Popular uprisings beginning?

[Hawkforce]

THe Iranians are reporting a popular uprising against the Baathist regime in Basra.

THe British claim the Iraqi militia are using artillery against the civilians. Propoganda? Maybe... but it wouldn't be the first time the Baathists have murdered their own citizens.

After countless betrayals it will take a huge effort to regain the trust of the Iraqi people - they must not be betrayed again.

 

[Diego]

Wonder if the anti war movement can shut up for a day or two and actually watch whats going on?

Somehow I cant see that happening even if the Saddam uses chemical weapons first.

 

[USFootyFan]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
THe Iranians are reporting a popular uprising against the Baathist regime in Basra.

THe British claim the Iraqi militia are using artillery against the civilians. Propoganda? Maybe... but it wouldn't be the first time the Baathists have murdered their own citizens.

After countless betrayals it will take a huge effort to regain the trust of the Iraqi people - they must not be betrayed again.

Hawk, I agree wholeheartedly. We left these guys twisting in the wind the last time. Fortunately, I think we are going to see this through this time.

It would certianly make sense that the Shiites would be revolting against the iraqi military. If this is true it would tend to back up "western imperialist media" reports of the coalition making headway against the strong resistance faced by coalition forces in Basra.

 

[Hawkforce]

Unfortunately another concern for the Allies is that uprisings in Iraq's ethnically divided communities don't turn into retributive blood baths.

Tricky times ahead.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Unfortunately another concern for the Allies is that uprisings in Iraq's ethnically divided communities don't turn into retributive blood baths.

Tricky times ahead.

That to me is one of the biggest problems I see with a forced democracy being put in place..........which side/s will the US & UK take as no matter what happens the different tribes and communities in Iraq will struggle to co-operate for a very long time to come and IMO the current conflict will only make this worse............it is going to be a long, long time before all Iraqi's consider themselves free........

 

[a4brianp]

That report has now been denied by the Iraqs .We would expect that so dont really know if it is happenning or not,what happenend to the chemical weapon plant that was supposed to have been found yesterday that has gone quiet,or was it just propaganda

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by a4brianp
That report has now been denied by the Iraqs .We would expect that so dont really know if it is happenning or not,what happenend to the chemical weapon plant that was supposed to have been found yesterday that has gone quiet,or was it just propaganda

YOu mean that Chemical Plant that the Allied command was very quick to downplay any "smoking gun" stories about?

Media hysteria is not always propoganda you know?

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by a4brianp
That report has now been denied by the Iraqs .We would expect that so dont really know if it is happenning or not,what happenend to the chemical weapon plant that was supposed to have been found yesterday that has gone quiet,or was it just propaganda

Watch out for more about that story - maybe not until war is over.

I read Caroline Glick's original report. I'm told it was then checked out extensively by some woman who is the only really credible Foxnews anchor because has been a war correspondant herself and is well connected.
She confirmed it from a host of sources.

Then it started to be played down.

Mmmm.

What is true, as far as I can ascertain, is that:

1. It was a huge complex, very well camoflouged.

2. An Iraqi general was in charge, on the spot. And is now in coalition custody.

3. That Unscom (old inspectors) said it was a new one on them.

4 Unmovic (new inspectors) said it wasn't a site they'd known about or visited.

To go back to Caroline Glick's latest report, which reads to me like an careful piece of backpeddling on order, you need search/go to the Jerusalem Post website.

Caroline Glick is a senior writer with the Post who was embedded with the unit that found this site. Actually seemed to know where it might be found.

 

[Dry Rot]

Also seems to be a few recent reports of Iraqi positions overrun and gas masks and chemical suits being found. Obviously could be propaganda, but I reckon we'll find out soon if they have any chemical shells.

That big camouflaged chemical plant was a bit odd.

 

[dreamkillers]

Well according to news reports it hasn't been involved in making chemical weapons since at least 1998...........

