NationStates Jolt Archive

(The 1st part is background. Say whatever you want. I won't comment much on it.)

First, of all, I believe the war in Iraq was legal under several UN resolutions (particularly 678, 687, and especiallly 1441).
I believe US intelligence screwed up. I believe Saddam did have a WMDs program. But it was not the imminent threat reported. This was a failure of US intelligence, partly due to a single minded focus on Iraq by the bush administration, partly due to hubris of the Bush administration, and partly due to Saddam's own actions, misunderstood.
I am fairly sure there were some WMDs. Again, these appear not to have been an imminent threat. I believe any remaining WMDs are buried in the desert (and thus will be nearky imposible to find) or have been tgransferred to Syria (and again buried).
The current "mission" is not what was presented. It is, IMO, a sloppy half assed CYA done by Bush and co. They know they screwed up, but can't admit it. So they pull out a secondary mission: re-make Iraq into a democracy. However, this has not been properly thought out (as the administration thought the WMDs would provide the reason for doing so).

Having said all that, i do not believe this US will succeed. The US can succeed, but does not have the will or patience to properly complete the mission it has set for itself.
Remaking a country can be done by may methods. historically, two main methods have been sucessful: the British method and the Mongol method.

The British method is to colonize the country and basically rebuild all institutions. The Mongol method is to build mountains of skulls.
The British method takes several generations to work. and generally requires a serious commitment of blood and treasure.
The Mongol method would alienate most of the western democracies, for a start...

What we will end up with is the USMC method - send in the Marines, kick everbodies ass, set up a facade government, and repeat evey 20 years or so. This is what we have done in Haiti for the last 90 years. And we can all see what a nice stable place Haiti is...
(Very important note: this is not not to knock the Marines - they are great at what they do. The blaim for this method lies with the public and the politicians...)

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

The only bit I read was "a failure of US intelligence..."

Sounds familiar hey.

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

That's because the US are the only country in the world, la di blah, great democracy, la la la, biggest army, la la la...

I'm proud that us Brits are in Iraq (well...) and I have a couple of mates who will soon be going there, but it really fcuking annoys me that America constantly forgets about us, and the fact that nearly a 100 British soldiers have lost their lives out there. And lets not forget the other nations serving out there (not that the Americans would know.)

Some things never change.

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

Yes. But realistically, how significant are the British forces? It is mainly a US operation.

(This isn't meant to denigrate the forces from many non-US sources. My apologies for any offence. But as above, they just aren't that significant, Broxbournes assertions not withstanding.)

Admittedly I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post, and I do accept that it is mainly a US led operation.

But a little gratitude would be appreciated.

My friend went to Iraq with the TA's, he said he enjoyed it.

My point was only meant as a joke, btw.

Admittedly I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post, and I do accept that it is mainly a US led operation.

But a little gratitude would be appreciated.

There certainly is gratitude on my part (and I believe most Armericans part).

BTW, I have lived in Japan for 13 years. That may have something to do with my having a more internationalist outlook. Then again, it may not...
:wink:

Personally, I do not believe that Iraq had NBC weapons, definitely not in quantities anywhere near approaching those claimed. I was against the war, mainly because of the unilateral nature of it. I believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, who abused his position of power, and he should have been taken out of power a long time ago, at the very latest during the First Gulf War. However, he was not a threat to the US (How could he be? Does he have ICBMs?). There was no justification for an invasion on the basis of a threat or on the basis of WMD. I think, however, that the UN should have supported a war to free the people of Iraq (unusual thing for an anti-war, anti-US-policy guy to say). And if the US and Britain had gone in with a proper, well-worked out plan (as well-worked out as their military plans) to rebuild Iraq, I would have the greatest of respect for George W. and despite my personal beliefs, wold have marked him down as one of the greatest American presidents. Even if he had said "We want to kill Saddam and bring in a new government." Fine, because he would have been being honest. But there was no plan, there were no WMDs or terrorists. So why did this war actually happen? The events of the past few days are practically on the level of a full-blown war, with stand-up battles and all that. If there was a plan, the US could have rebuilt the nation, gone home and made the anti-war protestors look stupid by now. Instead, more and more soldiers are dying each day (by the way, I'd just like to point out that my scorn and dislike is reserved only for the politicians. I admire the bravery of the soldiers who go out and risk there lives for whatever the politicians tell them to). And all because THERE WAS NO PLAN. Stupid.

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

Yes. But realistically, how significant are the British forces? It is mainly a US operation.

