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

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

demonspawn

Great video! I'll repost it so people can watch it in the thread. Maybe some don't actually know what really happened in Iraq before the Gulf War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64WSPZ5mNk

Manic Moran

What's with the German tank at 3:26?

NTM

ynotdu

nacho libre wrote: »

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

I am saying that people who persist in alwys criticising the USA don't know who their friends are.

Demonspawn i am aware of the facts,but i thank You for trying to enlighten Me.

Afghanistan/Taliban hosted the World Cup of Destroy the west for many Years.
It had the best training camps for Looneys hell bent on Murdering innocent Men Women and Children.
It simply could not have been left that way after 9/11.not forgetting the Spanish Trains,Bali.London underground etc....

On the 'rebuilding Afghanistan' thread i have always argued that Stopping at Tora Bora was a hugh mistake[but i have read that American troops were getting co-operation from Afgha forces on the basis of them having the final say,can't remember the source and stand to be corrected by Military posters]
I have also said that IMO if Bin Laden is still alive the secret services likely know where he is,why kill the fool when he would just be replaced.at least alive they know who to watch.
the English Govt for most of 'the troubles' knew exactly who the IRA army council were and lived and liked to keep it that way.

The Iraq war was a distraction to the imperitive to destroy the Taliban and that process was set back years and will proably never happen now.

I cannot answer each and every point about drugs etc without turning this into a novel.
plenty of things stink,but sh*t happens in War,which should be all the more reason for countries not to be hosts to terrorism against Nations that could wipe them off the face of the Planet.

There are threads about the morality of war,The OP was merely pointing out what is a milestone in history even if some posters refuse to see that.

karma_

ynotdu wrote: »

Afghanistan/Taliban hosted the World Cup of Destroy the west for many Years.
It had the best training camps for Looneys hell bent on Murdering innocent Men Women and Children.
It simply could not have been left that way after 9/11.not forgetting the Spanish Trains,Bali.London underground etc....

I'm sorry but the US were involved in Afghanistan since the 80's, long before there were any terrorist attacks against the west. What are the root causes of the campaign of terror against the west? could it be the interference in the middle east? It's not because we are free, that's for sure.

ynotdu

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sorry but the US were involved in Afghanistan since the 80's, long before there were any terrorist attacks against the west. What are the root causes of the campaign of terror against the west? could it be the interference in the middle east? It's not because we are free, that's for sure.

You must be talking about when the Soviet Union invaded it?
Yes Afghanistan which was never a Country in the normal sense of the word has been situated in a very unfortunate place on the Globe,and has suffered at the hands of every 'Empire' since AD.

That still does not change the fact that there was no choice but to do something about the Taliban.

cyrusdvirus

karma_ wrote: »

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

It's actually a fact that Ireland has a policy of non alignment.

For a state to be neutral they have to have the ability to defend themselves from outside aggressors, something which professional as they are, the Defence forces of this country would be incapable of doing.

It is NOT a fact that Ireland is a neutral state.

demonspawn

ynotdu wrote: »

You must be talking about when the Soviet Union invaded it?
Yes Afghanistan which was never a Country in the normal sense of the word has been situated in a very unfortunate place on the Globe,and has suffered at the hands of every 'Empire' since AD.

That still does not change the fact that there was no choice but to do something about the Taliban.

The invasion had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban, or at least that's the official line. The U.S. was officially there for Al Qaeda, a completely separate group.

Now some would argue that the U.S. wasn't too happy when the Taliban, in conjunction with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, outlawed the production of opium back in 2000, and that was one of the real reasons for the invasion. Some argue that Al Qaeda was actually running the opium trade in Afghanistan for the U.S.

It would make sense then that five years after the invasion opium production in "liberated" parts of southern Afghanistan rose to over three times the amount it has ever been. But this is merely speculation backed up by lots of evidence.

ynotdu

demonspawn wrote: »

The invasion had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban, or at least that's the official line. The U.S. was officially there for Al Qaeda, a completely separate group.

