Iraq : three years on - it's now civil war

limerickman

March 18th 2003 saw the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition.
The pretext for the invasion was
1.Iraq had WMD
2.Iraq played a role in the September 11th 2001 attacks on WTC.
3.Iraq had violated UN Security mandates.

No WMD were ever found in Iraq, since March 2003
No paperwork supporting a WMD project was found in Iraq since March 2003.
No evidence of any support for 9/11 has been found in Iraq since March 2003.

In the three years since, we have had Abu Ghuraib, the theft of oil from Iraq, the use of chemical weapons by the US-led coalition at Fallujah.
We have had the death of 100,000 Iraqi's from March 2003-September 2004
and an unquantified number of Iraqi deaths since September 2004 to now.

We have also had the regrouping of Al Qaeda in Iraq and their alliance with Iraq guerilla fighters.
In the meantime, the perpetrators of September 11th attack remain at liberty.

Iraq is now in a state of de-facto civil war.
No agreement has been reached on the formation of a goverment - no effective goverment exists in many of the provinces throughout Iraq.
Shia and Sunni death squads are engaged in atrocities throughout Iraq as the coalition troops remain hunkered in their barracks, unable (unwilling?) to stop the slide in to lawlessness.

"Hearts and minds", "shock and awe" are but soundbites in the cacophony of soundbites that replace solid accountable policies and accountability.
The lies that were perpetrated in the runup to this war - have been exposed for what they are.

Iraq has been a disaster for the coalition : so what.

More importantly, it's been a tragedy for a great nation which was once the cradle of civilisation.
Three years on.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

MountainPro

email this guy:

g.bush@whitehouse.gov

i think he needs to know.

__________________
HARD
.

DiabloScott

I think he needs a blowjob so we can impeach him.

__________________


http://diabloscott.blogspot.com

EoinC

It is an absolute disgrace - and before everyone start's jumping up and down about the sacrifices that have been made, I am writing about the disgraceful actions of the politicians who have brought about the sequence of events, requiring ongoing bloodletting on their behalf. I am not speaking about those who are there doing their respective jobs.
There was never any requirement for invading Iraq. Hussein was a despot who was placed in power by a bunch of would-be World Engineers and reached a stage where those same Engineers who had gained political kudos in putting him there could gain further political kudos in removing him.
Hussein was a single, relatively unsupported, individual. How many Iraqi and Coalition personnel have had to give their lives in order to put him behind bars?
Now that he is behind bars (one of the premises of the first Gulf War that nearly saw me have a cap popped in my arse as a Honky in Afghanistan at the time), has it stopped people on both sides of the fence dying? No! And if any of you think it is just, get yourselves on the next Iraqi express to shore up those words of valour. Talk really is cheap (including mine).
Iraq was, surprising to some, a functioning Country before all this. I have / had very good friends from Iraq who were / are refugees from Hussein's Iraq, but none of them wished to see their Nation destroyed to 'save itself'.
Most of the people I know who tell me about the righteousness of it all have never been a target during a firefight, and have never seen children who have
lost limbs because adults in foreign Countries want to play at being God for a day.
All of our wonderful Western Nations (I come from one) ought to have our noses rubbed in it every now and then to remember at what cost we got where we are. We really are a lot of pretentious Barbie Dolls when we try to tell the rest of the World how to live. The West has never had a monopoly on 'goodness'.
No matter what the rest of you think, people, throughout the World, are...people. All those people you watched getting 'bunkered' on CNN in Gulf War I were...people! All they want is food, a roof over their collective heads and that their children grow up to have a better life than they did. It'd be kinda nice if y'all stopped blowin' shite out of the ordinary man during your hunt for Bed Linen. I f you want to go and assinate an arsehole for the good of mankind, do that, but don't do more and claim that it is all the same thing.
To put it in perspective, the next time you hear of some villager getting blown away in foreign fields, try imagining, just for a second, that it is someone you hold dear, and ask yourself whether it is truly what you want.
Rant over...

ptlwp

Yes, under Bush, we have blasted a soverign nation to smithereens, we have lied and cheated our way into a war of no return.

