Iraq...forgotten?

[TennTradition]

Well, like I said, I don't terribly agree with how it was handled, but my opinion is that it was/is important to show that when the UN makes a resolution it isn't just an idle threat.

Of course, the same argument can be made about how we handle things here at home. Making laws about citizenship and immigration, then not enforcing those laws... idle threats.

I agree with your points. The UN has a lot of resolutions that are left unenforced. And, obviously, if the UN is going to be a credible body, that is a huge problem.

These points can be taken independent of the whole Iraq situation.

 

[TennTradition]

It wasn't just the US admin. using this intelligence in such a manner though. There has to have been some sort of general consensus in the UN about it for them to have issued the resolutions.

Unless of course, you think we strong armed Britan, Russia, China, and France to "do what we say!"

Good points. I cannot speak to Russia, China, or France...I know that we were sharing intelligence with Britain - and painted them our pretty picture. They had some of the same intelligence we had, for sure, though. For example, they were getting the same info out of Niger that we were - from the same Italian that was trying to sell the info.

It is obvious that China, Russia, and France had no serious intentions of backing up the resolution - which really makes me wonder how much they believed it.

 

[rwemyss]

Good points. I cannot speak to Russia, China, or France...I know that we were sharing intelligence with Britain - and painted them our pretty picture. They had some of the same intelligence we had, for sure, though. For example, they were getting the same info out of Niger that we were - from the same Italian that was trying to sell the info.

It is obvious that China, Russia, and France had no serious intentions of backing up the resolution - which really makes me wonder how much they believed it.

Which goes back to my argument about how broken the UN is... which you agree with, so we're all cut and dry there.

It is unfortunate that this Iraq campaign has become as much of a failure as the first one was considered a success (I disagree, b/c if it had been a success there would have been no need for another campaign 10 years later). However, at some point, idle threats must become action, lest things get out of control.

 

[TennTradition]

Which goes back to my argument about how broken the UN is... which you agree with, so we're all cut and dry there.

It is unfortunate that this Iraq campaign has become as much of a failure as the first one was considered a success (I disagree, b/c if it had been a success there would have been no need for another campaign 10 years later). However, at some point, idle threats must become action, lest things get out of control.

I don't disagree - but I just want to make sure that the threats have a good basis and aren't being thrown around as rhetoric. If we are going to act on our threats, lets make sure our threats have a sound basis.

One other note on this matter for now....I find it kind of funny that I even try to talk about this..or any of us. We simply don't have the information and never will to fully know why we went to war and what led us there. But, we all know, without a doubt, that we are there, and that we better find a way to make it work.

 

[WA_Vol]

The whole point of the U.N. was to get Nations to work together. The majority of the U.N. was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Many of U.S. Allies have not supported the U.S. invasion or have only given token support.

 

[utvolpj]

The whole point of the U.N. was to get Nations to work together. The majority of the U.N. was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Many of U.S. Allies have not supported the U.S. invasion or have only given token support.

So you're saying the UN members were usually on our side before Iraq?

 

[rwemyss]

I don't disagree - but I just want to make sure that the threats have a good basis and aren't being thrown around as rhetoric. If we are going to act on our threats, lets make sure our threats have a sound basis.

One other note on this matter for now....I find it kind of funny that I even try to talk about this..or any of us. We simply don't have the information and never will to fully know why we went to war and what led us there. But, we all know, without a doubt, that we are there, and that we better find a way to make it work.

Amen.

The whole point of the U.N. was to get Nations to work together. The majority of the U.N. was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Many of U.S. Allies have not supported the U.S. invasion or have only given token support.

Sure, UN resolutions get passed by a single country... :unsure:

 

[CSpindizzy]

However, at some point, idle threats must become action, lest things get out of control.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map is not worthy enough of action? Oh I'd think that threatening total anihilation of a nation off the face of the earth is far more deserving of action over some broken tinpot dictator dreaming to have a chemical weapons program.

 

[rwemyss]

Threatening to use nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map is not worthy enough of action? Oh I'd think that threatening total anihilation of a nation off the face of the earth is far more deserving of action over some broken tinpot dictator dreaming to have a chemical weapons program.

