NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn dirty double posting! :upyours:

What you are saying is that we should blame the water for killing an entire town and not the people who destroyed the dam that kept the water back.

They are targetting civilians, yes because it makes us look really bad. Really really bad. It shows we can't save the civilians and a civilian will think that if we leave thye will be safe, so anti-US sentiment grows and the militias acting against us get more support and are harder to destroy. In fact if we kill one they are proud and shout 'Allah Akbar!' because another brother has gone to heaven. You can't beat guys like this. They are fully ready to die and will never ever surrender. Kill one, three take his place.




Reminds me of the Hydra in myths. Cut off a headand two or three take its place in a minute. Only way to beat it is using brain and not brute strength.

But sadly we think Brawn can beat anything...sigh America where has your head gone...

Isn't it a lousy way to see where a side is getting its support by looking at its weapons?

I could have sworn large amounts of arms could switch hands many times over before they were actually used.

I think the Mujahedeen, while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, were using russian weapons. Obviously the russians wouldn't sell their weapons to the enemy, so...

There is also a story I remember that the US were making knockoffs of russian arms and giving them to the Mujahedeen.

Isn't it a lousy way to see where a side is getting its support by looking at its weapons?

I could have sworn large amounts of arms could switch hands many times over before they were actually used.

I think the Mujahedeen, while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, were using russian weapons. Obviously the russians wouldn't sell their weapons to the enemy, so...

There is also a story I remember that the US were making knockoffs of russian arms and giving them to the Mujahedeen.

Actually, it is a very good method to determine where they are getting support. But putting that aside, I never inferred anything except, what I saw with my own eyes, that being mostly Soviet equiptment. I , unlike you, I would venture from the general way you post, do know the difference between Soviet copies and Soviet. That said, it is also rather well known fact that the Soviet Union did arm Iraq in the 80s. So much so that before the first PG War, it was the Soviets trying to step in and solve things, trying to convince their "client state"{the term was used in every news post regarding this} to back down rather than lose everything in a war against the coalition.
Many historians still look at Desert Storm as the climax of all the NATO/WP hype of the 70s and 80s, where troops using US/NATO tactics and arms, faced off against a huge army using Soviet era tactics and arms..lastly, the tactics the Iraqis use/used(both wars) WERE Soviet tactics...the same tactics many American officers(myself included) trained AGAINST..so we do know how to recognize that fact as well. All that said however, I never blamed any nation in any of these posts, Sovs, French(who sold Mirage a/c)
Germans, etc...business is business, and besides, these sales were long before the UN embargoes.
Last point, we never sold knock-offs of Soviet arms to the mujahedeen, this was a then Soviet story spread..the mujahedeen were quite good at stealing their own Soviet weapons. We sold them Stingers, etc.(western arms)

Yes, but the terrorists are there because we distabilized the whole country and caused them into existence.

What you are saying is that we should blame the water for killing an entire town and not the people who destroyed the dam that kept the water back.

Wrong, terrorists are there, because they already were there. Inside the first month of operations US forces took down 3 terrorist training sites..bases that had already been in existence LONG before the invasion.

Wrong, terrorists are there, because they already were there. Inside the first month of operations US forces took down 3 terrorist training sites..bases that had already been in existence LONG before the invasion.
Do you have support ot is just Fox news? Not that I deny that Saddam was a bad man but I don't agree that he had a terror group.

Btw copy/paste this in Real Player to watch John Kerry speak about Iraq:

video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04092004_kerry.rm

(something else besides the usual White House propaganda)

Do you have support ot is just Fox news? Not that I deny that Saddam was a bad man but I don't agree that he had a terror group.

Mine is actually not Fox News, it is from personal experience after a year+ in-country. And yes. he had terrorists, including the Achille Lauro?sp? hijacker who had been living in Baghdad and was arrested by US troops after that city's fall.

Btw copy/paste this in Real Player to watch John Kerry speak about Iraq:

video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04092004_kerry.rm

(something else besides the usual White House propaganda)
Senator Kerry's remarks show a scary lack of in-depth understanding of the situation as it really exists in Iraq today. To add to this, it is actually ASSISTING the terrorists cause to infer that Iraq's current,TEMPORARY govt. is in any way not legitimate. This govt. was chosen BY IRAQI LEADERS..this is NOT democracy, but that will come in January, in the meantime, IRAQIS, have actually chosen a leader that ALL SIDES agreed on at the time of his selection.

Wrong, terrorists are there, because they already were there. Inside the first month of operations US forces took down 3 terrorist training sites..bases that had already been in existence LONG before the invasion.

My main point in saying that was that the terrorists were not killing mass amounts of civilians until we got there.

My main point in saying that was that the terrorists were not killing mass amounts of civilians until we got there.

That is true, but, of course, they still had Saddam to kill civilians then.

Actually, it is a very good method to determine where they are getting support. But putting that aside, I never inferred anything except, what I saw with my own eyes, that being mostly Soviet equiptment. I , unlike you, I would venture from the general way you post, do know the difference between Soviet copies and Soviet. That said, it is also rather well known fact that the Soviet Union did arm Iraq in the 80s. So much so that before the first PG War, it was the Soviets trying to step in and solve things, trying to convince their "client state"{the term was used in every news post regarding this} to back down rather than lose everything in a war against the coalition.
Many historians still look at Desert Storm as the climax of all the NATO/WP hype of the 70s and 80s, where troops using US/NATO tactics and arms, faced off against a huge army using Soviet era tactics and arms..lastly, the tactics the Iraqis use/used(both wars) WERE Soviet tactics...the same tactics many American officers(myself included) trained AGAINST..so we do know how to recognize that fact as well. All that said however, I never blamed any nation in any of these posts, Sovs, French(who sold Mirage a/c)
Germans, etc...business is business, and besides, these sales were long before the UN embargoes.
Last point, we never sold knock-offs of Soviet arms to the mujahedeen, this was a then Soviet story spread..the mujahedeen were quite good at stealing their own Soviet weapons. We sold them Stingers, etc.(western arms)

I agree. Business is business and arms dealing is a shitty game. Profitable though ;) and it was before the sanctions so all should be legal. As far as conventional weapons go anyway. There should have been bans on WMD sales, right? Perhaps that's why the US (possibly others) only sold him the technology to make WMDs and not the WMDs themselves. Is that right?