(This isn't meant to denigrate the forces from many non-US sources. My apologies for any offence. But as above, they just aren't that significant, Broxbournes assertions not withstanding.)

Well British forces basically control Basrah and there hasnt been much trouble there. The Iraqi's get along rather well with them. Maybe its just somthing that U.S forces are doing.

Part of that has to do with the geography. The US got what appears to be "the hard bits". The British history in the region may also have something to do with it.
(The "British" colonization method includes having people who understand the country stationed there. The US has historically been very bad at this.)

First, of all, I believe the war in Iraq was legal under several UN resolutions (particularly 678, 687, and especiallly 1441).
..

You may believe that all you wish, however if you have read those resolutions you would know that the invasion of Iraq was illegal as none of those resolutions said any thing about what the US in fact has done. So it's all rather moot. It is an illegal war. It was based on bad Intel at best a lie at worst. The one thing we do agree on is that it's not going to work in the end. You can't force democracy on a people who don't want it. You don't invade a country to liberate it. It's been flawed from day 1.

We've crossed swords on the legality issue before. In another current thread thread I am debating it as well. There are very good arguments on both sides.

At leaset we can agree in general that the war is bad.

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

That's because the US are the only country in the world, la di blah, great democracy, la la la, biggest army, la la la...

I'm proud that us Brits are in Iraq (well...) and I have a couple of mates who will soon be going there, but it really fcuking annoys me that America constantly forgets about us, and the fact that nearly a 100 British soldiers have lost their lives out there. And lets not forget the other nations serving out there (not that the Americans would know.)

Some things never change.

I thought the term "mate" was used by the Australians?

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

That's because the US are the only country in the world, la di blah, great democracy, la la la, biggest army, la la la...

I'm proud that us Brits are in Iraq (well...) and I have a couple of mates who will soon be going there, but it really fcuking annoys me that America constantly forgets about us, and the fact that nearly a 100 British soldiers have lost their lives out there. And lets not forget the other nations serving out there (not that the Americans would know.)

Some things never change.

Most of the other 40 nations in the US led 'Coalition of the Willing' have very miniscule numbers in Iraq. Besides, who are we kidding, this is America's War and were pulling most of the weight anyway.

And bearing the brunt of the attacks, and now making the others suffer as well. :shock:

Since it seems safe to say that the British really hate GW, has there been any American Presidents who you guys haven't hated and why?

After all, I like Tony Blair. His acsent, of course, is a little gay (and makes him sound like a flamming fruit), but the kids' got spunk.

We've crossed swords on the legality issue before. In another current thread thread I am debating it as well. There are very good arguments on both sides.

At leaset we can agree in general that the war is bad.

Yes, we can agree on that.

As for the legal side.. really the best argument I've heard thus far for the war being legal is not 1441.. in fact I think that's a bad argument. The one that you can sort of get away with on the skin of your butt barely..lol is the argument that this is an extension of the first Gulf war, that the cease fire was broken by Saddam shooting at your planes... but even that argument is some what weak. However it is the best one I've heard thus far. So, while that might grant some legal grounds to the war even if weak, it still wouldn't negate that is not what the public or the world was told.

The important thing to remember, however, was that Haiti was never stable from the moment of its birth. In Iraq, it was once the center of the civilized world. The Ba'athists was just a dark page in the millenia old history of Iraq. With that much good Iraqi history, hope can be kept alive.

I thought the term "mate" was used by the Australians?

Its an english term used all thorugh former british territory.

I dont think the Fact the The British used to control the country Sixty years ago has much to do with it. Any expertise gained from that would have died out years ago. Its obsolete. for one thing the british have a whole lot of experience in occupations, Ala Ireland, Plus I would expect they would conduct themselves in a more becomming manner, not to mention that they have a much lower profile in Iraq. The U.S is seen as the leader.

None of you are International Law experts, So I cant see how you could be having much of a debate about this. But heres something I know for Sure. The U.N is a bureaucratic organisation and bureaucrats like to make things official. Figure it out. There was never ever meeting held to debate the points of going to war in its own right. Thats what always happens before decisions are made. It was illegal. No two ways about it.

Since it seems safe to say that the British really hate GW, has there been any American Presidents who you guys haven't hated and why?

Speaking as a UK national: FDR & Eisenhower, for obvious reasons; Kennedy, because he seemed kind of hip at the time; Ford, for the falling down; Carter, for the teeth (he even made it onto Mount Rushmore in Judge Dredd's trek across the Cursed Earth in 2000AD); Clinton, because he seemed kind of hip at the time too. Of course, with all but the first two you have to make the difference between "didn't hate" and "liked".

