And so ends the Iraq war... Officially, at least.

Mr.Micro

Another job well done for the US.......murder, genocide, terror, mayhem, torture, corruption.....and onwards to Afghanistan and the next target.

SeanW

karma_ wrote: »

Who is Ireland under threat from?

Who was Belgium, France etc. under threat from in 1910?

ynotdu

BluePlanet wrote: »

Hirohshima (est 90,000–166,000 dead) = "saving lives"
Nagasaki (est 60,000–80,000 dead) = "saving more lives"

:rolleyes:

American apologists is such a so cool a term to use.
If people read posts carefully most people have tried to be fair.

Which Country Bombed Pearl Harbour at a Country that was not at war with them?

Which Country did not surrender after Hiroshima?

Which of the Two Countries that Created WW2 would not have nuked their 'enemy'(s) if they created the bomb first?

No brainer really.

karma_

SeanW wrote: »

Who was Belgium, France etc. under threat from in 1910?

Both of those were fairly large and powerful colonial powers at that time, what relevance does either of those counties in 1910 have to Ireland today?

Fratton Fred

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh yeah, you see it was all worth it because of "Halabja", which of course, took place in 1988, just a few years prior to the glorious US troops invaded, and while Uncle Sam was busy supporting Saddam.

Gotta love the rationalisations of American apologists.
Let's see:

Halabja (est 5000 dead) = Genocide

Hirohshima (est 90,000–166,000 dead) = "saving lives"
Nagasaki (est 60,000–80,000 dead) = "saving more lives"

:rolleyes:

No, read my post again. I am not making apologies for the Invasion, i am pointing out that in Iraq, pre the invasion, it was not a warm furry place.

Just because he fought the US and UK, does not make Saddam a hero, he was a brutal dictator who tortured his own people and in some instances, attempted to wipe out whole villages and towns.

This has got nothing to do with hiroshima or Nagasaki, it is about the war in Iraq.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just because he fought the US and UK, does not make Saddam a hero, he was a brutal dictator who tortured his own people and in some instances, attempted to wipe out whole villages and towns.

And so was Pinochet, yet that did not stop the US first installing him and backing him up.

BluePlanet

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, read my post again. I am not making apologies for the Invasion, i am pointing out that in Iraq, pre the invasion, it was not a warm furry place. .

No but it's standard of living was higher back then, then it is now.
So too Life Expectancy and just about any other measurement.

By the way, read up about Halabja.
You'll find there is some uncertainy over whom gassed the place.

And, no one knows with certainty that civilians were the intended target.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s.


The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Pelletiere claimed that a fact that has not been successfully challenged is that Iraq was not known to have possessed the cyanide-based blood agents determined to have been responsible for the condition of the bodies that were examined and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the victims and in their extremities, pointed to Iranian-used gas as the culprit

ynotdu

karma_ wrote: »

And so was Pinochet, yet that did not stop the US first installing him and backing him up.

So it's Peace in our time on this thread at last.
Imperialism bad.
dictatorship bad.
interfering with another Countries internal affairs bad.
live and let live Good.
defending Your Country against ALL of the above good!

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

And so was Pinochet, yet that did not stop the US first installing him and backing him up.

Yep, he was. That was wrong too.

We all know US foreign policy changes to suit the weather and that they make the rules up as they go along, i don't see what the big deal is.

Pinochet bad.
Saddam bad.

Did any of it justify the war in Iraq? no it didn't. Does the fact the war in Iraq was wrong mean Saddam was good? no it doesn't.

WakeUp

BluePlanet wrote: »

No but it's standard of living was higher back then, then it is now.
So too Life Expectancy and just about any other measurement.

By the way, read up about Halabja.
You'll find there is some uncertainy over whom gassed the place.

And, no one knows with certainty that civilians were the intended target.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s.


The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Pelletiere claimed that a fact that has not been successfully challenged is that Iraq was not known to have possessed the cyanide-based blood agents determined to have been responsible for the condition of the bodies that were examined and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the victims and in their extremities, pointed to Iranian-used gas as the culprit

Excellent post.

The gas attack is not clear cut as you have pointed out there is a line of thought that suggests somebody else was responsible.

Also,

Nijmegen, ynotdu and Fred have argued that Iraq was not a proper functioning country before the invasion and asked me about why I said that. Just to add to the points you made Blue I would say the following…

It was a functioning country pre-invasion because…

The population had not been ravaged and decimated in large numbers by seven years of war, notwithstanding the 10 previous years of sanctions. Large parts of the country where not a pile of rubble.

