Iran’s high-profile efforts to bully everyone in the Middle East have been getting a ton of attention this week. However, a group of Texas National Guardsmen recently revealed much more subtle, and potentially more important, ways that Iran could fill the power vacuum left by the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
It’s not news that Iran’s Quds Force (which translates to Jerusalem Force) waged a proxy war against U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Military.com’s newest member, Mike Hoffman, just filed a piece about how officers of the Texas-based 36th infantry division, one of the last American units to rotate through Iraq, told lawmakers about opportunities for Tehran to wage a soft takeover of weak spots in the Iraqi military and economy:
With the Iranian-backed Shia Dawa party controlling much of Baghdad and southern Iraq, Spurgin’s unit of 700 Guardsmen witnessed the small pieces of economic and political influence affecting the Iraqi government and army.
For example, Army Brig. Gen. William Smith, 36th Infantry’s deputy commander, said he worried the Iraqi army’s shaky logistics system would open up doors for Iranian agents to gain favor inside army operations.
Iraq’s supply chain still works on a paper system that depends on approvals from officers as senior as generals for supplies as basic as tires. That’s in addition to the reality that Iraq has no system in place to deliver supplies to units in the field from the country’s only depots, located at Taji.
So if an Iraqi army unit needs tires for Humvees in Basrah, for example, that unit must travel all the way to Taji to pick them up. Of course, it’s rare for a unit commander to approve such a trip because it shows he’s failed as a leader if his unit needs new tires, Smith explained.
“It’s part of the military culture we’re trying to change over there,” he said.
If soldiers can’t depend on their army to supply them, they must look elsewhere. In many cases, they turn to supplies smuggled over the Iran border.
Those smuggling efforts included the ingredients to build improvised explosive devices. Iran’s special operations unit, known as the Quds Force, trained many of the Iraq militia members who execute the smuggling operations inside Iraq, Spurgin said.
The Texas soldiers didn’t focus solely on advanced military operations out of Iran. In a briefing to a Texas congressional delegation on Capitol Hill, the Guardsmen explained how something as simple as groceries allows Iran’s government to gain power in Iraq.
Iran is flooding Iraq’s markets with goods at much cheaper prices than other imports, leading other countries’ suppliers, in places such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to not bother to sell in Iraq. Those supplies allow Iran to control southern Iraq’s markets and thus its stomachs.
Perhaps most revealing about the threat of Iranian influence inside Iraq is the fact that the Iraqi army is functionally a heavy police force; capable only of fighting terrorists and providing other forms of “internal security” not defending the country’s borders from other militaries, according to Spurgin:
When asked by Conaway if the Iraqis could protect their borders from an external threat such as Iran, he bluntly said no. Spurgin told the congressman the Iraqis could not defend against an invading force.
“Operationally, the Iraqi Army has the ability to provide internal security of their own country, but they’re not ready to defend their country from an external threat,” Spurgin said.
This news combined with other reports describing Iraq on the brink of civil war, paint a picture of a country ripe for a subtle proxy takeover push by an Iran that’s looking for such an opportunity to expand its power and influence. You can bet that the United States will fight this. But, as our military attention shifts toward Asia and we drop our ability to fight two wars at once, it will be interesting to see how we do this.
{ 123 comments… read them below or add one }
I guess you folks aren't aware of Iraq's army commander and military/security delegation recently traveling to Iran to meet with Iran's counterparts, to discuss military, intelligence and security ties, in detail. How to produce a nefarious spin on that taking place?
Or, as for your Humvee/tire anecdote, I suppose you're unaware of how corruption figures into certain aspects of the Iraqi military. If you need a Hollywood reference, check out the the film "Kelly's Heroes" and the character "Crap Game" for a romanticized rendering of such goings on. The film and its romanticized corruption has quite a following here in the U.S.
The US had discussions with the Iranians when they invaded Iran and Afghanistan. Iraq SHOULD have discussions with the Iranians, unless they are actively at war with Iran. Pretending that they don't exist (e.g. US-Cuba) doesnt work when your share a long border. Yes, it could be nefarious, but what are we going to do about it? Its the Iraqi's country now.
invaded Iraq*
awesome movie – it has me in it.
Everyone who reads Debka saw this coming for a couple months now……
Apparently those in our government don't frequent that website. They would have gotten the clue a long time ago about this and taken it more seriously.
Everyone who had a clue saw this coming in 2002, or at worse Fall 2003
Great post.
None of this is surprising. At the same time, Iran has often over-reached in Iraq, assuming that it could control events through proxies. Its influence has limits. Many Iraqis, including Iraqi Shia, have no interest in becoming a client state of Iran, especially after they just got rid of the USA. Over-reach by Iran also risks action by the other powers in the region, especially Saudis.
In the end, I'd rather the Iraqis and local power brokers deal with this issue instead of having US, Brits, Aussies etc dying. We gain a lot more by leaving and being seen as the good guys who did a good job and tried to leave the place better than we started. Its messier, but gets the same result for a lot less cost in blood and treasure.
What I like about that excerpt is the detail. The guy explains exactly HOW Iranian agents might augment their influence by offering logistical skills that are in high demand. I believe that think tankers and policymakers speak in broad terms that fail to support the given argument. For example, people say Iran getting a nuke would be bad because it would launch a regional nuclear arms race. But they don't say how these other countries would obtain nuclear weapons. This is nice and specific.
Through their illicit nuclear programs that we conveniently ignore. Saudi Arabia for instance has for instance got an option on the Pakistan nuclear bomb in return for funding a lot of it.
But that isn't even the big problem – the problem is that Iran with the bomb would be safe. It would put an end to our dreams of overthrowing the Iranian revolution and cap 50 years of humiliating failures trying.
While I do not know whether your first point is true, at least you brought it up. Many people don't clarify.
The threat of Iran w/nukes is mutually assured destruction does work on religious zealots willing to die to kill the "Great Satan" and Israel. Not to mention Iran and Iraq have gone to war in the past, and Saddam used WMDs (chemical). Iran may see it as precidence and "return the favor", so to speak.
Sad day. It seems like when we left South Vietnam in 73 our allies strength declined. I see the same in Iraq with out US forces there Iran will either take over by Iraqi allies in a Islamic revolution OR invaded and take Iraq by force. Bad decision by Washington.
But in 2011 we are friends with Vietnam, and have been working with the Vietnamese to contain China for many years now. The Vietnamese people and govt also have positive views of the USA
And in 2011 thousands of people have died trying to leave and as for minorities, don't ask; things could be worse, but things could have been better if we had held our end of the bargain….
I agree that the US failed to protect some of its S. Vietnamese allies, and did not keep its promises. But that is a separate issue: the US geopolitical position in Vietnam is not too bad.
The US failed to support the South Vietnamese after we left, which is why it fell to the North Vietnamese, who were being supported by the Soviets. If we hadn't been too busy with Watergate, we could have saved South Vietnam, and hundreds of thousands lives would have been saved. That was my point…..
It would be like a second Korea, with an indefinite tense standoff at the DMZ, and a costly use of American troops?
South Korea is a flourishing nation and a leading participant in the world economy. North Korea is a frozen wasteland run by a crazy dictator. Which side would you want to live in?…..
