Iraq and Why?

[hcap]

UN Weapons inspectors.....

* The Downing Street Memos reveal that the purpose of authorizing UN weapons inspectors to go to Iraq was never actually to assess the threat and destroy any weapons found. Instead, the purpose was to “wrongfoot” Saddam by getting him to reject the inspectors, thus giving the American and British governments a pretext for war. Tony Blair said “It would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. If the political context were right, people would support regime change.”

* To this day Bush claims that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That had been true five years previously, but not before the war. Hans Blix, the head of the 2002-03 weapons inspection team reported that they were getting good cooperation from the Iraqis, despite the fact that - as revealed by one of the former team members - the US had inserted American spies into prior international weapons inspection teams in Iraq.

* At the time of the invasion in 2003, the weapons inspectors were nearly done with their work, and only asked for a month or two more to finish. The Bush administration claimed that the threat of Saddam and his WMD was too grave and too urgent to wait. Bush’s claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors is not only false, but masks the actual truth, which is that the administration told the inspectors to leave because of the looming attack, before they could finish their work and by so doing remove the rationale for that attack.


A good historical background included in the rest of the article.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/15/1896/

Such as

* Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people. Britain later ruled under a League of Nations mandate that produced the artificial creation of the country Iraq (and Kuwait), and continued to control oil production in the region. Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour said at the time, “I do not care under what system we keep this oil, but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available”.

[betovernetcapper]

The author of the article is also the author of It's Munich in America, American Betrayal and Karl Rove Killed Anna Nicole Smith. I can't take this nonsense seriously.

[Snag]

hcap, I guess you forgot about the UN resolutions. A small omission for a small mind?

[Tom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64



Give it up Hcap - this is what - the 100th time you start this crap? You have memory problems? Or you just can't get enough of that tasty perch?

[46zilzal]

Give it up Hcap - this is what - the 100th time you start this crap? You have memory problems?
Some things (the bogus crap about WMD or even the threat of their being there) are just as true today as they were when first exposed. 3519 dead for nothing

[46zilzal]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0503-03.htm
In his book "Retrospect," McNamara argues that he and his colleagues in the Kennedy
and Johnson administrations made 11 mistakes in their handling of Vietnam.

The first, and presumably the most egregious, was to exaggerate the dangers our
adversaries posed to us, something the Bush administration did in Iraq by exaggerating
intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ties to Al Qaeda.

Bush's comments about how we are fighting the enemy in Baghdad so we will not have
to fight it in Boston (or Brooklyn) are eerily reminiscent of President Johnson's comments
about how we were fighting communists in Saigon so we would not have to fight them in
San Francisco.

McNamara's next four mistakes concern our misjudgments about the political forces,
nationalism and the history and culture of Vietnam as well as our ability to shape every
nation in our own image.

It is now clear that our lack of knowledge about Iraq, coupled with the belief that America
could shape Iraq in its own image, led the Bush administration to assume that we would
be greeted as liberators, and that the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds would agree to set
up a federal republic modeled after our own.

Another three of McNamara's criteria focus on the use of military power. He warns that
high-technology military equipment is insufficient to win the hearts and minds of people
from a totally different culture.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/new/doc%2019/Update%2027%20January%202003.htm
Bix's report, Jan 2003, part of the "chemical weapons" section discepency:
"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



****There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



*****In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

As noted in the above document, it was Hussein's obligation to prove he did not have materials to produce any kind of WMD, including nucear. According to reports AND this report from Blix, Hussein gave less proof than required on several types of WMD that he did not have them, and admitted that tons of nuclear weapon ignitor material was missiong prior to this. Even Blix admitted Hussein could not be trusted no to have stockpiles hidden of stuff including the Anthrax.

[betovernetcapper]

He warns that
high-technology military equipment is insufficient to win the hearts and minds of people
from a totally different culture.

It may be insufficient to win their hearts, but it's probably sufficient to stop their hearts from beating and that's good enough.

