As Iraq Winds Down, Time for some Ridiculous WMD Quotes

[Jimbeaux]

neilr said:

Jimbeaux, you and I have disagreed over this many times, however, regardless of how you see international law, and how effective it may or may not be (I dont altogether dissagree on that point) it is still international law, we're not discussing whether it's effective or not here.

It's illegal to steal a car, regardless of how stupid or ridiculous one thinks such a law is or even how effectve it is (lets face it cars are stolen all day and night long), stealing a car is still illegal. By the same principal... etc etc.

BTW, international law is ok when it deals with people such as, oh, i don't know, Hitler et al, Slobodan Milosevic etc isn't it.


(Edited so it makes som kind of sense)

Edited by neilr on Thursday 2nd September 00:21

I agree that it exists; however, who decides how it is handed out? Who decides the consequences? The Hitler, Stalin example is a point in case. The Allies held all of the cards and made the rules. International law today is no different. It is not nor will it ever be "fair". The rules of said law will be made by those who can offer consequences as an alternative.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 2nd September 04:56

[Mattygooner]

collateral said:

Mattygooner said:

collateral said:

Mattygooner said:

If he was prepared to use chemical weapons on his own people, you think he would think twice about using it on anyone else?

He didn't have any.

So what was Halabja? Not Mustard gas or Hydrogen Cyanide?

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Butler%20Re...

Have a read through, P96 onwards intellignece reports on Iraq's Bio and Chemical Weapons.

Chemical weapons were used in 1988. afaik no one in this thread has denied that. The discussion is about the decision to invade (because of non-existent weapons) 15 years later.

I had a skim of what you suggested. As far as I can tell the gist of it seems to be 'we were completely and utterly wrong but it's not our fault'.

Edited by collateral on Thursday 2nd September 01:51

Hmm, read the JIC assesments from 72 onwards, it is quite interesting, new sources from within the regeime sugesting an increase in the production of WMD as well as the JIC's assesment on alistic missiles stock etc.

I still dispute the fact that the UK went to war knowing that there were no WMD's, past actions by Iraq would suggest otherwise and as has already been said, Saddam wanted people to think he had these weapons to keep his power in the region.

But, these pieces are interesting from the report.

One further intelligence report which has been described to us as being significant was
received between the production of the JIC’s assessment of 9 September and the
publication of the Government’s dossier. This source5 reported that production of
biological and chemical agent had been accelerated by the Iraqi regime, including
through the building of further facilities throughout Iraq.
306. By mid-September 2002, therefore, readers of JIC assessments will have had an
impression of continuity with, but also some change from, the JIC assessment of
15 March:
a. The continuing clear strategic intent on the part of the Iraqi regime to pursue its
nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic missile programmes.
b. Continuing efforts by the Iraqi regime to sustain and where possible develop its
indigenous capabilities.
c. The apparent considerable development, drawing on these capabilities, of
Iraq’s ‘break-out’ potential. Although Iraq’s nuclear programme continued to
be constrained, there was strong evidence of continuing work on ballistic
missiles, including the development and production of systems with ranges
in excess of limits set by the United Nations. There was also evidence from
one source, supported by one complementary report, of Iraq having the
ability to produce biological agent in mobile facilities, and additional evidence
of activity at one site formerly associated with Iraq’s biological warfare
programme. Finally, there were recent intelligence reports, albeit mainly
inferential, that Iraq was producing chemical agent. For analysts, intelligence
on Iraqi production of biological and chemical agent would have been put
alongside Iraq’s proven ability to weaponise agent onto at least some delivery
systems, and separate intelligence reports on Saddam Hussein’s intention to
use chemical and biological weapons if attacked.

So the intelligence received by the government was wrong.

