0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 01:50 pm
Again, dys, this is the norm for any war.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 03:09 pm
Then, there's the fact a certain number of troops will be AWOL at any given time. Not all of them are deserters; many are found to have been anything from stupidly irresponsible to blamelessly unfortunate.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 08:06 pm
Could the War Have Been Averted?(link)

Quote:
A possible negotiated peace deal was laid out in a heavily guarded compound in Baghdad in the days before the war, but a top former Pentagon adviser says he was ordered not to pursue the deal, ABCNEWS has learned.

* * *

A week later, according to Hage, he and an associate were asked to come to Baghdad, when Hage says he met with Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush, later labeled the Jack of Diamonds in the deck of cards depicting the most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Habbush is still at large.

"He was conveying a message," said Hage. "He was conveying an offer." Hage said Habbush laid out terms of a negotiated peace during a four-hour session beginning at midnight at a compound in Baghdad.

Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but offered to allow several thousand U.S. agents or scientists free rein in the country to carry out inspections. "Based on my meeting with his man," said Hage, "I think an effort was there to avert war. They were prepared to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials."

Hage said Habbush also offered U.N.-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies and was prepared to turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Haboush said had been in Iraqi custody since 1994.

(Yasin is one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, indicted in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Hage says Habbush claimed the United States had refused earlier offers to turn him over. Yasin remains at large and is now thought to be one of the people behind the recent wave of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.)

Throughout the period of the negotiations claimed by Hage, the Bush administration publicly maintained it would not conduct negotiations with Baghdad to avoid a war that did not first involve the unconditional departure of Saddam Hussein from Iraq or his surrender.

But Richard Perle, then chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, said in the weeks leading up to war he told the CIA, but they refused the plan to meet with Iraqi officials to discuss a possible peace deal along the lines of the plan outlined by Hage to ABCNEWS.

"Although I was not enthusiastic about the offer, I was willing to meet with the Iraqis," Perle told ABCNEWS. "The United States government told me not to." Perle would not disclose which official or arm of the government rejected the talks.

According to Pentagon e-mails obtained by ABCNEWS, Hage's report of the Iraqi offer was forwarded to Defense Department officials on Feb. 20, including Jaymie Durnan, who at the time was the top aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. However, Pentagon officials said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were not aware of the talks.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:32 pm
Wow!!!!
If this is true it is clearly an indictement of the US Admin. Why hasn't this been brought forth in any newspaper, radio or tv?

Headline: War Could Have Avoided!!!!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:40 pm
This op-ed piece may be kinder to George W. than I'd be. Nonetheless, Kristof hits the high points of the issues and puts them together in a very well-written, well-thought-out opinion article for the NY Times:

Quote:
November 5, 2003

Death by Optimism
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

On a visit to Saddam's Iraq a year ago, I wrote a column that outraged his government. It described officials burning a Muslim leader's beard and then driving nails through his head.
The next day I was summoned to a government ministry and menacingly denounced by two of Saddam's henchmen. But neither man could speak English, and they hadn't actually read the offending column. (Imagine officials who don't read papers but rely on underlings for briefings!)
At that point, my government minder took my column and translated it for them. I saw my life flash before my eyes. But my minder's job was to spy on me, and he worried that my tough column would reflect badly on his spying. Plus, he was charging me $100 a day, and he would lose a fortune if I was expelled, or worse.
So he translated my column very selectively. There was no mention of burning beards or nails in heads. He left out whole paragraphs. When he finished, the two senior officials shrugged and let me off scot-free.
That episode underscored to me how difficult it was for Saddam's government to get accurate information. Ultimately, Saddam's rule collapsed in part because he couldn't read Iraq and made decisions based on hubris and bad information.
These days, President Bush and his aides are having the same problem. Critics complain that they lied to the American public about how difficult the war would be, but I fear the critics are wrong: they didn't just fool us ?- they also fooled themselves.
Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, "greeted as liberators." The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan.
I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion ?- at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information.
Policy by wishful thinking is crippling our occupation. Initially, U.S. officials didn't restrain looting because they regarded it as celebratory high jinks. Then, confident that security was in hand, they disbanded the Iraqi Army. They didn't push hard to bring in international forces.
The foreign forces they suggest introducing are Turks, which adds to my fear that administration officials have been more deluded than duplicitous. It is a crazy scheme: anyone who has spent time in Iraq knows that Iraqis will never accept their former colonial power policing them.
Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."
Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.
"I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort."
Sure, we're making some progress in Iraq. A hand grenade sells for $2.50 now, compared with 10 cents a few months ago. But U.S. troops now face 25 to 30 attacks daily, compared with 15 to 20 in September. Last month 33 Americans were killed, twice as many as in September.
One of Mr. Bush's strengths as a politician is his optimistic nature, but I now fear it is also his central weakness in governing. Reckless overconfidence led him to adopt fiscal policies that will leave our children indebted, and this same cockiness led us into Iraq. Brash optimism perhaps has its roots in Mr. Bush's hometown, Midland, Tex., an oil town that regularly rewarded hard work with a gusher, a place where everybody you meet displays this same hearty can-do confidence. In Midland, Mr. Bush unfortunately absorbed the lesson that risks in the desert pay off.
So the scary thing is, Mr. Bush and his aides may not be lying when they look at Iraq and boast of a cheering population that a Western press sourly refuses to acknowledge. There's a precedent: Saddam Hussein.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/opinion/05KRIS.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:21 pm
I remember those Iraqis cheering Saddam. It's rather ironic that this administration thinks that the Iraqi cheers come from the heart, and not from total fear.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:51 am
I hadn't realized that the Senate didn't have a individual, recorded vote for the $87B appropriation:

Quote:
If defeat is an orphan, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, for which the Senate appropriated $87 billion by a voice vote on Monday, should already go down in the loss column.

