0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:23 pm
Anther reminder for those of you that keep calling me a "liberal/democrat." I would have voted for John McCain if he was a candidate in 2000. My other choice was Bill Bradley.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:40 pm
cicerone imposter, thanks for your reply!

RE:
Quote:
"We'll probably 'control' Iraq for another ten years or more."


This is, of course, the key to the U.S's success in this area. Your explicit reference towards an American long term commitment to the area, however, does not in any way imply such long term presence of our military. Given, the total commitment of Iraqis towards their freedom I have no doubt that the U.S. will be more than willing to provide security services and collect reasonable remittances for such services. However, those services will obtain legitimacy only through that of a similarly perceived Iraqi administration so envisioned by the Iraqi people.

But given the Iraqi people's expression towards their freedom and such protestations against the present occupiers, how is the goal of Iraq's freedom to be obtained sans the offered gift of U.S. protection against mere criminals that would thwart the collective Iraqi stated goal, thru various clerics, of self determination? Who do the Iraqis view as their enemies? Are these people confused by uniforms or skin color? Do they really feel it is that simple? One might suggest inquiries as to who is responsible for, say, the latest bombing that killed scores of school children might be a wake up call to the Iraqis. This assumes they (the Iraqi people) have overcome the long held penchant of blame deflection manifest in the Middle East. This is a huge problem. Remember how those U.S. citizens in the 50's entrusted their government without question? This is much, much, worse.
I would be encouraged by legitimate Iraqi inquiries as to who should be held responsible for the actual killing of these innocent civilians, but as of yet I stand disappointed.

JM
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 05:52 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db040423.gif
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 10:32 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
JM, You've touched on my concern about passing sovereignty onto the Iraqis when they are but teenagers in adult clothing. They are NOT leaders of their country. They do not have sovereignty when the security of their country is controlled by the US. Who's kidding who? They are a puppet regime with very little ability to lead their country as a sovereign nation. We'll probably 'control' Iraq for another ten years or more.

If we don't turn over power, we're imperialists. If we do, we're puppet-masters. Rolling Eyes You've got a nice little gig there, CI. No matter what happens, you get to complain! Cool
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:06 am
So why should this issue be any different than the others. That has been the outcome of virtually everything attempted by the US in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 03:04 pm
The latest Krugman article.
***********************
* My highlight. c.i.

What Went Wrong?
April 23, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

On April 11 of last year, just after U.S. forces took
Baghdad, I warned that the Bush administration had a
"pattern of conquest followed by malign neglect," and that
the same was likely to happen in Iraq. I'm sorry to say
those worries proved justified.

It's now widely accepted that the administration "failed
dismally to prepare for the security and nation-building
missions in Iraq," to quote Anthony Cordesman of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies - not heretofore
known as a Bush basher. Just as experts on peacekeeping
predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly
inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem
was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to
stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army,
canceling local elections, appointing an interim council
dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding
important domestic groups.

The lesson of the last few weeks is that the occupation has
never recovered from those early errors. The insurgency,
which began during those early months of chaos, has spread.
Iraqi security forces have walked off their jobs, or turned
against us. Attacks on convoys have multiplied, major roads
have been closed, and reconstruction has slowed where it
hasn't stopped. Deteriorating security prevents progress,
lack of progress feeds popular disillusionment, and
disillusionment feeds the insurgency.

Why was it predictable that Iraq would go wrong? The
squandered victory in Afghanistan was an obvious precedent.
But the character flaws in the Bush administration that led
to the present crisis were fully visible in the months that
followed 9/11.

It quickly became apparent that President Bush, while
willing to spend vast sums on the military, wasn't willing
to spend enough on security. And 9/11 didn't shake the
administration's fanatical commitment to privatization and
outsourcing, in which free-market ideology is inextricably
mixed with eagerness to protect and reward corporate
friends.

Sure enough, the administration was unprepared for
predictable security problems in Iraq, but moved quickly -
in violation of international law - to impose its economic
vision. Last month Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator
of Iraq, told the BBC that he was sacked in part because he
wanted to hold quick elections. His superiors wanted to
privatize Iraqi industries first - as part of a plan that,
according to Mr. Garner, was drawn up in late 2001.


Meanwhile, the administration handed out contracts without
competitive bidding or even minimal oversight. It also
systematically blocked proposals to have Congressional
auditors oversee spending, or to impose severe penalties
for fraud.


Cronyism and corruption are major factors in Iraq's
downward spiral. This week the public radio program
"Marketplace" is running a series titled "The Spoils of
War," which documents a level of corruption in Iraq worse
than even harsh critics had suspected.
The waste of money,
though it may run into the billions, is arguably the least
of it - though military expenses are now $4.7 billion a
month. The administration, true to form, is trying to hide
the need for more money until after the election; Mr.
Cordesman predicts that Iraq will need "in excess of $50-70
billion a year for probably two fiscal years."

More important, the "Marketplace" report confirms what is
being widely reported: that the common view in Iraq is that
members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council are using
their positions to enrich themselves, and that U.S.
companies are doing the same. President Bush's idealistic
language may be persuasive to Americans, but many Iraqis
see U.S. forces as there to back a corrupt regime, not
democracy.

Now what? There's a growing sense of foreboding, even
panic, about Iraq among national security experts. "This is
an extremely uncertain struggle," says Mr. Cordesman, who,
to his credit, also says the unsayable: we may not be able
to "stay the course." But yesterday Condoleezza Rice gave
Republican lawmakers what Senator Rick Santorum called "a
very upbeat report."

