Why are we fighting in Iraq?

[ScottishJohn]

The WORLD gets its intelligence from the CIA?!?

Who else was pushing the UN for action? We in Britain got our info from you (or made it up or pinched it off the internet from PHD students).

Perhaps when they come up with a fair resolution the US will back it.

Fair by which standard? The one applied to Iraq or the one applied to Israel.

I never said Israel did not break any resolutions...

I didn't say you did.

That the US will go against Israel. They are not in lockstep.

So they vote against Israel on a couple of resolutions. Does the money dry up? Do they do it when it counts? When it might make a real difference? Do they apply the same pressure?

Allies.

Australia is allies with the US. Is Australia accountable for Abu Ghraib?

Was Australia commanding the US forces in Abu Graibh? Were they in charge of the perimeter? Did they hold US coats while the troops got stuck in? If the answer to any of those questions was yes (which it isn't - such a poor comparisson) then yes Australia would be accountable for Abu Graibh.

Yeah... it sure made his point.

At least it cost less and caused less harm.

Talk about poor english.

Bush wanted to invade... BUT the facts were being fixed.

I wanted to go to Europe for the summer... BUT the bank account wouldn't allow it.
[/QUOTE ]

Is english your first language? Read it again:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy - what was the policy? Removing Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. The 'but' you seem to be so interested in is there to alert those present at the meeting that the intelligence anc facts they were likely to hear were a bunch of nonsense. This is what Bush wants to do, but this is the flaw in his plan.

What does this have to do with the Downing memo?

Sorry that was your link, must have left it in.

And without the US holding its ground what makes you think it would have been any different the last time?

I'm all for the US holding its ground as part of the UN enforcing its will. It is when the US loses patience for the UN chucks the toys out the pram and goes its own violent and counter productive way, Haemorrhaging blood and money, dragging my government in its wake like a lapdog, that I start getting cross.

The pressure was ramped up by the US... not the UN.

The pressure to comply with UN resolutions? So the US did it on their own behalf? Not for the UN? Why would they do that? Un members are expected to put all diplomatic pressure allowed by the resolutions on the countries they target - the resolutions state this fact over and over. The US was doing what it was supposed to be doing as a member of the UN.

Besides some glitches... I think its going fairly well.

You must have really low expectations. Terrorism is up, 3 years in and the government still don't have a viable army or police force, there is no rule of law and the country is in bits. That is going fairly well?

You could make a case for it...
I could make a case that it was only because the US pushed it.

Any other examples?

The US is a member of the UN. War was declared on Iraq by the UN, and the ceasefireand terms were declared by the UN. Of course there is a case for it! It is fact!

And it is basic english comprehension that if there had been a third, fourth, fifth... whatever... France still had a problem with ultimatums or military actions.

NO, if you utilise basic english comprehension and read the quotes you so kindly provided you will see that France's objections apply specifically to a second resolution. What their view was likely to be at the point of a third fourth fifth etc was not stated at any point. They supported the use of force in the first gulf war.

I suppose it would be pointless to ask for a source that wasn't so blatantly biased...

http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2004-08-03.html#20040802-390963165133
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/12/politics/main588216.shtml

 

[arnegrim]

Who else was pushing the UN for action? We in Britain got our info from you (or made it up or pinched it off the internet from PHD students).

Tell Russia and Germany they need to stop paying their intelligence agencies so much if all they do is get their info from the US.

Fair by which standard? The one applied to Iraq or the one applied to Israel.

Fair is a relative term.

So they vote against Israel on a couple of resolutions. Does the money dry up? Do they do it when it counts? When it might make a real difference? Do they apply the same pressure?

I'm not in the know to know what other pressures are being put on Israel.

Was Australia commanding the US forces in Abu Graibh? Were they in charge of the perimeter? Did they hold US coats while the troops got stuck in? If the answer to any of those questions was yes (which it isn't - such a poor comparisson) then yes Australia would be accountable for Abu Graibh.

I see... so Israel KNEW that the Lebanese were going to massacre people? Israel had absolute control over the Lebanese forces?

How many people have the Australian forces killed?

At least it cost less and caused less harm.

For all the good it did he shouldn't have done it at all.
Then it would have cost nothing.

Is english your first language? Read it again:

I've read it numerous times.

The intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy - what was the policy? Removing Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. The 'but' you seem to be so interested in is there to alert those present at the meeting that the intelligence anc facts they were likely to hear were a bunch of nonsense. This is what Bush wants to do, but this is the flaw in his plan.

Question.

IF the Downing memo says what you interpret it to say... why was there just a miniscule blip on the political radar over it?

I'm all for the US holding its ground as part of the UN enforcing its will. It is when the US loses patience for the UN chucks the toys out the pram and goes its own violent and counter productive way, Haemorrhaging blood and money, dragging my government in its wake like a lapdog, that I start getting cross.

I think the US was VERY patient with the UN.

How did the US drag Australia into the invasion? Threat of sanctions?

The pressure to comply with UN resolutions? So the US did it on their own behalf? Not for the UN? Why would they do that? Un members are expected to put all diplomatic pressure allowed by the resolutions on the countries they target - the resolutions state this fact over and over. The US was doing what it was supposed to be doing as a member of the UN.