After all, I like Tony Blair. His acsent, of course, is a little gay (and makes him sound like a flamming fruit), but the kids' got spunk.

Tony Blair's spunk quotient is a matter of public record. The old primate testosterone boost post-1997 helped him get Cherie up the duff -- with due respect paid to the Rhythm Method.

Interestingly, "to vote for Tony Blair" has become a euphemism for being constipated: i.e. "to rush into the cubicle expecting great things, only to get a pathetic little fart instead".

Since it seems safe to say that the British really hate GW, has there been any American Presidents who you guys haven't hated and why?

Speaking as a UK national: FDR & Eisenhower, for obvious reasons; Kennedy, because he seemed kind of hip at the time; Ford, for the falling down; Carter, for the teeth (he even made it onto Mount Rushmore in Judge Dredd's trek across the Cursed Earth in 2000AD); Clinton, because he seemed kind of hip at the time too. Of course, with all but the first two you have to make the difference between "didn't hate" and "liked".

After all, I like Tony Blair. His acsent, of course, is a little gay (and makes him sound like a flamming fruit), but the kids' got spunk.

Tony Blair's spunk quotient is a matter of public record. The old primate testosterone boost post-1997 helped him get Cherie up the duff -- with due respect paid to the Rhythm Method.

Interestingly, "to vote for Tony Blair" has become a euphemism for being constipated: i.e. "to rush into the cubicle expecting great things, only to get a pathetic little fart instead".

I'm glad I don't live in the UK. Your jokes are a bit too sophisticated for my tastes. The constipation joke was funny, but it required me to think 2 seconds longer than I had wanted. Too much thinking for me. I need WAR!!!

For the record, as an American, CHURCHILL KICKED ASS! Too bad the poor bastard didn't get elected to another term after the War. I heard that after Churchill co-led the Allied Powers to victory in WWII and lost the election, the Liberal Party pretty much took over. I hope the same fate doesn't repeat itself here in America.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Winston Churchill.

He hardly won the war. Britains role was to hold the axis At bay while he tried to convince the U.S to come in on their side.

He failed to be reelected because they needed a man to win the peace not the war. It was probably a good thing he didnt get back in.

I'm glad I don't live in the UK. Your jokes are a bit too sophisticated for my tastes. The constipation joke was funny, but it required me to think 2 seconds longer than I had wanted. Too mush thinking for me. I need WAR!!!

For more sophisticated humour in the same vein, see Roger's Profanisaurus at http://www.viz.co.uk .

For the record, as an American, CHURCHILL KICKED ASS! Too bad the poor bastard didn't get elected to another term after the War. I heard that after Churchill co-led the Allied Powers to victory in WWII and lost the election, the Liberal Party pretty much took over. I hope the same fate doesn't repeat itself here in America.

The 1945 General Election was a landslide victory for the Labour Party, back when they used to be socialists. The Liberals haven't been in power -- with the exception of the brief Lib-Lab pact in the late 1970s -- since WWI. The war was all but over, and the British were smart enough to know that, although Churchill was a good, aggressive war leader, he was also a reactionary alcoholic who wanted to return Britain, and the remains of the Empire, to the happy, exploitative class-ridden ways of the 1900s. Basically, having fought through 6 years of misery, the British people decided that they would like to get something back from the country they'd shed their blood for, and maybe not spend too much time fighting to keep hold of an Empire long past its sell-by date. And so they voted in one of the great reforming governments of the 20th or indeed any other century: the NHS just one spectacular result, saving the lives of millions of people since its inception. Britain without Attlee, Bevan et al would have been a darker, grimmer and more poverty-stricken place -- kind of similar to where we've been heading these last 20-odd years.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill.

I think Tony Blair is an appeaser, too: why else the fawning attitude to George W Bush?

I dont think the Fact the The British used to control the country Sixty years ago has much to do with it. Any expertise gained from that would have died out years ago. Its obsolete. for one thing the british have a whole lot of experience in occupations, Ala Ireland, Plus I would expect they would conduct themselves in a more becomming manner, not to mention that they have a much lower profile in Iraq. The U.S is seen as the leader.

The British have had continued relations with most near-eastern countries that are in many respects better than the USs relations. Don*t forget that the UK still provides mercenary forces for many of the smaller Gulf States (this may have changed in the last few years). That translates as language skills and cultural awareness, both important skills the US military seems to be lacking..

None of you are International Law experts, So I cant see how you could be having much of a debate about this. But heres something I know for Sure. The U.N is a bureaucratic organisation and bureaucrats like to make things official. Figure it out. There was never ever meeting held to debate the points of going to war in its own right. Thats what always happens before decisions are made. It was illegal. No two ways about it.