'No weapons' at chemical plant
By Matt Kelley in Washington
March 26, 2003

MILITARY investigators have found no evidence of recent chemical weapons manufacture at a suspect plant secured by US troops in southern Iraq, a senior defence official has said.

Preliminary reports indicated it had not been involved in illicit weapons production in the past five years, the official said.

The capture of the site, a cache of documents and two Iraqi generals thought to have knowledge of weapons of mass destruction raised the possibility this week that American forces had begun to find the banned weapons they are fighting to remove from Iraq.

The official said that before the war, American intelligence agencies had identified the site in the town of Najaf as a possible part of Iraq's chemical weapons program.

But indications even then were that the plant had not been used for banned weapons activities since 1998, the official added.

Finding and eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - denied by Saddam Hussein - are major goals of the war.

Pentagon officials continue to worry that Saddam's forces could use chemical or biological weapons as coalition ground troops advance toward Baghdad.

The Iraqi capital is protected by the Republican Guards, the best trained and best equipped troops of Saddam's army, which US officials say are the units with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said intelligence agencies have heard "chatter in the system" indicating that Saddam might have approved the use of such weapons.

"But whether it'll happen or not remains to be seen."

He and other US officials have urged Iraqi officers not to follow orders to use weapons of mass destruction, vowing that anyone who does will be tracked down after the war and punished as a war criminal.

Iraq's chemical weapons are thought to include the nerve agents sarin, soman and VX, as well as mustard agent of the type used in World War I.

Most of the chemical weapons would be loaded in artillery shells in rockets, which have a range of about 12 miles or less.

US troops have protective gear to deal with chemical weapons, as well as detection equipment that can sniff out a cloud of such agents as far as three miles away.

The Associated Press

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Well according to news reports it hasn't been involved in making chemical weapons since at least 1998...........

Surely this is a typo?

YOu must have meant 1988?

Because if the factory was indeed making chemical weapons in 1998 it would be the smoking gun wouldn't it?

God knows how much weapons grade material it produced in the 7 years of UN inspections after 1991.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Surely this is a typo?

YOu must have meant 1988?

Because if the factory was indeed making chemical weapons in 1998 it would be the smoking gun wouldn't it?

God knows how much weapons grade material it produced in the 7 years of UN inspections after 1991.

the date is from the article not me............but it probably depends if they can prove it did indeed make chemical weapons prior to this..........even this story doesn't actually say it did...........

 

[Hawkforce]

Can I just ask what exactly would it take to convince you that Regime Change is the best course of action in Iraq?

WOuld anything justify it? Or have we been debating a non-subject for all these months.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Can I just ask what exactly would it take to convince you that Regime Change is the best course of action in Iraq?

WOuld anything justify it? Or have we been debating a non-subject for all these months.

Like most of the anti-war people here I'm no supporter of Saddam but I'm yet to be convinced that the current methods of regime change are going to bring long term stability to Iraq and may in fact cause further fracturing of the different tribes and nationalities in the country.............

Why would the people of Iraq trust the west after being left for dead by them 12 years ago............sure they want change in their leadership but I'm sure they don't want the method shoved down their throats by the west saying they know what's best.

With the US expertise in covert operations over the years why haven't they been able to do something about Saddam without a mass invasion.........They've been able to do such operations in many countries around the world in the past so why not in Iraq. They don't have to worry about their soldiers breaching any international laws as they only recognise them when it suits them and never when it comes to their own.

To me the inspectors should have been allowed to carry on as Blix had stated there were only month's to finalise things.......we've waited 12 years so a few more months wasn't going to make any difference.

 

[Hawkforce]

So the answer is - nothing?

Nothing would justify the present course of action.

THat's the question I asked.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
So the answer is - nothing?

Nothing would justify the present course of action.

THat's the question I asked.

If that's how you interpret my answer that's up to you........

By the same token nothing suited most of the western world for the last 12 years and even prior to the original Gulf war when some western countries were only too happy to assist Saddam to provoke others in the area they didn't agree with..........

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If that's how you interpret my answer that's up to you........

