Iraq News

**sabang** · 07-06-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Even more interesting .

"Iran caught red-handed shipping arms to Taliban." By NATO officials.

This will make it a bit harder for the Lefties to ignore.

Firstly, Saddam was not the least bit involved in 911. Saddam'e Baathist party and Al Qaeda despised each other.
The above may well be credible, but has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with 911- which happened 5.5 years ago near enough.

The fact that US foreign policy has made radicals out of many Iraqi's, and actually caused them to form an unholy alliance with the fundamentalist Radicals in Afghanistan is as stark an example of the total and utter failure, not to mention the moral bankruptcy and sheer murderousness, of the Bush administration as I could possibly hope to show you.

What a bunch of subhuman Wankers.

**Boon Mee** · 07-06-2007, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

What makes you think "Lefties" would want to ignore crucial information which isn't fabricated by right-wing blogs like the speculations you previously tried to pass as 'fact'.

It's all coming out - never you fear...

**barbaro** · 07-06-2007, 11:50 PM

I'm a bit confused.

What does Iran and Iraq have to do with "left wing and "right wing."

How did "right" and "left" get infused in this?

**raycarey** · 09-06-2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

Firstly, Saddam was not the least bit involved in 911. Saddam'e Baathist party and Al Qaeda despised each other. The above may well be credible, but has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with 911- which happened 5.5 years ago near enough.

there are too many strawman arguments on this forum.

**raycarey** · 14-06-2007, 06:25 PM

here's some iraq news.....more people are dying in iraq since the 'surge' began.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/wa...=1&oref=slogin

**stroller** · 14-06-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

more people are dying in iraq since the 'surge' began.

Hardly surprising, more soldiers killing 'terrorists' and more soldiers being killed.

**Boon Mee** · 15-06-2007, 05:05 AM

U.N. Supports U.S Troops Staying in Iraq: The U.N. Security Council agreed Wednesday to an Iraqi request to extend the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force after the country’s foreign minister said the troops were “vitally necessary.”

Source

**raycarey** · 15-06-2007, 10:04 AM

^
first bob shrum, and now the UN's opinion is important to you?

**Boon Mee** · 15-06-2007, 10:21 AM

^
When they're right, I'll take 'em where I can get 'em!

**Boon Mee** · 06-07-2007, 02:10 PM

So you still think Saddam did not have WMD's?

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, now director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, told reporters that U.S. surveillance satellites captured images of vehicle traffic dispersing WMD materiel to urban locations in Iraq and moving large quantities into Syria as well.

"Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to [dispose, destroy and disperse] the evidence," said Gen. Clapper.

"By the time that we got to a lot of these facilities...there wasn't that much there to look at. There was clearly an effort to disperse, bury and conceal certain equipment prior to inspections."

Gen. Clapper added that there is "no question" that people and WMD materiel were moved by truck convoys into Syria.

For any y'all still in denial, go here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarkMAlexander/2003/10/31/for_those_in_still_in_denial,_saddams_wmd_we] and

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/dont_be_so_sure_there_were_no.htmlnt_to_syria] here .

**DrB0b** · 06-07-2007, 02:14 PM

^yeah, the fact that they couldn't find any WMD proves that the Iraqis moved them somewhere else. Very cunning, those towelheads

General Clapper??

**Boon Mee** · 06-07-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

^yeah, the fact that they couldn't find any WMD proves that the Iraqis moved them somewhere else. Very cunning, those towelheads

Operative phrase there, Bob.
Like, maybe Syria?

**keda** · 06-07-2007, 02:50 PM

We could chew on this one till they find out the real truth as opposed to self interest. The fact the SH had WMD is not disputed, seeing as he used them and we know he didn't use them all because we know how much we gave him even if he had no other sources, so it's fair to fall back on circumstantial evidence that the balance is either concealed or moved elsewhere if not deteriorated.

Unlikely he would've trusted Iran after the Gulf War fiasco, when much of the invincible airforce he shipped over for safekeeping went missing, so the only other neighbouring suspect is Syria.

Puzzling though, is that they have incriminating satpics, but somebody couldn't be bothered following the convoys to see where they unloaded.

