Whats everyones opinions on the war in iraq

[sprunkner]

I, like most Texans, consider myself a Texan first and an American second, for better or worse. We were our own nation once, dammit! You can't say that's not bad ass.

Northwesterners are worse. Of course, we have more to be proud of.

[Scraplet]

Ooo, I missed this. Sorry for the delayed reply, but I can't let this go....

US funding for Saddam didnt happen until 12 years after Saddam came into power.

The US funded and helped the rise of the Baath party from the start.

I think it quite well established that the Baath Party took power through a CIA backed coup. Hussein was part of a CIA trained hit-squad on Iraqi President Qasim in 1959. When it failed saddam was 'helped' into exile in Egypt.

The US was opposed to Saddam initially because he nationalised a primarily Western owned oil industry.

That was President Qasim's plan, which is why he was unpopular with the US. As well as helping set up OPEC, which probably didn't go down too well either. Or his alliances with the Soviet union.

When the 1959 assassination attempt failed, the CIA backed the Baath party coup of 1963, which was successful. Then Hussein returned to Iraq as head of the Secret police. The CIA gave him the names of every communist and lefty who stood against the Baath party, and Saddam started his work. Which was alright, because that got rid of the Soviet influence.

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.

Who forgets? That is common knowledge, surely? My point was that in many ways, for many people, Iraq was a advanced country prior to 1991. These people are now living in the Stone Age. Hussein didn't do that; WE did.

By the way, many of the first victims of the Baath party were Kurds. They were probably on the hit list given to saddam by the CIA. We and the US knew this was happening way back in 1963. Not that the British would have been that fussed. We were the first to start gassing rebelious Kurds while we redrew the map with the French after WW1. Actively promoted, in fact, by that nice bloke Winston Churchill.

So forgive me if I don't trust the opinions or motivations of the UK and USA governments. We have a history of being the cause of these problems and never the solution.

[/quote]

[wideload]

Ooo, I missed this. Sorry for the delayed reply, but I can't let this go....

US funding for Saddam didnt happen until 12 years after Saddam came into power.

The US funded and helped the rise of the Baath party from the start.

I think it quite well established that the Baath Party took power through a CIA backed coup. Hussein was part of a CIA trained hit-squad on Iraqi President Qasim in 1959. When it failed saddam was 'helped' into exile in Egypt.

The US was opposed to Saddam initially because he nationalised a primarily Western owned oil industry.

That was President Qasim's plan, which is why he was unpopular with the US. As well as helping set up OPEC, which probably didn't go down too well either. Or his alliances with the Soviet union.

When the 1959 assassination attempt failed, the CIA backed the Baath party coup of 1963, which was successful. Then Hussein returned to Iraq as head of the Secret police. The CIA gave him the names of every communist and lefty who stood against the Baath party, and Saddam started his work. Which was alright, because that got rid of the Soviet influence.

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.

Who forgets? That is common knowledge, surely? My point was that in many ways, for many people, Iraq was a advanced country prior to 1991. These people are now living in the Stone Age. Hussein didn't do that; WE did.

By the way, many of the first victims of the Baath party were Kurds. They were probably on the hit list given to saddam by the CIA. We and the US knew this was happening way back in 1963. Not that the British would have been that fussed. We were the first to start gassing rebelious Kurds while we redrew the map with the French after WW1. Actively promoted, in fact, by that nice bloke Winston Churchill.

So forgive me if I don't trust the opinions or motivations of the UK and USA governments. We have a history of being the cause of these problems and never the solution.

[/quote]

Please provide evidence for this CIA led the Baath party from the initial stage stuff. If you can I will gladly admit that I am wrong on this point. The Baath party is in fact a socialist party. I have a really hard time believing the US helped fund the overthrow of a republic by a socialist government in the 1960s. I've scoured the web and the only thing I can find that is even close to credible is an editorial (note editorial and not actual news story) in the NY times from some guy named Roger Morris. Also the official stance on Iraq even when the US was giving it support was one of "dual containment". Seeing Iran as the larger threat support was indeed given to Iraq. Although like in the previous posts this paled in comparison to the support from other allies like Russia.

If what you are saying about the UK gassing Kurds is true (please provide a link), I will agree with you there. I don't bring up the argument that the Kurds were mistreated for support for the US, but because I feel compassionate for the Kurds and it sickens me a little bit that people are willing to glance over their suffering in order to further their political points. I would also like to point out that as a Canadian I want nothing to do with the war in Iraq and am quite proud my government stood up for itself and said no.

[Mirrormere]

...and I just want everyone to gather around the fire and sing "Kum By Ya"...

