The UN, US and Iraq IV

Or was.

Here's the latest insult. A soldier injured in Iraq was treated at a hospital. When he was ready to leave, he was asked to pay for his care.

:sad: but true, and unbelievable. Where is Bush for these men and women? It is not the only incident of this nature

This administration already took away health care for our vets. The way they treat our military in uniform is a crime of the higest order.

Interesting link to various ways in which the GI's are getting screwed or are thought about being screwed:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=hazardous+duty+pay+iraq&btnG=Search+News

In all fairness, service men and women always had to pay their own transportation cost during R&R. Even back in the late fifties, we paid our own transportation costs. However, we were able to hitch rides on planes when there was space available. I got a chance to ride on a B29 from New Mexico to Riverside, California, once. Boy, that was an experience. When I was stationed in Morocco, I was able to hitch rides on those goony birds to Europe. Was able to see London, Paris, and Madrid - all free transportation.

I had an R&R and a 7 day leave paid for out of my tour of duty in Viet Nam. War is a much different situation than when on is at a time of Peace, even if it a war based on total lies!!!!

Was free transportation provided during past wars?

Space-A travel ended about five years ago, If I remember correctly.

May I add a response from blatham, which he did on the No. 3 thread. [Thank you.]

This item led on the major (BBC and ITV) news broadcasts on our TV last night.

The nation is being told, we went to war on a legal opinion based on a falsehood. Parliament was duped. The people were lied to.

Now what?

Now what?
That is the sad part ... one of the sad parts of the story ... call it hyperbole if you will ... there is a stench in the air, a stench of greed being granted legitimacy by the apathy of the surviving victims. Here in my vestibule I vent my rage and somehow, to my mind, gain absolution from the thousands upon thousands of tortured souls that have died a horrid death that can only be supplanted by the agony of those left steeping in remembrance. Suddenly the truth of indifference and the realization that perhaps we have approached the pinnacle of our maturation as souls of the universe and are now plummeting, shades of the hapless Lemming, and are now, again falling from grace.

The answer to my friend's question ... 'now what'?

Maybe if we started making decisions base on what we felt was right, instead of what we felt would enrich our personal well being ... who knows.

One way or the other we can only grow in wisdom if wisdom is considered.

And from the Daily Mis-read:
President Bush's Inspectors Find No Weapons to Support his Claims about Imminent Threat


A desperate five-month search by a team of 1,400 U. S. investigators reportedly has failed to find any new physical evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, despite President Bush's continuing insistence the weapons not only existed but posed an imminent threat to the United States.1

The failure of the U. S. team, led by Bush appointee David Kay, seriously undermines the integrity of the President's assertion two days prior to the war: "Intelligence gathered...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."2

Bush's bold declaration, according to a subsequent review, was based on old and faulty intelligence data. Former CIA official Richard Kerr, who helped with the review, said Bush's assessment ignored "caveats and disagreements" in the data3 and relied "heavily on evidence that was at least five years old."4 Even the Pentagon's intelligence agency had warned in a classified September 2002 report that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."5

Bush continued to claim otherwise, saying inaccurately in May, "We found the weapons of mass destruction" and predicting "we'll find more weapons as time goes on."6 The widespread search he initiated, however, now has turned up not a single weapon of mass destruction.

Sources:
1. Inquiry Unlikely to Report Finding Iraq Arms, Reuters, 9/24/03, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SWEI0LEDF3UJ0CRBAEZSFEY? type=topNews&storyID=3502138
2. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
3. "U.S. Used 'Old' Data",
4. "Gauging a threat with little data ; Withdrawal of UN inspectors created intelligence vacuum", New York Times, 7/22/03.
5. Defense Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program, State Department, 6/7/03, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03060720.htm.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 5/29/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq. He has been in Iraq since March and in the military for about five years. And he wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria (IL) Journal Star:

A U.S. soldier in Iraq wonders: 'How many more must die?'



(This in a newspaper that appeals to its readers to "Download an American flag to set as wallpaper for your PC")

Although I had great misgivings about the morality of launching an attack on Iraq, I was initially prepared to overlook the fact that it was clearly illegal under international law, because some undeniable benefits would accrue.

For example - the security and control of western oil supplies is not a minor issue. Leaving Saddam in place to build up military strength and extract political leverage by threatening the continuity of oil and gas supplies sounds like a recipe for serious trouble to me. On the other hand, removing him and creating a free pro-western Muslim democracy would set an example to many other states.

