Whats everyones opinions on the war in iraq

[Impactor returns 2.0]

off the top of my Uk based head about 3.5k KIA and around 35k in injurys etc...

Or there abouts, why?

[Scraplet]

Saddam Hussein had 25 years to wreck Iraq. It will take us awhile to fix it.

Umm, Hussein was essentially installed to power by the US, because it was convenient for the US. Sadam thought the US was his best mate, as they funded him through the Iran-Iraq war.

Despite all of that, and being ruled by a psycopath, Iraq had about the best standard of living in the Middle East prior to 1991. Education for all, a free health service, high levels of literacy. His best mates, the US were still giving him money and arms, and never objected to him waging war or genocide before, so he thought invading Kuiwat was OK.....and the US pounces on him!

After the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions, another war... suprise.....Iraq is a mess!

Strikes me that it wasn't Saddam who wrecked Iraq......

[wideload]

Saddam Hussein had 25 years to wreck Iraq. It will take us awhile to fix it.

Umm, Hussein was essentially installed to power by the US, because it was convenient for the US. Sadam thought the US was his best mate, as they funded him through the Iran-Iraq war.

Despite all of that, and being ruled by a psycopath, Iraq had about the best standard of living in the Middle East prior to 1991. Education for all, a free health service, high levels of literacy. His best mates, the US were still giving him money and arms, and never objected to him waging war or genocide before, so he thought invading Kuiwat was OK.....and the US pounces on him!

After the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions, another war... suprise.....Iraq is a mess!

Strikes me that it wasn't Saddam who wrecked Iraq......

This isn't entirely true. US funding for Saddam didnt happen until 12 years after Saddam came into power. The US was opposed to Saddam initially because he nationalised a primarily Western owned oil industry. Yes the US did fund the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war but so did the Soviets. In fact just about everyone did. Political relationships often change.

Iraq had the best standard of living prior to the war? Maybe as long as you werent a Kurd. I love how people always seem to forget the fact Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and used dumptrucks to hide their bodies in mass graves in the dessert. The only people who enjoyed religious freedom and this high standard of living were the Sunni Arabs who make up less than 20% of the population.

He thought invading Kuwait was okay?.... I dont know where you are getting this from. Kuwait has always been one of the strongest allies of the West and I don't think anyone ever gave Saddam the idea he could brutally invade them. In fact Iraq tried to invade Kuwait in 1961 and was specifically told not to. Then when Saddam did invade the immediate response was to get out, but Saddam did not listen. Saddam's ruling party the Ba'ath translates into return of a great pan-Arab state. It had always been his goal to invade the surrounding Arab states. Notice how in the gulf war the other arab states stood behind the US and the UK.

I do agree with you on one point. The US definitely should have helped Kurds and Shiites earlier and this definitely was not a reason given for going to war. In my previous post I give the real reasons for why the Bush administration invaded and I stand by those.

[Dayton3]

The United States did not fund Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded Iraq because they were afraid justifiably of Iranian domination of the Gulf.

There also isn't a single weapons system operated by Iraq that came from the United States.

There has been a persistent misrepresentation of the role of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

The attitude that the U.S. had toward Iraq and Iran during the long war between them was summarized by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said

"pity they both can't lose".

[Dayton3]

off the top of my Uk based head about 3.5k KIA and around 35k in injurys etc...

Or there abouts, why?

Because I've read that a substantial portion of the American public who believes that the U.S. has lost TEN THOUSAND soldiers killed in Iraq.

Over 3,600 Americans have been killed in Iraq.

Of these, about 2,900 have been deaths due to combat.

The remainder have been noncombat accidents, disease, suicide....et cetera.

[sprunkner]

I challenge you to find anyone who expected a 2003 invasion to rack up these kinds of casualty numbers in 2007. That was not how the war was sold.

Also:

On 9 June, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

The pragmatic politicians in Washington at the time did not act as though it were a "pity they both can't lose." They chose Iraq as the lesser of two evils.

[Hot Shot]

off the top of my Uk based head about 3.5k KIA and around 35k in injurys etc...

Or there abouts, why?

Because I've read that a substantial portion of the American public who believes that the U.S. has lost TEN THOUSAND soldiers killed in Iraq.

In case you haven't noticed, most members here aren't american.

Over 3,600 Americans have been killed in Iraq.

Of these, about 2,900 have been deaths due to combat.

The remainder have been noncombat accidents, disease, suicide....et cetera.

300, 3000, or 10,000. Either way, american soldiers are dying in a war that was started based on false information and manipulation. Did you know that those 3,600 soldiers will never see their families again? Are their deaths and their families' pain worth forcing a "democracy" on a violent people who don't want it?

I agree with Yaya. If you can't see things for what they are now, I doubt you ever will. All I'm doing is wasting my time talking to a rock.