[46zilzal]

It may be insufficient to win their hearts, but it's probably sufficient to stop their hearts from beating and that's good enough.
And contaminate half the world with radiation......remarkable

[Greyfox]

Going on and on about who did what to who is becoming like a stuck record.
Or it's like trying to get a stain out of a shirt, that ain't coming out no matter how many thousands of times that you wash it.
It's counter productive to the tasks at hand that we face today.

In the meanwhile, today:

The whole Middle East is a mess.
The Gaza strip and West Bank are in a civil war.
Civil unrest is occurring in Lebanon.
Syria and Iran are stirring the pot in both.
They are also stirring the pot in Iraq.
The taking over of Palestine by Hammas is going to mean one hell of a lot of trouble for Israel. The world is becoming a scarey place today and
hcap and 46z your arguing history.

Finger pointing and saying "ain't we awful" isn't going to help anyone.
Does anyone have any solutions to the problems that we are facing today? WMD's are old news. Get on with it.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Some things (the bogus crap about WMD or even the threat of their being there) are just as true today as they were when first exposed. 3519 dead for nothing
_______________
You can ignore UN inspectors' reports of unaccounted for WMD's if you want, but we had good reason to go back in and look for WMD's; we did not find them and still haven't- what we found was that 2 of the materials that were unaccounted for- RMX and Anthrax- were the same materials the killed some in the USA and in the Bali hotel bombing.
We had good reason to go in and take out Hussein- But as I have stated on earlier threads, since other nations refused to help train new Iraqi troops and since Abu Grade, IMO we have no reason to stay unless you agree with most presidential candidates of 2004 including Kerry and most in 2008 including Hillaryl the DOD, and the CFR that we should still be there.

[46zilzal]

thousands killed billion spent for complete b.s.
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm

[Greyfox]

No WMD's runs at Philadelphia Monday. Consider. :lol:

[Tom]

The WMD were moved and still exist.
Bush is lying about it because it would make him look like an idiot to acknowledge they are still out there and he is not going after them.
He is scared to death of Russia and will not challenge them.

[Greyfox]

No WMD's goes in Philadelphia's 5 th on Monday on Turf.
Last time out this one was a real bomb. :lol:

[46zilzal]

The WMD were moved and still exist.

based on what evidence?

http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7932.html

[Tom]

I heard it on Fox.

[hcap]

Waiting for Blix to continue was the prudent course and in fact was what bush agreed to do from the beginning. He had no reason to not wait. BTW, chemical weapons or biologicals would not have convinced the congress or the American public that the invasion was justified. If we had waited, the theoretical "quantities" of "stockpiles" could have been confirmed. As almost non existent. Maybe 3 or 4 months more.
And NO Saddam did not kick 'em out.

Bush knew the truth would have undermined the justification as the yelowcake story was debunked in due time shortly after the invasion.


* At the time of the invasion in 2003, the weapons inspectors were nearly done with their work, and only asked for a month or two more to finish. The Bush administration claimed that the threat of Saddam and his WMD was too grave and too urgent to wait. Bush’s claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors is not only false, but masks the actual truth, which is that the administration told the inspectors to leave because of the looming attack, before they could finish their work and by so doing remove the rationale for that attack.

Greyfox......
Going on and on about who did what to who is becoming like a stuck record.
Or it's like trying to get a stain out of a shirt, that ain't coming out no matter how many thousands of times that you wash it.
It's counter productive to the tasks at hand that we face today.

In the meanwhile, today:

The whole Middle East is a mess.
The Gaza strip and West Bank are in a civil war.
Civil unrest is occurring in Lebanon.
Syria and Iran are stirring the pot in both.
They are also stirring the pot in Iraq.
The taking over of Palestine by Hammas is going to mean one hell of a lot of trouble for Israel. The world is becoming a scarey place today and
hcap and 46z your arguing history.

Finger pointing and saying "ain't we awful" isn't going to help anyone.
Does anyone have any solutions to the problems that we are facing today? WMD's are old news. Get on with it.The same folks who broought us Iraq ACT I Scenes I,II,III, are waiting to bring on the sequel.
Iran ACT I Scenes I,II,III

And yes The whole Middle East is a mess. Thanks to the failed foreign policy of the playrights who brought you Iraq The Movie.

