I am always opened for jokes :lol:
Why are we at war?
-
Saddam didn’t send his planes to Iran for safekeeping
It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians.
During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border – more than 120 left. Over 200 aircraft were destroyed on Iraqi airfields, and hardened laser-guided bombs devastated Iraq’s hardened aircraft shelters. Eventually day-and-night air strikes destroyed or seriously damaged 375 shelters out of a total of 594.
According to the US Department of Defense, Iraq lost 90 aircraft of all types [including helicopters] to coalition air forces during Operation Desert Storm. Of these, 39 were shot down in air-to-air combat [the details remain somewhat obscure, since a total of as many as 42 aircraft were claimed to have been destroyed in action]. Another six were lost in accidents and 16 were captured or destroyed by coalition ground forces. Additionally, another 122-137 were flown to Iran [estimates range from 115 to 140], bringing the total confirmed loss to at least 234 aircraft.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm
Your correct Chendora… Saddam didnt fly his planes to Iran to protect them… he ordered his pilots to do that… my bad! sorry
“It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians”
This is the first time i disagreed with this point FYI.With that being said again i state that on one occasion (1991) he flew his air planes to iran , which were stolen after he was in no position to get them back. But since then untill we took out Iraq again Sadam has been in bed with Iran on a number of levels because they both hate us. Dont worry my other point will be proven soon enough after the next war starts in the middle east.
-
As i recall, US intelligence agents had come to the conclusion that Iraq did not have WMD’s, but the reason why SH was holding out on demonstrating this adequately was because he wanted Iran to believe that he had WMD’s. His fears were that if it was revealled that he was relatively powerless in this regard, then Iran would take him out. He was not nearly as focussed on the US as was believed. This all came out before the summer AFAIR.
Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat? -
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/wiran26.xml
Well to safeguard Iraqs best A- bomb makers they also arranged to send them to Iran untill “sadamm comes back” yea right…
-
@cystic:
Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat?
The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. To put that in perspective, 20 years after US and UK went at it hot and heavy, they became allies, and have been ever since. Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc. All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.
Add in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran. About the only area where materials would NOT have been transported to another nation from was northern Iraq, since the Kurds then (and perhaps still are) after an independent state, and they figured they would hold on to anything in their area for themselves. Lastly, it was pretty obvious, especialy with the attempt on George H.W. Bush’s life that Saddam ordered in 1993 in Kuwait that George Jr. was not going to leave Saddam in power, no matter what. So it was not a matter of “saving” it for Saddam’s return. Saddam knew it was a one-way ride, just like it was with the aircraft that went to Iran in 1991. But he sent MORE anyway, knowing they would never be reuturned.
The IAEA is the body that has detailed the materials Saddam had, and has also detailed the “missing” materials since the war resumed. Now, you tell ME where they went and we’ll both know. But the odds of them being sent to Jordan or Syria are pretty slim. And we know for CERTAIN that military (and other?) equipment went to Iran. Those Mirage’s are NOT stealth aircraft, they obviously took off from Iraq and landed in Iran. We had radar, and later we Al Jezira images of those planes.
What else was on board besides pilots… And what crossed the border by truck, car, camel, cart, foot…
-
good points and a few i didnt think of…
When the Shites get the majority, they will be even more alligned to iran than before. Those religious ties are strong. IN 1945 we were sworn enemies of Germany and in 1946 we were buddies. History has many lessons of quick turnabouts, You cant use this thread of argument " gee they fought against each other 25 years ago… they must they still hate each other so thats why dont exchange military hardware". Thats a short sided view of the matter.
-
@Imperious:
gee they fought against each other 25 years ago… they must they still hate each other so thats why dont exchange military hardware". Thats a short sided view of the matter.
And how many examples of this have we seen just as the US in the past several decades???
Here is a REALLY good example: Iran…
Prior to 1979, they were OUR ally. EDS ran their Dept of Health computers, F-14 Tomcats formed their air-combat forces…
In 1979 they were the ultimate evil (Mickey waving an American flag and flipping them off, Charlie Daniels doing songs against them)
In the mid 80’s, we were selling them weapons so that they would work to free the hostages held by Hezbola and others, and using the cash to finance the Contras.
In the 90’s, they were a force to contain Saddam on his Eastern border.
Now, in 2005, they are the bad guys again.Other examples of flip-flopping allies and enemies:
France, China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi, The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan… need I go on? -
Other examples of flip-flopping allies and enemies……France
LOL. Yea where are those French invasion plans? I want to be the second to land and march my troops under the “Arc de Triomphe” :mrgreen:
-
@Imperious:
LOL. Yea where are those French invasion plans? I want to be the second to land and march my troops under the “Arc de Triomphe” :mrgreen:
As many are aware, the French government recently announced a raise in its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide”. The normal level is “General Arrogance”, and the only two higher levels in France are “Surrender” and “Collaborate”. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country’s military capability
-
@Imperious:
good points and a few i didnt think of…
When the Shites get the majority, they will be even more alligned to iran than before. Those religious ties are strong. IN 1945 we were sworn enemies of Germany and in 1946 we were buddies. History has many lessons of quick turnabouts, You cant use this thread of argument " gee they fought against each other 25 years ago… they must they still hate each other so thats why dont exchange military hardware". Thats a short sided view of the matter.
