US Military Dead during Iraq War 1059

bah

Here:

"I was talking about the good old days when Clinton did nothing serious about the first attempt at destroying the WTC."

That is exactly where you said it...

The purpose of the "containment" regime was to stop Saddam developing WMD and other offensive capabilities to be a threat to his neighbours...

During the period of "containment", it was only the UN's policies, inspections and such that were in operation to stop him developing WMD and the means of ballistic delivery to other nations...

When the invasion of Iraq happened after 12 years of UN "containment" - the only means applied to stop Saddam developing these WMD capabilities - no WMD capability was found...there were no "stockpiles" of WMD...no ballistic delivery systems...no "mobile chemical factories" (Bush lied and tried to claim he'd found some but the experts laughed and he retracted the claim when it was clear that yet another lie of his wouldn't stand up to scrutiny)...

One site that Colin Powell targetted in his "presentation" to the UN as a "serious WMD production threat" or some such, turned out to be an ordinary kitchens...the most dangerous weapon there being a kitchen knife for chopping tomatoes...which, by conventional definitions, does not technically qualify as a "weapon of mbutt destruction" and is normally deemed simply to be a useful household appliance for basic food preparation...Powell has since expressed great dismay at being made a "stooge" to present this supposed "intelligence" and that he would have been no party to it, if he had known...and has since resigned...one buttumes his criticisms of being made a "puppet" of by Neo-Con war-mongers was muted, solely for the sake of not damaging his own Republican Party...

No other mechanism but the UN's policies were in force upon Iraq and Saddam in that time...and, yet, when we get there?

NO WMD...not a single one...no evidence of any real "programmes" for such either...his defences inadequate or non-existent that, indeed, he was no threat to his neighbours, much less anyone else (no ballistic delivery capability found either)...

Hence, as the purpose of "containment" was to prevent such things...and we can see that these things did not happened...not even in one single, even minor, instance...then the UN "containment" policy WORKED...indeed, it's amazing that I doubt even the UN would entirely believe it themselves...but it not only worked, it worked PERFECTLY...a 100% achievement on all the stated aims and objectives of the "containment" policy...

The UN's "containment" policy entirely worked, as it was intended to do...the UN's methodology has been PROVED to WORK 100%...the criticism of the UN as "irrelvent" PROVED to be unfounded...

Saddam had no WMD and had no significant offensive capability to attack any of his neighbours (even his defensive capability - which he was permitted to have in a basic form to stop others trying to invade him - turned out to be, frankly, a pile of pooe too)...

That was the intended idea...and it worked completely...

It was nice of America to provide this EVIDENCE and total VINDICATION of the UN, the UN approach and the effectiveness of such "containment" policies...

While they simultaneously proved themselves - by unjustified illegal actions - to be wrong, liars, criminals, incompetent, dangerous, etc....and that the policy of "the use of force" - to which the UN was set up originally to make redundent - has proved flawed, inadequate, dangerous, wrong and has INCREASED the threat of person actions against America and her allies immeasurably, rather than dulled it (the kidnap and beheadings of civilian workers alone are one such direct and obvious example of the kind of ADDITIONAL "terrorism" that this policy has CREATED, not prevented)...

And, Rumsfeld tells us that we should expect at least 5 years, up to 12 years, as a "typical" length to expect this "insurgency" to last...so, by that estimate, we ain't even reached the HALF WAY POINT of his MINIMUM estimate on the length of "insurgency" (approximately, give or take, 46% of the way through)...we ain't even on the "home stretch" of the second half of the insurgency by the most optimistic end of his estimate...

The UN route has been PROVED and VINDICATED (at least, regards the "containment" policy...the "oil for food" and the fact that it would not have produced "regime change" are separate matters from "containment": They acheived that aim...it is another matter to criticise that these aims fell short of what you feel should have been done...and, note, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with such criticism either...but, regards what was the "plan", the plan worked as intended)...the "drums of war" route with the "use of force" has, on the other hand, been shown to make things far worse and doesn't work...and bogs down American forces in a "quagmire", where, unfortunately, American (and Iraqi and "coalition") lives are being shed like clockwork every day by the insurgency...ignites a sense of gross "injustice" across the Arab and Islamic worlds that could be feeding Bin Laden new "recruits" for his cause, right as we speak ("radicalising" - in their anger at these injustices - those who would have been "moderates" otherwise and had no intention or argument with America, until America GAVE them a reason to be angry)...

This is a new claim I've never heard before...could you please supply the "source" for this buttertion?

The UN inspectors were removed for their own safety by the UN, due to the impending WAR that America was about to unleash on Iraq...he never "kicked out" the UN inspectors...they were pulled out so that when America and Britain started planting Iraq (before the deadline or the UN inspectors report were actually due), they didn't end up killing the UN inspectors as well...they were PULLED OUT by the UN, not "kicked out" by Saddam...

Also, regards Saddam's "awkwardness" about the UN inspectors...first, he had no WMD, so the continual invasion of the inspectors would likely pee anyone off...

Second, he had REASON to be "awkward": An earlier UN inspection team had been "seeded" by America with "inspectors" who were, in fact, spying on Iraq...that inspection team was also pulled out, not kicked out, when the UN itself discovered this duplicitous and underhand use by America of the "inspections", as a means to "size up" Iraq's defensive capability...which we now know was all part of this long-standing plan by the Neo-Cons to capture Iraq for "strategic purposes" - having an American-friendly "base" in the centre of the Middle-East to "exert influence" in the region - to "size up" Iraq's defences (make note of where what defences he had, where they were and so forth, etc.) for the invasion, which they got later on the strength of an OUTRIGHT LIE that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and "terrorism"...which, in fact, even by Bush's own admission (as well as the 9-11 commission's report, the government taskforce set up to look into terrorism's conclusions and many other agencies in and out of America), it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with...the "terrorism" provided the "excuse" to stage a war that had - on record - been long pre-planned beforehand (and those plans state "strategic purposes" of "exerting influence" in the Middle-East by creating an American-friendly "based" in Iraq, NOT a single word about "terrorism" stated as rationale for the "plan" at all...until 9-11, when it provided the "convenient excuse" to get Americans to back a plan that would NOT have otherwise been tolerated, as an out-and-out aggressive war of "empire")...

