Ask Me Help Desk - Obama and Iran

This news report was from my Comcast server so I don't offer a link.

Quote:

Iran said on Saturday it would not back down "one iota" in its nuclear row with major powers, voicing defiance on the day of an informal deadline set by the West over Tehran's disputed atomic ambitions.

Western officials gave Tehran two weeks from July 19 to respond to their offer to hold off from imposing more U.N. sanctions on Iran if it froze any expansion of its nuclear work.

That would suggest a deadline of Saturday but Iran, which has repeatedly ruled out curbing its nuclear activities, dismissed the idea of having two weeks to reply.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian power program. Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, denies the charge.

"In whichever negotiation we take part ... it is unequivocally with the view to the realization of Iran's nuclear right and the Iranian nation would not retreat one iota from its rights," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

One of my fears about Obama and his lack of political experience is regarding Iran and it's insistence to continue it's nuclear activities. Obama went to speak with Ahmadinejad with the belief that talking will calm him down. In his case, I don't believe that will happen.

This is the leader who says the Hitler Concentration Camps never existed. He also has stated many times that Israel should be removed from this earth.

His treatment of his own citizens is so brutal, one could not really expect to merely 'speak kindly' to him and obtain results.

I'm afraid we will go too far the opposite of Bush and this man will follow through on his many threats.

How would you expect Obama to respond and how should McCain respond to this impending dilemma?

Ahmadinejad is considered insane by many reporters and nuclear is not something that should be left in the hands of such a person.

Check the link and get a glimpse of what this man is all about.

Fiery Spirited Zionist: Iran regime terrorizing its own citizens

Iranian president, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," is yet another nutcase tyrant. He hates Americans and he really hates Israelis, and Jews everywhere.

I think Obama attempts to take on Iran's nuclear capability similar to how Ronald Reagan handled Pakistan with heavy sanctions. I look for Obama to have a lot more leverage with UN than Dubya ever did. And I suspect, if ultimately push comes to shove, we will make strategic bombing a practice. Of course when Reagan favored sanctions everybody loved him, because he then ended up using their country to do the dirty work and provided incentives.

Pakistan:Leaving U.S. Sanctions in Place Would Be Grave - International Herald Tribune

Pakistan followed by cobbling together a nuclear weapon heavily reliant on Chinese technology, inducing U.S. nuclear sanctions in 1979. Then the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Ronald Reagan turned a blind eye to Islamabad's nuclear ambitions in return for its support of the Afghan rebels.

In McCain's case, I have a more difficult time getting a handle on. One moment his thoughts declare we could be in a war for the next hundred years if necessary (according to his judgement) and the next he tries to distant himself from Dubya's bull headed reactionary ways. He may be just trying to hedge his bets for the election, but I sure hope he doesn't plan on a long drawn out invasion into Iraq.

Good link, Tom.

"History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

History seems to be low priority around this election. Doesn't anyone realize a wrong choice could spell the end of life? (Not that anyone can be certain what the right choice should be).

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplewings

As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

History seems to be low priority around this election. Doesn't anyone realize a wrong choice could spell the end of life? (Not that anyone can be certain what the right choice should be).

Not just this election. I'm thinking of all the public that voted for Dubya, not once, but twice. Bad news is that some of them will even vote McCain, which in effect will be history repeating itself yet again in Dubya's third term. :eek:

Bobby, I ask one more time. Do you really think we would be better off if Gore had been elected in 2000? If so, in what ways? In light of his subsequent behavior, I don't believe we would be.

All you had to do is ask me. Of course. Gore wouldn't had spent half the money we currently are racking up in Iraq.

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

Bobby . Gore was an Iraq hawk in the Clinton Adm . Look up his record on the issue. Either he was lying then or now.

Tom, I can't get into either of those links. Try again please.

I think Gore would have been a terrible president. We might all be wearing turbans and speaking Arabic by now if we'd had Kerry or even Clinton and most definitely if it had been Carter... How soon people forget how shocked, angry and fearful everyone felt following the 9-11 attack, and how happy they were at Bush taking action so the terrorists would know we weren't going to lie down and let them kill us all. Memories fade quickly for some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

All you had to do is ask me. Of course. Gore wouldn't had spent half the money we currently are racking up in Iraq.