Do we want the same playwright, bad actors and poor performance again ad infinitum? Speaking of ad infinitum....

Tom Says The WMD were moved and still exist.
Bush is lying about it because it would make him look like an idiot to acknowledge they are still out there and he is not going after them.

Making him look like an idiot?
Tom can you spell OXYMORON?

[lsbets]

The whole Middle East is indeed a mess, but some folks are too naive to admit why - the followers of Mohammed, the great, backwards religion of violence where they cannot even live with each other, let alone with infidels, has the whole Mid East a giant mess - always have, and always will until they (muslims) decide to join civilization. The sad fact is, and it has played out all over the world, civilization and modern Islam cannot coexist.

[hcap]

Then shouldn't the largest Muslim populations be home to the LARGEST mess? The greatest number of suicide bombers, more Mosques blown up? The largest total of terrorists attacks? More Islamofascists planning to join the Internationale Brotherhood of Loyal Caliphates??.

Seems to me other reasons than simply what religion is predominant might have some significance.

Then again we have not invaded those countries.......yet.
And some don't have outstanding oil reserves.

For instance, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh having top Muslim populations, should be as bad as Iraq. In fact we probably should make an "Invasion List", a to do list in the following order. No telling when a some out of work Neocons need to tidy up things out there in the real world and may not have it handy.

Country Muslim Population in 2005
Indonesia 195,272,000
Pakistan 157,528,000
India 154,504,000
Bangladesh 127,328,600
Turkey 72,754,200
Egypt 69,560,000
Iran 68,805,000
Nigeria 65,750,000
China 39,111,000
Ethiopia 38,700,000
Algeria 32,472,000
Morocco 30,393,000
Afghanistan 29,601,000
Sudan 29,346,000
Iraq 27,936,000
Saudi Arabia 24,600,000
Uzbekistan 23,232,000
Yemen 20,679,300
Tanzania 18,250,000
Syria 16,560,000
Malaysia 15,399,000
Niger 13,580,000
Mali 12,150,000
Senegal 10,998,000

[lsbets]

Indonesia, Pakistan, India. Its pretty easy to come up with a list of crazy acts in the name of Islam in all of those countries. Glad you mentioned them, they have some of the worst problems in the world with the nutcases. Can you name one country on your list where Muslims live peacefully with other religions? I doubt it, because it doesn't happen.

[hcap]

The greatest level of violence occurs in Iraq.
Other countries with large Muslim populations-Indonesia or India or Bangladesh, violence per capita per Muslim is not greater than violence in other third world countries overall.

A bogus argument was made by the right initially to deny anything was going wrong in Iraq. A few on this board even tried to pass it on as proof. It goes like this......

The number of fatalities in Iraq is no worse per capita than those in the city of Philadelphia.

Well that was and remains bullshit, but I would point out that many inner cities here in the USA probably have a greater level of violence than those predominantly Muslim populations in Indonesia or India or Bangladesh.

Maybe we should invade East St. Louis?

[Snag]

hcap, instead of pointing your finger at President Bush, why don't you give us your solution to any one of the problems you seem to feel are so important.

My bet is that you won't/can't do it.

[GaryG]

hcap, instead of pointing your finger at President Bush, why don't you give us your solution to any one of the problems you seem to feel are so important.

My bet is that you won't/can't do it.Thanks to my friend IGGY I am saved from these posts. The venom was dripping right off my screen, made a hell of a mess!

[Greyfox]

hcap, instead of pointing your finger at President Bush, why don't you give us your solution to any one of the problems you seem to feel are so important.

My bet is that you won't/can't do it.

:ThmbUp: Exactly.:ThmbUp:

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Snag
hcap, instead of pointing your finger at President Bush, why don't you give us your solution to any one of the problems you seem to feel are so important.Who else deserves to be pointed to? And obviously the problem is Iraq.

Here's Lt. Gen. William E. Odom...

