Iraq

Jeff,

I must respectfully disagree with this anology of the United States in Iraq and during WW2.

The United States unfortunately like some have said has over stepped her bounds. While the over all intesions might be good, the Arabs that are being occupied do not think so. It is now the United States that is being looked at as the agressor and not the liberator ( which is absolutely awful ) The liberation of Europe ( for the most part ) was a fight against a repressive regime which had conquered dozens of nations and had massacred milllions. This is hardly the case with Iraq, the very same country which less then 25 years earlier with the very same leader was an ally against Iran

 

Can you provide a source for this? I was not aware that Putin claimed Iraq had WMD's, in fact this was the very reason why countries like China, France, Germany and Russia ( 3 of which are permanent members of the security council ) were apposed to the war.

Come on Jeff, he is a dictator of a country with absolute power. He wouldnt look like he had absolute power if he said that would he?

And what numerous wars are you referring to when saying instigated? I am only familiar with Kuwait and minor clashes with Israel which would hardly constitue a war.

By the way I am not defensing Saddam, as we all know the kind of SOB he really was.

 

It is obvious that the analogy with WWII is another story and Iraq is not responsible for 9-11. Yet it is true that Saddam was a dictator who killed thousand of Kurds and Chiites, but then all dictators should be killed and not especially Saddam.

 

@ Slipdigit

About WMD's

I could not care less about what H Clinton or Putin thought on this subject.

The AEIA was on the field and in charge of this question, and none of their reports allowed to think Irak had significant amounts of WMD nor the capability to build these amounts, under its 2003 conditions and monitoring, remember ?

Why not letting the inspections go on, it was the best cost effective method (both in $, global security and opinion) not only to find the weapons, but also to block new weapon programs to be launched, like it had been the case from 1991 to 1998, and since late 2002 when S.Hussein invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country ?

Hussein was just trying not to loose face, to inspire fear and respect among his subjects, Bush was just trying to sell a war on WMD because, I'm almost quoting what Wolfowitz publicly admitted here, WMD were the core reason for an invasion that everyone could agree on.

About comparing US intervention in Iraq and in WWII, well...I known this is a WWII forum, but let's be serious

Would you like to be on the receiving end of a pre-emptive invasion, based on the threat of weapons you don't possess, because a pre-emptive invasion would have been good to eradicate the Nazi Germany before it set the world on fire ?

Anyway, I feel the WMD subject is still somewhat sensible even today, maybe we should stick to what can and has to be done in Iraq now ?

 

You made a point Slip, but I think there should be distinction made between the Baas regime which is not religious at all and the religious fundamantalists that have been terrorizing the Iraqi population since 2003. Saddam was certainly not a democrat and has deserved his lot, but he knew how to deal with religious fanatics and as long as did take care of those guys they would not dare to blow themselves up in the midlde of a market because of fear for reprisals against their family.

 

Exactly!!!

In fact Saddam was the only Muslim leader that would come in to work in a suit and tie and not the traditional SHUKR.

I for one would much rather have Saddam in power then Muqtada Al Sadr.

 

Gents I think we are again repeating ourselves with old news, wmds not or yes.........yes I know they were there but who cares right now, the prime objective is to get Iraq back in Iraqi hands before we get bent over to march into Iran and or Syria or both.

I conclude with more Vietnam relevency, after we left in the lat helicopters out of the southland, north Vietnam and China together purged the south in such a way and covered it extremely well, thousands upon thousands were brutalized and murdered............alright enough of that, hopeful this remains closed at least by me for personal reasons.

at present I have friends and relatives in combat prose stationed in Iraq and elsewhere and I would love to have them home with family and friends, but they are doing what they were and are trained to do. It is very easy for us to talk of something we are not personally acquainted by quoting media texts. all I can say is please don't. There is such a proliferation of materials that have not been sourced for good reason behind the scenes in the protection of the world against evil tyranny. maybe one day in 10-15 years it will well be released. But at present time we are getting such a one sided view of the US and it's President, plus the Military

v/r E ~

 

No they don't.

Al Qaida is a religious fanatics terrorist group, in fact it's not even a group in the sense of an organisation, it's a label.

Some criminals blow a bomb somewhere, they claim doing it on behalf of Al Qaida, even if they have no relation with Al Qaida's most wanted VIPs, and this is credited to Al Qaida.

Hussein was a pragmatic dictator, nothing to do with religious fanatism. Check what the Ba'ath party is all about to get a picture.

For example he got rid of most of Islamic laws in Irak, making it the one and only Gulf country where the charia was not applied. He also got rid of most of religious Courts.
His war against Iran was also aimed, for a good part, at Iraq chiits supporting Iran's new born Islamic regime.

