"Is Baghdad About To Fall? Fierce Fighting Reported..." Topic
52 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 29 Sep 2014 10:22 p.m. PST |
… Near Iraqi Capital. ISIS Militants Less Than 2 Miles From Baghdad. "The Islamic State group has made gains in Iraq, approaching the country's largest city Monday, as American-led airstrikes have hit the group's strongholds in Syria. The news of the bloodthirsty group's march towards Baghdad comes after President Obama admitted the U.S. underestimated the group and overestimated the Iraqi Army. He told me he would take off his uniform and run,' said Canon Andrew White of an Iraqi soldier who is supposed to be protecting him. The Vicar of Baghdad sent an SOS from the besieged Iraqi capital Monday and warned that the murderous Islamic State militants were breathing down their necks. "People are very fearful the nation looks as if it has collapsed," Canon Andrew White, who runs the last Anglican church in Iraq, wrote on his Facebook page. "The usual hectic and crazy streets were this morning almost empty." Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Deadone | 29 Sep 2014 10:42 p.m. PST |
So what's the purpose of US air strikes again? |
Cyrus the Great | 30 Sep 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
I'm sure that The Mahdi Army will protect Baghdad and the U.S. interests there. |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 7:40 a.m. PST |
In an attempt to attrite Daesh and support Kurd and Iraqi ground forces … That's the purpose … but without moslem ground forces to take advantage of such strikes … effect is minimal. Akin to the UK Commando Raids after Dunkirk and Dolittle's Raid after Pearl Harbor in WWII. The US/the West is trying to re-train the incompetent Iraqis to eventually take the fight to the Daesh invaders. Which should take 12-18 months or more to "fix" the damage done by the Malaki regime. With Iranian support and US neglect … It's unfortunate the Kurds are so small a force. As with US/Western training, up-arming, etc., SF, Spec Ops, CIA, etc. support seems to be the only near term and it appears long term possible solution. Massive Western/US ground forces on the battlefield will only play into the Daesh/AQ/Jihadist/islamist game plan. To make it look like the "Crusaders" are back. And kill the infidels, etc., which seems to be one of the islamists' main goal. And the only possible moslem forces that most likely could defeat Daesh now with US/Western/NATO CAS, SF, Intel, etc. support. Are the Turks and Saudis. However as of yet the Turks appear to favor their islamic roots then act as a member of NATO, ally to the US/West. And the Saudis, save for a few airstikes, have gotten so lazy, etc. that they don't appear to want to get any of their ground forces involved in any numbers. If at all … It has to be a Moslem ground force taking on Daesh. We see how well the "infidels" did over the past decade or so. To destroy the never ending flow of moslem fighters. Regardless how well the West did on the battlefield … and let there be no doubt. The Western force involved on both fronts did their jobs. Fought well and killed many of the enemy, etc…. However, much blood and treasure has been lost and the war on terrorism/fanatical islam continues since 9/11 and before … |
zippyfusenet | 30 Sep 2014 8:10 a.m. PST |
If the Sowdis were to commit their ground forces against Daesh, I think it's questionable which direction most of them would shoot. |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 8:21 a.m. PST |
That could be said about many of the players in the region. The Turks are primarily Sunni as are the Saudis … Iraq is @ 60% Shia' and they are "friendly" with the Persians who are mostly Shia' … Old habits going back centuries are hard to break, even in the 21st Century … it appears … |
Pan Marek | 30 Sep 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
Legion4- Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 9:19 a.m. PST |
Thank you for reading it … From my research, I believe it is generally accurate at this time. |
Great War Ace | 30 Sep 2014 10:04 a.m. PST |
I don't believe that "72%" of Americans expect ground troops to be sent back to Iraq. That is bogus statistical assertion, propaganda. Nobody around here has said anything like that, unless it's in the context of "sure, Obama will reverse himself and send troops back, but nobody expects him to tell the truth anymore." This isn't a war Americans are involved with, and we never were after the first, brief flurry of reaction to 9/11. Once Saddam Hussein was dead that was the end of it. Everything that has happened since then is "their problem", not ours. If American ground forces get sent back in they will be wasted, no matter who they shoot at or where they go. And the longer they stay the more wasted they will become…. |