So my basic proposition is that unless we go back and reevaluate the President’s strategic rationale for this war in the first place, we won’t make really clear-minded decisions about what our interests are as we go forward.


The bushies got us into this mess, it makes very little sense to get out of it by continuing with their policies. They were wrong about WMDs and ties to 9/11. Just like in "Let It Ride", at some point Richard Dreyfuss goes around finding out the picks from a LOSING consensus of loosers and bets against them.

Iran the next horse to bet?
Another losing proposition. How do I know? Look who wants to invade
Iraq, the surge? the next bet?
Another losing proposition. How do I know??????

Bush has to go outside his box and talk to clear eyed realists. Drop the fantasy about re-making the world militarily. The Baker groups' suggestions would have been better.

Either that or put in 600,000 troops and be preparred for 50 years more and another 600,000 to suppress the reaction to the first 600,000. And maybe then your self-fullfilling prophecy of the threat of Islamofascism will really bloom. Along with those mushroom clouds Rice scared us about

[lsbets]

In Hcap's fantasy world, radical Islam was never a problem before Bush. Despite all of the terrorist attacks prior to our invasion of Iraq, not just against us, but against almost every group that is not Muslim and many groups who are, it is all Bush's fault and if Bush just went away those danged radical freaks would just be some pretty cool party dudes with those flowing robes and ZZ top beards.

[Tom]

He will either post a link to someone else to speak for him or spin away from the qusstion. He has nothing to offer but whine. Old whine.

[hcap]

Nobody answered my question re Muslim violence.Then shouldn't the largest Muslim populations be home to the LARGEST mess? The greatest number of suicide bombers, more Mosques blown up? The largest total of terrorists attacks? More Islamofascists planning to join the Internationale Brotherhood of Loyal Caliphates??.If there are in Iraq 27,936,000 Muslims, and there are 195,272,000 Muslims in Indonesia , or 7 times as many in Indonesia, shouldn't the vastly larger Muslim population in Indonesia commit about 7 times as many terrorists acts as those Muslims in Iraq?

If of course the reason for those acts and the mess in the whole Middle East, was as LsBets claimed due to simply being Islamic The whole Middle East is indeed a mess, but some folks are too naive to admit why - the followers of Mohammed, the great, backwards religion of violence where they cannot even live with each other, let alone with infidels, has the whole Mid East a giant mess - always have, and always will until they (muslims) decide to join civilization. The sad fact is, and it has played out all over the world, civilization and modern Islam cannot coexist.

[JustRalph]

Maybe we should invade East St. Louis?

Maybe we should.......only place I ever had to flee to avoid a robbery......make sure you don't take the wrong bridge out of St.Louis. You could end up a statistic..........

I am not kidding........we should invade places like E. St. Louis.

[Snag]

hcap, you make a mistake by putting all Muslim populations in one pot and expect all of them to be radicals. They are not.

Only you paint with that brush.

[lsbets]

Hcap, you have yet to point out to me one country where Muslims peacefully coexist with other religions. Use bold type all you want to, but it is one violent, depraved religion, a sad fact you cannot escape. When they have no one else to turn on, they turn on each other. Islam as practiced in todays world is a death cult. While the actual number of Muslims who participate in the violence is relatively small, the acts are condoned and cheered on by the vast majority of Muslims. Heck, all it takes i one little cartoon to send millions of them over the edge. No wonder you like them so much, you have cartoons in common.

[dutchboy]

Interesting book titled: "the secret history of the iraq war"

page 231

Russian intelligence sources reported, however, that a group from the iraq republican army from the tikrit area made their way to syria in a daring operation including three hundred tanks, one hundred grad multiple barrel rocket launchers, many of which had chemical warheads, and many other weapon systems, including iraq's entire wmd arsenal. Lebanese sources with access to eastern syria confirmed the arrival of the column. Soviet diplomat said the convoy was escorted by captured abrams tanks and other combat vehicles with friendly insignias. Apache helicopters did not fire because the captured vehicles had american id panels located on top. There are numerous other situations written about in the removal of wmd.

This book was compliled from intelligence reports several countries and covers an 18 month period leading up to the war. It certainly explains a vastly different situation that what the mainstream media prints for whatever reason.