Now some would argue that the U.S. wasn't too happy when the Taliban, in conjunction with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, outlawed the production of opium back in 2000, and that was one of the real reasons for the invasion. Some argue that Al Qaeda was actually running the opium trade in Afghanistan for the U.S.

It would make sense then that five years after the invasion opium production in "liberated" parts of southern Afghanistan rose to over three times the amount it has ever been. But this is merely speculation backed up by lots of evidence.

demonspawn You are being pedantic,and You know it!

demonspawn

ynotdu wrote: »

demonspawn You are being pedantic,and You know it!

The point is, the U.S. was there for Al Qaeda (officially). If you're gonna discuss a war, make sure you know who the main players are.

ynotdu

demonspawn wrote: »

The point is, the U.S. was there for Al Qaeda (officially). If you're gonna discuss a war, make sure you know who the main players are.

They were perceived as one and the same at the time,There is little doubt they are/were bloodbrothers.

demonspawn

ynotdu wrote: »

They were perceived as one and the same at the time,There is little doubt they are/were bloodbrothers.

Actually the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has vowed to cut all ties with AQ to ensure peace in his homeland. He has said he will make AQ his number one target when he returns. Incidentally, Mullah Omar is the same man that banned opium production back in 2000. The U.S. killed his 10 year old son and stepfather in Kandahar to say thanks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/29/taliban-afghanistan-mullah-muhammad-omar

I think it's safe to say your own personal perceptions and the perceptions of the world's largest intelligence agency, the CIA, might differ slightly. They know who's who.

ynotdu

demonspawn wrote: »

Actually the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has vowed to cut all ties with AQ to ensure peace in his homeland. He has said he will make AQ his number one target when he returns. Incidentally, Mullah Omar is the same man that banned opium production back in 2000. The U.S. killed his 10 year old son and stepfather in Kandahar to say thanks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/29/taliban-afghanistan-mullah-muhammad-omar

I have read Your other posts,what i did not know i have learned to the best of My ability[lets face it,We have ALL been misled by what Govt's want us to believe]

I sincerely hope Mr Omar see's his dream for Afghanistan come to pass.
It would be a win win for ALL.

BluePlanet

gatecrash wrote: »

For a state to be neutral they have to have the ability to defend themselves from outside aggressors, something which professional as they are, the Defence forces of this country would be incapable of doing.

It is NOT a fact that Ireland is a neutral state.

Can you show me some sort of authoritative definition that stipulates a neutral country must have the ability to defend themselves (apparently by conventional means only)?

I remember hearing criticisms back in the 80's that Ireland's official defense was a strategy of guerillia warfare. And other powers that be (HMG i'm looking at you), argued that such gave comfort to the bold IRA.

demonspawn

ynotdu wrote: »

I have read Your other posts,what i did not know i have learned to the best of My ability[lets face it,We have ALL been misled by what Govt's want us to believe]

I sincerely hope Mr Omar see's his dream for Afghanistan come to pass.
It would be a win win for ALL.

Don't worry about it mate, the media is VERY good at what they do. The truth won't just drop into your lap, it takes a lot of sleepless nights trolling through news articles and websites, trying to connect the dots with whatever bits of info you can find. I find I'm also misinformed on a number of things when I come to these boards, and that's one of the reasons why I come.

I too hope Mullah Omar succeeds, although I do not agree with some elements of the Sharia law he has imposed. He's doing what he can for his people, not for money or power. Or at least that's my take on the man.

Fratton Fred

demonspawn wrote: »

Don't worry about it mate, the media is VERY good at what they do. The truth won't just drop into your lap, it takes a lot of sleepless nights trolling through news articles and websites, trying to connect the dots with whatever bits of info you can find. I find I'm also misinformed on a number of things when I come to these boards, and that's one of the reasons why I come.

I too hope Mullah Omar succeeds, although I do not agree with some elements of the Sharia law he has imposed. He's doing what he can for his people, not for money or power. Or at least that's my take on the man.

So let me get this straight then.

