The Iraq War...

davet82

10 years today believe it or not was the start of the conflict, time flys!

Anyways glad to see they found the weapons of mass destruction and the people of Iraq don't have to live with the threat of violence anymore and the world is now a safer place...

:rolleyes:

admiralofthefleet

America's shame

FatherLen

here are some of the death toll stats.

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

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, iraqis would have been so much better off if saddam had been left in power

**** you bush

sink

Kurds and Shia are largely better off, especially the Kurds. The Sunnis are the big losers.

iDave

Wow 10 years. Remember it was my 18th birthday in the pub seeing the green and black grainy images of Baghdad on the TV screen with explosions happening here and there. I'm 28 today and Iraq is still a mess.

davet82

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah, iraqis would have been so much better off if saddam had been left in power

**** you bush

1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007

I wonder how many saddam would have notched up in that period, it would make you think?

Duggy747

Fùck, 10 years? That would mean 10 years ago today was when I flew out of New York.

Was the same day an American asked me had I ever heard of a game called golf in Ireland (along with electricity in some parts of the country). I was heading home, and I said I'd have the craìc with him.

Told him I never heard of this "Golf?" and that I only came over to send McDonalds hamburgers back home to my family.

Still, I remember seeing the footage of the war kicking off when I was at the airport.

mccarthy37

Saddam was a monster who slaughtered his own people regularly even when he was a friend of the west. There was no conflict of interest when the US were supplying him with arms in the Iran Iraq war which is estimated up to one million people died. I don't mourn his loss but Iraq is still far from a safe place to live in. Oil was the real reason why the Nato forces invaded Iraq with oil production back in full swing. Pity the same cannot be said about the economy.

nelly17

Interestingly since the invasion of Kuwait - more US Service Personell have taken their own lifethan have been killed in the combioned conflicts.

Its thought that this is down to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder & depression etc caused by the cocktail of medication that the troops are given in the field to treat the individual symptoms of PTSD.

So I guess in the end no-one wins - except Haliburton

simon360

Yeah! MURICA!!!!!

danniemcq

I was watching the news that night and sat up to maybe 2 or 3 in the morning watching shock and awe play out live on BBC news.

The then next day I nearly getting expelled from secondary school for wearing a white armband in protest to the start of it,

HUGE fight between me and the Principal about it, eventually he backed down after he claimed the school wasn't political and i countered with i wasn't the school, i was political.

Guess he feared reprisals if i was suspended/expelled so he let me be.

My construction teacher though i wish i could meet him again on this matter. He was convinced that the US was right in the invasion and that it had nothing to do with oil and was all about freedom and wmd's.

Spunge

i skipped school to protest at the dáil. ended up in finglas coz didnt know where the dáil was. got suspended

crockholm

I supported it at the time.



I think I have been proven wrong.




I no longer care about the Arab world,whether they have dictators or not, just steer a wide berth,no intervention anywhere there,let them sort their own problems themselves.Screw this whole white mans burden crap.

summerskin

I marched through London with over a million others to protest. Not just America's shame...

sink

At the time, I took them at their word about WMD's etc,. How naive I was.

mccarthy37

nelly17 wrote: »

Interestingly since the invasion of Kuwait - more US Service Personell have taken their own lifethan have been killed in the combioned conflicts.

Its thought that this is down to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder & depression etc caused by the cocktail of medication that the troops are given in the field to treat the individual symptoms of PTSD.

So I guess in the end no-one wins - except Haliburton

Dick Cheney done well out of Halliburton. Its amazing how many of those who were involved in the planning of this operation have major regrets now. It was clear after a very short space of time to most sane people that their was no WMD. Tony Blair was very big disappointment I really taught there was more substance to him, I wonder deep down does he have any regrets.

Chuck Stone

summerskin wrote: »

I marched through London with over a million others to protest. Not just America's shame...

In fairness, the people of the UK were very much against - more like Tony Blair and Co's shame than the UK's. Robert Fisk wrote that Iraq 2003 was referred to as 'Tony Blair's War' by British Soldiers who were sent out there.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In fairness, the people of the UK were very much against - more like Tony Blair and Co's shame than the UK's. Robert Fisk wrote that Iraq 2003 was referred to as 'Tony Blair's War' by British Soldiers who were sent out there.

It's not just that, if you read Sniper One, which is about a sniper in the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, he was amazed by how little press coverage they received.

The war quickly became an embarrassment, so the amount of sheer hell the troops were going through was swept under the carpet by the Blair spin doctors.

Like many, I supported the war initially, but it soon became obvious it was little more than one man's personal crusade and ego that took a nation to war.

It would have happened without the UK's involvement, but I wish to good it didn't happen at all.

