Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval The idea was is that if Iran won, the ME would be in serious trouble. Obviously, we throw some limited support behind the alternative to prevent such a stance.

Are you serious? The Middle East is still "in serious trouble," thanks in substantial part to US foreign policy. These days, if we want to prevent an
attack on Iran, we don't just consider what Iran is doing. There are other nations involved.

Quote by: Dieval And what would Saddam have done with that generator? Used it to power one of his 12 palaces? Power a military base? Who knows...

No one knows because the option wasn't allowed. It's very possible a lot of the restricted items would have been useful to many Iraqi citizens who previously enjoyed one of the most stable economies in the Middle East (of course, I say "enjoyed" in a relative sense, here).

You keep insisting that Saddam devastated the country, which is certainly true. But also devastating were the policies of group punishment inflicted by the UN and the US. It's simply delusional to say Saddam was responsible for all the decisionmaking, especially when trade was restricted that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein per se, and had everything to do with the well-being of ordinary Iraqis.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Are you serious? The Middle East is still "in serious trouble," thanks in substantial part to US foreign policy. These days, if we want to prevent an attack on Iran, we don't just consider what Iran is doing. There are other nations involved.

That's right, fall back on the old "blame US foreign policy" routine for all the trouble in the ME.... It's all our fault, no one else's... :rolleyes:
We made him launch the Iran/Iraq war. We made him invade kuwait. We made him not verify his WMD's destruction. We made him not comply with the sanctions....it's all our fault.

Please...

Quote by: grandpa No one knows because the option wasn't allowed. It's very possible a lot of the restricted items would have been useful to many Iraqi citizens who previously enjoyed one of the most stable economies in the Middle East (of course, I say "enjoyed" in a relative sense, here). You keep insisting that Saddam devastated the country, which is certainly true. But also devastating were the policies of group punishment inflicted by the UN and the US. It's simply delusional to say Saddam was responsible for all the decisionmaking, especially when trade was restricted that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein per se, and had everything to do with the well-being of ordinary Iraqis. Grandpa h.

Iraq was run by Saddam. No one else. To blame anyone BUT him for what happened to Iraq is foolish. The sanctions were put in place to make HIM comply, without waging a full scale war. HE decided not to comply, which in turn hurt the people he was responsible for.

[thx1138]

That's right, fall back on the old "blame US foreign policy" routine for all the trouble in the ME.... It's all our fault, no one else's... We made him launch the Iran/Iraq war. We made him invade kuwait. We made him not verify his WMD's destruction. We made him not comply with the sanctions....it's all our fault.

Well the U.S. and England had a lot to do with it, they love to draw lines on the map of other peoples land.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval We made him launch the Iran/Iraq war. We made him invade kuwait.

No, but we helped him out in the former, and kicked his butt in the latter. In neither case were they really our wars to interfere with, were they? Except for our wee concern over Gulf Oil production, of course.

Quote by: Dieval We made him not verify his WMD's destruction. We made him not comply with the sanctions....it's all our fault.

Neither of which was so compelling as to require immediate invasion and conquest.

Quote by: Dieval That's right, fall back on the old "blame US foreign policy" routine for all the trouble in the ME.... It's all our fault, no one else's...

Sometimes U.S. foreign policy is at fault Invading Iraq was a bad, bad idea, a misguided, ill-conceived policy which has thrown the entire mid-east into turmoil, emboldened Syria, Iran and North Korea, and for which we should be held to blame...

...or more specifically, for which George W. Bush, Darth Cheney and Donald Rumsnamara should be held to blame.

And attacking Iran will be an equally dumb idea. If we invade, it'll be Iraq on steroids, a mssive, unwinnable querilla war we could never win.

Even if we had the troops.

If we simply bomb them, Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz and forces are larger conflict, with the entire Moslem world rallying against us. Either way we're screwed.

.

[rmnunez]

Bush recollecting with Sarkozy:

I just want to remind you that [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was supported by France and the United States, which clearly said to the dictator, you will disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Now, I'm the kind of person that when somebody says something, I take them for their word.” ...

