IRAQ WAR PICS UNRELEASED
-
Let the japs take over the Americans' job once the US is gone from Iraq, since they are so keen to send their military forces overseas.
-
I don't think you understand me Stupidissmart, I am not so much arguing for the war as I am saying that the current situation in Iraq is pretty much inevitable the moment after the first Gulf War was concluded in 1991. Since then it has been a slippery slope towards the current Iraq we know today. My main argument is that if you want to find somebody to blame, Bush is a convenient straw man but if you really look at it there is plenty of blame to go around and to all parties.
Com'on, bush is the only one tat is really pushing for the war. Wat is your other factors ? Saddam do not cooperate ? (he did)As for the atrocities Saddam contained to commit after the Gulf War, a quick search on the internet will give you the information you need. I also advise you to read up on Sunni, Shi'a relationships, the Kurds, Iraq and Iran and the Byzantine middle eastern politics before you make any larger comments. On WMD also, please do read up.
Show me. U r just giving weasel words claiming tat there r many reports when u stated none. If u wanna your findings, give specific links with specific words. Otherwise they r just weasel words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps speakers or writers disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what they have said.
"People sayÂ…" (Who are the people who say it?)
"Few of those who knew the truth have spoken up for Â…" (Which people knew the truth and should have spoken up?)
"It has been decided that..." (Who decided?)
"It turns out that..." (How, and why, did it "turn out" that way?)But really, I find it hard to buy any story that the WMD was all made up by Bush. Firstly if all the reports were falsified by the Bush administration, it makes little sense for Bush not to follow through on the hoax but actually producing WMDs. Given Iraq had firmly fallen to the Americans and it was a simple matter for them to "produce" evidence of WMDs- they certainly had the means and know how to do so. Not to mention it would save Bush a lot of trouble with the current situation. Please read up on the issue, even Wikipedia would be good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_report_of_pre-war_intelligence_on_Iraq
Senate report on pre war iraq intelligence
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence CommunityÂ’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), IraqÂ’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE's conclusions, and for succumbing to "group think," in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs. The committee identified a failure to adequately supervise analysts and collectors, and a failure to develop human sources of intelligence (HUMINT) inside Iraq after the departure of international weapons inspectors in 1998. It also cited the post-9/11 environment as having led to an increase in the intensity with which policymakers review and question threat information.
The report concludes that the October 2002 NIE and other statements regarding Iraq's biological and chemical WMD and associated delivery systems were for the most part not supported by the underlying intelligence data supplied to the Committee.
In the speech, Powell said that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What weÂ’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Despite this, the Committee concluded that "[m]uch of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary PowellÂ’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."
The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda
Well I have provide the necessary evidence to show tat bush had intentionally bluffed his way to show Iraq have qeapons of mass destruction. Why don't u show your own evidence instead of telling wat u think ?appreciate you finding scraps and quotes to support you, but Hans Blix was not only the only voice in the slurry of opinion, he also made the telling precautionary statement at the end of his report that despite all this: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament."; He knew that there were plenty of ways for Saddam to circumvent the inspections, and saw signs of it. Unfortunately Saddam passed an order not to allow the UN to investiage if he had done soÂ… which later became a heated point.
Where do u read tat ? Show me ! Show me the link where u find the conclusion especially the bolded one. U r just quoting without telling where u find it. Tat is really just invalid assumptions. -
As for why the US is not touching North Korea, I find it strange you can't see the obvious reasons. Firstly North Korea is a significantly more militarized nation and its makeup indicates by all means that it will be a bitter struggle to the end.
So u mean Iraq is a weaker foe and so it get invaded instead of north korea ? Is tat a reason ? Attack the weak and leave the strong alone ?More importantly getting into a war on NK will drag the Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese in with unpredictable results.
U mean attacking Iraq is not going to affect the middle east ? So middle east r countries with lesser priority than china japan etc and as such Iraq get attacked ?This is not to mention that it is unlikely that the local region will give the US proper support in the war and it will be an effort many times the size of Iraq.
So U again confrm Iraq is attacked because they r weak. Now I know why countries r building up nuclear weapons to act as deterenceAlso tellingly, a successful regime change of NK does not give the US as much benefits as Iraq, there is no friendly regime with oil and a stake is not really driven into the heart of the terrorism they are trying to fight. All this not to mention the war will be more costly and long-fought as well with little gain. I think Mr. Kim knows this, why do you think he is making so much noise?
