Iraq Issues

[Gobalopper]

Big update:

Reformist MPs call for restoring relations with US

Oil scandal billionaire tells French court of bribes

I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world

Galloway declares 'war' on Blair

Galloway suspended by Labour Party

France helped Iraqis escape

U.S. captured 'Mrs. Anthrax' after Syria expelled her

A Greenspan for Iraq

RAIDERS OF THE LOST TALMUD

Does Accounting For Saddam's WMD Matter?

New World for Iraqi '80s POWs

Getting It Wrong on Purpose

'Comical Ali' makes musical debut

Likely Iraqi Leader: Belarus Aided Saddam

Most Iraqi Treasures Are Said to Be Kept Safe

Ashcroft Says U.S. Will Aid Effort to Save Iraq Treasures

Olympics' Ethics Panel Proposes Disbanding of Iraqi Committee

Soccer Players Describe Torture by Hussein's Son

[Gobalopper]

Report: Special Forces tracking Saddam in northern Iraq

Thousands of Iranian fighters in Iraq agree to surrender

Radioactive sources found at Iraqi site

Hardliners 'make Iran risk fate of dictator'

Syrian Reforms Gain Momentum In Wake of War

Al-Kut regime leader in U.S. custody

[SurlyPIG]

Great links as usual Gob. I think its hilarious how nobody in opposition of the war posts about them...if they even read them...

[Gobalopper]

Yep its always good to keep informed, even if you don't agree with what happened.

[Gobalopper]

Huge mass grave found in Iraq

U.S. captures 'Dr. Germ'

[TMA_1]

Wow, I read many of those links, and I must say that it kinda changed my mind about the effort over in Iraq. Its only a matter of time before WMD's are found. Frankly, I dont think Saddam used them during the uprooting of his government because he knew it was better to be safe then sorry, which is why he purposely never used the WMD's and just hid them somewhere. Saddam is not a stupid guy, and must have known that at least it was a possibility of him losing the war.(which he must have known could have been a reality, and obviously was) Without using those WMD's that I think he has hidden away, America now looks bad because it seems that we attacked another evil nation with just assumptions, and to the international community, bad ones at that.

[Egeides]

ACE:

I read about them as for the rest but it's exactly as I thought... Iraq may or may not have what it already had, but it got it from USA. Now if it has atomics, up to be seen. But wether it has it or not, I think USA attacked without having "evidence" of it. Thus the intention was not right, and petroleum will (I expect) go in favor of US corporate interests. Contracts were already given and so far the richest people of USA get the big deal.

Like I'm saying, Saddam IS a bad person, a monster. But it's a monster that wouldn't be without USA.

[SurlyPIG]

And you think it's acceptable to sit here and argue the finest of fine points of morality and procedure given all that we know, all that is sensical and all that is likely while twenty-five million people suffer in tyranny? And don't give me any nonsense about living under the US being worse than living under Saddam...You know as well as I do that, from the Iraqi's perspective, it's a breath of fresh air compared to inhaling nitrous acid. Saddam's regime murdered one hundred and sixty Iraqi's per day on AVERAGE for political reasons (through means such as humans being shoved feet-first through a plastic-grinder or the dismembered body parts of Saddam's enemies showing up on their family's doorstep). The US has been in there how long and how many civillians have died?

[Gobalopper]

Egeides the entire Iraqi arsenal did not come from the US and the US is far from being the leading weapons supplier. The US stopped supporting Saddam's regime shortly after they realized he was pretty much insane. There has been evidence of chemicals in Iraq, like the Tigris river showing high levels of toxicity before the US took Baghdad, and the more recent possible mobile bio weapons facilities. The question you should be asking is where did all the weapons go?

Powell explained in detail what the US believed Iraq had, why would he lie about that when the chances of them attacking Iraq were pretty high? It would be pretty stupid for them to make up weapons and then find there was none. Why wasn't Saddam revealing everything if that was the case? If there was nothing to hide why did he hinder the inspectors? There has been reports of Saddam destroying some of his stockpiles before the US took control and even before the war started there was talk of some of it being moved to Syria. That isn't hard to believe either since Syria was harbouring Iraqi officials until just recently after saying they had none.

First the war was about oil and how it was going to go through the roof and make Bush's buddies billions. Well so much for that idea gas is back down to levels before they even were talking about the war. The prices were higher before the war started, if the US was doing this to get millions in oil money it would make more sense to keep the markets guessing if war was coming. Iraq is going to provide lots of oil and the Iraqi people aren't going to be happy if all of that money leaves the country, they aren't stupid, and they won't tolerate another occuping force.

But keep coming up with new things that are going wrong, I'll keep enjoying all the good this has done for both the Middle East and most importantly the people of Iraq.

[Digital Guerrilla]

This makes no sense to me it is as bad as something Saddam Hussein would do. Shooting looters is not a good idea there has to be a better way to regain control.

Looter's to be shot on site under new security measures

[Gobalopper]

The change is that they are now allowed to shoot at looters. Before they couldn't do anything unless fired upon.

It just means the soldiers now have the option of using force if the looters aren't cooperating becuase they are now facing organized gangs doing the looting/crime. There isn't going to be some sort of mass execution of looters.

Here is a quote from the man himself explaining the change:

"The forces there will be using muscle to see that the people who are trying to disrupt what's taking place in that city are stopped and either captured or killed," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

I'm more inclined to take Rumsfeld's word then an "official" who attended a meeting. :)

And here is another from a credited source:

In Baghdad, military officials responded to a New York Times report that looters will be shot on sight by stressing that the rules of engagement have always permitted an armed response.

"We're not going to shoot children," said Maj. Gen. Buford Blount III, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, "but our soldiers have the right to defend themselves." He said that until recently, the level of crime did not warrant shooting civilians.

[zamboe]

The change is that they are now allowed to shoot at looters. Before they couldn't do anything unless fired upon.

It just means the soldiers now have the option of using force if the looters aren't cooperating becuase they are now facing organized gangs doing the looting/crime. There isn't going to be some sort of mass execution of looters.

I seriously doubt that under this recently change of policy of shooting looters, is going to be a rational use of it when it comes to coalition forces.

[Digital Guerrilla]

That is why I disagree with the issue to shot looters of course you shot back at any organized group firing at you but this could add to political problems already in Iraq over coalition occupation.

[nemafakei]

"Tigris river showing high levels of toxicity before the US took Baghdad"

"The question you should be asking is where did all the weapons go?"

Uhh... am I missing something here?

[Gobalopper]

Are you asking if all the weapons went into the river? I doubt it. Hence the rest are somewhere, the question is where and who has them.

[nemafakei]

I'm saying there is no way of knowing that the weapons have no been destroyed, let alone how or when.

[Gobalopper]

Exactly I don't know if the weapons went into the river or not and since we know there were weapons before the war started it would be nice to know what has happened to them since then.

[SurlyPIG]

Like I'm saying, Saddam IS a bad person, a monster. But it's a monster that wouldn't be without USA.

AAAHHH! *bangs head against desk*

Saddam Hussein and his Baathists put THEMSELVES into power years before the US had anything to do with him. The US supported him with minor amounts of weapons for a period during the Iran-Iraq war, (BTW not like you'd know but Iran was far worse than Iraq at the time) and ceased after the gassing of Halabjah. Even if you mean weapons supplies nearly all of Iraqs arms are Soviet. You see Hussein in some mural or picture or see his troops or those Fed Ayin cult guys and they're ALL holding AK-47s. Frankly I wonder if you even care about Iraq at all and aren't just using this as an opportunity to do some American bashing. If you weren't a hypocrit you'd be more vocal about Russia (or even France) and all its done for Iraq.

[Gobalopper]

Reverse Course: Bush Didn't Squander the World's Sympathy. He Spent It

[Gobalopper]

CIA: Iraq's mobile labs were functioning in early 2003

Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war

[zamboe]

Well, CIA as a credible source of information no longer exist. They were so sure of the existance of WoMD that now can't find, and it's been a while since top Irak government members are kept prisioners and coalition forces are in control of Irak, let alone the fake history of Jessica Lynch, made up by the CIA itself.

:O

[Gobalopper]

Hehe I was waiting for you to say that zamboe. ;)

[zamboe]

UK accused of rewriting Iraq intelligence

The British Government has been accused of rewriting intelligence material about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to help bolster the case for war.

[Gobalopper]

Rumsfeld Denies 'False Pretext' for Iraq War

Rumsfeld pushes for regime change in Iran

"Well I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext," Rumsfeld said in comments on the Infinity Radio network.

Rumsfeld said the United States before the war had "good intelligence" about Iraqi weapons and said Iraq had a track record of using chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and against Iran in the 1980s.

"We believed then and we believe now that the Iraqis have had chemical weapons (and) biological weapons and that they had a program to develop nuclear weapons but did not have nuclear weapons. That is what the United Kingdom's intelligence suggested as well. We still believe that," he said.

"Now, why haven't we been able to provide the kind of evidence that would have validated all of that in the last seven weeks?" Rumsfeld asked.

"I think the answers are several reasons. And number one it's not because they're not there," saying Iraq is a large country, about the size of California, that there are hundreds of sites to search and that Saddam hid his weapons.

He also noted that U.S. forces have identified two trailers found in northern Iraq that American intelligence officials say are mobile biological weapons production facilities.

"My personal view is we're going to find them (actual weapons), just as we found these two mobile laboratories," he said. In a speech on Tuesday, Rumsfeld raised the possibility that Iraq had decided to destroy its chemical and biological arms before the war.

Asked whether he was happy with the quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, Rumsfeld did not give a direct answer. "You always wish you had perfect visibility into what's going on in the world," he said, but added "we don't live in a perfect world" and it is difficult to know about "repressive dictatorships and closed societies."

I think I'm going to start a Rumsfeld fan club, anyone want to join? :P

[nampigai]

uhm yea I just love Rumsfeld.

I heard the news to day (oh boy) Wolfowitz actually said that they used the WMD as an excuse to wage war on Iraq, because it was the best excuse to get people in on the idea. If this is true the Danish Premier is dumber than I anticipated.