(You seem quite knowlegable in the subject so I'm picking your brain from now on. Educate me please :) )

Arms dealers telling Saddam to relax before Gulf I isn't a surprise either. They'd lose their golden calf. Arms dealers for peace. How ironic.

Saddam was a fan of Stalin so maybe he was merely emulating russian tactics because he was a fan. Proximity to russia probably played a factor too. There are likely more reasons why he chose russian tactics. In the end he had to chose one or the other. Did he fear russian invasion was more possible than american invasion so he took the one that would allow him to best understand his enemy? Choosing russian tactics would be dangerous for the reason you pointed out, that americans have been specifically trained to counter them so I don't think he was afraid of americans. That's just my reasoning. Your opinion?

Ah, so they stole the weapons. Now that makes sense and the story let the soviets save some face I guess.

That is true, but, of course, they still had Saddam to kill civilians then.

New boss same as the old boss.

Mine is actually not Fox News, it is from personal experience after a year+ in-country. And yes. he had terrorists, including the Achille Lauro?sp? hijacker who had been living in Baghdad and was arrested by US troops after that city's fall.

'Saddam supporting Terrorists' is a touchy subject. Terrorists have been known to swarm in his country and I wouldn't dispute training facilities there could have trained terrorists.

Islamist terrorists swarm in many countries, muslim and non-muslim. It is not like they have 'I am a terrorist' tattooed on their foreheads. Presence of terrorists does not a terrorist state make.

Terrorists have been trained in many countries. Even in the US where a few privately-owned training camps that could have trained (or 'did train', I don't know) terrorists or had stockpiles of potentially dangerous rockets have been raided and shut down. And then there's the fact the 9/11 highjackers were taught to fly in the USA. Evidence of training facilities that a terrorist could use does not a terrorist state make.

The 9/11 report apparently saw no direct link between bin Laden and Saddam. So I'll have to believe that.

Besides, after being such a bastard, what politician wouldn't want to make himself look good with a photo op or two. Which in the middle east would mean kissing up to revered terrorist leaders and others who 'fight against american imperialism'. It would fix his image problem :)

'Saddam supporting Terrorists' is a touchy subject. Terrorists have been known to swarm in his country and I wouldn't dispute training facilities there could have trained terrorists.

Islamist terrorists swarm in many countries, muslim and non-muslim. It is not like they have 'I am a terrorist' tattooed on their foreheads. Presence of terrorists does not a terrorist state make.

Terrorists have been trained in many countries. Even in the US where a few privately-owned training camps that could have trained (or 'did train', I don't know) terrorists or had stockpiles of potentially dangerous rockets have been raided and shut down. And then there's the fact the 9/11 highjackers were taught to fly in the USA. Evidence of training facilities that a terrorist could use does not a terrorist state make.

The 9/11 report apparently saw no direct link between bin Laden and Saddam. So I'll have to believe that.

Besides, after being such a bastard, what politician wouldn't want to make himself look good with a photo op or two. Which in the middle east would mean kissing up to revered terrorist leaders and others who 'fight against american imperialism'. It would fix his image problem :)

Well, the reports are saying that Saddam did have ties to hamas and other terrorist groups that were targetting Israel. Any link to other terrorists were disprooved. It seems that Saddam, like many muslim state in the middle east, did not like Israel.

Jumping from that to "credible threat to the US mainland" is not something I am willing to do, neither is most intelligence agency around the world.

I agree. Business is business and arms dealing is a shitty game. Profitable though ;) and it was before the sanctions so all should be legal. As far as conventional weapons go anyway. There should have been bans on WMD sales, right? Perhaps that's why the US (possibly others) only sold him the technology to make WMDs and not the WMDs themselves. Is that right?

(You seem quite knowlegable in the subject so I'm picking your brain from now on. Educate me please :) )

Arms dealers telling Saddam to relax before Gulf I isn't a surprise either. They'd lose their golden calf. Arms dealers for peace. How ironic.

Saddam was a fan of Stalin so maybe he was merely emulating russian tactics because he was a fan. Proximity to russia probably played a factor too. There are likely more reasons why he chose russian tactics. In the end he had to chose one or the other. Did he fear russian invasion was more possible than american invasion so he took the one that would allow him to best understand his enemy? Choosing russian tactics would be dangerous for the reason you pointed out, that americans have been specifically trained to counter them so I don't think he was afraid of americans. That's just my reasoning. Your opinion?

Ah, so they stole the weapons. Now that makes sense and the story let the soviets save some face I guess.

Actually, I believe the French originally sold Saddam the nuclear capability. The nuclear plant the Israeli Air Force bombed in the 80s was with French technology and govt assistance.(Again, no blame intended, it was intended as a power plant afaik) As for fearing Russian invasion, I doubt, most of the Islamic middle East used Soviet arms/equipt...reason *probably* was more to do with cheaper pricetags..a Mirage or F-15 or Tornado is MUCH more expensive than the coinciding MiG a/c.
Pretty sure he was not afraid of anyone, he had at the beginning of desert storm, the world's 5th largest army, veterans of a long war against Iran.