The US invaded Iraq for oil, even though the best oil wells are now owned by the French, Russians and Chinese.

They then invaded Afghanistan so they could control the opium, because Mullah Omar banned its production?

Methinks conspiracy theorists would like to claim that Afghanistan was invaded for it's oil, but as there is no oil, thy had to think of something else.

You do know that when ISAF first went in, they started destroying the opium fields, but so many Aghans lost a huge amount of their income, which meant many Afghan farmers were turning to the Taliban who supported them.

Have you not also heard about the Pipeline, or the precious stones in Afghanistan, that's the usualy reason given for the invasion. Could you also explain why, if the war is solely to support the US desire to control opium, why the UN sanctiooned the mission? or why 41 other countries (Including this one) chose to support it?

ynotdu

demonspawn wrote: »

Don't worry about it mate, the media is VERY good at what they do. The truth won't just drop into your lap, it takes a lot of sleepless nights trolling through news articles and websites,

Tell Me about it! even after all of the above on almost any subject,The Media do not give the 'best known facts'

Most of them are such lazy Gits they lift their stories from Boards,Twitter etc,Frig em, pity sites can't recognise a Journalist from a thinking person and siteban them!:rolleyes:

Let them earn their pay,I say!:)

demonspawn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So let me get this straight then.

The US invaded Iraq for oil, even though the best oil wells are now owned by the French, Russians and Chinese.

They then invaded Afghanistan so they could control the opium, because Mullah Omar banned its production?

Methinks conspiracy theorists would like to claim that Afghanistan was invaded for it's oil, but as there is no oil, thy had to think of something else.

You do know that when ISAF first went in, they started destroying the opium fields, but so many Aghans lost a huge amount of their income, which meant many Afghan farmers were turning to the Taliban who supported them.

Have you not also heard about the Pipeline, or the precious stones in Afghanistan, that's the usualy reason given for the invasion. Could you also explain why, if the war is solely to support the US desire to control opium, why the UN sanctiooned the mission? or why 41 other countries (Including this one) chose to support it?

I didn't say it was the only reason, I said it was one of the reasons and a pretty damn good one at that. Remember that morphine is also made from poppies, so it's not just the U.S. controlled blackmarket trade in narcotics that suffered.

Yes, the Taliban allowed the cultivation up until 2000 because they really had no other option. The UN gave them an out, probably offering to subsidize farmers until they could become self sufficient again.

Would you be the one to tell the U.S. you weren't gonna support them going into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks? I'm sure those that signed up didn't know they'd be protecting poppie fields for the next ten years.

Edit: And yes, the multi-billion dollar pipeline was on the books for a long time now, since 1995. For reasons unknown Unocal, a U.S oil company, withdrew as head of a consortium that was formed with CentGas to build the pipeline. A new deal was stuck with Afghanistan in 2002, after the invasion. It's probably safe to say that the terms were not as favorable as before the invasion.

Edit 2: Speaking of Unocal, have a read about Doe v. Unocal. Not exactly the model of a healthy corporation.

Fratton Fred

demonspawn wrote: »

Would you be the one to tell the U.S. you weren't gonna support them going into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks? I'm sure those that signed up didn't know they'd be protecting poppie fields for the next ten years.

So the three main countries that did tell the US to get stuffed regarding Iraq, France, Canada and Germany, somehow managed to get themselves duped over Afghanistan?

ynotdu

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the three main countries that did tell the US to get stuffed regarding Iraq, France,

Fratton those Freedom Fry's from McDonalds were horrible!:eek:;)

demonspawn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the three main countries that did tell the US to get stuffed regarding Iraq, France, Canada and Germany, somehow managed to get themselves duped over Afghanistan?

What are you on about? Nobody was really "duped" with Afghanistan. AQ were behind the attacks and we knew Osama was in Afghanistan. We know Osama was behind the attacks because he freely admitted it. Under those circumstances France, Canada, and Germany had no choice but to support an invasion. It was a very simple decision really. Support the U.S. or be left hanging if and when their own countries were attacked.

