The W
Views: 179001189
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0804
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - So where is the Baghdad PD?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1968 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1345/1761
EXP: 6572276
For next: 78414

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 163 days
#1 Posted on 9.7.03 1711.22
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1712.43
Click Here

The story is supposed to be about the justification of the war, which I have to admit that at this point, I am tired of hearing about. I still maintain that the justification for the war was not that Iraq had the weapons, but that they never proved they were destroyed- so even if no weapons are found the war was still OK in my book.

The key paragraph in this article that caught my eye was this-
Iraqi political leader Ahmad Chalabi said Washington should not respond by sending more troops but instead swiftly arm and train a police force.

"Security in Iraq is not a function of the U.S. sending more troops, it is a function of the creation of an Iraqi security force," Chalabi said after talks with Turkish officials in Ankara.


Exactly where are we with this? I know it is not as glamorous to the news stations as the war itself (perhaps why there is zero news about this), but I, for one, would like to know exactly at what point are we in establishing Iraqi self rule. I know it takes time, but you would think that local governement and police forces would be the first things we would implement. And if this is not being done, why not?
Promote this thread!
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1666/7062
EXP: 53474911
For next: 638322

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1927 days
Last activity: 1496 days
#2 Posted on 9.7.03 1716.40
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1716.44
I'm sure the army is too busy making sure that Priority #1A (i.e. the oil refineries) are up and running before they get down to this pesky business of actually getting Iraq back on its feet.

My worst fear is that Iraq will become Afghanistan part two, a country now constantly teetering on the edge of economic and civil ruin. If anything, such conditions will create more enmity towards the USA (and, possibly, create for terrorists) than it will towards "stabilizing" the Middle East.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1346/1761
EXP: 6572276
For next: 78414

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 163 days
#3 Posted on 9.7.03 1719.41
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1723.37

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    I'm sure the army is too busy making sure that Priority #1A (i.e. the oil refineries) are up and running before they get down to this pesky business of actually getting Iraq back on its feet.



You know, I was actually looking for an actual reason, rather than the standard, baseless, liberal rhetoric....
spf
Scrapple
Level: 144

Posts: 2100/5410
EXP: 35858015
For next: 852379

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 404 days
#4 Posted on 9.7.03 1736.25
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1736.44
I would guess for the moment that we really don't want to go handing out too many weapons to people at this time when we're still in a state of paranoia over who is against us on every street corner. The last thing we want to do is train a police force which becomes a paramilitary outfit. My guess is we won't see any movement on this for months.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge
Level: 52

Posts: 366/518
EXP: 1062344
For next: 21504

Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 4004 days
Last activity: 188 days
#5 Posted on 9.7.03 1753.18
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1754.48
Seven Iraqi police recruits killed, 45 wounded after training (story.news.yahoo.com)

They are training for a new force. The problem is that this is not what regular army troops are trained for. We need more Special Force personal in there who are trained to do this type of mission.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 751/1528
EXP: 5382432
For next: 49812

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 6274 days
Last activity: 6116 days
#6 Posted on 9.7.03 1916.24
Reposted on: 9.7.10 1917.58
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    I'm sure the army is too busy making sure that Priority #1A (i.e. the oil refineries) are up and running before they get down to this pesky business of actually getting Iraq back on its feet.

    My worst fear is that Iraq will become Afghanistan part two, a country now constantly teetering on the edge of economic and civil ruin. If anything, such conditions will create more enmity towards the USA (and, possibly, create for terrorists) than it will towards "stabilizing" the Middle East.



Good God, man. Rant if you want, but get your facts straight. As has already been linked, they are training Iraqis as we speak.

Edit: And again! Your worst fear is that Iraq becomes Afghanistan part II?

A.) Your worst fear is not the return of a dangerous regime, a la Saddam?
B.) Afghanistan was prospering before we showed up?

(edited by PalpatineW on 9.7.03 2018)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1686/7062
EXP: 53474911
For next: 638322

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1927 days
Last activity: 1496 days
#7 Posted on 10.7.03 0759.02
Reposted on: 10.7.10 0759.17


    Edit: And again! Your worst fear is that Iraq becomes Afghanistan part II?