[Gibbon]

...Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people. Britain later ruled... You are so intellectually dishonest, one wonders how you can get thru a day.

The western powers were at war with the alliance of Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire. At least get your facts straight before your vitriolic propaganda.

History has always shown - Islamic nations have peace only after they convert their conquered lands to the Muslim faith.







_____________________________________
Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out. ~ Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin

[kenwoodallpromos]

Consider this- UN inspectors found 33 tons of RMX were moved; everything from the palaces were moved; Hussein bugged inspectors' hotel rooms to clean stuff out before they got to inspection points; Coffe pot's son and others from the UN were helping Hussein violate the ban on weapon imports; 300 explosives vests were found; Hussein was paying $25k for suicide bombers to kill Israelis; Hussein made a habit of torturing and killing civilians; Hussein's PR guy threatened USA soldiers with chemical attacks during the initial operations.
Is there ANY of the above items you think should not have been allowed to continue longer?

[hcap]

I referenced this..

* Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people. Britain later ruled under a League of Nations mandate that produced the artificial creation of the country Iraq (and Kuwait), and continued to control oil production in the region. Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour said at the time, “I do not care under what system we keep this oil, but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available”.

Gibbon saidYou are so intellectually dishonest, one wonders how you can get thru a day.

The western powers were at war with the alliance of Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire. At least get your facts straight before your vitriolic propaganda.Yes the Ottoman Empire lost. I suppose to the victor goes the spoils. However that does not negate the carving and dissecting that went on by the Europeans. Why? The beginning of the Oil Age of course. Some strategic value to some territories, but the same underlying motive as today was unabashedly invoked as why.

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/04/27/fea30.html

"When the British first entered Basra in 1914, their real intentions were to protect the potential oil fields and secure communications routes to India. At World War I the Ottomans, who controlled the Middle East territories, allied with the Germans. This disturbed the British and they planned a campaign against the Ottomans starting in Basra.

"In 1920, the Times published an article from the English diplomat, T. E. Lawrence, known as Lawrence of Arabia, who gave a full account of the circumstances in Iraq: "We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey.

We said we stayed to deliver Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil... We keep 90,000 men with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats and armoured trains... Our government is worse than the old Turkish system... We have killed about 10,000 Arabs in this rising summer... How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of imperial troops, tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/OTTOMAN/EUROPE.HTM

Ottoman history in the nineteenth century was dominated by European wars and expansion. The Europeans madly scrambled for territory throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some of this was European territory, but far and away, the bulk of the territory that Europeans desired was non-European. Human history has never seen such rapid and frenetic annexation of territory as occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The end result for the Ottomans was the loss of Empire, and, finally, the loss of the Ottoman dynasty itself.

The Balkan Wars

The history of Europe in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth is a sordid history of land grabbing and conflict among European states. The Ottoman Empire, nearing its death, was dragged into these conflicts and beaten into its grave.

In 1911, Italy and France were in competition over Libya. Fearful that France might attack the Ottoman Empire and seize Libya, the Italians attacked first. They defeated the Ottomans and, through a peace treaty, obtained the Dodacanese Islands and Libya from the Ottomans.

Seeing this as a good idea, the states of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro attacked the Ottomans, hoping to gain all of the Ottoman provinces in the north of Greece, Thrace, and the southern European coast of the Black Sea. They easily defeated the Ottomans and drove them back, almost to the very edge of Europe. The Second Balkan War erupted just two years later (1913), when Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro disapproved of the amount of territory that Bulgaria had annexed. Joined by the Ottomans, these three powers managed to roll back Bulgarian territorial gains. This was the last military victory in Ottoman history. It is a strange note in history that this last defeat and triumph for the Ottomans would precipitate a situation that would snowball into the First World War. Although this is a story for another day, the Ottoman territories that fell into European hands precipitated a crisis among European powers that would eventually lead directly World War I.