David Manley | 30 Sep 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
"This isn't a war Americans are involved with, and we never were after the first, brief flurry of reaction to 9/11. " Given the fact that the basis for that "first, brief flurry of reaction" was at best a mistake and at worst a bare faced lie, and that the result was a shattered country and a massively destabilised region there is a fair body of opinion around the world that would see the as US _entirely responsible_ for resolving this issue on the "you broke it, you bought it" principle. |
John Leahy | 30 Sep 2014 10:45 a.m. PST |
Bare faced lie? I'm always curious how every Western Intelligence Agency was reporting that Saddam had WMD's or the ability to reconstitute them at any point makes the US assertion a bald faced lie? Frankly, the only military in the world who can stop this from happening is the USA. Help from allies is always a boon and we have some good allies who have been at our side. But, if we don't have the will it isn't going to happen. |
11th ACR | 30 Sep 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
|
David Manley | 30 Sep 2014 11:10 a.m. PST |
What on earth did WMDs have to do with 9/11? Nothing. The "lie" and the underlying justification for destroying Iraq and Saddam was that he had links to AQ. Which as I said was at best a mistake, or at worst a lie. |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Sep 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
I hate to say it, but I almost hope Baghdad falls. Just split the existing nation of Iraq into Kurdistan up north, let the Shia part of Iraq join up with Iran, and the Saudis and Syrians can fight over the Sunni part. |
SouthernPhantom | 30 Sep 2014 12:13 p.m. PST |
Lion, as much as I like that scenario, the Syrians don't have much of a foothold in the eastern part of their country anymore. Getting into Iraq from there would take some doing. |
OSchmidt | 30 Sep 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
Question If the Shia Muslims in Iraq do not want to fight for their own country and their own faction of Islam, why should anyone else? Do they think they will escape by taking off their uniform? Do they think that will prevent them from massacre? It all comes back to this. If a people will not fight for their own country who will? |
OSchmidt | 30 Sep 2014 12:37 p.m. PST |
Question Does anyone believe that Islam is Radical Islam? That there are no moderates? |
zippyfusenet | 30 Sep 2014 2:56 p.m. PST |
I don't care if they're Radical or Moderate Muslims. It's their business how many times a day they pray, how many times they bow, how long they grow their beards. I want to meet the Muslims who are not at war with me. Every once in a while, one of my friends goes looking for someone to make peace with. Generally ends up with his head hacked off. Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Steven Sotloff, James Foley. The most reasonable Arab I know won't acknowledge that an Israeli might speak to him from his heart – whatever he says could only be hasbara, lies. The most reasonable Arab I know will never accept Israel as a Jewish state. It must all be Arab and Muslim, from the river to the sea. I'm not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with me. I just acknowledge it, and deal with it. |
Mako11 | 30 Sep 2014 3:17 p.m. PST |
Well, they were warned, though no doubt someone will again claim this is another "intelligence failure"…. Perhaps, if he would attend his US intelligence briefings, this wouldn't occur. |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 3:38 p.m. PST |
OSchmidt QuestionIf the Shia Muslims in Iraq do not want to fight for their own country and their own faction of Islam, why should anyone else? Do they think they will escape by taking off their uniform? Do they think that will prevent them from massacre? It all comes back to this. If a people will not fight for their own country who will? Ah there's the rub … The terms weak and cowardly come to mind … |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 3:43 p.m. PST |
OSchmidt QuestionDoes anyone believe that Islam is Radical Islam? That there are no moderates?