We have made our "Volunteer Army" worse than fodder, but some like to be warriors, I suppose".

9/11
hurricanes
Katrina
Enron
Ken Lay et al.
Unbalanced Power
secret wiretapping
dumping the geneva convention
going on's at Gitmo.
Goings on at Abu Gharib
Bin Laden
"Insurgency"
WMD
Rove, Cheney and Bushie

Well, I guess the USA got the government it deserved?

Only the half that voted for these babooons.......and they aren't saying a word.

__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Sir Edmund Burke

ptlwp

If only it were possible. I think his drug and alcohlol and cocaine addled body can't get it up anymore, anyway.

But it is a good idea.

__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Sir Edmund Burke

jhuskey

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

limerickman

I might add that the execution of American peace activist Tom Fox last weekend is another tragedy in what is a terrible, terrible situation.

Although I didn't know Mr Fox - he appeared to be a principled man who's work for peace brought him to Iraq.

R.I.P.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

jhuskey

I hear he was a quiet person,non smoker,non,drinker. He was from East Tennessee a couple of hours travel from where I am located, but I didn't know him.
He had also been opposed to Vietnam.
Below is a picture of him from the 60's.
His dream of peace seems a long way from reality,doesn' it.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

roadhog

How quickly things can turn into a "Bush and the U.S. stink at everything" thread. While I concede the former seems to be less debatable all the time, the analysis is a little too easy to apply to the situation to be legit.

EoinC: good, thoughtful post by the way (as usual). I enjoyed it and your life experiences always seem very interesting (and credibility enhancing).

L-man: For sure, many of your statements hint at well-deserved critiques. It would be hard to argue at this point that egregious errors have not been made and a criminal lack of accountability exists on certain issues. But like I have said in another thread on this topic lately, let's not oversimplify the situation. I believe a couple of your comments tend to do so. Example:

What am I to take as the meaning of this? Like I've said before, to argue that our troops should leave immediately simply because we should never have invaded in the first place is a shallow argument and insufficient. More analysis must be applied to respect the complexity of the situation. Do you honestly think our troops and their command desire a "slide into lawlessness"? If so, you don't understand the mindset of our troops nor the complexity of their current task. Do you think they are hunkering in barracks? True, they are trying to increase the visibility of the Iraqi forces. Do you not see the value in that?

I'm not being trite. I understand the merits of a couple major arguments here. I acknowledge that I don't personally know the best solution. But I respect the complexity of the situation. Rep. Murtha has made strides to bring about debate to address the complexity, and God bless him for doing so. I don't even agree with him on many things, but I love to hear him speak out because he is the *only* prominent person in our gov't willing to address reality and try to come up with solutions. Everyone else is worried about elections and legacies and party loyalty, etc.

Also, I hesistate to address the following comment because it could go off-topic but I must because it is a pet peeve of mine. Here goes.
It has become popular to characterize the use of white phosphorous (WP) by U.S. forces against personnel as the illegal employment of a banned chemical weapon. While I concede that the military has earned a degree of skepticism from the public over the inexcusable torture developments, I disagree strongly with the characterization described.

For many decades and for several wars, U.S. forces have employed WP against enemy personnel. For perspective, one can visit the Army’s official archives for Medal of Honor citations (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/Moh1.htm). There you will quickly find multiple citations from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam which include descriptions of the recipients’ use of WP against enemy personnel. Such citations are particularly prevalent in WWII actions against German troops in violent house to house urban fighting – the exact tactical conditions in which our troops fought in Fallujah. This history does not in itself provide legality. Principles of ethics and legality certainly evolve over time, but on this issue our nation has been quite consistent both in action and on paper.

Protocol III of the Chemical Weapons Convention describes proposed restrictions on the use of WP. In 1980, the U.S. (and other nations) did not agree to Protocol III and did not sign it. Through this, we announced internationally that we still view the use of WP against enemy combatants as acceptable. There is no surprise.