I was about to post something similar. As far as I know, we have no international law experts among us (if we do please chime in!). As there are experts arguing both sides professionally, it is, IMO, moot and unsettleable.

But there was no sanction So theres no contest.
And the British May have good relatios but that doesnt mean that every field commander knows how to suger up the differnt factions. Mercenaries are not part of the Military. I think Its just that the British know how to get along much better with the people who's turf they are occupying along with the fact that the british are a less obvious target.

I'm glad I don't live in the UK. Your jokes are a bit too sophisticated for my tastes. The constipation joke was funny, but it required me to think 2 seconds longer than I had wanted. Too mush thinking for me. I need WAR!!!

For more sophisticated humour in the same vein, see Roger's Profanisaurus at http://www.viz.co.uk .

For the record, as an American, CHURCHILL KICKED ASS! Too bad the poor bastard didn't get elected to another term after the War. I heard that after Churchill co-led the Allied Powers to victory in WWII and lost the election, the Liberal Party pretty much took over. I hope the same fate doesn't repeat itself here in America.

The 1945 General Election was a landslide victory for the Labour Party, back when they used to be socialists. The Liberals haven't been in power -- with the exception of the brief Lib-Lab pact in the late 1970s -- since WWI. The war was all but over, and the British were smart enough to know that, although Churchill was a good, aggressive war leader, he was also a reactionary alcoholic who wanted to return Britain, and the remains of the Empire, to the happy, exploitative class-ridden ways of the 1900s. Basically, having fought through 6 years of misery, the British people decided that they would like to get something back from the country they'd shed their blood for, and maybe not spend too much time fighting to keep hold of an Empire long past its sell-by date. And so they voted in one of the great reforming governments of the 20th or indeed any other century: the NHS just one spectacular result, saving the lives of millions of people since its inception. Britain without Attlee, Bevan et al would have been a darker, grimmer and more poverty-stricken place -- kind of similar to where we've been heading these last 20-odd years.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill.

I think Tony Blair is an appeaser, too: why else the fawning attitude to George W Bush?

Thanks for the historical correction. Obviously you'd know much more about that than I would. ThanX for the link too. Maybe you guys aren't so bad after all. Besides, I do like "Trigger Happy" and "Girls Behaving Badly" also belongs to you guys, right?

I don't think Blair is appeasing Bush, I just think that they are both religious men and probably felt justified by going to War with Iraq in a sense that they were fighting 'evil' or something.

I've got some questions for the British. Let's get to the bottom of all the stereotypes. Do you guys think that Americans are the most arrogant and dumbest people on the face of the Earth and are underserving of our SuperPower status?

We got to be better than the Arabs, right?

Didn't the British and the Americans used to be "allies" or was it always mostly that our leaders were allies with a dissenting populace at home.

Do the British view themselves as being intellectually superior to Americans? Views on the British, I think are slpit between half of the population here.

Liberals would like to listen to our "allies" more and be more involved with the international community, so that we remain popular.

Conservatives would rather form our own coalition with those who are willing and have more of a "I could give a damn about world opinion" type of attitude. I would definately fall more into the Conservative category relating to this issue.

Do you guys think that the world would be better off if the British had won the Revolutionary War?

Where do the British stand on the UN? Really? You guys don't really think that a bunch of corrupt 3rd world nations passing themselves off as vanguards of "world peace" is really "man's best hope for peace" do you?

Iraq definitly had chemical weapons, without a question. Biological weapons, maybe...nuclear....I doubt.

Iraq definitly had chemical weapons, without a question. Biological weapons, maybe...nuclear....I doubt.

:roll: So we should just take your word for it because all those experts that disagree with you, just don't know what they're talking about.. umm okay..

Iraq definitly had chemical weapons, without a question. Biological weapons, maybe...nuclear....I doubt.

they had them once yes, western countries provided them and at the end of the first gulf war they had them. But don't forget this: chemical and biological weapons decay after 2-5 years (dunno the exact time tho). So telling they have biological or chemical weapons simply because they had them 5-10 years ago is from the mouth of a normal person, an error, from the mouth of an official/expert, a lie.

Iraq definitly had chemical weapons, without a question. Biological weapons, maybe...nuclear....I doubt.

:roll: So we should just take your word for it because all those experts that disagree with you, just don't know what they're talking about.. umm okay..

