Shifting Sands

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:09
It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.

---

I think you should investigate how friendly the CIA were to the Kurds in Turkey during the 1990s......after the 1st Gulf War...

The "Safe Haven" was just a nice close place inside Northern Iraq for the allied Intelligence community... if you look closely, not a lot of the money to "provide Comfort" to the population ever actually reached them.

At the same time as they were bleating on about the "Plight of the Kurds" in Northern Iraq and the chemical weapons used in the past...they were helping the Turks do the same thing to the Kurds in Turkey (which has over 1/2 of the former Kurdistan)



I think i'll give up, i mean it never leads any where and even if someone actually learns something it wont change things...

All this stuff is readily available, whether about the Human Rights abuses of Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, USA, UK, et al...


The fact though is that its on public record that the USA was going to invade. Whether your a WMD or a 9/11 link believer is irrelevant...either/both have both been used as reasons, and if they hadnt been available other reasons would have appeared.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@8 February 2004 - 19:16
The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN's instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I'll get me coat :( )

---

Note: This is not a defense of the war, just my take on the "wisdom" of the UN.

Regardless of the justification for the war, I certainly don't think that the UN's instincts were confirmed at all. Those grandstanding, paperclip pushing posers don't do anything but wear suits, pass impotent resolutions, and talk flatulence. Hans Blix would have loved to play his little game forever, the limelight was all he ever wanted.

In the movie "The Fly", while undergoing his transition, Jeff Goldblum stated, "Now I know why there are no fly politicians". Meaning that flies don't have the mental capacity to appreciate such an abstract concept as "politics", it is all about desire and fulfillment without compromise.

Once people realize, as Bush did, that Saddam is a "fly", you understand that brute force is the only language he understands.

The administration basically decided that they wanted Saddam out and that 12 years of paperclip pushing had resulted in nothing but suffering for the people of Iraq, so they took matters into their own hands. Not for the people of Iraq, but because Bush felt it would be to OUR benefit in the long haul. We shall have to see about this.

Do you think some "reasonable dialogue" would cause Saddam to see the light? Do you think additional sanctions against Iraq would do anything but cause his people greater suffering? Saddam loved this game, he was a leader of nothing, but appeared to be a man to be feared. Macho, macho man!

The UN failed to understand that "political" measures only are useful on people who can appreciate that concept. Saddam is a binary man, all "yes" or all "no" and he needed to be dealt with in a like manner.

The UN needed to either piss or get off the pot and all they wanted to do is fumble with their zippers.


edit: rant off. I agree with RF, it was going to happen, just needed to create a legitimate sounding reason to tell the press

I think you may have missed my point. More my fault than yours, sorry if it was badly written.

The post with regard to the Kurds was as a direct response to somthing which Biggles had said. That in turn was as a direct result of somthing I had said, i.e. about him being rather more than a local bully (not Biggles ;) ). This was as a direct result of a description which Biggles had posted.

If you do not follow that back through the thread then the post on it's own may be misunderstood. It is very easy to take things out of context when replying to them.

To follow it from the start :

Biggles described him as a local bully.
I replied that the Kurds in the North may disagree
Biggles then posted about The Kurds being promised their own country at WW1
I replied that I was more referring to the chemical weapon attacks.

I have no need to investigate the CIA or anyone else. It has no effect on the point we were discussing. Once again I apologise if my posts were not clear enough.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:47
I think you may have missed my point. More my fault than yours, sorry if it was badly written.

The post with regard to the Kurds was as a direct response to somthing which Biggles had said. That in turn was as a direct result of somthing I had said, i.e. about him being rather more than a local bully (not Biggles ;) ). This was as a direct result of a description which Biggles had posted.

If you do not follow that back through the thread then the post on it's own may be misunderstood. It is very easy to take things out of context when replying to them.

To follow it from the start :

Biggles described him as a local bully.
I replied that the Kurds in the North may disagree
Biggles then posted about The Kurds being promised their own country at WW1
I replied that I was more referring to the chemical weapon attacks.

I have no need to investigate the CIA or anyone else. It has no effect on the point we were discussing. Once again I apologise if my posts were not clear enough.

---

And i replied that Turkey had been accused of using Chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1990s, with the complicity and knowledge of the CIA...among the many Human Rights Issues from the 1990s in that country.


I agree with Hobbes, in most things except he was pro-war and i was anti-war.....

