John McCain: A troop drawdown that would fail

snafuk35

John McCain condemns the Obama administration for being to eager to withdraw American troops before Iraq is ready to carry the burden of security.

We have frequently traveled to Iraq, meeting with national leaders in Baghdad, local officials throughout the country, and U.S. military commanders and diplomats. What we have consistently heard on these visits is that Iraq’s security and stability will require a continuing — though greatly reduced — U.S. military presence after the end of this year, when our current security agreement with Iraq expires. We have also heard that, given the essential missions that this post-2011 force must carry out, no fewer than 10,000 and as many as 25,000 troops will be required. No one has suggested that 3,000 would be enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-troop-drawdown-that-would-fail-iraq/2011/09/14/gIQAKecWYK_story.html

The threat from Islamic extremists in Iraq has not gone away and Al-Qaeda has been regrouping.

It would be criminal for Iraq to be allowed to collapse following an American withdrawal and leave its rich oil resources in the hands of fanatical jihadists bent on destroying America and Western civilisation.

Overheal

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055516113

Politics Charter and Guidelines - 18 March 2009 - PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING wrote:

Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article without comment from the thread starter. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

snafuk35

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055516113

You can clearly see that I did discuss my post and I am also willing to discuss with others.

Overheal

snafuk35 wrote: »

You can clearly see that I did discuss my post and I am also willing to discuss with others.

Timestamps show different. Anyway,

The threat from Islamic extremists in Iraq has no gone away and Al-Qaeda has been regrouping.

It would be criminal for Iraq to be allowed to collapse following an American withdrawal and leave its rich oil resources in the hands of fanatical jihadists bent on destroying America and Western civilisation.

That's quite a mouthful. For one, withdrawal wouldn't be criminal. For another, what concrete indication is there that having less than a Corps of troops - never mind a Regiment - in Iraq would be equitable to the collapse of the country. Is the country really so fragile? I think you over-bogeyman Al Qaeda's abilities. And I have trouble believing anything that comes out of McCain's mouth: he's probably the most notorious doubletalking Senator in Washington. When he isn't saying whatever suits his narrative of the day he's fighting losing battles on issues which have long since been settled, like Don't Ask Don't Tell. Which is actually pretty relevant considering that in taking that stance he blatantly ignored the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs, and in doing so reneged on a commitment he made to re-evaluate his stance in the future if the Military told him it was time to change the policy. They did; He didn't.

snafuk35

For one, withdrawal wouldn't be criminal.

When Iraqi political and military leaders are pleading with the US to stay longer because they need them on the ground and withdrawing US troops would endanger the security of Iraq needlessly then that would be criminal considering the long hard struggle against Islamist extremism that has already happened in Iraq.

For another, what concrete indication is there that having less than a Corps of troops - never mind a Regiment - in Iraq would be equitable to the collapse of the country.

Did you read the article? The Iraqis need these extra US troops for:

intelligence collection and fusion, counterterrorism operations, training and maintenance, and the protection of Iraq’s airspace.

Is the country really so fragile?

Islamic extremists are continuing launch bomb attacks in Baghdad and other cities. They are bent on overthrowing the democratically elected Iraqi govenrment.

I think you over-bogeyman Al Qaeda's abilities.

Al-Qaeda have been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths, tens of thousands of wounded US soldiers and thousands of US dead.

And I have trouble believing anything that comes out of McCain's mouth: he's probably the most notorious doubletalking Senator in Washington. When he isn't saying whatever suits his narrative of the day he's fighting losing battles on issues which have long since been settled, like Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Which is actually pretty relevant considering that in taking that stance he blatantly ignored the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs, and in doing so reneged on a commitment he made to re-evaluate his stance in the future if the Military told him it was time to change the policy. They did; He didn't.

Iraqi political and military leaders have said they do not want US troops to withdraw too soon.

McCain is just repeating what they have said.

Overheal

As I said, McCain says a lot of things - often contradictory to even himself.

You'd have to do better than 'the Iraqi gov't asked nicely' to show how that would constitute criminal offense. Is there some United States or International Law that makes it a crime to withdraw from a foreign territory?

Al-Qaeda have been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths, tens of thousands of wounded US soldiers and thousands of US dead.

And they will be allowed to continue attacking our troops so long as we continue to put them in harm's way. They couldn't fight a war on our turf so they dragged us into theirs.

snafuk35

You'd have to do better than 'the Iraqi gov't asked nicely' to show how that would constitute criminal offense.