Ummm... speaking of experts, the chief weapons inspector of Iraq had said that they had no nuclear weapons, and their chemical weapons were so old they had been useless for twenty years, and even if they were still potent the most dangerous thing Saddam could do with them is launch them at us and hit someone on the head. He stopped working as weapons inspector shortly after. But whatever. The experts disagree with you anyway, Johnistan :wink:

I say that the term WMD is about as spun as it comes. Its bull. A nuclear weapon is something to fear, A chemical weapon is something that a Company has to fear on a battlefield.

And heres an article for interest for you Anglophiles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3616793.stm

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq. Point.

I say that the term WMD is about as spun as it comes. Its bull. A nuclear weapon is something to fear, A chemical weapon is something that a Company has to fear on a battlefield.

And you know this how?....Chemical clouds could extend for miles, and if the wind shifts could conceivably devastate entire commands.

We've crossed swords on the legality issue before. In another current thread thread I am debating it as well. There are very good arguments on both sides.

At leaset we can agree in general that the war is bad.

Yes, we can agree on that.

As for the legal side.. really the best argument I've heard thus far for the war being legal is not 1441.. in fact I think that's a bad argument. The one that you can sort of get away with on the skin of your butt barely..lol is the argument that this is an extension of the first Gulf war, that the cease fire was broken by Saddam shooting at your planes... but even that argument is some what weak. However it is the best one I've heard thus far. So, while that might grant some legal grounds to the war even if weak, it still wouldn't negate that is not what the public or the world was told.
In Bush's declaration of war on Iraq, nowhere did he mention that he was attacking because Iraq was in "breach of UN Resolutions". Why not? He would not dare to insist that he was acting on behalf of the UN, because he himself was violating the UN Charter to attack.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

In his speech, he mentions the following criteria:

"We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

What threat? Saddam certainly didn't have any long range missles. The UN inspectors did cut up some short range Samoud missles (about 120 miles), that barely exceeded the range allowable.

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

Again, what threat?

What WMD? WHY did the US kick out the inspectors that were doing a credible job. If the UN inspectors had been able to finish their job, then the US would have ZERO reason to attack.

"We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

This is a direct reference to 9-11, which Saddam had no part of. 15 of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi if people recall.

Again the word "threat" was used. If you hear it said enough times, you might believe that it is true?

Iraq was NO threat to the US. Saddam has been a toothless tabby since he got his butt kicked in the Gulf War (1990-92).

NO WMD, NO terrorists should have equalled NO war. This has been one super con job. I smell hidden agenda.

I think the US should've used the Mongol method of leaving mountains of skulls.

Part of that has to do with the geography. The US got what appears to be "the hard bits". The British history in the region may also have something to do with it.
(The "British" colonization method includes having people who understand the country stationed there. The US has historically been very bad at this.)

I think there was a revolt or two in India a long time ago because the Britsh stationed there had no interest or respect for the Indian culture.

Part of that has to do with the geography. The US got what appears to be "the hard bits". The British history in the region may also have something to do with it.
(The "British" colonization method includes having people who understand the country stationed there. The US has historically been very bad at this.)

I think there was a revolt or two in India a long time ago because the Britsh stationed there had no interest or respect for the Indian culture. So much for understanding.

I think the US should've used the Mongol method of leaving mountains of skulls.
Sensible. After all, it worked when they tried it on a limited scale in Vietnam, didn't it?

Again the word "threat" was used. If you hear it said enough times, you might believe that it is true?
One of the major techniques of persuasive language (just did it in school :P ) is repetition. You wanna convince people someone is evil, say they're evil enough and they'll start to believe it. And you're the first person I've heard ever point out that Saddam had no long-range missiles. Why has NO-ONE picked up on this? There a some clever people in the media, and they haven't noticed this (at least not that I've heard, feel free to correct me). It's the easiest way for him to be a threat.
And Salishe, chemical clouds could extend for miles and wipe out formations, but it takes a hell of a it of it to do. One kilogram of VX (molecular weight 267 approx) would occupy less than a hundred litres of space, which isn't all that much. And although Iraq was reported to have had 500 tonnes of the stuff (or some nerve agent, sarin and tabun would occupy less than one hundred and fifty litres per kilo) it would have trouble getting that much on target at the one time. Air is out. Crop-spraying style dispensation (which would probably be most effective, IMO) is out. That leaves artillery. Which is difficult, because of counter-battery fire and the US air superiority, which means that they couldn't have dropped too much on the Americans without being annihilated.

Again the word "threat" was used. If you hear it said enough times, you might believe that it is true?

