Who Is Lying About Iraq?

[Don K Dyck]

There have been a number of prosecutions and investigations into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. All have shown that it was the soldiers at the facility that acted on their own, not under orders from superior officers. Most of those responsible are now being punished and prosecuted.

As for the CIA angle, yeah I know you think that and there's nothing anyone can say to make you think differently. Do you really believe that the US installed Saddam in power so he could buy weapons by the shipload from France, Russia and China?

Uhmmm . . . so THAT was why Rumsveld and Cheney were in Iraq in the 80s . . . selling arms for the French, Russians and PR China . . . I see

The reality, however, is that Saddam rose to power on his own ruthlessness, cunning and brutality, nothing more. He murdered his way to the top of the Ba'ath Party (itself a vile bastard offspring of the Vichy government) and then to the presidency in Iraq.

Uhmmm . . . this is not correct gringao . . . SH was a guttersnipe thug who was encouraged by and protected by the CIA until he was put into power . . . I could find the post, <but I can't be bothered> . . .

 

[Gringao]

Uhmmm . . . so THAT was why Rumsveld and Cheney were in Iraq in the 80s . . . selling arms for the French, Russians and PR China . . . I see

From 1970-1991, the US sold a total of 0.007% of Saddam's weapons to him. The vast bulk were Soviet, followed by French, Chinese and British. The US sold Saddam some old helicopters and provided intel on Iranian troop movements.

Uhmmm . . . this is not correct gringao . . . SH was a guttersnipe thug who was encouraged by and protected by the CIA until he was put into power . . . I could find the post, <but I can't be bothered> . . .

I can find dozens of histories of Saddam's rise to power - from reliable sites, I might add - that have no mention of the CIA. I do not trust that you can do likewise. You're a kook, Don.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Don...we don't "know" each other all that well, so I can only hope that you have a sense of me to give me credibility with you...

You're mistaken about this. I'm a member of the US military--and, believe me, there is plenty to criticize--but this ain't accurate. And I'm not a "hooah" Kool-Aid drinking type, btw; I joined rather late in life and with a pretty firmly established left-leaning and cynical mindset. I've done things like argue in favor of the ACLU to other guys in my unit. Believe me, I'm not indoctrinated in any sense of the term. But I can tell you that I've been surprised and impressed with the US military's efforts to keep the behavior of their troops above reproach. Sure, there are failures and whatnot, mistakes get made, but it's startling how much time and energy goes into trying to teach a bunch of kids to behave ethically.

HI Peregrinator . . . taken as meant . . .

The first press release here in Oz regarding Abu Graib had the female CO admitting that torture had been used. She was immediately replaced by a former CO of Guantanamo Bay . . . where it is notoriously established that American forces use torture on persons detained without charge for no good legal reason . . .

. . . the cover up was resounding . . . as usual <Calley at My Lae, for example> the top officers who probably issued the orders got off scot-free.

But the rot goes right back to the top . . . C-in-C Shrubya, Cheney and Rumsveld . . .

It is important to form your own views . . . the Australian Education Corps did great things in WWII to educate the troops about what was actually happening around them.

In PNG General Blamey misled the men into believing that it was the aussie role to push the Japs back into the sea . . . back across the Owen Stanley Range. The real reason was that Blamey wanted a chair at the surrender in Yokohama Harbour.

 

[Don K Dyck]

*sigh*

I was trained as a mortar crewman, 11Charlie in military parlance. When I was in mortar school in 2001, we were specifically and repeatedly told that willy pete was illegal to use against people, whether they were combatants, civilians, English sports fans, vanilla gorillas, Clint Eastwood lookalikes, whatever. We could not use it as a weapon against human beings. Period.

To be fair, there was a bit of nod-and-a-wink; when one soldier asked a ds if it ever happened anyway, he was told that sometimes it's hard to illuminate something without getting some "collateral damage." Kinda like the .50-cal machine gun, which is only supposed to be used against equipment. Conveniently, almost any combatant will be wearing equipment on his or her torso. The rule is, no willie pete against people. That was the emphasis, it was drilled into us.

There's a balance between rules of engagement and practical necessity in combat. If a crowd of armed people are charging toward you, firing and throwing grenades and such, it's likely that you'll use any weapon at your disposal. That's war.

Uhmmm . . . with respect, Peregrinator . . . under enemy fire you throw everything . . .

But sitting back in a secure field position, lobbing WP into a target site known to be full of civilians? C'mon!!

Next Mules will say that the slaughtered Afghani wedding party moved their celebrations deliberately into the line of fire of from the jetplane overhead . . .

 

[Gringao]

I'm afraid I can't add a single thing to Donkey Dick's posts. They speak for themselves, in form and content.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Actually, if the administration had spent a little more time being honest about what is going on in Iraq, the left wouldn't have to waste time demanding honesty and accountability.

After 9/11 Bush had total bipartisan support and he and his administration squandered it by not being honest about what was going on in Iraq.