I'm not saying literally criminal. I am saying criminal as in a rugby player stupidly dropping the ball during a rugby game.

Is there some United States or International Law that makes it a crime to withdraw from a foreign territory?

It would be criminally stupid to withdraw to early, precipitate the collapse of the Iraqi government and to gift the jihadists a victory.

And they will be allowed to continue attacking our troops so long as we continue to put them in harm's way. They couldn't fight a war on our turf so they dragged us into theirs.

In case you were unaware jihadists have been attacking US troops for decades before the invasion of Iraq and jihadist attacks have been happening on US targets decades before 9/11.

If American troops were not on their turf fighting and killing jihadists and at the same time building up the Iraqi Army and facilitating the democratic process to run its course, Iraq would now probably be in the hands of a reconstituted Baathist regime or an Islamic theocracy.

Do you think it is in the strategic interests of the United States for the rich oil resources of Iraq to be in the hands of our sworn enemies?

If you want indulge in the denial about the threat of militant Islam that's your choice friendo.

matthew8

snafuk35 wrote: »

I'm not saying literally criminal. I am saying criminal as in a rugby player stupidly dropping the ball during a rugby game.



It would be criminally stupid to withdraw to early, precipitate the collapse of the Iraqi government and to gift the jihadists a victory.



In case you were unaware jihadists have been attacking US troops for decades before the invasion of Iraq and jihadist attacks have been happening on US targets decades before 9/11.

If American troops were not on their turf fighting and killing jihadists and at the same time building up the Iraqi Army and facilitating the democratic process to run its course, Iraq would now probably be in the hands of a reconstituted Baathist regime or an Islamic theocracy.

Do you think it is in the strategic interests of the United States for the rich oil resources of Iraq to be in the hands of our sworn enemies?

If you want indulge in the denial about the threat of militant Islam that's your choice friendo.

Why is it in the US gov't's interests to spend trillions of dollars on fighting a war in some far off country that never attacked them? Why is it their duty to interfere with a sovereign nation?

snafuk35

matthew8 wrote: »

Why is it in the US gov't's interests to spend trillions of dollars on fighting a war in some far off country that never attacked them? Why is it their duty to interfere with a sovereign nation?

Iraq was not a sovereign nation. In case you are unaware until 2003 it was misruled by Saddam Hussein, a savage psychotic genocidal fascist dictator.
Since when is it not both the duty and in the interests of the US to remove fascist dictators from power?????

Today Iraq is a sovereign nation - it has a democratically elected President, democratically elected Prime Minister, democratically elected parliament, it has a democratically endorse constitution, it has independent courts and it has a military and police force who are required to obey the rule of law. It has an independent press, freedom of speech and human rights for its citizens.

How could anyone possibly think that was not in the interests of the US?

Now back to the original point of this thread.

John McCain has been speaking to the democratically elected Iraqi leaders and the chiefs of the Iraqi military and they are telling him that Obama is making a big mistake withdrawing troops too soon and that his plans are jeopardising the huge gains that have been made since 2003.

matthew8

snafuk35 wrote: »

Iraq was not a sovereign nation. In case you are unaware until 2003 it was misruled by Saddam Hussein, a savage psychotic genocidal fascist dictator.
Since when is it not both the duty and in the interests of the US to remove fascist dictators from power?????:eek:

I guess the US should be overthrowing the governments of half the world then. Especially Saudi Arabia.

snafuk35

matthew8 wrote: »

I guess the US should be overthrowing the governments of half the world then. Especially Saudi Arabia.

Yes of course they should.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are globally share desires.

There should be freedom and democracy in every nation on earth.

matthew8

snafuk35 wrote: »

Yes of course they should.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are globally share desires.

There should be freedom and democracy in every nation on earth.

But that would cost trillions of dollars.

snafuk35

matthew8 wrote: »

But that would cost trillions of dollars.

So?

matthew8

snafuk35 wrote: »

So?

They are bankrupt. They cannot afford war.

snafuk35

matthew8 wrote: »

They are bankrupt. They cannot afford war.

Do you think the threat from terrorists and foreign dictators will just stop because there is a global recession?:)

Overheal

Iraq was not a sovereign nation. In case you are unaware until 2003 it was misruled by Saddam Hussein, a savage psychotic genocidal fascist dictator.
Since when is it not both the duty and in the interests of the US to remove fascist dictators from power?????