One of the major techniques of persuasive language (just did it in school :P ) is repetition. You wanna convince people someone is evil, say they're evil enough and they'll start to believe it.
That is exactly where I was going with that. When Americans turned on their TV's to hear Bush's speech, they heard the word threat 3 times, they heard Iraq 3 times, Iraqi once, Saddam Hussein twice, and then he tried to link all of that to two reasons for the attack:

1. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder".

What WMD? The inspectors were not finding ANY.

2. "We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Here Bush is making an appeal to the emotional memories of 9-11, and trying to link it to Iraq, and Al-Queda. However no link existed between Hussein and Bin Laden.

And you're the first person I've heard ever point out that Saddam had no long-range missiles. Why has NO-ONE picked up on this? There a some clever people in the media, and they haven't noticed this (at least not that I've heard, feel free to correct me). It's the easiest way for him to be a threat.
What long range missles?---NONE. A few missles that could travel 120 miles. Certainly no threat to the US.

Part of that has to do with the geography. The US got what appears to be "the hard bits". The British history in the region may also have something to do with it.
(The "British" colonization method includes having people who understand the country stationed there. The US has historically been very bad at this.)

I think there was a revolt or two in India a long time ago because the Britsh stationed there had no interest or respect for the Indian culture. So much for understanding.

I never said the Brits got this right all the time. Just that they were better at it than the US has been.

I think the US should've used the Mongol method of leaving mountains of skulls.

Sorry, but the mongol method really hasn*t been applied in the last few centuries. To suggest it was tried by the US in Vietnam is laughable. Not even the Germans or Soviets really even tried it.

When I say mountains of skulls, that is exactly what I mean. For the US to apply it in this case would mean killing every last inhabitant (man, woman, and child) in the Sunni Triangle, and then making sure the rest of the world knew about it.
The cleanest means of doing so would be to start using tactical nukes liberally.
(Please note: this is an analysis based on my own reading of history, and a reading and interpretation of the analysis of others. I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT advocate the use of nukes. That this may well be the only means of settling the war permenantly, does not mean it is either a desirable or acceptable thing to do. Even having given this caveat, I am sure some silly person will come along and try to put words in my mouth to the effect that "Daistallia, that evil, horrrible, warmongering USAian wants to nuke Fallujah! " :roll: )

From a purely historical-ends-justify-the-means perspective though...the Mongol way worked pretty darn well. But don't forget they used the carrot as well as the stick now. They simply put an ultimatum, "Surrender, or be destroyed" and boy did they mean it. Still, once things settled down a little, they proved to be capable administrators.

Well I've read through the posts and Im glad to see not everyone takes an extreme view on this topic. There's enough of that negativity going on in the media to choke any amount of good natured debate anywhere.
Regarding what has been said about Iraq and Hussein being a threat to the US or its allies, it seems as that too much emphasis is being put on long range missles or WMD's. That the former Iraqi government may have had WMD's or some long range method of striking either the US or another country is only a piece of the puzzle. Small strategic groups of individuals working with a large amount of capital can inflict just as much terror at a distance as the longest ranged missles the US itself might have in its arsenal. Bin Laden and the Al Queda group proved this on 9/11.
If a group such as Al Queda has a base of operations in a country that protects them by whatever means, it allows them the luxury of planning attacks and recruiting new members in a public setting. Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders. There was a similar arrangement with the former Afghani rulership as well. From these positions, groups like Al Queda have been able to lob insults and attacks, spread lies and incite revolt. The removal of these appeasing governments is a necessary and noble effort to do what no one else has been able to do for the past 30 years. Without the outright funding and public support of governments, these groups are forced to go on the defensive. The method currently being used to thwart terrorist groups is costly and bloody, but at the moment there is no other way to deal with these groups. This is why we must not fail in Iraq. I say we as in the royal we, not just speaking as an American citizen. To allow them to continue to operate and exist only invites bigger and more catastrophic events to occur.

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
There was a study by the Hudson Institute that detailed how Saddam Hussein
provided money, support and shelter to a cadre of international terrorists.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first WTC bombing, was given
sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist
mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived as a guest of
Saddam in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the
architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of the
wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. special
forces while he was living in a presidental palace. The list goes on but
you get the point. There are several articles by many news agencies on the
capture of Abbas, actually. Abbas was the leader of a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of the PLO. Many of these
groups fled to Iraq after the bombing of Libya back in the Reagen Era.

