US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-12-2010, 04:48 PM   #106
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and in other news, i still don't see the case for invading Iraq. it's all predicated on fantasies and imagined worst-case scenarios, rather than concrete facts and evidence.
All the facts and evidence you need is right there in the history of Saddam's 24 years of power. But as long as you remain ignorant of that history, your not going to understand why he had to be removed.

The impact the persian gulf region has on the global economy is NOT a fantasy, nor is the projected impact to the world of being cut off from the energy supply of that region.

Its been US national security policy for over 60 years to prevent the regions resourses from being siezed or sabotoged by hostile or unfriendly forces.


Quote:
we simply don't have the blood and treasure to pour into sand traps, and by doing so we've exposed the limits of US power and greatly reduced our soft power.
This from someone who claimed that Iraq was NOT a real country and should be divided into three seperate countries. LOL Still think that should be done now?

Still think the Surge was a mistake? All the comments about how the US military was incapable of reducing the violence and improving the situation on the ground, and now, we have had 3 years that has resoundedly proved that those who opposed the surge had it wrong all across the board. All the anti-surge crowd has now is the fact that the Iraq currently locked in a political stalemate over the last election. But that will be eventually resolved leaving the anti-surge crowd with nothing.




Quote:
you'd think after all these years and these repetitious posts that someone would be on board. but as the years have gone by, not so much.

guess the argument was weak from the beginning. oh well. now we know.
The fact is, those that supported removing Saddam have seen that happen and those that supported the Surge and other nationbuilding activities as opposed to withdrawal have seen that happen as well. Those that had the opposite view have not seen any of their policy ideas enacted on Iraq.

The only thing that is dumb and repetitious are people that today are still narrowly focused on "not finding WMD after the war" as the reason, and essentially only reason the United States should not have removed Saddam in March 2003.

It does not get much weaker than that which is why the majority of the US military does not agree with that position(according to Military Times Polls) and why a growing number of the general public do not agree with it either.





Finally, could you please convince us all why you think Saddam would make a better leader than either Malaki or Allawi?
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 04:56 PM   #107
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Perhaps you're right. Could you provide me a link to an article that describes Iraq's use of WMD against another country?
Defense.gov News Article: Iraq and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Quote:
The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

One survivor described a rolling cloud of gas enveloping his position in 1985. When the cloud of death rolled away, he was one of 3,000 casualties of the Iraqi attack.

__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 05:10 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:54 PM
^Hmmm.

I actually didn't know that Iraq used gas during the Iran-Iraq War. I did know that Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Perhaps I'd better clarify. I don't think that there was any danger of Saddam using WMD directly against us. And since the Gulf War, I'm pretty sure Saddam hadn't used WMD.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 05:52 PM   #109
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
^Hmmm.

I actually didn't know that Iraq used gas during the Iran-Iraq War. I did know that Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Perhaps I'd better clarify. I don't think that there was any danger of Saddam using WMD directly against us. And since the Gulf War, I'm pretty sure Saddam hadn't used WMD.

Well, if that were the case, the US military would not have put on their chemical protection gear at the start of the invasion 2003 or during the 1991 Gulf War. The gear is difficult to operate in and does to a small degree reduce the effectivness of forces that have to remain fully suited or nearly fully suited up.

Also, prior to the start of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam's Republican guard divisions stationed in Kuwait or on the Iraq/Kuwait border did recieve sarin gas to be used in artillery shells. Do to the limited range of artillery, there was no chance of using it until the start of the ground war, which only lasted 4 days. It was not used, but then again Iraqi artillery fire was limited during the ground war because unknown to the Republican guard divisions, the main thrust of the Desert Storm offensive came from the desert area of western Saudi Arabia and not up through Kuwait as they had planned. So the fact it was not used may have simply been do to inability to quickly detect and target allied ground units and the rapid pace of the ground war. The fact that the such munitions were stored on the battlefield does suggest they may have been willing to use them.

A bit strange that you just learned for the first time that Saddam actually used WMD against another country, yet, you remain totally convinced that there was no danger from Saddam using WMD's against the United States or other countries. It does not seem to have impacted your assessment of the danger.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 10:15 PM   #110
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 10:16 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.
nah, it's still not really doing it for me.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 10:25 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!
"the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region"

I used to think that but now I think they just had a crap strategy.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 10:48 PM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
nah, it's still not really doing it for me.


it's just a series of rationalizations for a big mistake. i mean, wouldn't you do the same if reality had proved you so resoundingly wrong?

violence in Iraq is increasing, and it's only going to get worse when the US -- bankrupt as we are -- pulls out in 2011. the point of "the surge" was never to reduce violence, which it did for a while, but to create the stability for non-sectarian political reconciliation so that the US could leave without a bloodbath.

i wish "the surge" had worked. i really do. but the fact remains that Iraq remains Iraq, which is to say a "country" that, so far, can only be held together by an iron fist.

after all this blood and treasure, only Iran's interests have been advanced. and the Iraqis want us to stay until 2020.

this is how Empires die.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2010, 08:29 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
A bit strange that you just learned for the first time that Saddam actually used WMD against another country, yet, you remain totally convinced that there was no danger from Saddam using WMD's against the United States or other countries. It does not seem to have impacted your assessment of the danger.
I guess I'm strange then. . .