In fact, prior to 2003, during 2003, and after 2003, Iraq was indeed recognized as a Sovereign Nation by the United Nations, with the Government Recognized as being that of Saddam Hussein's.

Also I had a quick look and couldn't quite spot a link between Hussein and Fascism. Could you clarify this remark?

Yes of course they should.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are globally share desires.

There should be freedom and democracy in every nation on earth.

lol and of course it should be up to the USA to provide it for them - by pursuing an Imperial doctrine not unlike that of the sort of Nation that it's founders originally claimed their Independence from. The irony is truly delicious, but I for one do not condone it. Plenty of countries are capable of getting their own freedom - like Egypt. And I do wager that plenty of African nations would be a lot more harmonious if foreign interference didn't keep pumping money and weapons to the local warlords.

snafuk35

In fact, prior to 2003, during 2003, and after 2003, Iraq was indeed recognized as a Sovereign Nation by the United Nations, with the Government Recognized as being that of Saddam Hussein's.

Oh right? Is that the esteemed body where then fellow dictatorship Libya was elected to chair of the UN Human Rights Council in 2003?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/21/3

Also I had a quick look and couldn't quite spot a link between Hussein and Fascism. Could you clarify this remark?

Could you not? Well Saddam Hussein was the leader of a Baathist regime.

You can checkout what Baathism is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party#Underlying_political_philosophy

Baathism is essentially a mix of extreme Arab nationalism and socialism - national socialism in fact using German national socialism as its template.

lol and of course it should be up to the USA to provide it for them - by pursuing an Imperial doctrine not unlike that of the sort of Nation that it's founders originally claimed their Independence from. The irony is truly delicious, but I for one do not condone it.

The US has withdrawn all of its combat brigades from Iraq and Iraqi combat brigades have now taken over the fight against the Islamists on behalf of the democratically elected Iraqi government.

The doctrine of the US is that all of the world should be democratic and free.

Plenty of countries are capable of getting their own freedom - like Egypt.

Mubarak was an autocrat but he did not resort to gunning down his own people and stood aside. The US trained and supplied military has taken power on behalf of the people and controls the interim government until the democratic elections are held. The military is what stands groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from starting a civil war Iraq-style.

Iraq needs to build a military like Egypt's to protect the democratic process from extremists like Al-Qaeda.

In 1991 the Shias in Basra and southern Iraq rose up against Saddam only for tens of thousands to be killed in a crackdown by the Iraqi Army. NATO moved to enforce an UN no-fly zone that protected the northern Kurds and Shia Basra in the south from air attack. Saddam had so effectively crushed all organised political resistance in most of Iraq by 2003 that nothing less than US/UK led invasion would overthrow him.

The current democratic Iraq simply would not exist without the 2003 invasion.

Gaddaffi's Libyan regime similarly would not have been overthrown except through the intervention of NATO which smashed his airforce, navy and armoured units to assist the Libyan rebel forces.

And I do wager that plenty of African nations would be a lot more harmonious if foreign interference didn't keep pumping money and weapons to the local warlords.

Yes I agree. China and Russia should halt their neo-colonialism immediately.

Matt Holck

snafuk35 wrote: »

Yes of course they should.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are globally share desires.

There should be freedom and democracy in every nation on earth.

the french philosopher that created that axiom

thought life, liberty and property







It seems to me democracy should have popular support by definition

so it must be fairly stable

snafuk35

Matt Holck wrote: »

the french philosopher that created that axiom

thought life, liberty and property







It seems to me democracy should have popular support by definition

so it must be fairly stable

Millions of Iraqis voted for their current political parties and the largest political parties have formed a coalition government.

Iraq is stablising. Violence is down since the height of insurgency and the massive Al-Qaeda bombing campaigns.

But as McCain has said having spoken to Iraqi leaders and military chiefs that the US needs to stay on longer with support troops to assist the Iraqi military.

Matt Holck

please stop using the word Al-Qaeda

they are a fictional enemy of convenience

Overheal

snafuk35 wrote: »

But as McCain has said having spoken to Iraqi leaders and military chiefs that the US needs to stay on longer with support troops to assist the Iraqi military.

As I demonstrated earlier, John McCain is far from a reliable mouthpiece.

The doctrine of the US is that all of the world should be democratic and free.

Which Constitutional Amendment is that now?

Yes I agree. China and Russia and the US should halt their neo-colonialism immediately.

Fixed that for you.

Jonny7

snafuk35 wrote: »

Could you not? Well Saddam Hussein was the leader of a Baathist regime.

