Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

[chequita guevara]

I don't really think they are. That's why 3,000 members of the Iraqi middle class flee the country every day. Anyone who can get out is getting out. The rest are hiding.

[Drake Tungsten]

Polls seem to indicate that they are.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Polls seem to indicate that they are.

Link?

[Drake Tungsten]

I already posted a link in this thread.

[Bosh]

Yes, the poll results you posted are indeed heartening:

[Drake Tungsten]

You should really read the whole thing. It's very interesting.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's odd that Iraqis seem to be more optimistic about the capabilities of their government/armed forces and the future of their country than Americans are...

That is because Iraqis are sure their militias will defend the interests of their groups against the other groups.

[Drake Tungsten]

That is because Iraqis are sure their militias will defend the interests of their groups against the other groups.

Then why are Iraqis so clearly in favor of disbanding the militias?

[Kuciwalker]

It's like Americans being against special interests.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I cannot say something about the Bush critics,
but I can say that the reason for the moderates in Europe to be against war in Iraq was not the belief that the war would be too bloody.

That's odd. Moderates supported GW1, helped write the terms of surrender imposed on Saddam. But then when called to enforce those terms they backed down. They're too fearful of shedding blood. The whole world knows that when pushed the Euroweenies can be counted on to back down. We had the vain hope that once, just freakin' once, our friends would evince something resembling a backbone.

Because they didn´t want a regime change at all costs,
and rather saw the UN resolutions fulfilled than seeking a reason to go to war with him.
And obviously letting him remain in power would have been a better move in the war against terror, than the things the US government did.

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Proteus_MST It was rather the belief that your reasons for invading were false

The unconcealed objective was regime change. There was never any deceit about US intentions. The bald accusation of war-for-oil was and remains the knee-jerk rubric of the Bush-bashers.

That there would be a regime change after you won the war was clear to everyone.
But this was never the reason brought forth by Colin Powell and others people at the UN Security Council (and other places where they [and Tony Blair] wanted to persuade the international community that war would be justified and correct according to the UN resolutions. )

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Proteus_MST It was rather the belief that your reasons for invading were false (which were always said to be the WMD Iraq possessed) as at the same time that your government stated the possession of large stockpiles of WMDs to be a fact (just think of Colin Powell showing these nice satellite photos around in the UN security council) the UN inspectors which oversaw the weapons inspections in Iraq denied the claims by the US government.

Patently false. It was Saddam's openly declared and repeatedly demonstrated aim to make WMDs and obtain new WMD technology.

The entirety of Powell's presentation to the UNSC was on documented circumvention of UN inspection as demonstration of Saddam's intentions. There was one series of images of them moving a small stockpile and decontaminating bunkers just a day or two before inspectors arrived. This was of particular interest because of the use of a Russian-made decon vehicle based on the BMP-76.

It was always about the future as much as any existing stock and programs. At no time did Powel present evidence of "large stockpiles," and this we did not expect to find. We expected to find tactical stockpiles that Saddam claimed his troops would use. We expected to find supplies and facilities for manufacture, particularly mobile facilities.

Colins speech sounded not like a "small stockpile" but rather like several depots that contained chemical weapons.
Colin Powell gave as example sattelite phtograph of something that he called an active depot for chemical weapons (i.e. one that really contained chemical warheads) which was, according to his speech, in Taji and was only one of several (he gave the number 65) such depots

See also Powells speech before the UNSC:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#12

So did your forces find any of the things mentioned in the speech by Colin Powell?
(and did your forces find any traces of the biological weapons program and the mobile facilities for the production of Anthrax that Powell also stated to be an almost sure fact)

Originally posted by Straybow

Most people in europe rather believed the UN weapons inspectors than the claims of the US government and therefore preferred the UN weapons inspections to continue rather than the invasion that was preferred by your country.

And in the end one can say that the belief of the moderate europeans seemed to be right as no sizable stockpiles of WMDs were found despite all of your efforts to find them after invasion

The satellite images clearly showed materials that escaped the inspectors and were lost to surveillance. Despite this fact, inspectors and their cheering section continue to this day to pretend they had successfully "inspected" the threat out of existence. Sheer foolishness.

Satellite images can be misinterpreted.
Lets take for example the satellite image of the facility at Taji. What is more probable?
That the Bush government just took these pictures and falsely interpreted them in a way that suited their purposes (i.e. as active depots for chemical weapons that really contained chemical weapons before the inspections)
or that this facility was really, like Powell stated, an active depot for chemical weapons and that during the war everything what was present inside could be taken out of the country, without your soldiers being able to find any traces of it during or after the war?
Well, I rather think that the first explanation is correct

[Dr Strangelove]

Where was this Kissinger guy in the spring of '03. His advice would have been more useful rhen.

Frankly it appears that Saddam Hussein did indeed obey the UN's demands regarding the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and the dismantling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons production and research facilities, so where lies the legal basis for this war?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Where was this Kissinger guy in the spring of '03. His advice would have been more useful rhen.

Frankly it appears that Saddam Hussein did indeed obey the UN's demands regarding the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and the dismantling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons production and research facilities, so where lies the legal basis for this war?

He knew HOW to make evil things and was therefore evil forever and ever. Therefore we had to attack him or he'd become ANOTHER HITLER!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Where was this Kissinger guy in the spring of '03. His advice would have been more useful rhen.

Frankly it appears that Saddam Hussein did indeed obey the UN's demands regarding the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and the dismantling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons production and research facilities, so where lies the legal basis for this war?

Saddam had an obligation to prove that he was not making said weapons. He threw the inspectors out in 1998. He was running a game of seeing what he could get away with. Was testing the will of his opponents. It was not our job to ensure that he was committing a new crime. Simply breaking probation was sufficent.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by TCO
He threw the inspectors out in 1998.

No he didn't. The weapons inspectors were withdrawn by the UN in anticipation of Operation Desert Fox. They didn't want to get blown up and whatnot.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Where was this Kissinger guy in the spring of '03. His advice would have been more useful rhen.

Frankly it appears that Saddam Hussein did indeed obey the UN's demands regarding the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and the dismantling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons production and research facilities, so where lies the legal basis for this war?

No, the conditions were clear. They were to be destroyed under UN supervision. We were supposed to document the materials and their disposal.

The inspectors saw nothing, destroyed nothing, so obviously they succeeded! By that standard, so the US invasion was an even greater success. At least we caught up with the people responsible.