Grayson

davet82 wrote: »

I wonder how many saddam would have notched up in that period, it would make you think?

In the years before the war an average of 5000 people were killed or disappeared every year.

Saddam was a cnut. There's no denying that. But they turned Iraq into a hell hole afterwards.

Seedy Arling

There was a dude on Moncrieff there a while back talking about a squad of British troops, similar to the SAS, who were sent in to Iraq to take control of over one hundred thousand Iraqi troops who were supposed to be surrendering.

The squad arrived over, but surprise surprise, the Iraqi battalion didnt want to surrender. Somehow the British squad got out alive but when they returned home, they were derided in the national press as cowards, even though it was poor intelligence and strategic tom foolery that got them into the mess. Just goes to show how well the press was being manipulated by the government.

I can't remember the name of the book, but it sounded like an interesting read. Professionally speaking it destroyed the soldiers involved through no fault of their own.

the_syco

I was pretty sure America was right about the WMD's, as they had supplied them during the Iraq-Iran war. I wasn't surprised that they were all hidden away, esp when I found out that fcuking civilians were trying to persuade Saddams army to give up before the "war" kicked off. There was no shock and awe; the Iraqis knew the Americans were coming, and they were prepared for it.

morlock_

On tenth anniversary, Israel partisans behind Iraq War still at large

G Power

sink wrote: »

At the time, I took them at their word about WMD's etc,. How naive I was.

and now people are taking politicians and their ilk at their word that they can fix the financial system too, christ on a bike!!!!!!!

G Power

mccarthy37 wrote: »

Dick Cheney done well out of Halliburton. Its amazing how many of those who were involved in the planning of this operation have major regrets now. It was clear after a very short space of time to most sane people that their was no WMD. Tony Blair was very big disappointment I really taught there was more substance to him, I wonder deep down does he have any regrets.

he was quoted very recently that after 10 years he has given up trying to convince people that he was right to get involved in the war in Iraq!! him and his co-conspirators deserve to be hung like Saddam was!!

davet82

Grayson wrote: »

In the years before the war an average of 5000 people were killed or disappeared every year.

Saddam was a cnut. There's no denying that. But they turned Iraq into a hell hole afterwards.

Not denying saddam was an evil bastard at all. It was probably the right thing to do, for the wrong reasons, too late in the day.

Grayson

davet82 wrote: »

Not denying saddam was an evil bastard at all. It was probably the right thing to do, for the wrong reasons, too late in the day.

And done in completely the wrong way.

morlock_

The whole build up to invading Iraq reminds me of the push for war against Iran by the exact same people mentioned in the previous article I linked. This is also a haunting reminder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQdg4D78Jc

Just replace Iraq with Iran and you have the same bloody outcome.

davet82

Spunge wrote: »

i skipped school to protest at the dáil. ended up in finglas coz didnt know where the dáil was

so you wanted to protest about a warzone and then ended up in one, how ironic

Zebra3

Hopefully one day Bush and Blair end up in the Hague.

nelly17

Personally I always found this whole story to be a bit fishy

old hippy

summerskin wrote: »

I marched through London with over a million others to protest. Not just America's shame...

Me too. I think it was well over a million, some estimates have it at around 2 million.

A great day of people power - even if it didn't stop the illegal war.

seamus

At the end of the day I don't have an ideological problem with the US being in Iraq trying to secure some form of peaceful democracy for them.

My real problem with it is that in this case the end most certainly does not justify the means. As davet82 eloquently puts it - it was the right thing, but for the wrong reasons and done in totally the wrong way.

It started because G.W. Bush wanted to settle a grudge against Hussein for the attempt assassination on Bush Snr. This was never originally about terrorism or WMDs or even oil. It was about a fncking world leader using the massive war machine at his disposal to settle a personal grudge. For that alone he should be jailed for the rest of his life.

Then you have conspiracy of disinformation and straight up lies that his government used to justify this war to the American people and to get the support of Blair's government. More people who need to be up in front of an International Court.

After that then it just became a clusterfnck. A commander-in-chief who is a demonstrable idiot coupled with the occupation of a culture who is ideologically opposed to everything that the USA stands for. Even if they "liberated" the Iraqi people, the Islamic culture will not accept their presence. There was no opposition worth speaking of in Iraq which means that when the US tore down the security structures belong to Hussein - police & army - there was nobody there to pick it up. And the US troops were stuck with it.

At least if they'd had UN backing, then the UN could have assisted with security.

kowloon

Supposedly the number of civilians dying before the invasion, from treatable medical conditions rendered untreatable by the embargo, was quite high. Infant mortality being a big killer.
The Iraqi people are getting screwed from every direction.

BillyMitchel

Wow a lot of people saying they supported it, bit surprising TBH.

