that someone HAS to make a decision. So maybe Iraq was a mistake in hindsight, but what would you have done with only the information available at the time. Also are you saying Afganistan was a mistake, should the USA have "turned the other cheek" or opened dialogue with the terrorists that murdered its citizens?

[DaBeeeenster]

What I do not see is a realistic alternative option here. You even have the benefit of hindsight! So, say you were the leader of the worlds most powerful country and and you have intelligence to suggest that a mad dictator was stock piling chemical weapons. This madman had used these WMD on his own people (Kurds and Marsh Arabs). Many people were trying to persuade you that this madman had voluntarily destroyed these weapons. Now this is the same madman that invaded a tiny neighbouring state, fired medium range missiles into Israel and waged a long and bloody war against it's largest neighbour. The intelligence even suggest he is training terrorists that have recently murdered 5000 of your countrymen.

The United States is guilty of ALL of the above.

- Stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
- Deployment of these weapons on various battlegrounds (WW2, Vietnam, Napalm was used during both Iraq wars, not to mention DU shells and the use of cluster bombs in built up areas)
- Attempted invasion of a neighbouring state (Cuba)
- Fired long range missiles into Sudan. Fired a missile from a drone plane in Yemen only a couple of years ago.
- Trained terrorists. Google "The School of the Americas". Ditto "Contra Rebels". The CIA trained the Mujuahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s.

So what's your next move; invade the US?

[megah0]

I am sitting on the fence as to my pro or anti war stance, but the Americans didn't do that bad a job. Tbh they could have taken Bagdahd within a few days had they wanted to, there would have been massive civilian loss of life but they could have been finished inside of a week. But the took their time and did their best to minimise casualties.

Its true that the training that they provide is somewhat less than that of bristish troops, the experiences in Northern Ireland perhaps giving our lads the edge.

I think the Coalition made a poor descion in not actively hunting out militia and simply patrolling and peace keeping. I think this will be a situation for many more years to come.

[Blub2k]

Weak argument Clingy, you say that there is now the benefit of hindsight, you are still clinging (aha hence the name) onto this polarisation idea good vs evil etc which is a horrible oversimplification of the situation designed to pander to tabloid mentalities and not to thinking people. When exactly did Saddam go from being a trusted ally of the US and the UK to being a madman? Was it possibly when the propaganda machine decided it to be such? Why did the US listen to the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi when using the 45 minute claim? Now Chalabi is hiding in Iran where he has cosied up to their secret service. The evidence all pointed to the fact that the weapons had been destroyed but that was not good enough for anyone at the time, cept us UN adherents.
The intelligence was manipulated to suggest that he was training Al-Qaeida, everyone knows that Saddam had absolutely no time for Islamic extremists and that he ran a socialist secular state making him the sworn enemy of Islamic extremists, there is some evidence that he supported a Palestinian freedom fighter for a while but this guy was assassinated by his secret service shortly before the war just to demonstrate that he was no longer supporting him. (cant remember his name, bit of research would find it).
There was a decision made Clingy and the thing is that it was to invade Iraq by hook or by crook and sod the consequences, the information was faked to fit the purpose so it amazes me that intelligent people still have difficulty with the fact that they were lied to to further an agenda which is little more than stealing Iraqi oil.
Afghanistan was a mistake when they armed and trained Osama and his Mujihadeen to fight the USSR so yes it was a mistake, always has been, probably started with the amount of opium they have always produced.

Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Have you ever heard of angle drilling? Well US companies were angle drillling under the Iraqi border with wells all along the border inside the Kuwaiti border, now was he a madman to invade Kuwait to stop them stealing their oil or what?

[nichomach]

Trained terrorists. Google "The School of the Americas". Ditto "Contra Rebels". The CIA trained the Mujuahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Now on the Contra stuff I agree with you; when I was studying international law the ICJ judgement in the case of Nicaragua v USA, 1985 (The Contra Case) was required reading; they were found guilty of unlawful interference in the internal affairs of another state and unlawful use of force (direct and indirect). However, just like every other international law that they find inconvenient they ignored the verdict. I would note however, that the Mujahideen were resisting an unlawful Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the time, so assisting them is hardly in the same category.

[DaBeeeenster]

Now on the Contra stuff I agree with you; when I was studying international law the ICJ judgement in the case of Nicaragua v USA, 1985 (The Contra Case) was required reading; they were found guilty of unlawful interference in the internal affairs of another state and unlawful use of force (direct and indirect). However, just like every other international law that they find inconvenient they ignored the verdict. I would note however, that the Mujahideen were resisting an unlawful Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the time, so assisting them is hardly in the same category.

Agreed. It was maybe an unfair inclusion. Having said that, it was only 25 years ago. They have gone from "Freedom Fighters" to "Terrorists" in one generation.

There are a number of other terrorist groups that have been aided by the US over the last half century. Almost too many to mention.

[nichomach]

Why did the US listen to the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi when using the 45 minute claim?

Because at that point he was not convicted and it's worth noting that he still hasn't been; there are warrants for his arrest and he may well prove to be guilty, but at that point he was still regarded on the basis of previous intelligence provided as a reliable source.

The evidence all pointed to the fact that the weapons had been destroyed but that was not good enough for anyone at the time, cept us UN adherents.

It's worth noting that Iraq hadn't actually allowed weapons inspectors into the country for five years, so the "evidence" was sketchy at best and non-existent at worst. Couple that with information supplied by previously reliable sources that there was an active WMD program, and that there were rapidly deployable systems in place, and you have a situation where it's arguably extremely irresponsible not to act.

The intelligence was manipulated to suggest that he was training Al-Qaeida, everyone knows that Saddam had absolutely no time for Islamic extremists and that he ran a socialist secular state making him the sworn enemy of Islamic extremists...

Now here I agree with you; the likelihood of an association between the Ba'athist regime and Al Qaeda was minimal at best; I always felt that associating action in Iraq with terrorism was a mammoth error of judgement.

There was a decision made Clingy and the thing is that it was to invade Iraq by hook or by crook and sod the consequences, the information was faked to fit the purpose so it amazes me that intelligent people still have difficulty with the fact that they were lied to to further an agenda which is little more than stealing Iraqi oil.

Urk... Depends on who you think was doing the lying and faking; Chalabi very probably was lying, but to further his own agenda (a post war power grab in Iraq), so to that extent there was falsification of intelligence. If you take the view that that evidence was publicly given the strongest possible credence and that more reliance may have been placed upon it than was warranted, then I'd be in agreement with you, and insofar as that reliance was placed because the intelligence supported the pre-existing inclination of Bush et al to invade Iraq, I'd agree with that. I don't necessarily believe that the US intelligence service ro government actually falsified the basic information that they received, though.

Afghanistan was a mistake when they armed and trained Osama and his Mujihadeen to fight the USSR so yes it was a mistake, always has been, probably started with the amount of opium they have always produced.

There I disagree vehemently; Afghanistan was unlawfully invaded by the Soviet Union and the US armed and trained indigenous resistance troops in order that they could liberate the country from occupation by a hostile foreign power. As to WHO they trained and armed, the Mujahideen were highly effective, whatever else they were. No, it wasn't a mistake, but neither was it a mistake to remove the Taliban and grant the Afghan people democracy.

Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Have you ever heard of angle drilling? Well US companies were angle drillling under the Iraqi border with wells all along the border inside the Kuwaiti border, now was he a madman to invade Kuwait to stop them stealing their oil or what?

Reference, please? I don't necessarily discount the possibility, but I'd like to knowe where the story came from.

[DaBeeeenster]

Actually Nichomach, Chalabi is already a convicted criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

In 1977 he founded the Petra Bank in Jordan. After the bank's failure, Chalabi was convicted and sentenced in absentia for bank fraud by a Jordanian court. He reportedly fled the country in the trunk of a car. He faces seventeen years in prison, should he again enter Jordan. Chalabi maintains that his prosecution was a politically motivated effort to discredit him. (BBC profile, 2002).