Yes... the US did it on their own behalf. They tried to work it through the UN... but the UN wouldn't work it so they invaded without the UN.

You must have really low expectations. Terrorism is up, 3 years in and the government still don't have a viable army or police force, there is no rule of law and the country is in bits. That is going fairly well?

Terrorism up? Possibly... temporarily.
No viable army or police force? Wrong.
No rule of law? Wrong.
Country in bits? Wrong.

The US is a member of the UN. War was declared on Iraq by the UN, and the ceasefireand terms were declared by the UN. Of course there is a case for it! It is fact!

The king of Kuwait asked the US for help... not the UN.
The US started building up forces before the UN decided what to do.
The UN agreed with the US... but if they hadn't, you think the US would not have used military force without the UN?

NO, if you utilise basic english comprehension and read the quotes you so kindly provided you will see that France's objections apply specifically to a second resolution. What their view was likely to be at the point of a third fourth fifth etc was not stated at any point. They supported the use of force in the first gulf war.

I'm done with this... you obviously don't understand.

http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2004-08-03.html#20040802-390963165133
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/12/politics/main588216.shtml

Let's see...
1 article about how there is a loss of equipment. Funny, how could that possibly happen during an invasion in a country the size of Iraq?
1 article about how they were paying Kuwait too much for the gas...

STRING THEM UP AND BURN THEM!

 

[ScottishJohn]

Fair is a relative term.

You used it, perhaps you should define what you mean by fair. Still, demonstrates the double standards that are operation.

I'm not in the know to know what other pressures are being put on Israel.

Hmm. Well, I think you'll find that no meaningful attempt to enforce UN resolutions against Israel have been made. No sanctions have been introduced, and US aid to Israel continues despite their non cooperation with the UN resolutions against them.

I see... so Israel KNEW that the Lebanese were going to massacre people? Israel had absolute control over the Lebanese forces?

I think that you will find that this is why the Israeli government at the time put Sharon on trial and found that he was indirectly responsible for the massacre: he didn't carry it out with his own hands, but he didn't prevent it when he could have done so very easily.

How many people have the Australian forces killed?

I have no idea? Why - what relevance does that bear?

For all the good it did he shouldn't have done it at all.
Then it would have cost nothing.

I agree. I also think the same can be applied to the current action in Iraq, which because of the monumental mistakes in planning, strategy and execution has proven totally counter productive.

I've read it numerous times.



Question.

IF the Downing memo says what you interpret it to say... why was there just a miniscule blip on the political radar over it?

It was a big issue here. It may have been ignored in the US, but then those against the war are well aware that the country was misled over the reasons for going to war, and those who remain faithful to the war don't really care why we went in or whether we were misled.

I think the US was VERY patient with the UN.

I don't.

How did the US drag Australia into the invasion? Threat of sanctions?

My country is Britian, and it was dragged behind the US because our idiot of a prime minister was more concerned with being friends with the 'big boys' and being a 'player' than he was with national security and sensible sustainable foreign policy.

Yes... the US did it on their own behalf. They tried to work it through the UN... but the UN wouldn't work it so they invaded without the UN.

Up untill the point they invaded they were working within the role assigned to them by the UN. Enforcing UN resolutions.

Terrorism up? Possibly... temporarily.

Up three years in a row now, and still rising.

No viable army or police force? Wrong.

The reason we are still there is because the police force and army are not yet up to the job. There was one army battalion which was rated ready for independant operations, but it was downgraded to support operations a couple of months ago. There are now no army battalions capable of operating independantly from coalition forces. The police are infiltrated with insurgents and are often part of the problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/27/ixnewstop.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4266304.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/?section=cnn_topstories

(On that last link, the pentagon said that independant status could be reinstated any day. That was over 4 months ago)

No rule of law? Wrong.

You have to be kidding. Even the Hussein trial can't proceed without stopping every ten minutes for a new judge or something. The police cannot prevent the attacks, and in some cases perpetrate the attacks, and there are pockets of control around certain key areas due to coalition forces, even these are subject to attacks. Baghdad's morgue has had over 6000 bodies this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5053134.stm

Country in bits? Wrong.

Lower oil production, electricity production, water availability than pre invasion.

http://www.ameinfo.com/88137.html
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093114175
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10771/beyond_security.html

The king of Kuwait asked the US for help... not the UN.
The US started building up forces before the UN decided what to do.
The UN agreed with the US... but if they hadn't, you think the US would not have used military force without the UN?

The UN declared the hostilities open and declared the ceasefire and its terms. The US acted in the role assigned to it by the UN and quite rightly deferred to the UN.

I'm done with this... you obviously don't understand.

I understand perfectly well. You are taking statements referring to one particular resolution and trying to make them apply to every subsequent possible resolution. To do so you ahve to take liberties with the english language. France objected to automatic use of force or ultimatums in a second resolution not in any resolution.

Let's see...
1 article about how there is a loss of equipment. Funny, how could that possibly happen during an invasion in a country the size of Iraq?
1 article about how they were paying Kuwait too much for the gas...

STRING THEM UP AND BURN THEM!

Sack them for incompetence and have an open bidding system where the best tender gets the contract.