New boss same as the old boss.

:)

'Saddam supporting Terrorists' is a touchy subject. Terrorists have been known to swarm in his country and I wouldn't dispute training facilities there could have trained terrorists.

Islamist terrorists swarm in many countries, muslim and non-muslim. It is not like they have 'I am a terrorist' tattooed on their foreheads. Presence of terrorists does not a terrorist state make.

Terrorists have been trained in many countries. Even in the US where a few privately-owned training camps that could have trained (or 'did train', I don't know) terrorists or had stockpiles of potentially dangerous rockets have been raided and shut down. And then there's the fact the 9/11 highjackers were taught to fly in the USA. Evidence of training facilities that a terrorist could use does not a terrorist state make.

The 9/11 report apparently saw no direct link between bin Laden and Saddam. So I'll have to believe that.

Besides, after being such a bastard, what politician wouldn't want to make himself look good with a photo op or two. Which in the middle east would mean kissing up to revered terrorist leaders and others who 'fight against american imperialism'. It would fix his image problem :)

This is for the most part true. When we went to Iraq however, we were told long before the actual invasion that it was likely that terrorists were in certain areas. I do, myself, think there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. I do, also however, believe there is more to the war on terror than 9/11. To eliminate terror as a weapon of choice, there are many groups in the world the US(and hopefully the world) MUST eradicate.

Well, the reports are saying that Saddam did have ties to hamas and other terrorist groups that were targetting Israel. Any link to other terrorists were disprooved. It seems that Saddam, like many muslim state in the middle east, did not like Israel.

Jumping from that to "credible threat to the US mainland" is not something I am willing to do, neither is most intelligence agency around the world.

I agree. However, the war on terror, is as I said above, more than just the counterattack after 9-11..it must root ALL groups that use terror, out. As was just seen in Russia, these groups must be able to see that the world will respond harshly, against them, and any nation that harbors or assists them.

I agree. However, the war on terror, is as I said above, more than just the counterattack after 9-11..it must root ALL groups that use terror, out. As was just seen in Russia, these groups must be able to see that the world will respond harshly, against them, and any nation that harbors or assists them.

However that's not the justifications that were used to invade Iraq. If president Bush said that Saddam harbored terrorist and prooved it, I'd be more inclined to help him. That's not what he did.

This is for the most part true. When we went to Iraq however, we were told long before the actual invasion that it was likely that terrorists were in certain areas. I do, myself, think there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. I do, also however, believe there is more to the war on terror than 9/11. To eliminate terror as a weapon of choice, there are many groups in the world the US(and hopefully the world) MUST eradicate.

I agree. But then we get in the whole pissing match about how much the war in Iraq has helped us stop terrorism when it looks like all we've done is increase anti-american (and anti-west) sentiment.

We should have increased diplomatic ties with mideast countries, been much more critical of Israel, encouraged those friendly countries to spend more oil money on proper education and not the fundamentalist variety that has sprung up, and of course spent more of that military muscle in Afghanistan (as if that'll help us now :p )

Personally, I don't know how we could have gotten Saddam without this happening.

Actually, I believe the French originally sold Saddam the nuclear capability. The nuclear plant the Israeli Air Force bombed in the 80s was with French technology and govt assistance.(Again, no blame intended, it was intended as a power plant afaik) As for fearing Russian invasion, I doubt, most of the Islamic middle East used Soviet arms/equipt...reason *probably* was more to do with cheaper pricetags..a Mirage or F-15 or Tornado is MUCH more expensive than the coinciding MiG a/c.
Pretty sure he was not afraid of anyone, he had at the beginning of desert storm, the world's 5th largest army, veterans of a long war against Iran.

I'm not surprised no one knew how exactly Saddam was going to use the stuff they sold him. Then again, no one back then could have seen where we are now with Iraq either. If only politicians were psychic the world would be a better place.

So the decision came down to 'who offered the more bang for the buck'. Sounds about right.

However that's not the justifications that were used to invade Iraq. If president Bush said that Saddam harbored terrorist and prooved it, I'd be more inclined to help him. That's not what he did.

True, true. We needed the Bush admin to do better homework and it looks like no one tried to before going to war and now we have this present problem.

The question of the century is: 'What do we do now?'

I'm not surprised no one knew how exactly Saddam was going to use the stuff they sold him. Then again, no one back then could have seen where we are now with Iraq either. If only politicians were psychic the world would be a better place.

So the decision came down to 'who offered the more bang for the buck'. Sounds about right.

:) If politicians were psychic, I would be out of work..but hey, I wouldn't mind being a rancher come to think of it :)

As a less-than-useful side note I'd like to say we should have ended the sanctions against Iraq while Saddam was still in power, let him build up his army and so on again, wait until he tries some shit and then kick his ass and remove him for good.

We would get overwhelming support (middle east and otherwise) to go to war if he did. Plenty of justification. I say it would have been scary to let Saddam gain power again but it would have made the war more acceptable with less problems afterwards. That's just a guess though.

My 2cents

True, true. We needed the Bush admin to do better homework and it looks like no one tried to before going to war and now we have this present problem.

The question of the century is: 'What do we do now?'

I still firmly believe that no matter what happens in the coming weeks, we must proceed with the elections in January. I expect there will be a great deal of harrassment and temptation not to do this, by forces which stand to lose in a free country, as well as by forces which only stand to gain by appearance of the US as occupyers(which we will look more like in my opinion if we delay the elections further) There are so many competing intrests in Iraq, from outside the country, where everyone in the "neighborhood" has a serious stake in the *game*..from totalitarian neighbors who dread the possibility of their own citizens discovering a free Islamic state can exist, to I believe even political intrests in the USA who stand to gain by it appearing that we are in a quagmire...we must look at the big picture and avoid any temptations to back off..hold elections, let a free elected government take power(even if it is NOT the one we chose), probably some agreement on forces will allow us to stay to maintain the peace for a short time, which is good, but we must do everything possible to avoid it becoming an eternal drain on our forces.