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
There was a study by the Hudson Institute that detailed how Saddam Hussein
provided money, support and shelter to a cadre of international terrorists.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first WTC bombing, was given
sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist
mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived as a guest of
Saddam in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the
architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of the
wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. special
forces while he was living in a presidental palace. The list goes on but
you get the point. There are several articles by many news agencies on the
capture of Abbas, actually. Abbas was the leader of a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of the PLO. Many of these
groups fled to Iraq after the bombing of Libya back in the Reagen Era.
Yeah and the US trained Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. This is ok?

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
There was a study by the Hudson Institute that detailed how Saddam Hussein
provided money, support and shelter to a cadre of international terrorists.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first WTC bombing, was given
sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist
mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived as a guest of
Saddam in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the
architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of the
wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. special
forces while he was living in a presidental palace. The list goes on but
you get the point. There are several articles by many news agencies on the
capture of Abbas, actually. Abbas was the leader of a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of the PLO. Many of these
groups fled to Iraq after the bombing of Libya back in the Reagen Era.
Yeah and the US trained Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. This is ok?

You asked a question and he answered. What does the past support for Bin Laden's Mujahedeen against the Soviets have anything to do with Saddam's tacid support for several known terrorists? :roll:

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
There was a study by the Hudson Institute that detailed how Saddam Hussein
provided money, support and shelter to a cadre of international terrorists.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first WTC bombing, was given
sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist
mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived as a guest of
Saddam in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the
architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of the
wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. special
forces while he was living in a presidental palace. The list goes on but
you get the point. There are several articles by many news agencies on the
capture of Abbas, actually. Abbas was the leader of a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of the PLO. Many of these
groups fled to Iraq after the bombing of Libya back in the Reagen Era.
Yeah and the US trained Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. This is ok?

You asked a question and he answered. What does the past support for Bin Laden's Mujahedeen against the Soviets have anything to do with Saddam's tacid support for several known terrorists? :roll:
1. The terrorist groups that were mentioned were working with Saddam? If so, why didn't the Bush administration tab them for it?
2. There was no known links between Al-Queda and Iraq, yet there is a link between the US and Al-Queda, which has come back to haunt the US.
3. The US and other western countries, supported Iraq in the war against Iran, giving them money, WMD, and technology. The US invested in terrorism, so now they accuse Iraq of the same thing?
4. If this Hudson report was credible or factual in anyway, do you not think that the Bush government would have used that argument for defending America and its' war against Iraq?
5. Saudi Arabia, remember them? They supplied money to Bin Laden, and 15 of the terrorists that crashed planes into the WTC, and Pentagon were Saudis. So what is the preoccupation deal with Iraq?
6. Iraq had no air force, no WMD, no missles that could go further than 120 miles, and its army had been decimated. How is this a threat to the US?

Meanwhile, the preoccupation with Iraq, takes away from the fact that Bin Laden is still at large, and US control in Afghanistan is weaker.

It is all smoke and mirrors. I am sure that the US public would have been better served by putting the $100 Billion that has been invested in Iraq, into their own needs at home?

Whether or not Saddam was in league with the Al Queda group is not clear, but he certainly believed in harboring international terrorists as well as allowing their training camps to exist within Iraq's borders.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
There was a study by the Hudson Institute that detailed how Saddam Hussein
provided money, support and shelter to a cadre of international terrorists.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first WTC bombing, was given
sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist
mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived as a guest of
Saddam in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the
architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of the
wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. special
forces while he was living in a presidental palace. The list goes on but
you get the point. There are several articles by many news agencies on the
capture of Abbas, actually. Abbas was the leader of a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of the PLO. Many of these
groups fled to Iraq after the bombing of Libya back in the Reagen Era.
Yeah and the US trained Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. This is ok?

You asked a question and he answered. What does the past support for Bin Laden's Mujahedeen against the Soviets have anything to do with Saddam's tacid support for several known terrorists? :roll:
1. The terrorist groups that were mentioned were working with Saddam? If so, why didn't the Bush administration tab them for it?
2. There was no known links between Al-Queda and Iraq, yet there is a link between the US and Al-Queda, which has come back to haunt the US.
3. The US and other western countries, supported Iraq in the war against Iran, giving them money, WMD, and technology. The US invested in terrorism, so now they accuse Iraq of the same thing?
4. If this Hudson report was credible or factual in anyway, do you not think that the Bush government would have used that argument for defending America and its' war against Iraq?
5. Saudi Arabia, remember them? They supplied money to Bin Laden, and 15 of the terrorists that crashed planes into the WTC, and Pentagon were Saudis. So what is the preoccupation deal with Iraq?
6. Iraq had no air force, no WMD, no missles that could go further than 120 miles, and its army had been decimated. How is this a threat to the US?

