Stay the Course in Iraq!

[Turbo]

During the first Gulf War the US encouraged the Kurds and Shites to rise up against Saddam, then we stood around and watched while these people trustingly rose up and got butchered. Similarly, we abandoned the Afgans after promising them help after a bloody war against the Russians. Now it seems that we are once again going back on word to these people. This disgusts me and it smacks of isolationist thinking.

If we abandon these people, the radical Islam element will take over Iraq and Afganistan again and there will be two new fertile pots of terrorism. Has everyone forgot that the Tailban took over Afganistan when we turned our back on the Afgan people?

We cannot withdraw from the world and hide behind our borders. We must show our determination to restore a working government to the Iraqi's and to continue to aid the Afgans. As a superpower we must honor our commitments and our word -- regardless of cost.

Does anyone think that if the US doesn't take a stand against tyranny that other nations will do it? Britain might, but France and Germany are happy to supply these regimes with enough weapons to butcher their own people. If the US doesn't take a stand no one will. Sometimes doing the right thing and being a leader is a lonely task.

[Erik]

Does anyone think that if the US doesn't take a stand against tyranny that other nations will do it? Britain might, but France and Germany are happy to supply these regimes with enough weapons to butcher their own people. If the US doesn't take a stand no one will. Sometimes doing the right thing and being a leader is a lonely task.

France has been fighting tyranny in Africa on many occasions.
I've seen statistics showing France has been involved in far more wars since WWII than America and Brittain have.
Don't take the stereotype of French cowardness an passifism for reality, it's just a stereotype and reality is completely different.

France did supply Saddam with weapons but so did the US.
And the US supplied the Taliban with weapons too.

[Turbo]

France has been fighting tyranny in Africa on many occasions.
I've seen statistics showing France has been involved in far more wars since WWII than America and Brittain have.
Don't take the stereotype of French cowardness an passifism for reality, it's just a stereotype and reality is completely different.

France did supply Saddam with weapons but so did the US.
And the US supplied the Taliban with weapons too.

Um, I didn't call the French cowards. They prefer dealing in arms over doing the right thing. I am aware of French policy in Africa and it is all about dealing in arms. One only has to recall the Hutu genocide of the Tutu people. The French supported the Hutu and helped supply arms to the Hutus.

The US supplied arms only during the Iran-Iraq war. The French and Germans continued to supply arms long after there was evidence of gassing the Kurds and other massacres. The Tailiban came after the Soviets withdrew. We supplied the Afgan rebels with arms only during the Soviet invasion. I bring this up because the US supplies arms when it feels ideologically inclined. The French and Germans supply arms to whoever will pay. I see a difference.

[Carach]

well, we supplied the afghans with weapons, and russia pulled out. Direct intervention would of led to something on a much larger scale..

Leaving iraq now will not work. staying is the only course of action left.

US are the only superpower left inthe world, (might not be the case if they hadnt of been so harsh on the british empire in and after ww2), therefore are the world's policemen, (brits were before, and others before that (although more locally, as things were not so 'global' before that time, knowledge of the world was small) its america's responsibility and in their interests to go around the world making sure things happen/dont happen.

Politicians crippled Britain, and continue to do so, capability to police the world is limited for us.
France and other european nations either dont have the capabilities or have no interest outside of the med. and near-compulsory operations with UN etc.

I think Japan should be allowed to play a more active role in policing the world, they have been sending ships to the gulf recently, but i think they can be trusted enough to be the main influence in asia, and coutner that of china.

[Tiwaz]

During the first Gulf War the US encouraged the Kurds and Shites to rise up against Saddam, then we stood around and watched while these people trustingly rose up and got butchered. Similarly, we abandoned the Afgans after promising them help after a bloody war against the Russians. Now it seems that we are once again going back on word to these people. This disgusts me and it smacks of isolationist thinking.

If we abandon these people, the radical Islam element will take over Iraq and Afganistan again and there will be two new fertile pots of terrorism. Has everyone forgot that the Tailban took over Afganistan when we turned our back on the Afgan people?

