Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

About Saddam & WMD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Hater Depot



Joined: 29 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


This was only AFTER the no-fly zones were established. Even almost two years after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Kurds were repressed under Saddam's rule.

It was only in 1993 or so that the Kurds were able to gain a kind of antonomy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart? Rolling Eyes

The US could not accept the burden of containing Saddam forever.

Containing Saddam Hussein was interfering w/ the US war on terror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
laogaiguk



Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart? Rolling Eyes

fine
Quote:

The US could not accept the burden of containing Saddam forever.

fine
Quote:

Containing Saddam Hussein was interfering w/ the US war on terror.


How?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

laogaiguk wrote:
[
Quote:

Containing Saddam Hussein was interfering w/ the US war on terror.


How?


Probably because it was taking away men and resources from the war on terror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
some waygug-in



Joined: 25 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
some waygug-in wrote:

"It is certainly as bad," he said. "It extends over a much wider section of the population than it did under Saddam."


Garbage. Tell that to the Kurds. As other magazines including TIME, Newsweek and The Economist have pointed out, the vast majority of the violence is confined to three provinces. Under Saddam all of Iraq was subject.



Hey, don't argue with me. Argue with the guy who was there and knows what's going on. I just quoted what he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_human_rights

Pace, currently a visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, spoke as sectarian tensions in Iraq push the country to the brink of civil war.

There has been a surge in religious violence in Iraq since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, and a spate of reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

The situation has been made worse by extremist Shiite militia operating within the ranks of the Interior Ministry, said Pace, who singled out the Badr Brigade, which makes up a large chunk of the Iraqi security services and military.

He said militia and insurgents are responsible for threatening morgue staff in Baghdad not to perform autopsies on bodies of apparent victims of torture and killings.

"They are told it is not necessary, and not in their interests," he said, adding that both militia and insurgents were "trying to minimize any chances" that their activities could be investigated and prosecuted.

Pace, who spent much of his two years in the post in Iraq, said he visited the morgue in Baghdad once a week when he was in the city and regarded it as a "barometer" of the level of violence in the country. He declined to provide more specific details about the threats, citing fears for the safety of morgue workers.

He said that around three-quarters of the several hundred bodies brought to the morgue each month were categorized with "gunshot wound" as the cause of death — a phrase Pace says is a euphemism. "Nearly all were executed and tortured," he added.



Then there's this as well:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030355/1009

Violence in Iraq kills mostly civilians, figures show
Toll exceeds 5,000 in past 14 months

March 3, 2006

Email this Print this BY ROBERT H. REID


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Mothers carrying groceries home to their families. Children walking to or from school. Unemployed men loitering around street corners in hopes of finding odd jobs.

Ordinary Iraqis often are the victims of roadside bombs set by insurgents -- one reason that more than 4,000 civilians were killed in insurgency-related violence last year, according to government figures obtained Thursday by the Associated Press.

That's more than twice the death toll of the country's soldiers and police combined.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

laogaiguk wrote:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart? Rolling Eyes

fine
Quote:

The US could not accept the burden of containing Saddam forever.

fine
Quote:

Containing Saddam Hussein was interfering w/ the US war on terror.


How?




I guess I will have to repost.


Quote:
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004


Posted on 04/03/2004 1:55:34 AM PST by Piefloater


FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.

Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.

Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.

"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.

Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.

"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.

"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."

He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.

Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.

He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.

But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.

"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.

"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."

Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.

"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.

"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.

"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.

"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people."



Please see also



Quote:
By removing Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist infrastructure, the Bush administration was able to quickly remove a government that -- to their advantage -- posed little military threat to the U.S. invading forces and also was led by a fascist dictator that much of the world despised; in return, the United States was afforded the option of using Iraq as a new staging ground for the war on militant Islamic groups. Now that Saddam Hussein has been removed, the Bush administration has been able to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, thus giving the United States more diplomatic leverage with the Saudi leadership. Through this leverage, Washington can now press Riyadh to crack down on Islamic militant groups and their sympathizers within Saudi society.


http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=53&language_id=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hater Depot



Joined: 29 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
This was only AFTER the no-fly zones were established. Even almost two years after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Kurds were repressed under Saddam's rule.

It was only in 1993 or so that the Kurds were able to gain a kind of antonomy.


Joo Rip Gwa Rhee wrote:
what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart?


