News & Politics - Iraq War - New Developments, and what they might mean

***4N6 DNA*** · 03-21-2004, 07:26 AM

I hope that I am not horribly redundant in my attempts to start a thread about the war. I was hoping to get some ideas and opinions on the new developments around the world. Any ideas about what the bombings in Spain, the elections, and other recent news mean for Bush and the war in Iraq?

Long before the whole campaigning started I had a conflict about this war in Iraq. Not because of the lack of real reason to go to war, or the reality of how many people have been killed, but because I thought that it was always best to avoid war if it is possible � and it certainly was. I had not the slightest idea about what was really behind the war only that war was bad. Then once we hopped into the war, I was obligated to support it because my boyfriend is over there fighting it. This upset me because of my view on wars and the need to be supportive conflicting. I was proud of him because he was over there to make a difference, to protect our countries from �weapons of mass destruction.� When they told me he was going to need to stay over there longer, I bargained that if something should happen to him, then I know that it was for a good cause. I also supported it because I felt that if the government went to war, there was good reason, and that there was nothing to do but see what happens.

I think that it is just ridiculous now. With elections creeping around the corner and candidates at each other�s throats, there is a lot being dug up about the Bush administration�s reasons and resources for going to war (or lack thereof.) I am shocked to have read about some of the things that I have read about. Such things like the real reasons, the unprepared nature that we carried this war out with and such.

It is obvious that Bush and Kerry are on opposite ends with their opinions on this war. I am led to believe that with Bush in office, we will be staying in Iraq, but with Kerry, we would be opting out of there as soon as possible. I am sick of this war, and the daily killings that we have had to put up with. To be honest, I am very glad about the turn of events that have become of many of the countries that used to support us. Spain and Poland and some others countries newly developed opposition to the war as an example. I certainly do not wish to be negative towards any of the troops that are in Iraq now. I salute them. I must admit, it is unfortunate that these decisions to pull out are being made while our time in Iraq is being extended. I don't know if that is going to bode well for our troops there. But I think this is a necessary slap in the face that America needs right now.

I was also wondering if anyone could share ideas that other countries have on new developments, or the war in general?

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Maggie aka Sarah · 03-21-2004, 05:35 PM

BuffyAngelFan04: I am all for the concept of peace... but at the same time the photographs that I saw of dead Kurdish women and children who were gased by Saddam Huissein a number of years ago are seared into my brain.

As for the WMD whatever... from what I have read there probably was a lot of false intelligence being purposely spread about how Iraq had WMD. Also... Iraq being a relatively large country... and given the long lead time to the war... in my opinion, it is very likely that WMD got moved to another country. Along with a whack of money, etc.

Also by my understanding the UN and a lot of the world community were not against going to war with Iraq... but were voicing their opinions that a war with Iraq should be one sanctioned by the UN.

I'm Canadian... and by my memory the Canadian government just prior to the war with Iraq was stating that Canada would participate if the war was sanctioned by the UN.

Also the UN was in discussions about whether to go to war with Iraq because it appeared that Saddam Huissein was contravening and obstructing the UN weapons inspection program. In my opinion, it's very possible that even if the US hadn't decided to attack Iraq with the coalition it formed, that the UN would have come to the same conclusion within a few weeks, or months. Which would have probably provided less scope for the blame the Americans for all sorts of stuff whatever.

But the stuff that has already happened has already happened. I think that moving forward is the best way to go... for any country.

And I think that at this point in time that the most viable way to move forward would be to have the security whatevers in Iraq overseen by the UN.

Note that I can understand in some ways the US government's original reluctance to wait for the UN to sanction the Iraq war a year ago... because the UN does have a whack of dictatorships as member states. I also am of the opinion that at least a part of France, Germany and even Canada's reluctance to go to war with Iraq, was related to the whatever that France and Germany had business dealings concerning oil with Iraq and that Jean Chretien... the Prime Minister of Canada at that point in time... has relatives through marriage who had business dealings of the oil related type with Iraq.