**stroller** · 06-07-2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by keda

The fact the SH had WMD is not disputed, seeing as he used them and we know he didn't use them all because we know how much we gave him even if he had no other sources, so it's fair to fall back on circumstantial evidence that the balance is either concealed or moved elsewhere if not deteriorated.

The UN-inspectors' reports disagree with your reasoning.

You can twist and turn it as you like, there was not sufficient evidence and those piles of WMDs have never been found.

He supposedly had an active 'nucelar' development program near completion as well, which made it a priority to invade in 2003.

**DrB0b** · 06-07-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by DrB0b

^yeah, the fact that they couldn't find any WMD proves that the Iraqis moved them somewhere else. Very cunning, those towelheads

Operative phrase there, Bob.
Like, maybe Syria?

I heard he stashed them in Disneyworld where they're being guarded by Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy (you'd better not be naughty this year!)

**keda** · 06-07-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

The fact the SH had WMD is not disputed, seeing as he used them and we know he didn't use them all because we know how much we gave him even if he had no other sources, so it's fair to fall back on circumstantial evidence that the balance is either concealed or moved elsewhere if not deteriorated.

The UN-inspectors' reports disagree with your reasoning.

You can twist and turn it as you like, there was not sufficient evidence and those piles of WMDs have never been found.

He supposedly had an active 'nucelar' development program near completion as well, which made it a priority to invade in 2003.

I know as little as anyone else about his nuclear development, but guess the joos would pounce again if he got too ambitious. As to other WMD, each to his own but there's no doubt in my mind that he had them and they're now either in Iraq or Syria.

**stroller** · 25-07-2007, 08:38 PM

This should have been done a long time ago:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S., Iran and Iraq will set up a subcommittee to address issues related to Iraq's security, including the activities of extremist militias, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker announced Tuesday.

"The level, the composition, the timing, we'll all have to sort through that in the coming days," Crocker said. "We did make clear that we would like to see such a mechanism get established as soon as possible."
...

U.S., Iran, Iraq to form group to address Iraq's security problems - CNN.com

**keda** · 25-07-2007, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

The fact the SH had WMD is not disputed, seeing as he used them and we know he didn't use them all because we know how much we gave him even if he had no other sources, so it's fair to fall back on circumstantial evidence that the balance is either concealed or moved elsewhere if not deteriorated.

The UN-inspectors' reports disagree with your reasoning.

You can twist and turn it as you like, there was not sufficient evidence and those piles of WMDs have never been found.

He supposedly had an active 'nucelar' development program near completion as well, which made it a priority to invade in 2003.

Nothing to twist, either they found them or they didn't and they didn't, which is what they work on at that level rather than the logical outcome of knowing he had them and that he did not use them all, which is circumstantial and therefore only to be invoked in bashing the right side.

As to nukes, I've never claimed and wouldn't claim he had them, more than satisfied that the nasty joos would've taken care of that end and without waiting for the UN to drag their heels to a debate.

**sabang** · 26-07-2007, 01:19 AM

The UN was rather succesful in it's monitored elimination of Iraqi 'WMDs'. Being chemical weapons, not nukes. This however did not suit the long term US agenda, which involved money, oil, and Israel.
By Scott Ritters own estimates (when he was still spying for the CIA, before he got disgusted with US foreign bullying and became dissident) AT LEAST 92% of Iraqi capacity had been destroyed. He was, of course, the Head of the UN weapons removal team, as well as a part time Spy, so what would he know??

To describe post sanctions pre invasion Iraq as a threat is laughable. Is it not rather obvious it was all about the oil?
Surely this was made even more obvious when it was released in popular media around six months ago that Iraq had probably the worlds largest untapped, easily obtainable oil field in it's western deserts. I mean whoopee doo- this had been known about for well over a decade.

Sorry Patriots and Blindfold men, but you are being manipulated by greedy, lying, violent Filth.

Roger · 26-07-2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

Sorry Patriots and Blindfold men, but you are being manipulated by greedy, lying, violent Filth.

Filth that got their start in not 1 but 2 disputed elections. Both were a farce. And now the regime is dismantling the Justice Department through rule changes. Disgusting individuals are at work. We need a change in the USA before the Bush regime attacks IRAN.

**Boon Mee** · 30-07-2007, 08:38 PM

For all you nattering nabobs of negativism, even the New York Times is calling it a War We Just Might Win.