You can compare Hussein with the rulers of Birmania, North Corea, or to Pinochet for example, there were plenty good reason to get rid of him.

But it was not the best idea to sell the war with Irak=WMD=Al Qaida=9/11, it's like scare old people when you want to sell them an alarm

****

@Erich



Now, something you don't see in medias are the number of people arrested everyday in Irak while they were preparing or planning terrorists actions, which would not be possible without US soldiers.

Neither you see in medias the achievements in some Sunni tribal zones where nobody could go 2 years ago.

It's also important to see what are the good results achieved, so you can reproduce them, but it takes time for this.

To sum it up, I think that USA got lured into this war by a bunch of neocons assholes who did know crap on the subject (now THIS for one was a 1 sided view ), but know they're in, they have to be patient to prevent this whole war being a total waste for USA, for Iraq, for the Gulf and for the whole world.

 

friend I really would not call it all NOT related as I believe it is, and that is the rise of Muslim power which may offend some. the doctrine is to push out and crumble Israel into nothing with complete control of the mideast and spread it's fingers throughout the world. You can see it as it is rather obvious .

true about Hussien his power was his might as he said several times privately "I am from noble birth" with the conclusion I will bring Babylon back as it once was as a great nation to drive out the Jewish hordes and I will be hailed as a great king and god........... well sorry there saddam ~

 

Skipper, thank you for the excellent post and, it makes a great 17 points ;-)) The only trouble i have with this is that the same could be said for almost any war in any time or place. The similarities are too easy to pick out, however, you did make a great set of points. ;-))

Best regards--C.

 

Hi Jeff, I too vowed (privately) to stay out of this thread but, like quicksand, it manages to draw one in and deeper at that ;-))

PS, great Slava insult :-D Just kidding, just kidding. Im now heading back home for a marathon of: The Andy Griffith Show.

 

more propaganda ......"we will bury you" a phrase I remembered from an old dried up prune from Russia some years ago, and Carl it is inevitable

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Vladimir Putin issued a veiled warning Tuesday against any attack on Iran as he began the first visit by a Kremlin leader to Tehran in six decades—a mission reflecting Russian-Iranian efforts to curb U.S. influence. He also suggested Moscow and Tehran should have a veto on Western plans for new pipelines to carry oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea, using routes that would bypass Russian soil and break the Kremlin's monopoly on energy deliveries from the region.
Putin came to Tehran for a summit of the five nations bordering the Caspian, but his visit was aimed more at strengthening efforts to blunt U.S. economic and military ties in the area. Yet he also refused to set a date for completing Iran's first nuclear reactor, trying to avoid an outright show of support for Iran's defiance over its nuclear program.
Putin strongly warned outside powers against use of force in the region, a clear reference to the United States, which many in Iran fear will attack over the West's suspicions that the Iranians are secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made similar comments.
"We are saying that no (Caspian) nations should offer their territory to outside powers for aggression or any military action against any of the Caspian states," Putin said.
The five national leaders at the summit later signed a declaration that included a similar statement—an apparent reflection of Iranian fears that the United States could use Azerbaijan's territory as a staging ground for military strikes in Iran.
Putin has warned against such attacks previously, but reiterating them in Tehran gave them greater resonance—particularly at a summit for a region where Moscow deeply resents U.S. and European attempts at greater influence.
The Russian leader also used the occasion to make a nod to Iran's national pride—describing it as a "world power" and referring to the might of the ancient Persian empire.
In Iran's confrontation with the West, Russia has tread a fine line, warning against heavy pressure on Iran and protecting it—for now—from a third round of U.N. sanctions, while urging Tehran to heed the Security Council's demand that it halt uranium enrichment.
Putin's careful stance on completing the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran suggested the Kremlin is seeking to preserve solid ties with Tehran without angering the West.
"Russia is trying to sit in two chairs at the same time," Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, told The Associated Press. A pledge to quickly complete the plant would send a "strong signal to the West that Russia is with Iran," he said.
Putin showed he wouldn't be pressed into speeding up completion of the $1 billion contract to build Bushehr.
"I only gave promises to my mom when I was a small boy," he snapped when Iranian reporters prodded him to promise a quick launch.
At the same time, Putin—on the first trip to Iran by a Kremlin leader since Josef Stalin visited in 1943 for talks with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II—said Moscow wouldn't back down on its obligation to finish the plant.
"Russia has clearly stated that it's going to complete this work," Putin said. "We are not renouncing this obligation."
Russia has warned that the Bushehr plant would not go on line this fall as originally planned, saying Iran was slow in making payments. Iranian officials have angrily denied being behind in its payments and accuse the Kremlin of caving in to Western pressure.
Moscow also has ignored Iranian demands to ship nuclear reactor fuel for the plant, saying it would be delivered only six months before the Bushehr plant begins operation. The launch date has been delayed indefinitely amid the payment dispute.
Putin said the two sides were negotiating revisions to the Bushehr contract, and once agreed a decision on fuel can be made.
The Caspian leaders offered a degree of support for the Iranian nuclear program, stressing in their joint statement that any country like Iran which has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has the right to "carry out research and can use nuclear energy for peaceful means without discrimination."
Putin underlined his disagreements with Washington on Iran last week, saying he had seen no "objective data" showing Tehran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. Iran says it need enriched uranium to fuel nuclear reactors that will generate electricity.
The main issue before the summit was the Caspian Sea itself.
Divvying up territory in and around the inland sea—believed to contain the world's third-largest reserves of oil and natural gas—has been a divisive issue among the five nations, and the leaders showed no signs of progress toward resolving the dispute.
The Caspian's offshore borders have been in limbo since the 1991 Soviet collapse. The lack of agreement has led to tensions and conflicts over oil deposits, but Putin and Ahmadinejad strongly warned outside powers to stay away from the region.
"All issues related to the Caspian should be settled exclusively by littoral nations," Ahmadinejad said.
Moscow strongly opposes U.S.- and European-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver Central Asian and Caspian oil and gas to the West by bypassing Russia, through which all the region's pipelines now flow. Russia has pushed for new pipelines to cross its territory as well.
Putin argued that all pipeline projects in the region should require the approval by all five Caspian nations to take effect, a view that would give each capital a veto.
"Projects which may inflict a serious damage to the Caspian environment can't be and mustn't be implemented without a preliminary discussion by the Caspian five and making a consensus decision in the interests of our common sea," Putin said.
But the idea was barely mentioned in comments by the leaders of the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which are striving to balance their relations with Russia, the West and Asia.
In Baku, Azerbaijan's capital, political analyst Ilgar Mamedov said the veto idea was only "Putin's opinion." Caspian nations "are independent and act in accordance with their own interests," he said.
___
Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini and Nasser Karimi in Tehran and Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed to this report.

