0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:49 pm
Ah, I have a poignant one of my own Gel.

There was this dog and it was totally crushed by a drunk driver who worked for Saddam. See the war was justified after all.

argumentum ad misericordiam
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:50 pm
Obviously he had to be killed. he would have grown up to be an "insurgent." Besides, they are just Iraqis, they aren't like us...the list goes on and on. Sad
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:51 pm
Not sure I follow you re demographics, CdK ...
And as far as the mindset and motive of the attackers, I clearly think there is a mix of socio-political agenda and simple predatory, criminal, opportunity grabbing. Some of the violence is directed specifically at impeding the Coalition. Some, such as carjackings, robbery, rapes, drug trade, smuggling, and murder are decidedly apolitical.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:58 pm
Wrong Hbob.... the dog, as it turns out, was a WMD BURIAL SQUAD LEADER WITH SYRIAN PAPERS
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:59 pm
Re demographics the US military itself has poor data on what demographics make up the attacks. You appear to be better informed than they.

As to the rest of these crimes there are places with worse crime rates. Are we going to bring it to the "bad guys" in every crime ridden alley as well? "Take" land and fight them on their terms? Or is the notion of "bad guys" who need land "taken" from them decidedly more complicated than that?

My point is that you've treated geopolitics like a novel, with it's hero villain and foils. Far more simplistics than life tends to be.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 12:02 am
timberlandko wrote:
Not sure I follow you re demographics, CdK ...
And as far as the mindset and motive of the attackers, I clearly think there is a mix of socio-political agenda and simple predatory, criminal, opportunity grabbing. Some of the violence is directed specifically at impeding the Coalition. Some, such as carjackings, robbery, rapes, drug trade, smuggling, and murder are decidedly apolitical.


I thought you were pro-Bush Tmber!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 12:20 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Re demographics the US military itself has poor data on what demographics make up the attacks. You appear to be better informed than they.

As to the rest of these crimes there are places with worse crime rates. Are we going to bring it to the "bad guys" in every crime ridden alley as well? "Take" land and fight them on their terms? Or is the notion of "bad guys" who need land "taken" from them decidedly more complicated than that? My point is that you've treated geopolitics like a novel, with it's hero villain and foils. Far more simplistics than life tends to be




Quote:
Wednesday, October 29, 2003

The Red Cross and Terrorism
The Red Cross have started pulling out their personnel. A friend of mine who works with the Red Crescent said that they were going to try to pull out most of their personnel, while trying to continue with what they're doing- humanitarian assistance. When I heard Nada Domani, the head of the ICRC in Iraq, say that they'd begin pulling out their personnel on Tuesday, I wished I could yell out, "Don't abandon us Nada!" But I realize that their first priority is to ensure the safety of their employees.

The Red Cross is especially important at this point because they are the 'link' that is connecting the families of the detainees and the military. When someone suddenly disappears, people go to the Red Cross and after a few grueling days, the missing person can often be tracked down at one of the prison camps or prisons.

The easy and na�ve thing to do would be to blame the whole situation on fundamentalists/extremists/terrorists/loyalists/ba'athists/foreigners which many people, apparently, think are one and the same. Another trend in western media is to blame the whole of them on the 'Sunni triangle' and 'neighboring countries'.

There are *several* groups orchestrating the attacks against the various targets. The first and most obvious indicator is the method of attack, while the second indicator is the variety of the targets.

The techniques being used in the attacks range from primitive, to professional. We hear that some of the explosive devices being used are home-made and uncomplicated, obviously made by amateurs. We know for a fact that there are high-tech attacks against Coalition headquarters- like at the Baghdad International Airport and some of the palaces where high-ranking army personnel are located. On some of these places, like the airport, missiles are being used which is an indicator that the source of the attack is a highly trained group.

One of my uncles lives in one of the areas closer to the airport, which is on the outskirts of Baghdad. During June, we spent a couple of weeks with him. Almost every night, we would wake up to a colossal explosion that seems to be coming from the direction of the airport and less than a minute later, the helicopters would begin hovering overhead. Another example of a high-tech attack, was the attack on Rasheed Hotel a few days ago, where Wolfowitz was shocked and awed out of a meeting. (I don't understand why the CPA is trying very hard to pretend the attack had nothing to do with his presence there).