Of course thanks to US actions, the nation of Iraq is soon to be run by Shites - which i understand to be significantly more (militantly?) Islamic than the Sunnis under Saddam. Does this mean that the US will then be united with Iran as they recognise their new ally-by-proxy?
-
Ahh another good point! I think everything will be great untill we leave… then the shite hits the fan.
-
@F_alk:
You are at war because a conservative think tank made plans, 9-11 allowed to strike one country, and the people behind GWB used the impetus. …
So, both the “keep them scared” and the “Iraq is a strategic position” are right.
If you don’ t believe it, look at this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfOf course, invading a strategic position for no other reason than it being a strategic position is an offensive war and should be heavily sanctioned, as it is illegal by international laws and contracts that even the USA signed.
I think, next time i wait for a train or something like that, i will look out for a strategic position and kill the person that stands on it. After all, it is a strategic position.Falk,
I have been reading: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf off and on for a couple of days. It is long, and I have christmas shopping to do, so sue me. I am about 1/2 way done. It is interesting as hell, I will give you that. So far as what I have read, I think the plan they had was a sound one.
One thing though, where did you get this from? I would hope that our politicians would not need pictures to get the point? Go ahead, slam Bush… I know you want to. lol
The whole idea of it seems is to keep the US on top by providing a stable global enviorment. SH was an evil man (and unpopular), I think we all agree on that. We get our bases, the Iraqis get their freedom. Seems like a “win win” to me. As far as the war is concerned, we are fighting radicals that are for the most part not even Iraqi.
The threat that a US presence in Iraq has to Iraq’s neighbors is reason enough for me to believe the war is well worth it. Even just the show of force got Libya to repent their ways, and Libya is not even close to Iraq.
-
@ncscswitch:
In addition to the nuclear material,…
In addition to zero ….
@ncscswitch:
The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. To put that in perspective, 20 years after US and UK went at it hot and heavy, they became allies, and have been ever since. Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc. All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.
Farsi NOT Arabic
Persian NOT Arabian
Sunni (SH) NOT ShiiteAdd in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran.
That would be after the fall of SH… then it would be the US and UKs fault.
-
One thing though, where did you get this from?
EVIL liberal media.
We get our bases, the Iraqis get their freedom. Seems like a “win win” to me.
Only international rules, laws and safety lose.
-
@F_alk:
@ncscswitch:
In addition to the nuclear material,…
In addition to zero ….
@ncscswitch:
The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. To put that in perspective, 20 years after US and UK went at it hot and heavy, they became allies, and have been ever since. Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc. All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.
Farsi NOT Arabic
Persian NOT Arabian
Sunni (SH) NOT ShiiteAdd in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran.
That would be after the fall of SH… then it would be the US and UKs fault.
F_alk,
You do indeed seem to be very irritable of late. And it is effecting your facts.
Yes, while Saddam was in power, the Sunni controled Iraq (at least until 1991). But after that time, there were 2 semi-autonomous areas, one under the Northern no-fly-zone that was Kurdish, the other under the Southern no-fly-zone that was Shite. What happened in southern Iraq between 1991 and 2003 is prety much anyone’s guess. Regardless we know that Iran was providing aid in those areas during that time. Whether the Iraqi shites returned the favor and gave stuff to the Iranian Shites… well we’ll have to wait and see about that. Also, we KNOW that materials went from Iraq to Iran both before the 91 war and the resumption of hostilities in '03. So get over yourself by trying to argue that Iran and Iraq are not linguistically/culturally/religiously similar; at least in terms of the dominant populations in both of those nations.
Also, you seem to forget that while Iraq USED to be lead by Sunni’s, they are a minority, the smallest of 3 major groups. They are outnumbered by the Shites who have a near majority, and the Kurds who have the second largest plurality.
-
@ncscswitch:
Yes, while Saddam was in power, the Sunni controled Iraq (at least until 1991). But after that time, there were 2 semi-autonomous areas, one under the Northern no-fly-zone that was Kurdish, the other under the Southern no-fly-zone that was Shite. What happened in southern Iraq between 1991 and 2003 is prety much anyone’s guess.
The argument was that Saddam brought WMDs to Iran, before they could be “found” by US troops.
I will requote you:The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.
Means you were not speaking of the time 1991-2003.
Add in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran.
And then claim Saddam ordered/send anything to Iran?
Saddam knew it was a one-way ride, just like it was with the aircraft that went to Iran in 1991. But he sent MORE anyway, knowing they would never be reuturned.
How can he possibly send anything that he has no control over (as it is controlled by the Shites in the south)?
The IAEA is the body that has detailed the materials Saddam had, and has also detailed the “missing” materials since the war resumed.
