Re: Top Ten: Myths of the Iraq War


"Estack" <estack57@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98C699D7A4480estack57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more,
but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons
were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready.

Wring! precursors were found. But the claim was that Saddam had loads and
loads of WMD reqady for launch and capable of hitting the West in 40 minutes
and he was about to do it and that this justified invading!


At the time of the invasion, all intelligence
agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD
program.

really? Care to list ten countries intelligence agencies who are not
supporters of the US administration and who are not using Us intelligence.
Did North Korea believe Saddam had WMD? Did China? Serbia?


2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By
that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was
also illegal.

Wrong! Since the occupation came under resolution 1441 (which was about
certain WMD in Iraq see point one above) it was not under the same basis as
Bosnia or Serbia.

Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain,
because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and
was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

Where does this come under the laws of war and when did Britian declare war?
Also how did the 1991 ceasefire apply to resolution 1441?


3-Sanctions were working.

Many of the people who opposed the current occupation ALSO OPPOSED
sanctions! This is a myth about a myth.


4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed
to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi
"threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and
behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD.
Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The
ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the
surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused
by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian
police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq
does not look like an Iranian victory.

So how does the above show point 4 is a myth then?



5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a
democracy established, which was the objective of the operation.

How is Iraq currently a democracy?

Peace
did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were
not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials.

But the US wont have US troops face international war crimes tribunals?
You are contradicting yourself! You claim there is a democracy and then you
claim a sizeable minority are in civil war! Which is it?



6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing
movement before 2003, and before 2001.

In Iraq? Have you ANY evidence for this? In fact Al Queda was growing due to
US support for them in Pakistan and Afghanistan. did you ever see the movie
Rambo III?

But after the Iraq invasion, and
especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity
throughout the Moslem world.

REally?And the Taliban have been ousted from Afghanistan as well have they?

Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda
operations more than ever before.

No they didnt ! Not in Iraq! Saddam really cracked down on any such
manifestations in Iraq.

Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda
would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.

And the occupation globally weakened and lessened Al Queda how exactly?


7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was
active,

Actually Ireland WAS! Ever heard of the "Irish Civil War"? Teh one between
the IRA and the government? Look it up next time you are in the library.


and so is Spain today because ETA is still active.

Not the same thing! Spain like Ireland today has a parliament that 95 per
cent plus recognise! Iraq doesnt!

Both IRA and
ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity.

Eh! No actaully! TheIRA is based on a political position. Originally a
nationalist one but nowadays heavily influences by Marxist leanings.

India also has
tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a
civil war.

It is in Sri Lanka! i note you dont seem to mention the Sandinistas? How
about Regans pals the Contras?

This is all about partisans playing with labels for political
ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.

This is all about you claiming something to be a myth and being exposed for
not doing your homework.


8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree.

Wrong!

Check
election results and opinion polls.
I did! apparently you didnt!:


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14282
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research
Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad,
Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per
cent.

[snip]





.