You know, if someone were to read only those two posts, that person might think I hadn't mentioned the no-fly zones. Weird.

Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


Anyway, I wrote in reponse to

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Under Saddam all of Iraq was subject.


which was demonstrably untrue at the time of the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhee wrote:
what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart?


Quote:
You know, if someone were to read only those two posts, that person might think I hadn't mentioned the no-fly zones. Weird
.

But the no fly zones were maintained by the US. Weren't they? And the US would have had to keep them up bascially forever?

and anyway:


Quote:
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13019-2003Mar11?language=printer



Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


Anyway, I wrote in reponse to

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Under Saddam all of Iraq was subject.


Quote:
which was demonstrably untrue at the time of the war


Only cause the US war protecting much of Iraq from Saddam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit (double post).

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hater Depot wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
This was only AFTER the no-fly zones were established. Even almost two years after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Kurds were repressed under Saddam's rule.

It was only in 1993 or so that the Kurds were able to gain a kind of antonomy.


Joo Rip Gwa Rhee wrote:
what was the reason the Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam? Please tell us. Was it by chance cause he had a change of heart?


You know, if someone were to read only those two posts, that person might think I hadn't mentioned the no-fly zones. Weird.

Hater Depot wrote:
Untrue. The Kurds were essentially autonomous and free of interference from Saddam, and the southern third of the country was freer than the middle. The no-fly zones helped carve that out.


Anyway, I wrote in reponse to

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Under Saddam all of Iraq was subject.


which was demonstrably untrue at the time of the war.


However I was not talking about the time of the war. I was talking about the time when Saddam gained power up to 1993. Like I said in the first quote in this post. "This was only AFTER the no-fly zones were established" Obviously I was talking about BEFORE. I even capitalized AFTER so it would be apparent to what time frame I was referring to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
some waygug-in



Joined: 25 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm willing to bet that many in Washington wish they could revert back to maintaining no-fly zones instead of facing the mess that exists now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yu_Bum_suk



Joined: 25 Dec 2004

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The US could not accept the burden of containing Saddam forever.


So instead they opted for the burden of having 130,000 troops tied down by a guerilla insurgency for a decade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The US could not accept the burden of containing Saddam forever.


So instead they opted for the burden of having 130,000 troops tied down by a guerilla insurgency for a decade.


It hasn't been anywhere close to a decade, and "high-level leaders" of said guerilla insurgency are in talks with U.S. military forces. Then too a split between the locals and the foreign fighters is becoming more apparent every day. I'd say by the time Bush leaves office Iraq will be a lot better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supernick



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent



Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.

"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD.

The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings — dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq.

Even as the documents make clear Saddam's regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove "any forbidden equipment."

Since it's now acknowledged the Iraqis had ended the arms programs by then, the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq's 1980s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Saddam's inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show. "The factories will remain in our brains," one unidentified participant told Saddam at a meeting, apparently in the early 1990s.

At the same meeting, however, Saddam, who was deposed by the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is now on trial for crimes against humanity, led a discussion about converting chemical weapons factories to beneficial uses.

When a subordinate complained that U.N. inspectors had seized equipment at the plants useful for pharmaceutical and insecticide production, Saddam jumped in, saying they had "no right" to deny the Iraqis the equipment, since "they have ascertained that we have no intention to produce in this field (chemical weapons)."

Saddam's regime extensively videotaped and audiotaped meetings and other events, both public and confidential. The dozen transcribed discussions about weapons inspections largely dealt with Iraq's diplomatic strategies for getting the Security Council to confirm it had disarmed.

Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), who has suggested that evidence might turn up that the Iraqis hid their weapons or sent them to neighboring Syria. No such evidence has emerged.

Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

"We played by the rules of the game," Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. "In 1991, our weapons were destroyed."

Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the U.N. chief inspector.

"We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details," he said he told Rolf Ekeus.

In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion U.S. team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had, indeed, dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992, and the Iraqis never resumed production.

Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to have the Security Council lift the economic sanctions strangling the Iraqi economy, by convincing council members Iraq had eliminated its WMD. But he was thwarted at every turn by what he and aides viewed as U.S. hard-liners blocking council action.

The inspectors "destroyed everything and said, `Iraq completed 95 percent of their commitment,'" Saddam said at one meeting. "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify).

"Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD," he told his deputies. "We have nothing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International