So u feel tat US attack Iraq is because of the oil ? Then tis is an invasion. Tis is an attack to gain the resources of other countries for himself. Tis is no different from Japan attack china or singapore to get their resources.I never argued for moral high ground in US actions taken on Iraq, I think removing Saddam is the right thing and ultimately beneficial for Iraq, be the intentions altruistic or not. That bit is clear. A regime change in NK is far riskier and less feasible prospect not to mention one with less change. In practical politics, I think Saddam made his nation too inviting a target and that was that for him. He had reasons to resist disarming from WMD, given he didn't want Iraq to be viewed as toothless (even though that was already the case) esp. by Iran, but in retrospect he should have played along and let Iran become the bad guy. Too bad he didn't.
I do not think u have the right to blame Saddam because he is different from north korea simply because he do not brainwas the civilan like north korea nor keep WMD and sadly rule over an oil rich country. Tat is the only reasons why he differs from nrth korea. Is tat his fault ? U should think of him as a victimThe problem with Saddam is that he didn't really remove the chaos at all, he simply became the biggest boy in the playground, got his way with his nation by blood, and moved that chaos on the a great scale (wars and massacres). His regime was never one of peace for the Iraq people, and the grievances GREW instead under his regime. In either way I can only see his regime ending in chaos and death, because it never removed the chaos to began with, it simply state-sanctioned it and used it for his own ends. This is different from a country who goes into martial law to restore the peace, Saddam took over the nation for his own ends. Peace for his people was hardly on his agenda, nor something he intended.
Com'on, in the past, some of the regions r free from conflicts. Now, there is nowhere in iraq where u can say it is free from conflicts. And u still treat as though there is an improvement to the security.
It's different if he killed the Kurds or Shi'a because they were threatening to destroy or fragment the nation... he simply killed them because they were... well, Kurds or Shi'a. Many of the things he did were hardly to keep the peace in his nation or to remove the hate in the populace, that's for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Lancet_Iraqi_death_count_Figure_4.gif
Look at the graph. Look at the pre war level. It is 7.5 death per 1000. Now look at the year 2006. It had risen 3 times to about 21, and it seems to be exponentially or quadratically increasing. And u still say life before the war is worse.Hmm, I am not suggesting anything. What I am point out is that your assessment of the WMD issue is simplistic and ignoring the true scope of opinion and evidence on the issue
Then why the hell r u still talking about WMD ? IT IS AN EXCUSE. Your above answer already stated it is all an excuse for invasion because north korea has WMD and they did nothing. And your answer on north korea has nothing tat doubt they have WMD. -
I am used to SIS's heated, drama queen way of argument, but I'm afraid they cut little ice with the situation in Iraq.
Arrr.. personal attacks again I se. WHy don't u focus on the issue at hand instead of simply waging personal attacks. Attack on the things I write, not just attacks blindly without elaboraitonAs much as I appreciate anti American stances and attempts to pull this into yet another round of why we should listen to SIS, I feel the original intent of this thread was to investigate the real reasons behind the current violence in Iraq, and as anybody can see it has little to do with Bush and a lot to do with the complexities of Middle Eastern politics and history. The westerners simply waded into it.
NOthing to do with Bush ? The war is literally started by him. He is the one tat pushed for the war in the first place. He was the one tat misused intelligence and exaggerate facts to boost up his stand. I have shown my evidence on tis by the pre war intelligence report. WHy don't u show your evidence tat prove contrary ?Even if Bush had not started, I doubt Iraq would have been spared chaos eventuallyÂ… the difference here is at least the international community has the spotlight of scrutiny on it. In that respect the Iraqis are fortunate, if you consider how a similar war like Kosovo was largely forgotten and ignored simply because it was an "inside" thing.
Assumptions again I see. Can u look into the future ? Tat is wat bush say when he claim he can find WMD in iraq. If u just wanna look into assumptions, I can claim tat Iraq become a power in middle east and an example for them to follow if Saddam is not remove. Tis statement stands as much as truth as your conclusionAlso, I think questions about how it's unfair to help this nation or that nation largely irrelevant, if you realize that in the end it's all about politics. In an ideal world we could remove every Tyrant in all nations in wars that go and end smoothly... but this is the real world and we make do with what we have. I don't agree with all of the US motives and actions behind Iraq, but on the fundemential level it did a service to the Iraqi people... wars are not started simply by a guy called Bush or Saddam... they are caused by the interaction of many different factors between nations and cultures that often make things a lot more complex then they will be.