As a less-than-useful side note I'd like to say we should have ended the sanctions against Iraq while Saddam was still in power, let him build up his army and so on again, wait until he tries some shit and then kick his ass and remove him for good.

We would get overwhelming support (middle east and otherwise) to go to war if he did. Plenty of justification. I say it would have been scary to let Saddam gain power again but it would have made the war more acceptable with less problems afterwards. That's just a guess though.

My 2cents

I am sure the leaders(if not the actual citizens) are quietly happy about Saddam being gone. He was a more of a threat to them than anybody else.

As a less-than-useful side note I'd like to say we should have ended the sanctions against Iraq while Saddam was still in power, let him build up his army and so on again, wait until he tries some shit and then kick his ass and remove him for good.

We would get overwhelming support (middle east and otherwise) to go to war if he did. Plenty of justification. I say it would have been scary to let Saddam gain power again but it would have made the war more acceptable with less problems afterwards. That's just a guess though.

My 2cents

I agree mostly. It appears probably that there were certain nations that regardless would have not supported actions, partially because supporting one"regime change" probably makes some nations worry about the next one ;)
In the middle east our main support was Israel(victim of years of terror attacks, funded by Hussein since the 90s) and Kuwait(who also saw first hand his methods of terror) Saudi Arabia has changed a great deal since Gulf War 1, and can't support the US even if they wanted to without risking rebellion. France, Germany, and Russia..the 3 UN nations threatening no votes and or vetoes to a final resolution, had what appears to be business reasons for so doing. No judgement is passed by me, but it seems unlikely they would have supported it in any case, as Germany even attempted to withhold defensive weapons from Turkey in the event Iraq struck at Turkey.
I think it would have gone this direction anyway, regardless of the patience of our administration..that said however, I think it would have helped if they made the APPEARANCE of trying though ;)

I agree mostly. It appears probably that there were certain nations that regardless would have not supported actions, partially because supporting one"regime change" probably makes some nations worry about the next one ;)
In the middle east our main support was Israel(victim of years of terror attacks, funded by Hussein since the 90s) and Kuwait(who also saw first hand his methods of terror) Saudi Arabia has changed a great deal since Gulf War 1, and can't support the US even if they wanted to without risking rebellion. France, Germany, and Russia..the 3 UN nations threatening no votes and or vetoes to a final resolution, had what appears to be business reasons for so doing. No judgement is passed by me, but it seems unlikely they would have supported it in any case, as Germany even attempted to withhold defensive weapons from Turkey in the event Iraq struck at Turkey.
I think it would have gone this direction anyway, regardless of the patience of our administration..that said however, I think it would have helped if they made the APPEARANCE of trying though ;)
Germany might have supported the US if Bush had gotten the UN permission for the war. He did not, thus no support. Easy. The people here (like me) don't care at all who had what deals with Saddam.

What was the point of the first post...to place further guilt into those who feel guilty enough to BE a citizen of a nation whose leader told the U.N. to **** itself and invaded a nation?

What was the point of the first post...to place further guilt into those who feel guilty enough to BE a citizen of a nation whose leader told the U.N. to **** itself and invaded a nation?

I feel no guilt about the US telling the UN to go to hell. They have repeatedly proven themselves to be incapable of taking strong action when needed.

Germany might have supported the US if Bush had gotten the UN permission for the war. He did not, thus no support. Easy. The people here (like me) don't care at all who had what deals with Saddam.

Actually, Germany was one of the countries withholding UN support for the war, so the whole statement is a circle..essentially you are saying"if we gave you our permission, we would support you, but you cannot have our permission"
Again, I make no blame here. I am not condemning Germany, etc..I simply said(and hold to) my belief that Germany would not have supported it..Germany, France, and Russia were the 3 UN members withholding support. I am sure Russia has changed their mind about terrorism now, I hope it doesn't take the same to wake up the rest of the world.

What was the point of the first post...to place further guilt into those who feel guilty enough to BE a citizen of a nation whose leader told the U.N. to **** itself and invaded a nation?

UN resolutions 678,687. and 1441, as stated MANY times throughout this thread, authorized the action to remove Saddam. The US attempted, and failed, to get one MORE resolution, but that does not change the fact there already were 3 which explicitly gave authorization..not to mention that no nation requires permission to act in their own best interests. The UN does NOT, anywhere in its charter, allow itself to override a nations sovereign decision to go to war if said nation finds it in its national interest.
Also, as a soldier of your country, allow me to say that if you indeed feel guilty of your priviledge of citizenship, perhaps you should move.

Okay I do believe that America can over look a lot of things, but just like people are government is no where no perfect. I think that the article about what if America were Iraq post is a good eye opener and puts it into perspective. I am sure that Bush and his cabinet know that they have made mistakes but we did elect him as our president. But if don't like the way the country is ran then we can change that this year... and vote!

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


Takrai,I'd like to state that never, NEVER, did the security council authorise any kind of action to remove Saddam without his express consent. Even if he was in material breach of any of these resolution, he was never to be taken out unles the UN Sec. Council stated so. The US went without the UN approval on this, whether you like it or not.

Takrai,I'd like to state that never, NEVER, did the security council authorise any kind of action to remove Saddam without his express consent. Even if he was in material breach of any of these resolution, he was never to be taken out unles the UN Sec. Council stated so. The US went without the UN approval on this, whether you like it or not.