The problem is the naiveté of American leadership. Rumsfeld thought he only had to mention the phrase "full spectrum dominance" snap his fingers and hey-presto Saddam is gone and the new Iraq emerges like a rabbit out of the hat. My understanding is that it was only in the summer of 2002 when military planners were on the brink of revolt, that Rumsfeld relented and recognised an invasion and occupation would in fact mean committing considerable numbers of troops.

But it still wasn't enough was it Mr Rumsfeld? Didn't you pay any attention because you were so busy laughing, to the Iraqi information minister when he said Iraq's streets and houses would be their swamps and jungles? Weren't you just a little bit surprised when on 8th April the Iraqis melted away, and you toppled Saddam? (In effigy). I would suggest to you Mr Rumsfeld that one should be extremely cautious of surprises in war time. But it didn't stop Bush declaring the war won, his faith in God, America and navy pilots reaffirmed.

The reality is somewhat different. Saddam is not gone. He's around somewhere, and he's got some support. The number of attacks on American forces is increasing. Saddam doesn't have the same grip on power that he had, but he's clever enough to know that in time of crisis your enemy's enemy is your friend. So he's quite happy to see Shiite guerrillas slipping over the border from Iran or Syria and blowing themselves up against the forces of occupation.

Primary objective 1. Removal of Saddam. Not achieved.

This is my main objection. Not so much that UK/US forces invaded, but they didn't do a proper job of taking full control of Iraq. The Americans in particular made no attempt to win the battle for hearts and minds. And didn't care about world opinion either.

Did anyone really think the US would not have gone ahead alone if Britain had said no? Is it a surprise that the rest of the world does not rush to aid coalition forces now they are finding winning the peace far harder than defeating Saddam's army? Might the attitude of France Germany and Russia now be somewhat different had America shown the slightest interest in taking their views into account before the war?

So without a firm grip on the country, its not possible to establish law and order. And without that its not possible to do much else. It seems that building the new Iraq is on permanent hold.

Iraq was never a democracy. It only held together under the iron rule of Saddam. Just how stupid is it to imagine that once released from the tyranny of Saddam 30 disparate tribes and groups with their own agendas and leaders (most seeing potential to make themselves very rich) are going to sit down together and rule 25 million Iraqis for the benefit of Iraq as a whole?

So we get back to my original point. The war was illegal. But I was prepared to accept that. But it has not been a success either, and that I'm not prepared to overlook.

Its time to radically re assess US/UK commitment to Iraq. The legal reason for the invasion was to find and destroy WMD. That's what we are supposed to be doing right now. But there were no WMD. The whole thing was a mistake. America should revert to acting within the rule of international law and that means withdrawing its troops from Iraq, handing over the administration of the country to the UN who will supervise the re-installation of the previous regime to whom America and Britain should say sorry and pay compensation.

I agree with you, the way it was done was greedy and shortsighted. I go back to the statement, politics is about interests, not morals. If you read what the French and Russian oil positions in regard to Iraq were before the war, you will see their motivation for being reluctant to join the coalition. I do not view their stance as being any more noble than America's, it was all about their interests also. This is why the UN is only going to be effective to a point, too many individual interest being supposedly arbitrated and represented by this collective board.

Right on Steve

Well, it's nice to click into this thread and find that you all have settled the issue. :wink:

PNAC long ago chose hegemony as foreign policy; 9/11 simply accelerated its execution.

Americans need no longer fear that our role in this new world will be that of policeman; rather, it is that we are now the planet's mobster.

With the most powerful army and weapons, control of the fuels and markets, and an electorate frightened into believing that we're the underdogs because we could, at any moment, be attacked in our Wal-Mart parking lot, the only check against this marauding selfish takeover is the voice of those who know it is wrong to be the bully in every single negotiation, every transaction, every deal.

Cast in this light, it is easy to see why America is called the Great Satan by those who would dare oppose her. (Don't forget that they're using their God to justify their battles, too.) The bullies carry this all the way home: "you're either with us or against us...you damned libruls."

Neoconservatives have co-opted every last symbol of righteousness to sell their product: religion, patriotism, and military pride turned into a God-fearing Commander-in-Chief dressed up like a pilot.

Even the method of tabulating votes is being assumed by those who wish to consolidate their influence and expand their profits.

Those who suddenly find themselves under this boot's heel are the only ones capable of throwing it off (without great bloodshed). Our Constitution provides the means and opportunity; we must supply the motivation ourselves.