Any ways... I have the notion that whether Bush, or Kerry will be elected that the US military will probably remain in Iraq for at least a couple of years... but that the military presence will be labelled a UN Peacekeeping force and that more other countries will be involved.

And by my understanding... the opinion of a lot of Iraqis is that they don't want the American military to be in Iraq... but that at the same time that they don't want the US to leave just yet because of the worries about security.

And it is also obvious that a lot of Americans don't want to be bogged down in a dangerous situation in Iraq and also don't want the US to be labelled as being imperialistic.

Yep... me thinks that arranging that the UN be responsible for providing the people of Iraq with security... until some point in time where the Iraqis can provide their own security... would be the way to go. And if the UN were to be in charge of PEACE KEEPING... in Iraq... then perhaps some of the neighbouring Arab states could also provide peace keeping forces along with European and other countries whose populace wouldn't support an occupation type whatever but would support a peace keeping mission that had the approval of the UN.

Maggie

Enigma, I.C. · 03-21-2004, 09:39 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/ira...ons/index.html

Quote:

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.

Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."

Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."

Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.

"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.

"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.

Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

JohannafromIHJ · 03-22-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maggie aka Sarah:
<STRONG>As for the WMD whatever... from what I have read there probably was a lot of false intelligence being purposely spread about how Iraq had WMD. Also... Iraq being a relatively large country... and given the long lead time to the war... in my opinion, it is very likely that WMD got moved to another country. Along with a whack of money, etc.</STRONG>

I'm sure a lot fo money was stashed away... But as for the VMDs, I can't help but think that if they were in fact real, and moved to another country - someone should have told the US something by now, if only to save their own skins. Sort of like, "Don't kill me and I'll tell you where the VMDs are," you know?

And they've got Saddam. He's quite possibly one of the most selfish men on the planet - wouldn't he try to use the VMDs' location as something he could trade for something (such as his neck)?

*Sarah Marie* · 03-30-2004, 11:43 AM

I hate this whole war thing... especially since my husband is in the military... so he could get orders at any time to go over there. I just want this to be over... I dunno what the presidential election is gonna mean for the war... this is my first year being able to vote... so I still have to like.. watch Bush and Kerry on TV and find out what their views are on whats going on... I*m all for the war to just be over. I don*t wanna see anymore of the friends me and Michael have made to be to sent over to Iraq. I hate that we*re not having to pay for this war now... but we*re gonna end up paying for it big time in about 10 years...

StellaSlight · 03-31-2004, 12:45 PM

Latest News from Iraq.
Extract from CNN :

Quote:

Four U.S. civilians killed in Iraq
Residents hang bodies from bridge
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Posted: 1:04 PM EST (1804 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Suspected insurgents killed four American civilian contractors in a grenade attack Wednesday in central Iraq, U.S. officials said.

Cheering residents in Fallujah pulled charred bodies from burning vehicles and hung them from a Euphrates River bridge.

Crowds gathered around the vehicles and dragged at least one of the bodies through the streets, witnesses said.

Residents pulled another body from one of the cars and beat it with sticks.

Also in the Fallujah region, five American soldiers died in a roadside bombing near Habbaniya, the U.S. military said.

The fatalities bring the U.S. military death toll in Iraq to 600, 408 of them in hostile action.

In the attack on the civilians, witnesses said two Mitsubishi vehicles left a military base east of Fallujah to make their way into the city, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Baghdad.

The vehicles turned onto a Fallujah street as men -- whose faces were covered by headscarves -- split into two groups and threw hand grenades at the cars, witnesses said.

The assailants then sprayed the burning cars with small-arms fire.

Video showed crowds chanting and cheering at the scene, with charred corpses hanging from the bridge over the Euphrates.

The U.S. State Department said the U.S. citizens worked for a company contracted by the coalition to work in Iraq.

Fallujah is part of al Anbar province in the "Sunni Triangle," a region north and west of the capital that has been a hotbed of opposition to the U.S. presence.