The majority associate such attacks with resistance and many people believe that they are being carried out by people with access and knowledge of advanced military equipment- perhaps Iraqis who were a part of the Guard or former members of the Iraqi army. Now, while some may certainly be labeled as Ba'athists, or loyalists, they aren't fundamentalists. We do, after all, have hundreds of thousands of disgruntled former military personnel and soldiers who were made to sit at home without retirement, a pension or any form of compensation. The relatively few who were promised a monthly 'retirement wage', complain that they aren't getting the money. (I can never emphasize enough the mistake of dissolving the army� was anyone thinking when they came up with that decision?!)

New resistance groups are popping up every day. The techniques are becoming more sophisticated and we even hear of 'menshoorat' being passed around. Menshoorat are underground 'fliers'.

The suicide bombings, on the other hand, are more often attributed to fundamentalist groups. To say that these groups are fighting to bring back the former regime is ridiculous: People chose to ignore the fact that the majority of fundamentalists were completely against the former regime because members of Al Qaeda, Ansar Al Islam, Al Da'awa and other political fundamentalist groups were prone to detention, exile and in some cases, execution.

These groups are both Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist groups (as the attacks on the British and Polish troops in the southern region have proven). Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack on Baghdad Hotel a couple of weeks ago, while in the south, people swear that one of Al Hakim's personal bodyguards helped to conspire with his assassination (which would explain how a car full of explosives made it through his personal army of bodyguards and into the parking area where his own car was).

The irony is hearing about the 'War on Terrorism' on CNN and then tuning in to the CPA channel to see the Al-Da'awa people sitting there, polished and suited, Puppet Knights of the Round Table. To see Al-Jaffari, you almost forget that they had a reputation for terrorism over the decades, here in Iraq. They were one of the first political/religious groups to use bombings in Iraq to get their political message across to the people.

Their most famous debacle was one that occurred in 1980. One of the most prominent universities in Iraq, Mustansiriya University, was hosting a major, international conference on economics for various international youth groups. Tariq Aziz, who was then the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Iraq, was visiting the conference during the opening. Suddenly, in the middle of thousands of students from over 70 international and Iraqi youth organizations, two bombs exploded, killing 2 students and injuring dozens. The next day, while a demonstration of outraged students was following the funeral procession to a local graveyard, two more bombs were thrown in their midst, killing two high school students. Al-Da'awa later claimed responsibility.

Later that same year, in an attempt to assassinate the president of the University of Technology in Baghdad, they instead killed one of the university custodians who stood in their way.

In the '70s, members of Al Da'awa used to throw 'acid' in the faces of 'safirat' or females who don't wear the 'hijab', both in certain parts of Baghdad, and in certain areas in the south of Iraq. Shi'a clerics who didn't agree with their violent message, were often assassinated or assaulted.

The fact that they are currently one of the leading political parties involved with the "New Iraq" sends a wonderful message to 'terrorist organizations': Bombing works, terror works. People here are terrified we'll end up another Afghanistan� that these fundamentalist groups the CPA is currently flirting with are Iraq's Taliban.

Finally, there are all those strange, mystery attacks that no one understands and even the most extreme members of society can't condone or legitimatize. One such attack includes the attack on the UN headquarters. No one claimed responsibility for that. Another such attack was the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad� the Red Cross, the police stations... Many people believe that Al-Chalabi and his party are responsible for such incidents. Some of his guards are trained terrorists...

Al Chalabi arrived in April with a militia of Free Iraqi Fighters who, after several weeks of car hijacking, a few abductions, and some even say assassinations, suddenly disappeared� his 600+ thugs were supposedly 'interpreters'. I have very limited information on them, but someone said they were trained in Hungary? Today, people think they are acting as a sort of secret militia responsible for many of the assassinations and explosions all over Baghdad.

I'll blog about Ramadhan tomorrow� there's so much to tell.