The few Muslims I've met here in the USA, seem to be just like everyone else. However, as with the rumored USSR Sleeper Cells in the US during the Cold War. Deep Covers must blend in … So who knows ? I've heard many say there are few real moderates, when it comes down to it … I hope they are wrong … |
Only Warlock | 30 Sep 2014 4:06 p.m. PST |
David Manley there are numerous declassified intelligence reports (confirmed independently by Wikileaks, hardly a friend of US policy, that Saddam Hussein was funneling arms and supplies to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. One of Saddam's high level henchmen (Al-Iraqi I I believe ) was the primary facilitator. Between that and the fact that ISIS is now USING Saddam ' s WMD to attack Iraqi forces with chlorine gas should be enough to make the "Bush lied" brigade shut up if they cared at all about the truth. But they don't. Was it wise to invade Iraq? In hindsight no. Was it wise to topple Qaddafi? Probably not. Was it wise to help topple the Shah of Iran? Certainly not. |
John Leahy | 30 Sep 2014 4:14 p.m. PST |
The US asserted that WMD's were the reason to go into Iraq. The relationship with Al Qaeda was almost an afterthought for the debate. Information has been found that does show a tie between the two. 9/11 aftermath was focused on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Frankly, the constant violations of the 1st Iraq War armistice were reason enough. Thanks, John |
Deadone | 30 Sep 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
The few Muslims I've met here in the USA, seem to be just like everyone else. The few I've met are a mixed bag. More educated ones are quite decent but some of the less educated ones sound like they should move back to Pakistan. They've also proven to be quite chauvinistic 99% of the time. They really struggle working under female bosses. Best one was doctor from Pakistan who expected his female boss to go buy tissues and other groceries for him and do his typing! The lesser edcuated ones have mainly been 3-4 taxi drivers and when you ask them how they like it in Australia, a couple of them ranted about how Australian women dress inappropriately and how they don't want their women to be like Australian ones. Bizarre folk. |
Phil Hall | 30 Sep 2014 5:35 p.m. PST |
Even Islam hates the IS. and they have taken them on on protest. link link |
Rod I Robertson | 30 Sep 2014 8:39 p.m. PST |
Only Warlock: Connections between the Ba'athist government of Iraq and Al Qaeda were very tenuous at best and far more likely were nonexistent. Claims of the existence of such connections were repeatedly shown to be exaggerated or false. Although I don't like referring to Wikipedia have a look at the following two pages: link and: link Please let us put this idea to rest. Ba'athists hate and fear Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hate and mistrust Ba'athists. There was no cooperative connection between the two groups. Rod Robertson |
zippyfusenet | 01 Oct 2014 4:12 a.m. PST |
Please let us put this idea to rest. Ba'athists hate and fear Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hate and mistrust Ba'athists. There was no cooperative connection between the two groups. It's not that simple Rod. *In the absence of other enemies whom they hate and fear more*, Ba'athists and Mujahidin will fight for control. In the presence of such enemies, they may ally. Shortly before the end, head-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein wrote a Koran in his own blood to demonstrate his piety and to gain the loyalty of the Muslim extremists. It is reported that one reason Daesh fighters are so effective, and are readily able to use captured heavy weapons, including artillery and tanks, is because many Ba'athist officers and NCOs from Saddam's old Iraqi army have joined the ranks. Shia and Sunni are massacring one another in Iraq and Stria, but Iran continues to fund and arm Hamas, which is a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The snakes will sometime cooperate. |
OSchmidt | 01 Oct 2014 5:14 a.m. PST |
One observation I wish to make. I understand the mutual hatred of Ba'athist and Al Qaida. I understand the mutual hatred of Sunni and Shia. I understand the mutual hatred Islam for us. I understand the hatred of Islam for pagans. I understand their hate for the Jews. I understand their hatred for the Yazidi and the Kurds But.. Is there anyone Muslims do NOT hate? Once one enemy is exterminated they seem to find a new one to hate. I have never heard of Muslims liking ANYONE! The moment an enemy of another sect is massacred, they begin to hat members of their own sect? Even the Sunni and Shiite sects hate their own sects. |
Chortle | 01 Oct 2014 6:26 a.m. PST |
What on earth did WMDs have to do with 9/11? Nothing. The "lie" and the underlying justification for destroying Iraq and Saddam was that he had links to AQ. Which as I said was at best a mistake, or at worst a lie. There is a move to declassify 28 pages of the 9/11 inquiry which purportedly implicate Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) have funded AQ and ISIS. More pressure could be applied to them to de-fund ISIS. link If western forces go to Iraq they won't be able to prosecute the war effectively. There is also more of a danger the fifth column at home will undertake domestic terrorism. |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 9:23 a.m. PST |
Was it wise to invade Iraq? In hindsight no. Was it wise to topple Qaddafi? Probably not. Was it wise to help topple the Shah of Iran? Certainly not.