Sorry SJE Vietnam is one of the worst human rights abusers and they oppress there people horribly the US has some relations but I would call it good. Like Iraq no good came form this.
Sorry Lance, but there are PLENTY of nasty regimes in the world. Don't forget that it was Vietnam that invaded Cambodia to get rid of the Khmer Rouge and then the US complained and supported the KR's position on international bodies. We didnt exactly cover ourselves in glory, did we?
Nevertheless, the point is about Iraq. Staying in Iraq has very clear costs. Leaving has risks. Looking at Vietnam, I'd take those risks and leave Iraq. As for the humanitarian issues, those can be dealt with through other means, such as asylum for those who helped US forces. Or, are you proposing we invade every country with a human rights problem?
If we go through the trouble of invading, we ought to at least insure that the thugs running the place before us don't get back into power. At the rate Iraq is going, things will fall apart again, and guess who's going to have to fix it?…..
.·…OR invaded and take Iraq by force"… you mean, the same thing the US did about ten years ago?
On the plus side, if Iraqi Army units cannot get to Baghdad, then they cannot depose Diem.
Typical of militaries that are built around keeping leaders in power rather than national security. And once we are out, the Iraqi military of today doesn't hold a candle to the war machine Saddam had, export models and steel AT penetrators or not.
Iran practices economic dumping on Iraq: just as we dump our lower-priced goods (which are made in China, of course) on third world countries to destroy their local industries. Now we will see what the consequences are regarding the precedent we set in other countries.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/20…
America attempts to provoke Iran into defending itself, which will give it an excuse to wage war. Then the middle east will be completely under control.
Really? They're developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missile technology, are the world's biggest exporter of terrorism… and WE'RE provoking THEM?
Well I guess they better resist the provocation, eh Sparky?
that is what u told ppl when u invaded Iraq rite? nuke,ballistic, terrorism nest…
same old story…. does the war make u any safer back in US, or u the one that terrorizing other states…
Um you do know that Saddam did infact have those things right?
WMD:
He had yellow cake uranium which is pretty much the block to getting a bomb….he had tons of it we took it out afterwards.
He was just finishing building a Massive chemical weapons factory just as we invaded…you know chemical weapons which can kill entire cities. You know like he used to kill 50,000 of his own people with.
He had scudes and other missiles that…follow a ballistic path to a target and are ballistic missiles……..you know like he fired at Iran, Israel and everyone else.
And he supported terrorism and had several training camps in his country as well as donating money and arms to terrorist groups.
So…….where were we wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
>world's biggest exporter of terrorism
Citation Needed
Citation? Are you effing joking? There is NO QUESTION, not the slightest shred of doubt that those murderous loons are BY FAR the single biggest exporter of terrorism and sheer, bloody murder on the planet. The most casual research will confirm that in minutes. Hell, look what they do to their OWN PEOPLE on a casual basis. "Hmmm. Shall we HANG or STONE the adulterer whore… decisions, decisions…"
Secondly, I don't recall there being any Iranian terrorist attacks against America, so I don't see any evidence of provocation, only delusional neocon paranoia.
Uh, they've been supporting terror operations against our troops; this is like saying the Soviet Union wasn't a threat to the world because really, they haven't invaded anyone or attacked US soil. History repeats itself…..
Um you dont count the hundreds of shia militia backed terrorist attacks to US troops in Iraq and afghainistan using weapons made in Iran, training and tactics taught to the insurgents by the iranian guard.
Of course then there is hezbollah which killed a whole bunch of marines in lebannon…………..should we keep going?
Considering that Bush II put Iran on the Axis of Evil, and then proceeded to invade Iraq, what do you expect Iran to do? Nothing?
Trusting the US to not harm you after putting you on a shitlist is as silly as Diem trusting the US to have his back. When you see signs that someone might be gunning you, you probably shouldn't trust them to not stab you in the back at first opportunity.
It seems deliciously ironic that Iran depended on Israel for American hardware to maintain its own Shah-era American equipment; along with Israel helping to deliver American hardware to Tehran as part of Iran Contra…and Iran pays forward by funding Hezbollah. And more likely than not, sends those same TOW missiles or their reverse-engineered cousins to Hezbollah.
Can't say I wouldn't be infuriated at Reagan for directly aiding "terrorists" myself. However, he has a presidential library as his reward. Ollie North and Poindexter have their own rewards for enabling an Axis of Evil member.
The Neocons have been out of power for quite a while. This is hysteria is lead by peace loving anti-war liberals. Ike was right back then and right today. The first strike to end threats to the USA would be a kill only missions on the corporate headquarters of Lock-Mart, BAE, Boeing and Raytheon.
Really? Where did the insurgent loons in Iraq get the shaped copper projectiles for their IEDs? Were those aimed at Americans or did the Americans just happen to be standing next to the pilgrims, wedding goers, funeral mourners and bazarre merchants who were the really targets of the mighty Quds force?
Iran is verifiably the single biggest exporter of terrorism and murder on the planet. And there is isn't a close second place. From Hezbollah to North Korea, Iran is at the nexus of much the world's evil. These sick, crazy bastards wouldn't hesitate to nuke Israel or anyone else they considered an infidel.
Now they threaten to attach the USS JOHN STENNIS battle group–merely for exercising the international right to free passage. Well, guess what? They can try, buy they'll get their sorry as**es handed to them. And the world will be a much better and safer place after those bloodthirsty religious fanatics have gotten a good thumping… The Iranian Navy and in particular the Revolutionary Guard Navy will look mighty good on the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
To quote Colin Powell on Iraq… "If you break it, you own it." More prophetic words were never uttered…
Look. We did our bit in Iraq. We should never have gone in there, but we did. And we broke a lot of china in the process. We've done our best to make it right, losing 4500 precious American lives and god knows how many Iraqis in the process.
We have long passed the point of diminishing returns. But whatever the consequences, it's now up to them. We've done our bit and there is no possible justification for the loss of one more American life in that tribal hell hole.
Amen
Iranians can enter as agents, etc into Iraq Army & set up networks alone for supply & terrorisim, then more strain in the Mid East.
Iranians already do that.
The lead dude in the picture is missing the pistol grip and trigger mech for his AK. It's the artist in me, can't help but notice.
Sherlock, me thinks you overlooked quite another "detail" uhh… you may even have run into an elephant in your doorframe: Iran's standard assault rifle isn't even the Soviet-designed AK-47 to begin with – never was! It's the German-designed G3 ( = same ancestor, same shape, but straight magazines, not banana-shaped ones like the AK-47s'). Iran even license-builds and exports the G3… As a side note: This also means that the standard calibre of all Iranian infantrymen and -women is 7,62 mm , NOT 5,56 mm.
Envy them.
5.56 mm. and 7.62 mm. both kill people rather handily. It's all a matter of personal preference…..
Correct regarding the G3, but the Iranians do produce AKM clones, a Norinco clone and a 5.56 bullpup.