[Kaylee]

The United States did not fund Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded Iraq because they were afraid justifiably of Iranian domination of the Gulf.

There also isn't a single weapons system operated by Iraq that came from the United States.

There has been a persistent misrepresentation of the role of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

The attitude that the U.S. had toward Iraq and Iran during the long war between them was summarized by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said

"pity they both can't lose".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Documented and sourced information on the US administration's attitudes to Iraq during the 80s.

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales ... _1973-1990

which establishes, with sources, that the US sold weapons to Iraq. Not as many as Russia, but nevertheless the point remains.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

off the top of my Uk based head about 3.5k KIA and around 35k in injurys etc...

Or there abouts, why?

Because I've read that a substantial portion of the American public who believes that the U.S. has lost TEN THOUSAND soldiers killed in Iraq.

Over 3,600 Americans have been killed in Iraq.

Of these, about 2,900 have been deaths due to combat.

The remainder have been noncombat accidents, disease, suicide....et cetera.

So i was pretty close with my figures then - substantial portions of the american public seem un-aware of anything in the world tho, so im not surprised

[Best First]

haha! This guy is fun isn't he?

Welcome to Transfans new guy.

Hopefully in the near future we can also welcome you to planet earth.

And now on Fox news, why its ok to rape monkeys. In the eye!

[Impactor returns 2.0]

have u seen rape an ape tho? - the only issue I have with rape an ape is the ape really...

[Kaylee]

have u seen rape an ape tho? - the only issue I have with rape an ape is the ape really...

Why not replace the ape with some violent, antisocial ADHD 15yo?

And rape with 'stone'.

[Hot Shot]

have u seen rape an ape tho? - the only issue I have with rape an ape is the ape really...

Don't forget the blood. Lots and lots of blood.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

do u want to see rape an ape with Chirs moyles ?

[spiderfrommars]

Er... new guy isn't actually... new.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programme...

[Dayton3]

The United States did not fund Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded Iraq because they were afraid justifiably of Iranian domination of the Gulf.

There also isn't a single weapons system operated by Iraq that came from the United States.

There has been a persistent misrepresentation of the role of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

The attitude that the U.S. had toward Iraq and Iran during the long war between them was summarized by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said

"pity they both can't lose".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Documented and sourced information on the US administration's attitudes to Iraq during the 80s.

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales ... _1973-1990

which establishes, with sources, that the US sold weapons to Iraq. Not as many as Russia, but nevertheless the point remains.

Both sources are in error.

The only actual American weapons that made their way into Iraqi hands were some cluster bombs.

These are "munitions" rather than weapons systems. And even these did not come directly from the United States.

The only items that came to Iraq from the United States are clear dual use items.

Dual use items are by definition not weapons.

[Best First]

No, it is you who are in error.

They are weapons.

You are wrong. Because.

Wow, this is easy, huh?

[Obfleur]

Welcome back Besty!

[Kaylee]

The United States did not fund Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded Iraq because they were afraid justifiably of Iranian domination of the Gulf.

There also isn't a single weapons system operated by Iraq that came from the United States.

There has been a persistent misrepresentation of the role of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

The attitude that the U.S. had toward Iraq and Iran during the long war between them was summarized by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said

"pity they both can't lose".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Documented and sourced information on the US administration's attitudes to Iraq during the 80s.

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales ... _1973-1990

which establishes, with sources, that the US sold weapons to Iraq. Not as many as Russia, but nevertheless the point remains.

Both sources are in error.

The only actual American weapons that made their way into Iraqi hands were some cluster bombs.

These are "munitions" rather than weapons systems. And even these did not come directly from the United States.

The only items that came to Iraq from the United States are clear dual use items.

Dual use items are by definition not weapons.

If you'd like to look at the links you'll see the first one is a summary of 61 US govt. documents and the second draws also from a subset of these.

Now if these are both based on US govt. reports and they are both in error and you know better I'd be interested to know your source which knows more about the US government than the US government.

Is this Sheba's long awaited return?

[Brendocon]

Aah, right... so if something that's used as a weapon has another use, then it's not a weapon? I like that logic.

So a sword isn't a weapon if you also use it as a butter knife?

Zyklon B isn't a weapon because it's also a fertiliser?

Semantics. Awesome.

And also the second craziest thing I've heard in the past week.

But don't feel too bad - The craziest thing I've heard in the past week is that you can say whatever the [composite word including 'f*ck'] you want to people, free of consequence, so long as it's a movie quote.

Seriously. I mean how are you gonna compete with that?

[Kaylee]

And some of the items listed as being sold by the US to Iraq includes 500MD armed light helicopters. They also are nothing like a weapon, nor are all the other conventional weapons listed, all $200,000,000 worth?

All absolutely nothing like a weapon and nobody would ever consider that Iraq could have used them as such, thus rendering the US administration completely blameless.