Meanwhile, the preoccupation with Iraq, takes away from the fact that Bin Laden is still at large, and US control in Afghanistan is weaker.

It is all smoke and mirrors. I am sure that the US public would have been better served by putting the $100 Billion that has been invested in Iraq, into their own needs at home?

well,

1. They were being harbored by Saddam, hidden if you will in the safety of Iraq's borders. They have been there well before this Bush was in office and have been pursued now that the U.S. has a controlling force within the region. Remember the most wanted deck of cards? A good deal of those are known terrorists that have been known to live in Iraq, so yes this administration has taken them into consideration.

2. As for no known link between Iraq and Al Queda, thats not entirely true. The Czech and German governments reported that in 2000 Mohammed Atta was in Prague visiting with an Iraqi consul member, Al-Ani. He did this twice, meeting with Al-Ani in the airport because his visa hadnt been approved in Prague yet. After the second time, he flew to New York, with tens of thousands of dollars transferred to his known accounts from an unknown source, then finally $100,000 transferred to his account on his third visit in April 2001. There is a joint investigation between the Czech, German and U.S. intelligence organizations to look into this deeper. Does this mean its a positive link between the U.S. and Al Queda? No, it hasn't been proven. But what it does say is that it is a highly likely possibility. Whether or not they were involved with Iraq is a moot point anyway. They are involved now. It's plain to see that Al Queda would benefit greatly if the U.S. failed at it's mission to secure a peaceful democratic government in Iraq. If they weren't involved or interested, why would they bomb a train in Spain, except to try to bust up the Coalition of forces? As for the U.S. being involved with the Al Queda in the past, its true as well. Does that mean that we stop doing what we are doing? No. It would be better to correct the mistakes of the past than to simply do nothing.
3. This statement baffles me. Supported Iraq in the war against terrorism? Maybe you forget the Ayatollah Khomeini? Khomeini overthrew the first constitutional Iranian government twice, once in 1921 and again in 1979, sending into exile Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran and setting up a militant Islamic state. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, it was to overthrow the dictator and to put the Shah back in power. This was complicated by the Russians supplying aid to the Iranians, so the United States stepped in and provided Vietnam-era equipment and supplies. Weapons of mass destruction, or WMD's, were not supplied directly to Iraq from the U.S. but were sold by means of dealers in France and Spain, ironically enough. These were in the form of mustard gas and nerve gas that were used by Saddam to break the stalemate in the region. When Khomeini found out that the U.S. had given sanctuary to the former leader of Iran, they took the hostages in 1979. Thanks to Jimmy Carter's lack of resolve, these hostages were not released until the inauguration day of Reagan, just to spite Carter. Let us not forget that it was a UN sponsered truce that forced the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with stability backed by U.S. dollars.
4. The Hudson Report is made up of news reports, testimony from the terrorists themselves, and many many other sources. The current administration consistently points to such information to show that the Iraqi dictator was a supporter of international terrorism. The big debate recently was over wether or not Al Queda was involved, which I explained in #2 already. There is no question that Saddam harbored terrorists.
5. Saudi Arabia is one of those wild cards. The current government is not well liked by its people, and yet they are one of our few friends in the region, so we keep a military force there to keep the peace. I believe that they will eventually be called to task for their involvement with the terrorists as well, but for now Iraq is a much more credible threat, which brings me to #6.
6. I think I answered this rather well in my first statement about a country's government not having to have long range missles, or even a real military to be dangerous. Simply by harboring dangerous individuals in a safe environment, providing them access to the local population for volunteers, and a limitless cashflow the former government of Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the U.S. if not on a global scale like a Korea or Russia, then certainly on a strategic scale like the 9/11 attack.

The irony is that you forget/neglect to mention that the British are in Iraq.

That's because the US are the only country in the world, la di blah, great democracy, la la la, biggest army, la la la...

I'm proud that us Brits are in Iraq (well...) and I have a couple of mates who will soon be going there, but it really fcuking annoys me that America constantly forgets about us, and the fact that nearly a 100 British soldiers have lost their lives out there. And lets not forget the other nations serving out there (not that the Americans would know.)

Some things never change.

You want to share credit? Share blame! Brits are there when talk is of freeing Iraq and rebuilding Iraq. But turn the conversation to pre-war intelligence or terrorism or WMD or oil and where did you go! You never mention Brits or anyone, besides Amereicans, in a negative way regarding Iraq. So why wold you insist that Brits be mentioned at all. Yes, Brits are there... when it suits them!