By rejecting the normal option of a recorded vote, America's senators decided that they did not want to be held individually accountable for our continuing presence in Iraq. That decision speaks far louder than their decision to actually fund our forces there and the Iraqi reconstruction.


Escape by Voice Vote
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 09:41 am
Yes, I heard a report on that yesterday, PDiddie, and was horrified. We really need to go after them on that one. McCain ducked it too, even when asked. A significant discredit.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 09:50 am
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Quote:
I cite these events because I think they underline two very disturbing phenomena -- the loss of U.S. international credibility, the growing U.S. international isolation.

Both together can be summed up in a troubling paradox regarding the American position and role in the world today. American power worldwide is at its historic zenith. American global political standing is at its nadir. Why? What is the cause of this? These are facts. They're measurable facts. They're also felt facts when one talks to one's friends abroad who like America, who value what we treasure but do not understand our policies, are troubled by our actions and are perplexed by what they perceive to be either demagogy or mendacity.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 09:54 am
Here's something to watch for...
Quote:
Government ministers, including Tony Blair, could potentially face international prosecution for war crimes over the conduct of the war in Iraq, the organiser of a legal debate into the conflict, said today.

International law experts will be picking over the government's legal case for going to war in Iraq and the way the occupation is being conducted at an all-day public debate on Saturday.

A panel of eight leading lawyers from the UK, Canada, France and Ireland will debate the question: "Was it legal to go to war?" and are expected to cover topics such as the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the targeting of civilian buildings and the military occupation. The debate at the London School of Economics is open to the public.

Dr Andrew Williams, of Warwick University's law department, who is organising the event, said: "We don't know if war crimes have been committed or if global laws have been violated but there are troublesome aspects that deserve examination and inquiry."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1079236,00.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 10:03 am
Blatham -- I've just been reading up on an issue I knew nothing about, and that's the effort of the US to take over Mexico's proud (if doddering) national petroleum industry. Pemex's infrastructure needs rebuilding and there is an effort in Congress to get the Mexican government to agree to privatize Pemex (not only leaving it wide open for takeover but robbing Mexico of a national symbol) in return for help in modernizing it. Tied to this is another carrot: amnesty for Mexicans now living and working in the US. We may not have our priorities in order, but we make sure our quid pro quo's work to our advantage in the guise of foreign "assistance" and generosity. All of this will be presented to American TV viewers as another example of our savvy and decency. The cynicism of all this -- and the lack of respect for the complexity of Mexico's political and economic structure -- just makes me sick.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 02:07 pm
Tartarin
Tartarin, do you have a site for the article you refer to. I would like to have fbaezer read and comment on it.

BumbleBeeBoogie
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:43 pm
BBB -- What I posted was the result of mooching around Google News -- type in Pemex, then sort by date. This isn't new news, but there are updates...

Also, go to NPR's Diane Rehm show. The first hour this morning was devoted to relations with Mexico.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:45 pm
For those who haven't yet seen this, an excerpt:

Quote:
Halliburton Contract Extension Cancelled Amid Allegations of Overcharging TaxpayersThe Army Corps of Engineers is "likely" to cancel the no-bid contract extension granted a week ago to Halliburton for delivery of oil-related services amid allegations that Halliburton is overcharging the federal government to import oil into Iraq. The decision to revisit the contract extension comes in part due to the assertions from inside the Pentagon that Halliburton's price for imported gasoline was "at least double what it should be."1

Jeffrey Jones, the Director of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), told minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee that it costs the DESC $1.08 to $1.19 to buy and import fuel via truck into Iraq - a price that's less than half the $2.65 Halliburton is charging the US government.2 ....
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df11062003.html
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:58 pm
BBB found this interesting info
BBB found this interesting info

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:VDk3YqRO4KoJ:www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/prn/texas/2131291+Pemex&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 04:07 pm
http://www.bartcop.com/read_again.JPG
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 04:39 pm
Nice one, BBB! I wonder if we checked Emerson in the FEC list of contributors...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 04:40 pm
BTW -- Did you come across a general article (very recent) in the Albuquerque Journal? Which is the first one which popped up in Google when I was looking? Kind of an overview.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:56 pm
Tartarin wrote:
For those who haven't yet seen this, an excerpt:

Quote:
Halliburton Contract Extension Cancelled Amid Allegations of Overcharging TaxpayersThe Army Corps of Engineers is "likely" to cancel the no-bid contract extension granted a week ago to Halliburton for delivery of oil-related services amid allegations that Halliburton is overcharging the federal government to import oil into Iraq. The decision to revisit the contract extension comes in part due to the assertions from inside the Pentagon that Halliburton's price for imported gasoline was "at least double what it should be."1

Jeffrey Jones, the Director of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), told minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee that it costs the DESC $1.08 to $1.19 to buy and import fuel via truck into Iraq - a price that's less than half the $2.65 Halliburton is charging the US government.2 ....
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df11062003.html


Gas goes up that much here in the states when a pipeline busts or similar incident, much less hauling fuel amongst RPG's etc. I'm not defending the Haliburton situation, I just think it's asinine to suggest this is blatant gouging considering the environment in which they are hauling flammable liquids through. The DESC are quoting common freight rates and profit margins, if it were my company I would be charging at least as much they are for the risk.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 06:03 pm
here are some comments on possibly asking turkish troops to aid in the iraq CONFLICT(it's not a war, is it ?). hbg http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-06-143409.asp?reg=EUROPE#body
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 09:34:25