The UN, US and Iraq IV

McTag- Would you be so good as to give some evidence that , as you say,'The war against terror" will "increase terror for Western Nations"

Some say it will decrease terror. Indeed, we have had no terror attacks in the USA since 9/11, praise the lord.

That does not seem to me to have increased terror.

Some say terror would have increased if we and many of the nations of the world had not began campaigns against terror. Many countries- Spain, Germany, Italy, among them have jailed putative terrorists.

Again, can you show some evidence for your statement?

Thank you!

Ah say ah say anoyances .... the boy's trying trying to say he's an anoyance ... anoyance that is .... how did a chicken hawk ever get so damned irritating irratating that is .... the boy's like a pair o burlap skivvies ah say aah say he rubs ya in all the wrong places ... makes mah anus itch that is ........

Kara said



Hi Kara, nice to hear from you again.

That's a fair question and deserves as straight an answer as I can give.

Given the choice between war or no war I would go no war. Who wouldn't?
But sometimes we don't have that choice. It might be war now or war later. Or surrender or war. Or war because you have to obey orders. (This latter appropriate I think in Britain's case).

I always knew Saddam was one evil bastard. (From the days when to my shame I used to work for a company selling equipment to the Iraqi Army). So getting rid of him and his regime was certainly a good aim in itself.

And I never thought the war was specifically about WMD, rather the geopolitical necessities of the USA in particular over oil and gas. - the same applied to Britain.

Was it moral? Can't say, I'll leave that to the theologians/moralists

Was it illegal. Certainly, it never had the backing of the UN, and the ostensible reason for starting the war (WMD) turns out to be a pack of lies.

Was it necessary? Short term no, but longer term I really don't know. How would you like to face down a nuclear armed Iraq, with their hands on the oil supply lines and demanding the elimination of Israel?

So thinking back to March I was deeply troubled - as were we all.

But one thing I was confident about was that we would win. So given that I "failed" to prevent the war, (although in truth I was really an agnostic), the next best thing was to win it quickly, and this appeared to happen.

But the reality is somewhat different. There is no peace in Iraq. Saddam is still around. Anti American elements are attracted to Iraq like flies to a heap of ****. In short there is no sign of any of the laudable war aims becoming a reality. And this I blame entirely on the incompetence and naïveté of Rumsfeld Bush Rice Cheney.

What I will be saying to my mate the minister tomorrow when I see him is that under this administration and the present set up in Iraq there is no chance of the coalition forces winning the peace and building the better Iraq we all want.

We did our bit to help fight the war. But we can't even contribute to winning the peace. I want us to withdraw British troops, maybe to send them back under UN auspices, or even alongside the US next year when Wesley Clark wins the Presidency!

I want to see a free democratic pro Western Muslim Iraq with a secular constitution. But at the moment we are as far away from that as ever, and I can't see withdrawing British forces as detrimental to that end.

I also think withdrawal of UK troops might just make the US realise it is better to work with the rest of the world than try and bully or force other countries to do its bidding.

Re reading your question - it was a lot more succinct than my waffling answer! my answer is yes.

Pragmatism good word wish I'd thought of it


IUD? Does it really? I wouldn't know about such things. When I decided to av a tar I just liked the look of it. Perhaps I'll av to av another tar. IUD - no relation to WMD then?

ps Sorry to get Mr Italgato and Walter going by mentioning Machiavelli.

I too enjoyed the dialog, but fear i might have missed a nuance or two.

But actually I was refering to Guiseppi Machiavelli our local ice cream seller. (Besides illegal fags etc he does some really wicked ice creams - Devious Diamond Crunch, Bitter Twisted Flake etc)

LMAO...that's a nuance, idn't it?

Just barely got it...

Yah ist zer Englischer zenze of humour, verr subtle, zats ow zey won se var no?

Dunno why folks bash the Germans ... they may not win wars, but it seems it takes the whole world to beat 'em when they do get riled up.

Italgato wrote:



How can we know whether any Poll in Iraq is accurate? Or even Near accurate? Journalists may tell us what the general drift of opinion is, from the several persons they encounter, but over here, we have no Real way of knowing whether the Iraqis are being intimidated in ways that would skew a poll whose results are published.