It also goes on to say:

It is, however, fair to say at the outset that the dossier attracted more attention after the war
than it had done before it. When first published, it was regarded as cautious, and even dull.
Some of the attention that it eventually received was the product of controversy over the
Government’s further dossier of February 2003. Some of it arose over subsequent
allegations that the intelligence in the September dossier had knowingly been
embellished, and hence over the good faith of the Government. Lord Hutton dismissed
those allegations. We should record that we, too, have seen no evidence that would
support any such allegations.

[Bodo]

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Not really, it is just so obvious and stale.

We call it 'lessons learned'. For the umpteenth time.

Lessons learned is a term we are very comfortable with. This thread is about harping on and beating a dead horse, not learning lessons.

So what have you learned from the Bush gov fooling the voters, when educated people already said the war is unreasonable? The peasants supported the "axis of evil" and "axis of weasel" slogans.

The peasants vs. the educated people? Very nice that.

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Nah; Marf touched a nerve, you just exposed yourself as a overly self important ass. Any questions?

Why make it personal? Were you one of the people who supported the war of aggression?

[NSX Shaz]

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Not really, it is just so obvious and stale.

We call it 'lessons learned'. For the umpteenth time.

Lessons learned is a term we are very comfortable with. This thread is about harping on and beating a dead horse, not learning lessons.

So what have you learned from the Bush gov fooling the voters, when educated people already said the war is unreasonable? The peasants supported the "axis of evil" and "axis of weasel" slogans.

The peasants vs. the educated people? Very nice that.

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Nah; Marf touched a nerve, you just exposed yourself as a overly self important ass. Any questions?

Why make it personal? Were you one of the people who supported the war of aggression?

What is this? The Nuremburg Trials?

[Bodo]

You're new here, eh? That's the inquisition.

[Jimbeaux]

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Not really, it is just so obvious and stale.

We call it 'lessons learned'. For the umpteenth time.

Lessons learned is a term we are very comfortable with. This thread is about harping on and beating a dead horse, not learning lessons.

So what have you learned from the Bush gov fooling the voters, when educated people already said the war is unreasonable? The peasants supported the "axis of evil" and "axis of weasel" slogans.

The peasants vs. the educated people? Very nice that.

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Nah; Marf touched a nerve, you just exposed yourself as a overly self important ass. Any questions?

Why make it personal? Were you one of the people who supported the war of aggression?

It is personal because you have decided to attach your personal adjective of "war of aggression" and hinting that all those who disagree with you are "uneducated" or "peasants" ; this exposes you to be worthy of a moniker comprised of nothing more creative than "asshole". In other words, you made it personal. Get over it, you will likely improve with exposure to humanity.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 6th September 23:24

[Bodo]

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bodo said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Not really, it is just so obvious and stale.

We call it 'lessons learned'. For the umpteenth time.

Lessons learned is a term we are very comfortable with. This thread is about harping on and beating a dead horse, not learning lessons.

So what have you learned from the Bush gov fooling the voters, when educated people already said the war is unreasonable? The peasants supported the "axis of evil" and "axis of weasel" slogans.

The peasants vs. the educated people? Very nice that.

Touched a nerve eh Jim

Nah; Marf touched a nerve, you just exposed yourself as a overly self important ass. Any questions?

Why make it personal? Were you one of the people who supported the war of aggression?

It is personal because you have decided to attach your personal adjective of "war of aggression" and hinting that all those who disagree with you are "uneducated" or "peasants" ; this exposes you to be worthy of a moniker comprised of nothing more creative than "asshole". In other words, you made it personal. Get over it, you will likely improve with exposure to humanity.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 6th September 23:24

Why was it not a war of aggression? The Iraq did not attack any country for years when Bush campaigned for and finally attacked the Iraq.

Peasants are not necessarily those that disagree with me, but those who follow and support every aggression that happens to be promoted by their ideological leader; without needing any facts to support.

That's -by the way- the same motivation that lead to the terrorist attack on the wtc.

[Victor McDade]

Well almost 9 years, 5000 dead coalition forces and several trillion dollars later its finally over. Lets hope there is a bright future ahead for Iraq and the sacrifices they, and others have made were not in vain.