Well, his son could "boast" about WMD all he liked...there were no WMD, so, clearly, this was just a lie...a false boast made to frighten people but which had no grounds in truth or reality...

Indeed, Saddam and his sons very likely made these "boasts" about WMD and such because, in reality, they were nigh-on defenceless...so, to discourage his neighbours from invasion, to discourage the Iraqi people from "uprising" again, he LIED and LIED and LIED of being far "stronger" than he actually was...there was no grounds for these "boasts" whatsoever - there ARE absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, so those boasts are KNOWN to be lies - but so long as his neighbours and his people believed he might be telling the truth, then he could avoid invasion from hostile neighbours and "uprising" from the Iraqi people by "threatening" them with actually non-existent "WMD"...

It's like a game of Poker...Saddam and his sons were BLUFFING...but as the consequences of "calling that bluff" could very well be a repeat episode of the time when he DID gas the Kurds, no-one would dare risk "calling the bluff"...as if you were wrong and he did have WMD, then, well, you couldn't take that risk...

In a fairly bizarre way, these "boasts" were a strange means of "national defence"...the country, in fact, was more or less defenceless (the Iraqi National Guard was about the only real defence that existed)...but by lying and "bluffing" that he had more than he actually did have - WMDs and such - then Iraq was "defended" by that "boast", even though it was a total lie...it is worth noting in this context, that one of Saddam's sons was charged directly with "national defence"...so, in fact, was only carrying out his duty in lying and "boasting" about that which they didn't really have...

Nothing but a total lie...a "Poker bluff"...but an effective one, in that no-one dared "call" it and invade or "uprise" against Saddam...just in case it wasn't a lie...

What did France "do" to the US exactly?

On this score, BRITAIN has far more blame than France, as a "colonial power"...

WE helped dump the Israelis in Israel...WE divided up Iraq after the Ottoman Empire and didn't take a single account of ethnicity in doing so, leading to the Kurd Sunni Shia mix and conflicts...and so on and so forth...

Why do you blame France? Because France opposed the war but Britain backed it? So, you turn it into "colonial powers" then magically metamorphise that into "France", because you've got a grudge against the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"?

And would that "grudge" against them be anything to do with the fact that they were essentially CORRECT in their decision that there was no grounds to believe WMD were there and, thus, that there was no justification for the Iraq Invasion?

No, no, no (or should that be "non, non, non"? ;)...if you're going to blame "colonial powers" for their previous interferences, then Britain heads the top of the list in this regard...I am a British citizen...please, by all means, direct that criticism of "colonial powers" at the CORRECT party...we've made enough mistakes already, not for another to be made to compound the problem...if you wish to blame "colonial powers" then direct your criticism at the CORRECT colonial power of the former British Empire and its constant "meddling" around the globe...

Yeah, you're going to have to criticise the main "ally" who supported America in this illegal war, if you want to go down the "colonial power" route...by all means, do so...we do acknowledge that much of our past actions have lead to a severely screwed up world...and are open to discussion of our mistakes...like an alcoholic, you MUST get over your "denial" before you can even begin to deal with the problem...criticism isn't a dirty word here...Blair meets such every single Wednesday voluntarily where the Prime Minister must account for his actions and decisions in Parliament...he's NOT "head of state", so there is NO "disloyalty" to the nation at all in such criticism...he, in fact, is only "first among equals" and deemed a "commoner" just like everyone else in the nation...it's the advantage of a Parliamentary rather than a Presidential system, I feel...when Blair is wrong, there is not an ounce of problem stating this and protesting and criticising him...he is just the "manager", NOT "god"...we welcome any and all criticisms in our system..."freedom of speech" is ESSENTIAL for the proper functioning of democracy...

The term "get on your soapbox", in fact, derives from "Speaker's Corner" in London's Hyde Park (where the Live8 concert was held and the anti-war marches had their rallies; There is DELIBRATE SYMBOLISM in that every protest in London generally heads for "Speaker's Corner" and Hyde Park as their final destination) where a totally informal platform for "free speech" developed as a tradition...grab a soap box, put it on the ground in "Speaker's Corner", climb on top of it and then complain and unpleasant woman and moan to your heart's content...it's a "soapbox" because there is no actual formal "stage" at "Speaker's Corner", so what tended to happen was, indeed, borrowing a wooden soap box from market traders to fashion yourself a "stage" so that you could be seen and heard, whilst you exercised a touch of "free speech" about something or another...a "tradition" long admired and respected there...so much so, it eventually ended up in the English language itself...and if you have a protest to make, then Hyde Park is often symbolically where you make your protest from...right next to "Speaker's Corner", as a symbolic nod of the head to that "sacrosanct" spot, where anyone may advocate or protest about anything they like...because while they can, it means democracy's heart is still beating and alive..."symbolically" speaking, anyway...

Throughout history, the British and French have typically had the most to complain and fight about with each other...but you insult them fairly, for being the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" they are...don't go inventing criticisms that aren't there, though...as no-one likes a "bully"...and we're NOT going to support you on those grounds, not even one iota...

Beth :