[also want to note, comics and editorial cartoons are a hoot, Gelisgesti]

Wasn't German bashing was I Walter?

Rose, the poll was conducted by the Gallup Organization, in four different areas of Iraq, and was structured to be essentially proportionately weighted by ethinicity, urban/suburban/rural, and male-female. No poll is perfect, of course ... but this wasn't a fly-by-night job set up to gather data supportive of any particular viewpoint. Some folks just have a hard time getting themselves around the idea maybe things aren't all bad.

I'm almost entirely in agreement with the post from Steve referenced above. I probably wouldn't be surprised had I really been paying attention.

I think Rose has the situation pegged correctly. The Iraqi's have been under control of Saddam for too long to change their habits over night. I'd be very skeptical of polls coming out of Iraq just now. Wait about five years, and maybe things will change for the better.

With the US call for an Iraqi Constitution to be implemented within 6 months, the progress toward Iraqi self-determination is abbetted. As others here have mentioned, its not realistic to expect 30 years of oppression to give way to democracy in a few months. An entire generation of Iraqis have known freedom only as a rumor of the way things are elsewhere.

No.

(I'm hardened by the square-bashing in the navy.)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL should become the government of Iraq and elections should be held by the end of the year. Some prominent Iraqis have spoken in favor of this proposal. U.N. officials have made statements supporting an accelerated transfer of power. Even some American politicians see this as a useful exit strategy. There's only one problem. The notion of a quick transfer of power to Iraqis is impractical, unwise and dangerous.
It is strange that U.N. officials argue that we must quickly move, in Kofi Annan's phrase, from "the logic of occupation" to that of Iraqi sovereignty. The United Nations has blessed and assisted in the occupation of Bosnia, where it took seven years to transfer power to the locals. It boasts of "the logic of occupation" in Kosovo, which has gone smoothly for the past four years, with no prospect of ending any time soon. It administered tiny East Timor for two years before handing over power. Does Kofi Annan really think that what took seven years in Bosnia can take one year in Iraq, with six times as many people?
It is touching to learn of the French faith in the Governing Council. When the council was set up, the French government (as well as the Germans) refused to endorse it, privately disparaging the group as American puppets. It took a month for the United States to get it to vote in the Security Council simply to welcome the formation of the council. France's newfound love for the council is simply an attempt to get the United States out as soon as possible.

Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek.The rest of the article.

I just don't know why it is so difficult for some to understand why the US should get out of Iraq as quickly as is possible.

It costs us a BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK to stay.

One day they need $87B and the next day they say that may not be enough...

And who's getting paid besides Halliburton, again? I forget...

Anyone remember Gen. Jay Garner, Paul Bremer's predecessor? He said Iraq would have elections in 30 days. From the time arrived. Anyone remember that?

I'm guessing that's why he got fired...

Do you have any idea how over used and understood that BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK is?

How much does 250,000 troops and equipment cost while they are sitting on their asses in the US? Keep in mind that price is part of the BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK scare sentance the left likes to use. Also, how much of that BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK is getting spent on the American economy in the form of manufacturing, building, and transportation of goods. How much is being used to feed the families of our brave troops serving over there?

It's easy to cry BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK, but hard to understand.

[see next post]

The Dayton Agreement in Bosnia-Herzegovina dates from November 1995. The first free elections were held in September 1996.

Ever since then, power has been transferred to the locals - in incremental steps. There still hasnt been a full transferral of power - Ashdown, the High Commissioner with right of decree and veto, is according to opinion polls the most popular politician of the country.

You can emphasize how, even after eight years, power hasnt been transferred, or you can emphasize that the first elections were held within 10 months - that would give the Americans another coupla months on the same timetable.

Either way, I dont immediately understand where the "seven years" bit comes from. Zakaria seems to object to the POV that "elections should be held by the end of the year" - but blunders when referring, in his objection, to Bosnia and Kosovo, where elections were held within a year. (In Kosovo, municipal elections were held within a year, and national elections a few months later).