 

Hi E, on pootin.

I wish that guy would just dry up and blow away in a gentle breeze. I never have liked him and now, he's bed-buddies with Mahmoud the Maddog from Iran. Also, I think pootin, was to restart the Cold War as well as Communism. The latest laugh I heard about him is that he thinks he was going to be assassinated when he visited what? England? or somewhere? This guy is a "Sandwich-Short-of-a-Picnic."

 

yep Carl,

Guys, Putin was going to tear the guts out of his cabinet and have re-elections of even his own position...........has this happened or another pipe dream ?

 

I should just like to note for the record that I have successfully not participated in this thread.




Oh...
Bollocks!

(Got to say I think you're all doing incredibly well at keeping it civil, most other corners of the web and a bunch of 'somewhat right of centre' Yanks, an obviously subversive Commie and two Frenchmen talking on this subject would have descended into death threats about 10 posts in ).

Cheers,
Adam.

 

And here are my 2 cents on Putin.

What he is doing with Iran is nothing more then a brilliant political game against the US foreign policy. As the US has gone out of her way to be-friend countries like Poland, Ukraine and Georgia current states considered enemies of Russia by Russia and her people not too mention the current missile fiasco.

Putin' relationship with Iran is nothing more in comparison then the US's relationship with Saudi Arabia. This accusation is nothing more then a double standard on the current administrations transparent policies. I find it interesting how the same administration which speaks out against the relationship of Russia and Iran and the threats on Israel, is at the same time having more then kosher relationships with the very same countries which have actually gone to war with Isreal, such as Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The question is why?

The answer is money and oil......

Also most of foreign fighters that are currently fighting in Iraq against the brave US lads who are fighting Bush's war come from Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Jordan NOT from Iran. Yet nothing is ever mentioned of this. Nor is the fact that Iran supported the war against the Taleban in Afganistan.

Ask yourselves one question gentlemen, how many terrorists have come out of Iran and how many out of Saudi Arabia?

The relationships are purely business.... Well now that I think about it Bush has been seen walking around with the king of Saudi Arabia holding hands

Why should Putin extinguish his relationship with Iran which has done nothing to Russia. What would Russia gain from supporting the US against Iran? More missiles on her border along with expanding NATO by welcoming Russia's enemies into the alliance? As Pat Buchanon has asked,why would America choose Poland, Ukraine and Georgia as friends over Russia? what would this country gain?

I wonder what reaction Bush migh have if China placed missiles in Jamaica or somewhere of the Californian coast claiming that they are there protecting North Korea from a US strike?

What Putin is doing, is looking out for Russia first and everyone else next. But then again that is the job of any leader of any country, Putin is just slightly smarter then most

It is a double edged sworld gentlemen and politics is a dirty game