When you went to the shops or wherever, you were not worried about a fighter jet dropping a 2000 pound bomb on your head or somebody blowing themselves up beside you or being caught in cross-fire.

You had an adequate clean water system accessible by the entire population.

You had an adequate health system with the right professionals in the right positions. There has been a massive brain-drain over the past number of years in Iraq as a result of the illegal invasion. It is the civilian population who suffer the most as a result.

The majority of the countries youth where learning in the education system.

You had adequate civilian infrastructure, schools, hospital’s things like that. A safe environment for people to go about their daily lives in such places.

You had adequate energy supplies, electricity etc for the entire population.. for the running of homes, business and infrastructure.

You might not agree with the way the Iraqi government pre-invasion ran the country but there was an element of law & order before the war.

The list goes on and on that is what I meant when I said the country was “functioning” prior to the invasion.

nacho libre

ynotdu wrote: »

See thats the Strange part,It's trying to have it both ways.
A Country is entitled to stay neutral,but should expect to be allowed to sink if it comes under threat.
Why should any other Army risk it's troops lives to defend a Country that will not risk its own troops?

i don't see it as having both it ways. we are not under threat from anyone and why should we take side in a war that was most likely about having a regime in place that america would be able lean on in times of peak oil?


as for support of dictators coming back to haunt the west you won't hear any argument from me on that score but some of those who thanked the op will have a context for each and everyone of those situations. for example i'm sure they can explain this away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64WSPZ5mNk

Fratton Fred

WakeUp wrote: »

Excellent post.

The gas attack is not clear cut as you have pointed out there is a line of thought that suggests somebody else was responsible.

Also,

Nijmegen, ynotdu and Fred have argued that Iraq was not a proper functioning country before the invasion and asked me about why I said that. Just to add to the points you made Blue I would say the following…

It was a functioning country pre-invasion because…

The population had not been ravaged and decimated in large numbers by seven years of war, notwithstanding the 10 previous years of sanctions. Large parts of the country where not a pile of rubble.

When you went to the shops or wherever, you were not worried about a fighter jet dropping a 2000 pound bomb on your head or somebody blowing themselves up beside you or being caught in cross-fire.

You had an adequate clean water system accessible by the entire population.

You had an adequate health system with the right professionals in the right positions. There has been a massive brain-drain over the past number of years in Iraq as a result of the illegal invasion. It is the civilian population who suffer the most as a result.

The majority of the countries youth where learning in the education system.

You had adequate civilian infrastructure, schools, hospital’s things like that. A safe environment for people to go about their daily lives in such places.

You had adequate energy supplies, electricity etc for the entire population.. for the running of homes, business and infrastructure.

You might not agree with the way the Iraqi government pre-invasion ran the country but there was an element of law & order before the war.

The list goes on and on that is what I meant when I said the country was “functioning” prior to the invasion.

Can't argue with that. I suppose functioning is a relative term.

BlaasForRafa

karma_ wrote: »

Both of those were fairly large and powerful colonial powers at that time, what relevance does either of those counties in 1910 have to Ireland today?

You're the one who brought up the neutrality argument.

BlaasForRafa

WakeUp wrote: »

The list goes on and on that is what I meant when I said the country was “functioning” prior to the invasion.

It was "functioning" in the same way that Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia was functioning. That dosen't give the "coalition of the willing" a proper justification for attacking it but what is done is done. We all pretty much know now that the supposed existence of WMD's and all that was a load of bo****ks.

The main objective now is to try and make it a functioning country in the future in which there does seem to have been some progress in the last couple of years.

ynotdu

nacho libre wrote: »

i don't see it as having both it ways. we are not under threat from anyone

Well not that We know of on an International level,but like the morning the Country Woke up to discover our Banks had all but been Nationlised,Who knows what can happen in a very short period of time.
It is prudent to plan for the worst,but hope for the best:)


[/QUOTE]as for support of dictators coming back to haunt the west you won't hear any argument from me on that score but some of those who thanked the op will have a context for each and everyone of those situations. for example i'm sure they can explain this away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64WSPZ5mNk[/QUOTE]

My favourite bit of that Video is right at the end where it says "Ladies and Gentlemen,We have always had him"
Since records began We certainly have,It is only the region of the Planet and the Names that Change:)

but as the saying goes "For Evil to Triumph all it takes is for Good people to do nothing"
I am an agnostic but You get My meaning!:)

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

Both of those were fairly large and powerful colonial powers at that time, what relevance does either of those counties in 1910 have to Ireland today?