If u talk about politics, from your stand on north korea, it seems tat US is interested in attacking weak targets which he can steal valuable resources from. Your talk about WMD or chaos etc r just cover up. On your "service" to iraqis, please show it by evidence.10 years from now will the Iraqi people be better of then under Saddam? It's only then we can see. That's why I suspect anybody trying to hold a strong opinion on Iraq is often a jackass who thinks he knows all about war but never actually been in one... or that he has an adgenda to push without regard to the people actually involved or affected.
Well, but u r the one tat states Iraq is better when saddam is removed. Please tell me wat do u based on to state tis conclusion ? According to u it is only after 10 years then we can see the result. Bit u yourself keep claiming iraq life is better. R u contradicting wat u say ?Tellingly, if he went on an Iraqi forum and told the people there that they were better off under Saddam... what would be their reaction?
Isn't tat wat the american like ? Freedom of speech ? So u prefer a cover up and silence all opposition and brainwash their citizens into accepting lies ?I dunno, what would be our reaction if a Japanese guy told us in 1969 we were better off under the Japanese empire instead of having to worry about building our nations and racial riots?
I think the reaction is the same as a singaporean telling life in Iraq is better when saddam is removed because he thought he can see into the future tat life under saddam means more chaos. I am comparing pre war to present. U r comparing pre war to future which we can never see. I don't know who is the one tat is misleading -
really saddening
-
*yawnnnn...*Originally posted by stupidissmart:Where do u read tat ? Show me ! Show me the link where u find the conclusion especially the bolded one. U r just quoting without telling where u find it. Tat is really just inva- blahblahusualSISblah...
As much as it is your time honored tradition to run around in heated circles trying to sneak in the same argument in increasingly innovative and wikipedic angles, you have said nothing new that I have already addressed in full conclusively. As such despite your impressive ability to rant, there is really not need to respond until you've actually come up with something valid or even vaguely interesting.
Have a nice day, and don't strain those typing fingers.
Cheers. -
anybody getting sick of seeing every newsweek magazine with at least one big article on the iraq war and how fucked up its getting?
-
It isn't pretty down there, though fully solidified books on the war make better reads as the curret media is often subject to the current fads, whims, and sensational events of the war. Book give one a nice retrospect, a behind-the-scenes look on what actually went on beyond the front page news.Originally posted by mrwonderful:anybody getting sick of seeing every newsweek magazine with at least one big article on the iraq war and how fucked up its getting?
Case in point, No True Glory by Bling West which details the battle of Fallujah, shows us quite clearly how the very news report that try to inspire us to end the war and highlight the human cost end up causing more death and destruction in the end.
Some of our Josh Lubbers here (guess who) see the world in news reports and sensational opinions... but the truth is often more unforgiving and a lot more mundane. -
I think I am the one who should be yawning... so far u have been doing nothing but evading question and refusing to show any evidence or statistic tat prove your point... u r really just blabbering
-
Yawns again...Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think I am the one who should be yawning... so far u have been doing nothing but evading question and refusing to show any evidence or statistic tat prove your point... u r really just blabbering
You really are turning into a Josh Lubber, are you not?
Nice try with your usual tactic of trying to turn the point on the poster, but I regret to inform you it fails miserably.
And evade? Believe I was very tempted to reply to you, but I realize it's more entertaining to see you ramble on a post that has already been answered and debunked even before you put the first key. Especially with what you just "replied" with.
Here's a clue: If you read your posts and my answers before carefully again, you might see a rather glaring point that you seemed to have missed entirely, leading to answer in a rather heated but yet totally impotent fashion. To be honest I was quite amazed you could miss it.
If you can see it, you might understand why it is in my right and advantage to yawn at whatever you might try to post after you made that rather big error... because the more you speak without realizing that the more it actually makes you look somewhat silly.
Well, I'll leave you to that, it shouldn't be hard to find what you missed. When you have found it, I shall gladly resume this discussion with you.
There's really no need to blabber in my position, I am quite confident and amused you could make such an error in judgment. Consider it courtesy that I do not point it out and use the chance to find it... and I will gladly answer your "questions".
Cheers, and have a nice day. -
And u spend so much words and time to write something tat has completely no meaning watsoever and contribution ? If u cannot show evidence or answer some facts, u can just graciously keep silent u know
-
I think TS is trying to point
Case in point, No True Glory by Bling West which details the battle of Fallujah, shows us quite clearly how the very news report that try to inspire us to end the war and highlight the human cost end up causing more death and destruction in the end.
Am I correct ?