......he has the intelligence and honesty to know that the war had very little to do with WMD, Humanitarian for the current population or Chemical attacks in the 1980's. It was about the interests of the USA.


I look at it as:

If the UN (as thats the best we have at the moment) says we can remove a Bastard then do it! The more the merrier...

If it says No, then dont.

I dont believe you can pick and choose which International Laws to follow, as that just brings more instability on an increasingly unstable world...especially when you doing, or have done more recently, the things you are selling as the reasons to go to war in the first place.


There are a lot of countries as bad as Iraq was, when are we going to tackle them?

I meant no disrespect. I was simply pointing out that our discussion centered on a specific thing. I have no doubt what you say is correct, however the fact that other countries violate certain things is not at issue. It makes what was happening no less deadly.

However the main reason I posted it in the fiurst place was to respond to Biggles describing him as a local bully, I merely suggeted that the Kurds would disagree with that, as I have tried to explain.

If I am charged with theft I do not expect the defence that other people steal more than me will serve me well. I will be judged on my actions.

If you read my post, you will also see that I agreed with Biggles when he said that ultimately the war had been counter productive. It was the first thing I said.

Sorry, didnt mean to appear as if i was trying to pick a fight.


As to the "Local Bully", its relative..

To the Region they are local and there is no doubt they were bullied :(


At the time of the 1st Gulf War he attacked Israel, which isnt quite as local. However people tend to forget that the Skuds he sent over had no warheads on them. As he had the warheads to put on these missiles at that time (both High Explosive and Chemical), he wasnt serious in bombing Israel, but merely trying to drum up Arabian support. That doesnt detract, of course, from the fact that a missile landing on your house at speed is still gonna cause a huge hole in the ground and that lives were lost :(

Other than that, relatively speaking he was a "Local" bully.

As someone said in another thread a few moments ago, nothing wrong with people disagreeing as long as they can try to be civil. My fault if I picked you up wrong.

Like I said the comment was really aimed at Biggles, in a friendly poke sort of way. "Local Bully = Mass Murderer" I don't think the victims or their families would agree. Sometimes it is easy to forget that other people are also reading and responding.

Hope I didn't get off on too much the wrong foot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@9 February 2004 - 00:41
As someone said in another thread a few moments ago, nothing wrong with people disagreeing as long as they can try to be civil. My fault if I picked you up wrong.

Like I said the comment was really aimed at Biggles, in a friendly poke sort of way. "Local Bully = Mass Murderer" I don't think the victims or their families would agree. Sometimes it is easy to forget that other people are also reading and responding.

Hope I didn't get off on too much the wrong foot.

---

I haven't seen a more controversial entry into this forum since that smack talking hot-head Biggles erupted upon the scene!





















You will appreciate the meaning of my comment in time. Since you are new, the translation is: Welcome to the forum from Hobbes, I think you'll fit in just fine.

Thank you, I hope you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:09
It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.

---

Apologies for my somewhat ambigious reply. I was in a rush to go out, so was perhaps less clear than I intended. Saddam's action in his own arena were of course awful. The war against Iran was insane and was truly over a small if strategic strip of land. He used chemical weapons a great deal during this campaign with the tacit if albeit uncomfortable acceptance of the West (who viewed Iran the greater threat). The murder of the Kurds was part of that war as he was convinced that they were assisting in cross border incursions by Iranian forces. The Kurds have enjoyed virtual autonomy since 1992 and are understandably reluctant to rejoin Iraq proper.

My reference to the 1920s was an acknowlegement of your point. The new Iraq was faced by the Kurds breaking away and setting up their own country. Unable to do much about this they asked for British assistance. The British forces faced with difficult terrain used mustard gas bombs to beat the Kurds into submission. Not a highpoint in our military history.

I do not dispute that the region is well rid of Saddam. I merely question the necessity to rush in all guns blazing and causing enormous damage to the Iraqi infrastructure. Hundreds of coalition soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died when other means to enforce change appeared to be working. The UN inspectors asked for more time saying they could see definite change. This was not hindsight but rather advice based on "on the ground" experience - something our intelligence clearly lacked.

The end result of both approaches was to effect change. The former was somewhat dramatic and costly, the latter slow and painstaking.

Interestingly GW does appear genuinely surprised by the events as they have unfolded, unlike Wolfowitz. I am unconvinced as to how engaged the President really was/is in all this.

:D However, welcome to the Board. Interesting and unpolemical debate is in short supply at times.

Hobbes - Hothead??? :lol: I must try it some time.