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

Bobby, I respectfully suggest that what Gore or Kerry would not have spent in Iraq, either would have made up for in domestic give-aways, so I think the bottom line would have not been much different, and maybe Al Queda may have been stronger. I guess we'll never know for sure.
John

That's my point as well. Gore would had spent it with give-aways at home, instead of give-aways in Iraq. I keep reminding people that Iraq is not going to become the 51st State of the U.S. not even in a hundred years from now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplewings

I think Gore would have been a terrible president. We might all be wearing turbans and speaking Arabic by now if we'd had Kerry or even Clinton and most definitely if it had been Carter....... How soon people forget how shocked, angry and fearful everyone felt following the 9-11 attack, and how happy they were at Bush taking action so the terrorists would know we weren't going to lie down and let them kill us all. Memories fade quickly for some.

In all fairness to Gore, Kerry, Clinton, and Carter, I think they would had enough sense to go after the correct perpetrator for the 9/11 attack. Dubya scapegoated Iraq for Afghanistan shortly after losing track of OBL.

And in all respect to you Bobby. We don't know the real reasons we're in Iraq. It's a well kept secret - but one guess is to make an ally in the middle east where we have none (other than Israel) and need at least one strong one. It also puts us in the area where we could keep a watch for Bin Laden. And another very strong reason may be to do with Iran and all their nuclear threats... Can't get much closer to Iran than to be positioned in Iraq. We won't know if this is a good or no-good decision by Bush and his Congress, until some time has passed. As for the money spent - our government spends on any and every thing. There is no limit to what we spend and what our bureaucrats steal and waste of taxpayers money, so why complain about the cost of this? The taxpayers pay and will keep paying, whether it's to support a war or study the sex life of s tse tse fly.

I hear you. Oops! Baby's in my arms and I'm typing using one hand. Bare with me. We had this discussion on the political board not so long ago. My argument is how Dubya handled the Iraqi war and went about it. The costs are astronomical, but the amount, in my personal view (political ideology), is still accumalating and I'd rather had spent the money at home. I'm just guessing on the Iran issue, but to run with your proposal, it is possible that closing bases in Europe will mean a shift in strategic location to the Middle East region. But I don't think Dubya was ever thinking that when he took on the Iraqi war responsibility. His father "Herbert" Bush and the Gulf War saga was just a decade earlier and In my opinion all he considered was having Schwarzkopf ride around in parades when he got back home.

The problem with these arguments is that it was no secret why the Iraq war happened . All the arguments for the war were laid out and debated for almost a year before it was authorized . Congress voted to authorize the war after the debate using the best intel. Available at the time.

As for a President Gore and his policies toward Iraq ? Well we cannot be sure that he would've had the spine ;but his past statements indicated that he would take Saddam down :

[I]"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." Vice President Al Gore - Larry King Live, December 16, 1998
"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." Vice President Al Gore - ABC News' "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

In McCain's case, I have a more difficult time getting a handle on. One moment his thoughts declare we could be in a war for the next hundred years if necessary (according to his judgement)...

Sigh... I can't believe you're still using that Bobby.

Quote:

“We've been in South Korea... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

He said NOTHING about 100 years WAR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

He said NOTHING about 100 years WAR.

I see you conveniently left out the first part of the transcript:

Quote:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Make it a hundred.”

See below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I see you conveniently left out the first part of the transcript:

And I can't believe you have the audacity to to whine about me leaving out a pertinent portion of the quote. The 100 years part was already mentioned, I added the context. I stand by the truth, he said NOTHING about 100 years of WAR. He was IN FACT speaking about a peacetime presence in Iraq.

You mean like the peacetime presence you currently have where people are still getting killed daily? That one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You mean like the peacetime presence you currently have where people are still getting killed daily? That one?

What part of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" do you not get? What part of a peacetime presence as in Japan and South Korea is too difficult to comprehend?

What's the point of staying there if Americans are no longer being harmed? Most likely to man that huge $592 million embassy.

Unfortunately people are still getting killed: iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
Even though the mission was accomplished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What's the point of staying there if Americans are no longer being harmed? Most likely to man that huge $592 million embassy.

Unfortunately people are still getting killed: iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
even though the mission was accomplished.