My personal opinion is that the topic is on the reason for the war and whether does the war cause more damage than helps. It is not on whether should the US leave now after they start the war. Furthermore I personally felt tat ignoring other reports and evidence, including the report from the US senate themselves in favor of a book of a single author (who is not the authority in this topic) and whose reference is not readily available (I do not have the book), maybe biased and get potential revenue from the sales of the book is not adequate.
I don't think it is hard for people to guess that I am against the war myself
-
If its about fallujah then it is more absurb because I believe the war on fallujah is a sign tat the iraq war is an utter failure, not a sign tat the war is good.
-
Well, everyone is so affected by the pictures that no one realised the mistake except FI?Originally posted by FireIce:wat is "unreleased"?? -
Aye, it's your folly and loss. If only you knew you were helping me, rather then actually making any dent on my position.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And u spend so much words and time to write something tat has completely no meaning watsoever and contribution ? If u cannot show evidence or answer some facts, u can just graciously keep silent u know
It's right there in front of you, it's not really that hard to find.
Look harder.
-
Fallujah eh?Originally posted by socrates:I think TS is trying to point
Case in point, No True Glory by Bling West which details the battle of Fallujah, shows us quite clearly how the very news report that try to inspire us to end the war and highlight the human cost end up causing more death and destruction in the end.
Am I correct ?
My personal opinion is that the topic is on the reason for the war and whether does the war cause more damage than helps. It is not on whether should the US leave now after they start the war. Furthermore I personally felt tat ignoring other reports and evidence, including the report from the US senate themselves in favor of a book of a single author (who is not the authority in this topic) and whose reference is not readily available (I do not have the book), maybe biased and get potential revenue from the sales of the book is not adequate.
I don't think it is hard for people to guess that I am against the war myself
I was thinking before SIS starts off about Fallujah, he ought to pick up his earlier blunder before starting another one. But I suppose it is in my advantage to let him wade deeper into it.
Socrates, anyway I was just pointing out one book that was a good read on the topic. Generation Kill is another nice read as well, for those who have been grunts before.
In the case of why I think books on the topic are a better read, is that you will find more solidified opinions that are less affected by the current state of affairs. But that's not hard to see why: you obviously get a clearer picture reading a book on the Tet Offensive then listening to the various news reports right there and then.
And there are no lack of books out there on Iraq now, from both camps (pro and anti war) and making their case for such. That said, I think the books are a provide a better read on the topic then our typical "IED of the Day" reports. -
I was thinking before SIS starts off about Fallujah, he ought to pick up his earlier blunder before starting another one. But I suppose it is in my advantage to let him wade deeper into it.
I was thinking of your sincerity in the topic because it seems to me tat u r relying nothing but low moves instead of sincere facts in proving your stand
Furthermore, I do not see why a single book holds more water than newspaper and official report from US gov. Furthermore my impression of the book is painting a grim picture on the whole attack on fallujah, and it supports my stand tat the war is a mistake and causing more problems to the whole world -
... wah lau SIS, are you really serious in what you are posting or are you just joking along? Seriously, I am quite serious about answering your question but your latest post yet again makes this very difficult because you seem to miss entirely what I am talking about. It's like I talk about dog and you answer on dogfood. 
While we are on reading...
Have you fully read the book (like I have)? And more importantly did I say to only read that book? Most importantly, can you read anything beyond what you hope to see?
Please reread my post on the books...
Really SIS, there's no need to be so reactionary. Not say I want to say you leh, but seriously ah... -
If u felt I have missed your point, (u have mentioned many), then maybe it will be kind of u to repeat wat I have missed out. Regarding your book, I only read is the online summary of the book. I have to say tat just because someone quote it to be good, I have to spend time and money to buy and read the whole book before I can comment. Your point is probably tat if the media do not sensationise the news, there will be less victims. Tis is not really valid because
1) the news, nevertheless is still accurate. U can say they put the figures too highly but then it seems to be as valid as the figures given by US themselves to have given the figure too lowly
2) U can not know whether will the number of victims be lesser or more because u never went through tat history and make a comparison with actual figures. It is simply personal guesswork -
Sad but true.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:agreeded... it's a tragedy of great sorts. -
I think the news figures are low actuallyÂ… at least in terms of insurgents killed. Bodycount aside, my main contention is not that the media gets their figures wrong, but more often then not their conclusions (or conclusions they imply) are often (in retrospect) not only wrong but disastrous for both sides in the conflict. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and often the journalists end up hurting the very people they are trying to help. People forget Tet all too fast and the pattern seems to repeat in every war.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u felt I have missed your point, (u have mentioned many), then maybe it will be kind of u to repeat wat I have missed out. Regarding your book, I only read is the online summary of the book. I have to say tat just because someone quote it to be good, I have to spend time and money to buy and read the whole book before I can comment. Your point is probably tat if the media do not sensationise the news, there will be less victims. Tis is not really valid because
1) the news, nevertheless is still accurate. U can say they put the figures too highly but then it seems to be as valid as the figures given by US themselves to have given the figure too lowly
2) U can not know whether will the number of victims be lesser or more because u never went through tat history and make a comparison with actual figures. It is simply personal guesswork
Media was one thing in the book, but a lot went into detailing much of the stuff that the media missed out or didn't bother to find out about before changing public opinion with their reports. It details a lot of the dialogue and actions of the insurgents and the current Iraqi government, and is a real eye opener into what actually goes on behind all the IEDs and sectarian violence.