The White House condemned the "horriffic attacks" by people "trying to prevent democracy from moving forward," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

A changeover of power from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Marines is under way in al Anbar.

"There's a small core element [in Fallujah] that doesn't seem to get it," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, an Army spokesman who confirmed the four killed in the two-vehicle convoy were not military personnel.

Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor said those who exulted over the attack "are not people we are here to help. They are people who have a much different vision for the future of Iraq and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis."

Also Wednesday, two bodyguards for the governor of Diala province and three civilians were wounded in Baqubah, north of Baghdad, when an attacker pulled a car up beside the governor's car and detonated a bomb, Kimmitt said.

The bomb damaged vehicles and a building, but the governor was unharmed, he said.

In other violence Wednesday, three British troops were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near the southern Iraqi city of Basra, a British Defense Ministry spokesman said.

I've read the news earlier, but I just saw the shocking images on TV. Watching the corpses dragged and hung on the bridge made my stomach twist.

Saddam's capture DID NOT decrease the violence in Iraq, and one year after the start of the war in Iraq, the world IS NOT safer.

[ 03-31-2004: Message edited StellaSlight ]

mh67511 · 03-31-2004, 01:03 PM

That's digusting.

It's sad to think that animals like these still exist in this day and age.

It will be a good day when the world is rid of FREAKS like these.

Katis · 03-31-2004, 02:57 PM

My mom just told me about this on the phone. It's sick. These people they killed weren't even U.S. military. And to do that to their bodies. *shakes head*

Lady Dragonair · 03-31-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

But I think this is a necessary slap in the face that America needs right now.

I think so too. Bush was just all Gung Ho to go to war. I honestly believe there were no WMD's and this war was not the way to go. I have close friends in the military and I am glad that they are ok. The UN needs to make a decision regarding putting troops from different countries there to help with security in Iraq or they need to pull our troops out.

SuperDeluxe · 04-01-2004, 10:17 AM

Ugh..watching those scenes of non military folks being burnt and drag through the streets..and then hung..and beat with shoes.

Made me sick..and Pissed me off. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

StellaSlight · 04-01-2004, 03:27 PM

Analysis on why Falluja and its region is so opposed to the US occupation. From BBC :

Quote:

Falluja : American Graveyard

bodies of four civilians killed by insurgents, 12-year-old Mohammad Nafik said: "This is the fate of all Americans who come to Falluja."

"Falluja is a cemetery for Americans", militants warn
The town has gained a reputation, particularly in recent weeks, as being one of the most violently opposed to the occupation.

US troops have faced almost daily attacks there, and the recent killing and mutilation of four American civilian contractors - surrounded by a jubilant crowd - marked a new level of violence towards those who represent, or work for, the coalition.

Falluja is in a region that has become known as the "Sunni triangle" - a predominantly Sunni Muslim area in a country with a Shia majority.

The region also incorporates Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit.

As well as being united by religion, there are also important tribal links, and it was from this region that Saddam Hussein (himself a Sunni Muslim - notionally at least) recruited his powerbase of support.

That goes some way towards explaining the anti-coalition hostility in the region.

Revenge

After the invasion, the perks of being looked after by Saddam Hussein disappeared, and the confidence which came from being a powerful minority was replaced by the uncertainty of being simply a minority.

In Falluja itself there is a particularly deep-seated enmity towards the Americans.

Two weeks after the invasion was complete, angry crowds gathered outside a makeshift American barracks in Falluja and shots were fired.

The US troops fired on the crowd and at least 15 Iraqis were killed.

The incident served as a flashpoint, igniting a series of attacks against coalition forces across the region.

Some of the attacks in Falluja since - or at least the support for them - can be attributed to a desire to take revenge for a friend or relative killed by coalition forces.

The US troops who have been responsible for security in the region have had an unenviable task

The Army's 82nd Airborne Division, which had responsibility for Falluja until mid-March, had increasingly left responsibility for patrolling the town centre to Iraqi police, and made only occasional forays into Falluja.

But US Marines have now taken over and adopted a much more high-profile approach to tackling the insurgents.