How did anyone believe the shít Bush and Blair were coming up.

Nodin

mccarthy37 wrote: »

Dick Cheney done well out of Halliburton. Its amazing how many of those who were involved in the planning of this operation have major regrets now. It was clear after a very short space of time to most sane people that their was no WMD. Tony Blair was very big disappointment I really taught there was more substance to him, I wonder deep down does he have any regrets.

Well he did have substance. It just wasn't the same substance people thought was there when they voted for him.

Three Seasons

So after all the accusations that the US were only after oil, did they actually get any oil from Iraq?

morlock_

seamus wrote: »

At the end of the day I don't have an ideological problem with the US being in Iraq trying to secure some form of peaceful democracy for them.

Why do you presume that was their intentions?

It started because G.W. Bush wanted to settle a grudge against Hussein for the attempt assassination on Bush Snr. This was never originally about terrorism or WMDs or even oil. It was about a fncking world leader using the massive war machine at his disposal to settle a personal grudge. For that alone he should be jailed for the rest of his life.

Don't you think you're giving George W. Bush too much credit here?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Philip Zelikow stated in 2002 the invasion was to protect Israel.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

[/FONT]Philip Zelikow was a member of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, authored the National Security Strategy of September 2002 that provided the justification for a preemptive war against Iraq.

So now, do you really think the war was over a personal grudge?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

imtdub

Three Seasons wrote: »

So after all the accusations that the US were only after oil, did they actually get any oil from Iraq?

Few of the assumptions the invasion was based upon have turned out to be accurate. Iraq has not become a major US ally in the Middle East, as the Bush administration believed it would. On the contrary, it is nowadays closer to Iran than the US.

Nor has Iraq become America's big oil provider. American oil companies do have important contracts in Iraq, but so do British, Russian and Chinese companies.

The biggest beneficiaries were probably two US companies: Halliburton, with which former US Vice-President Dick Cheney had had connections, and the security company Blackwater, whose reputation was challenged so often that it is now called Academi, which makes it sound entirely peaceable.

We have long known, of course, that Saddam Hussein was not the strategic threat that the British and American governments claimed in 2002 and 2003. One leading American politician says the Bush administration assured him privately that Saddam's missiles could hit the east coast of the US. The British government claimed at the time that Iraqi missiles capable of hitting British bases in Cyprus could be operational in 45 minutes

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21829269

Zebra3

kowloon wrote: »

Supposedly the number of civilians dying before the invasion, from treatable medical conditions rendered untreatable by the embargo, was quite high. Infant mortality being a big killer.
The Iraqi people are getting screwed from every direction.

Pure scum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

seamus

morlock_ wrote: »

Why do you presume that was their intentions?

It wasn't. It is now, purely because they have no other reason for being there.

So now, do you really think the war was over a personal grudge

Yes. If anyone else but commander cuckoo-bananas had been in charge, I wouldn't.

I think you're giving far too much credit to GWB to think that he had any Israeli interests in mind.

hyperborean

A large-scale survey of Iraqi households by UNICEF, published in 2012, found that between 800,000 and a million Iraqi children under 18 – or about five percent of Iraqi children – have lost one or both of their parents.

Disturbing, shameful, this is what happens when right wing (libertarians and neo cons) nuts get their finger on the trigger......

Wompa1

I don't believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to American shores, to US security...possibly but not certainly. A war effort in Iraq could have been pursued after stressing diplomatic actions first. Unfortunately it seems that the U.N at the time was running a fraudulent aide program with Iraq so how they could have actually discussed a compromise would be anyones guess. Sadam Hussein had not conformed to multiple U.N treaties and also then did not conform to the U.N Weapons inspections in the manner they wished to inspect.

Here would be my questions. It was established that Iraq DID have weapons at one time. There was no proof that they actually disposed of these weapons. Hussein would not provide this proof, no did he state how he disposed of the weapons. It's likely that he sold or moved them to a bordering country but he did not admit to any of that. Even when the strike was 48 hours away and he was warned, he did not come up with anything credible.

So, what happened to the weapons that he did have back in the 90's? Where did they go?

seamus

Wompa1 wrote: »

So, what happened to the weapons that he did have back in the 90's? Where did they go?

Some of them were probably used on internal affairs. Also a surprising amount of weaponry is perishable. Rockets especially won't just sit in a bunker for 20 years waiting to be launched, they need to be maintained and inspected at regular intervals.

The sanctions on Iraq most likely disabled Hussein's ability to maintain anything past a basic arsenal through a lack of equipment and a loss of qualified personnel. The fact that his security forces literally crumbled when the US arrived is testament to this. The insurgents who later surfaced have proven to be better armed than Hussein's security forces because they're being supplied by outside forces.