Yaya Wrote:
[/quote]Wouldn't ya know it. I knew there had to be a logical explanation to account for your rationalization of this mess called the Iraq War.

Duuuude. How is that "logical". Defense of GW is not genetic to Texans, you know. Not everyone living in Texas has the same understanding or belief system.

Yaya Also Wrote:

But many Texans do sport this attitude of blind allegiance to all things Texan, without considering the issue at hand. Don't tell me you haven't witnessed this? It's like voting along party lines.

I have lived in Texas for all by two years of my life (having been born there) and have not experienced this majority that you speak of. And living in Dallas for a few years does not make one a Texan any more than being born in Conneticut or Maine.

Shanti418 Wrote:

I, like most Texans, consider myself a Texan first and an American second, for better or worse. We were our own nation once, dammit! You can't say that's not bad ass.

Right on! I could not have said it better myself. We could STILL be our own nation if we really wanted to. How about this...let's secede from the Union, declare ourselves a country, declare war, lose the war then apply for US aid?

I love my State and my Country, but it is a love born of knowledge of what is truth and untruth. Many of us see what is happening in our country and our world. We are not blind or stupid.

Sprunker Wrote:

Northwesterners are worse. Of course, we have more to be proud of.

What-ever!

Speaking as a Texan and an American, I, too am not perfectly happy with everything my country does or represents. Who is? I am a firm believer that a good conscience is a sign of a bad memory. Those not from the United States shoud know that there are Americans who love the people of the world and would never dream of participating in violence and bloodsheed. But that does not mean that when one of our soldiers is ordered to combat that we condemn or despise them. I support every man or woman ordered into harm's way to preserve the freedom I enjoy right now in expressing my opinion. Freedom is not free. Yet, I do NOT believe everthing the media says nor every Internet article. Please allow me to advise against blind, emotional belief. Let us weigh every word with logic and understanding with the aim of understanding the truth, no matter how ugly it is. Once we know the truth, we have power.

[sprunkner]

Northwesterners are worse. Of course, we have more to be proud of.

What-ever! Razz

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/mt. ... _steve.jpg

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/lig ... ington.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/sea ... n_01tk.jpg

http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~ ... eattle.jpg

[Scraplet]

If what you are saying about the UK gassing Kurds is true (please provide a link), I will agree with you there.

This is definitly established historical fact. The British did some brutal things across the former Otterman Empire in the twenties. Just google, 'Chuchill, Bomber Harris, Kurds' - a whole host of books and articles on the subject.

This article gives a brief summary of it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 08,00.html

Please provide evidence for this CIA led the Baath party from the initial stage stuff. .

I thought that would be no problem. I've read so many articles on this subject. And yet when I re-read them now I see there are suprisingly few traceable sources......
Even when convincing sounding sources are quoted, it seems hard to find where the ORIGINAL quotes are documented. Hmm, well done Mr Wideload....I'll be doing a bit more research on this one!

I've scoured the web and the only thing I can find that is even close to credible is an editorial (note editorial and not actual news story) in the NY times from some guy named Roger Morris. .

I read a few things by, or quoting from, Roger Morris. He was a US State Department foreign service officer in Iraq at the time, I believe.

"Morris, who resigned from the NSC staff over the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia, says he learned the details of American covert involvement in Iraq from ranking CIA officials of the day, including Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Archibald Roosevelt"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

Hmm, I'm gonna follow a few threads through when I've got time. I'll be back later.....

[Impactor returns 2.0]

On the subject of the UK using gas weapons, i think its worth noting that only a few years later we banned them.
I think the problem is, whilst the west evolves on the grounds of science and reasoning, ie, we realise using gas weapons is wrong for reaons x,y,z; alot of middle eastern countries run on religous rules but at the same time thier technolagy is evolving.

[wideload]

If what you are saying about the UK gassing Kurds is true (please provide a link), I will agree with you there.

This is definitly established historical fact. The British did some brutal things across the former Otterman Empire in the twenties. Just google, 'Chuchill, Bomber Harris, Kurds' - a whole host of books and articles on the subject.

This article gives a brief summary of it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 08,00.html

Please provide evidence for this CIA led the Baath party from the initial stage stuff. .

I thought that would be no problem. I've read so many articles on this subject. And yet when I re-read them now I see there are suprisingly few traceable sources......
Even when convincing sounding sources are quoted, it seems hard to find where the ORIGINAL quotes are documented. Hmm, well done Mr Wideload....I'll be doing a bit more research on this one!

I've scoured the web and the only thing I can find that is even close to credible is an editorial (note editorial and not actual news story) in the NY times from some guy named Roger Morris. .