Iraq was totally different and if you can't see that you need to open your eyes.

Oh, and I love how you ignore the rest of my post to address a comparatively unimportant issue. Good job.

A Primal Nut

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.

This is true for a section of the population of Iraq but not all of it. Large parts of the population had none of the things you mentioned:

Marsh Arabs:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

Kurds

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

There is more to this than just Halabja. Whether or not Saddam carried out that attack I don't know, but a lot more happened that is confirmed.

A briefer summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Shi'ites:

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

Christians:

http://www.globalministries.org/mee/from-war-to-peace/the-suffering-of-the-iraqi.html

If by a functioning country you mean one that is efficently capable of killing, tormenting and torturing innocent Shi'ites, Kurds, Assyrians and Marsh Arabs, then you are spot on.

Saddam Hussein and current religious extremists have caused more problems in Iraq than the Iraq War did.

BluePlanet

A Primal Nut wrote: »

There is more to this than just Halabja. Whether or not Saddam carried out that attack I don't know, but a lot more happened that is confirmed.

A briefer summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Shi'ites:

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

Christians:

http://www.globalministries.org/mee/from-war-to-peace/the-suffering-of-the-iraqi.html

If by a functioning country you mean one that is efficently capable of killing, tormenting and torturing innocent Shi'ites, Kurds, Assyrians and Marsh Arabs, then you are spot on.

Saddam Hussein and current religious extremists have caused more problems in Iraq than America ever have.

Well that's not really true at all.
The lastest iraq war has killed more civilians then Saddam did, and he had a much longer time at it.
He also was, by the way, Washington's man during those links above.

USA kept his regime in guns and even had advisors helping him out during the Iran Iraq war.
It was no real mystery what chemical weapons Iraq possessed, afterall, if in doubt the USA could simply check their receipts.

WakeUp

A Primal Nut wrote: »

This is true for a section of the population of Iraq but not all of it. Large parts of the population had none of the things you mentioned:

Marsh Arabs:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

Kurds

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

There is more to this than just Halabja. Whether or not Saddam carried out that attack I don't know, but a lot more happened that is confirmed.

A briefer summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Shi'ites:

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

Christians:

http://www.globalministries.org/mee/from-war-to-peace/the-suffering-of-the-iraqi.html

A Primal Nut wrote: »

If by a functioning country you mean one that is efficently capable of killing, tormenting and torturing innocent Shi'ites, Kurds, Assyrians and Marsh Arabs, then you are spot on.

Well no I did not mean that, Im assuming you read what I posted earlier I think you know full well what I meant, but if that is your idea of what a functioning Iraq entailed that is entirely up to you, I would disagree.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Saddam Hussein and current religious extremists have caused more problems in Iraq than the Iraq War did.

The level of violence between religious extremists escalated ten fold after the invasion. More people have died as a result of US sanctions and their illegal crusade. Why didnt the US step in and take action when the above was happening after all he was their "man"?..

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

WakeUp wrote: »

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?....

I'm not to sure if you didn't spot the question in my reply to you or if you're purposely not replying to me, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the above. All the people that have died and all the mayhem that has ensued is it worth it? I would also like to add the following to your initial reply to me because on reading it again I feel like I need to add some more. The US military has no right to accuse anyone of "falsehoods" when it comes to Iraq and by that I mean you in your military capacity, no offence. I would find that comment downright hillarious if it wasnt so serious. Also, you have some neck with all due respect to try and put me in the same boat as your lying, thieving, murdering, raping politicians so please dont go there I find it highly offensive. I would appreciate a reply to my initial question please, that being do you think all the murder and carnage will be worth it in the end? thanks.

Manic Moran

WakeUp wrote: »

I'm not to sure if you didn't spot the question in my reply to you or if you're purposely not replying to me, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the above.

Sorry. To answer the first question, your (inaccurate) statements about the level of infrastructure and qualify of life appeared to indicate a belief that the country was in a good shape prior to the war. (Or prior to the 1991 war, for that matter)

All the people that have died and all the mayhem that has ensued is it worth it?