This has nothing to do with my original point, NK.

All right, have a great day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sigh...I can't believe you're still using that Bobby.

He said NOTHING about 100 years WAR.

What did think we would be doing if we stayed in Iraq a 100 years?? You do realize that's all they know over there? War, war, and more war. You can slumber through Iraq 101 history class with McCain if you like, but knowledgeable Americans know better.

History of Iraq

Monarchy and republic

Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until the Great War (World War I) when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. British forces invaded the country and suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–16). British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917. An armistice was signed in 1918.

Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

Iraqi revolt against the British

Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Shi'ites and Kurds fought for independence.

Faced with spiralling costs and influenced by the public protestations of war hero T. E. Lawrence in The Times, Britain replaced Arnold Wilson in October 1920 with new Civil Commissioner Sir Percy Cox. Cox managed to quell the rebellion, yet was also responsible for implementing the fateful policy of close cooperation with Iraq's Sunni minority.[2][3]

In the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaykhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 severely reduced the tenants', forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.

Iraqi monarchy

(Further information: List of Kings of Iraq)

Emir Faisal, leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman sultān during the Great War, and member of the Sunni Hashimite family from Mecca, became the first king of the new state. He obtained the throne partly by the influence of T. E. Lawrence. Although the monarch was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite in 1921, nominal independence was only achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended.

In 1927, huge oil fields were discovered near Kirkuk and brought economic improvement. Exploration rights were granted to the Iraqi Petroleum Company, which despite the name, was a British oil company. King Faisal I was succeeded by his son Ghazi in December 1933. King Ghazi's reign lasted five and a half years. He claimed Iraqi sovereignty over Kuwait. An avid amateur racer, the king drove his car into a lamppost and died 3 April 1939. His son Faisal followed him to the throne.

King Faisal II (1935 – 1958) was the only son of King Ghazi I and Queen `Aliyah. The new king was four when his father died. His uncle 'Abd al-Ilah became regent (April 1939 – May 1953).

In 1945, Iraq joined the United Nations and became a founding member of the Arab League. At the same time, the Kurdish leader Mustafā Barzānī led a rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. After the failure of the uprising Barzānī and his followers fled to the Soviet Union.

In 1948, Iraq entered the 1948 Arab-Israeli War along with other members of the Arab League in order to defend Palestinian rights. Iraq was not a party to the cease-fire agreement signed in May 1949. The war had a negative impact on Iraq's economy. The government had to allocate 40 percent of available funds to the army and for the Palestinian refugees. Oil royalties paid to Iraq were halved when the pipeline to Haifa was cut.

Iraq signed the Baghdad Pact in 1956. It allied Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. Its headquarters were in Baghdad. The Pact constituted a direct challenge to Egyptian president Gamal Abdal Nasser. In response, Nasser launched a media campaign that challenged the legitimacy of the Iraqi monarchy.

In February 1958, King Hussein of Jordan and `Abd al-Ilāh proposed a union of Hāshimite monarchies to counter the recently formed Egyptian-Syrian union. The prime minister Nuri as-Said wanted Kuwait to be part of the proposed Arab-Hāshimite Union. Shaykh `Abd-Allāh as-Salīm, the ruler of Kuwait, was invited to Baghdad to discuss Kuwait's future. This policy brought the government of Iraq into direct conflict with Britain, which did not want to grant independence to Kuwait. At that point, the monarchy found itself completely isolated. Nuri as-Said was able to contain the rising discontent only by resorting to ever greater political oppression.

Iraqi republic

Inspired by Nasser, officers from the Nineteenth Brigade known as "Free Officers", under the leadership of Brigadier Abd al-Karīm Qāsim (known as "az-Za`īm", 'the leader') and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif overthrew the Hashimite monarchy on 14 July 1958. King Faisal II and `Abd al-Ilāh were executed in the gardens of ar-Rihāb Palace. Their bodies (and those of many others in the royal family) were displayed in public. Nuri as-Said evaded capture for one day, but after attempting to escape disguised as a veiled woman, he was caught and shot.

The new government proclaimed Iraq to be a republic and rejected the idea of a union with Jordan. Iraq's activity in the Baghdād Pact ceased.