It's always possible that a variety of these arms are produced for export, or go to the Revolutionary guards or Basij. The AKM has become a symbol of revolutions and unrest the world over anyways (and is part of the symbology of Hezbollah and Mozambique's flag, for example). Even OBL's famous pictures show an AKSU-74 propped up nearby, or OBL firing an AKM.
“Iran’s high-profile efforts to bully everyone in the Middle East…”
There is only one country that bullies everyone in the Middle East and that’s the US, which has consistently done so for 60 years. The one notable exception is Israel, which, on the contrary, is a country that utterly controls US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Utter, fatuous, simplistic BS…
Yeah, and Bush caused 9/11 and Cheney is really a space alien and the Tea Party really did spit on Pelosi; I've got some swampland you'll really want to buy……
We don't bully Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan or Qatar. They're our…friends.
Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon,watch out!
Yeah, all our "friends" has oil! what good and convenient coincidence! …despite Saudi Arabia it´s a great place for terorists.
The others, Watch out!
The Wahabbis are no friends of ours, but are kept in check by the Al-Sauds, who like many of the rulers in the Middle East know that longevity comes with keeping up with the west while looking like they are not our syncophants.
Your argument is total baloney. If we wanted oil, why didn't we just take it when we "occupied" Iraq? Or Kuwait in 1990? Why did we send in the Marines to save 1 million starving Somalis when there was NO OIL there?
The oil theory is utter nonsense.
Because the preferred lie is to say that US are the good guys, and no other country will support US if "we just take it". In 1990 It was a war to destroy Iraq as Regional Power, and for the redivision and redistribution of resources and fabulous Middle Eastern markets. The Bush administration, representing the oil giant corporations and banks, designed to strengthen its dominance in this strategic region. (http://www.ssecretas.com/irak.html).
Somalia… I also believed in the cause of Somalia, the famine that portrayed in "black Hawk Down." I agree it was a good cause and true, but it was not the only, nor the principal, nor the real cause of the Marines were there. More than this: As Somalia is concerned, the double standards of the Security Council clearly meets the interests of the powers, since the objective of the West, Russia and China to support the transitional government of Somalia to defeat the Islamists and to open the commodity markets in the Horn of Africa.
Since the inauguration of new U.S. president, Somali troops of the United States received 40 tons of arms and ammunition, despite the UN embargo. Analysts warn that the arms shipments to Somalia will increase violence, and that much usually captured by Islamist rebels.
Another reason to send in the Marines? Piracy was interfering trade and oil routes in the area. This was one of the reasons in 1990 and is currently in effect.
This is very important, because if Iran attacked U.S. or Israel, something which is becoming more plausible and can be produced this year, Iran would respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz as it has threatened, through which flows 40% of the traffic oil worldwide, and the only viable alternative to avoid the Strait of Hormuz is output through the Gulf of Aden, which borders Somalia. U.S. wants to settle there to prevent terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda that could be triggered if the U.S. attacks against oil Irán.Teniendo an occupying force in the area, says U.S. is a pathway by which to draw oil and prevent the world economy collapses , which will surely happen if an attack on Iran.
Much more information is not biased in the network, and easily can be found to know more, and not be what others want us to believe.
I also believed in many things, but over the years also learned to see beyond, to inform me, not to draw conclusions based on the story told by one. Usually telling the story is depicted as the good guy, which does not mean that really is, or that other versions are told by others not to tell their truth. We must hear the story told by different people, and from all the information, draw our conclusions ;-)
We can all listen and build a better world. Don´t you think?
Because the preferred lie is to say that US are the good guys, and no other country will support US if "we just take it". In 1990 It was a war to destroy Iraq as Regional Power, and for the redivision and redistribution of resources and fabulous Middle Eastern markets. The Bush administration, representing the oil giant corporations and banks, designed to strengthen its dominance in this strategic region. (http://www.ssecretas.com/irak.html).
By the way… In 1993, the U.S. intervened in Somalia under UN mission under the guise of humanitarian aid but only sought to defend the interests of U.S. oil multinationals in the country (Chevron, Mobil, Amoco ….) Installed on it, from 1952.
I´m sorry but all you said… it´s true. Just the crude truth.
America has tried to exercise influence over the colour of governments everywhere; from South America to South East Asia, whether by open war, the supply of arms to insurgents or by exploding cigars. America has done a whole lot worse than smuggle tyres.
It might not be a bad thing if Iran maintains a puppet regime next door. It’s in their long-term interests to have stability in Iraq. And if Iraq does fracture or descend into civil war, can we lay the blame entirely with Iran? There has been ethnic and religious tension built into that country from it’s foundation.
No country on the face of this earth, in the history of humanity, has done more to better the condition of humankind than the United States of America. One of the great ironies in the recent Wiki leaks episode is that the leaked documents confirmed we were doing exactly what we said we were doing. The same could hardly be said for the the other countries whose secrets were revealed.
Ever notice the people who critisize the US do it from various places that have benefitted from the US and its allies over all free flow of information unlike the places they say we are evil in who censor anything of even the slightest bit negative of the offical government? Funny that.
US interest both economic and political is expanded over everything because Oil is power and that oil fire the foundries of industry in many modern countries which means it controls the cost of the comodities we import from those countries and the amount of export those countries buy.
The thing most people like maybe Mr Weich and say ron paul dont get is that making our country entirely indepedent from outside oil while wise is ultimately not going to solve the problem at all. The entire world economy is inter connected. If the price of crude rises in china the price of food and such rises in Iowa.
I´m I right? then the US "stablish the order" in Iraq, -with thousands of deaths in both sides- supported by the lie of "massive weapons", stay there for years, only to disarm it´s army, convert a powerful country in nothing, and now retire the troops, and help, and support…? just to leave a country that has nothing to defend itself of any invader? and the possibility is that Iran be that invader… with no responsabilty? … and just to bring the US to have a new excuse to enter in another (?) war?…. with Iran.
"Of Course"… -"You can bet that the United States will fight this" (?!) What hypocrisy!
Damn, the US can lie to the world, and lie to the US people too (and believe your own lies) and you can win with weapons and lies but -at least in the rest of the world- there are so many people who discerns and after years don´t swallows that miserable lies.
Of course its just an opinion, and maybe what the US need is a little self-criticism, and humility. US is a big country, a great country and has a big responsability, to make good things and make the things well. Not to be a barbarian menacing with its big stick and conquering. It´s 2012… 21st century… We can be a good world with great discovers, and great humanity.
Happy New Year for all.
You know, if we had had our way in Iran, it would have been a much better place than it is now. Whether you like it or not, we actually have something good to offer, and sometimes the best way to get a nation's attention is to bomb the stuffing out of them (read: Japan)……
Are you completely senile? For half a century after the Second World War, Japan became the biggest economic RIVAL to the U.S.A. AND to all of Europe combined, and now you claim responsibility for this 100 % Japanese feat (almost "proudly" so) by crediting your two nuclear bombs with it???! What next: Trying to find a similar America-centric "excuse" for China's rise as an economic Super-Power, too?!
Why yes. We supported the corrupt oppressive KMT, without with the Chinese Communist Party might never have gotten off the ground. We should be proud of ourselves.
And as it turned out, we managed to pick the lesser of two evils; or maybe we should have just told China to mind its own @#$%^ and left them to the Japanese…..