Nothing I have argued condones the employment of any weapon indiscriminately against civilians. Like with any weapon, the use of WP is subject to the principle of proportionality in the laws of land warfare and appropriate discretion must be applied to each particular use. One can commit war crimes with bullets just as easily as with WP. The use of any weapon indiscriminately against civilians should of course be aggressively prosecuted.

My point is that, in the general sense, the U.S. has long viewed the use of WP against enemy combatants as legal, has made this view clear to the international community, and has employed it consistent with this view since its invention. To describe the violent nature of WP or the chemical reactions involved is not to argue that it is illegal. One can offer surprisingly violent affects from many of our conventional weapons and most kinetic weapons involve chemical reactions.

It is a healthy attitude to abhor many aspects of warfare. Wise soldiers do the same. It is fine to disagree with the war. It is even understandable to suggest that the U.S., as a nation, should perhaps re-examine the use of WP given current ethical standards. But it is not factual to characterize our military as suddenly using illegal chemical weapons. In fact they continue to apply due restraint in this area – and rightly so.

And now I step down off that particular soapbox.

limerickman

WP is a chemical weapon.
Whether a nation does or doesn't subscribe to a protocol - doesn't mitigate the ethical issue involved when deployng the use of chemical weapons.
Using that line of thinking - one could excuse the use of nuclear weapons, no?

Regarding the analysis of the three year occupation of Iraq - my concern is not for the US-led coalition.
They've been occuying Iraq illegally since 2003.

Of course, the politicians would prefer us to "forget" the reasons given for the
invasion and instead want us to concentrate on why the vacuum created by the invasion, has been filled with Al Qaeda and other gureilla forces.
It's called retrospective justification.

Of course in your position, you have no option but to obey the orders given by the politicians.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

EoinC

Another informative post, RH. My own preference would be to see a multinational peacekeeping force (do I hear some collective groans?) take over the position of the multinational Coalition forces. One of the problems with having the Coalition present is that, rightly or wrongly, they (meaning the respective Governments who put them there) are seen by many as having an agenda, over and above that of bringing peace and security to the Nation of Iraq. As long as they are there, this view will prevail in many sectors inside and outside of Iraq.
Having a peacekeeping force, made up initially of personnel from Countries other than those who have signed up to the Coalition, would send as clear a message as is likely to be possible at this time. It would behest those Nations who have spoken out against the Coalition to put their money where their respective mouths are, and would help to stop promulgating the link, real or otherwise, between the Coalition invasion and the various companies who are profiting from the destruction that has occurred. It would also help young Iraqi's identify the difference between freedom-fighting and thuggery.
Such a move may not initially be effectual, but I think that it stands a better long-term chance as it would force the Nations involved to seek solutions, which is more than what current efforts indicate is happening.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with current Coalition Governments helping to fund such a programme, but I would like to see them taking a back seat when it comes to direct involvement, at least in the early days.
A friend of mine is a Ranger and is awaiting deployment to either Iraq or Afghanistan. I admire him a lot. He is smart, considerate and well-disciplined. Whilst I do not doubt that he will make every effort to effect peace and security at the coal-face, I feel that, on a grander scale, his very presence in either Country will help prolong the conflict. I know that he will do a fine job and I hope that he makes it back to his family safely. I don't question the quality of (most of) the people who are carrying out their jobs over there - I just question whether the advertisment gave the right job description.

FredC

I don't them for killing him as they did. It's all quite simple really. Drive him around and point out the destruction the US Military has caused to their country.
They, like him were only there to 'help'. Bollocks that won't wash with me.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

roadhog

Which was exactly one of my points. One can commit war crimes with bullets just as easily as WP. Ethical issues are involved with all weapons.

The two entities are tied together of course at this point. I was not suggesting you are concerned for coalition forces. You can't pretend there is not a cause and effect relationship between our presence (or lack thereof) and the welfare of the good Iraqis just because you say we are there illegally. Legal or illegal, the relationship exists for sure.


I understand frustration with retrospective justification - believe me. But that is not the point as we try to address the current situation. Once again, to argue that we should proceed in any given direction at this point simply because we shouldn't be there in the first place is not sufficient. We are there.