    A.) Your worst fear is not the return of a dangerous regime, a la Saddam?
    B.) Afghanistan was prospering before we showed up?



a) My worst fear is that rudderless Iraq is now more susceptible to another, potentially worse, regime, ala Germany in the 1920's.

b) Point taken. But then again, at least Afghanistan and the Taliban had closer ties to the 9/11 terrorists than Iraq did. Also, in terms of reconstruction, I seem to recall a lot of these grand plans for Afghanistan in the aftermath of the US action there, and not much has happened.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 144

Posts: 2106/5410
EXP: 35858015
For next: 852379

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 404 days
#8 Posted on 10.7.03 1156.40
Reposted on: 10.7.10 1159.01
Some Iraqi Police exist, and they want the US Troops out of their town now. (washingtonpost.com)

In the article the PD claims that the US troops are a lightning rod for attacks which puts them at greater risk.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 112

Posts: 1059/3059
EXP: 15246618
For next: 91635

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 5431 days
Last activity: 5365 days
#9 Posted on 10.7.03 1528.20
Reposted on: 10.7.10 1529.02
"I still maintain that the justification for the war was not that Iraq had the weapons, but that they never proved they were destroyed- so even if no weapons are found the war was still OK in my book."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Hey you! I saw you with a big fuck-off shotgun six years ago! Eat lead and die, motherfucker!"
godking
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 183/274
EXP: 401319
For next: 3456

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 7349 days
Last activity: 7295 days
#10 Posted on 10.7.03 1639.50
Reposted on: 10.7.10 1641.06
I still maintain that the justification for the war was not that Iraq had the weapons, but that they never proved they were destroyed- so even if no weapons are found the war was still OK in my book.

The fact that Iraq couldn't prove a negative is sufficient cause?

Well, in that case, I think you are a WITCH. Witches, as we all know, can fly. I would like you to prove to my satisfaction that you cannot fly, or we burn you at the stake for witchcraftery.

Now, how do you prove that you can't fly?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1349/1761
EXP: 6572276
For next: 78414

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 163 days
#11 Posted on 10.7.03 1721.11
Reposted on: 10.7.10 1721.21
Here is the difference, Godking,

Iraq admitted it had the weapons, and agreed as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, and as a condition to the future lifting of sanctions, that it would destroy all of its weapons and programs and provide evidence that it was done. The UN ordered them to do so, if you recall, and even Hans Blix said that the report they submitted was pretty well nonsense.

I did not agree to prove that I am not a witch. I never admitted I was a witch. The UN did not demand that I prove I am not a witch. Being a witch is not illegal. I did not, as a witch, invade a neighboring nation and sign a treaty to keep me from getting killed after it went wrong.

Your lack of logic astounds me.

As far as oldschools retort... I find it amazing that you can totally dismiss the facts and HISTORY of an issue if it supports a Republican ideal, and then take your ignorance of the issue as proof that I am the stupid one. Amazing... Lets forget EVERYTHING that happened from the end of the first Gulf War, every resolution the UN made against Iraq, every promise Hussein made, and forget it all, because it goes against everything the "liberal Left" anti-war (COUGH! anti-Bush) platform is all about...

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 10.7.03 1524)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 787/1498
EXP: 5223090
For next: 209154

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 2178 days
Last activity: 2166 days
#12 Posted on 10.7.03 2334.05
Reposted on: 10.7.10 2336.34
Well, how about this from someone who considers himself from the right wing of the political spectrum. Lack of proof of destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a threat to our national security. Actual weapons of mass destruction MIGHT be a threat to our national security, if there was a threat that they would actually be used against us. Our military shouldn't serve to enforce UN resolutions, (particulary if the very same UN DOESN'T want them enforced)! Our military is for national defense, period, end of story.

We have found nothing. Will we find something, eventually? Probably would be my guess. But it is quite clear that the scale and capabilities of Iraq's WMD program have been greatly exaggerated. Heck, if Saddam doesn't use the stuff to save his own ass, what exact situation would he have used the stuff? I have never believed that a country like Iraq would be a threat any time in the near future to the United States, and certainly nothing so far has changed my mind (heck, the fact that it only took 3 weeks to run the ruling adminstration out of there lends credence to the fact that they were not a major threat to the United States).