Actually as I am busy with something, just one quick glance..#678 section 2-ALL NECESSARY MEANS= includes the option of force.
Also, a ceasefire in effect , put into effect by the winners(coalition) rules of warfare, accepted by everyone, everywhere- if the one side does not live up to the ceasefire conditions, the ceasefire is nullified. For 12 years, Iraq did not live up to the ceasefire conditions(kicking out inspectors, firing on coalition a/c..to name just an easy 2) A nullified ceasefire reverts to the condition that existed before the ceasefire-war.
I will more in depth explain my position if you want later ;)
Also the next paragraph requires all states to provide support, which taken literally would put those who did NOT help, in violation, but I don't go that far myself.

For those interested in a relatively propaganda-free coverage of the Iraq war and the events before, which led to what we now remember as the "Defiance of the UN Charter", there is a good entry about the war in the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Actually as I am busy with something, just one quick glance..#678 section 2-ALL NECESSARY MEANS= includes the option of force.
Also, a ceasefire in effect , put into effect by the winners(coalition) rules of warfare, accepted by everyone, everywhere- if the one side does not live up to the ceasefire conditions, the ceasefire is nullified. For 12 years, Iraq did not live up to the ceasefire conditions(kicking out inspectors, firing on coalition a/c..to name just an easy 2) A nullified ceasefire reverts to the condition that existed before the ceasefire-war.
I will more in depth explain my position if you want later ;)
Also the next paragraph requires all states to provide support, which taken literally would put those who did NOT help, in violation, but I don't go that far myself.
There is a controversy about the question whether the US intervention broke international law. The Bush administration thinks that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "…all necessary means…", which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. To support this stance, one has to "reactivate" the war resolution from 1991; if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease-fire that ended that war. Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as not being valid under the 1991 resolution.

Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed.

Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and so violated the UN charter.

The United States and United Kingdom claim it was a legal action which they were within their rights to undertake. Along with Poland and Australia, the invasion was supported by the governments of several European nations, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, and Spain. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said U.S. military could not use Saudi Arabia's soil in any way to attack Iraq. [29] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59796,00.html) After ten years of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, cited among reasons by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden for his al-Qaeda attacks on America on September 11, 2001, most of U.S. forces were withdrawn in 2003. [30] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-28-ustroops-saudiarabia_x.htm) According to the New York Times, the invasion secretly received support from Saudi Arabia, which provided some airbases and tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas, and fuel. [31] (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-War-Saudis.html)

Many people regarded the attack on Iraq to be hypocritical, when other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is controversial [32] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2384905.stm), as Iraq's history of actually using chemical weapons (against Iran and the Kurdish population in Iraq) suggested at the time that Iraq was a far greater threat. Some claim, however, that this in turn is hypocritical, since the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

There is a controversy about the question whether the US intervention broke international law. The Bush administration thinks that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "…all necessary means…", which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. To support this stance, one has to "reactivate" the war resolution from 1991; if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease-fire that ended that war. Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as not being valid under the 1991 resolution.

Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed.

Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and so violated the UN charter.

The United States and United Kingdom claim it was a legal action which they were within their rights to undertake. Along with Poland and Australia, the invasion was supported by the governments of several European nations, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, and Spain. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said U.S. military could not use Saudi Arabia's soil in any way to attack Iraq. [29] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59796,00.html) After ten years of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, cited among reasons by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden for his al-Qaeda attacks on America on September 11, 2001, most of U.S. forces were withdrawn in 2003. [30] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-28-ustroops-saudiarabia_x.htm) According to the New York Times, the invasion secretly received support from Saudi Arabia, which provided some airbases and tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas, and fuel. [31] (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-War-Saudis.html)

Many people regarded the attack on Iraq to be hypocritical, when other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is controversial [32] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2384905.stm), as Iraq's history of actually using chemical weapons (against Iran and the Kurdish population in Iraq) suggested at the time that Iraq was a far greater threat. Some claim, however, that this in turn is hypocritical, since the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Good article Gigatron:)
This article sums up acurately my governments position, and also the position of those opposed. There can be good arguments made for BOTH cases.
As for ceasefires, yes, they CAN be broken, anytime ANY signee feels the other has violated it, for this reason, my nation still defends the aforementioned Korean border, as this war, for all intents and purposes, could reflame at any time, and never actually, legallyENDED.
Also note the mention of chemical weapons(WMD). There indeed was great reason to believe Iraq possessed same. All Iraq really HAD to do to prove otherwise, is allow inspectors to do their work, which they continually refused to do.
As a final note, France, PRC, Russian Republic's views that an additional resolution was needed, are not the US view..I see no reason why their views would be considered more than ours, while still noting that they had a right to whatever view they wished. And in the wording, it specifially authorized whatever means necessary as I mentioned, then also required all states to assist, so if you really start picking words to use, then you WOULD have to consider that as well.

Good article Gigatron:)
This article sums up acurately my governments position, and also the position of those opposed. There can be good arguments made for BOTH cases.
As for ceasefires, yes, they CAN be broken, anytime ANY signee feels the other has violated it, for this reason, my nation still defends the aforementioned Korean border, as this war, for all intents and purposes, could reflame at any time, and never actually, legallyENDED.
Also note the mention of chemical weapons(WMD). There indeed was great reason to believe Iraq possessed same. All Iraq really HAD to do to prove otherwise, is allow inspectors to do their work, which they continually refused to do.
As a final note, France, PRC, Russian Republic's views that an additional resolution was needed, are not the US view..I see no reason why their views would be considered more than ours, while still noting that they had a right to whatever view they wished. And in the wording, it specifially authorized whatever means necessary as I mentioned, then also required all states to assist, so if you really start picking words to use, then you WOULD have to consider that as well.
The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, when George W. Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. Under United Nations actions regarding Iraq, in place since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was banned from developing or possessing such weapons. Bush repeatedly backed demands for disarmament with threats of invasion. The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region, and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq.