They were in the way, geographically. Same in 1939.

Ireland is in a significantly strategic geographical location at the gateway to the Atlantic, that ocean which was so important in the last major European conflict. The difference between now and 1940 is that it's much easier to get to Ireland now. Colonialism has very little to do with it, Ireland is a nice piece of real estate. It was significant that the Soviets had better maps of Ireland than the Irish military did in the 70s and 80s.

No but it's standard of living was higher back then, then it is now

Depended on where you were. If you were in Baghdad, you were sorted. If you were in Basra, you didn't even have a paved road getting there. (Which I thought odd, as the major port, but there you go). If you were out of town, you got almost no services at all. The reason that Baghdad's electricity hours have decreased since 2003 is that the power is now being evenly distributed nationwide. On average, demand in the country has apparently increased by 15% per year. People seem to have the money to go buy electrical goodies now. Combine with the fact that the grid was behind the power curve to start with, it's no surprise that it hasn't caught up yet.

You had an adequate clean water system accessible by the entire population.

Erm... Accessible by driving for miles with a jerrycan? The people in our area were drinking river water, and that's all they'd ever been drinking. Plumbing hadn't hit that area yet, and it was only 30 miles from the capitol.

You had adequate energy supplies, electricity etc for the entire population.. for the running of homes, business and infrastructure

I refer to an above comment and dispute this statement in general. Granted, a lot of the people had electricity through the use of community-owned generators, but that's the same situation as it is today. Just these generators can be found in cities now, and the ones out of town are given a bit more downtime. Yes, they do and did have access to electricity. No, they don't and did not have it in adequate amounts through the national grid.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/reengineering-iraq

Most officials, Iraqis included, agree that there is more power available in Iraq now [2006] than there was before the 2003 war. However, that fact is less germane than most people realize, because the allocation of electric power has shifted seismically, and more or less in sync with the shift in political power. Basically, parts of Baghdad and central Iraq now get much less power than they did before the war, while parts of the south and north actually get considerably more.

For many years, the mainstays of Iraq's electrical capacity were steam generating plants near the huge oil fields in the south and hydroelectric plants in the Kurdish regions in the north [see map, " "]. Relatively few plants were concentrated around Baghdad, where most of the demand was. So to keep parts of the city energized close to 24 hours a day, as Saddam wished them to be, operators had to black out different parts of the Shiite south and Kurdish north on a rotating schedule.

NTM

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It was "functioning" in the same way that Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia was functioning. That dosen't give the "coalition of the willing" a proper justification for attacking it but what is done is done. We all pretty much know now that the supposed existence of WMD's and all that was a load of bo****ks.

The main objective now is to try and make it a functioning country in the future in which there does seem to have been some progress in the last couple of years.

The US backed Saddam’s regime. I don’t agree with many aspects of how he went about running his country but it was his country to run and the US backed his Nazi-Soviet regime until it suited them otherwise. I would also add they had absolutely no justification, proper doesn’t come into it, they had none what so ever it was illegal based on lies. With all due respect saying what is done is done is plain ridiculous in my opinion, who will be held accountable? When will they stand in front of a jury for their crimes? You can not say that.

Colin Powell stood in-front of the world at the UN in 2003 and lied through his teeth whilst at the same time insulting the collective intelligence of every rational human being on the planet. The US and to some extent Britain (Blair whenever he talks about it) continue to insult our intelligence even after it has been proven the invasion was based on lies, false “evidence” and greed. How dumb do they think we are and who do they think that they are. Are they above the law? They should be tried for their crimes and put in prison for all the blood they have on their hands.

I agree with you to some extent that the prime focus is on re-building the country but I can’t help but feel it should not and would not be in the state it is in had the US & Britain not lied and slithered their way in there in the first place. I am happy there is progress and I’m hoping that everyday life is improving for the people of Iraq but Bush & Blair at some stage have to be held accountable for their crimes. They are war criminals and justice needs to be served.

karma_

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You're the one who brought up the neutrality argument.

It's a fact, not an argument that Ireland is a neutral state.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

They were in the way, geographically. Same in 1939.