If you want to know why I think you missed my point: it was for the simple reason I read your replies and saw it quite clearly that you were missing quite largely what I have been trying to say (which is not really different from your point of view). If you weren't so openly antagonistic or paused for a moment to realize that I have no vested interest in engaging in unnecessary debate, you would have realized immediately that I am pointing out the rather pragmatic origins, causes and consequences of the war, which make a lot of any moral posturing on both sides moot to begin with.
Your replies imply and rely heavily on the premise that I am arguing for a moral high ground for the US- which was never my intention. I have no illusions about Bush's other motives for Iraq.
The difference is that I think these events will be an opportunity for the Iraqi people in the long run, while you feel that in the long run it would be better having Saddam around- which I somewhat doubt. -
I think the news figures are low actuallyÂ… at least in terms of insurgents killed. Bodycount aside, my main contention is not that the media gets their figures wrong, but more often then not their conclusions (or conclusions they imply) are often (in retrospect) not only wrong but disastrous for both sides in the conflict.
If u read through the news articles, they do not give their conclusion, but provide a study for u to reach your own conclusion. Tat is wat how newspaper write its stuff isn't it ? They can show u pictures of catatrophic disaster and interview victims of the war, but u yourself r the one tat form the conclusion, not the news. And the pictures and interview with victims r not wrong but factually correct. If the region is prospering and peaceful, can the news provide the pictures or obtain the interview ?
For your book, obviously they r no different from newspapers. They provide interviews (so does newspaper. In fact for any declaration newspaper give the most updated information) they r biased (newspaper perhaps less biased because there r people who support the war and newspaper provide "good" newsto them) books have more pressure to sell (the pressure is lesser for journalist because the sales of the newspaper do not immediately affect them), books is limited because it is a one man show (many newspaper have a team of people). I do not see why newspaper report is not valid compared with books. U do not read newspaper ?The difference is that I think these events will be an opportunity for the Iraqi people in the long run, while you feel that in the long run it would be better having Saddam around- which I somewhat doubt.
I think the main contention is rather u felt the spate of problems is caused by the Iraqis themselves and the US and their troops r victims. My view is tat the all the problems is caused by the US and Iraqis r the victims. If u read your earlier posts, they defended the actions of US while pushing all the blame to Iraqis for the situation they r in. Do I have to remind u of a notorious prison incident where picture have leaked to the public and caused an uproar ?
If u remember your reply on 06 December 2006 · 11:18 PM, u clearly push the reason for the war to Saddam and Bush just "response in the right way" by starting an invasion. Now wat is your view on the reason for the war ? U also mentioned about the WMD and from your posts, u believe tat Saddam do have them and it is a good thing to attack him before he uses them. However the report made for the senate in US clearly shows tat the intelligence is faulty, no evidence supports its conclusion and declares iraq has no WMD before the war. Wat is your view on tis matter now ?
When u talk about the present situation, u refer it to being better than the lives under saddam. However according to statistic, the rate of people killed increases after the war in a quadractic or exponential rate. The future looks bleak as well, and a civil war appears to be imminent, US may leave aruptly before anyone knew it, and no politician is denying these fact yet u seems to be optimistic tat life is better.
How is life better ? -
Dont mess with SIS. Hes got substance.
-
I say, that now Bush lost the House and Senate, he is going to explain a lot more about Iraq.
But it's all very distant to Sg.
What's disturbing is that Sg stood up and pledge support for this Iraq war, probably someone in the gahmen will stand up soon and clarify which parts they support.
e.g. the Iraq war support is not about WMDs but removing Saddam for all mankind.
you know the drill that they go through. they make very good public appearances and press conferences which is followed eagerly by all the Govt media companies.