When Qāsim distanced himself from `Abd an-Nāsir, he faced growing opposition from pro-Egypt officers in the Iraqi army. `Arif, who wanted closer cooperation with Egypt, was stripped of his responsibilities and thrown in prison.

When the garrison in Mosul rebelled against Qāsim's policies, he allowed the Kurdish leader Barzānī to return from exile in the Soviet Union to help suppress the pro-Nāsir rebels.

In 1961, Kuwait gained independence from Britain and Iraq claimed sovereignty over Kuwait. Britain reacted strongly to Iraq's claim and sent troops to Kuwait to deter Iraq. Qāsim was forced to back down and in October 1963, Iraq recognized the sovereignty of Kuwait.

A period of considerable instability followed. Qāsim was assassinated in February 1963, when the Ba'ath Party took power under the leadership of General Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr (prime minister) and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif (president). Nine months later `Abd as-Salam Muhammad `Arif led a successful coup against the Ba'ath government. On 13 April 1966, President Abdul Salam Arif died in a helicopter crash and was succeeded by his brother, General Abdul Rahman Arif. Following the Six Day War of 1967, the Ba'ath Party felt strong enough to retake power (17 July 1968). Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr became president and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).

In 1967-1968 Iraqi communists launched an insurgency in southern Iraq.[4]

Barzānī and the Kurds who had begun a rebellion in 1961 were still causing problems in 1969. The secretary-general of the Ba`th party, Saddam Hussein, was given responsibility to find a solution. It was clear that it was impossible to defeat the Kurds by military means and in 1970 a political agreement was reached between the rebels and the Iraqi government.

Iraq's economy recovered sharply after the 1968 revolution. The Arif brothers had spent close to 90% of the national budget on the army but the Ba'ath government gave priority to agriculture and industry. The British Iraq Petroleum Company monopoly was broken when a new contract was signed with ERAP, a major French oil company. Later the IPC was nationalized. As a result of these policies Iraq experienced rapid economic growth.

During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build a harbor in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears. The border disputes between Iraq and Iran were temporarily resolved with the signing of the Algiers Accord on 6 March 1975.

In 1972 an Iraqi delegation visited Moscow. The same year diplomatic relations with the US were restored. Relations with Jordan and Syria were good. Iraqi troops were stationed in both countries. During the 1973 October War, Iraqi divisions engaged Israeli forces.

In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a high point in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country and the fast-growing economy brought prosperity and stability. Many Arabs outside Iraq considered it an example. However, the following decades would not be as favorable for the fledgling country.

Under Saddam

In July 1979, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr resigned, and his chosen successor, Saddam Hussein, assumed the offices of both President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq for some years before he formally came to power.

Territorial disputes with Iran led to an inconclusive and costly eight-year war, the Iran-Iraq War (1980 – 1988, termed Qādisiyyat-Saddām – 'Saddam's Qādisiyyah'), which devastated the economy. Iraq declared victory in 1988 but actually achieved a weary return to the status quo ante bellum. The war left Iraq with the largest military establishment in the Persian Gulf region but with huge debts and an ongoing rebellion by Kurdish elements in the northern mountains. The government suppressed the rebellion by using weapons on civilian targets.

Between 1986 and 1989, Hussein's Al-Anfal Campaign killed an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Kurdish civilians.[5][6]

A mass chemical weapons attack on the city of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War is usually attributed to Saddam's regime, although responsibility for the attack is a matter of some dispute[7]. Saddam maintained his innocence in this matter up to his execution in December 2006. Almost all current accounts, influenced by special interests, of the incident regard the Iraqi regime as the party responsible for the gas attack (as opposed to Iran), and the event has become iconic in depictions of Saddam's cruelty. Estimates of casualties range from several hundred to at least 7,000 people. The Iraqi government continued to be supported by a broad international community including most of the West, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China, which continued sending arms shipments to combat Iran. Indeed, shipments from the US (though always a minority) increased after this date, and the UK awarded £400 million in trade credits to Iraq ten days after condemning the massacre [3].

