THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican

So there was no reason for us to invade Iraq. She had no WMD's. It mattered little if Saddam wanted sanctions lifted because wanting and getting are two different things.

There were three valid reasons for going into Iraq. Regardless of what were the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq, the three valid reasons were to stop the al Qaeda buildup in Iraq, remove al-Qaeda from Iraq, and establish a government of Iraq that would in future prohibit al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

The Bush administration's failure to accomplish these three objectives does not render them less valid. The problem is the validity of the Bush administation's choice of tactics for accomplishing these three objectives and not the validity of these three objectives.

Saddam was a counterweight to Iran. Saddam was fighting Shiite insurgents that were being armed and trained by Iran. Iraq main focus was on her principle enemy, Iran. With a no-fly zone in the north and south; being prevented from sending troops into Kurd territory and the threat of any of Iraq's armed forces being bombed to pieces in the south Iraq posed a threat to no one.

Saddam was not prevented by the no-fly zone from going into northeastern Iraq. The no-fly zone was not a no-go zone. This is emphasized by the three US requests to Saddam to extradite the leadership of that al-Qaeda contingent in Iraq, That contingent was established there in December 2001 and subsequently grew rapidly. Obviously, Saddam could not satisfy those US extradition requests without going into the area under the no-fly zone.

A close alliance to Al Qaeda is ridiculous. Saddam was a secular leader. Al Qaeda were religious fanatics. The two had a mutual distrust and dislike for one another. Religious fanatics hate secular people, both in the Muslim and Christian religion. If anything Al Qaead would have liked to see the overthrow of Saddam and its government replaced with a Teliban style of government. Instead they got a major training ground for their terrorist, thanks to Bush.

The Bush administration never claimed there was a close alliance between Saddam and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. Well after 9/11 (October 16, 2002), the Bush administration claimed only that the Saddam regime was allowing al Qaeda sanctuary in northeastern Iraq.

Saddam was an asset for us.
Perhaps Saddam was an assest as a counter balance to Iran. But he wasn't an asset to the Iraqi people, killing almost 4,800 per month from January 1992 to December 2002.

The US has often been validly criticized for previously supporting totalitarian governmemts in the middle east to serve US objectives at the expense of middle eastern lives. We finally began to stop doing that with our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The people living under those totalitarian governents had rightly come to hate us.
...

Saddam was not prevented by the no-fly zone from going into northeastern Iraq. The no-fly zone was not a no-go zone. This is emphasized by the three US requests to Saddam to extradite the leadership of that al-Qaeda contingent in Iraq, That contingent was established there in December 2001 and subsequently grew rapidly. Obviously, Saddam could not satisfy those US extradition requests without going into the area under the no-fly zone.

Perhaps Saddam was an assest as a counter balance to Iran. But he wasn't an asset to the Iraqi people, killing almost 4,800 per month from January 1992 to December 2002.

The US has often been validly criticized for previously supporting totalitarian governmemts in the middle east to serve US objectives at the expense of middle eastern lives. We finally began to stop doing that with our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The people living under those totalitarian governents had rightly come to hate us.

...
"There is none so blind as he who will not see,"
anonymous

Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said. The deteriorating situation in Iraq has undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility and limited the administration's military options, making rogue countries increasingly confident that they can act without serious consequences. Iran, meanwhile, will be watching closely the diplomatic fallout from North Korea's apparent test as a clue to how far it might go with its own nuclear program.

http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-'kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses -"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior

http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: neu·ro·sis
Pronunciation: nu-'rO-s&s, nyu-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural neu·ro·ses -"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: a mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, does not result in disturbance of the use of language, and is accompanied by various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances (as visceral symptoms, anxieties, or phobias)

Seems that "Axis of evil" is rather fitting then, huh?

BBC Four: Having been to all these countries, what is your take on the Axis of Evil?
BA: It's an absolute joke. In some places, Iran for example, it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've got a tiny group of people there, Ayatollah Khomeini's old guard, who control the military, the police and the law courts but are hated by at least 90% of the population.

Most people would love to see these guys go but then George Bush starts saying, "Iran is evil and sponsors terrorism". That old guard can say they were right all along, you can't have dialogue with America, they're imperialist, come with us, fight imperialism. They have actually gained a bit of support.

More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released today by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.
The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush.

The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said "many experts" found that a 2004 study by the same group "wildly inflated the findings." That study said the war had caused 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

"This study appears to be equally flawed," he said. The new study said the deaths have resulted from coalition military activity, crime and religious violence.

Iraq's Health Ministry estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000.

Overall, the analysis estimates that 2.5% of the Iraqi population has died as a result of the conflict.

The research relied on random sampling of 1,800 Iraqi households by researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Based on deaths suffered by those households, analysts calculated an average of about 600 deaths a day since the invasion.

"I think it's perfectly plausible," said the study's lead author, Gilbert Burnham, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins.

Then-British foreign secretary Jack Straw was among those who criticized the earlier study.

This time the researchers doubled the size of their random survey. In 92% of the homes in which residents reported deaths, families had death certificates, they said.

Beyond violent deaths, the study said about 53,000 deaths from other causes, such as accident and illness, were attributable to the war because of its effect on health care.

Gunfire was the leading cause of violent death; car bomb fatalities are rising, the study said.

James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist and Iraq expert, said, "One thing (the study may) certainly do is confirm the view that there is a very, very serious civil war going in Iraq."

Seems that "Axis of evil" is rather fitting then, huh?

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

of no particular import

Quote:

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

...
Study estimates 600,000 Iraqis dead by violence

Quote:

More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released today by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.
The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush.

The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."
...

Right, right. Can't show how they are lying, just assert that they are lying.

Cycloptichorn, please outline the tactics neccessary to accomplish your plan.

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:09 pm Post: 2301067 -
...
Thanks. I'll begin my next phase of this discussion with another question to you: Do you believe that killing innocents creates more insurgents and terrorists, or not?
Cycloptichorn

First, answer my question that I posted immediately preceding this one of yours. My answer to this question of yours may depend on your answer to my preceding question.