I believe that Saddam's WMD program was in shambles (probably a lot to do with the embargo). Heck, the nuclear discovery they did make was buried in somebody's yard for 10 years. Doesn't exactly sound like an active program. However, I think Saddam thought it best that leaving a shadow of doubt in people's mind was what was best for his own security (he didn't exactly have many friends in the region). Especially considering how rinky-dink his conventional army was. Now some will argue that this would be stupid. But leaders don't always make the right decisions, and quite frankly I don't think Saddam was exactly a smart man.

Edit: Big Bad, I am very concern about your (a) as well, while Saddam was a ruthless dictator, at least he was secular in nature. I'm very concerned that ultimately Iraq will have a radical fundamentalist Muslim regime.



(edited by ges7184 on 10.7.03 2339)
godking
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 186/274
EXP: 401319
For next: 3456

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 7349 days
Last activity: 7295 days
#13 Posted on 10.7.03 2353.38
Reposted on: 10.7.10 2357.09
Iraq admitted it had the weapons, and agreed as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, and as a condition to the future lifting of sanctions, that it would destroy all of its weapons and programs and provide evidence that it was done. The UN ordered them to do so, if you recall, and even Hans Blix said that the report they submitted was pretty well nonsense.

"Even" Hans Blix also pointed out that although he recommended additional inspection to be sure, it was fairly clear that Iraq definitely had no nuclear capability and almost certainly no chemical or biological capability either.

You're asking for proof? I say we had ninety-nine percent of the proof already and the other one percent could have been gotten without a civilian body count in the thousands, not to mention a coalition body count of over two hundred by this point, and not also to mention all the poor bastards in the Iraqi army.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

That's nice. Why don't you go post another inflammatory story about the war that will get quietly debunked a week later? I'm sure that lone rusty centrifuge is giving you nightmares, and the fact that the President of the United States almost certainly directly lied to the American people on a crucial matter of foreign policy is all right because he's from the party that's supposed to be good with foreign policy so they clearly know best.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 112

Posts: 1060/3059
EXP: 15246618
For next: 91635

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 5431 days
Last activity: 5365 days
#14 Posted on 11.7.03 0757.51
Reposted on: 11.7.10 0759.01
Ges pretty much said everything right there. And I find it surprising that the guy claiming "no-one takes me seriously" is responsible for most of the pro-Republican cheaps tories and stupid name-calling on this board. But hey, we get that a lot from the zealous side of the Right on here.

Face it. The idea of saying "Well, we don't KNOW that there were weapons, but he hasn't PROVEN them destroyed" is as poor an excuse for a war as any. Of course, it's always useful to bring up UN sanctions, even when the government you so viciously support was willing to bulldoze through international law to do what it wished. Hey, the rules only apply when the top brass agree with them, right? Add to that the fact the main selling point of the conflict to the masses was "We know there's loadsa nasty stuff in iraq, it could kill us all, honest". And don't try and backtrack on that; I'm not talking about your own personal justification for the war, I'm talking about the reasons and bullet points put out by the pro-war political movement. After all, this is the "Politics" forum, not the "Pool-Boy's Thoughts" forum.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 763/1528
EXP: 5382432
For next: 49812

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 6274 days
Last activity: 6116 days
#15 Posted on 11.7.03 1154.12
Reposted on: 11.7.10 1155.16

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Ges pretty much said everything right there. And I find it surprising that the guy claiming "no-one takes me seriously" is responsible for most of the pro-Republican cheaps tories and stupid name-calling on this board. But hey, we get that a lot from the zealous side of the Right on here.

    Face it. The idea of saying "Well, we don't KNOW that there were weapons, but he hasn't PROVEN them destroyed" is as poor an excuse for a war as any. Of course, it's always useful to bring up UN sanctions, even when the government you so viciously support was willing to bulldoze through international law to do what it wished. Hey, the rules only apply when the top brass agree with them, right? Add to that the fact the main selling point of the conflict to the masses was "We know there's loadsa nasty stuff in iraq, it could kill us all, honest". And don't try and backtrack on that; I'm not talking about your own personal justification for the war, I'm talking about the reasons and bullet points put out by the pro-war political movement. After all, this is the "Politics" forum, not the "Pool-Boy's Thoughts" forum.