So, noone knows what was in southern Iraq between 1991-2003. The IAEA on the other hand does. It also knows what is missing. This, if this was sent between 1991 and 2003 by Shiites -a thing noone knows-, was sent by Saddam Hussein - who in 1992 let the southern Shiites pay deraly for supporting the US in 1991?
Also, we KNOW that materials went from Iraq to Iran both before the 91 war and the resumption of hostilities in '03.
I thought we don’t know what happend in southern Iraq … and all i KNOW is that your secret services do not KNOW much.
So get over yourself by trying to argue that Iran and Iraq are not linguistically/culturally/religiously similar;
You stareted the argument, i argued against it. Why do i “have to get over” it somehow?
Also, you seem to forget that while Iraq USED to be lead by Sunni’s, they are a minority, the smallest of 3 major groups. They are outnumbered by the Shites who have a near majority, and the Kurds who have the second largest plurality.
And suddenly SH’s Iraq was democratic and not ruled by a minority???
-
Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!
Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. You see, during the war, Iraq probably would NOT have sent materials to Iran. But they HAVE sent materials to Iran SINCE then. Why was that so hard for you to grasp? If you don;t believe me, go look at the pictures of the Iraqi Mirage jets sitting on Iranian runways.
Also, just because the Shites MAY have sent material out of southern Iraq in the interim period (91-03) does NOT preclude Saddam himself sending materials from the area he DID control during the same time period.
And what is that crap about me calling Iraq a democracy??? I said that AFTER Saddam was deposed, Iraq became a majority (or at least largest plurality) Shite nation… the same religious/ethnic group as is the majority/ruling group in Iran. I never made ANY claim that the Shites held power in Iraq prior to '91.
You are using logical falacies by trying to equate 2 different POTENTIAL sources for material to be transfered to Iran and trying to claim that they are part and parcel of the same argument. One has to do with Saddam himself, and his government, and the areas he controlled. THAT is the source for the jets flown to Iran, and MAY be the source for OTHER materials that the IAEA had tagged but are now missing. The OTHER source has to do with the Shites in southern Iraq and the aid they were receiving from Iran and the aid they MAY have given to Iran in exchange.
Gods! You have that difficult a time evaluating 2 different simultaneous actions occuring? Are you so much of a conspiracy theorist that the two MUST have been related? Must have been causitive of each other? Must have been coordinated and planned?
I am simply far more likely to believe the least-common denominator here:
#1 Saddam knew he was going down and sent materials in areas under his control to other nations (most likely Iran) in order to keep the materials from being destroyed or confiscated. We KNOW he did this with jets in '91 and in '03, so why not with OTHER materials?
#2 We know the Shites were getting aid from Iran after '91. People tend to do things for their own self-interest, so why not think that Iran got something in exchange for their aid?So Iran played both sides in Iraq. Surprise, surprise. Like THAT has never happened anywhere else in the world.
-
either way when the Shites take power they will be like brothers with Iran so any remaining skeletons that havent allready been transfered to Iran will easily head on over there.Iran allready has plans to reallign with Iraq after we leave in a coalition against Isreal. Gentleman the storm is brewing and a war is looming.
-
@Imperious:
either way when the Shites take power they will be like brothers with Iran so any remaining skeletons that havent allready been transfered to Iran will easily head on over there.Iran allready has plans to reallign with Iraq after we leave in a coalition against Isreal. Gentleman the storm is brewing and a war is looming.
if i were to just read this without any context (i.e without the foreknowledge that SH was a bit of a jerk) i would say that the US has served to destabilize the middle east by invading.
-
@cystic:
if i were to just read this without any context (i.e without the foreknowledge that SH was a bit of a jerk) i would say that the US has served to destabilize the middle east by invading.
In the short term, you are probably right. Long term… I see the middle east calming down quite a bit.
Iraq is not going to survive as a single nation. The divisions between Kurd, Sunni and Shite are too great. Oh they’ll play nice for the cameras for a few years, then they’ll just split up and go their separate ways. The Kurds and the Shites are the ones calling the shots: both due to numbers and due to control of the oil regions. What are the Sunni going to do? Attack?
The Shites will ally with Iran, and will have lots of support form them as they form their new nation. The Kurds will draw other Kurds out of places like Georgia (the old Soviet Republic, not the former UK penal colony in the southern US) which will reinforce their numbers, bring in new blood, and stabilize their new state. Turkey won;t be thrilled about this, but an un-easy truce will exist there for decades.
So the Sunni end up being having a nation, but no resources. Probably will come under the influence of Syria.
Three new nations; two of them with resources; two of them with strong allies adjacent to them.
That is about as stable as the Middle East is likely to get… until such time as the whole area glows in the dark.
-
I really dont see Iraq staying united forever either. Its not a real country to begin with. All the different religious sects will probably break up and go their seperate ways, but I doubt other middle eastern countries will have a hand in their affairs, we will make sure of that.
Suggested Topics