As a result of this conflict and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the Ottomans lost all their territory in Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Mesopotamia. The European powers fought each other in Africa and the Middle East by encouraging revolution among the peoples there. The British, for instance, promised Arabs independent states if they revolted against the Ottomans and aided the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

The partitioning actually began from the early days of the war.[2] The allies disagreed over post-war aims, which were contradictory, and a collection of dual and triple agreements with each ally wanting to improve its position in the region.[3] The dissolution brought the creation of the modern Arab world and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which comprised two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The change of the power goes back to agreements concerning the Ottoman Empire during the war by the Allies. The British and French penned (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to partition between them. The Balfour Declaration established the international Zionist movement to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which was the site of the old Kingdom of Israel, but had a mixed Arab/Jewish population during the past thousand years.

[hcap]

Some history about why they hate us and Yes we carved up the Mid East like a turkey. Ok not we being the US, at that time it was the Brits. Also comparing bush to Churchill as you gentleman have done, is in some cases correct. Shock and awe redux.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

Our last occupation
Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq

Jonathan Glancey
Saturday April 19, 2003
The Guardian

No one, least of all the British, should be surprised at the state of anarchy in Iraq. We have been here before. We know the territory, its long and miasmic history, the all-but-impossible diplomatic balance to be struck between the cultures and ambitions of Arabs, Kurds, Shia and Sunni, of Assyrians, Turks, Americans, French, Russians and of our own desire to keep an economic and strategic presence there.

....Iraq is the product of a lying empire. The British carved it duplicitously from ancient history, thwarted Arab hopes, Ottoman loss, the dunes of Mesopotamia and the mountains of Kurdistan at the end of the first world war. Unsurprisingly, anarchy and insurrection were there from the start.

...The British responded with gas attacks by the army in the south, bombing by the fledgling RAF in both north and south. When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, we unleashed the flying dogs of war to "police" them. Terror bombing, night bombing, heavy bombers, delayed action bombs (particularly lethal against children) were all developed during raids on mud, stone and reed villages during Britain's League of Nations' mandate. The mandate ended in 1932; the semi-colonial monarchy in 1958. But during the period of direct British rule, Iraq proved a useful testing ground for newly forged weapons of both limited and mass destruction, as well as new techniques for controlling imperial outposts and vassal states.

...The RAF was first ordered to Iraq to quell Arab and Kurdish and Arab uprisings, to protect recently discovered oil reserves, to guard Jewish settlers in Palestine and to keep Turkey at bay.

.................................................. ................................................

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.

....Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

[Greyfox]

Are we there yet? Believe it or not hcap some of us also know a little bit about history. Where are you going with all this? The point is?

[hcap]

Gibbon accused me of being so intellectually dishonest
We are almost there.

http://www.theava.com/04/0526-gertrude-bell.html

Gertrude Bell and the Birth of Iraq

..In 1914, the British indeed brought war to Mesopotamia. From their long-held (since the 17th century) base in Basra, they sent an army north along the Euphrates River toward Baghdad. But here's where things stop looking like an old Imperial expedition and more like the nightmare battlefield of the 20th century. Over three months, the British lost 25,000 men during a siege at Kut. It was, at the height of British power, the nation's biggest military disaster to that time.

Iraq was a battleground in the First World War for one reason.

As Wallach describes the British position at the beginning of the war, their "unrivaled navy delivered goods around the world and brought home three-quarters of (the country's) food supply. To maintain its superiority, in 1911 the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, had ordered a major change, switching the nation's battleships from coal-burning engines to oil. Far superior to the traditional ships, these new oil-burning vessels could travel faster, cover a greater range, and be refueled at sea; what's more, their crews would not be exhausted by having to refuel, and would require less manpower."

Wallach continues, "Britain had been the world's leading provider of coal, but she had no oil of her own. In 1912, Churchill signed an agreement for a major share in the Anglo-Persian oil company, with its oil wells in southern Persia and refineries at Abadan, close to Basra. It was essential for Britain to protect that vital area..."

[hcap]

Now we are there.

History shows wealth, oil, power, and geopolitics as being contributing factors to our present day screw up in Iraq.