Bush and Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16 2003, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed", and stated his intentions to use military force to force Iraq to disarm in compliance with UN 1441. On March 19, 2003 a coalition of primarily US and British forces invaded Iraq, see 2003 Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). After the war, a number of failed Iraqi peace initiatives were revealed, which included the abdication of Saddam Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_peace_initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis


After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, evidence began to emerge as to the failed attempts to bring the conflict to a peaceful resolution.

In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration, citing that the fact that they all had Saddam Hussein remain in power was unacceptable.

Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts.

In January 2003, Lebanese-American Imad al-Hage met with Michael Maloof of the DoD's Office of Special Plans. Hage, a resident of Beirut, had been recruited by the department to assist in the War on Terrorism. He reported that Mohammed Nassif, a close aide to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had expressed frustrations about the difficulties of Syria contacting the United States, and had attempted to use him as an intermediary. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet with Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board.

In February 2003, Hage met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence's foreign operations, Hassan al-Obeidi. Obeidi told Hage that Baghdad didn't understand why they were being targeted, and that they had no WMDs; he then made the offer for Washington to send in 2000 FBI agents to ascertain this. He additionally offered oil concessions, but stopped short of having Hussein give up power, instead suggesting that elections could be held in two years. Later, Obeidi suggested that Hage travel to Baghdad for talks; he accepted.

Later that month, Hage met with Gen. Habbush in addition to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to US firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, US inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yassin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking US officials. On February 19th, Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duman. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duman's bosses, were aware of the plan.

On February 21st, Maloof informed Duman in an email that Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duman responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold.". On March 7th, Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowleged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle's response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told the Times, "The message was 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."

Throughout March, Hage continued to pass messages from Iraqi officials to Maloof. At one point, Maloof wrote a memo stating "Hage quoted Obeidi as saying this is the last window or channel through which this message has gone to the United States. He characterized the tone of Dr. Obeidi as begging." Maloof contacted Perle, stating that Iraqi officials are "prepared to meet with you in Beiruit, and as soon as possible, concerning 'unconditional terms' ", and that "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance." No action is taken.

According to an Arab source of the Guardian's, Perle sent a Saudi official the following terms for Iraq to fulfill to prevent war: "Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "

Attempts were continued even after the war began, up to the fall of Baghdad.

Hage has since become embroiled (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3606110/) in a situation involving an earlier incident involving airport security that many have viewed as payback similar to the case of Valerie Plame

iraq is the most successful war ever. not

The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, when George W. Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. Under United Nations actions regarding Iraq, in place since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was banned from developing or possessing such weapons. Bush repeatedly backed demands for disarmament with threats of invasion. The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region, and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq.

Bush and Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16 2003, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed", and stated his intentions to use military force to force Iraq to disarm in compliance with UN 1441. On March 19, 2003 a coalition of primarily US and British forces invaded Iraq, see 2003 Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). After the war, a number of failed Iraqi peace initiatives were revealed, which included the abdication of Saddam Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_peace_initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis


After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, evidence began to emerge as to the failed attempts to bring the conflict to a peaceful resolution.

In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration, citing that the fact that they all had Saddam Hussein remain in power was unacceptable.

Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts.

In January 2003, Lebanese-American Imad al-Hage met with Michael Maloof of the DoD's Office of Special Plans. Hage, a resident of Beirut, had been recruited by the department to assist in the War on Terrorism. He reported that Mohammed Nassif, a close aide to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had expressed frustrations about the difficulties of Syria contacting the United States, and had attempted to use him as an intermediary. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet with Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board.

In February 2003, Hage met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence's foreign operations, Hassan al-Obeidi. Obeidi told Hage that Baghdad didn't understand why they were being targeted, and that they had no WMDs; he then made the offer for Washington to send in 2000 FBI agents to ascertain this. He additionally offered oil concessions, but stopped short of having Hussein give up power, instead suggesting that elections could be held in two years. Later, Obeidi suggested that Hage travel to Baghdad for talks; he accepted.

Later that month, Hage met with Gen. Habbush in addition to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to US firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, US inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yassin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking US officials. On February 19th, Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duman. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duman's bosses, were aware of the plan.

On February 21st, Maloof informed Duman in an email that Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duman responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold.". On March 7th, Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowleged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle's response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told the Times, "The message was 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."

Throughout March, Hage continued to pass messages from Iraqi officials to Maloof. At one point, Maloof wrote a memo stating "Hage quoted Obeidi as saying this is the last window or channel through which this message has gone to the United States. He characterized the tone of Dr. Obeidi as begging." Maloof contacted Perle, stating that Iraqi officials are "prepared to meet with you in Beiruit, and as soon as possible, concerning 'unconditional terms' ", and that "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance." No action is taken.

According to an Arab source of the Guardian's, Perle sent a Saudi official the following terms for Iraq to fulfill to prevent war: "Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "

Attempts were continued even after the war began, up to the fall of Baghdad.

Hage has since become embroiled (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3606110/) in a situation involving an earlier incident involving airport security that many have viewed as payback similar to the case of Valerie Plame

Unlike the previous article, this article contains many inaccuracies.

iraq is the most successful war ever. not

Actually, contrary to your intended sarcasm, the "war" portion of the "Iraq War" has been the most successful war in history from a strictly military standpoint. The failures have been diplomatic/political, and even these, when looked at objectively in history, will prove out. Some people have forgotten war kills, it is not a video game. Casualties are still lower overall than any comparable military action in history. In the space of 2 years, the United States reached to the other side of the world, and brought to justice two tyrannical regimes.