Take the "last throes of the insurgency" comment for example. In an effort to continually spin positives out of a bad situation, they continued comprimising their credibility which was severely damaged by the bad intelligence used as a basis for this war.

As for making recommendations, when has Bush or the administration taken any? His own commanders recommended that they needed more troops but since the commander didn't formally request it, they weren't sent. All along, this war has been incredibly poorly managed as the article which you so quickly discounted points out.

Thankfully, with every day that passes more and more americans of both parties are seeing that this is not an administration capable of providing honest and accurate information.

More so, we are now doing things that go against decades of official policy such as having secret prisons in other countries, detaining people for years without charges or a trial, using WP for more than illumination, etc. etc. etc.

A thoughtful post, Zip . . . thanks

 

[Slowlane]

Actually, if the administration had spent a little more time being honest about what is going on in Iraq, the left wouldn't have to waste time demanding honesty and accountability.

After 9/11 Bush had total bipartisan support and he and his administration squandered it by not being honest about what was going on in Iraq.

Take the "last throes of the insurgency" comment for example. In an effort to continually spin positives out of a bad situation, they continued comprimising their credibility which was severely damaged by the bad intelligence used as a basis for this war.

As for making recommendations, when has Bush or the administration taken any? His own commanders recommended that they needed more troops but since the commander didn't formally request it, they weren't sent. All along, this war has been incredibly poorly managed as the article which you so quickly discounted points out.

Thankfully, with every day that passes more and more americans of both parties are seeing that this is not an administration capable of providing honest and accurate information.

More so, we are now doing things that go against decades of official policy such as having secret prisons in other countries, detaining people for years without charges or a trial, using WP for more than illumination, etc. etc. etc.

I think the administration has been reasonably honest in t the information about Iraq. The problem, as I see it, is a lack of information being released. Either by your definition or mine if the administration had been more forthcoming I think much of the current upheaval could have been avoided.

I would also agree that they were premature in shouting, “we won”, even though all the military objectives had been achieved. The end result of the announcement was misleading.

I discounted the article as credible evidence of the misuse of prosperous.

If you don’t like the idea of secret prisons perhaps you would like to have one in your home town. They are secret for the safety of the surrounding population.

That brings us to the use of WP, for which no one has shown any credible evidence.

 

[Slowlane]

I'm afraid I can't add a single thing to Donkey Dick's posts. They speak for themselves, in form and content.

I don’t have him on ignore, but I usually ignore him

 

[Gringao]

I don’t have him on ignore, but I usually ignore him

I'll admit to occasionally reading them to get a perverse pleasure in knowing my foe is insane.

 

[Don K Dyck]

From 1970-1991, the US sold a total of 0.007% of Saddam's weapons to him. The vast bulk were Soviet, followed by French, Chinese and British. The US sold Saddam some old helicopters and provided intel on Iranian troop movements.

This is not supported by the 1994 Reigle Committee Inquiry into the Export Administration Act.

I can find dozens of histories of Saddam's rise to power - from reliable sites, I might add - that have no mention of the CIA. I do not trust that you can do likewise. You're a kook, Don.

Uhmmm . . . so can anybody who googles . . . but there are 'reliable' sites that give the full picture of American interference in the Middle East since at least the end of WWI when the oilfields were discovered by an aussie geologist <forgotten his name sadly>

Indeeed, the British and other Europeans were also involved.

 

[Gringao]

This is not supported by the 1994 Reigle Committee Inquiry into the Export Administration Act.

Please cite. Mine is the CSIS. I'll find the graphic.

Uhmmm . . . so can anybody who googles . . . but there are 'reliable' sites that give the full picture of American interference in the Middle East since at least the end of WWI when the oilfields were discovered by an aussie geologist <forgotten his name sadly>

Indeeed, the British and other Europeans were also involved.

I know you can find any number of nutball sites to confirm whatever you want to "prove," Donk. I've read them myself. Lots of heat, not a whole lot of light if you get my drift. They assert, but never, ever support. Like you.

 

[Slowlane]

I'll admit to occasionally reading them to get a perverse pleasure in knowing my foe is insane.

It depends on how much time I have. Of all the loonies here he is one of the least informative.

 

[Gringao]

This is not supported by the 1994 Reigle Committee Inquiry into the Export Administration Act.

I'm still looking for the CSIS chart, but it's not on their site anymore. It was a study done by Anthony Cordesman. In the meantime, you can look at the Stockhold International Peace Research Institute's numbers, which show a total for US transfer much higher than I had said were from the CSIS: a whopping 0.47%

LINK

Guess who's at the top? USSR, France and China.

Care to denounce them, or doesn't that fit the narrative?