I have to agree for the most part. I believe historians, 100 years from now [or sooner] will look the Second Gulf War and supplying the Muj against the USSR were strategic errors … But again, hindsight is generally always 20/20 … |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 9:30 a.m. PST |
The few I've met are a mixed bag. My myopic view may be because of in the failed former steel town of Youngstown, OH in the area known as "The Rust Belt", which I reside. There are very few moslems I have had contact with. And as I said, the few I casually had intereactions, seemed "nice" … So my opinion may not be as accurate as others who deal with larger moslem populations … like in the UK, France, etc. … Thomas … Regardless, I have a tendency to believe your comments to be correct about moslems in general … |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 9:36 a.m. PST |
Please let us put this idea to rest. Ba'athists hate and fear Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hate and mistrust Ba'athists.
And that could be said about many of the denizens of many ME and SWA regions … Where religious differences, tribal and warlord affilations, old ethnic predilections, etc., etc., only helps the West in the big picture … It is pretty clear to all, moslems have killed many, many more moslems than the "Crusaders" and "Infidels" from the West have … Which again, may be a good thing … from a military standpoint … |
Rod I Robertson | 01 Oct 2014 11:53 a.m. PST |
zippyfusenet: I agree about the future trend, but let us remember that the events you describe were triggered by the imminent invasion of Iraq by the Coalition and did not exist before that. There is, to my mind, no credible evidence to date that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists did anything but try to limit the influence of AQ and other extremist Jihadist groups, and therefore it is not a valid pretext for war. The Ba'athist officers and men who have joined first the Fedayeen and later IS did so due to the policies of the Coalition and its de-ba'athification programme instituted after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime. Legion 4: What you say is sadly true, but the issue was the recurring idea that Saddam Hussein was funding and supporting Al Qaeda; for which there is no persuasive evidence to date. OSchmidt: Radical and violent Muslims are consumed by hate, the average Muslim can easily get along with his neighbours. Yes he/she may stand by and let radicals do terrible things but that is probably because they have learned that getting involved gets you killed either by the radicals or the local potentate. Others may quietly support the radicals but given their miserable conditions largely imposed from the outside by Western political-economy that might be understandable. How many westerners cheered when they watched the Shock and Awe "fireworks" before the second Iraq War? The radicals attack because of "hate" and we in the West attack because it is in our "interests". Both sides still attack, they're just a little more emotional about it. The West specializes in aggression by the state while the Islamic world laminates non-state actors on top of that. That is the main difference between us. But we all have blood on our hands. Rod Robertson |
OSchmidt | 01 Oct 2014 12:22 p.m. PST |
Dear Rod I Robinson. Be careful that we do not take you at your word. Otto |
Tony58 | 01 Oct 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
Someone is not on the ball, as they say in football(soccer)! link |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 3:52 p.m. PST |
What you say is sadly true, but the issue was the recurring idea that Saddam Hussein was funding and supporting Al Qaeda; for which there is no persuasive evidence to date. True but with all the factions, tribes, etc. in the various moslem regions. There is always somebody willing to send $$$ to someone else to kill not only other moslems but the "dreaded Infidels" … |
Deadone | 01 Oct 2014 4:32 p.m. PST |
Al Qaeda had far more developed links with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. But we didn't invade them. |
Rod I Robertson | 01 Oct 2014 8:00 p.m. PST |
OSchmidt: An ominous and cryptic response which, alas, my aged brain could not fathom. I will let it stand as one of the mysteries of TMP. Rod "befuddled" Robertson. Random Dude: Not yet. If you run to the hills when the sky is falling, won't you die before everyone else? Run for the Mariannes Trench! |
OSchmidt | 02 Oct 2014 5:19 a.m. PST |
Dear Rod I Robertson Quite simple. If you blame the west for everything aren't you concerned that the West might say that "OK, since you're going to blame us for everything and having a war against Islam, might we not decided to actually do so. If Islam is going to continue to say we are "Crusaders," what would happen if we took them at their word and simply exterminated them with a ruthless efficiency beyond the original crusaders? It's kind of like the wife who wongly accuses her husband of constant infidelity. If he's going to be blamed for it anyway he might as well have the fun. |
Rod I Robertson | 02 Oct 2014 6:05 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt: Your point is well taken and I now understand what you meant. Should we not blame the West for the second invasion of Iraq? The Coalition was a Western led one and the pretext for the war was generally false. So in this case I think the West is to blame. The invasion of Afghanistan was a legitimate response as was the First Gulf War but the Second Gulf War was to my mind not legitimate. While I agree that the Arab world and the Islamic world do tend to blame the West, the USA and the CIA for too many things, sometimes they are right and the Second Gulf War was such an event. As to your second point about the West throwing up its hands at being blamed for everything and deciding to have a war with Islam, my question would be why?. What would a war achieve? Can you bomb a belief system out of existence? Can you end 13 centuries of suspicion and mistrust with high explosives? A general war with Islam would only serve to bankrupt