That's not for me to decide. That's what the UN is SUPPOSED to be there for.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The US acted outside the UN. They did it once with that standard. Where is the consistency? Doesn't inconsistency and double standards destroy credibility?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

When did Bush ever have that c word?

I am so angry I could vote for a conservative democrat!

 

[CSpindizzy]

Compassionate conservatism? You mean the CC word?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Compassionate conservatism? You mean the CC word?

That is a good one too!

:good!:

 

[rwemyss]

The US acted outside the UN. They did it once with that standard. Where is the consistency? Doesn't inconsistency and double standards destroy credibility?

I thought we were discussing Iraq. Afghanistan was a completely different animal.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Still on Iraq and adding Iran to the mix.

 

[allvol123]

and Irannnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Irannnn so far awayyyyy

 

[therealUT]

Priorities as of 03/2003:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea (aka, THE PAPER TIGER)

I believe that by having forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it actually reduces the threat posed by Iran...

Afghanistan - still there and a resurging Taliban. No bin Laden.

Iran - still breaking international agreements, resolutions, etc. Still supplying and training Hizbollah. Still building up a VERY viable weapons program. Somehow being on both sides of Iran has not really had a deterring effect. Somehow I don't see being around them has them quaking in their boots.

North Korea - paper tiger? Wow. Paper tigers are shipping equipment and know-how to other nations. Odd how Israel is bombing locations in Syria that have North Korean equipment and advisors. Paper tiger has a profound effect on proliferation of items we call a threat to humanity. Odd.

These are not "priorities as of 10/07." If I recall correctly, Iran and North Korea acted in a very different nature from about the end of March 2003 through about January/February 2004. I am going to take a wild guess and say that this is because the US showed that it was willing to use force to bring rogue nations to justice. However, they have reverted to their old ways, maybe worse in some people's opinions, after seeing that the civilian populous in the US doesn't have the stomach for a drawn out commitment of military forces.

...and, yes, NK is a paper tiger. I would absolutely love to see the 2ID leave SK and let the ROK army loose on NK.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Hmmm....Iran and North Korea were doing the exact same things back in 2002-03. They were doing the same before then as well. Nothing has changed. Their rhetoric has not changed. Their testing has not changed. Conversations in the UN and the IAEA have not changed. Somehow I don't think the leadership of either nation is basing their actions on American polls.

See that's the problem. You think in conventional war terms. Yeah our military rolled into Baghdad but what good did that do? What good did 130,000 do the past few years? So you can make comments on a conventional war and how we would roll over their military but this type of thinking is outdated. And somehow I don't think the 2ID is having an effect on weapons shipments to other rogue nations and groups.

What was the priority of 2002 and 2003? Taliban and al Qaeda. Why did we drop the ball and lose focus? Perhaps that idea of Americans losing their stomach may have something to do with the fact that the group responsible for numerous major world bombings and attacks not to mention 3000 Americans on 9/11 is still running around and now even growing past the point of 9/11. Somehow the ONGOING priority SINCE 9/11 has just been completely neglected. Instead we're sinking billions of dollars into an economic cesspool. We've lost billions and many more will be lost as well.

Simply put thanks to this marvelous job of planning and execution of said marvelous planning, Americans will be FAR more skeptical of doing anything else in the world. Right now you have the same group responsible for Iraq planning telling us we better do something with Iran. If you think the public is growing hostile with Iraq, just wait until someone in the WH makes a move like this with Iran.

 

[TennTradition]

One thing that has not been mentioned was Libya's surrender of materials that supported its nuclear programs. That seemed to be a direct result of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was a positive turn of events. It was a lot of material (not nuclear material - but equipment), and it is all here in the US now.

 

[WA_Vol]

Amen.


Sure, UN resolutions get passed by a single country... :unsure:

If they all supported it then where are they now? The only country not giving token support is Great Britain and that cost their PM Tony Blair his job.

 

[WA_Vol]

So you're saying the UN members were usually on our side before Iraq?

No what I'm saying is why did the U.S. get involved in a war that none of our allies, except Great Britain, were willing to support?