 

[Gringao]

Here's what was sold, according to SIPRI:

USA (31) Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but taken over by Air Force

4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005

7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE

30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force; Hughes-300C version

30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30)

26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force

43 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2004 (10) Deal worth $50 m; incl 2 CP version; delivery 2004-2005

 

[The Mutt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-223884-1&sec=Worldupdates

World Updates
November 17, 2005
U.S. defends use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq

By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates.

 

[Peregrinator]

Uhmmm . . . with respect, Peregrinator . . . under enemy fire you throw everything . . .

But sitting back in a secure field position, lobbing WP into a target site known to be full of civilians? C'mon!!

Next Mules will say that the slaughtered Afghani wedding party moved their celebrations deliberately into the line of fire of from the jetplane overhead . . .

Well, yeah. The first mission is always to keep yourself safe.


"Sitting back...etc..." You don't lob anything without a fire mission, a call for fire from someone. The system is that the person calling for fire gives a grid, and you hit the grid. If the call for fire is for illumination, you load either willie pete or illumination rounds, depending on a number of factors. Artillery and mortars are usually used in a support role. Point is, someone up the chain calls for fire, you deliver fire. Is that grid "known to be full of civilians? I don't know; I do know that I'm part of a larger whole, an offnesive of some kind. Is it likely that the regional command would order a fire mission using willie pete on an area full of civilians? Extremely unlikely. Extremely, especially with the eyes of the world upon us. There's not a US military member who doesn't know that willie pete is against the GC and policy and is generally castigated internationally. Besides, it's not like it's necessary if you want to blow up a bunch of people; you can set HE rounds to detonate 30 meters above the ground if you just want to slaughter large numbers of people. There's just no point in killing civilians using wp. No tactical advantage, certainly no pr advantage. I think you may be looking for reasons to criticize the US to the point where your objectivity is compromised. Really. Step back a bit.

 

[Slowlane]

Well, yeah. The first mission is always to keep yourself safe.


"Sitting back...etc..." You don't lob anything without a fire mission, a call for fire from someone. The system is that the person calling for fire gives a grid, and you hit the grid. If the call for fire is for illumination, you load either willie pete or illumination rounds, depending on a number of factors. Artillery and mortars are usually used in a support role. Point is, someone up the chain calls for fire, you deliver fire. Is that grid "known to be full of civilians? I don't know; I do know that I'm part of a larger whole, an offnesive of some kind. Is it likely that the regional command would order a fire mission using willie pete on an area full of civilians? Extremely unlikely. Extremely, especially with the eyes of the world upon us. There's not a US military member who doesn't know that willie pete is against the GC and policy and is generally castigated internationally. Besides, it's not like it's necessary if you want to blow up a bunch of people; you can set HE rounds to detonate 30 meters above the ground if you just want to slaughter large numbers of people. There's just no point in killing civilians using wp. No tactical advantage, certainly no pr advantage. I think you may be looking for reasons to criticize the US to the point where your objectivity is compromised. Really. Step back a bit.

A great explanation of the way things work, and an altogether fantastic post.

Thanks!

 

[Lost Cause]

The Left is still number one!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a225/unite1776/GWBbird.gif

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

And you wouldn't want to be the one to tell him there were no weapons when he believed he had them.

Of course, we did find jets buried in the desert...

Not to mention those artillary shells with nerve agent in them.

But we all KNOW you cant bury WMDs and we KNOW we found ALL of those shells with nerve agent! Dont we?

 

[Peregrinator]

A great explanation of the way things work, and an altogether fantastic post.

Thanks!

My pleasure.

 

[Borscht]

I read it, and I also read the link to the BBC's website. It wasn't quite so sure about the illegality (highly conditional) as you are, even for signatories to the CWC - which the US is not.

So what ?

We were arguing about the fact that the US has been caught in a lie about its use of WP as a weapon.

You said it hadn't and I proved that it had.

So I won.

Na,na,nanan, na.

Loooooooooooser !

Looooo . . .

Ahem.

Excuse me.

 

[Borscht]

Point is, someone up the chain calls for fire, you deliver fire. Is that grid "known to be full of civilians? I don't know; I do know that I'm part of a larger whole, an offnesive of some kind. Is it likely that the regional command would order a fire mission using willie pete on an area full of civilians? Extremely unlikely.

Maybe in your day.

Not anymore, though.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-223884-1&sec=Worldupdates

World Updates
November 17, 2005
U.S. defends use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq

By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates. . .

 

[The Mutt]

I didn't post that stuff in the box. I did post the rest.

 

[Borscht]

Not to mention those artillary shells with nerve agent in them.

But we all KNOW you cant bury WMDs and we KNOW we found ALL of those shells with nerve agent! Dont we?

If there are WMDs in Iraq, AQ will have 'em by now.

 

[The Mutt]

We did NOT use White Phosphorus in Iraq!

Er, that is, I meant to say, we DID use White Phosphorus, but only for illumination.

Er, that is, I meant to say, we did use White Phosphorus against the enemy, but not in civilian areas.

Er, that is, I meant to say........