They have conducted raids on various parts of the town looking for weapons, and had frequent running battles with guerrillas.

Crossfire

Although several Marines have been killed, the Iraqi casualty figure has been much higher.

Some 30 are thought to have been killed in the last two weeks of March alone.

Many were simply caught in crossfire, and inevitably, that continues to fuel the tensions.

It seems likely that the Marines decided not to intervene in the grisly violence in Falluja on 31 March simply because the contractors were already dead, and entering the town risked making a bad situation even worse.

But the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has said "the attacks will not go unpunished".

Further clashes seem inevitable, not least because the Americans cannot afford to have Falluja seen as a no-go area, successfully challenging their authority.

Paul Bremer, has pledged to bring to justice the killers of the civilians. I wonder what he'll do to the hundreds of Iraqis that performed the atrocities on the bodies.

I've also seen on TV that there has been another attack today, still in Falluja, on US soldiers this time. Looks like no one had been killed, but severely injured.

sum1 · 04-01-2004, 04:15 PM

What we have here is a manifestation of the anger of a minority who, thanks to the US, are no longer able to dominate over the majority. That's what the killing and the crowds gloating over it was about. It's not about the feelings of the majority of the Iraqi people.

[ 04-01-2004: Message edited sum1 ]

StellaSlight · 04-01-2004, 08:28 PM

Actually it'd be too easy to say that it's a mere minority. Saddam loyalists may not be the only people behind recent attacks on U.S. soldiers in that area. Political observers believe that the local Sunni population is dissatisfied with U.S. reconstruction efforts and is mounting its own hit-and-run attacks against American forces. And the problem is that this dissactisfaction is spreading more and more thanks to the religion. Most of the religious leaders have already been preaching against their common enemy : the US.

The increased anti-Americanism was summarized by a local, Jasam Hamed: "We don't have any issues with the Americans. The Americans say they came here to get rid of Saddam but they haven't done anything for us. All they do is come with their guns and point them at us."

The images of the mutilation of the bodies were performed by a huge crowd, not a handful of men, and the cheers spread to big cities like Tikrit. This was the population, not the militia, that performed the atrocities, and it's all the more horrifying. And what a population : the Sunni triangle regroups a huge part of the Iraqi population (not only Sunnis but also Shi'ites) that shouldn't be dismissed because of their number but also because of their strategical position and their high position in Iraq's politics and eocnomy. The most scary thing is that the old rivalry between the different ethnics (Sunni and Shia population) is gone as long as everyone is reunited against the US occupation. Let's not forget that back in April 2003, 10,000 of Iraqis in Badghdad were already protesting against the US occupation, holding up a banner that read �No Shi'ites, No Sunnis, Yes Yes for United Islam."

And last thing about the "the anger of a minority who, thanks to the US, are no longer able to dominate over the majority" comment, which, as I understood (but maybe I'm wrong? that is to be clarified), was refering to the Sunni-Shi'i relations in Iraq for the past decades. Sure, I'm glad that the Shi'ites of Iraq aren't persecuted by Saddam anymore. But I didn't know that Americans went to Iraq to save the Shi'ites from the Sunnis. That's very chivalrous, especially when one considers that the US has made a point, for the past 30 years, of demonizing Shia Muslims, particularly due to the intransigence of Iran when it comes to US requirements for the Middle East. So, the Sunnis, who were once the US friends especially in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, are now the new evil-doers, while the Shia (who hadn't forgotten the hostility of the US attacks on the Lebanese Hizbullah, its past support to Saddam Hussein or its close relations with Saudi Arabia, also seen as approval for extremist Sunni movements like the Afghan mojahedin) are the one to be saved?

mh67511 · 04-02-2004, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StellaSlight:
<STRONG> �No Shi'ites, No Sunnis, Yes Yes for United Islam."</STRONG>

Now that is a scary thought, IMO...

SuperDeluxe · 04-02-2004, 09:29 AM

I'm all down for united Islam, in a moderate islamic state ruled by a democracy like Turkey.