Maybe the world model created by simplifying a complex historical problem to Muslim bad Christian good, should be widened to allow other causes and effects in. Or maybe Churchill, and the other Europeans who seized re-mapped and controlled the Mid East really were fighting Islamofascism even then? :sleeping:

Forget the usual competition for wealth and power that shaped history and dwell only on a "clash of civilizations" as the philosophical underpinnings of all that has happened from the late 19th century to the present.
Bullshit.

And that's without even mentioning proxy struggles carried out by countries in the Mid East on behalf of the US and the USSR during the cold war that created more conflict. Or without mentioning the creation of the state of Israel.

The concept of Islamofascism for the most part is a short circuit in fearful minds that vacates reason.

[betovernetcapper]

I'm still waiting for the point

[Greyfox]

The concept of Islamofascism for the most part is a short circuit in fearful minds that vacates reason.

Strange that you say that. I just saw a devout Muslim on CNN tell
Christine Amanpour that it was just a matter of time until they dominated Britain. When that time comes Britain will have to convert to Sharia Law or else.
Anyone who does not fear that man's mindset, has their head in the sand.
Of interest Amanpour also reported that 50 % of Mosques in Britain do not allow women in them.

[Tom]

The spread of islomofacism is aided in great part by weak minds and lack of backbone to stand up to it.

In islamic, "negotiate" means welcome.

[boxcar]

The spread of islomofacism is aided in great part by weak minds and lack of backbone to stand up to it.

That describes 'Cap and his ilk to a tee! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

And let's not forget their disconnect with Reality.

Boxcar

[Light]

Islamofascism is a racist,propagandist and offensive term. You contradict yourselves when you put all muslims in this sick category since many muslim countries are allies of the U.S.It is people who do not understand the Muslim world that use this term to justify their own violence against them.

[boxcar]

Islamofascism is a racist,propagandist and offensive term.

You "forgot' to mention that it's also accurate.

Boxcar

[robert99]

Strange that you say that. I just saw a devout Muslim on CNN tell
Christine Amanpour that it was just a matter of time until they dominated Britain. When that time comes Britain will have to convert to Sharia Law or else.
Anyone who does not fear that man's mindset, has their head in the sand.
Of interest Amanpour also reported that 50 % of Mosques in Britain do not allow women in them.


There are 1.6m Muslims in Britain out of a population of 55m. It is highly unlikely that a UK majority would ever vote for any party inflicting Sharia Law on them.
There are deluded muslims as there are similar in any religion/ political cult that just have to say something sensational to make themselves look important.
No we do not fear them as all the persistent hotheads are informed upon and have little support in the muslim community who regularly condemn them.

Mosques do allow women to attend - however, where this comes from is that certain male dominated, controlling muslim cultures do not make it a necessity for women to attend - so they don't, to avoid family strife, beatings and humiliation. It is this backwards culture from India and Pakistan which grates on Western ways of equal freedoms rather than the purely religious side.

[Tom]

The takeover of Britain is well underway.

[Greyfox]

Islamofascism is a racist,propagandist and offensive term. .

The term is not racist or propagandist.
It accurately describes a small subset of moronic brain washed true believers who look forward to dying as much as we look forward to living.

[Snag]

There are 1.6m Muslims in Britain out of a population of 55m. It is highly unlikely that a UK majority would ever vote for any party inflicting Sharia Law on them.
There are deluded muslims as there are similar in any religion/ political cult that just have to say something sensational to make themselves look important.
No we do not fear them as all the persistent hotheads are informed upon and have little support in the muslim community who regularly condemn them.

Mosques do allow women to attend - however, where this comes from is that certain male dominated, controlling muslim cultures do not make it a necessity for women to attend - so they don't, to avoid family strife, beatings and humiliation. It is this backwards culture from India and Pakistan which grates on Western ways of equal freedoms rather than the purely religious side.

robert, Hilter tried to take over Britain from the "outside". Doing it from the "inside" can be done. JMHO.

[Light]

You "forgot' to mention that it's also accurate.

Boxcar

And if I call Zionists,murderers,I am antisemetic. Whereas if you call muslim extremists Islamofacists you are accurate. Your double standard is obvious. You have no validity.