Maybe if they would ask the people instead of forcing them to kneel and placing a bag on their head they would find out who the bad guys are
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 12:40 am
OK, CdK, I see what you mean now, I think. I gotta say your quip about crime-ridden allies strikes me as a bit on the ad absurdam side, but much of your criticism stands well.
As for the indeterminacy of the demographics of the attackers, no argument; not only is there little real documentation freely, if at all, available, there really isn't even a more accurate body count than "we're killing lots more of them than they're killing of our folks". That "our folks" now includes something over 100,000 Iraqi security personnel. Iraq now has the second largest manpower commitment of all the Coalition partners, BTW, and should surpass US boots-on-the-ground somewhere before the middle of next year. I notice Scandinavians and Polynesions have not been mentioned much as attackers Mr. Green, but annecdotal references from folks who's boots are or recently were on the ground there give me the impression a large contingent of the operational insurgency is composed of non-Iraqis. Not a majority, but a significant portion. I do admit that is not widely reported, and that there is little in the way of official corroboration. I could be wrong; its merely an impression I've gained from the impressions of others with whom I've coresponded.
And yeah, the geopolitical situation is far more complex than even a Russian novel. Sometimes its too easy to get caught up in the Heroes and Villains thing. I don't really see The US as Hero, but unlike those of political leaning other than mine, I see The Villains as pretty well self-defined, and definitely not of US origin.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:20 am
Odd, I thought the crime quip was the most solid of my arguments.

If crime is the sunstantiation of teh "we are fighting bad guys" claim then I am trying to illustrate that "bad guys" is a simplistic way of looking at things.

As to the "foreign" charge it has actually been reported well, with the lack of evidence also being reported.

Frankly that's something I'd agree with more than your earlier exactitude about the demographic makeup of the attackers.

And BTW, I agree that most of the attackers easily identify themselves as "bad". Where we part company is that this is not about something so simple.

For example, any conscript in the Iraqi army is labeled a "loyalist" to Saddam for doing what he was trained to; to patriotically defend his nation against an invader.

There is a great deal of broad brushing being done. And anecdotes like allegations on individual's self interest is not relevant to the big picture.

For exampl: a US soldier was caught by his commanders for stealing from an Iraqi he'd arrested (true story). Stealing is bad right? US be the bad guys. Going into Iraq to steal. Rolling Eyes

If you want to believe this war is about taking it to the bad guys that's fine with me. I simply maintain that it's a more simple conclusion than I'd have drawn and that using criminal activity as substantiation is odd. As i'd noted far more criminal activity has happened elsewhere.

We have killed far more innocent people recently than Saddam's regime did. In one's mind things can be black and white, but this is simply not that simple. In our effort to take on the "bad guys" we've managed to kill more innocent civilians than all of them put together. I simply think that killing that many people merits more justification than abstract "good/bad" arguments and sunstantiation along the lines of "carjackings, robbery, rapes, drug trade, smuggling, and murder".

Cause I could justify a couple of wars in some gettoes if given that liberty.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:49 am
I meant to separate and distinguish mere brigandry from paramilitary insurgency ... guess that wasn't clear. There's a huge difference in goals, if not in tactics. My "Goodguy/Badguy" designation harks back to my own military days; anybody shooting at me was a badguy irrespective of whether he might also have or have not been a rapist or car thief. Admittedly, the shooter might as easily have been a hapless and ideologically indifferent conscript as a thoroughly indoctrinated fanatic, but one doesn't do a lot of philosophical theorizing when one's immediate concern is to suppress incoming hostile fire. The conscript dutifully following orders may not be a badguy in and of himself, but if the badguys put him there, he's on their team.
BTW, are you able to substantiate your assertion that we have killed more innocents than Saddam had? By my reckoning, we're still down a whole bunch of mass graves on that score, and insurgent attacks have killed more innocent Iraqis and noncombatant third-nation citizens than have Coalition actions, so far as I know.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 02:16 am
Thing is, the necessary simplification of "good/bad" in ccombat has translated into arenas where it has no validity. Such as geoplitical dealings.

The war was sold under a simplistic banner and a misleading one. WMDs and "Saddam is bad".

I'd agree that he is "bad". But the simplistics mentality needed for combat is not the best tool to work with. the simplistic mentality in combat is one suited for the grunts, who are there to obey and not question why.

The questionings and the whys are noticably absent from the war's justification by some.

timberlandko wrote:

BTW, are you able to substantiate your assertion that we have killed more innocents than Saddam had?


Yep. I worded it carefully. "Recently" was critical. See, recently we've advocated war against him, while the bulk of his killings were committed during a period in which the US supported him and the US had prevented condemnation of Saddam for his atrocities.

As such, I feel that during a period in which his atrocity has been largely contained it is duplicitous to reference the deaths that we failed to condemn in the past.

My reasoning is that at the moment that the war was launched a greater risk to Iraqi civilians was posed by us than by Saddam. I doubt very much that Saddam would have killed as many people as the US military did directly in the subsequent years of his contained reign.