Man, i don´t know… i mean i know the US has a lot of good things to offer, but… can´t see that. You think that Iraq it´s a better place now? i agree that Sadam received what he deserved and it´s a very good thing but now Iraq it´s a disaster, with no water, no electricity and services in most of the cities, no money, no jobs, no organization, a very poor government and no capable armed forces to defend the people… with a hand in the heart… it is a better place now? We have to think about it. And "better place" for who? the people who lives there? the world? or just for the US and your own interests?
And of course, there wasn´t massive weapons in there. No doubt about it. Then, It was a lie. But there is petroleoum and the possibility of a large quantity of contracts in vast areas (security, oil, water, services,….) to miss it. It was full-scale illegal invasion.
Every person and country, everyone makes mistakes, even with good intentions. And US -troops and so many people- has it, and go to fight for good things, but the intentions of the top staff are very different. There´s an industry to mantain, jobs to offer, power to mantain, etc. Everyone makes mistakes but then learn.
Does the US learns? the war machine in country after country… Iraq, A´stan are just two of a lot more… who´s next? Iran? Syria? a 3rd world country with water, oil, or something that interests the US, guise of good intentions?
We have to think if the world it´s a better place now, really.
If you're looking for "lies" you need to examine your own beliefs…
Tell me -please- if they found massive weapons in Iraq or not. It´s not about beliefs, it´s about facts. Did they found weeapons in Iraq or not? No, then it´s was a lie, and a lie to de US people, the allies and the world. A fact.
No. It was a mistake. A bad mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. EVERY major country in the world believed Iraq had WMD. Even Russia. Even FRANCE. We were all fooled.
Yes, thats what i said: Fooled by the interests of some of the top rank people in the US, powerful families who managed a lot more than a clusters of companies for example. And the need to distract the US internal problems and several crises. It was a mistake for the american people, for the troops, and bad informed, inoocent or blind people. As you daid, so many people believed in Iraqi´s WMD. But soon many of them, and the rest of the word that see other channels than the (one way) CNN, could see the truth, or better said the lies. And if you remember well, you know that the rest of the world just opposed to a massive invasion, and there were many demonstrations around the world against the entrance there.
Please, don´t say -"EVERY major country …" because it´s not true. And many countries were "persuaded" (strongly) to support that war. Others supported the war based on the mentioned lies (or mistakes). (although experts refused to have found absolutely nothing, but their reports were silenced). Yet, Mr B. runs over all, despite the different opinions of the rest, and send the troops to ruin a country, and now, 10 years later, leave it when -the in other times one proud country- now it´s just a ruin.
Exact. It was a mistake, but never learned as they continue making the same "mistake" over and over again. Same error in A´Stan? and where else? who´s next? Never learned and… everyone who make a mistake, try to correct it, because has a responsability. That´s the difference. All the died people and soldiers died for what? a better place now? … a country with a questionable future, that is.
A mistake, ok, but US says -"… oops, sorry!" … and go to A´Stan to make same thing…? and next will be other country who will be disgraced… and the US do so again and again as he always does, as it always did.
That is the reason why the world it is not a better place now. Because every time a country tramples on another just generates hate and pain, not only in that country, but many who see this outrage. And many people and countries can think: could be me. I could be the next.
US have good intentions, mostly, but wrong method. And the government remains relatively uninformed his people.
I don't know where your from, but except for a few loons, we don't buy the secret massive conspiracy nonsense around here. No there's no shadow government, no big, powerful families doing secret, evil things. And no "unseen hands" that manipulate the helpless people. That sounds like middle east islamic craziness…
You need to look up the definition of "lie." You're simply trying to twist the facts to support your thesis. Bush and his minions really believed they would find WMD. They were wrong. But they believed they were there. And as I pointed out, and you ignore, EVERYONE believed it. And they believed it because IN FACT Saddam had a robust WMD program he had secretly dismantled. And they believed because right up to the time of the invasion, Saddam refused international inspectors to verify or eliminate the presence of WMD.
You deliberately reduce a complicated situation to a simplistic one to support your whacked-out world view.
Danilo: 1) Iraq did have WMDs (chemical) and had used them in the past agianst the Iranians and the genocide against the Kurds.
2) Saddam did have a nuclear program, thats why he wouldnt allow the UN to inspect his country. Should we have waited until the genocidal madman had aquired nukes before invading?
3) Mistake in Afganistan? The Taliban were supporting Al-Queda, Al-Queda attacked us on 9/11, Al-Queda was operating in the uncivilized/tribal area in Afganistan/Pakistan. Where is the lie?
4) Motive? The whole "war for oil" idea is delusional. The US has more than enough oil to met its needs and if "Big Oil" is powerful enough to start a war, why dont they just lobby liberals to allow drilling in America?
5) Ruins? The US has funded the repair and modernization of Iraq (getting the Iraqi people water, electricity, schools, etc) based on the notion of "nation building". That's so we arent seen as the ones who bomb and leave, but as a nation that removes a strong man and helps repair the nation.
Matt: 1) Iraq did have WMD iraq had biological and chemical weapons that the United States provided him in the 80´s.
Hundreds of weapons inspectors to the UN in Iraq had full access to inspect any Iraqi property without notice and without the need to secure a permit, including sites identified by the CIA and other intelligence.
2) Nuclear weapons were not the issue at the time of the invasion. The reasons were alleged weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear material for peaceful purposes is permitted in any country. Iraq has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. He was a research program of nuclear weapons during the years 1970 and 1980. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osiraq. In 1996, Hans Blix of the United Nations announced that Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all its nuclear capability. In 2003, a multinational coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq for its alleged refusal to cooperate fully with UN inspections. Many members of the Security Council United Nations strongly suspected that Iraq had some form of nuclear program. However, in 2004, the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq's nuclear program had ended in 1991.38
3) No no, mistake in US methods. Same error that russians in the 80´s and US in Iraq. Talibans? yes. Look at this story. The invasion of the Soviet Union in the 80´s, is a stage prior to emergence of the Taliban. This is because the majority of its members were part of the resistance against the Russians. The Afghan Mujahedin, supported by the U.S., became the shock troops of anti-Soviet. That is the origin of the Taliban. Until 1986, U.S., Russian nemesis in the context of the Cold War remained in expectation of the Russian-Afghan. From that moment, the most powerful opposition to the Soviet regime was armed by the Americans via Pakistan and with the support of Saudi Arabia.
1989-1992: period of war for power between mujahideen, supported by the U.S. and Pakistan and the Soviet-backed regime of Mohammed Najibullah. At the request of the UN, the U.S. and the USSR agreed to stop sending aid. A new phase of civil war began in Afghanistan in the former mujahedin factions. These civil conflicts were due to the entry of foreign aid and the divided political structure in Afghanistan. The state-based aid grew without integrating a national society. The fragmentation of the society was reaffirmed in a series of ethnic and tribal conflicts. The core of the state, the army dissolved into factional ethnic riots.