 

[WA_Vol]

While I'm upset that we don't have better intelligence, I'm not upset at the conclusions that were drawn by, say, the CIA in this case. You make the intelligence call based on the information at hand - despite how much you really wish you had better intelligence.

I am upset that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence from CIA, DIA, State, and Energy to meet the picture that they preferred for Iraq. I point back to the case of the aluminum tubes as a perfect example of listening to one agency's interpretation while ignoring another, more informed and knowledgeable group's conclusion.

Based on some very good investigations presented by Frontline I don't believe that's what happened. The CIA did not recommend invading Iraq. That was the conclusion of Cheney and Bush and they sought intelligence to support their decision.

In the first Gulf War, Saddam was apparently a couple of month away from having a nuclear weapon and the U.S. Intelligence, a.k.a. the CIA, did not have a clue. So this time when the CIA didn't have any evidence to support claims Saddam was working on a nuclear weapon, Cheney didn't believe them. Turns out he was wrong. I think that's what happened.

 

[TennTradition]

Based on some very good investigations presented by Frontline I don't believe that's what happened. The CIA did not recommend invading Iraq. That was the conclusion of Cheney and Bush and they sought intelligence to support their decision.

In the first Gulf War, Saddam was apparently a couple of month away from having a nuclear weapon and the U.S. Intelligence, a.k.a. the CIA, did not have a clue. So this time when the CIA didn't have any evidence to support claims Saddam was working on a nuclear weapon, Cheney didn't believe them. Turns out he was wrong. I think that's what happened.

I was referring more to the fact that CIA was pushing the aluminum tubes as evidence of a nuclear program. State and Energy both said that was not even close to the truth, and the guy at CIA who made the initial assessment and sold it to Bush had only done a short stint at a nuclear lab - he wasn't an expert.

I don't know about the CIA's overall assessment (I followed the nuclear assessment much more closely). But, in general, the CIA must have had a fairly strong position on Iraq's WMD though....we can't forget Tenent's slam dunk (assuming he has been quoted accurately). What is the consensus on that quote anyway? Does Tenent deny it? Anyone?

 

[therealUT]

Hmmm....Iran and North Korea were doing the exact same things back in 2002-03. They were doing the same before then as well. Nothing has changed. Their rhetoric has not changed. Their testing has not changed. Conversations in the UN and the IAEA have not changed. Somehow I don't think the leadership of either nation is basing their actions on American polls.

See that's the problem. You think in conventional war terms. Yeah our military rolled into Baghdad but what good did that do? What good did 130,000 do the past few years? So you can make comments on a conventional war and how we would roll over their military but this type of thinking is outdated. And somehow I don't think the 2ID is having an effect on weapons shipments to other rogue nations and groups.

What was the priority of 2002 and 2003? Taliban and al Qaeda. Why did we drop the ball and lose focus? Perhaps that idea of Americans losing their stomach may have something to do with the fact that the group responsible for numerous major world bombings and attacks not to mention 3000 Americans on 9/11 is still running around and now even growing past the point of 9/11. Somehow the ONGOING priority SINCE 9/11 has just been completely neglected. Instead we're sinking billions of dollars into an economic cesspool. We've lost billions and many more will be lost as well.

Simply put thanks to this marvelous job of planning and execution of said marvelous planning, Americans will be FAR more skeptical of doing anything else in the world. Right now you have the same group responsible for Iraq planning telling us we better do something with Iran. If you think the public is growing hostile with Iraq, just wait until someone in the WH makes a move like this with Iran.

Sending a conventional force into Iraq did not at all take the focus away from the extremely unconventional nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. Prior to ever even thinking about about Iraq, the military brass was reluctant to placing a large conventional force in Afghanistan for the following reasons:
A large conventional force would not fair very well in that terrain.
They did not want to be perceived in the way the Russians were in the 80s.

However, continue to use the most trite argument concerning our involvement in Iraq. Keep on thinking that it has taken away the focus in Afghanistan. You are definitely free to be as ignorant as you want to be.

 

[BigPapaVol]

If they all supported it then where are they now? The only country not giving token support is Great Britain and that cost their PM Tony Blair his job.

let's be honest. allies are allies when it's self serving. far too many other nations with too many pre war illicit ties to the Iraqi regime