Why are we at war?

@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.pdf

Of 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 Shiite

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.

That would be after the fall of SH… then it would be the US and UKs fault.

@Zooey72:

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 Shiite

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.

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.

@marine36:

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.

You mean like we kept Syria from meddling in Lebanon’s affairs for the past 20 years?

@ncscswitch:

Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

You are deliberatetly vague. You even redefine time scales:

Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

So when you say “20 years ago”, it is actually: “3-15 years ago” ?

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.

So, may might could …
oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

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.

We are talking about “What was moved to Iran from IRaq during SH reign”. Ii doesn’t matter who rules it now. And it was you who brought this argument “they are similar thus they will send stuff”. The rulers were not similar at all … UP TO 20 years after the First Gulf War (that is Iran-Iraq in international understanding).

So, you talk about “1991-2003” (or 20 years after the armistice of 1988), and say “it matters that they are similar”. And you say “those in power were not similar until 2005”.

You are using logical falacies

This makes your post quite funny actually.
You use “20 years after” for … “3 to 15 years after” … and while i try to nail that pudding to the wall, you say i was fallacious?

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.

I will requote you:

The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. …  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.
…
(new paragraph: Shites in souther Iraq, in that same paragraph:) 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.
…(new paragraph)… the materials Saddam had …we know for CERTAIN that military (and other?) equipment went to Iran.

If you don’t want to be misunderstood, why not use paragraphs to mark things that belong together and that done’t belong together? You never differed between the Shiites and SH, you never said that 20 means 3-15. If you are vague and not precise, then don’t blame me or call me fallacious.
Your paragraphs implicate things you didn’t want to say.

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.

And you call me a conspiracy theorist? That is quite funny.
Saddam did not send material to Iran for two reasons:

1. He hated them (they have nothing in common: not language, not culture, not religion. They fought a war for nearly a decade.)
2. He had nothing to send. No “nucular” weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons.

F_alk,

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, sorry.

However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.  Then what in the world ARE those Mirage jets?  Are they illusions?  An Al Jezira propaganda piece?  Disinformation put out by Iran?  And when did those jets go to Iran?  Some in 91, some in 03.  Are you saying that Saddam ONLY sent jets?  Are you infering that Saddam hated Iran so much that he sent them free jets not once but twice?

Iraq had no WMD’s huh?  Ummm… what was all that sh*t that the IAEA had tagged then that they are complaining that is now missing?  No chemical weapon artillery shells?  No gas that they used on the Kurds or on Iranian troops?  No SCUD missiles?  Or how about the stuff that we KNOW for certain Saddam had because NATO sold it to him???  All of the chemical agents sent by the US and France and Germany… were are THOSE materials?  Did he use ALL of it already?  Did he sell some of it other nations?  You tell me and we’ll both know.  What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

And you still seem to have trouble keeping certain things seperate… that there WAS a transfer of materials from Saddam and his government (a KNOWN AND CONFIRMED transfer) to Iran, and that these transfers occured in '91 and '03 at a MINIMUM, and that the transfer included AT LEAST jets.  And the second that there MAY have been further transfers in '03 through '05 from Shites in southern Iraq that are sympathetic to/supporters of the government of Iran.

Now, you go ahead and keep ranting.  I am finished with this thread.

@ncscswitch:

However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

@ncscswitch:

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.

1.)Make up your mind once please.
Why would anyone argue with you when you redefine what you said every minute. OYu are worse than a pudding, you are like soup to be nailed against a wall.

2.) STOP LYING ABOUT ME !
@ncscswitch:

Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.

I never said that. I said:
@F_alk:

oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

I included the Mirages.

I demand that you do not requote me wrong a second time.

you also wrote

What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

The UN demanded a report about that. It was produced by Iraq short before the invasion, and like 10 minutes before the ultimatum ran out. The USA seized it and had total control over that report for more than 24 hours. The UN then received a censored version of that report.
If you can’t remember that, it is not my fault.

Now, as you misquoted me, i retaliate eye-for-an-eye and misquote you:
@ncscswitch:

I … say … those Mirage jets Are …  An Al Jezira propaganda piece… .

Iraq had … WMD … that we KNOW for certain

… You tell me … What we DO … to have  … a  government … KNOWN … to … keep ranting.

I am going to put this “20 year” thing to bed NOW:

When I first posted that the Iran/Iraq ware was 20 years ago, it was in response to Chengora saying “It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians.  He did fight a war with them after all.”  and to CC’s statement “Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat?”  I even excerpt quoted CC when I posted the “20 year” comment.

You, F_alk, are the one who misinterpreted that “20 year” comment when you posted your reply to me after I posted the second means of POTENTIAL transfer of materials to Iran:  the lack of central control of Iraq by Saddam during the interim period.

My “Of course…” response was frustration directed toward you for not putting 2 and 2 together…  the Iran/Iraq war WAS 20 years ago, thus there was NOT a state of war between Iran and Iraq in the 1991-2003 time frame that would have allowed for the transfer of materials.

Sorry if I did not spell that out clearly enough for you after you misinterpreted the initial post and what I responding to (despite having included a quote reeference).  Not my fault that you started the argument from a false position.