[Greyfox]

And if I call Zionists,murderers,I am antisemetic..

Light, a very bright use of commas. ;)

[boxcar]

And if I call Zionists,murderers,I am antisemetic. Whereas if you call muslim extremists Islamofacists you are accurate. Your double standard is obvious. You have no validity.

Well...what would you call "muslim extemists" -- now that this phrase is in your vocabulary?

Boxcar

[JPinMaryland]

...a typo?

[Light]

Well...what would you call "muslim extemists" -- now that this phrase is in your vocabulary?

Boxcar

I'd call them extremists.

[boxcar]

I'd call them extremists.

Good for you. And I call them Islamofascists. Hooray for me!.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Islamofascism is a racist,propagandist and offensive term.

The Taliban governement could not be described by a more apt name. They are Islamic Fascists. The people that support that type government we call Islamofascists. Nazis were Aryan fascists.

Who exactly is that offensive to? I can't even imagine that would offend Islamic Fascists, they know who they are. If you are not both Islamic and a fascist, you should realize we're not talking about you.

[Light]

Good for you. And I call them Islamofascists. Hooray for me!.

Boxcar

You are equating a religion with facism. Thats whats wrong with it.Why isnt this done when Jews bomb palestinians civilians or American troops of Christians origin drop 2000 ton bombs on Iraqi civilians? Real facists and racists hide behind words such as Islamofacists while commiting the ultimate atrocities.

[boxcar]

You are equating a religion with facism. Thats whats wrong with it.Why isnt this done when Jews bomb palestinians civilians or American troops of Christians origin drop 2000 ton bombs on Iraqi civilians? Real facists and racists hide behind words such as Islamofacists while commiting the ultimate atrocities.

Neither Jew or "American troops of Chstians origin" wage war in the name of God. Islam is the most perverse religion on the planet because its adherents kill indiscriminately in the name of its god. Muslims are always looking to wage a "holy war" against someone.

BTW, wasn't that really neat when Palestinians lobbed military fire inside a refugee camp where Al Queda was hiding? Did the Palestinan army commit "the ulitimate atrocities"? Doesn't this make them Islamofacists? Think any innocent Palestinian civilians were killed during those attacks?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hey, LIGHThead, I've been meaning to ask you: Who are you pulling for in the civil war in Iraq: The Sunnis or the Shiites?

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Don't get too stuck on the labels that we give them Light.
You won't be using political correctness if they kill you or yours.
Look at the extremist's behavior.
1. They are Muslim
2. They are terrorists
3. They are coming to a theatre close to you.

ABC is reporting a new graduating class of suicide terrorists is coming to
Europe, and North America.

"Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9."

The leader of the team going to England said:
"So let me say something about why we are going, along with my team, for a suicide attack in Britain," he said. "Whether my colleagues, companions and Muslim brothers die today or tonight, every drop of our blood will invigorate the Muslim (unintelligible)."
The full story, photos and video are at:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/exclusive_suici.html

[Light]

Neither Jew or "American troops of Chstians origin" wage war in the name of God.

Most naive statement of 2007.

Islam is the most perverse religion on the planet because its adherents kill indiscriminately in the name of its god.

We kill many more in the name of "Freedom"

Muslims are always looking to wage a "holy war" against someone.

Only if invaded by A-Holes.

[bigmack]

We kill many more in the name of "Freedom"
Only if invaded by A-Holes.
Light - Are your fingers continually poised in a direction towards Americans & Zionists? I'll give ya that there's blame to smeared in both camps. However, can you ever find reason to fault Muslim Extremists?

[boxcar]

Most naive statement of 2007.



We kill many more in the name of "Freedom"

Far more noble cause than some god dreamed up in the depraved, uncivilized, savage, backwards and tribal minds of Muslims! And if you don't believe this, then just ask all the people in the world who would "kill" just to partake of our freedom and the great opportunites of our Land! One thing is for certain, sir: Virtually no one desires to live in any Arab country or any Muslim culture.

Boxcar