We cannot withdraw from the world and hide behind our borders. We must show our determination to restore a working government to the Iraqi's and to continue to aid the Afgans. As a superpower we must honor our commitments and our word -- regardless of cost.

Does anyone think that if the US doesn't take a stand against tyranny that other nations will do it? Britain might, but France and Germany are happy to supply these regimes with enough weapons to butcher their own people. If the US doesn't take a stand no one will. Sometimes doing the right thing and being a leader is a lonely task.

First about rebellions in Iraq. You are right, you should have not supported their idea of rebellion even in spirit.

Next, neither can you retreat from Iraq now. It is not because you could still "save" the situation, Iraq will go down in civil war and that has become inevitable, but to buy rest of the world time to prepare civil war and what effects it will have on global economy due to it's influece in Middle East. Basically you made a :wub: up and now you have to pay in blood and money to give everyone a chance to prevent Middle East war from ruining their economies.

By the way, in case you have not realised but radical islam has GROWN after USA started this ill thought "crusade". It is simple logic, people see you attacking their culture, nation and religion (and through that their very identity). People who feel being under such attack will respond in very violent way. So basically your "war on terror" is actually creating MORE terror through driving moderates to extremists.

As for the tyranny... This is not carebearland. Tyranny is bad thing overall but sometimes it is unfortunate necessity. Saddam was a mean bastard yes, but he kept Iraq together. As long as he was alive Iraq was stable and Middle East was secure. Now Iraq is a mess and that instability might try to spread causing huge problem due to strategic oil reserves in the area.
One has to look at the big picture and consider carefully results of disposing a dictator. Is it possible to solve internal problems of a nation, how much it will cost compared to benefits, will the action cause more problems. Those three are of course connected to one another and if one of them doesn't work it tends to take down the rest with it.

In the end one thing is always true. Change can only come from within, change forced from outside is only surface and will not last. That is why these forceful changes in goverment and other things will always fail and only end up costing far more than leaving things work themselves out.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Does anyone think that if the US doesn't take a stand against tyranny that other nations will do it? Britain might, but France and Germany are happy to supply these regimes with enough weapons to butcher their own people. If the US doesn't take a stand no one will. Sometimes doing the right thing and being a leader is a lonely task.

Oh please ...

France and Germany supplied Saddam with weapons? Yes, with the encouragement of the US. This was when Donald Rumsfeld was flying to Baghdad and shaking hands with Saddam for the cameras, remember? This was when Reagan took Iraq off the US State Department list of nations that sponsored terrorism, despite the fact Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists was at its height at this time. This was when the US Government was granting Saddam generous agricultural credits, allowing him to free up resources to purchase arms and build up his military. This was when the US was selling him arms as well, both directly and through third party nations like Romania.

These arms sales allowed him to butcher his own people? Yes, they did. Where where the helicopters that were used to gas the Kurds made, hmmm? And who gave Saddam vital satellite intelligence of Iranian troop movements, in the full knowledge this would be used by Saddam to make his WMD (he had them back then) attacks? Who sold him anthrax spores? And when he gassed the kurds, which US administration vetoed a unanimous vote to impose sanctions on Iraq? Which nation sent a State Department undersecretary to Iraq, just weeks later, to declare good old Saddam ' a force for moderation in the region'? Which nation used its votes in the UN to quash a motion of condemnation of Saddam for 'gassing his own people'?

And which people were involved in all these things and in turning a blind eye to his torture and mass killings? Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz etc. Sound familiar?

When it was convenient the US, under the Reagan and Bush Snr administrations, was happy to help Saddam all they could. When he was no longer needed to hold Iran in check and overstepped the mark in Kuwait, suddenly he became the second Hitler.

So spare us this twaddle about the brave, noble US standing tall against tyranny. When it was convenient, Reagan and Bush helped Saddam as much as they could. As soon as he became inconvenient, he was brought down, Iraq was occupied, (along with those strategically important and economically significant oil reserves) on the basis of cooked up evidence of non-existent WMDs and Bush and the neo-cons are now feeding dupes this half-baked crap about how it's all about 'freedom'.

