Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[Pirate88179]

Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

Red

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

[MarkE]

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

Considering that our greater concern was legitimately Iran, and considering that in the past 12 years our wars have strengthened Iran's influence, weakened ours, cost us trillions of dollars, and many thousands of casualties among our brave ranks, I disagree with the idea that invading Iraq was anything but a monumentally stupid idea promoted by war mongers and profiteers.  The Iraq war was a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions to us.  Never mind the complete immorality of our unilateral invasion launched when Sadaam Hussein did not leave on the Midget Minded Moron GWB's 48 hour get out of Dodge demand.  There are people who deserve to be tried for their crimes against humanity.  Bush and Cheney are at the top of that list.

[Red_Sunset]

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

Bill, 
I try to approach any subject from impartiality and I will not dispute that the players in conflict were good or bad guys, not even the reason if they had reason or validation to do what they did.   All I search for is where the TRUTH is, in the end truth is elusive and you end up with best assumptions. In addition I can sense also that this subject has emotional content and this influences objectivity.

In the same way that Rosh buoyancy device has an "OFFICIAL LINE" offered by themselves, their is also an "UNOFFICIAL LINE" that is transpiring here on this web site.     In the same way, the reason for the 2de gulf war has an OFFICIAL LINE and an "UNOFFICIAL LINE".  Where does the truth lie is the good question?

The "OFFICIAL LINE" is what is palatable to the general public supplied though well known public news agencies.  The question is what is true, what is modified for consumption ...ect
The " UNOFFICIAL LINE" comes from other sources,  many alternative sources provide good coverage and many are wayout and biased sources for their interest reasons. Although we had some good sources (leakages) through Wikeleaks and Snowdon.  These leakage sources did confirm many and more of the alternative sources that appeared possibly doubtfull.  It will always be a problem to be assured of credible information.

Back to your assertion: 
Sadam was a bad boy in many respects, a loose canon, no doubt, a reason good enough reason to take him out. (a bit like Castro).  Shooting at planes can be expected in a lock-down situation, an annoyance but not exactly a good reason to invade a country
But I believe that was not the "official line" reason for invasion. He had to proof that he did not have WMD ?  If WMD would be the core issue, there are too many other countries with worse (Pakistan, North Korea...ect), but that is not the aim.  Do not forget from which state the president & vice president was and family relationships with foreign leaders.
Buying uranium:  check history (google: Yellow Cake, Niger, 2003), they made even a movie on it starring Sean Penn " Fair Game".  A book on the story can also be found
Refining uranium:  Perhaps misinformation on the pipes for refining ?
                             Wikipedia "Iraqi aluminum tubes" :      Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many questioned the validity of the claim. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge.

I do not claim to know, but I can apply logic to a fair extent, something did not sound well when Bush wanted to invade. Subsequent information uncovered pretty well what went on and it wasn't the "Official Line"

I am sorry to oppose your "clear cut" view, Red.

[MileHigh]

I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.

[MarkE]

I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.

My suggestion to you is to read the PNAC documents.  The strategy was to invade Iraq and use it as a firebase from which to attack Iran.  The war on Iraq was going to happen no matter what.  In 2002 James Woolsey was working the debate circuit arguing that Afghanistan had been a walk in the park, and all would fall and tremble before the USA's incredible might.  History students might note just how well Afghanistan has really gone.

Bush chose to unilaterally invade a country that had neither attacked the USA nor presented any imminent threat.  The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians, not Iraqis.  The opening of the war was advertised in the terroristic terms of "shock and awe".  The neocons are the "big bad evil guys".  In the promotion of their vision of the "New American Century" they have made the world a far more dangerous place, killed upwards of a million people, and incited an entire generation if not two of nut jobs that think the way to paradise is butchering others.  What other than evil does one call a person prepared to do what these war criminals have done in anything but self-defense?  Sadaam was a nasty evil guy.  There are lots of nasty evil guys in this world.  A bunch of them ran our government for eight years.