The BBC said:

US President Barack Obama has marked the end of the Iraq war by applauding the "extraordinary achievement" of US troops in a conflict he firmly opposed.

In a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, he paid tribute to the soldiers who served and died in the war, and their families.

The last US soldiers are expected to withdraw from Iraq within days.

Republicans have criticised the pullout citing concerns over Iraq's stability, but most Americans support the move.

In Wednesday's speech, President Obama - who owes his presidency in part to his opposition to the Iraq war - hailed the bravery of US troops during the nearly nine-year conflict.

"Tomorrow the colours of the United States Forces Iraq, the colours you fought under, will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad," said Mr Obama, who was on his first visit to Fort Bragg. "Then they'll begin their journey across an ocean back home.

"As your commander in chief and on behalf of a grateful nation, I'm proud to finally say these two words - welcome home, welcome home, welcome home," he told thousands of cheering troops in an airplane hangar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16186136

[Jimbeaux]

Victor McDade said:

Well almost 9 years, 5000 dead coalition forces and several trillion dollars later its finally over. Lets hope there is a bright future ahead for Iraq and the sacrifices they, and others have made were not in vain.

The BBC said:

US President Barack Obama has marked the end of the Iraq war by applauding the "extraordinary achievement" of US troops in a conflict he firmly opposed.

In a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, he paid tribute to the soldiers who served and died in the war, and their families.

The last US soldiers are expected to withdraw from Iraq within days.

Republicans have criticised the pullout citing concerns over Iraq's stability, but most Americans support the move.

In Wednesday's speech, President Obama - who owes his presidency in part to his opposition to the Iraq war - hailed the bravery of US troops during the nearly nine-year conflict.

"Tomorrow the colours of the United States Forces Iraq, the colours you fought under, will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad," said Mr Obama, who was on his first visit to Fort Bragg. "Then they'll begin their journey across an ocean back home.

"As your commander in chief and on behalf of a grateful nation, I'm proud to finally say these two words - welcome home, welcome home, welcome home," he told thousands of cheering troops in an airplane hangar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16186136

With that politically motivated pullout, far quicker than the generals recommended, we will soon see a civil war in Iraq. One faction or more battling the one that Iran backs.

[Marf]

When did the Generals recomend withdrawal and what reasons do they give for justifying it?

[Victor McDade]

Jimbeaux said:

With that politically motivated pullout, far quicker than the generals recommended, we will soon see a civil war in Iraq. One faction or more battling the one that Iran backs.

There has been one form or another of civil war in Iraq for the last decade regardless of American troops being there. If civil war was the main thing troubling the Generals then they may as well stay there for the next 50 years.

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

When did the Generals recomend withdrawal and what reasons do they give for justifying it?

It would have begun on a similar mark but would have been in smoother increments as opposed to all at once in a rush. They would have also left behind a quick reaction contingent at the disposal of the new government for purposes of securing their authority as they solidify the workings of things. While a small contingent, it would have discouraged more overt adventures by the Iranians which will certainly be forthcoming now.

[Marf]

Am I right in thinking though, that like Kuwait, there will always be "allied" troops in Iraq, albeit in "non combat" roles?

Surely the 16,000 staff in the US embassy in Iraq aren't all diplomats?

[Jimbeaux]

Victor McDade said:

Jimbeaux said:

With that politically motivated pullout, far quicker than the generals recommended, we will soon see a civil war in Iraq. One faction or more battling the one that Iran backs.

There has been one form or another of civil war in Iraq for the last decade regardless of American troops being there. If civil war was the main thing troubling the Generals then they may as well stay there for the next 50 years.

This is true but it is who the players are now and to what extent they may be involved that is a bit different.

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Am I right in thinking though, that like Kuwait, there will always be "allied" troops in Iraq, albeit in "non combat" roles?

Surely the 16,000 staff in the US embassy in Iraq aren't all diplomats?