Heh

**lom** · 30-07-2007, 09:07 PM

Do you know what the "Opinions section" of N.Y.Times is Booners?

**Boon Mee** · 30-07-2007, 09:13 PM

^
Yes, but, & this is a very big 'but' - it was printed in the NYT...

**sabang** · 03-08-2007, 04:48 AM

Well nice to read something a bit upbeat from Iraq anyway.

The situation for the people is still dire though- half of the population is living in absolute poverty, and 70% do not have access to clean water supplies, up from 50% in 2003.
Military and civilian deaths are down for July at least, and it appears Al Qaeda are losing hearts and minds in Iraq due to their murderous ways. A recent article from Al Jazeera:-

Al Jazeera English - News - Half Of Iraq 'In Absolute Poverty'

Half of Iraq 'in absolute poverty'

Iraqi children are most at risk from the mounting crisis, the joint report says [EPA]

Up to eight million Iraqis require immediate emergency aid, with nearly half of the population living in "absolute poverty", according to a report by Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi groups.

About four million people are lacking food and "in dire need of different types of humanitarian assistance", said the report, released in Amman on Monday.

"Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, health care, education, and employment," said the report, compiled by Oxfam and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI).

The report also says two million people within the country are currently displaced, while more than two million are refugees.

Most of those refugees have fled to Jordan and Syria.

'Grim picture'

"Many of the figures and percentages in the report were actually derived from UN sources… so we concur with the findings"
Said Arikit, spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq
Read the joint report
Said Arikit, a spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq, told Al Jazeera the report painted a "grim picture".

"Many of the figures and percentages in the report were actually derived from UN sources… so we concur with the findings," he said.

"The government of Iraq is definitely the authority in Iraq and it bears responsibility for the welfare of its people."

Iraqi services have been left in crisis as most of those seeking refuge are professionals, according to the report.

"The 'brain drain' that Iraq is experiencing is further stretching already inadequate public services, as thousands of medical staff, teachers, water engineers, and other professionals are forced to leave the country," it said.

The entry of Iraqi refugees to neighbouring countries has placed a growing strain on health, education and social services in the two countries.

Ration crisis

Only 60 per cent of the four million people who depend on food assistance have access to rations from the government-run public distribution system, down from 96 per cent in 2004, the report said.

The number of Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies has risen from 50 per cent to 70 per cent since 2003.

The lack of effective sanitation was also highlighted by the joint report, which said 80 per cent of people in Iraq did not have safe access.

The report said children were the hardest hit by the fall in living standards, stating child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent currently.

"Despite the constraints imposed by the government of Iraq, the UN and the international donors can do more to deliver humanitarian assistance to reduce unnecessary suffering," the report said.

One recommendation called for the government of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, to decentralise the distribution of aid to local authorities, and make it easier for civil society organisations to operate.

Deaths fall

Meanwhile in Iraq, officials from the US military say they have seen a drop in US troop deaths in July.

In April, the number of US soldiers who died was 104, increased sharply in May when 126 servicemen died, and decreased slightly with 101 troops dead in June.

For the month of July, at least 69 US soldiers have died, about half the casualties in May.

Iraq's police say the number of civilian deaths also decreased by 36 per cent, from an estimated high of 1,900 in May to 1,342 in June.

General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, said: "The sheikhs and the tribes and the leaders have banded together and made a decision to oppose al-Qaeda and that has resulted in a substantially improved security situation."

Despite what appears to be at least a temporary let-up in both military and civilian deaths, many say there will be no security without a stable Iraqi government.

**sabang** · 03-08-2007, 05:12 AM

A potentially important shift in US policy is happening with respect to the UN. The US is now cosying up to it, and asking it to get more involved in Iraq. This is a major turnaround- in the New York Times last month, the US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, praised the world body.
This isn't something I've heard much from the Bush administration.

The UN on it's part is reluctant to get more involved due to the security situation, but this could change if violence continues to fall. The other sticking point is that the UN will insist on going in very much on it's own mandate- it will not want to be seen as acting under the thumb of the US, indeed neither should it.

From The Guardian, 'UN must dance to own tune over Iraq'.

UN must dance to own tune over Iraq | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

Thread: Iraq News

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions