The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Texpat

Spouting BS again Ant. You know not of which you speak.

Regime change talks were in full swing in 1999. Nine-eleven was in 2001 and had little/nothing to do with Iraq.

Don't be so easily confused by your criticism of choice.

AntRobertson

Well, your opinion notwithstanding, I do actually know what I'm speaking about thanks.

Actually you're right; 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

Which actually makes the lies from the Bush administration linking 9/11 to Iraq all the more reprehensible.

And don't believe everything your Govt tells you as a matter of course, Tex. They've really a rather poor track record in this regard.

__________________
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley

Texpat

I base my beliefs on personal experience, not what someone has told me or propaganda I've read, or history revisionists "forgetting" everything that lead up to 2003.

You wish to believe the crux of the liberation effort was WMD -- of which no evidence was found -- justifying your disagreement with and criticism of the military action. Very convenient, tidy and warm. I'm sure I'll not change your mind and you'll not change mine.

I know regime change was the primary motivation.

AntRobertson

In point of fact I'm not forgetting anything. I recall with absoulte clarity that a number of rationales for the invasion of Iraq were trotted out. They changed as each premise was proven to be untrue. I find it rather ironic that your so-called personal experiences seem to preclude you from accepting certain - highly relevant - facts.

Sorry? I've stated no such thing. I knew there was no WMD, I knew it was a load of baloney; an excuse dreamt up to 'justify' an illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. i've never maintained otherwise and I've certainly not stated anything like you are suggesting I am in this thread.

Talk of "regime change" and, in particular, "liberation" is disingenuous at best.

Panda

Actually, I do believe the invasion and occupation was all about regime change. But not for the moralistic reasons purported by Bush and his partners in crime.

At the same time, Bush and his cronies told the public a pack of lies about Iraq possessing WMDS and involvement with Al Qaeda. That's how the war was "sold" to the voting public. A combination of fear, revenge and patriotic pride rather than the truth.
No way Bush would ever have been reelected if he told the public he was only going to send a small proportion of forces to Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden while the majority of US military would be sent to Iraq only to force regime change. The US voting public were conned pure and simple.

Boon Mee

And just how does an ambulance-chaser cloistered in a little town in northern Thailand know for certain there were no WMD's eh?

Right...

Panda

^ And you knew for sure there were? Reason enough for a war.
Well, the US government wouldn't lie to its people hey?

Boon Mee

^
The question is not whether or not I knew for sure but how does one living in a little town in Thailand know for certain there were no WMD's, eh? Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy, ain't it?

Norton

In Powell's speech to the UN in 2003 there was only one small reference in his conclusion related to Saddam regime change. The rest of the entire speech focused on Hiding Equipment, Thwarting Inspections, Biological Weapons, Chemical Weapons, Nuclear Weapons, Prohibited arms systems and Ties to AQ.

Quoted below is the only part I can find that has anything in common with the need for "regime change". For those who can be bothered to read the whole transcript it is clear the marketing of the invasion had all to do with convincing folks Saddam had WMD, an active nuclear weapons program and was a major supporter of global terrorism.

"And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights.

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died.

His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shiite Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him."


CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

attaboy

And by "them" I mean our new found Sunni allies switching sides. We have always been the good guys.

Boon Mee

Now that we are winning the War in Iraq, the media has devoted up to 92% less time on the story. Network news devoted to Iraq dropped from 23% to 3% (92% decline) compared to last year:



Those Lefties can't stand Good News, eh?

Gateway Pundit: Larry Elder Takes On the Media For Ignoring Iraq War

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Texpat

Hell, no need to look further than this forum ...

Just not interesting anymore. I suspect the focus will move toward Afghanistan. Bush is really screwing up that one. No, really!

Panda

Since when does the media prefer to report good news?

The media conspiracy theory is just a bit of right wing paranoia.
People don't want to told over and over again that things are going well, but when things are going bad they want daily updates. The media makes its money by selling stories about things that are extraordinary because that's what people want to hear about. Eg: Zimbabwe make the international media news headlines just about every day now because whats happening there is extraordinary. Same with Iran and the tussle over their nuclear energy project. Whats happening in Iraq today is pretty tame now compared to what it was a couple of years ago (though its still pretty fucking bad if you happen to be an Iraqi).

What ever happened to Osama Bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan? Well it was overshadowed in the media by the war in Iraq wasn't it.

Plus you got a world financial crisis and a US election to divert attention this year.

The media are not the moral watchdogs of society in a democracy, although they do play an integral part in the process. But basically the media is out there to make money by selling stories people want to hear about. And good news stories don't sell. Plus after all the lies and distortions the US government has fed into the media about Iraq in the past, the general media has become a little more objective and therefore reticent to become the mouthpiece of the US government.

Panda

I don't think Bush screwed up in Afghanistan at all as I don't think he was ever serious about going after Osama Bin Laden or avenging 9/11.

The US put a minority of its military into Afghanistan to chase down Bin Laden then sent the majority of their forces to Iraq to gain access to their oil.
Then the US started whinging like cry babies that their NATO allies wernt doing enough to help them in Afghanistan. Now the US is making rumblings about starting a war with Iran.

bkkandrew

Oh dear, we're only 'winning the war' now? Six months ago I thought we were on 'the final push'?

Were we pushed back?

Boon Mee

Is it proof of change when the biggest story out of Iraq is about a journalist's sex life?

attaboy

It's NATO. Everyone agrees to help get the job done, not just show up for the group photo.

__________________
As a kid I always thought my nickname was "attaboy" until I realized they were rooting for the dog: "Attaboy, get 'em! Get 'em!".

Boon Mee

Listen up all you Nattering Nabobs of Negativism. Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Milkman

IMO, there are no "good guy" nor no "bad guys." It's individuals and organizations pursuing their own self-interest. And for the US, that means playing both sides of the same coin, and playing groups off of one another.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

sabang

If this article proves correct, it's important news- it means that the Bush admin's strategy to have a long term military presence in Iraq is going down the pan. From the Asia Times-

WASHINGTON - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's demand for a timetable for complete United States military withdrawal from Iraq, confirmed on Tuesday by his National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has signaled the almost certain defeat of the George W Bush administration's aim of establishing a long-term military presence in the country.

The official Iraqi demand for US withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months - that the Iraqi administration has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.

The two strongly pro-Iranian Shi'ite factions supporting the government in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and Maliki's own Da'wa party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shi'ite population and from Shi'ite clerics, including the pre-eminent Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand US withdrawal....

But after the US draft agreement of March 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the Maliki government toward the US military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shi'ite factions.

The first indication was Maliki's refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without US troops. General David Petraeus, who this week was confirmed by the US Senate as as Washington's most senior commander in the Middle East, later said a company of US Army troops was attached to some units as advisers "just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line".

That Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shi'ite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Muqtada's forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.

US military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a US "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed." ...

The use of military bases in Iraq to project US power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neo-conservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.

The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the "Korea model" last year at the height of the US celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.

But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shi'ite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.

Full article - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG12Ak01.html


This is not the sort of stuff that makes our mainstream Press Headlines, but if the gist of the article proves correct it signals the total strategic failure of the whole Iraqi invasion and occupation. Not only does the US fail to gain a sizable military presence in Iraq/ the Middle East as planned- this being one of the fundamental reasons to invade in the first place, but Iraq (thanks to the invasion) effectively becomes part of the Iranian sphere of influence, with a Shiite dominated government that listens to Iran. This already seems the case. Add to that the financial cost of the excercise and the human casualties, and this spells one massive blunder by the Neo-cons.

If they had envisaged this, I reckon they would have preferred to keep Saddam in charge.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.