Ireland is in a significantly strategic geographical location at the gateway to the Atlantic, that ocean which was so important in the last major European conflict. The difference between now and 1940 is that it's much easier to get to Ireland now. Colonialism has very little to do with it, Ireland is a nice piece of real estate. It was significant that the Soviets had better maps of Ireland than the Irish military did in the 70s and 80s.



Depended on where you were. If you were in Baghdad, you were sorted. If you were in Basra, you didn't even have a paved road getting there. (Which I thought odd, as the major port, but there you go). If you were out of town, you got almost no services at all. The reason that Baghdad's electricity hours have decreased since 2003 is that the power is now being evenly distributed nationwide. On average, demand in the country has apparently increased by 15% per year. People seem to have the money to go buy electrical goodies now. Combine with the fact that the grid was behind the power curve to start with, it's no surprise that it hasn't caught up yet.



Erm... Accessible by driving for miles with a jerrycan? The people in our area were drinking river water, and that's all they'd ever been drinking. Plumbing hadn't hit that area yet, and it was only 30 miles from the capitol.



I refer to an above comment and dispute this statement in general. Granted, a lot of the people had electricity through the use of community-owned generators, but that's the same situation as it is today. Just these generators can be found in cities now, and the ones out of town are given a bit more downtime. Yes, they do and did have access to electricity. No, they don't and did not have it in adequate amounts through the national grid.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/reengineering-iraq


NTM

With all due respect Manic you can dispute what you like but you cant dispute the following.

The US and Britain had no right to invade Iraq end of story. The invasion was based on lies, false "evidence and greed. I accept you are a military man and you are going to tow the official line I would expect no less and dont hold it against you, but please spare me the semantics the invasion was illegal and wrong and should never of happened.

Manic Moran

That may be so (though I still think that overall the country will be the better for it), but that doesn't mean that I will not correct historical inaccuracies when I see them.

Baghdad was a fully functioning city with all the modern conveniences you would expect and a good quality of life, as long as you didn't fall afoul of the security services. The nation, on the other hand, was not, and was in a nearly third-world condition. Using the argument that 'The country was in a great infrastructural state before the invasion, now it is not' is as much of an inaccuracy as saying that the country had nukes. You want to say the invasion was illegal, that's fine, but if you embellish the statement with falseness, you are no better than those you are railing against.

NTM

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

That may be so (though I still think that overall the country will be the better for it), but that doesn't mean that I will not correct historical inaccuracies when I see them.

Baghdad was a fully functioning city with all the modern conveniences you would expect and a good quality of life, as long as you didn't fall afoul of the security services. The nation, on the other hand, was not, and was in a nearly third-world condition. Using the argument that 'The country was in a great infrastructural state before the invasion, now it is not' is as much of an inaccuracy as saying that the country had nukes. You want to say the invasion was illegal, that's fine, but if you embellish the statement with falseness, you are no better than those you are railing against.

NTM

I would ask you to go show me the quote where I said the country was in a "great infrastructural state before the invasion" but I'll save both of us time by saying I never said that so dont worry about it. I think you will find if you read back over what I have written that what I said was the country was in the main functioning which it was. You think the country is going to be better for it? Thats fine you are entitled to you're opinion but let me ask you something, do you think it will be worth all the blood that has been spilled and will be spilled an all sides to spread "freedom" and finish the "job" so to speak?....

demonspawn

ynotdu wrote: »

Afghanistan is a totally diffrient case than Iraq and IMO We should have NO hesitation in supporting efforts there.

In July 2000 Mullah Mohammed Omar, in collaboration with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, declared that the production of opium was un-Islamic and banned it completely. By the end of summer 2001, poppy cultivation in Afghanistan dropped by almost 91% from the previous years harvest of 82,172 hectares. Helmand Province, which accounted for more than half of that total, recorded no poppy cultivation in 2001. It was the single greatest achievement in the current "War on Drugs".

Five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, poppy cultivation in "liberated" southern Afghanistan had risen to over three times it had ever been previously. Mullah Omar was the second most wanted man by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, after Bin Laden of course. They killed his step father and his 10 year-old son after bombing his house in Kandahar.

In December 2001, U.S. forces attacked a Taliban stronghold in the mountainous region of Tora Bora. Bin Laden was trapped, but U.S. forces were ordered to stand down, allowing Bin Laden to escape by mule into Pakistan.


These are facts. You can draw your own conclusions.

demonspawn

On a related note, did anyone else catch the news that most of Iraq's oil fields were auctioned off to the highest bidders 2-3 days into the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonia-juhasz/oil-auction-in-iraq-today_b_388516.html

Mr.Micro

demonspawn wrote: »

On a related note, did anyone else catch the news that most of Iraq's oil fields were auctioned off to the highest bidders 2-3 days into the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonia-juhasz/oil-auction-in-iraq-today_b_388516.html

Well I guess the Iraqis had to pay Uncle Sam in some way and we all know it was oil that was the reason from the start, despite all the BS about terror and the rest. Iraq owned and all its resources by the US.

Manic Moran

demonspawn wrote: »

On a related note, did anyone else catch the news that most of Iraq's oil fields were auctioned off to the highest bidders 2-3 days into the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonia-juhasz/oil-auction-in-iraq-today_b_388516.html

Did anyone else catch the news that Iraq's oil fields were bought mostly by companies from countries not involved in the Iraq war, and not American ones?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

NTM

SeanW

karma_ wrote: »

Both of those were fairly large and powerful colonial powers at that time, what relevance does either of those counties in 1910 have to Ireland today?

My point is that neither of those countries were seriously threatened in 1910, and World War I came out of the blue. Which is how existential threats to a country can happen.

Ditto for say, Switzerland before the rise of the National Socialists in Germany. Switzerland actually has neutrality, rather than feebly claiming it, and can back up its neutrality with the point of its own guns.

Hence, a credible claim of neutrality must be matched by a credible military defense.

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did anyone else catch the news that Iraq's oil fields were bought mostly by companies from countries not involved in the Iraq war, and not American ones?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

NTM

Why would you bid on something you already own? I'm sure the U.S. still control some of the highest producing wells in Iraq.

Where did the money go? If it really was the Iraqi government that auctioned the oil sites, why isn't Iraq now one of the wealthiest nations on the planet? Isn't Iraq one of the highest producers of oil in the world? They must have made billions with that auction. So where's the money?

Edit: SHOW ME TEH MONEY!!! Sorry, had to say that. lol

OS119

karma_ wrote: »

It's a fact, not an argument that Ireland is a neutral state.

sorry, it is in no way a fact to describe Ireland as being Neutral - in the same way it is in no way a fact to describe the sky as green, the sea as dry and the grass bright orange.

neutrality - real, recognised, meaningful neutrality, as opposed to a word people have learnt but don't understand - has a number of objective criteria that must be filled in order for a state to qualify.

they are the Hague Conventions sections 5 and 13. that is the only actual, real world and not makey-uppy, definition of neutrality.

Ireland doesn't meet many of them.

Ireland is sort of non-aligned, except that it is kind of aligned and has signed a somewhat ambiguous 'mutual aid' treaty with every other member of the EU, participates in military conflict, and maintains yet another pre-existing, and equally ambiguous yet rather more discreet military aid 'agreement' with another state.

wishing Ireland was neutral does not make it so - one could argue that Ireland has been 'neutral' over most of its history, but i think it would be very difficult to make a case that it has ever been Neutral in the full sense of the HC's - but Ireland has barely (and unconvincingly) made it into the 'Non-Aligned' camp for at least the last 10 years.

demonspawn

I seem to remember a story about a synagogue in Dublin that was bombed by Mr. Hitler. I wonder how that affected our neutrality.

Personally I think the whole of WWII was a sham (no disrespect to the people who died intended), and we will never know the real reasons behind it, but that's another debate altogether.

nacho libre

ynotdu wrote: »

Well not that We know of on an International level,but like the morning the Country Woke up to discover our Banks had all but been Nationlised,Who knows what can happen in a very short period of time.
It is prudent to plan for the worst,but hope for the best:)

as for support of dictators coming back to haunt the west you won't hear any argument from me on that score but some of those who thanked the op will have a context for each and everyone of those situations. for example i'm sure they can explain this away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64WSPZ5mNk[/QUOTE]

My favourite bit of that Video is right at the end where it says "Ladies and Gentlemen,We have always had him"
Since records began We certainly have,It is only the region of the Planet and the Names that Change:)

but as the saying goes "For Evil to Triumph all it takes is for Good people to do nothing"
I am an agnostic but You get My meaning!:)[/QUOTE]

yes i get what your saying America has been guilty of such evil by aligning themselves with dictators for too long;) So you are saying they should be held to account for such crimes:p