Already without the presence of the Russians, the country plunged into civil war from over 20 tribes. In late 1994, Afghanistan was in a state of disintegration. The country was divided into regional fiefdoms by warlords, who had fought, switched sides and fought again in a series of alliances, betrayals and deaths, these men dominated southern Afghanistan and Kandahar. Were former mujahideen and bandits who plundered the population. Since 1994, the Taliban would be the glue that polarize the race again in two clear camps: them against the Northern Alliance. But bin Laden was among those U.S. funded mujahideen that the West called "freedom fighters". You see my friend? Good intentions, bad execution.
Terrorist are not only in A´stan, they are in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon and -yes- Saudi Arabia (but is our ally).
4) delusional? United States is not self-supplied, as it is the world's largest consumer of oil. Consumes 25% of global oil. Is a country that imports 60% of 'Oil' from other parts of the world, Including (only the Top Ten) Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Russia, Columbia, and Brazil, in that order. And Middle East is one of the largest production of oil, and can handle. Whoever controls the oil controls much of the price. Motive? Deslusional? Use the translator and read this, please: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/guerra/gue… and this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/13/war-on-ira…
5) Yes, ruins. Services now are privatized, with american enterprises. That´s what i mean with interests. Malnutrition rates have soared 19% before the invasion to an average of 28% four years later. urrently, the violence continues and Iraqi attacks as well. The Iraqi government through self-immolation protests, violent demonstrations demanding better public services and fighting between Sunnis and Shiites are rising despite the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
In the social sphere the escalation of violence has caused a 50% unemployment, a psychological trauma that affects two in every five Iraqis, a total of more than 2 million young widows and 75% of children who drop out of school activity and are exposed to prostitution and slave labor. In the 9 years of war and occupation 1.6 million Iraqis were displaced from their homes, 151,000 civilians were killed, on the other hand in the war the U.S. government spent 3 billion dólares.119 In the area of public services and the needs of population and infrastructure Iraqi citizens to live in scarcity of electricity, poor drinking water and sewage and possible layoffs of public employees. Many children suffer from diseases and problems of sewer trash accumulated in the areas. Every day, on average, 31 civilians were killed during a period of six years. Honesly, do you think Iraq is a better place now? Good intentions (has the people of US), bad execution (government).
The United States NEVER supplied chemical or biological weapons to Saddam. PERIOD. That is a another whacked out fantasy. Completely insane.
"IRAN'S SHADOWY POWER GRAB IN IRAQ" Would that be about the same as our power grab in the same area and everywhere else? Just wondering.
Doubtom, can you put that question in other words? i´m not sure of it´s meaning. I have limitations in english and i´m interested in the real meaning of your words
What power grab is that? We LEFT Iraq. We're on our way out of Afghanistan. Why didn't we just stay and drain them of their resources if your thesis is correct?
Good grief
I'm pretty sure that prior to the US invasion the Iraqi military had at least some logistics capacity, so it's pretty dishonest to bleat about what is in no small measure a US failure, and then go through the standard blame Iran routine. The amount of butthurt on this is hilarious.
Look, the US systemically destroyed the Iraqi economy from 1990 onwards, as a matter of national policy, and it's a bit bloody stupid to complain that the Iranians are taking advantage of that. It's not as if the Saudis or the Kuwaitis are exactly leaning forward to provide trade credits, diplomatic representation or write off Saddam era debts -whilst the Iranians actually have a coherent and positive Iraq policy that they can implement.
Seriously, there's some grade A idiocy here – from the Texas Guardsmen, to the military.com correspondent to this post's author. Entertaining the idea that either Saudi or Kuwait, which have some of the highest food production costs in the world and are massive net food importers, could compete with Iran, which is largely self-sufficient in agricultural production and is a not-too-shabby food exporter, is a pretty good sign that there's a clueless moron writing.
Indeed. It might go back to the "do nothing" mentality that is the typical product of secret-police states: stepping out of line and showing initiative marks you for the firing squad. It's a reflex that will take decades to repair.
That said, the American military has an imperfect track record restructing foreign militaries. The RVN was similarly dependent on the United States for logistics and maintenance support in the field, saying nothing about the obvious dependence on spare parts, POL and munitions.
Our focus during the COIN phase was an Iraqi Army capable of supporting American units in the field. The understanding was that American units would coordinate their own logistics, and thus they've been dependent on our ability to supply them in the field. We assumed we'd be there forever, so we never considered or cared about the need to stand up a working supply system. With the early departure insisted on by Nouri, he will be stuck with a static army with limited ability to defend the border. If it weren't for the United States forces still hanging out in the Gult; Iran could roll over the NIA in a heartbeat.
The biggest mistake made post invasion was the banning of bath party officals. This banned basicly ANYONE who was in government. If you wanted to do anything you had to be a bath party member.
So then the state department says…….no more…..
So then only the shia basicly can get power and the nation fell apart. THAT was the defining moment.
I'm not sure if keeping all Baath members in power would've been a wise move either. At the time, we weren't able to tell a Fedayeen Saddam member from a Baath party technocrat. So we purged them all, in a move that probably did Saddam proud. Combined with his armed populace program that would've done any militia movement proud, they prolonged the resistance for quite a while.
Engaging the Baath would have been the right move, but properly identifying the "right guys" would've put them on the horns of a dilemna: fellow Baath members might ostracize them for selling out to foreigners, and Dawa and Iranians would assassinate them for representing the old Baath. I bet one way or another, many Baath party members would've tried to leave the country, especially when the body parts started appearing in the street.
If we'd figured out a way to engage Arab peacekeepers, we might've had a mild chance of averting massive bloodshed. However, the thought of Syrian "peacekeepers" in Baghdad quietly passing out artillery shells to the insurgents gives me the shivers.
Good point. But does staying in Iraq continue a culture of dependency?
Indeed it does, but there's a line between throwing the bird out of the nest before it's ready to fly, and when it's ready to fly. The NIA wasn't ready to fly. In an emergency, I have no doubt the Iraqis could scrape together a fighting force of ex-Baath Army guys, but equipping them from the leftover scrap of Saddam's military and a puny quantity of imported American hardware would be insufficient to repel any invasion.
You are utterly incorrect. Saddam Hussein made the CHOICE to respond to the INTERNATIONAL sanctions by spending his country's resources on weapons and the military. To suggest we "forced" him to do it is disingenuous and wholly inaccurate.
such a crap!
Of course Iran exports food and other materials to Iraq. They have been neighbors for centuries. Iran have imported dates from Iraq and exported lemons to them.
and regarding the long period of boycott against Iraq and invading all of its factories and industries; you think what material can be produced there?
with all Saudi terrorist in that country, blowing up homes and workshops?
Quds Force don’t need to smuggle anything. Iran have many free trade zones in the border with Iraqi Kurdistan and Basrah provinces.
Of course Quds Force has a long time presence in Iraq!
They were fighting Saddam before you do, dear Gen, when you idiot criminals sold chemical materials to Saddam.
They are Iraqi Shiite and Sunni soldiers and refugees organized and supported by Sepah to fight against the criminal dictator, Saddam; when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraqi and Iranian people in a same way, and you supported him in UN.
And of course Iran has influence in Iraq. many of Iranian high-rank clerics have studied in Iraq, fled from Saddam to Iran, and still have followers there. previous Head of the Judiciary of Iran, was an Iraqi refugee.