You can checkout what Baathism is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party#Underlying_political_philosophy

Baathism is essentially a mix of extreme Arab nationalism and socialism - national socialism in fact using German national socialism as its template.

Perhaps in ideal never in function.

The US has withdrawn all of its combat brigades from Iraq and Iraqi combat brigades have now taken over the fight against the Islamists on behalf of the democratically elected Iraqi government.

A bit simplistic. The security "groups" in Iraq are absolutely vast (at one point in 2005 almost 1 million "personnel") They have differing loyalties, levels of corruption, and when they aren't pursuing extremists are often on witch-hunts for homosexuals and raping women.

The doctrine of the US is that all of the world should be democratic and free.

Some people and officials within the US administration genuinely believe this but Real Politik shows the situation up to be very different. During the Cold War there were some excuses but at the moment we in the West have been happily doing too much business with very unfree and very undemocratic countries.

Mubarak was an autocrat but he did not resort to gunning down his own people and stood aside.

No, he ordered the military to kill his own countrymen, but they didn't follow his orders, he obviously didn't have the grasp over the military that Assad has or Gaddafi had. Over 800 already died in a few days to the police.

Iraq needs to build a military like Egypt's to protect the democratic process from extremists like Al-Qaeda.

True, but deep down every Iraqi knows they didn't "earn" freedom. Hopefully they'll never go back, but I think will have a bad taste in their mouth for generations. We are still bitter about the Brits.

In 1991 the Shias in Basra and southern Iraq rose up against Saddam only for tens of thousands to be killed in a crackdown by the Iraqi Army. NATO moved to enforce an UN no-fly zone that protected the northern Kurds and Shia Basra in the south from air attack. Saddam had so effectively crushed all organised political resistance in most of Iraq by 2003 that nothing less than US/UK led invasion would overthrow him.

They should have done the job in '91 instead of rushing a botchjob in '03 under shady circumstances.

The current democratic Iraq simply would not exist without the 2003 invasion.

The "current democratic" Iraq is still more dangerous than the pre-2003 Iraq. I have friends who work there and can attest to this. We can look at this in a Machiavellian way and say the hundreds of thousands of lives ruined may eventually lead to a relatively peaceful country, but for now its still a hellhole.

Gaddaffi's Libyan regime similarly would not have been overthrown except through the intervention of NATO which smashed his airforce, navy and armoured units to assist the Libyan rebel forces.

Yup agree, it would've been crushed Kurd/Shia style otherwise.

snafuk35

Perhaps in ideal never in function.

What do you mean?

A bit simplistic. The security "groups" in Iraq are absolutely vast (at one point in 2005 almost 1 million "personnel") They have differing loyalties, levels of corruption, and when they aren't pursuing extremists are often on witch-hunts for homosexuals and raping women.

Isn't this all the more reason why removing US troops too soon is a bad idea?

Some people and officials within the US administration genuinely believe this but Real Politik shows the situation up to be very different. During the Cold War there were some excuses but at the moment we in the West have been happily doing too much business with very unfree and very undemocratic countries.

I agree with you.

No, he ordered the military to kill his own countrymen, but they didn't follow his orders, he obviously didn't have the grasp over the military that Assad has or Gaddafi had. Over 800 already died in a few days to the police.

Sorry my mistake. But many of the top officers in the Egyptian military were US trained and much of their equipment and weaponry is US too. The Americans encourage them to turn on Mubarak.

True, but deep down every Iraqi knows they didn't "earn" freedom. Hopefully they'll never go back, but I think will have a bad taste in their mouth for generations. We are still bitter about the Brits.

Isn't that a 'What have the Romans every done for us kind' of mindset?

They should have done the job in '91 instead of rushing a botchjob in '03 under shady circumstances.

Of course but the fact is Saddam is dead now and democracy building is messy business. We are where we are right now.

The "current democratic" Iraq is still more dangerous than the pre-2003 Iraq. I have friends who work there and can attest to this. We can look at this in a Machiavellian way and say the hundreds of thousands of lives ruined may eventually lead to a relatively peaceful country, but for now its still a hellhole.

Japan and Germany in 1945 and for much of the 1950s were not very nice places either but they are now among the most democratic and most pacificist nations on earth.

jackiebaron

snafuk35 wrote: »

When Iraqi political and military leaders are pleading with the US to stay longer because they need them on the ground and withdrawing US troops would endanger the security of Iraq needlessly then that would be criminal considering the long hard struggle against Islamist extremism that has already happened in Iraq.