I read a few things by, or quoting from, Roger Morris. He was a US State Department foreign service officer in Iraq at the time, I believe.

"Morris, who resigned from the NSC staff over the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia, says he learned the details of American covert involvement in Iraq from ranking CIA officials of the day, including Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Archibald Roosevelt"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

Hmm, I'm gonna follow a few threads through when I've got time. I'll be back later.....

Its sounds like the British were bombing rebels in an equal opportunity fashion. But yeah I dont know why I would be surprised by that. At the time Britain still had a bit of colonialist left in them.

As for the CIA thing, this has been a serious topic of debate for some time. To tell you the truth either, I dont care either way since it doesn't really influence my argument. I would just actually like to know the truth on this subject. There have been so many claims of this, yet not one credible sources. Everytime I try to research the issue, I find a series of leftwing and muslim blogs linked to eachother in a ring. Each one stating it as fact and using another as a reference.

As for Roger Morris... if you google some of his other editorials, you'll find they tend to be quite colourful.

[Mirrormere]

I'll see your mountainous pictures and raise you ONE OF EVERYTHING!

[Dayton3]

There is not a shred of credible evidence from an unbiased source that the CIA did a thing to help the Baath Party take power.

and the Guardian is an anti U.S. rag.

THAT is an established fact.

[Hot Shot]

Oh, wonderful. Blind-Patriotism3 is back for another round.

Why? Why couldn't this thread stay dead?

[wideload]

Oh, wonderful. Blind-Patriotism3 is back for another round.

Why? Why couldn't this thread stay dead?

I would actually like to know the answer to the question. I'm Canadian so I really don't have care that much either way. A part of me would like it not to be true, just because in hindsight anyway its kind of evil. On the other hand as a Canadian its part of our pride to be somewhat anti-American

Seriously though can anyone provide proof that the CIA trained Saddam to execute his political rivals prior to him taking power in Iraq?

I have to agree though that the Guardian is not a credible news source.

[Best First]

and the Guardian is an anti U.S. rag.

THAT is an established fact.

Thanks for dis-crediting yourself completely in such a brief post. Saves me reading the longer ones.

The Guardian is one of the most respected papers there is.

Sorry if you find having some of your opinions challenged a little difficult.

[Scraplet]

There is not a shred of credible evidence from an unbiased source that the CIA did a thing to help the Baath Party take power.

Seing as they are a covert intellience agency, I would not expect to find the evidence as clear as day. Or they wouldn't being doing their job properly now would they?

But there is evidence, or we would not be having this dabate. So why not enlighten us as to why they aren't credible, and save us some time researching it, eh?

I would actually like to know the answer to the question.........I really don't have care much either way

Me too. I just want the information to make my own mind up about the current state of politics and world affairs. But it does make a difference to me. Its the difference between whether our governments are manipulating us and lying to us to further some dangerous and unjust agenda, or they are acting in a resonable manner given the threats we face.

Given that the current situation (where we are rapidly loosing civil rights) links directly to these questions, it really, really, should make a difference to everyone.

It is not unpatriotic to question the motives and actions of a democratic government.

[wideload]

There is not a shred of credible evidence from an unbiased source that the CIA did a thing to help the Baath Party take power.

Seing as they are a covert intellience agency, I would not expect to find the evidence as clear as day. Or they wouldn't being doing their job properly now would they?

But there is evidence, or we would not be having this dabate. So why not enlighten us as to why they aren't credible, and save us some time researching it, eh?

I would actually like to know the answer to the question.........I really don't have care much either way

Me too. I just want the information to make my own mind up about the current state of politics and world affairs. But it does make a difference to me. Its the difference between whether our governments are manipulating us and lying to us to further some dangerous and unjust agenda, or they are acting in a resonable manner given the threats we face.

Given that the current situation (where we are rapidly loosing civil rights) links directly to these questions, it really, really, should make a difference to everyone.

It is not unpatriotic to question the motives and actions of a democratic government.

Like I said before its not a question of patriotism for me, because its not my country. Canada made the choice to stay out of Iraq and I'm kind of proud for our country sticking up for itself. I consider the US our closest ally, but we also have a tendency to be pushed around a little too much by the US and UK.

As for why I dont consider the evidence credible, I cannot find one independent news source which confirms it. The closest things I can find are editorials written in the mid-90s. Basically, I am looking for a primary source. As for why we are having this debate? I don't think that in itself necessarily concludes that some sort of evidence exits. There are a lot of arguments that have political motives to make such a story up.