Quote:
insurgent attacks have killed more innocent Iraqis and noncombatant third-nation citizens than have Coalition actions, so far as I know.


This is not true. You are thinking in terms of small arms actions and excluding the bulk of our killings that way.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:34 am
They're describing the attack on the helicopter as an attack by "insurgents". Why the refusal to consider the possibility that some of these attacks are carried out by people who have seen their entire families massacred by US bombs?

If it'd been my family, I'd become the worst "terrorist" in the world.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:37 am
Iraq divided ........

Pop quiz:
Who said "I am a uniter, not a divider"?

Clue: If you need one it really wouldntt matter


Quote:
Another things Iraqis who work for the CPA or related offices are not allowed to have is Breakfast. If you are seen in the Cafeteria during the breakfast period your badge gets taken away from you and without a badge you get booted out of the compound. I talked to a couple of young women working for the CPA in the green zone and what they told me was very interesting, it seems from what they have been telling me that the ratio of women to men on there is much higher than the normal work space (if you exclude banks, it is very much women's domain don't ask me why) that is interesting by itself added to that Iraqis never get promoted to anything, they stay at "level zero". The maximum pay is $15 a day and in order to be on time for the start of the working day you have to start queuing from 6am because of the long lines at the entrance gates. This lining up is one thing they are all freaked out about, all except the Americans in their green zone. Both women I talked to have been warned against telling anyone their home address and the communication between Iraqis in there is not very good, you don't want to tell someone where you live only to start getting phone calls telling you stop helping the Americans. This has happened quite often. So although they have this on their minds all they time thay still come to their jobs, yes the pay is good but if they stop coming the "coalition" will be in the blind. They depend on these people to be their link to the "outside" world. And what do they do to insure they safety? They make them wait for hours in lines outside the green zone. The 14th of July Bridge and the Jumhuriya Bridge entrances are very nice places for any sort of saboteur. You only have to drive by with a Kalashnikov to mow down the Iraqis. Look these people are working for you and don't tell me you don't need them because that would be a lie, do you want to bring your own civil servants into a war zone? So the least you can do is not to make them into sitting ducks like the Iraqi police now are. This is another thing I would like people to pay some respect to. Iraqi Police kick major ass. Much respect. Wherever you go now and open up that subject you will see a lot of sympathy with those brave men and women and a total incomprehension to what this so called resistance is doing. They are killing Iraqis now. They say Jihad against the Infidel Occupier and they go kill those Iraqi police men. The Baghdad Hotel, the Turkish embassy and many more. It is not the Infidel the attackers are killing but Iraqis and this just might be good because the general sentiment now is "what the **** do the Jihadis think they are doing?". I wrote or said some time ago that most Iraqis are just sitting on the fence, well the last couple of attacks are tipping the balance against the Jihadis because they are killing all those Iraqis, they are putting bombs in streets and in front of schools, threatening to bomb banks where Iraqis are standing in line waiting to get their new Iraqi Dinars. So as we say here [biha saleh - something good will come out of it] maybe the people who are dying in those attacks are helping us understand that what those saboteurs are doing is just pure evil, telling people they are Muslim Jihadis doesn't cut it anymore because they are killing civilians indiscriminately.
:: salam 8:40 PM [+] ::


http://dearraed.blogspot.com/
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:51 am
This is a report, more from "Miscellaneous".

Quote:
Iraq's soccer coach blasts U.S.-led coalition
[size=7]Copyright © 2003 Nando Media
Copyright © 2003 AP Online [/size]

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (November 3, 2:24 a.m. AST) - Iraq's soccer coach criticized the U.S.-led coalition for ignoring the needs of the national team and threatened to resign unless authorities help the squad prepare for the upcoming Asian championships.
"In a country without any working cinemas or theaters, where people are afraid to go out at night, the successes of our team are a matter of huge national pride," Bernd Stange said Sunday. "That's important for the return of normalcy. Doesn't the coalition, doesn't Paul Bremer understand this?"

Stange, from Germany, complained that Bremer, Iraq's chief U.S. administrator, had provided no support for the team and had not even called to congratulate the players after they qualified for the Asia Cup, the continent's most prestigious competition that will be played in China in June. The Associated Press called coalition spokesmen several times but they were either out of their office or would not comment.