Good news on the "nightmare":

Major-General Joseph Fil, commander of US forces in Baghdad, said al Qaeda in Iraq no longer had a foothold in any part of the city of 7 million people. The group is blamed for most big car bombings that have killed thousands. Death squad killings in Baghdad were also down 80% from their peak while roadside bombings had fallen 70%, Fil told foreign reporters without giving specific timeframes. "I think there is going to come a day when certainly we will need less coalition troops in Baghdad," Fil said.

I hope he's right, it would be a great boost to morale if as united statians turned to the polls, people were feeling good about returning troops.

Bush sent an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq early this year in a last-ditch attempt to halt Iraq's slide into sectarian civil war and to give the country's feuding politicians "breathing space" to reconcile. Drop in Baghdad violence sustainable: general | International | Reuters

I think the surge quite definitely has yielded beneficial results.

A senior Iraqi military official said on Wednesday that more than 46,000 people had returned to their homes in Baghdad from outside Iraq in October as security improved in the capital. The figure was a large jump from earlier government estimates that 3,200 families had returned to their homes in Baghdad since January. "As a result of the improvement of the security situation in the capital Baghdad the total number of Iraqis returning from outside through Iraqi border exit points during October reached 46,030," Baghdad security spokesman Brigadier-General Qassim Moussawi told a news conference. Moussawi said the figures were a sign that a new security strategy in Iraq, including a "surge" of 30,000 extra U.S. troops in and around Baghdad, more active Iraqi security forces and neighborhood policing, was paying off. Iraq says families returning home as violence ebbs | U.S. | Reuters

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval That's right, fall back on the old "blame US foreign policy" routine for all the trouble in the ME.... It's all our fault, no one else's...

Are you capable of reading my posts? All
I want from you at this point is some level of honesty.

I didn't say the US acted alone in Saddam's crimes, or in shaping the entire history of the Middle East. But one would have to be a complete idiot to not see how heavily involved the US is. And, sure enough, the US and other countries have been shaping the region into a disaster, including even paving the way for the Taliban in Afghanistan and bolstering Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia.
And none of what I'm saying is a secret, or some kind of theory. It's history.

Oh, and here's another little offshoot of US decisionmaking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/wo...ss&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 — As the insurgency in Iraq escalated in the spring of 2004, American officials entrusted an Iraqi businessman with issuing weapons to Iraqi police cadets training to help quell the violence. By all accounts, the businessman, Kassim al-Saffar, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, did well at distributing the Pentagon-supplied weapons from the Baghdad Police Academy armory he managed for a military contractor. But, co-workers say, he also turned the armory into his own private arms bazaar with the seeming approval of some American officials and executives, selling AK-47 assault rifles, Glock pistols and heavy machine guns to anyone with cash in hand — Iraqi militias, South African security guards and even American contractors.

Quote by: Dieval Iraq was run by Saddam. No one else. To blame anyone BUT him for what happened to Iraq is foolish. The sanctions were put in place to make HIM comply, without waging a full scale war. HE decided not to comply, which in turn hurt the people he was responsible for.

No, it is not foolish to believe Saddam was responsible for a strategy created by the US and the UN. Nor is it particularly wise to suggest group punishment was the way to go to punish the Iraqi government, at least if the actual policy drafters wanted a more stable Iraq (apparently they didn't, as they cut off many resources ordinary Iraqis most certainly could have used).

Again, it's foolish to suggest Saddam Hussein acted alone in everything that's happened in Iraq in recent years. In fact, that's more delusional than it is plain old foolish.


Grandpa h.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: grandpa Not everyone in jail is an "insurgent."

Not every inmate in ANY country is a criminal. Whats your point?

And yes, I did address KBR as if it were Blackwater, mainly because KBR and Blackwater are in cahoots: SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Military -- After many denials, Army confirms private security contract in Iraq So technically I was wrong, but also technically correct.

You said "they" were getting kicked out of Iraq. The only contractor refered to was KBR. One of there subcontractrs is getting booted, not them. KBR isn't going anywhere.

And yes, I do find it baffling how you support the international arms trade between militant groups. In fact, your support for the Iraq war, or any other aspect of US tyranny, is quite perplexing. Grandpa h.

I think you missed my point. I was referring to the various companies that make all the cool shit I have that is sooooo much better than being all dressed up for 1991. Colt, Trijicon, Knight Armament Co., and Magpul, just to name a few, all have a satisfied customer *here*.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 I think you missed my point. I was referring to the various companies that make all the cool shit I have that is sooooo much better than being all dressed up for 1991. Colt, Trijicon, Knight Armament Co., and Magpul, just to name a few, all have a satisfied customer *here*.