In the late 1970s, Iraq purchased a French nuclear reactor, dubbed Osirak or Tammuz 1. Construction began in 1979. In 1980, the reactor site suffered minor damage due to an Iranian air strike, and in 1981, before the reactor could be completed, it was, in violation of International Laws, destroyed by the Israeli Air Force (see Operation Opera), greatly setting back Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

PART II

History of Iraq

Invasion of Kuwait and The Gulf War

A long-standing territorial dispute led to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraq accused Kuwait of violating the Iraqi border to secure oil resources, and demanded that its debt repayments should be waived. Direct negotiations began in July 1990, but they soon failed. Saddam Hussein had an emergency meeting with April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, on 25 July 1990, airing his concerns but stating his intention to continue talks. April Glaspie informed Saddām that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. Not exactly true as subsequent events would prove.

Arab mediators convinced Iraq and Kuwait to negotiate their differences in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, on 1 August 1990, but that session resulted only in charges and counter-charges. A second session was scheduled to take place in Baghdad, but Iraq invaded Kuwait the following day. Iraqi troops overran the country shortly after midnight on August 2, 1990. The United Nations Security Council and the Arab League immediately condemned the Iraqi invasion. Four days later, the Security Council imposed an economic embargo on Iraq that prohibited nearly all trade with Iraq.

Iraq responded to the sanctions by annexing Kuwait as the "19th Province" of Iraq on 8 August, prompting the exiled Sabah family to call for a stronger international response. Over the ensuing months, the United Nations Security Council passed a series of resolutions that condemned the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and implemented total mandatory economic sanctions against Iraq. Other countries subsequently provided support for "Operation Desert Shield". In November 1990, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 678, permitting member states to use all necessary means, authorizing military action against the Iraqi forces occupying Kuwait and demanded a complete withdrawal by 15 January 1991.

When Saddam Hussein failed to comply with this demand, the Gulf War (Operation "Desert Storm") ensued on January 17, 1991 (3am Iraqi time), with allied troops of 28 countries, led by the US launching an aerial bombardment on Baghdad. The war, which proved disastrous for Iraq, lasted only six weeks. One hundred and forty-thousand tons of munitions had showered down on the country, the equivalent of seven Hiroshima bombs. Probably as many as 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians were killed.

Allied air raids destroyed roads, bridges, factories, and oil-industry facilities (shutting down the national refining and distribution system) and disrupted electric, telephone, and water service. Conference centres and shopping and residential areas were hit. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed in the attack on the Al-Amiriyah bomb shelter. Diseases spread through contaminated drinking water because water purification and sewage treatment facilities could not operate without electricity.

A cease-fire was announced by the US on 28 February 1991. UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar met with Saddam Hussein to discuss the Security Council timetable for the withdraw of troops from Kuwait. Iraq agreed to UN terms for a permanent cease-fire in April 1991, and strict conditions were imposed, demanding the disclosure and destruction of all stockpiles of weapons.

Iraq under UN Sanctions

On 6 August 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the Gulf War and after the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, the sanctions were linked to removal of weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687 [4].

The United States, citing a need to prevent the genocide of the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and the Kurds to the north, declared "air exclusion zones" north of the 36th parallel and south of the 32nd parallel. The Clinton administration judged an alleged assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush by Iraqi secret agents to be worthy of a military response on 27 June 1993. The Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad was targeted by Tomahawk cruise missiles.

During the time of the UN sanctions, internal and external opposition to the Ba'ath government was weak and divided. In May 1995, Saddam sacked his half-brother, Wathban, as Interior Minister and in July demoted his Defense Minister, Ali Hassan al-Majid. These personnel changes were the result of the growth in power of Saddām Hussein's two sons, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein, who were given effective vice-presidential authority in May 1995. In August Major General Husayn Kāmil Hasan al-Majīd, Minister of Military Industries and a political ally of Saddam, defected to Jordan, together with his wife (one of Saddam's daughters) and his brother, Saddam, who was married to another of the president's daughters; both called for the overthrow of the Iraqi government. After a few weeks in Jordan, being given promises for their safety, the two brothers returned to Iraq where they were killed.

During the latter part of the 1990s the UN considered relaxing the sanctions imposed because of the hardships suffered by ordinary Iraqis. According to UN estimates, between 500,000 and 1.2 million children died [5] during the years of the sanctions. The United States used its veto in the UN Security Council to block the proposal to lift the sanctions because of the continued failure of Iraq to verify disarmament. However, an oil for food program was established in 1996 to ease the effects of sanctions.