western nations and would achieve little. A genocidal conflict would also fail because while you can wipe out believers, you can never wipe out their beliefs. New believers will emerge and they will spread the creed and also the hatred for the West (now legitimised by the war of genocide the West started). The key to defeating violent radical Islam is to find allies in the Islamic world who can mobilise the body-politic of the Muslim world to reject, abjure and suppress these people by legal, economic and military means. Only when the cultural and political leaders of the Islamic world have a stake in neutralising radicalism will this process begin. So the West should encourage the silent majority of the Muslim world to put their own house in order and decide that modern Islam must take a new course. Carrots and sticks are needed to do this. Embargoes and boycotts of states which support or tolerate Islamic extremism and special trade status for those which suppress the radicals would be a first step. Military action against enabling states and their leaders and military support and financial incentives for states which act responsibly would be a second step. In the spirit of 1776 and 1789, the West support secular and moderate Islamic groups who want to throw off the yoke of oppression and free themselves from dictatorship and exploitation. While western style democracy may not work in the Muslim world, more representative forms of government coupled with economic development would go a long way to take the wind out of the sails of violent radical Islam. Covert and overt military action and war should only be the tools of last resort in our attempts to help the Muslim world stabilise and tame itself. Rod Robertson |
Great War Ace | 02 Oct 2014 9:29 a.m. PST |
Yes, the Bush regimes started both Iraq wars. Wait, no they didn't. There was something about an invasion of Kuwait, iirc. Then there was this destruction of the World Trade Center and an attack on the Pentagon and a foiled third attack, possibly directed at the White House, etc. and etc. Oh! Wait, intel at the time said that Saddam Hussein was in league with the perpetrators of those attacks on US. Nobody doubted this AT THE TIME. It was public knowledge and discussed openly. We the people agreed overwhelmingly to go ahead and engage "the terrorists" in battle. We are still at it, but seem feckless for the most part. That's because our intel has proven to have been faulty. We are being cautious now where we were in our anger and were somewhat impetuous earlier. That is a good thing. We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the recent past. We are not in the business of teaching Muslims/Arabs how to "tame" themselves. That is insulting and smacks of nation building intervention; what we blatantly did in Iraq and failed at, because they don't want it, especially from us, the "great Satan". This entire mess is our fault only to the degree that we did not accomplish the mission laid in our lap through 9/11 and the earlier fracases of the 90s. We did not create the terrorists, even though they pontificate loudly that they are only defending Islam against the "great Satan", etc. Those are warring ideologies. We did not create our ideology either, we inherited it from our forefathers. I have not heard very many suggesting that our ideology is wrongheaded. On the contrary, most people in the "West" love our ideology, based on individual freedom and rights as it is, and an open market economy (heh, we need to get back to more of that, of course). The ideology is offended by Islam, fundamentally applied. Islam liberally applied is no harder to endure as neighbors than any other liberal religion. But our enemies are not liberals they are conservative fundamentalists, the worst kind of fighter on the planet. The religion/cause is immaterial, it is the fundamentalism that is the enemy. We cannot battle fundamentalist thinking with anything more than a better idea, and then have the patience to wait for it to germinate everywhere and breed out the fundamentalists. Meanwhile, as their ideology wants to exterminate our ideology and us, we must protect ourselves in obvious and palpable ways. If "they" extend their hands to strike at us, we cut their hands off, quite literally, from the earth. We make our intent and resolve plain so that the most militant "Arabic" thinker cannot possibly misunderstand. And we wait them out. Any further intervention "over there" is wrongheaded policy and will only encourage the fundamentalists as they deliberately misrepresent what we are doing to justify themselves. If we are not "over there", then they must come over here. Any "fifth column" actions are against our law and violate our security and will be dealt with justly and ruthlessly. "They" need to know this yesterday, not tomorrow. Time is not running out, but it is not being used very effectively. We can do much better at meeting this crisis, by staying out of others' affairs and telling everyone where we draw the line and will justify ourselves in retaliating, even to the extent of exterminating our enemies who won't listen to reason and refrain from attacking us, our friends and our interests…. |
Deadone | 02 Oct 2014 9:46 p.m. PST |
Oh! Wait, intel at the time said that Saddam Hussein was in league with the perpetrators of those attacks on US. Nobody doubted this AT THE TIME. It was public knowledge and discussed openly. We the people agreed overwhelmingly to go ahead and engage "the terrorists" in battle. The whole world bar Bush, Blair and their flunkies doubted it. In fact it was known for years that it was the Saudis and co were funding and supporting jihadis just like it was known Taliban was a creation of Pakistani ISI and Saudi funding. And it was known that secular Hussein had nothing to gain from supporting Sunni terrorists they would've undermined his own power base. Are you telling me that in 2003 US/UK defence and intelligence services and in turn President were dumber and less well informed than us drunken university twits studying international relations in a third rate university at the arse end of the world?