Do the American people (and more specifically, the minority who vote) get it? Indications are that they don't quite, yet, but there are stirrings of realization.

There's only about 14 months left to wake up enough people to stop them.

I think that's time enough, but the job itself makes Heracles' task at the Aegean stables seem like a walk in the park.

And the stench is even worse....

Like I said an another thread, anytime I hear the far right use the words "freedom," or "democracy," I become more and more worried.

Well, if the news is correct, I gotta say that I expected more than it appears The Kay Report will provide; it is rumored to be inconclusive.
The focus on WMD as key justification for US-led intervention was certainly a blunder (which has long been my position), and no doubt will provide much fodder for Bush Bashers and those consumed by Anti-American Angst.
I also gotta say "Those folks just don't get it". Saddam's 12-year-long defiance of UN directives, violation of UN sanctions, domestic human rights abuses, and both open and clandestine support for International Terrorism quite adequately justified, indeed mandated, his removal. The error stems from allowing "Those Folks" to redirect the focus of approbation from Saddam's non-compliance to the physicality of WMD threat. The simple fact is that UNMOVIC's purpose was not to discover and destroy WMD, but rather was to monitor and verify Saddam's open, transparent, cooperative compliance with disarmamment requirements in place since the Gulf War Ceasefire, as per the Safwan Accords of 1991. What was verified is that Saddam continued to remain defiant and obstructionist even in the face of clear and present assurance of direct military intervention. The Media misdirected public perception of this simple fact, and The Current Administration allowed itself to swallow the same bait. The facts are that Saddam was to provide proof of compliance and to cooperate unreservedly in the verification of that proof. That, unarguably, he failed to do.
None of that alters the fact that the pressing need now is the reconstitution of Iraq. All it does is continue to misdirect focus, and to further burden the People of Iraq. Why the regime was toppled is of no significance in the matter of bringing Iraq into active, contributory participation in the economy and affairs of the geopolitical world of the 21st Century.

1) Saddam never complied with the Safwan Accords, thus violating the terms of the '91 ceasefire, thereby justifying the resumption of hostilities.
2) Saddam defied multiple UN Chapter VII resolutions
3) Saddam violated numerous UN Sanctions, conducting illicit trade in petroleum, conventional weapons and technology
4) Saddam diverted International Aid to his own purposes
5) Saddam obstructed delivery of International Aid to his People
6) Saddam endorsed International Terrorism
7) Saddam provided financial and logistic support for International Terrorism
8) Saddam never renounced his claim on Kuwait
9) Saddam clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly declared Iraq remained at war with The US, the UN, and was committed to the eradication of Israel
10) Saddam oppressed, raped, and looted his own People as matter of institutional practice.

In those regards, Saddam's removal was if anything even more legitimate than the toppling of The Taliban, the arrest and prosecution of Milosovec, and the removal of Charles Taylor. The US action in the matter of Saddam, already widely unpopular, gains not at all by the expected inconlusive Kay Report. Popularity or its lack, however, are irrelevant in the consideration of moral and ethical imperatives.

Inconvenient as it may be for Bush the Younger and his Administration, this development will be of less importance, domestically and internationally, than "Those Folks" assume or hope. I fear the biggest loser here will turn out to be Tony Blair.
What I now anticipate is

1) The US will remain the primary facillitator and overseer of Iraq's rehabillitation
2) Stabilization and improvement within Iraq will not only continue but accellerate
3) France, Germany, Russia, and by extension, the UN will assume supportive roles in the rehabilitation of Iraq, subordinate to the US
4) The UN will undergo a sweeping reformation in recognition of its altered role and capabilities in the Post-Cold War World
5) US World Leadership, political and economic, will continue to consolidate, as both the US and World Economies demonstrate substantial growth
6) The War on Terrorism will continue to be prosecuted successfully
7) The Middle East will move toward real peace (though not without dismaying struggle)
8) Iran and North Korea will acceed to diplomatic resolution of their Nuclear Weapons Program disputes
9) Bush wins in '04, comfortably and incontravertibly, though not decisively
10) The Republicans gain functional majority in both Legislative Cahmbers, as well as increasing control of sate governments both in terms of governorships and legislative representation

Now, I'm on record here. Whether or not I endorse any of the foregoing, those are my assessments of the situation, and my projections, based on nothing more concrete than the way I see things. Feel free to track my progress as developments occur.