Not to mention all the "cool shit" provided by other companies like Advanced Prosthetic Technologies, American Prosthetic Components, Endolite, Prosthetic Innovations, just to name a few.

[grandpa]

I worded things incorrectly in another post.

I meant:
"No, it is foolish to believe Saddam was responsible for a strategy created by the US and the UN."

I got caught up in a stream of "no's."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 Not every inmate in ANY country is a criminal. Whats your point?

My point is just that. The US and Iraqi government have no doubt imprisoned innocent people.

As for KBR and Blackwater, I explained that already. They have been in cahoots, part of the same contract and working together--so I wasn't entirely wrong, only partially.

As for embracing the arms trade, I can only say that's depraved. Consider the example I just gave to Dieval, where some businessman set up an arms bazaar for various shifty characters (not that you're not a shifty character, seeing as to how nonchalantly you accept warfare and the killing of many people worldwide).

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: thx1138 Well the U.S. and England had a lot to do with it, they love to draw lines on the map of other peoples land.

So let me get this right...it's only the US and England that "draw lines on the map"? It's not like Saddam ever decided to redraw Iraq or anything...*cough*Kuwait*cough*.... But only the US and England are ever at fault. :rolleyes:

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart . No, but we helped him out in the former, and kicked his butt in the latter. In neither case were they really our wars to interfere with, were they? Except for our wee concern over Gulf Oil production, of course.

My point was is that Saddam was making his own choices to go to war.

Quote by: Sonart Neither of which was so compelling as to require immediate invasion and conquest.

After 12 years of failed sanctions, his ability to restart his WMD programs after the sanctions at a moments notice, failing to satisfy requirements that he disarmed, etc..yes, it was time for him to be removed.....conquest, well, I think your idea of conquest isn't quite the same as to what will happen there..

Quote by: Sonart Sometimes U.S. foreign policy is at fault Invading Iraq was a bad, bad idea, a misguided, ill-conceived policy which has thrown the entire mid-east into turmoil, emboldened Syria, Iran and North Korea, and for which we should be held to blame...

again with people placing the blame for Saddams actions on the US....HE brought what happened on himself! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Quote by: Sonart And attacking Iran will be an equally dumb idea.

So, obviously it's not the best idea to invade Iran, but look at the alternative. A nuclear armed Iran is better how??

Quote by: Sonart If we simply bomb them, Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz and forces are larger conflict, with the entire Moslem world rallying against us. Either way we're screwed. .

The entire muslim world doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, so I don't believe that will be as big of issue as you think.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa I didn't say the US acted alone in Saddam's crimes, or in shaping the entire history of the Middle East. But one would have to be a complete idiot to not see how heavily involved the US is.

At the time, the alternative to the actions we took was considered worse.

Quote by: grandpa And, sure enough, the US and other countries have been shaping the region into a disaster, including even paving the way for the Taliban in Afghanistan

At the time, who was considered the bigger threat?

Quote by: grandpa and bolstering Saddam Hussein in Iraq

Again, who was considered the bigger threat?

Quote by: grandpa and Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia.

How so?

Quote by: grandpa Again, it's foolish to suggest Saddam Hussein acted alone in everything that's happened in Iraq in recent years. In fact, that's more delusional than it is plain old foolish.

Answer me this....Who did not comply with the sanctions on Iraq? Who did not verify that Iraq was disarmed, and caused a war with his country?

[xyzer]

I'll endorse Dievals opinion...to blame foreign affairs on the indirect consequences of US policy is juvenile and ridiculous! We don't make policy to please other countries! We make it in our own interests depending on the situation at the time.

To postulate that actions to support an ally(friend) in 1980 should not have been undertaken because that friend became an enemy a quarter century later defies reality! Hey.... we live in a dynamic world! Things change! Do you,who believe this nonsense, think it makes sense for the US to make a policy that agrees with France or Russia, but isn't in our own interest. Do you actually think grandpa, that we knew in 1980 what the world situation would be in 2000? Was our realtionship with Russia the same as it is now? Get real!!!

[Dieval]

Quote by: xyzer I'll endorse Dievals opinion...to blame foreign affairs on the indirect consequences of US policy is juvenile and ridiculous! We don't make policy to please other countries! We make it in our own interests depending on the situation at the time. To postulate that actions to support an ally(friend) in 1980 should not have been undertaken because that friend became an enemy a quarter century later defies reality! Hey.... we live in a dynamic world! Things change! Do you,who believe this nonsense, think it makes sense for the US to make a policy that agrees with France or Russia, but isn't in our own interest. Do you actually think grandpa, that we knew in 1980 what the world situation would be in 2000? Was our realtionship with Russia the same as it is now? Get real!!!

Exactly....we supplied arms to the people in Afghanistan fighting the soviets so that we didn't have to have an all out war with them. In hindsite, it did come back to bite us in the ass, but at the time, it was considered the correct course of action.
We limitedly backed Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war because Iran winning was considered to be a bigger problem than Saddam. Then Saddam screwed us over. Would it have been better to let Iran win and rule the middle east now?

To blame our policy for the majority of problems in the middle east is just plain asanine. We didn't force Saddam to attack Iran, Kuwait, or not disclose his WMD programs. We didn't force the people in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. They were already doing that.

[rmnunez]

to blame foreign affairs on the indirect consequences of US policy is juvenile and ridiculous!

By virtue of its military and economic strength, US foreign policy has a lot more effect than anyone else's. Foreign affairs are the consequence, at least in part, of foreign policy, which it is established is prevailingly US foreign policy.

Nonetheless, not everything that happens anywhere is the outcome of US foreign policy. There are other countries with their own foreign policies and levels of economic, military or political influence. These will be in pursuit of their own interests

We don't make policy to please other countries! We make it in our own interests depending on the situation at the time.

Everyone acts in their own interest, the Scandinavians less so than most. But there are overarching themes like human rights, everyone endorses. This is a way to get others involved since they'll find other governments they deal with also signing-on. These multlateral universalist declarations are supposed to be parameters to foreign policy.

Though things change and the world is dynamic, the art in foreign affairs in in having a policy that suits everyone as long as possible.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval At the time, the alternative to the actions we took was considered worse. At the time, who was considered the bigger threat?

And these views justify the three wars how? The fact that politicians chose a side does not inherently justify their decision. That's not a rational approach to the issues, but, of course, patriotism is irrational.

Then you question that the US supports Saudi Arabia, which also makes no sense. The US is a huge supporter of Saudi Arabia. It also supports countries like Uzbekistan, which has a terrible human rights record, and the government of Pakistan right now is given the benefit of the doubt in US media coverage (of course).

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa And these views justify the three wars how? The fact that politicians chose a side does not inherently justify their decision. That's not a rational approach to the issues, but, of course, patriotism is irrational.

Again, you're missing the point. At the time, the threat posed by an alternate outcome to these wars was considered worse than doing nothing.

Quote by: grandpa Then you question that the US supports Saudi Arabia, which also makes no sense. The US is a huge supporter of Saudi Arabia.

Do you propose we make SA an enemy of the US?

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Zeebadee Not to mention all the "cool shit" provided by other companies like Advanced Prosthetic Technologies, American Prosthetic Components, Endolite, Prosthetic Innovations, just to name a few.

There are a lot of medical technologies taken for granted today that would have never been discovered without the civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Quote by: grandpa My point is just that. The US and Iraqi government have no doubt imprisoned innocent people. As for KBR and Blackwater, I explained that already. They have been in cahoots, part of the same contract and working together--so I wasn't entirely wrong, only partially. As for embracing the arms trade, I can only say that's depraved. Consider the example I just gave to Dieval, where some businessman set up an arms bazaar for various shifty characters (not that you're not a shifty character, seeing as to how nonchalantly you accept warfare and the killing of many people worldwide). Grandpa h.

Be fair: Name a justice system in recorded history that was perfect and flawless in every way, to all standards of all people. I won't be hold ing my breath for this one...

You goofed, quit trying to weasle.

War is part of human existence. Its what people do. That is reality. Some people run, some protest, some participate (either starting shit, or defending), some exploit. Everyone is wired to do one of those things. I happen to be predisposed to participate. You can think whatever you want about people like me, you have that freedom, but remember that you have people like me to thank for it.