Ayatollah Sistani is an Iraqi high-rank Shiite leader who has millions of followers in Iran. tomb of 4 of highly regarded religious leaders of Muslims and Imams of Shiite, which are sons of Muslims prophet are in Iraq and millions of Iranians visit them each year.
so many ties exist between to countries, for centuries.
Is trading of yogurt from Iran to Iraq really a treat to US benefits? fuck those benefits! what do you do here with your benefits?
was supporting Saddam to produce chemical weapons and using it against us, one of your benefits too?
Muhammed. We went to war with Saddam TWICE. I would say that vastly outweighs any failure to act before that. In the meantime, what did YOU do to bring down Saddam?
When did you went to fight Saddam? Really when?
From 1981 when Saddam attacked Iran, You and all western countries supported him to fight Iran, when Iran just had got rid of a dictator, and to kill Iraqi maturities (Sheites and Kurds).
Your governors are criminal bastards lying about humanity and democracy and helping every dictator whenever possible. Soviet gave him T72 and Sukhoi and MiG, France gave him Mirages and missiles, Germany and US gave him chemical material and equipments, US gave him satellite pictures and radars and long-range missiles to attack cities, and they embargoed Iranian oil, and closed their eyes on Iranian and Iraqi people.
http://google.com/search?q=Saddam+chemical+attack…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_Wa…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_a…
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_Rum…
http://english.irib.ir/analysis/commentaries/item…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_support_for_I…
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-04-…
and most of the references above are from US media, and contain less than half of truth about supporting Saddam crimes.
but what Iran did?
Iran supported and trained Sheite and Kurd freedom fighters to overthrow the dictator. Now, most of the Iraqi leaders in the government, Parliament and Iraqi army have closed ties with Iranians; because they remember Iran was first to help in Halabja and similar crimes of Saddam.
But when did you attacked Saddam? when that maniac criminal attacked another US supported monarchy, Kuwait.
and in both US wars in Persian gulf, Iran aided NATO, or they had to pay a very higher price in war.
Anyway, I suggest you to search why US back off in the first battle with Saddam. It is a symbol of their cruelty against Iraqi people.
You simply have a lot of your facts wrong. Not surprising given the sources you cite.
Iran replaced one dictator, the shah, with another brand of dictator, even more evil–A religious lunatic.
Iraq is of course free to forge ties and alliances with anyone they chose. It makes perfect sense to trade with a neighbor. But that neighbor is also a snake. A religious theocracy with an agenda that is its own and not in the interests of the Iraqi people.
That is, not if they want to maintain their freedom…
such a crap!
Of course Iran exports food and other materials to Iraq. They have been neighbors for centuries. Iran have imported dates from Iraq and exported lemons to them.
and regarding the long period of boycott against Iraq and invading all of its factories and industries; you think what material can be produced there?
with all Saudi terrorist in that country, blowing up homes and workshops?
Quds Force don’t need to smuggle anything. Iran have many free trade zones in the border with Iraqi Kurdistan and Basrah provinces.
Of course Quds Force has a long time presence in Iraq!
They were fighting Saddam before you do, dear Gen, when you idiot criminals sold chemical materials to Saddam.
They are Iraqi Shiite and Sunni soldiers and refugees organized and supported by Sepah to fight against the criminal dictator, Saddam; when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraqi and Iranian people in a same way, and you supported him in UN.
And of course Iran has influence in Iraq. many of Iranian high-rank clerics have studied in Iraq, fled from Saddam to Iran, and still have followers there. previous Head of the Judiciary of Iran, was an Iraqi refugee.
Ayatollah Sistani is an Iraqi high-rank Shiite leader who has millions of followers in Iran. tomb of 4 of highly regarded religious leaders of Muslims and Imams of Shiite, which are sons of Muslims prophet are in Iraq and millions of Iranians visit them each year.
so many ties exist between to countries, for centuries.
Is trading of yogurt from Iran to Iraq really a treat to US benefits? fuck those benefits! what do you do here with your benefits?
was supporting Saddam to produce chemical weapons and using it against us, one of your benefits too?
I don't think the United States cares about the lemon/orange trade. Whatever it takes to bring the Iraqi nation revenue is good stuff, though if Iraq starts exporting oil to Iranian refineries people might sit up and go "Oh no!"
Looking up the Quds Force, it seems they helped out the Kurds to fight Saddam. During the Reagan years, this was A Bad Thing. But after 1991, this was A Good Thing. They allegedly also helped out the Northern Alliance, which would also be A Good Thing. However, this was the '90s, during which Iran wasn't Such A Bad Guy. I don't think the United States minded Rasafjani or Khatami being in charge; but much of our bad blood began when Iran decided to change directions and supported Ahmadinejad.
Sistani was sidelined in '04-'05 by Sadr when Sadr's men killed al-Khoei.
Thanks God Quds Force and Sepah policies have not changed like US policies.
Anyway, Ahmadinejad was not in charge when Iran suddenly became A Very Bad Guy. It was Khatami, and hey, the nuclear program info had still not been leaked, and Iran had co-operated with NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan. And mind you, The Supreme Leader, Khamenei signs international policies, and his policies has not changed as much as American’s.
Sistani wasn’t sidelined in Iraq, If you know how Ayatollah’s do their management. He has millions of followers in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, …. During the US occupation of Iraq, Young Sheites supported Muqtada and some extremists in Iran appreciated his movement. But, that doesn’t mean Sadr sidelined Sistani.
and Mr. Khoei died while Saddam was in charge.
Some fools here say Iran is behind 70% of terrorism activities in Iraq, while US is in charge there. How could that be possible and most of the victims are Sheits, and hundreds of Iranians have been killed in Karballa and Najaf?
Maybe we should consider that this was going to happen from day 1. There is a substantial reason the area is called the Persian Gulf. Thousands of years of being part of the Persian empire. A 100 years of Iraqi or Saudi history will never change that. The people accept that. All of our speculating on what will happen if Iran become dominant in the area is Bull Pucky. Iran will be the dominant force in the gulf area eventually. We can't stop it nor should we try. Do the Iranians need a nuke program for weapons? No. There are over 40 assembled Nuke weapons missing from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kahzakstan. In 1997 rumors of 4 Chinese nukes(4.5Mtons) misplaced and never recovered. I have no doubt our friendly allies in Pakistan will gladly sell a 100Kton class weapon at a severe discount. Every Barrel of American oil produced moves us closer to the day when this is not even a problem.
The Neocons have been out of power for quite a while. This is hysteria is lead by peace loving anti-war liberals. Ike was right back then and right today. The first strike to end threats to the USA would be a kill only missions on the corporate headquarters of Lock-Mart, BAE, Boeing and Raytheon.
nice, fancy renting me a small text link or banner ad on the top of the page??
Once the United Nations repelled the foreign invaders from South Korea, they didn't really need a perpetual garrison force to keep the borders safe. The lion's share of the UN forces were able to pull out just fine, as were the American troops deployed to Korea with no ill effects. It's not like a division-plus is going to Chuck-Norris a massive North Korean attack without the ROKA.
