Do you wonder why the US troops loose the population support in Iraq?

[lazs2]

"In that case I'd offer you as a token of gratitude. I'm sure they'd find a good use for you, and you'd like it... eventually.

Daniel"


well... I guess I will just have to take your word for that... I don't think I could ever get quite that "european" tho.

lazs

[Gunslinger]

If this came from PBS I wont believe ONE bit of it.  I saw a PBS special on the invasion of Iraq.  It was SOOOOO slanted it was unreal.  They portrayed the US as total monsters by finding anyone they could that lost somone and interviewing them.  I'm not saying this is wrong but it was not a "balenced" representation at all.  They interviewed more Iraqi commanders than american comanders.  The film states at the end: " the owner of the car said 'im a taxi driver...that car is my livlihood'"  What if he was really a looter and just trying to win sympothy???

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
So Storch, why do you think the US is there?

Instead of Nasos attempt at wit, why dont we let the US president answer this question shall we?


THE PRESIDENT:
Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.

I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things -- a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a -- the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.

What else -- part of the question -- oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are -- they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people -- it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of -- a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.


And you know what? It makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "woe is us Iraq is Vietnam" / "no blood for oil"-crowd

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Thank you Hortlund, but I was more interested in Storch's answer since it obviously isn't in the US Administrations interest to shoot Iraqi civilians and US/international reporters.

Also, I find the President's speech to be less than fulfilling. He never specifies how Iraq was a threat to the US, however he used to say WMD was the threat. I wonder if he will ever publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and the UN was right ... probably not.

Seems like he did specify pretty clearly to me:

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders."

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by AKIron
He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

How in gods name does that make him a threat to the US?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Thrawn
How in gods name does that make him a threat to the US?

You're taking that line out of context. It shows that he is homicidal. Coupled with the other two reasons listed make him a very dangerous threat.

[TheDudeDVant]

What was the chemical weapon used at Waco, Tx?? Remember the place that burnt? Anyone care to guess what the gas injected in the Waco compound turns into when it burns??

My point is, many governments have done terrible things to their populace, including America's... Waco was not the only terrible tragedy carried out by our government on it's own peoples..  To use the one instant of SH gasing (questionably) his own people is simply non-sense..

dude

[Gixer]

Originally posted by AKIron
Seems like he did specify pretty clearly to me:

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders."

AKIron,

That argument that he was a threat is very weak simply because prior to 9/11 Powel himlself was quoted as saying he no longer posed a threat to the world community or even the region because of the amount of damage done to his military after the first Gulf War and because of sanctions and weapons inspections.

Unfortunetly I don't have the quote at hand but could find it easily enough.

If we are talking about threats to the world then why wasn't N.Korea or Iran invaded, espcially when they are blantinly producing weapons grade material? And already have large stockpiles of chemical weapons.

Iraq there were no WMD or even WMD programes, now the Bush Admin still try to play down all that and mention, but he did have intent to produce WMD. Hardly sufficent to invade a country.  Nor is the reason, but yes he had used chemical weapons before. Well when he did everyone turned a blind eye and just said, don't do that again while continuing to support him as he was fighting the Iranians.

Oh, but he was linked to terroisim and this is the war on terror. Well unfortunetly there's been no link proven yet. But there is certinly alot of terroists and support for terroists groups in Iraq now.

Reason Iraq was invaded instead of N.Korea or Iran as that it was seen as a easy target and assumed to be a quick war. Unfortunetly no war or occupation is easy.  Invading another country is a war easy to get into, but very very hard to get out of. I would of thought history had already taught that  lesson.


...-Gixer

[storch]

I think we are there to secure a steady and abundant source of oil for ourselves and our allies.  if we have an added bonus that we deny the french and the germans that opportunity, so much the better.  he who controls the oil controls the world.  we are after all the last superpower it's nice to flex.  it's nice to see the euros squirm.  perhaps then we may be able rely less on the saudis for our oil and also replace their heavy investments in our markets thereby placing ourselves in a situation where if they were to take their (saudi) money to the eurot markets we might not be so badly impacted.  this is my view but what do I know?  I'm mighty glad that we are there also.  The invasion had my full support for the above stated reason.  As side note kicking saddam in the teeth was good.  we need to roll on in the region and N. Africa as well.  there are other sources of fossil fuel, ya know.

[storch]

quit looking in the mirror then. pfffft poor misguided, pitiable soul.

[straffo]

Originally posted by storch
quit looking in the mirror then. pfffft poor misguided, pitiable soul.

You don't own a mirror I guess.

[Drake]

The fact is War is horrible,you cant please everyone in a war..you will always piss someone off.

Personally in my opinion while those soldiers shouldent of gloated about the fact they were crushing the car I dont belive that a EFFECTIVE soulotion could of been made let me explain.

Everyday we hear a soldier is killed, its still a very hostile enviorment they must be on guard at all times but they also have to police the people aswell.

If they called for a tow truck they would have to stay there and wait thus comprimision their potrol mission also the men would have to been brought in to detertion. I n which they would have to be fed housed ect if this was the SOP of all offenders the U.S. deficit would be much higher than it already is.This would carry on to the american tax payers and shift the world ecenomic status(im not a expert but i do belive there would be a impact). Im not saying that this one innocdint would do that but if the SOP for all offenders this would most likely happen.

I do belive that destroying the car was not improper. As you can see the car was being used to steal and removing the car would prohibit the offenders to do applical amount of damnage and discourage future offences also this let the troops go on their way and continue their mission.

I also belive that the owner of the car was not a taxi driver it doesent make sence..Obviously he is a ppor man like most in such a economy and the only viable place for operation of a taxi would be the city. Well in all cities there is a strong precence of allied forces they also must do security aswell stopping cars to search ect. Driving a taxi doesent sound like a viable or demand source of income. Higher officials have their own transports and the average " joe" possible would not have money to spare for a ride. So this leaves doubt and most likely a spin off from the reporters.

I could be wrong because im not there this is just my opinion. Also im really not in favor of  blaming somone for being over there...at this point it really doesent matter the fact is we are over there and we have to deal with it. Instead of pointing fingers why dont we help our troops get their mission done and get out. There are many ways to do this..sending care packages donations ect. If you want to blame someone thats fine. but regardles of who is held responcible the troops will still be there reguardless and they have been getting "punished" everyday. You are more than welcome to debate and raise issues about it but im sure there will be time for that after the killing has stopped..


Thats Just my Opinon I could be wrong....

                                                          Drake

[storch]

yes I do!!! I see an intelligent, handsome and most of all humble man in it.  I shall ask him to leave before my wife runs away with him.  I heard all the ones in fffffffrance are broken.

[VOR]

Drake.

[straffo]

Originally posted by storch
yes I do!!! I see an intelligent, handsome and most of all humble man in it.  I shall ask him to leave before my wife runs away with him.  I heard all the ones in fffffffrance are broken.

So you should now that a mirror got two side one is a mirror the other not (this is the one where you put the picture of a handsome and humble man).