Probably depends on if you survived or not. (I'm not a big believer in anything being worth dying for). For those who survived, from the American point of view, I would certainly not give that an unqualified 'yes.' I think the American situation has improved a bit, but if it was worth seven years of war is certainly open to debate. I think the common Iraqi is the person who actually benefitted the most from it, they seem to have gotten over their little civil war and they have good potential coming out of this.

I would also like to add the following to your initial reply to me because on reading it again I feel like I need to add some more. The US military has no right to accuse anyone of "falsehoods" when it comes to Iraq and by that I mean you in your military capacity, no offence. I would find that comment downright hillarious if it wasnt so serious. Also, you have some neck with all due respect to try and put me in the same boat as your lying, thieving, murdering, raping politicians so please dont go there I find it highly offensive.

I'm sorry if you find it highly offensive, it is not my intent to cause offence. However, I stand by the comment. The argument over whether or not a war is 'right' is a political one supported on both sides by 'intent' and 'perceived benefit/detrement'. The American politicians had their reasons for starting it. They were either honestly misguided, or downright liars. Either way the end result was that their claims of WMD were wrong and reasonably enough people argue against the war's legitimacy on the grounds that it was started upon an inaccurate basis.

However.

Much as the arguments made in favour of the war were in statements of a category, the arguments against are of exactly the same category, generally political and emotional, and no matter the intentions behind them, are either accurate or inaccurate. The inaccurate ones are just as liable to be addressed and contradicted. I have no idea if you genuinely believe that Iraq 1990 or 2002 was a fully functioning country filled with happy citizens who had all their basic needs met. I don't know you. I am certainly not about to call you a 'lying thieving rapist.' But I can read what you write and regardless of your disposition or motivation, the proposition is wrong, and is worthy of correction just as inaccuracies on the pro-war side are worthy of correction.

NTM

nacho libre

ynotdu wrote: »

I am saying that people who persist in alwys criticising the USA don't know who their friends are.

Posting about a milestone to me is giving the Iraq war an air of legitimacy, and it's usually the parlance of the victor. A defeat is never really seen as a noteworthy occasion to mark.
I do agree continually criticising for the sake of it is pointless.
However you seem to be essentially arguing that we should turn a blind eye to coups, human-rights abuses, illegal invasions, because it's better the devil we know. I 'm afraid i just can't share that view. Unless we develop collective amnesia about past events, i think it's perfectly valid to criticise a country when there is a huge disparity between their lofty rhetoric and their subsequent actions.
With this in mind I doubt you'd accuse me of being anti-russian if on a thread i was criticising Russian for its human rights abuses and its invasions of Grozny in the 90s and Afghanistan in the 80s.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sorry. To answer the first question, your (inaccurate) statements about the level of infrastructure and qualify of life appeared to indicate a belief that the country was in a good shape prior to the war. (Or prior to the 1991 war, for that matter)

I would disagree in the main with that statement I'm in the process of getting my facts & figures together so I will get back to you in more detail on that one once I'm ready.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Probably depends on if you survived or not. (I'm not a big believer in anything being worth dying for). For those who survived, from the American point of view, I would certainly not give that an unqualified 'yes.' I think the American situation has improved a bit, but if it was worth seven years of war is certainly open to debate. I think the common Iraqi is the person who actually benefitted the most from it, they seem to have gotten over their little civil war and they have good potential coming out of this.

Fair enough thank you for answering my question but in my opinion I think it is still up for debate as to whether or not the average Iraqi has actually benefitted from the occupation.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm sorry if you find it highly offensive, it is not my intent to cause offence. However, I stand by the comment. The argument over whether or not a war is 'right' is a political one supported on both sides by 'intent' and 'perceived benefit/detrement'. The American politicians had their reasons for starting it. They were either honestly misguided, or downright liars. Either way the end result was that their claims of WMD were wrong and reasonably enough people argue against the war's legitimacy on the grounds that it was started upon an inaccurate basis.