Open your eyes. Go read the manifestos of the 'Project for a New American Century' and its neo-con acolytes (the same Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz etc - hmmm ...) and educate yourself about what is really going on.

The US supplied arms only during the Iran-Iraq war.

Wrong. US Government support for Saddam, both in terms of military equipment and other elements, continued right up until the invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Same with the French and Germans. And US supplies stopped after the UN embargo in the wake of that invasion. Same with the French and Germans. Get your facts straight.

The French and Germans continued to supply arms long after there was evidence of gassing the Kurds and other massacres.

See above. And the US Government continued to support Saddam before, during and after the evidence of the gassing of the Kurds and despite constant and definite evidence of torture, oppression and massacres.

If you are going to try to use recent history, learn to get your facts straight first.

[Templedog]

Sometimes doing the right thing and being a leader is a lonely task.

Good leaders don't get you into situations like this.

I don't even know what the right thing to do is anymore.....been fed alot of war propaganda right here in the good old USA.

Should of been like a band-aid. RIGHT OFF-- fast, and kept the iraq army intact....this slow crap is for the birds...there are alot of US companies over there making killer $$$$$ on making schools and roads. That is the reason why we are staying so long....no brainer. "win-win" situation at it's finest.....

regardless, the Dems have done nothing wrong...Repubs have all the power in the Senate, and House. This is the product of the neocons, not the regular republican.

[Rush Limbaugh]

AXIS OF BACKSTAB

By NILES LATHEM - New York Post
September 8, 2004

WASHINGTON -- France, Russia and China supplied Saddam Hussein with missiles, arms, defense technology and spare parts before -- and after -- the start of the Iraq war, an explosive new book claims.

In the book, Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz cites a slew of illegal covert arms deals between Saddam and several countries that opposed the U.S. invasion in the months before and after the start of war in March 2003.

The book, "Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies," cites secret Pentagon and CIA reports and interviews with top U.S. defense and intelligence officials.

Gertz claims that many of the weapons sold to Iraq in this critical time frame -- and in violation of U.N. embargoes -- were used by Ba'athist terrorists against U.S. forces after the fall of Saddam.

The book claims that U.S. Navy SEALs discovered that half the rockets fired by pro-Saddam guerrillas in the Oct. 26, 2003, attack on Baghdad's Al-Rashid Hotel -- where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying -- were French-made Matra SNEB 68 mm rockets.

The missiles were in "pristine condition," according to the book.

France, Russia and China have consistently denied that they violated the U.N. arms embargoes imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war to free Kuwait.

But the book claims that weaponry from supposed U.S. allies in the war on terror made its way to Iraq during that critical period. The arms included Russian-made anti-tank weapons that were used by Saddam's Fedayeen militia to disable two M1A1 tanks in Najaf during the initial invasion, according to Gertz.

The author also claims:

* U.S. forces discovered that a missile that shot down a U.S. A-10 Warthog fighter-bomber during the latest war was a French-made Roland that was shipped to Iraq after sanctions went into effect following Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

* Shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles used by Ba'athist insurgents to shoot down U.S. helicopters after the war were "hybrid weapons built from components" that Germany -- another vocal opponent of the war that ousted Saddam -- "illegally supplied to Iraq."

* China, Iraq's top military supplier after Russia, provided Baghdad with technical assistance on its fiber-optic air-defense radar system during the run-up to the war. During that period, U.S and British aircraft patrolling Iraq's no-fly zones came under constant attack from Iraqi missiles.

* Russia supplied Iraq with new jammers that would interfere with global-positioning-system devices on U.S. smart bombs.

The book, quoting John Shaw, a deputy undersecretary for defense, also charges that France had a secret arrangement with Saddam three years before the war to help the Butcher of Baghdad flee to Mauritania aboard an Airbus 300 jetliner.