Unlike the previous article, this article contains many inaccuracies.
Care to point them out?

Actually, contrary to your intended sarcasm, the "war" portion of the "Iraq War" has been the most successful war in history from a strictly military standpoint. The failures have been diplomatic/political, and even these, when looked at objectively in history, will prove out. Some people have forgotten war kills, it is not a video game. Casualties are still lower overall than any comparable military action in history. In the space of 2 years, the United States reached to the other side of the world, and brought to justice two tyrannical regimes.
In the space of 2 years, the US violated the rights of sovereign nations and achieved not much of their stated goals such as capturing OBL or decreasing terrorism. I'm also not overly convinced that Afghanistan is any better now than it was before the US invasion. Nor am I convinced that Iraq is better off or will be better off in the near future, the way it is now and might possibly be for many decades.

In the space of 2 years, the US violated the rights of sovereign nations and achieved not much of their stated goals such as capturing OBL or decreasing terrorism. I'm also not overly convinced that Afghanistan is any better now than it was before the US invasion. Nor am I convinced that Iraq is better off or will be better off in the near future, the way it is now and might possibly be for many decades.
In some ways, the two nations mentioned have far to go. In other ways however..we have "OBL" on the run, we have captured most of his top officers. Girls in Afghanistan now can attend school. The country is VASTLY more peaceful than it was before our arrival...in Iraq, there are still many who are trying to throw the elections off schedule to avoid the country being any better. I believe that in Jan(unless we ,wrongly,postpone natl elections) it will look very optimistic.

Care to point them out?

"In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration, citing that the fact that they all had Saddam Hussein remain in power was unacceptable.

Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts."

There were NO efforts, by the govt at least, to link Saddam with 9-11. All our military attention was on Afghanistan as far as that still.
Also,..French,German,Russian intelligence services initially VERIFIED that Saddam was in possesion of WMD and in violation of the previously mentioned UN resolutions. Only(of the nations mentioned) Syrian(for reasons of being Baathist themselves) initially took the Iraqi position to the US attempting(in 2003) to work out a deal. However, by that time, after 12 years of No Fly Zones, sanctions, an oil for food program which now we know to have been corrupt on both the UN and Iraqi sides, rushing troops to defend Kuwait 3 times during the 90s at Saddam's whim, as he continued to push the envelope, rightly or wrongly, the US was in no mood for anything short of Surrender. UN Security council found Iraq had NOT met their demands, backed by , still, at that time, the French, Germans,Russians,etc.
As far as someone's private conversations(Cannistrano) that is news to me, I have never heard of it, not saying it didn't happen, but I find it unlikely that a CIA officer, sworn to secrecy in the first place, would divulge the extent of his conversations, and if he did so, then I would not likely trust someone who already broke one vow.

In some ways, the two nations mentioned have far to go. In other ways however..we have "OBL" on the run, we have captured most of his top officers. Girls in Afghanistan now can attend school. The country is VASTLY more peaceful than it was before our arrival...in Iraq, there are still many who are trying to throw the elections off schedule to avoid the country being any better. I believe that in Jan(unless we ,wrongly,postpone natl elections) it will look very optimistic.
Most of his top officers eh.. and what did it help? Do you honestly think OBL is significant in the big picture as if he is unreplacable?
Here's a quote from the Wikipedia regarding Afghanistan:

The last period of stability in Afghanistan lay between 1933 and 1973, when the country was under the rule of King Zahir Shah. However, in 1973, Zahir's brother-in-law, Sardar Mohammed Daoud launched a bloodless coup. Daoud and his entire family was murdered in 1978 when the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan lauched a coup and took over the government.

Opposition against, and conflict within, the series of leftist governments that followed was immense, and with the government in danger of collapse, the Soviet Union intervened on December 24, 1979. Faced with mounting international pressure and losses of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of mujahideen opposition trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later in 1989. For more details, see Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions. This eventually gave rise to a state of warlordism that eventually spawned the Taliban. The most serious of this fighting occurred in 1994, when 10,000 people were killed from factions fighting in the Kabul area. Backed by Pakistan and her strategic allies, the Taliban developed as a political/religious force and eventually seized power in 1996. The Taliban were able to capture 90% of the country, aside from Northern Alliance strongholds primarily in the northeast. The Taliban sought to impose an extreme interpretation of Islam. The Pakistan-Taliban alliance gave safe haven and assistance to Islamic terrorists (especially Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda) and was the epicenter of Islamic terrorism.

The United States and allied military action in support of the opposition following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks forced the group's downfall. In late 2001, major leaders from the Afghan opposition groups and diaspora met in Bonn and agreed on a plan for the formulation of a new government structure that resulted in the inauguration of Hamid Karzai as Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) on December 2001. After a nationwide Loya Jirga in 2002, Karzai was elected President.

In addition to occasionally violent political jockeying and ongoing military action to root out remaining al-Qaida and Taliban elements, the country suffers from enormous poverty, rampant warlordism, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread land mines.

On March 3 and March 25, 2002, a series of earthquakes struck Afghanistan, with a loss of thousands of homes and over 1800 lives. Over 4000 more people were injured. The earthquakes occurred at Samangan Province (March 3) and Baghlan Province (March 25). The latter was the worse of the two, and incurred most of the casualties. International authorites assisted the Afghan government in dealing with the situation.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia regarding OBL and terrorism in Iraq (Zarqawi):

Some U.S. officials have claimed that he and Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before Sept. 11. These claims were used to support the claim that Iraq was a threat to the US and given as a justification of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The New York Times reported on October 21, 2002 that Atta did not meet with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague. This was later independently confirmed in the 9/11 Commission report.