Did you read the article? The Iraqis need these extra US troops for:





Islamic extremists are continuing launch bomb attacks in Baghdad and other cities. They are bent on overthrowing the democratically elected Iraqi govenrment.



Al-Qaeda have been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths, tens of thousands of wounded US soldiers and thousands of US dead.



Iraqi political and military leaders have said they do not want US troops to withdraw too soon.

McCain is just repeating what they have said.

:pac::pac::pac:

90% of Iraqis want every single American soldier and Blackwater thug out of their country NOW.

Who the hell is telling you that pleas are being made to keep the killers of over 1 million Iraqi people in-country? CNN? Fox News? The Pentagon?

4 MILLION Iraqis are now refugees either internally displaced or living a hand to mouth existence in squalid condition for the last 8 years in camps in Syria or Jordan. You think they give a FÜCK about the country descending into the fictitious chaos that you bleat about when they're 24 hours away from dying from dysentery or typhus or starvation.....oh or just being killed because they are not welcome where they are?

"Please America stay and help us. You only reduced our country to something that Stephen King couldn't dream up but we have faith that you will turn it into an oasis of peace, love and harmony with your illiterate morons from the Midwest and their penchant for raping and killing our people."

snafuk35

jackiebaron wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

90% of Iraqis want every single American soldier and Blackwater thug out of their country NOW.

Who the hell is telling you that pleas are being made to keep the killers of over 1 million Iraqi people in-country? CNN? Fox News? The Pentagon?

4 MILLION Iraqis are now refugees either internally displaced or living a hand to mouth existence in squalid condition for the last 8 years in camps in Syria or Jordan. You think they give a FÜCK about the country descending into the fictitious chaos that you bleat about when they're 24 hours away from dying from dysentery or typhus or starvation.....oh or just being killed because they are not welcome where they are?

"Please America stay and help us. You only reduced our country to something that Stephen King couldn't dream up but we have faith that you will turn it into an oasis of peace, love and harmony with your illiterate morons from the Midwest and their penchant for raping and killing our people."

So why not clone Saddam Hussein and put him back in power shall we?

Lets tell the millions of Iraqis who have voted in democratic elections that they have to return to fascist dictatorship?

The elected leadership of Iraq - the very politicians whom the Iraqis voted to represent them are pleading with Americans to stay on so because they need more time to prepare their own forces to take over the security of their own country.

Iraq has a future now and it is in the hands of the Iraqi people - as it should be.

Overheal

Iraq has a future now and it is in the hands of the Iraqi people - as it should be.

Aren't you the one parroting John McTwoTalk? I thought you are trying to arguing the Iraqi people should not have the future of Iraq in their hands, that they need to be coddled by the US for a longer, indefinite period of time.

snafuk35

Overheal wrote: »

Aren't you the one parroting John McTwoTalk? I thought you are trying to arguing the Iraqi people should not have the future of Iraq in their hands, that they need to be coddled by the US for a longer, indefinite period of time.

You thought wrong.

When Iraqi security forces can stand on their own two feet without US forces help then the US should withdraw.

Now can we agree that removing Saddam was right and now that Iraqi democracy exists and be built on moving forward?

If Iraq returns to dictatorship or if Sunni and Shia insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists regroup following a US pullout, then US troops will have to be sent back in.

barrackali

jackiebaron wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

90% of Iraqis want every single American soldier and Blackwater thug out of their country NOW.

Who the hell is telling you that pleas are being made to keep the killers of over 1 million Iraqi people in-country? CNN? Fox News? The Pentagon?

4 MILLION Iraqis are now refugees either internally displaced or living a hand to mouth existence in squalid condition for the last 8 years in camps in Syria or Jordan. You think they give a FÜCK about the country descending into the fictitious chaos that you bleat about when they're 24 hours away from dying from dysentery or typhus or starvation.....oh or just being killed because they are not welcome where they are?

"Please America stay and help us. You only reduced our country to something that Stephen King couldn't dream up but we have faith that you will turn it into an oasis of peace, love and harmony with your illiterate morons from the Midwest and their penchant for raping and killing our people."

I totally agree, the U.S and co have murdered innocent Iraqi's throughout the invasion and during the occupation....they should get the fcuk out!

snafuk35

barrackali wrote: »

I totally agree, the U.S and co have murdered innocent Iraqi's throughout the invasion and during the occupation....they should get the fcuk out!

Since when is it murder to overthrow a fascist dictatorship and to fight against Islamic terrorists?
Are you completely overlooking the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam - he used poison gas against the Kurds.
Since 2003 the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who have died were murdered by Sunni and Shia insurgents and in Al-Qaeda bombings.
Today Iraq is a democracy thanks to the US.
If people like you had been listened Saddam Hussein would probably still be in power. Can I ask you if you would be happy with that situation? I don't think you would be? So what alternative course of action could have been taken other than war? Do you Saddam was not going to go quietly and surrender himself to the Hague court to be tried for crimes against humanity?
If overthrowing Saddam was murder then surely the NATO bombing of Libya in support of the Libyan rebel offensive was also murder?
Was the overthrow of Hitler and Hirohito murder?
Civilians are killed in wars when they are caught in the crossfire between both sides.
The Americans tried to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties e.g. smart bombs.
Al-Qaeda and Sunni and Shia insurgents makes no such effort and aim to indescriminately murder innocent civilians.

barrackali

What was the basis of the conflict????? WMD'S....remember them, the U.S war mongerers used that as an excuse for the invasion.

Overheal

snafuk35 wrote: »

Are you completely overlooking the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam - he used poison gas against the Kurds.

It's funny you mention that, because that's pretty much what we did, prior to 2001. He was in power for 20 years, and that's basically what we did. Despite:

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq&action=edit&section=4"]edit[/URL Iraq sanctions

Main article: UN sanctions against Iraq
Researcher Richard Garfield estimated that "a minimum of 100,000 and a more likely estimate of 227,000 excess deaths among young children from August 1991 through March 1998" from all causes including sanctions.[16] Other estimates have ranged as low as 170,000 children.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_Victims

If overthrowing Saddam was murder (1) then surely the NATO bombing of Libya in support of the Libyan rebel offensive was also murder? (2)

1) Not what he said at all
2) Based on what he said, Yes.

snafuk35

Overheal wrote: »

It's funny you mention that, because that's pretty much what we did, prior to 2001. He was in power for 20 years, and that's basically what we did. Despite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_Victims1) Not what he said at all
2) Based on what he said, Yes.

So when they finally get the finger out and actually overthrow him and kill his sick ass you start complaining?
Do you prefer Saddam gone or would you prefer him still in power?
Make your mind could you?:rolleyes:
Which is it?

snafuk35

barrackali wrote: »

What was the basis of the conflict????? WMD'S....remember them, the U.S war mongerers used that as an excuse for the invasion.

So what?

Do you really need an excuse to overthrow a dictator?

He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and in 2003 right after the invasion, gigantic mass graves were uncovered in the deserts full of skeletons with their wrists tied behind their backs and bullet holes in their skulls.
This guy tortured prisoners leaving them to dissolve slowly in acid and fed children into industrial shredders.

Saddam ignored 18 UN resolutions demanding that he disclose his WMD programs. He could have cleared up the whole WMD issue if he had not impeded Hans Blix. The UN resolution 1441 explicitly authorised the use of military force against Iraq if he failed to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Today Iraq has a democratic government and its future is in the hands of the Iraqi people and not a psychotic lunatic.

Would you prefer if Saddam was still in power or have you even asked yourself that question?

Overheal

snafuk35 wrote: »

So when they finally get the finger out and actually overthrow him and kill his sick ass you start complaining?

You have no profound idea of what I would have complained about prior to the September 11 attacks, were I anything more than an adolescent when it happened. Nevermind any time prior to your registration on this message board, or indeed prior to my registration on this message board. So I find this accusation a little perplexing.

Do you prefer Saddam gone or would you prefer him still in power?
Make your mind could you?
Which is it?

What was the basis of the conflict????? WMD'S....remember them, the U.S war mongerers used that as an excuse for the invasion.

So what?

Do you really need an excuse to overthrow a dictator?

He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and in 2003 right after the invasion, gigantic mass graves were uncovered in the deserts full of skeletons with their wrists tied behind their backs and bullet holes in their skulls.
This guy tortured prisoners leaving them to dissolve slowly in acid and fed children into industrial shredders.

Saddam ignored 18 UN resolutions demanding that he disclose his WMD programs. He could have cleared up the whole WMD issue if he had not impeded Hans Blix. The UN resolution 1441 explicitly authorised the use of military force against Iraq if he failed to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Today Iraq has a democratic government and its future is in the hands of the Iraqi people and not a psychotic lunatic.

Would you prefer if Saddam was still in power or have you even asked yourself that question?

I prefer that if removing Saddam Hussein was a good enough reason to enter Iraq, that it should have been the reason we went into Iraq, not a premise of WMDs. So to answer your question:

"Do you really need an excuse to overthrow a dictator?"

Yes. Yes apparently you do.

Victor

snafuk35 wrote: »

He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people

So you think it was a good idea to kill more? The Bush administration created a firestorm to draw in radicals and killed a million people in the process. It wasn't a war of liberation. Liberation was a side show, one of the small acts not good enough to make the big tent.

Honestly, your posts come across as a little obsessive and somewhat uninformed (Hitler was a socialist, all bombings in Iraq were by al Qaeda).

Anyway, McCain, why are we listening to the loser again?

Matt Holck

because we hope that a leading party in bipartisan system might have some wisdom and value

snafuk35

Victor wrote: »

So you think it was a good idea to kill more? The Bush administration created a firestorm to draw in radicals and killed a million people in the process. It wasn't a war of liberation. Liberation was a side show, one of the small acts not good enough to make the big tent.

Honestly, your posts come across as a little obsessive and somewhat uninformed (Hitler was a socialist, all bombings in Iraq were by al Qaeda).

Anyway, McCain, why are we listening to the loser again?

Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia militias killed all those people - were you asleep when all those beheaded and tortured corpses were turning up on city streets or when suicide bombers were killing hundreds ever single day?

Do you think that the US should have just pulled out and left the Iraqis to be ruled by Islamist terrorists and for Iraq vast oil resources to fall into their hands so they could fund terror around the world?
I also said in a previous post that Hitler was a national socialist - that's what nazi means or didn't you know?
Saddam Hussein was also a national socialist.

snafuk35

You have no profound idea of what I would have complained about prior to the September 11 attacks, were I anything more than an adolescent when it happened.

Surely having read about the world before September you would have an idea?

I prefer that if removing Saddam Hussein was a good enough reason to enter Iraq, that it should have been the reason we went into Iraq, not a premise of WMDs.

Who cares? Aren't you happy the dictator was overthrown regardless? Why would you care if no WMD were found?

Yes. Yes apparently you do.

I don't care that no WMD were found.
Saddam Hussein was a fascist genocidal psychotic dictator.
That's reason enough to take him out.

Overheal

snafuk35 wrote: »

Surely having read about the world before September you would have an idea?

Yes I have, and like Charlie Wilson, I don't understand why we cut and run from Afghanistan; but I think we should have outed Saddam a long time ago. And again, your insinuation that my opinion on these matters is Sudden, is entirely uninformed: you have no basis or authority to speak about my beliefs or when I had them. You've been here for all of a week, if that.

Who cares? Aren't you happy the dictator was overthrown regardless? Why would you care if no WMD were found?

I don't care that no WMD were found.
Saddam Hussein was a fascist genocidal psychotic dictator.
That's reason enough to take him out.

I like how you flippantly shift between the idea that we didn't need an excuse to overthrow Saddam, and the idea that we couldn't ignore the number of deaths, and yet you even still flip to ignoring the fact that we did both things: Ignored the problem for decades, and then created a fabrication about WMDs when it suited us.

Considering our need to lie to ourselves about all things middle eastern: why should we believe a known liar like John McCain when he says we need to stay in Iraq?

Victor

snafuk35 wrote: »

Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia militias killed all those people - were you asleep when all those beheaded and tortured corpses were turning up on city streets or when suicide bombers were killing hundreds ever single day?

For a proportion of the time, yes I was asleep.

However, I get the distinct impression that Shia militias disproprotionately went for shootings as opposed to bombings, as a lot of their motivation was for revenge. Sunni militias went disproprotionately for bombing, as they had access to military explosives from the former regime. Al-Qaeda types and Rag tag mad at the world / the Great Satan types went for whatever they could get their hands on.

Do you think that the US should have just pulled out and left the Iraqis to be ruled by Islamist terrorists and for Iraq vast oil resources to fall into their hands so they could fund terror around the world?

No. They should never have gone there in the first place or more real poliitik gone for a stategy that would minimise casulaties, e.g. (a) target regime figures only (b) go in with enough strenght to control the country, i.e. at least 250,000 troops not 125,000, (c) engage in proper anti-proliferation measures (d) not fire the Iraqi army, resulting in 500,000 angry, frustrated people with too many guns, no income and nothing to do.