This lack of weaponry on Iraq's part was well known by the US and UK. Weapons inspectors in Iraq could find nothing. Yet the US continued to insist that he had them

morlock_

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't. It is now, purely because they have no other reason for being there.
Yes. If anyone else but commander cuckoo-bananas had been in charge, I wouldn't.

I think you're giving far too much credit to GWB to think that he had any Israeli interests in mind.

I'm not giving him credit at all, I know the real reason for invading Iraq just as I know the real reason for attacking Iran, Syria, Libya and most likely Saudi Arabia at some point and it has nothing to do with a personal vendetta of George W. Bush.

A 1998 letter from PNAC to Bill Clinton encouraged him to use military force in the removal of Saddam Hussein and not a single bush signature was on that letter, only the names of men with connections to Israel and the defense industry.

The same people pushing for war in Iran are the exact same people that wanted it in Iraq but don't take my word for it, read the letter for yourself.

You can see more of the same when Bush came to power in another letter dated September 20, 2001

Funnily enough, Netanyahu said the attacks on September 11 were "good for Israel" but who knows what he meant, it's a bit vague really, I can't imagine what.


Netanyahu, the same man telling congress there was "no doubt whatsoever" Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme, it certainly a case of deja vu when he talks the same way about Iran.

hyperborean

Wompa1 wrote: »

Here would be my questions.

It was established that Iraq DID have weapons at one time.

Thats not a question, it a statement and has not been proven

Wompa1 wrote: »

There was no proof that they actually disposed of these weapons.

Again leading from an unproven standpoint

Wompa1 wrote: »

Hussein would not provide this proof,

He was the leader of a country, he doesnt have to answer to the USA?

Wompa1 wrote: »

no did he state how he disposed of the weapons.

Again with the imaginary theory

Wompa1 wrote: »

It's likely that he sold or moved them to a bordering country but he did not admit to any of that.

:pac: maybe the syrians have them?

Wompa1 wrote: »

Even when the strike was 48 hours away and he was warned, he did not come up with anything credible.

A violent nation with a history of murder and mayhem made these warnings, what would you do as a leader of a country

Wompa1 wrote: »

So, what happened to the weapons that he did have back in the 90's? Where did they go? .

The ones the Yanks supplied?

moon_man

Zebra3 wrote: »

Hopefully one day Bush and Blair end up in the Hague.

no chance , if obama even supported such a move , the democrats would loose the all important independant vote in america for years , no republican president will ever support a former leader being tried in a foreign court , not going to happen while ameirca is top dog

Wompa1

seamus wrote: »

Some of them were probably used on internal affairs. Also a surprising amount of weaponry is perishable. Rockets especially won't just sit in a bunker for 20 years waiting to be launched, they need to be maintained and inspected at regular intervals.

The sanctions on Iraq most likely disabled Hussein's ability to maintain anything past a basic arsenal through a lack of equipment and a loss of qualified personnel.

Unless they have been maintained. The sanctions were meant to be imposed by an entity which was corrupt. Even if perishable there should be remains of the weapons somewhere? where did they dump them?

davet82

hyperborean wrote: »

:pac: maybe the syrians have them?

i'm pretty sure its the Iranians turn to hold them

Grayson

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to American shores, to US security...possibly but not certainly. A war effort in Iraq could have been pursued after stressing diplomatic actions first. Unfortunately it seems that the U.N at the time was running a fraudulent aide program with Iraq so how they could have actually discussed a compromise would be anyones guess. Sadam Hussein had not conformed to multiple U.N treaties and also then did not conform to the U.N Weapons inspections in the manner they wished to inspect.

Here would be my questions. It was established that Iraq DID have weapons at one time. There was no proof that they actually disposed of these weapons. Hussein would not provide this proof, no did he state how he disposed of the weapons. It's likely that he sold or moved them to a bordering country but he did not admit to any of that. Even when the strike was 48 hours away and he was warned, he did not come up with anything credible.

So, what happened to the weapons that he did have back in the 90's? Where did they go?

The weapons he had in the 90's were either destroyed or got old. Yes, old. A lot of that stuff actually degrades with age.

They never went anywhere, because they didn't exist.

seamus

Wompa1 wrote: »

Unless they have been maintained. The sanctions were meant to be imposed by an entity which was corrupt. Even if perishable there should be remains of the weapons somewhere? where did they dump them?

Probably sold. Or repurposed, steel melts down, fuel can be used to make weapons.

Sorry, I edited my post probably after you read it. Multiple weapons inspections in Iraq found nothing. Hussein really had nothing to disprove as there was no evidence they had WMDs.

Just because he previously had them, doesn't mean he is required to account for them later on when they can't be found.