As for the Guardian. Yes it provides some interesting viewpoints, but it is not always a credible source of information and should be taken w/ a grain of salt. It clearly has a political slant (and not a subtle one). The majority of the articles on the site are not news stories but editorials and commentary. Basically, the difference between a true documentary and a Michael Moore film. I'm not saying the Guardian doesn't have lots of good news stories, but it is also a forum for a lot of hearsay and commentary.

[Best First]

As for the Guardian. Yes it provides some interesting viewpoints, but it is not always a credible source of information and should be taken w/ a grain of salt. It clearly has a political slant (and not a subtle one). The majority of the articles on the site are not news stories but editorials and commentary. Basically, the difference between a true documentary and a Michael Moore film. I'm not saying the Guardian doesn't have lots of good news stories, but it is also a forum for a lot of hearsay and commentary.

as opposed to any other news channel? Any suggestion that the split bewtween news and editorial is somehow different or excessive to other news sites or its any less credible a source of information is bollocks.

Also i love the attempt to group hearsay and commentary together. What is your issue with commentary exactly and how is in anyway analogous to hearsay?

Which in turn makes comparison it to Michael Moore hilarious (or hysterical), altough moreso given a lot of Guardian columnists have been highly critical of Moore over the years.

Of course you would have to read it to be aware of this....

[Mirrormere]

Scraplet wrote:

It is not unpatriotic to question the motives and actions of a democratic government.

Go, brother! It is unpatriotic to NOT question the motives and actions of a democratic government.

[wideload]

As for the Guardian. Yes it provides some interesting viewpoints, but it is not always a credible source of information and should be taken w/ a grain of salt. It clearly has a political slant (and not a subtle one). The majority of the articles on the site are not news stories but editorials and commentary. Basically, the difference between a true documentary and a Michael Moore film. I'm not saying the Guardian doesn't have lots of good news stories, but it is also a forum for a lot of hearsay and commentary.

as opposed to any other news channel? Any suggestion that the split bewtween news and editorial is somehow different or excessive to other news sites or its any less credible a source of information is bollocks.

Also i love the attempt to group hearsay and commentary together. What is your issue with commentary exactly and how is in anyway analogous to hearsay?

Which in turn makes comparison it to Michael Moore hilarious (or hysterical), altough moreso given a lot of Guardian columnists have been highly critical of Moore over the years.

Of course you would have to read it to be aware of this....

I agree with you 100% that all news sources have an agenda.

Some more than others. This is why I require PRIMARY sources for my truths.

As far as I'm concerned the closest thing the world has to a true version of the news is the print/radio/television version of the the BBC (I find the website to be surprisingly slanted). That being said I would never take something from the BBC as truth without first investigating it.

As for commentary, commentary is exactly what it is. Someone's opinion. Although most journalists are trained to report facts, they are not experts in the fields they are reporting in. Hence they should not be looked on as a source of information or authority. I would also prefer news as devoid of politics as possible. It's clear that many journalists are members of various political parties. What is the difference between having a state controlled media and having their minions posing as supposedly objective commentators? Honestly, whether you be left or right (or whatever those terms mean...if anything) just stay out of my news so I can try and get some facts out of the whole mess.

Having spent a long time in the academic world I am so tired of people who assume you are pro-Bush or some NeoCon because you don't automatically believe and promote every anti-Bush story, despite the fact no evidence backs them up. How is this any different than Bush standing up and saying "if your not w/ us you're against us". At this point I'm ranting and its not really directed at anyone anymore, but I'm half drunk and needed to say that.

[Dayton3]

There is not a shred of credible evidence from an unbiased source that the CIA did a thing to help the Baath Party take power.

Seing as they are a covert intellience agency, I would not expect to find the evidence as clear as day. Or they wouldn't being doing their job properly now would they?
.

The "absence of evidence" is not evidence of anything.

And while a health skepticism of the government is reasonable that isn't what many here seem to be advocating.

Instead it looks like raw, hateful, narrow minded cynicism. That isn't based on a wish to hold the U.S. govt. accountable,

But at its heart is a simple hatred of President Bush.

[Kaylee]

Yes it's all because of Bush Jnr and our irrational hatred of him. We all blame him for these things he obviously did as President 20 years before he was elected. We're just that cynical.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

@ wideload, its like all media outlets tho, they all have political views, one way or another and out thier own editorial spin on things.
I tend to read/watch a number of news medias before I form an opinion on a subject.

I dont think u can take any news paper or TV news programme to be a source of information, my fav is CH4, they spout so much bollox its untrue, they end nearly every programme apolagising for thier leading headline being BS, probably because they were going to be sued for slander if they didnt.