0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 04:02 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Oh, Walter, did you happen to notice that every one of those pie charts indicate perceptions were above 50% favorable?


No.


Thats cause they didnt.

Only Timber could spin "average" into "favorable":

"How do you rate your personal morale?":
34% Low or very low - 27% High or very high

39% Average or other

"How do you rate your unit's morale?":
49% Low or very low - 16% High or very high

35% Average or other

---

Annoyance about Timber's spinning aside, though; as long as the median of the poll is within the "average" pie-piece, GWB doesnt have to worry too much, methinks.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 04:27 pm
nimh

My last two posts were really directed towards those voices which continue to insist that the administration's drive to war with Iraq was 1) motivated by a desire to combat terrorism, and 2) that it is a typical example of altruistic and humanitarian US foreign policy. Neither claim bears scrutiny and both are repeated as a matter of nationalist faith (America can't make big errors - it's just too good a place) and/or party faith (the previous bracket with "even moreso where Republicans are involved"). Now and again, we'll see a brief nod to 'underlying pragmatics' (it's a dog eat dog world, and we are just playing the game better than others) but that position, though completely amoral, at least doesn't smell like an old dirty whore splashed in cheap perfume.

The US (along with Britain) is precisely the party which should be paying for the rebuild of Iraq. Unfortunately, when 'the US' pays, it is everyone else in the country except the people who put this project in motion and their business affiliates who will be paying - the bad guys win and win big. But Americans will lose big. And so will their children and grandchildren. When a fellow with the political experience and reputation of a Bill Moyers says "it is your social programs they are after", then the options are to either toss him in the camp of 'radical lefties' and retire to the comfort of faith, or to look a little harder and trust a little less.

The US, and the world, is now faced with this bloody mess in Iraq. The reality of that - that is, the reality of the dangers that wait if stability doesn't result - isn't something we can now prudently ignore. But all of the above suggests that the very last people we ought to be looking to for how we go about that are the people who got us there.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 04:33 pm
agreed there ...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:04 pm
The number of killed and wounded American and British military will continue to increase almost daily, and we will spend billions of dollars - for oil. Unfortunately, most Americans do not see the killed and wounded nor the billions being spent for a cause that doesn't justify the cost in lives nor dollars. The majority of Americans still think this president is doing a good job - sadly.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:23 pm
ci

Sad it is. But let's do what we can to push it out of sad and up into raging bloody anger. Here's a dilly that Dowd notes today...
Quote:
On Monday, Representative George Nethercutt Jr., a Republican from Washington State who visited Iraq, chimed in to help the White House: "The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." The congressman puts the casual back in casualty.
Don't you just want to puke on this bastard.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:41 pm
Quote:
Lies beget more lies; a policy built on deception will always require further deception to sustain itself.

Case in point: The campaign by leading members of the Bush administration to rebuild faltering support for their invasion of Iraq. To hear them tell it, everything that has happened since last March has just proved how right they've been all along.


That's from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is not exactly a bastion of liberalism.

It appears under the headline, 'Lies about Iraq reach the level of the absurd'.

There haven't been many in the mainstream print media, and nearly none in the Solid South, that have written so candidly.

The lies are reaching critical mass.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 07:03 pm
And in answer to those who claim morale in Iraq is just spiffy, I would submitthis:
Quote:
Army Concerned About Suicides of U.S. Troops in Iraq
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 13 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq, representing more than 10 percent of American noncombat deaths there, and the Army dispatched a suicide-prevention expert to assess the problem, officials said on Thursday.

At least 11 U.S. Army soldiers have committed suicide during Iraq operations, most with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, and two Marines have committed suicide using firearms, officials said.

One official said "a few more" Army deaths were being investigated as possible suicides, and the Navy said the death of one service member was under investigation. The Air Force said it had no such cases.

Army officials have expressed concern about the suicides, many of which occurred after President Bush declared major combat operations over in Iraq on May 1.

A 12-person Mental Health Advisory Team dispatched by the Army recently left Iraq after studying a wide range of mental health concerns, including suicide, among U.S. troops facing combat stress and longer-than-expected deployments.

The 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are facing yearlong stints amid daily guerrilla-style attacks.

Lt. Col. Jerry Swanner, the Army's suicide-prevention program manager at the Pentagon, was a member of the team, said Martha Rudd, an Army spokeswoman.

"Of course we're concerned," Rudd said. "Even one suicide is alarming and upsetting."

The suicide deaths are included among the 120 U.S. troops who have died in "non-hostile" circumstances in Iraq in the past seven months, mostly vehicle and other types of accidents. Another 212 U.S. troops have died from enemy fire, according to the Pentagon.

"When war is actually going on, behavioral experts say the soldiers aren't as likely to commit suicide during that period. While they're fighting, they're not thinking about their problems. But once open hostilities cease and the peacekeeping part begins, for some soldiers that can be very rewarding work but for some (others) it can be very stressful," Rudd said.

She also noted that troops in Iraq have guns readily available, enabling them to act on what otherwise might have been a fleeting suicidal impulse.

The team sent to Iraq included psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and experts in combat stress, said Lyn Kukral, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Army Surgeon General and the Army Medical Command.

The team was expected to complete a report on its findings and make recommendations in two to three weeks, officials said.

"Suicide is just one aspect of many behavioral health and individual readiness issues that the team is assessing. The team is interested in identifying particular deployment stressors and their impact on the deployed soldiers. The team is also concerned with reviewing the effectiveness of current combat-stress control doctrine," Kukral said in a statement.

Kukral said 478 soldiers had been evacuated from Iraq for mental health reasons as of Sept. 25.