In addition, the book cites government documents indicating that nuclear programs in rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Libya have also received help from French, Russian, Chinese and German companies.

I suppose we were still supplying him during desert storm.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I suppose we were still supplying him during desert storm.

And, right on cue, heeeeeeeeeere's "Rush", trotting out Bill Gertz's nonsense yet again.

Gertz has been peddling this crap ever since 2003, though I notice he's dropped the other claims that were made back then about a direct paper-trail from Iraq to France, because they were shot to pieces and shown to be garbage.

All he's left with are some French missiles and the insinuation that, somehow, they were exported to Iraq by the French with French Government knowledge. The proof for that? Well, there's none. Given that France exports weapons to all kinds of countries there's any number of ways Iraq could have got those missiles from some other country, but let's not let logic get in the way of some petty French bashing.

There is ZERO evidence that the French exported anything to Iraq after the 1991 embargo. Nothing.

Nice try though "Rush". Next time, try using some actual evidence.

[Mr.Flint]

The Russian jammers thing is a known fact.... Also apparently some Ukranian officials supplied Iraq with those and other russian made weapon tech...

[Templedog]

WASHINGTON -- France, Russia and China supplied Saddam Hussein with missiles, arms, defense technology and spare parts before -- and after -- the start of the Iraq war, an explosive new book claims.

---

- big deal, we sell alot of weapons to the mideast through Israel....they give us good buisness. We sell to Israel, they sell to the rest of the mideast, we come out looking pretty good

Anyone ever hear that fact about Cheney selling supplies to Saddam? eewwww that one is a tasty one.

[Farnan]

Israel sells out to the rest of the Middle East, for some reason my BS alarm is going crazy. That is kind of like saying the US is currently supplying Al-Qaedi

[Hub'ite]

Why would Isreal sell weapons to the countries that hate them? Doesn't make too much sense. Farnan you stole my analogy.
"Anyone ever hear that fact about Cheney selling supplies to Saddam? eewwww that one is a tasty one."
No I haven't show me some creditable proof. Until then it's not a fact.

[Templedog]

You never heard of the Irans arms fair? Israel sold weapons to Iran in 1986, hooked them up good by US order. http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...963028,00.html

Israel can sell their weapons to anyone they want, and we supply them as you know. They have sold to Saudi Arabia, Inda, tons and tons to china...and we fund it....cool huh, who knows where China sells to? Not to leave out that we funded Iraq with tons of weapons and supplies when they were are war with Iran. cool.


http://www.texasobserver.org/showArt...ArticleID=1067
When Dick Cheney was CEO of the oilfield supply firm Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein.
the the repukes call Dems unpatriotic, lol, always gives me a good belly laugh


And not to go "michael moore" on you, but Bush did get alot of money from the Bin Laden family.....*belly laugh*

Neocons highjacked the republican party.

[Mr.Flint]

You never heard of the Irans arms fair? Israel sold weapons to Iran in 1986, hooked them up good by US order. http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...963028,00.html

Israel can sell their weapons to anyone they want, and we supply them as you know. They have sold to Saudi Arabia, Inda, tons and tons to china...and we fund it....cool huh, who knows where China sold to? Not to leave out that we funded Iraq with tons of weapons and supplies when they were are war with Iran. cool.


http://www.texasobserver.org/showArt...ArticleID=1067
When Dick Cheney was CEO of the oilfield supply firm Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein.
the the repukes call Dems unpatriotic, lol, always gives me a good belly laugh


And not to go "michael moore" on you, but Bush did get alot of money from the Bin Laden family.....*belly laugh*

Sure them Dems would "never" sell weapons to enemies and dictators..... "snicker" Question: does anyone knows how much of say Heinz money is involved in the arms industry?
as for sales of weapons, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...156EST0428.DTL not such a bad picture eh?
and as far as i remember the people in Israel that were responsible for sales to Iran, were jailed for that....
Moreover be thankfull to Israel's arms industry, much of US technical innovation comes from there....