WTF?

[Dayton3]

If an item has a primary usage that is nonmilitary such as ammonia nitrate, it is a dual use item. Even if it is later used as explosives.

Unarmed helicopters are dual use items.

[Dayton3]

Iraq

Documented and sourced information on the US administration's attitudes to Iraq during the 80s.

.

By the way. I just finished reviewing all the documents on this list.

The documents might indeed be correct.

Read them closely,

The documents clearly show that NOT A SINGLE WEAPON was ever sold or transferred by the United States to Iraq.

In other words, the Iraqis NEVER received an item from the U.S. that you can point at someone and make it go "BANG" or "BOOM" or "FFFIIIZZZZ"

[Yaya]

haha! This guy is fun isn't he?

Welcome to Transfans new guy.

Hopefully in the near future we can also welcome you to planet earth.

Some days I can't stand you, Besty.

Today is not one of those days.

[Brendocon]

If an item has a primary usage that is nonmilitary such as ammonia nitrate, it is a dual use item. Even if it is later used as explosives.

Yeah. But if one of the uses is a weapon, then it can be used as a weapon. You can't make it less dangerous simply by putting it in a different column.

Unarmed helicopters are dual use items.

Who mentioned unarmed choppers?

[Obfleur]

Come on!
It's military choppers.
It's not teddy bears or mouse pads that they later rebuilt to weapons. It's ******* military choppers.
How blind can you be?

[wideload]

The US did sell some weapons to Iraq.

If that wikipedia source is correct though they only accounted for 0.8% of total arms sales during the Iraq/Iran war.... that is surprisingly low. 200 million over 6 years really doesnt seem all that substantial. Like one helicopter a year? I always assumed considerably more.

[Kaylee]

Iraq

Documented and sourced information on the US administration's attitudes to Iraq during the 80s.

.

By the way. I just finished reviewing all the documents on this list.

The documents might indeed be correct.

Read them closely,

The documents clearly show that NOT A SINGLE WEAPON was ever sold or transferred by the United States to Iraq.

In other words, the Iraqis NEVER received an item from the U.S. that you can point at someone and make it go "BANG" or "BOOM" or "FFFIIIZZZZ"

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Contress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Anthrax is an often fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

Clostridium Botulinum: A bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superfically resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatique, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene.

http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.u ... eicher.htm

I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier" that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security Planning Group ("NSPG") meetings in which Casey or Gates participated

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq15.pdf:

Iran was reporting chemical weapons use against its forces by this time. According to a 1991 article in the Los Angeles Times, American-built helicopters were used by Iraq for some of its chemical weapons attacks; according to the Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq experimented with using commercial crop sprayers for biological warfare.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq57.pdf:

An internal State Department paper indicates that the government is reviewing policy for "the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities," and the review's "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis.

It goes on. So having established that the US knew Iraq was conducting chemical warfare, and continued to support it with military hardware which it knew was being used for offensive purposes, despite being told not to, that's perfectly all right and was in no way assisting a war effort with military hardware- because it was not bullets or missiles or 'things that went (immediately) bang'?

[Dayton3]

Unless the chemicals supplied by the U.S. were "ready to fire" or "ready to deploy" that is, without modification were ready to load in artillery shells, then no, the ehemicals were not weapons.

Neither were the anthrax samples. There were not weaponized.

In fact, back then, any univeristy around the world could request samples of anthrax from the U.S. govt. and have it mailed to them.

The document I read in the referred materail above said "unarmed helicopters".

Even if you count everything that people are claiming as "U.S. sending weapons to Iraq" then at worst it accounts for a tiny, tiny percentage of Iraqi weapons.

So blaming the U.S. for arming Iraq and acting like the U.S. was a major supporter of Iraq is at best false.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Weapons, such as fuses, payloads, and chemical wareheads etc.. are rarely sold in thier delivery system, ie, a bomb or missle.

For example, a SAM missles is not the same in the US or the UK, we might use the same Explosive warhead but the missles system is the propriorty of the mother country.

Its commonly excepted that If I sell u Weapons inriched ploutonium, its for... you guessed it a weapon! - what delivery device you put your warhead into is up to you.

Scemantics aside, its still a weapon because it only has one design purpose, to be a weapon - and this is the same view shared all over the world.


One thing i do find interesting about this argument, to all concerned here is this.

If we did not go to war for the right reasons: ie, Saddam has WMD's - then why is Daytona clamining the US didnt sell Saddam the weapons, if the US did sell Saddam the weapons, the reason to go to war was legit.
And
Vice-Versa, for everyone here who is trying to prove the US did sell saddam WMD's, then you are kind of proving that Saddam did have WMD's and then the war was legit according to the UN treaty 12938383 (or whatever it was called)

bizzare eh?