Soccer is by far the most popular sport in this country of 25 million people, and the national team was considered a regional powerhouse in the 1980s. In 1986, its team took part in the World Cup in Mexico.

Stange, who used to coach East Germany and Australia's Perth Glory, took over the Iraqi national team in November. He remained outside the country during the U.S.-led invasion that ended in May with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Stange returned to Baghdad soon after to find the country's soccer infrastructure devastated by looters and the invading forces.

"I came here and found nothing, no balls, no nets, no funds, no competitions and no players," he said. "The main stadium had been turned into a parking lot for American tanks and its turf destroyed."

Stange quickly reassembled the team ahead of the qualifiers for the Asia Cup, which Iraq had to play in Malaysia and Bahrain because it was impossible to have home games.

"We started from zero and we had three months to prepare for the qualifiers, but we did it," he said. "We came ahead in our group of teams that had spent millions to get to China."

FIFA, world soccer's ruling body, and the Asian Football Confederation provided for funding and equipment and are assisting in refurbishing the national stadium and the soccer federation headquarters, which was destroyed during the war. The German Football Union paid for his team to come and train in Germany.

"Without that help we would not have been able to qualify for the Asia Cup at the top of our group," he said.

Stange lauded his "as extremely talented and motivated" players as well as the leadership of the Iraqi association, including interim president Hussain Saeed Mohamed and vice president Ahmed Rhady and other volunteers "who are working 20 hours a day without pay to revive the national league."

"But for the coalition, I only have hard words," Stange said. "I know that soccer is not the most important thing in life, but this country has always been crazy about the game and they should understand that our successes are helping boost morale and lift Iraq from the ashes."

He said that without an immediate infusion of money for soccer, it will be impossible to keep the national team together because all of its members have already signed or have been offered lucrative contracts in the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia.

"If there is no change, I will leave my job by the end of the year," Stange said.

In postwar Iraq, even the national coach is not immune to dangers. This week gunmen shot his driver in the leg, arm and head. On other occasion, Stange drove through a firefight between American troops and Iraqi fighters on the highway near the city of Fallujah.

Stange says he wants to remain in Iraq because he believes the team will do well in the Asia Cup and qualify for the World Cup in Germany in 2006.

"That's my plan, I want them to play in my country as a symbol of the new Iraq," said Stange.
Anchorage Daily


Stange was a former GDR football manager and engaged in Iraq at times of the old pre-war regime.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 07:32 am
Rumsfeld gave the impression that the loss of one aircraft was worth it. But what is "it"? What are American troops actually doing in Iraq that makes their sacrifice, on balance, worth it?

Saddam is playing a subtle game. Far too subtle for George W.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 08:17 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Rumsfeld gave the impression that the loss of one aircraft was worth it. But what is "it"? What are American troops actually doing in Iraq that makes their sacrifice, on balance, worth it?

Saddam is playing a subtle game. Far too subtle for George W.


Here's an opinion on the worth of it.

Iraq opinion
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 08:31 am
Quote:
armed Islamofacists and their travelling companions, the displaced Ba'athist thugs and assorted opportunistic brigands of indeterminate ideology
sheesh timber, you trying to get a subcontract with Bill Safire? But "Islamofacists" is a great category, like 'Islamoliberals" and "Christofacists" and "Facistolamowhamofemmies"
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 08:37 am
But American troops in Iraq are not actually doing any of the things Peter Brookes finds so laudable.

Saddam is not defeated
Iraq is not being transformed into a secular democracy (and I don't believe it was ever a realistic objective)
Security considerations are deterring foreign investment.
Iraq has no secure borders
Al qaida fighters are attracted to Iraq like flies
Support for Hamas, Hizb'allah etc has not decreased.

All America is actually doing is holding onto certain secure enclaves and trying to get the oil flowing while the rest of Iraq goes to hell. That is the stark reality of whether it is "worth it". Oil for blood, or blood for oil, depending on your priority.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 08:40 am
Just wondering, if 'Islamofascists' are much better than 'Islamonazis'.


Ooops - found the answer just by myself: Mussolini was better than Hitler.

So, I'll wait for the "bad bad" 'Islamonazis' to came.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 08:48 am
Here's the best report I have been able to find:

Quote:


Here, with links to details of the eight criteria.

Conclusions?

Quote:
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 0.05 seconds on 07/24/2025 at 09:16:58