The Army and Navy annually average about 11 suicides per 100,000 personnel, the Air Force about 9.5 per 100,000 and the Marines about 12.6 per 100,000.

Referring to the Army rate, Rudd said, "I don't think the suicides we've had in Iraq are going to seriously skew the numbers."


10/16/03 13:34
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 07:32 pm
As I've said on another forum, I heard on the radio today that 50 percent of the soldiers said they will not reenlist. I think conscription is in our future.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 07:42 pm
On the News Hour tonight, the UN ambassadors from Pakistan and Germany expressed that, whilst they and their governments were concerned with the fate of the Iraqi people, they wer not inclined to contribute money or troops to Iraq. The basic reason seemed to be that to do so would seem to show support for the occupation and oppression of an indigenous group, not the so-called "liberation" that has become the latest Bush admin explanation for why we are there.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:06 pm
It's above all about POWER!!!
It's about oil and other goods and services but the main objective is to dominate the middle East. Russia, France and Germany have paid their millions by not recieving back their loans. The Western nations are in a power struggle to dominate the Middle East as they have been for the past 100 years. In that aspect nothing has really changed.

The question is: Will the West be able to subdue Iraq then Syria, Iran and the other nations of the Middle East.

I think not!!!

Iraq won't be the success story that the present US Regime keeps trying to paint.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:56 pm
Delicious name, Pistoff! Why didn't I think of that? So far, you're entirely right. So double extra welcome to A2K!

As for success story, the Bush administration (and so many of its supporters) love to redefine "success" -- pretty much on an hourly to daily basis.

By the way, in contrast to those polls which seem to ask, do you think Bush is doing a good job? or do you like Bush? has there been a poll which asks do you TRUST Bush? Betcha his numbers would come out at about 32%, if he's very, very lucky...

Annoyance with Timber's spinning is NOT aside. Each little spin is a further loss in respect.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 01:21 am
Blair was warned by intelligence chiefs that attacking Iraq would make a major terrorist incident more likely.

This morning I woke up to the news that Mrs (double barelled name..surprised we know her name) the head of British secret intelligence services and well respected case officer in her day, held a briefing session yesterday in which the preparedness and capabilites and intentions of al qaida were assessed. Summary a major attack on New York or London or both is inevitable.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 01:50 am
I think some right-wing people placed on these threads are not independent of, and may be in the pay of, government bodies.

Anybody else feel that way?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 02:08 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Summary a major attack on New York or London or both is inevitable.


From the BBC:
Quote:
However, MI5 and other agencies had succeeded in "degrading" al-Qaeda's terrorist capability, she added.

The collection of intelligence had a "constraining" impact and there' had been a significant number of new leads.

MI5 chief reveals terror threat
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 02:13 am
You mean like agent-provacateurs...?

Well if they're government agents, I want my money back! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 02:33 am
Thanks for that link Walter

I heard the report on the radio when I was half asleep (don't say as normal please) and perhaps the alarmist nature of it or my state of waking up really made me wonder if I should check for any mushroom clouds in the sky this morning.

They also said Blair made a special study of the Tokyo subway attack by the Aum Shinrikyo cult. I thought that was an attack by a bunch of nutters who had some how got hold of a small amount of sarin.

But they planned to kill millions! They had hundreds of tonnes of chemicals. They planned to get tonnes of sarin into the subway system, not just the small amount they actually released.

Even more ominously, they had been quietly recruiting chemistry and biology graduates for years, 'respectable' members of society apparantly...to produce for them a bio/chem weapons capability which was really significant. Oh and they had $600 million to play with.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 03:27 am
More casualities today - when will this end ?

Troops killed in Iraqi gun battle
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 04:31 am
Not for a while yet Gautam,

Kevin Toolis, writing in today's New Statesman

Quote:
In classic counter-insurgency warfare terms, the critical moment has passed. The "Baghdad bounce", the post-liberation honeymoon period, has faded and the nascent US-sponsored Iraqi institutions have failed to gain legitimacy. In the coming months, the fractious coalition of Iraqi interests on the US-controlled governing council will unravel under the sustained pressure of resistance attacks and harsh US/UK counter measures. The American house in Iraq, like that of the British in Ulster, is built on sand. And there will be British squaddies in Basra long after Tony Blair has fallen from power.



I fear Toolis is right, the critical moment has passed. The opportunity of building a new pro western democratic Iraq is lost. (If it ever existed! I never bought the WMD bullshit, but I did think there was an opportunity, despite the ugly way it was done, to build a better Iraq. Have I been suckered into buying that one, like so many bought into WMD?). Perhaps there was never a plan to build a new Iraq. Perhaps the military/political leaders of this adventure were not so dumb after all. Suppose they looked at the hotch potch of religious and tribal affilliations in Iraq and said "no way, lets just secure the bits we are really interested in and let the rest of the country sort itself out. While they're busy killing each other it dilutes the effectiveness of opposition to us. At the same time anarchy in Iraq provides an excuse for a continued presence under the pretext of maintaining security".

It certainly looks like its working out that way. What do the Americans actually hold in Iraq? A few enclaves in the cities, individual buildings, hotels, government offices. I'm willing to bet the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad is pretty secure. Oh and the oil fields themselves, forgot about them. Something tells me there is a pretty tight security cordon around all the major oil fields. Anyone know any better?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 05:31 am
McTag wrote:
I think some right-wing people placed on these threads are not independent of, and may be in the pay of, government bodies.

Anybody else feel that way?


Well I think .... gimme a sec will ya, gotta answer my shoe ... < 99, I told you never call me here ..... >
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2003 06:00 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.54 seconds on 08/05/2025 at 02:12:38