In Colin Powell's famed speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was named as a principal reason for the need for war. Many parts of the speech have since been discredited, and Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian, but Powell stands by his statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi


And I am sorry, but it is exactly this flip-flopping of reasons, the seeking of reasons by the US to now justify the war on Iraq with all means neccessary, which is seen as downright misleading of the world. The libelous claims of Powell, Bush and other US officials prior to the Iraq war, which already misled much of the US and many of the countries who decided to support the US (not that many actually with about 90% of the soldiers being American) and which still are partly used to justify the war, do not help creating more trust in the US.

Instead of reducing terrorism, the whole world sees more of it. Instead of capturing OBL claims are made that "he is dead or cannot communicate with his followers anymore". Chances are, OBL is already in US custody and will be presented to the US public just about now if he is, to sway the elections. If he is not in US custody then it is as usual a lie to say that he may be dead or whatever when there is no supporting proof for it.

All this acting on suspicion and claims made on things as substantial as fog, are not what justice is based on. The needless civilian deaths because of US bombings of civilian houses because of "suspecting terrorists" is a detestable act of war crimes. As long as this goes on, the US will not get any trust back nor will they get support nor will the terrorists stop. This entire thing cannot be won with oppressive use of force. It only is made worse.

Care to point them out?

After careful consideration, with the exception of the ones I already noted regarding certain intelligence agencies...the rest of this really is far beyond my scope of knowledge. Therefore, with the above noted exception Gigatron, I apologize if it seemed I was doubting YOUR motives, I was not.
While I personally do not believe some of this, there are other parts, combined with items I DID know, which would seem to make sense. And regardless of whether I believe or not, you have maintained a decent conversation on a topic I do know is quite volatile, therefore, even where I may disagree with you, I would like to say to you, and anyone else who may read these posts and see an excuse to flame for one or the other side...
You have shown class. Thank you.
Ron

As a quick edit..I did not see your last post..You DO realize that Zarqawi IS al Q and IS operating in Iraq, correct?
Also..the US does not target homes..I have..at least dozens, and possibly hundred times seen KNOWN hostile targets escape targetting by slipping into civilian cover, at which point standing ROE forced a standdown.

Another quote:

He is alleged by some to be a senior associate of Osama bin Laden in Al Qaida and head of the Iraq-based Ansar al-Islam group. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell went so far as to describe Zarqawi as a "Qaeda operative." Others describe Zarqawi's operation as a rival to al Qaeda with similar goals, and senior U.S. military officials have described him as a "separate jihadist." In either case he has participated in violent action against the United States, which is offering a $25 million reward for his capture, the same as the amount offered for Osama bin Laden. An emerging view is that al-Zarqawi now holds significantly more power than bin Laden, possibly because bin Laden is dead or can otherwise no longer communicate with his followers.

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

So no, he may be Al Qaida or he may not be Al Qaida.

Another quote:

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

So no, he may be Al Qaida or he may not be Al Qaida.

Personally, neither I, nor ANY officer I have worked with believe Osama is dead. Our govt has also ,while keeping what they may REALLY think, under their sleeve so to speak, has publicly made it clear they doubt his death as w ell..as for communicating, he either found a new way(possible) or isn't(my guess).
As for the US already having him..I very much doubt it...it would be far too tempting for the capturing soldiers, secrecy or no, to tell SOMEBODY. This guy is the biggest fish out there, and nobody can turn down a good fishing story.

"In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration, citing that the fact that they all had Saddam Hussein remain in power was unacceptable.

Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts."

There were NO efforts, by the govt at least, to link Saddam with 9-11. All our military attention was on Afghanistan as far as that still.
Also,..French,German,Russian intelligence services initially VERIFIED that Saddam was in possesion of WMD and in violation of the previously mentioned UN resolutions. Only(of the nations mentioned) Syrian(for reasons of being Baathist themselves) initially took the Iraqi position to the US attempting(in 2003) to work out a deal. However, by that time, after 12 years of No Fly Zones, sanctions, an oil for food program which now we know to have been corrupt on both the UN and Iraqi sides, rushing troops to defend Kuwait 3 times during the 90s at Saddam's whim, as he continued to push the envelope, rightly or wrongly, the US was in no mood for anything short of Surrender. UN Security council found Iraq had NOT met their demands, backed by , still, at that time, the French, Germans,Russians,etc.
As far as someone's private conversations(Cannistrano) that is news to me, I have never heard of it, not saying it didn't happen, but I find it unlikely that a CIA officer, sworn to secrecy in the first place, would divulge the extent of his conversations, and if he did so, then I would not likely trust someone who already broke one vow.
I find the claims that German intelligence confirmed that Iraq had WMD, rather dubious. I know that German intelligence warned the US that their source of information ("Curveball", an associate of Chalabi) was making up stuff and was not a trustworthy source. Other than this I know of no sources who could have confirmed Iraqs supposed WMD programs.

Thats just liberal propaganda the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

actually, that is a false assertion. Germany was devastated yes, but quiet. They were tired of war, and were more concerned about staying warm and fed through the winter. The US army was not losing troops each day to terrorists, that's for sure.

I find the claims that German intelligence confirmed that Iraq had WMD, rather dubious. I know that German intelligence warned the US that their source of information ("Curveball", an associate of Chalabi) was making up stuff and was not a trustworthy source. Other than this I know of no sources who could have confirmed Iraqs supposed WMD programs.

Just curious why Germany, France and Russia then approved the (unanimous) Security Council Resolution declaring Iraq had not lived up to it's obligations and threatening the possibility of war in the winter prior to the actual attack.
The fact they voted for this resolution implies they KNEW Saddam was , as the resolution stated, in violation.