Iraq reeked of "settling scores" call it unifinished business from 1991 and 1998 or "Hussein tried to kill my daddy." And indeed the US never got a green light from the UN and vast majority of it's NATO partners opted to stay out of the "Coalition of th Willing" other than some weak political support (only USA, UK, Australia, Spain and Poland participated in initial invasion and not many major NATO partners signed up later and certainly not in a major way unlike Afghanistan).
There were massive anti-war protests in that period including some of the largest ever recorded. And Tony Blair has since admitted they lied and has said he did the right thing.
Really from a legal perspective there's not much difference between Poland/Finland 1939 and Iraq 2003.
And since then the US has continued to destroy the international system with wild abandon, which in turn is creating precedents for Russia and China to do the same thing. And the US (and West) has far more incentive to keep the international order running smoothly than the Chinese or Russians Basically we shot ourselves in both feet and now continue to dig a hole for ourselves. In fact we have destablised huge swaths of the Middle East, been an unwitting or deliberate player in fostering Sunni-Shia hatred, have lost strategic initiative and are now embroiled in never ending pointless warfare with no real end or strategic goals. |
Rod I Robertson | 02 Oct 2014 11:37 p.m. PST |
Great War Ace: Some background information can be found here: link You can widen or narrow the scope of the website using the toolbar at the top of the article. Almost all of this information was readily available at the time. The media outside of the US did a reasonably good job of at least mentioning the very big concerns over the Whitehouse conflation of Iraqi and Al Qaeda interests and cooperation. My memory of the time is that I was astonished at the lack of objectivity and critical analysis by American newspapers and television in the run-up to the second Gulf War. For the most part I recall that the American media was behaving more like bellicose cheer-leaders than defenders of the public-interest. Cheers. Rod Robertson |
Rod I Robertson | 02 Oct 2014 11:40 p.m. PST |
Dude: Not as of this time. No, it's still there and still in Iraqi Government hands. There is still time to run for the hills! Cheers. Rod Robertson |
Great War Ace | 03 Oct 2014 10:32 a.m. PST |
Are you telling me that in 2003 US/UK defence and intelligence services and in turn President were dumber and less well informed than us drunken university twits studying international relations in a third rate university at the arse end of the world? Yes, in a way. They thought that their agenda of control trumped what the man in the street already knew about avoiding armed conflict with Islam on any level. Bound to bite you in the butt sooner rather than later. So what they knew was colored by everything else that they thought they knew, and a hubris about their capabilities. So they fell into folly. But that doesn't mean they didn't believe in their own folly, and sell it to most of the populace, which we bought (even with some reserve) because we were angry…. |
Rod I Robertson | 03 Oct 2014 12:32 p.m. PST |
|
Rod I Robertson | 03 Oct 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Once again the gremlins of TMP have mixed up posts. The above is not my post. Here follows my post : Great War Ace: Below is the results of a senate investigation into the information used as a pretext for war. The senate investigation concluded that the Administration had lied about the causus belli for the war. They lied means that they new the truth and deceived the American electorate. It was not a misunderstandings or faulty evidence nor angry exuberance. It was cynical, cold, calculated fraud perpetrated against the citizenry of the greatest nation of the modern age. Proof provided here: Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion September 8, 2006: Senate Finds White House Lied about Links between Iraq, Al-Qaeda A bipartisan Senate report finds that no credible evidence of any links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government ever existed, despite repeated and insistent claims by the White House and its allies (see Early 1995), March-June 1998, (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001, Shortly After September 11, 2001, September 18, 2001, September 19, 2001, September 21, 2001, October 27, 2001, 2002, February 6, 2002, March 22, 2002, July 25, 2002, September 12, 2002, September 15, 2002, September 25, 2002, October 1, 2002, October 2, 2002, October 7, 2002, October 7, 2002, December 2, 2002, Mid-January 2003, January 26, 2003, January 28, 2003, January 28, 2003, February 1, 2003-February 4, 2003, February 