Keep this thread out of the gutter, man. Claiming that it's only us righties dragging the forum down is just plain stupid.

As for your main point, I disagree. We know for a fact Hussein had weapons. He would not prove to us that they were gone and that he would not use them. Maybe they were a threat, maybe they weren't. Clinton didn't think bin Lade was a threat (I am not blaming him for this; at the time, likely no one thought he was a threat), and you see where that got us. We can no longer assume that lunatics with the means to destroy us will not, and Hussein is indisputably a lunatic with the means to destroy us, or at the very least kill very many of us.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 1747/4700
EXP: 28695250
For next: 639831

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4713 days
Last activity: 3168 days
#16 Posted on 11.7.03 1157.58
Reposted on: 11.7.10 1159.01
Oh, and apparently Hussein really was working with Osama.

(And before you attack the judge in question as being a right wing hack, the man seems to be a lifelong liberal Democrat)
godking
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 187/274
EXP: 401319
For next: 3456

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 7349 days
Last activity: 7295 days
#17 Posted on 11.7.03 1343.25
Reposted on: 11.7.10 1343.34
If that's supposed to be the big awaited proof of collusion between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, wow, I am so not impressed. A newspaper "roll of honor"? Look, I don't think Saddam is the brightest light in the universe or anything, but I doubt he or anybody else in his administration would be so stupid as to advertise links to Osama Bin Laden when the United States was investigating them.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 73

Posts: 584/1136
EXP: 3448840
For next: 37045

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 7192 days
Last activity: 6662 days
#18 Posted on 11.7.03 2055.11
Reposted on: 11.7.10 2057.58
Looks like more empty sucking up from Saddam's camp to me, along the lines of the invitation they sent out to Al-Qaeda. Essentially an empty gesture. "Proof" means PROOF, not a newspaper article that basically says "here's our kinda guy".

There's not much point in bringing any of this connection stuff up until you've got some evidence that Al-Qaeda actually took Hussein up on any of this stuff. Right now it's pretty obviously just grasping at straws. Hell, the "token" diplomatic gesture is pretty much SOP.



(edited by Nate The Snake on 11.7.03 2100)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1354/1761
EXP: 6572276
For next: 78414

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 163 days
#19 Posted on 12.7.03 0125.20
Reposted on: 12.7.10 0129.02
Of course the known Al Quaeda camps in Iraq are not proof enough... not at all! Nor the proven ties to Hamas.

I suppose only a picture of Hussein shaking hands with Osama is going to be good enough for some people. It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so willing and eager to defend people like that, and on the other hand, trash their own president just because he belongs to the wrong party. That's America for you.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 126

Posts: 1358/4035
EXP: 22940351
For next: 143816

Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 766 days
Last activity: 350 days
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on 12.7.03 0211.30
Reposted on: 12.7.10 0217.07
Defend? Who's defending Hussein or bin Laden here? I don't see anyone. All we're saying is that the only proof that's been made available that Hussein and bin Laden were working together is VERY sketchy at best. Saying that we're afraid of an aimless Iraq doesn't mean Hussein good, Napster bad, it means that Iraq could fall into another deplorable regime. I know I'm not saying that one's better than the other, just that they're two different kinds of wrong.

As for the whole rationale about the war... pick something and RUN WITH IT already. If it turns out to be false, then you were wrong. Just accept that unless you can actually prove something, there's going to be a LOT of rational people that remain unconvinced. There's also a lot of people that think Hussein ordered 9.11, but this ain't a case where saying something enough makes it so. Make up your minds about why we actually went in there in the first place. I recommend going with what has the most factual proof and holds up to logic. It's impossible to prove a negative, so that kinda throws out the rationale that Pool-Boy proposed in the first post. You can't prove that you don't have weapons, especially to someone or some group of people that doesn't believe you in the first place.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Do Speed Limits Kill?
Next thread: Exporting jobs redux
Previous thread: Ralph Klien Gets Pied!
(1968 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - So where is the Baghdad PD?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.215 seconds.