Not sure as of yet. I believe most all are coming home. 16,000 in the embassy? Are you sure of that figure?

[Marf]

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Am I right in thinking though, that like Kuwait, there will always be "allied" troops in Iraq, albeit in "non combat" roles?

Surely the 16,000 staff in the US embassy in Iraq aren't all diplomats?

Not sure as of yet. I believe most all are coming home. 16,000 in the embassy? Are you sure of that figure?

The figure is as reported on the news here last night.

http://www.channel4.com/news/us-forces-mark-end-of...

"The remaining American presence and influence in Iraq will now be focused on the large US embassy in Baghdad, containing as many as 15-16,000 personnel."

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Am I right in thinking though, that like Kuwait, there will always be "allied" troops in Iraq, albeit in "non combat" roles?

Surely the 16,000 staff in the US embassy in Iraq aren't all diplomats?

Not sure as of yet. I believe most all are coming home. 16,000 in the embassy? Are you sure of that figure?

The figure is as reported on the news here last night.

http://www.channel4.com/news/us-forces-mark-end-of...

"The remaining American presence and influence in Iraq will now be focused on the large US embassy in Baghdad, containing as many as 15-16,000 personnel."

Thanks for that. As to troops, the US asked to leave approximately 3,000 behind but the Iraqi government could not work out an immunity agreement, so that is off. NATO seeked a similar agreement and were not able to secure one as well. Therefore, the question of are there any troops left behind, aside from the embassy Marine guards, is still a question. I suppose it is a credit to the West that we asked for something the Iraqi government refused and we complied. Other conquerors might have not asked.

ETA: Marf, here is an interesting article. It speaks of Iraqis feeling uneasy that their fragile government and security forces can contain the sectarian violence sure to come. They admit that tribalism and sects could outweigh Democracy. Good read.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-iraq-...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:50

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:51

[eddharris]

Jimbeaux said:

Thanks for that. As to troops, the US asked to leave approximately 3,000 behind but the Iraqi government could not work out an immunity agreement, so that is off. NATO seeked a similar agreement and were not able to secure one as well. Therefore, the question of are there any troops left behind, aside from the embassy Marine guards, is still a question. I suppose it is a credit to the West that we asked for something the Iraqi government refused and we complied. Other conquerors might have not asked.

ETA: Marf, here is an interesting article. It speaks of Iraqis feeling uneasy that their fragile government and security forces can contain the sectarian violence sure to come. They admit that tribalism and sects could outweigh Democracy. Good read.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-iraq-...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:50

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:51

Jimbeaux, I've just finally figured out who you really are
Don't worry, I won't tell but I loved you in Under Siege!! Lose the pony tail though.

[Marf]

Thanks Jim, interesting article.

I'm not sure though that I'd lay the blame at Barry O's feet for pulling out early(oo er) if civil war does become a reality.

Ultimately, and I realise I may be simplifying things here, the problems that face Iraq now are in large part due to the meddling of us(the british) when we carved it up, drawing arbitrary borders, ignoring tribal areas and just hoping things would work out.

[Jimbeaux]

eddharris said:

Jimbeaux said:

Thanks for that. As to troops, the US asked to leave approximately 3,000 behind but the Iraqi government could not work out an immunity agreement, so that is off. NATO seeked a similar agreement and were not able to secure one as well. Therefore, the question of are there any troops left behind, aside from the embassy Marine guards, is still a question. I suppose it is a credit to the West that we asked for something the Iraqi government refused and we complied. Other conquerors might have not asked.

ETA: Marf, here is an interesting article. It speaks of Iraqis feeling uneasy that their fragile government and security forces can contain the sectarian violence sure to come. They admit that tribalism and sects could outweigh Democracy. Good read.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-iraq-...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:50

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 15th December 15:51

Jimbeaux, I've just finally figured out who you really are
Don't worry, I won't tell but I loved you in Under Siege!! Lose the pony tail though.

Of all the people, how come you came to that conclusion? I am slightly shorter and considerably younger.