By the same token nothing suited most of the western world for the last 12 years and even prior to the original Gulf war when some western countries were only too happy to assist Saddam to provoke others in the area they didn't agree with..........

Why are you being so slippery?

It's a simple Yes/No question.

Nothing, in your view, would justify the Allied policy?

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Why are you being so slippery?

It's a simple Yes/No question.

Nothing, in your view, would justify the Allied policy?

Slippery....


No nothing in my view at the moment justifies the current action to date as I've posted many times previously...........

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Slippery....


No nothing in my view at the moment justifies the current action to date as I've posted many times previously...........

Quite obviously nothing at the moment justifies war in your view - you are "anti-war".

I am asking what, if anything, could make you change your mind?

For example - Iraq launches Nuclear missiles at, let's say, Latvia.

Would that justify this war in your view?

Would ANYTHING justify war in your view?

If no - say it.

If yes - outline it.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Quite obviously nothing at the moment justifies war in your view - you are "anti-war".

I am asking what, if anything, could make you change your mind?

For example - Iraq launches Nuclear missiles at, let's say, Latvia.

Would that justify this war in your view?

Would ANYTHING justify war in your view?

If no - say it.

If yes - outline it.

If Iraq attacked another country like last time sure.

If Iraq is found to have that smoking gun sure but I would have prefered the inspectors be left to finish the job they started.

If they come out and start using chemical weapons now the Allied nations would also be justified although they would have been provoked into using them by being at their last resort.


I've stated this in the past here on these boards and will again in the future.......obviously not all of my posts have been read through

 

[Hawkforce]

Okay. Blood from a stone type stuff but we're finally getting somewhere.

Now...

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If Iraq attacked another country like last time sure.

But it's better to wait until they do so?

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If Iraq is found to have that smoking gun sure but I would have prefered the inspectors be left to finish the job they started.

Followed by

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If they come out and start using chemical weapons now the Allied nations would also be justified

Don't you think this is a logical cul-de-sac?

Originally posted by dreamkillers
although they would have been provoked into using them by being at their last resort.

So, although the existence of the weapons was enough to justify war, it is the Allies fault if they have those weapons used against them?

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I've stated this in the past here on these boards and will again in the future.......obviously not all of my posts have been read through

Actually you are very difficult to pin down on specifics DK. YOu are obviously full of doubt about the motives of not only your own Government but also a Labour Government in the UK (I don't think we need mention the Bush regime here do we?), but not so big on how to address those doubts in any meaningful way.

Getting back to the original premise of this thread - do you have an opinion on the make up of Post War Iraq? YOu've stated doubts about the idea of democratisation - so, what alternatives feel better to you? Another strong leader to rule? THe breakup of the country into ethnically based regions? SOmething else?

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
the date is from the article not me............but it probably depends if they can prove it did indeed make chemical weapons prior to this..........even this story doesn't actually say it did...........

The interesting confirmed aspects about the incident are that it was huge, it was camouflaged and there was an Iraqi GENERAL there in charge of it. (Altho I notice that the story you quote says there was two generals there).

One is enough. Why would an Iraqi GENERAL be in charge of and hanging about a camouflaged complex never declared to Unscom or Unmovic unless something crucial to the regime was going on there?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
With the US expertise in covert operations over the years why haven't they been able to do something about Saddam without a mass invasion.........They've been able to do such operations in many countries around the world in the past so why not in Iraq. They don't have to worry about their soldiers breaching any international laws as they only recognise them when it suits them and never when it comes to their own.

To me the inspectors should have been allowed to carry on as Blix had stated there were only month's to finalise things.......we've waited 12 years so a few more months wasn't going to make any difference.

DK, apparently it has been very difficult (read:impossible) to "insert" any agents or sleepers inside the Iraqi regime. It is a particularly close-knit and incestuous bunch.

In addition to this, Saddam regularly "turns over" (read:liquidates) members of his upper echelon to keep those not directly related to him from getting too cosy.