Iraqi cooperation with UN weapons inspection teams was questioned on several occasions during the 1990s. UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Richard Butler withdrew his team from Iraq in November 1998 because of Iraq's lack of cooperation. The team returned in December.[8] Butler prepared a report for the UN Security Council afterwards in which he expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compliance [6]. The same month, US President Bill Clinton authorized air strikes on government targets and military facilities. Air strikes against military facilities and alleged WMD sites continued into 2002.

Part III

History of Iraq

2003 invasion of Iraq.

After the terrorist attacks by the group formed by the multi-millionaire Saudi Osama bin Laden on New York and Washington in the United States in 2001, American foreign policy began to call for the removal of the Ba'ath government in Iraq. Conservative think-tanks in Washington had for years been urging regime change in Baghdad, but until the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, official US policy was to simply keep Iraq complying with UN sanctions. The Iraq Liberation Act, fully three years prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, codified regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government. It was passed 99-0 by the United States Senate.

The US urged the United Nations to take military action against Iraq. The American president George Bush stated that Saddām had repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions. The Iraqi government rejected Bush's assertions. A team of U.N. inspectors, led by Swedish diplomat Hans Blix was admitted, into the country; their final report stated that Iraqis capability in producing "weapons of mass destruction" was not significantly different from 1992 when the country dismantled the bulk of their remaining arsenals under terms of the ceasefire agreement with U.N. forces, but did not completely rule out the possibility that Saddam still had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The United States and the United Kingdom charged that Iraq was hiding Weapons and opposed the team's requests for more time to further investigate the matter. Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous UN resolutions, threatening "serious consequences" if the obligations were not fulfilled. The UN Security Council did not issue a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

In March 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom, with military aid from other nations, invaded Iraq.

Coalition occupation of Iraq

Saddam Hussein with a long beard shortly after capture.In 2003, after the American and British invasion, Iraq was occupied by Coalition forces. On 23 May 2003, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution lifting all economic sanctions against Iraq.

As the country struggled to rebuild after three wars and a decade of sanctions, it was racked by violence between a growing Iraqi insurgency and occupation forces. Saddam Hussein, who vanished in April, was captured on 13 December 2003.

The initial US interim civil administrator, Jay Garner, was replaced in May 2003 by L. Paul Bremer, who was himself replaced by John Negroponte in 19 April 2004 who left Iraq in 2005. Negroponte was the last US interim administrator.

Terrorism emerged as a threat to Iraq's people not long after the invasion of 2003. Al Qaeda now has a presence in the country, in the form of several terrorist groups formerly led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Many foreign fighters and former Ba'ath Party officials have also joined the insurgency, which is mainly aimed at attacking American forces and Iraqis who work with them. The most dangerous insurgent area is the Sunni Triangle, a mostly Sunni-Muslim area just north of Baghdad.

Iraq after Saddam Hussein

A few days after the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the conservative government of Spain was voted out of office. The War had been deeply unpopular and the incoming Socialist government followed through on its manifesto commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq. Following on the heels of this, several other nations that once formed the Coalition of the Willing began to reconsider their role. The Dutch refused a US offer to commit their troops to Iraq past 30 June. South Korea kept its troops deployed.

Soon after the decisions to withdrawal in the Spring of 2004, the Dominican Republic, Honduran, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Singapore, Thailand, Portugal, Philippines, Bulgaria, Nicaragua and Italy left or are planning to leave as well. Other nations (such as Australia, Denmark and Poland) continued their commitment in Iraq.

On 28 June 2004, the occupation was formally ended by the U.S.-led coalition, which transferred power to an interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. On 16 July 2004, the Philippines ordered the withdrawal of all of its troops in Iraq in order to comply with the demands of terrorists holding Filipino citizen Angelo de la Cruz as a hostage. Many nations that have announced withdrawal plans or are considering them have stated that they may reconsider if there is a new UN resolution that grants the UN more authority in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has officially requested the assistance of (at least) American troops until further notice.

On January 30, 2005. the transitional parliamentary elections took place. See: Iraqi legislative election, January 2005.

Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present

By the end of 2006 violence continued as the new Iraqi Government struggled to extend complete security within Iraq.

U.S. forces, as well as lesser amounts of "coalition" forces remained in Iraq. An increasingly disturbing trend had arisen - sectarian fighting. As the country attempted to move from occupation by western forces to a new entity within the Middle East, a new phase of conflict seemed to have erupted within Iraq. This new phase of conflict was waged predominately along religious sectarian lines. Fighting was primarily between the majority Shia and the minority Sunni. But there were reports of infighting as well. To outside observers, as well as people in Iraq, the cause of violence was obscure - as developments came faster than could be easily analyzed.

Reported acts of violence conducted by an uneasy tapestry of Sunni militants steadily increased by the end of 2006. These attacks become predominately aimed at Iraqi civilians rather than coalition forces. Violence was conducted by Sunni militants that include the Iraq Insurgency, which has been fighting since the initial U.S. invasion of 2003. Also, criminal elements within Iraq's society seemed to perpetuate violence for their own means and ambitions. Iraqi nationalist and Ba'athist elements (part of the insurgency) remained committed to expelling U.S. forces and also seemed to attack Shia populations, presumably, due to the Shia's threat to the Ba'athis aspirations. Further, Islamic Jihadist - of which Al Qaeda in Iraq is a member - continued to use terror and extreme acts of violence against civilian populations to formant their religious and political agenda(s). The aims of these attacks were not completely clear, but it was argued in 2006/7 that these attacks were aimed at fomenting civil conflict within Iraq to destroy the legitimacy of the newly created Iraqi government (which many of its Sunni critics saw as illegitimate and a product of the U.S. government) and create an unsustainable position for the U.S. forces within Iraq. The most widely reported evidence of this argument stemmed from the February 23, 2006 attack on the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra, one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest sites. Analysis of the attack suggested that the Mujahideen Shura Council and Al-Qaeda in Iraq were responsible, and that the motivation was to provoke further violence by outraging the Shia population. [7]

In response to attacks like the one against the Askari Mosque, violent reprisals escalated. Shia militia organizations associated with various factions of the majority sect of Shia Islam within Iraq gained increasing power and influence in the Iraqi government. Additionally, the militias, it appeared in late 2006, had the capability to act outside the scope of government. As a result these powerful militias, it seemed as of late 2006, were leading reprisal acts of violence against the Sunni minority. A cycle of violence thus ensued whereby Sunni insurgent or terrorist attacks followed with Shia reprisals - often in the form of Shi'ite death squads that sought out and killed Sunnis. Many commentators on the Iraq War began, by the end of 2006, to refer to this violent escalation as a civil war.

Kurdish north

Nouri al-Maliki was at loggerheads with the leader of ethnic Kurds, who brandished the threat of secession in a growing row over the symbolic issue of flying the Iraqi national flag at government buildings in the autonomous Kurdish north. Maliki's Arab Shi'ite-led government was locked in a dispute with the autonomous Kurdish regional government, which has banned the use of the Iraqi state flag on public buildings. The prime minister issued a statement saying: "The Iraqi flag is the only flag that should be raised over any square inch of Iraq." But Mesud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan region, told the Kurdish parliament the national leadership were "failures" and that the Iraqi flag was a symbol of his people's past oppression by Baghdad: "If at any moment we, the Kurdish people and parliament, consider that it is in our interests to declare independence, we will do so and we will fear no one." The dispute exposes a widening rift between Arabs and Kurds, the second great threat to Iraq's survival as a state after the growing sectarian conflict between Arab Sunnis and Shi'ites.

It would be more interesting if you told the story in your own words. :D

PW, funny, don't even go there. I completed radio broadcasting school twenty years ago, and didn't even pursue that any further. I'm not even thinking about changing professions anytime soon, at least not in this economy unless I lose my job. I'm sure a good contract to write history documents, articles, or books, can provide a living, but as a profession I think it would bore me to tears. I think most people here are literate, although understanding context is another matter. Here's the summary of what everyone should know:

The last 100 years in Iraq was bloody and war torn, and don't expect the next 100 to be any different. ;)

Pertaining to the original subject of Iran and their nuclear energy initiatives...

YouTube - "Apocalypse Now" McCain: An Israeli opponent