5, 2003, February 5, 2003, February 6, 2003, February 8, 2003, February 9, 2003, February 11 or 12, 2003, February 16, 2003, March 9, 2003, March 17, 2003, March 17-18, 2003, Shortly After April 9, 2003, July 9, 2003, September 7, 2003, September 14, 2003-September 17, 2003, September 28, 2003, December 17, 2003, January 8, 2004, January 9, 2004, Early June 2004, June 14, 2004, June 15, 2004, June 15, 2004, October 4, 2004, May 2005, October 2005, (2006), January 31, 2006, March 29, 2006, and September 10, 2006). Panel Democrats say that the White House knew the intelligence surrounding its claims of such links was flawed and unreliable. Tenet Admitted to Giving in to Pressure They note that in July former CIA Director George Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him to support its arguments and that he agreed despite the findings of his own analysts. "Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" says Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin (D-MI). Such compliance was, in hindsight, "the wrong thing to do," Tenet added, according to Levin. "Well, it was much more than that," Levin says. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy." Tenet also admitted that he erred in issuing a statement after President Bush's October 7, 2002 speech saying that Bush's claims were consistent with CIA findings (see October 7, 2002). Republicans Say Report Just 'Election-Year Politicking' Republican committee members insist that there is little new information about prewar intelligence or claims about Iraq's links to terrorism. Ranking committee member Pat Roberts (R-KS) accuses Levin and other Democrats of trying to "use the committee… insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.… That is simply not true, and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it." Democrats retort that the report speaks for itself. Impeachment Not Warranted However, committee Democrats such as John Rockefeller (D-WV) say that the report does not prove any criminal behavior from Bush or his top officials, and say that impeachment of Bush or anyone else is not warranted. Hussein Opposed to US Policies An FBI summary quoted in the report shows Hussein acknowledging that his government had met with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but denying any collusion. Hussein said he opposed only US policies, and added that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the US, he would have allied with North Korea or China," according to the FBI summary. Other Portions of Report Other sections of the report find that no evidence existed to support claims that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program (see February 7, 2001, February 12, 2001, November 14, 2001, May 2002-September 2002, September 9, 2002, January 9, 2003, March 8, 2003, May 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003), had possessed biological weapons in 2003 (see 2002, 2002-March 2003, Mid-January 2002, March 22, 2002, August 2002, September 2002, September 24, 2002, December 2002, End of December 2002, January 9, 2003, and March 7, 2003), used the Salman Pak facility to train Islamist terrorists (see September 8, 2006), or that Iraqi officials met with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in the months before the 9/11 attacks (see September 8-10, 2006). The report also finds that the White House relied heavily on false intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (see After August 2, 1989, (1994), January 1996, November 6-8, 2001, Between February 12, 2002 and March 31, 2002, Between February 12, 2002 and March 31, 2002, Summer 2002, and June 26, 2002). [SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, 9/8/2006 ; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/9/2006] Entity Tags: Iraqi National Congress, Bush administration (43), Ahmed Chalabi, Carl Levin, George J. Tenet, Saddam Hussein, Central Intelligence Agency, Osama bin Laden, Pat Roberts, Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller, Mohamed Atta Timeline Tags: Iraq under US Occupation Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 07 Oct 2014 11:47 a.m. PST |
After all is said and done … I personally believe the US made 2 strategic mistake over the past few decades. Firstly, providing too much support to the Muj in their fight with the USSR. They should have been left to attriting each other … forever … UBL/AQ, etc., would have been too busy to plan 9/11 or other terrorist acts, while fighting the USSR. Who knows, may be UBL, AZH, etc., may have died in the conflict … Secondly, Gulf War II. As bad as Saddam was, he is a better option than what is currently going on in region now … But I'll leave that up to future historians. As always hindsight is usually 20/20 … |
|