I also said in a previous post that Hitler was a national socialist - that's what nazi means or didn't you know?

But you don't seem to understand that the Nazis were essentially top down corporatists with distinct bigotry element. It had nothing to do with socialism. In fact socialists were one of their earlier targets.

Saddam Hussein was also a national socialist.

Saddam Hussein was a violent power freak. The Baathist party / Iraqi state policies were somewhere along the line of authoritarian socialism, although some Iraqis more more equal than others.

The only real common ground they had was violent authoritarianism.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Since when is it not both the duty and in the interests of the US to remove fascist dictators from power?????

You are totally right. It is their duty.

So, when is the liberation of North Korea on the cards? Not much oil, I know...

Overheal

Saddam Hussein was also a national socialist.

Saddam Hussein was a fascist genocidal psychotic dictator.

Well which was it: was he a National Socialist or was he a Fascist? You seem to be changing your story.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Overheal wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was also a national socialist.

Saddam Hussein was a fascist genocidal psychotic dictator.

Well which was it: was he a National Socialist or was he a Fascist? You seem to be changing your story.

He was a National Socialist Fascist Genocidal Psychotic Neurotic Commie-Nazi Pinko Liberal Atheist Dictator.

And that was just on Sundays!

snafuk35

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You are totally right. It is their duty.

So, when is the liberation of North Korea on the cards? Not much oil, I know...

America should indeed take out Kim and free the North Koreans. Why not?

snafuk35

Overheal wrote: »

Well which was it: was he a National Socialist or was he a Fascist? You seem to be changing your story.

National socialism and fascism are one and the same.

If you want to split hairs go ahead.

Aren't you glad Saddam is overthrown? Why do you have a problem with this?

snafuk35

No.

So you agree that they shouldn't have pulled out.

They should never have gone there in the first place or more real poliitik gone for a stategy that would minimise casulaties

Thousands of people were being murdered by Saddam year on year on year. Doing nothing was costing lives.

(a) target regime figures only

If regime figures are defended by thousands and thousands of troops you are going to have fight through them to get to the regime figures.
That's why dictators usually have great big armies and lots of guns.

(b) go in with enough strenght to control the country, i.e. at least 250,000 troops not 125,000

The American ground offense plan was travel light and move fast and race to Baghdad. If they had twice as many troops they would have moved slower and Saddam might have had time to slow them up and inflict more casualties.
But I agree that they should have flooded the country with troops once they had toppled the regime.

(c) engage in proper anti-proliferation measures

Once a regime has weapons or is suspected of having weapons that doesn't work. You have to use force if the regime does not co-operate. Saddam did not co-operate and the only reason we now know for sure he had no WMD is because of the invasion.

(d) not fire the Iraqi army, resulting in 500,000 angry, frustrated people with too many guns, no income and nothing to do.

The Iraq Army was already fired. They either died in battle or they threw away their uniforms and weapons. Regardless if the Americans and British had kept the remains of the Iraqi Army together, thousands of Iraqis, Shia and Sunni would gone to war with eachother and gone to war with the coalition forces.

Since 2003 an Iraqi Army has been rebuilt from the ground up and now Iraqi politicians and military leaders want the US to stay longer and not to pull out too soon.

Matt Holck

snafuk35 wrote: »

America should indeed take out Kim and free the North Koreans. Why not?

because Russia and China dictate there own backyard policy

Duke Leonal Felmet

snafuk35 wrote: »

America should indeed take out Kim and free the North Koreans. Why not?

I agree, to a certain extent.






































































But its not going to happen... and we both know why.

Matt Holck

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

Apocalypse Now Gasoline Smell =Victory

oh wait
I heard a complaint about posting articles without adding ones own reflection

so North Korea doesn't have oil
so no profit is gained in fighting them
or
fighting North Korea could be another Vietnam war
unending and ultimately without victory
like the Korean War before



Oil may be why troops have not been withdrawn from Iraq

hangon

It is astonishing to read that some people still defend the invasion of Iraq.
America had no excuse and the WMDs did not exist.

Afghanistan was a whole new ballgame and as Pakistan has shown in the last weeks they cannot be trusted to fight the *Global war on terror* as Americans perceive it.

Obama has the right idea,get out and work hard on damage limitation and save billions of $ on Countries who will always be *friends of convenience*
much as i would hate it to happen it seems to me that the US has nowhere to go now than to protect itself.

Matt Holck

Why didn't US remote robot planes spot Bin Laden earlier?

because they were following orders