As far as Im concerned your attempt to put me in the same boat as the corrupt,lying politicians who initiated the murder & carnage is an absolute disgrace shame on you. The US & British politicians knew damn well that the "evidence" they presented to justify the invasion was not concrete, verifiable or the truth which makes them downright liars it isnt up for debate, they lied.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However.
Much as the arguments made in favour of the war were in statements of a category, the arguments against are of exactly the same category, generally political and emotional, and no matter the intentions behind them, are either accurate or inaccurate. The inaccurate ones are just as liable to be addressed and contradicted. I have no idea if you genuinely believe that Iraq 1990 or 2002 was a fully functioning country filled with happy citizens who had all their basic needs met. I don't know you. I am certainly not about to call you a 'lying thieving rapist.' But I can read what you write and regardless of your disposition or motivation, the proposition is wrong, and is worthy of correction just as inaccuracies on the pro-war side are worthy of correction.

Nonsense. Lets get a few things straight here. I referred to the US politicians who intiated the war based on lies and greed as lying, thieving, murdering, raping politicians and I stand by that comment because that is what they are. The arguments in favour of the war where based on lies, that is a fact and because it is fact it renders any or all arguments in favour of the war as irrelevant.

Manic Moran

WakeUp wrote: »

I would disagree in the main with that statement I'm in the process of getting my facts & figures together so I will get back to you in more detail on that one once I'm ready.

I spent most of my tour in the fertile area just North of Baghdad before moving to Mosul. I'm telling you that things like 'plumbing' never existed there, and that was a part of the country (right next to Al Dujail) which had been forcibly resettled with Sunnis that Saddam found favour with after the Dujail incident. Basra was so well thought of that Highway 1 going there was a four-lane dirt track. Mosul's electricity grid was designed off local generators as a basis, with the wiring in the streets to match. These were not effects of the decade of sanctions, these were basic pieces of infrastructure in fairly important parts of the country which never existed to begin with. There were no rusting pipes no longer carrying water, there was no freeway in disrepair, there was nothing. I'm sure statistics can prove anything, but I know the surprise I felt when the tarmac changed to dust (And the amount of dust I ate reinforced the memory!). I never made it to the West, but I find it hard to believe that the situation there was any better.

Fair enough thank you for answering my question but in my opinion I think it is still up for debate as to whether or not the average Iraqi has actually benefitted from the occupation.

I'll accept that.

Nonsense. Lets get a few things straight here. I referred to the US politicians who intiated the war based on lies and greed as lying, thieving, murdering, raping politicians and I stand by that comment because that is what they are. The arguments in favour of the war where based on lies, that is a fact and because it is fact it renders any or all arguments in favour of the war as irrelevant.

With respect, nothing has been shown that they didn't just screw up. So far, I've seen nothing which is more malevolant than interpreting data to see what they wanted to see. I don't know if it's actually possible to prove more, short of a confession, but I would caution you against your own pre-conceptions affecting judgement.

NTM

ynotdu

nacho libre wrote: »

Posting about a milestone to me is giving the Iraq war an air of legitimacy, and it's usually the parlance of the victor. A defeat is never really seen as a noteworthy occasion to mark.

I note Your tone of sarcasm.
The withdrawl of Combat troops is an historical milestone that is simply a statement of fact.

However you seem to be essentially arguing that we should turn a blind eye to coups, human-rights abuses, illegal invasions, because it's better the devil we know. I 'm afraid i just can't share that view. Unless we develop collective amnesia about past events, i think it's perfectly valid to criticise a country when there is a huge disparity between their lofty rhetoric and their subsequent actions.

There You would be wrong,You must have developed amnesia about other posts i have made,or not read them.

With this in mind I doubt you'd accuse me of being anti-russian if on a thread i was criticising Russian for its human rights abuses and its invasions of Grozny in the 90s and Afghanistan in the 80s

No i would'nt,but trying not to see atrocities on a case by case basis and demonising one particulor Nation is far too simplistic and can never be fully understood without historic background.

TerrorFirmer

SeanW wrote: »

To really be neutral we would have to have a credible standing army, air corps, navy and so on. Swiss style. Which is why, for example, Nazi Germany decided not to invade Switzerland, because they knew they would sustain heavy losses with every able bodied man there hiding behind a rock with a rifle.

Really not true to any extent. Primarily, Swiss banks were excellent for depositing the spoils of war for the Nazis, from the jews, occupied countries, and so on, and buying/selling gold- which they couldn't do elsewhere. swiss factories contributed greatly to the German war effort. Switzerland was a link between central europe and Italy.

To say that Germany was afraid to invade Switzerland for fears of casualties considering they conquered the most powerful armies in Europe (france; in six week, to boot), and engaged in a war in the SU that cost 40 million dead (about 5 or 6 times the entirety of the population of switzerland) is laughable.

And I'm pretty sure as a landlocked country Switzerland probably doesn't have a navy.

Manic Moran

There was a story once, before WWII of a Swiss general talking with a German general. The German general asked 'How many men under arms can you field?' The Swiss General replied "Within 24 hours, I can have one million men". The German then points out that he commands a standing army of almost 3 million, and asks what the Swiss general would do if he invaded. The Swiss replied "Each of my men would shoot three shots, and go home".

Though possibly apocryphal, it is a demonstration of the mentality the Swiss have. Though they certainly seem to have taken fiscal advantage of the neutral status, there is no denying the fact that an invasion of Switzerland would have been very messy indeed. Remember, this is a country which even today issues assault rifles to people to keep in their homes. The government pays for ammunition for target practice every week and shooting is the national sport. Carrying said assault rifle around is utterly unremarkable.


The country with a population of about 12% of the UK has as many main battle tanks as the British Army. (388 Challenger 2s in the UK, vs 380 Pz 87 in Switzerland) Universal conscription is no longer, but there is still competition to get the places (everyone gets examined for eligibility), serving is a matter of pride there. And the terrain just suits the defence far better than France did. Fixed fortifications in every valley, hillsides primed with dynamite. The only country comparable is Korea and even they don't go to the same extent the Swiss do.

Switzerland is an excellent example of a country which is neutral and relies upon its own strong armed forces to maintain its territorial integrity.

And I'm pretty sure as a landlocked country Switzerland probably doesn't have a navy.

They call it the "Naval Patrol", which is fine enough, since the Irish maritime force isn't called the Navy either, it's the Naval Service. (Actual designation is Motorboat Company 10) Not exactly seagoing craft, but the lakes are big enough.


The embarassing bit is that the Swiss Navy today (At least ten patrol boats) is the size of the Irish Navy during WWII which consisted of six PT boats and four auxilliaries.
Here's two thirds of the entire Irish naval combat force in WWII.


NTM

demonspawn

Hypothetical situation:

During WWII, Germany decides that Ireland would be an excellent staging point for an invasion of the UK and the U.S. They ask the Irish government to assist in this. The Irish government say "Oh, but we're neutral!". Germany decides that's not the case and takes Ireland by force. Ireland has no leg to stand on because it's unable to put up even the slightest bit of resistance.

Luckily, this was not the case as Germany supported Ireland during it's fight for independence by sending arms. Unfortunately, these weapons never arrived as the ship was discovered by the British Navy and was scuttled.

ynotdu

makes note to self and potential invaders: Never underestimate the Swiss again:eek:
They sound Cuckoo to me Manic!

ynotdu

demonspawn wrote: »

Hypothetical situation:

During WWII, Germany decides that Ireland would be an excellent staging point for an invasion of the UK and the U.S. They ask the Irish government to assist in this. The Irish government say "Oh, but we're neutral!". Germany decides that's not the case and takes Ireland by force. Ireland has no leg to stand on because it's unable to put up even the slightest bit of resistance..

not really all that hypothetical as this was genuinely one of the many things that was the basis of Dev's maze of a brain that led him to being neutral on the side of the Allies and keeping Germany happy as well.

One story i have heard is that Dev was phoned by a very Drunken Churchill at 2AM in the morning offering the six Counties in return for full co-operation.
It is said Dev dismissed it as Churchill being drunk but put the National Guard on high alert to be on the safe side.
Never got that confirmed by Tim Pat Coogans books on Dev and Collins[and even since they were printed so much more has come out about how Collins was playing Dev almost as much as Dev played him after the treaty]

Anybody know if this is a Myth?

nacho libre

ynotdu wrote: »

There You would be wrong,You must have developed amnesia about other posts i have made,or not read them.


No i would'nt,but trying not to see atrocities on a case by case basis and demonising one particulor Nation is far too simplistic and can never be fully understood without historic background.

it's not simplistic, if a pattern /consistent theme emerges, once you have studied that nation's foreign policy over time. still it would seem there will always be a context for such actions for those willing to defend instances of wrongdoing because of things like ideological allegiance.
with this mind earlier you said: "I am saying that people who persist in always criticising the USA don't know who their friends are.

- so in other words certain countries should be more immune to criticism because we need them, despite what they have done. So i think the point still stands that bascially you are of the view that it's better to turn a blind eye, because it's better the devil we know, rather than hold them to account for their criminal acts.

It wasn't me!

ynotdu wrote: »

not really all that hypothetical as this was genuinely one of the many things that was the basis of Dev's maze of a brain that led him to being neutral on the side of the Allies and keeping Germany happy as well.

One story i have heard is that Dev was phoned by a very Drunken Churchill at 2AM in the morning offering the six Counties in return for full co-operation.
It is said Dev dismissed it as Churchill being drunk but put the National Guard on high alert to be on the safe side.
Never got that confirmed by Tim Pat Coogans books on Dev and Collins[and even since they were printed so much more has come out about how Collins was playing Dev almost as much as Dev played him after the treaty]

Anybody know if this is a Myth?

I don't know about being drunk, but Churchill made a number of advances of the rest of the country in exchange for Ireland entering the war on the side of the allies. Given the tiny standing army and the lack of equipment and the obvious problems the end of partition would have caused, de Valera understandably refused. Probably would have been a smarter plan to threaten to return the six counties unless Ireland entered the war.

Fratton Fred

demonspawn wrote: »

Hypothetical situation:

During WWII, Germany decides that Ireland would be an excellent staging point for an invasion of the UK and the U.S. They ask the Irish government to assist in this. The Irish government say "Oh, but we're neutral!". Germany decides that's not the case and takes Ireland by force. Ireland has no leg to stand on because it's unable to put up even the slightest bit of resistance.

Luckily, this was not the case as Germany supported Ireland during it's fight for independence by sending arms. Unfortunately, these weapons never arrived as the ship was discovered by the British Navy and was scuttled.

Germany supplying arms in 1916 had absolutely naff all to do with Nazi Germany not invading Ireland in 1941. if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland, he would have.

round tower huntsman

iraq war's over?
well that went well!:rolleyes:

Madd Finn

SeanW wrote: »

To really be neutral we would have to have a credible standing army, air corps, navy and so on. Swiss style. Which is why, for example, Nazi Germany decided not to invade Switzerland, because they knew they would sustain heavy losses with every able bodied man there hiding behind a rock with a rifle.

ROTFLMAO!!

So the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland because they were afraid of the Swiss! But they had no problem invading France, The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia....to name but three.

We could have a really interesting debate about why Hitler didn't try to incorporate the largely German speaking country of Switzerland into his Reich of the German Volk, but believe me it was nothing to do with the might of the Swiss Militia.

Only a gun nut member of the American NRA would swallow that line!

PS. I think you'll find he didn't invade Ireland either.

karma_

round tower huntsman wrote: »

iraq war's over?
well that went well!:rolleyes:

War?

"There Never Was A War! A war is when two armies are fighting." - Bill Hicks