We'll just turn the other way, like we threw the Hmong under the bus in Laos and ignored Myanmar (now Burma) and ignored Zimbabwe (not our problem anyways).
OK look Iran basicly supports 60-70% of the islamist terrorist out there. Your trying to do the moral equivalency game. Its not a game this a group of people who brutaly rape and murder their own people constantly and THEN transport those same tactics and beliefs to the rest of the world.
This is a Nation run by people who have STATED over and over their ultimate goal is genocide.
This is not the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan or the Vietnamese. This is a group of people who will hold to no oaths, no values other than what they choose who see absolute brutality as the ways of governance. REASON worked with the Russians it wont work with them.
Certain american administrations have fucked over Israel then cry foul when they make the decissions to protect themselves. America and europe have the advantage of being large and easily defendable israel has anything but that so it does what it has to to avoid slavery and annhilation. Now if we were saints it would be different……but we aren't.
It's a deterrent force. It's job is to remind the Norks that invading the South will start a war with us. Despite initial wins, we defeated them badly in the first war; we're betting they don't want another one……
I see your point. Thanks for clarifying.
The US did a pretty good job trying to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it, with a reasonable chance for a future. Leaving it, and allowing it to get about its business, is not "abandoning" as much as recognizing that it is a sovereign state. Its not a child, but an adult, and adults get to make their own choices and own mistakes. Sometimes we don't agree, but its their life. Trying to force governments to do what we want has lead to the US getting into bed with nasty tyrants who often hurt their own people and end up making life worse for the USA. See the Shah of Iran
A division-plus isn't a serious deterrent force. Putting units in the ROK with nuclear weapons (similar to how we nuclearized the border between the FRG and the GDR, which was a more serious deterrent than any number of troops on the border).
Which would only have aided the rise of communism even more. Just as communism in Vietnam got a foothold as part of a anti-Japanese resistance movement, the same would happen in Vietnam.
I imagine regardless of who we supported, the KMT was doomed.
Al Qaida was the majority terrorist faction for some time, and might even still be, depending on the numbers. We lack adequate numbers for Iran's foreign aid support, but it's been a given since Vietnam that any counterinsurgency *depends* on nation-state support to be viable, and that for many groups Iran plays that role.
Are the Dawa Party and the al-Sadr movements, both acknoweldged Iranian pawns, terror movements? Sadr's men killed a cleric in 2004 (or was it 2005?) and sidelined al-Sistani with the Mahdi Army, which then fought American forces until they backed off. Al-Quds trained un-named groups in the deployment of IEDs, but I've never seen hard data saying which groups they were actively training. If they consorted with Al Qaida in Iraq or other member of Mujahideen Shura Council, then they are supporting a terrorist group by proxy. Iran supports Hezbollah, which is a declared terrorist organization by the United States and foreign countries, but is cloaked in the arm of a domestic political organization.
Going back to the definition of a terrorist organization, which Muslim groups are "terrorist", and which ones have Iranian support?
Hezbollah's military arm definitely receives military hardware from Iran, and to repel an Israeli attack means a fair amount of hardware is involved. This is no inexpensive 9/11.
Iran was doing /something/ in Iraq, but it's distributed between economic, political and military aims. Not all of it can be "terrorist" in nature, but the clandestine work of Al-Quds is undoubtedly terrorist related. But if it's clandestine, it must be small, or at least, hard to qualify.
We're not sure how deep their tendrils are into Afghanistan, for example. Is Herat a hotbed for Iranian interests? If so, would we risk have Shinbad airbase within missile range of our potential adversary?
The lion's share of Iran's support is probably tied up in propping up Hezbollah. I imagine it isn't very expensive to send freighters of small arms to 'em. And bear in mind, that Syria used to, and might still also be jointly contributing to Hezbollah.
By the way, a number of Israeli PM's have tried their hand at peacemaking. Rabin for example, and he was shot dead for the trouble. And Ehud Barak. And Sharon. And perhaps Netanyahu. And to the outsider, not a ton of change came out of it. Abbas is trying for statehood-it remains to be seen if that is going to change anything.
Neither China nor Vietnam had to fall. It was our belief that the rise of Communism was inevitable that enable the Communists to rise to power. It was Reagen's belief that we could stop Communist expansion that enabled us to win the Cold War…..
The Norks know they can overrun our troops currently stationed on the border. It's the prospect of us showing up on the peninsula in full force, similar to the first war, that is supposed to deter them….
And yet in the end it turned out that the people who replaced the Shah were worse than he was. Regardless of whether or not it was a good idea to "force" governments to do what we want, what we pick usually ends up being better than what the people pick. The Arab Spring is living proof of this: If the people don't know how to be free, no amount of democracy and choice will give them freedom….
Those who replaced the Shah are terrible. But if the Shah was nasty, and had he not been so bad, the Ayatollahs would not have had so much support.
Where i´m from it´s not your bussines, this is a blog, to share different points of views and respect all opinions, and may be learn something or think deeper about some topic.
I didn´t use such thing like a "shadow government", and evil thing, and "middle east islamic craziness". You´re teasing me.
I speak about the B. family, with a lot of related an no related bussines whom the war would be very advantageous, and distract the internal problems too. I was clear.
But you despise the opinion of others if different from yours, just because you think you have with your knowledge of truth and reason. I think this blog is a good opportunity to rethink some things and/or learn something. Good luck!
No. I don't despise opinions contrary to mine. I despise loony conspiracy theories. The idea the "B" family or any other family or corporation or person manipulated world events to reap profit. That is frankly insane. Completely crazy.
The world is just not that simple. It is enormous. It is complex. And events cannot be explained by simplistic fantasies.
Your rhetoric belies your prejudices. Exactly how is your opening statement "the preferred lie is to say that US are the good guys…" supposed to foster an objective, rational, discussion?
I reject your assertions as flatly delusional. The idea that the Operation Desert Storm was fomented to "redistribute Middle East resources…" is nonsensical. And of course, that never happened.
If you REALLY want to build a better world, you'll subscribe to and promote republican, constitutional and SECULAR governments, where the Rule of Law is enforced with integrity.
Unfortunately, the first thing Islamists do with their new-found freedom form dictators is to embrace just another form of tyranny. Where freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, and freedom of religion are despised and violently oppressed.
Denying an argument does not make him lie, and more times repeating another does not make it true.
-"No man so blind as those who will not see".
I respect your opinions, and mine are no less than yours, (they are not mad because someone looks or want to see just a part of reality). But I enjoy the exchange and I enjoy sharing this very good blog.
In peace we are ;-)
Peace. Peace in a world where religion is a personal choice and not a government mandate. Peace in a world where the Rule of Law is honored. Peace in a world where the sovereignty of the individual is the highest priority…
ok, not trying to convince anyone, but to exchange views and maybe learn something. I'm just going to leave one of the many articles and news that someone fairly well informed and open mind can find easily. Words fail, and this is not to argue. Only to read and meditate, if you want-can bring you something, or not, and just hold the position.
Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons
Sunday Herald, 23 February 2003
"Seventeen British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation. One of the companies is Inter national Military Services, a part of the Ministry of Defence, which sold rocket technology to Iraq. The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages — including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. The five permanent members of the security council — Britain, France, Russia, America and China — are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq. The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'. It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agriculture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology…. The Department of Trade and Industry said details on export licences, including information on weapons sold to Iraq, was unavailable…..A spokesman for the MoD's International Military Services said he could not comment as no staff from 1991 were on the payroll and no documents from then existed… Tommy Sheridan, leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, said: 'The evidence of British armament companies, with central government support, arming the Butcher of Baghdad lays to rest the moral garbage spewed from the British government. It exposes the fact that Britain, along with America, France and Russia, armed Saddam to the teeth while he was butchering his own people' …."
Article: "Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons"
Sunday Herald, 23 February 2003
Absolute transparent fraud. Laughable nonsense.
1) Hewlett Packard has no "nuclear" or rocket technology
2) Kodak has no "rocket technology"
People can "claim" anything they want. That doesn't make it true. And this stuff is a pathetic joke, invented by idiots who aren't familiar with the companies they're discussing.
Seriously. You BELIEVE this craziness? Seriously?
And in any event, what individual companies do, on their own and illegally, has nothing whatsoever to do with the US government or its policies.
This is just more of the very popular middle east motif that "Unseen hands" make stuff happen. Secret forces and organizations far beyond our understanding. What a bunch of BULL!!
You know? no man so blind as those who will not see.
At least when I say something I explain why I believe in that. if you read the rest of the thoughts and the answers I have given in this blog, you'll see what I mean basis. I simply closes and say no to everything without substantiating what I say.
And I suspect (very clear) that for more reasons that follow, and cite newspaper articles, editorials and information from around the world, you simply continue to deny without foundation, using words absolute, strict, and burlesque.
Much more information in the world that gives me my government, is in my eyes close and open.
Nice to meet you, anyway. I enjoyed our little talks on major issues.
Iraq got their biological weapons from the American Type Culture Collection. You can't get certain strains of bacillus anthracis without government approval.
Then again, there are the scary strains that aren't even in the ATCC and hide out in Fort Detrick.
"I believe," James Madison warned in a speech to the Virginia Convention on June 16, 1788, "there are more cases of deprivation of liberty of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, which violent and sudden usurpations. "
No. You have a religious belief in this craziness. But the evidence you cite is easily refutable. E.G. Hewlett Packard doesn't have a Rocket Division. You have an agenda and you seek to support that agenda–even with the flimsiest evidence. You have a world view that is a function of what I suspect is Arab paranoia reflected in the "unseen hands control us" theory. I don't… It's that simple.
This is preposterous. Absolutely crazy talk and you have not one shred, iota of evidence to support it. But you believe it anyway. Your opinions are not derived from critical thinking, they're derived from religious belief.
No. Saddam Hussein did not get his WMD from Fort Detrick. That is flat out NUTS.
You always speak in absolute terms. Is all that you can say? -"Not. Completely crazy. simplistic fantasies. That is flat out NUTS. Craziness. Laughable nonsense. Bunch of BULL. PERIOD(¡)".
From the foregoing, that u.s. hijacked a report of 12000 pages aimed at the United Nations to censure, and cut it? What are the most important thing to say is: Kodakand HP does not have nuclear or missile technology? My God!
The important thing is to hide and deny systematic, besides skipright to be believed with all international copyright laws and all rights of individuals, organizations, and countries. And they think they have that right! Abusive, arrogant, and hypocritical. But if you want a more detailed list, is here (including Kodak and HP involvement): http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.tx… (Read WMD, nukes and nuns – Writen by William Strabala)
Please, even in the simplest search, Wikipedia tells us in Iraq War was caused and based on a lie you can search it (At least until the entry into force of SOPA and PIPA). Each one have to choose between closing the eyes, or look for information.
And while individual rights continue to cut with the new laws. All this under the guise of protecting against terrorism. Let me tell you something, that's in the dictionary, and is called "state terrorism".When you read the definition of that, you realize that it is, and how hard they try not to sound, the definition is clear and can not escape it. A good book to read about it is “Danger States” by Noam Chomsky
Iron V, do not even think for a moment that I have a religious fervor by any theory. I just try to keep me informed, as I said before, reading books, journals and articles from around the world. You just say"no" to all exposed here, but adds nothing here, nor have any arguments. So this becomes an empty discussion for me. There isn´t any exchange and I can not learn anything from this. I care to read and find information from different sources. You just say "no" to everything and do not even question the veracity of your arguments and the source of these arguments.
Please do not take it in the wrong direction, and i know it's not my bussiness, But maybe you are so young. When i was 16, defended to death of U.S. foreign policy and everything related to the U.S., i really believed that was the land of the free. I was a fan of the US as a country and defender of the weaks. I was pretty much idealist.
Now I have 42, catholic, i work a lot, and I read a lot about many subjects, and different sources, and I quite like the History. My worldview has changed and I'm not fan of anyone. I sympathize with good causes. I have family and close friends in the US Armed Forces, my own nephew serves in the US armed forces, and I was his biggest inspiration to be in there. He has been in service in Iraq and he´s in Afghanistan now.
The United States have disappointed me, and the more I find out about their actions abroad, and how they lie to their own people, more and more U.S. disappoints me.
As the years pass, I saw facts that tomorrow will be part of our history, with my own eyes. So, i can understand you, maybe with the years you can see other versions of the history, or –better- you can do an introspection and know what is right and what is not, even your own country you´ll have to judge.
But i know, you will need information not biased by a country or government. Everyone needs not biased information and that the best are from several different sources.
It's in The Art of War Sun-Tzu, Information wins battles, and the lack of info may loose battles.
If we treat the information can be handled trends. Deny true information, is an act that US government used systematically, it has always done, and only when the info is declassified or leaks is when we found out. You can not deny that. Sure you have learned many things with wikileaks, or not? important things they never tell us.
Well, the news is there are many, many more, and if you care to look in books, newspapers and the Internet will find a part of that. It's the best advice I can give, although I was not asked for it. As I said before, I enjoyed chatting with you. Have a good life.
You are correct: I reject your assertions and your evidence as complete, fatuous nonsense.
You say the US has "disappointed you" based upon the results of your "research." Your research is amateurish, deeply and irrevocably flawed. You assert that you have the "true" information. That is of course, ridiculous.
Learned? From those morons at Wikileaks? What I learned was the we were doing exactly what we said we were doing around the world. Other countries were embarrassed by their duplicity revealed in Wikileaks, not ours.
"Important things they never tell us…" Well, there you go with with the conspiracy theory-unseen hands garbage. OF COURSE they don't "tell us" what's in top secret diplomatic cables. How they hell could they conduct sensitive negotiations if the did?
You have an agenda and seek to support it through the any shred of flimsy or fraudulent evidence.
The USA has done more to lift the quality of life for all humankind than any country in history. By far.
I stand by that emminently provable, demonstrable proposition.
I recognize that the name of the url is pretty blatantly biased. However, one can write the ATCC and get a rebuttal. Do it.
The original ATCC for B. anthracis was ATCC 14578, which is now discontinued. The type strain is definitely not the Ames strain.