No, it does not impact my assessment of the danger. Would there be any point in me explaining why?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 09:58 AM   #115
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I guess I'm strange then. . .

No, it does not impact my assessment of the danger. Would there be any point in me explaining why?
Well, to use weapons of mass destruction against another country is considered in international relations to be a very serious and threatening action and has impacted most people's assessments on Saddam's regime.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 10:37 AM   #116
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's just a series of rationalizations for a big mistake. i mean, wouldn't you do the same if reality had proved you so resoundingly wrong?
Resoundingly wrong how? The history about Saddam's regime which you seem to remain ignorant of is a fact. The condition of the sanctions and weapons embargo, the primary means of containing him had collapsed as has been factually shown.

The one thing you continued to be wedded to is finding or not finding WMD weapons after Saddam's removal. But the necessity of removing Saddam never depended on those results.

Everything else continues to be on track in terms of rebuilding and developing Iraq.

Quote:
violence in Iraq is increasing, and it's only going to get worse when the US -- bankrupt as we are -- pulls out in 2011.
The general trend in Iraq since the surge is that violence is decreasing. So far this year, Iraq has had several months where the murder rate was lower than the murder rate in the United States, November 09 and January 10 specifically. More importantly, the Iraqi security forces have finally been developed enough that they are now providing security for the entire country. The US military is only helping with logistics, planning, intelligence, and special operations and some limited air support.

Quote:
the point of "the surge" was never to reduce violence, which it did for a while, but to create the stability for non-sectarian political reconciliation so that the US could leave without a bloodbath.
Reducing violence is part of creating stability. Its absurd for anyone to state that the surge did not involve reducing violence. There has been enormous political reconciliation among the various factions since 2006. Allawi, Maliki, Sadr, and the Kurds have all been meeting and discussing ways to get a new government going since the elections. Allawi, a Shia, is the leader of the winning party in the election which has majority sunni support. Maliki's own coalition is also very mixed.

Quote:
i wish "the surge" had worked. i really do.
LOL You were solidly opposed to it, and continually claimed that it was not succeeding in doing anything except increasing US casualties. You described it as a failure despite facts that showed it was not.

Of course, every time there is a sudden spike in violence, or a political impasse, there is an attempt to resurect these ideas.

But most people can see the general trend that Iraq is going in political, economic, and security development.

Quote:
but the fact remains that Iraq remains Iraq, which is to say a "country" that, so far, can only be held together by an iron fist.
You would describe Malaki as holding Iraq together with an Iron fists?!

Do you still think Iraq should be split into three different countries?

Quote:
after all this blood and treasure, only Iran's interests have been advanced.
Really? What about Kuwaits interest? Do you think Kuwaits interest would best be served by keeping Saddam in power? What about Saudi Arabia, Israel?

Do you think Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait would prefer Saddam to be the leader of Iraq instead of Malaki or Allawi?

Do you think the United States interest would best be served by keeping a dictator in power that they had already fought on major war against and continued to threaten United States security interest in the region?

Both Malaki and Allawi are not puppets of Iran. Malaki launched the Iraqi 2008 offensive in southern Iraq which dislodged Sadr's militia from several of its strongholds despite Iranian support.

Iran's support has been based around Sadr's party which came in a distant third in the election. Iran has no troops in Iraq and no relationship with the Iraqi military. Iran certainly benefits from the removal of Saddam as do all countries in the region. But it basically stops there.

Iran has also benefited from the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. Strange that this is never brought up.

Quote:
and the Iraqis want us to stay until 2020
Has the United States suffered from having a military presence in Bosnia and Kosovo, that reduces every year as conditions improve?

The Iraqi's may elect to keep to the January 2012 schedule, but it would be wise to have a withdrawal pace that was slower than that. Having 10,000 US troops in country to continue to logistically assist the Iraqi military is not going to crush or end anyones "fantasy empire".
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 10:39 AM   #117
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.
So are you convinced that Saddam would be a better leader of Iraq and more stable and cooperative partner in the region than Malaki? Who do you think would be better for the future of the region and US security interest, Saddam or Malaki?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 12:13 PM   #118
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
So are you convinced that Saddam would be a better leader of Iraq and more stable and cooperative partner in the region than Malaki? Who do you think would be better for the future of the region and US security interest, Saddam or Malaki?
Good Lord, do you actually think I'm interested in debating this with you?? History has proven that utterly pointless.

It's been seven years of you rationalizing this war. This may come as a shock, but your constant repetition of the same rationale over and over and over and over and over again has failed to sway my opinion.

I just think you're wrong.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 12:36 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:54 PM
<--------- remains unconvinced.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 01:42 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:54 PM
60 army recruits killed, 125 wounded

Iraq suicide bomb hits army recruits, kills 60 - World - GMANews.TV - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News

There´s a suicide bomber nearly every fucking day. No good life for Iraqi civilians with all those extremists around.

Saddam was a cruel dictator, but apparently had control by all means because those religious extremists feared him. US troops and new Iraqi troops are both unable to stabilize the country. Civil war for another, say, 10 years?
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com