That's very bad news. The mess in Iraq was created by
officials who believed what they wanted to believe, and
ignored awkward facts. It seems they have learned
nothing.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?ex=1083725225&ei=1&en=9f9ebcd1c4107f09

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 03:24 pm
Very sad, c.i., and worse than I had feared.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 03:25 pm
Also from another forum. "Posted on Thu, Apr. 22, 2004
Many American still hold misperceptions about Iraq war, poll finds
By Frank Davies
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

There's no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified before Congress in January that no weapons were found and prewar intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong." CIA Director George Tenet last month rejected assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with al-Qaida.

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll released Thursday found."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 05:53 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
I have a problem with the idea that a nation based on a thousands of years old ideology would be expected to regard their way of life as inferior and therefore shouldll be replaced with the totaly alien ideology held by their invaders. Not only that, if they resist, they will, regretably, be killed.


My and your expectations regarding what the Iraqies want or wish for are irrelevant. What is relevant is what do they actually want.

Gelisgesti wrote:
..... the Iraqi's want us to leave ....... what are we hanging around for ... ?

If you're correct, then we should "get out of Dodge." If you're wrong and we "get out of Dodge on your say so", that would be a terrible tragedy.

A plebiscite is a straightforward way to verify your claim. Let's hold one.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 06:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
... By Frank Davies Knight Ridder Newspapers ... A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq ...
Rolling Eyes

That's because 57% of Americans are fools. They believe there is substantial evidence and logic to to support their foolish belief.

cicerone imposter wrote:
In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).


That's because 45%, 38%, and 22% of Americans, respectively, are fools. They believe there is substantial evidence and logic to support their foolish beliefs.

These foolish Americans do not believe what Kay or Tenet are alleged to have said.

These foolish Americans believe the record shows the opposite of what Kay, Tenet, et al are alleged to believe it shows.

These foolish Americans do "support ... the war and President Bush".

It's hard for a foolish American like me to believe that so many Americans are foolish like me. Perhaps the problem lies with those who disagree with these foolish Americans.

Perhaps these Americans are not the foolish ones. Perhaps it's the ones who disagree with these Americans that are the foolish Americans. Perhaps what these Americans perceive to be valid substantial evidence is in fact valid substantial evidence, and those who think otherwise are actually the foolish Americans.

Not possible, right! ... hmmmmm! That would mean a substantial number of Americans think for themselves instead of letting others think for them. Incredible! Don't they realize they are foolish Americans and ought not and cannot think for themselves?
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:23 pm
The article The White House Svengali on The Times of London is very interesting. I hope the page is not behind subscription.
Quote:
<excerpts>
"He was arguably the member of the Bush inner circle most affected by 9/11. A decade earlier he had been deeply shocked by the discovery after the Gulf War that Saddam had been much closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb than US Intelligence suspected. After the 2001 attacks, he became obsessed by the link between terrorism and WMD, the source of his "fever". He became the Administration's most aggressive voice on confronting Iraq, hyping the nuclear threat from Saddam and stating that UN inspections would provide false comfort.
..

"Mr Cheney is one of the giants of the Administration, never far from its flashpoints. He nudged Mr Bush into rejecting the Kyoto Treaty. Mr Bush does not always take the Cheney route. He overruled his deputy twice on going to the UN over Iraq. But though these were tactical victories for General Powell, Mr Cheney won the Administration's civil war.

"Would there have been war without him? Mr Cheney was undoubtedly one of the two people central to the construction and execution of Mr Bush's case, without whose support the President would have found it much harder to go to war. The other was Tony Blair.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 07:22 am
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 08:18 am
YOU'VE SEEN ONE; YOU'VE SEEN THEM ALL


Quote:
International Security | Terrorism

02 October 2003

U.S. Redesignates 25 Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Listing is based on groups' activities over the past two years

Secretary of State Colin Powell has redesignated 25 groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said October 2.

Boucher said in a prepared statement that the initial terrorist designations were made in 1997 and 1999 and were set to expire October 3.

"By re-certifying them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and publishing that decision today in the Federal Register, we preserve the U.S. Government's ability to take action against them in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended," Boucher said.

Following is the text of Boucher's remarks:

U.S. Department Of State
Office of the Spokesman
October 2, 2003
Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Redesignation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The Secretary of State redesignated 25 groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under U.S. law on October 2, 2003. The initial designations of these groups in 1997 and 1999 are due to expire on October 3, 2003. By re-certifying them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and publishing that decision today in the Federal Register, we preserve the U.S. Government's ability to take action against them in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. This act makes it illegal for persons in the United States or subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide material support to these terrorist groups. It requires U.S. financial institutions to block assets held by them; and it enables us to deny visas to representatives of these groups. The Secretary made this decision in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury after a thorough review of these groups' terrorist activities over the past two years.

With this redesignation, the number of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations is 36. As we carry on the global campaign against terrorism, we hope this list will help to isolate these terrorist organizations, to choke off their sources of financial support, and to prevent their members' movement across international borders.

The 25 groups being redesignated today are:


Abu Nidal Organization
Abu Sayyaf Group
Armed Islamic Group
Aum Shinrikyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty
Gama'a al-Islamiyya
HAMAS
Harakat ul-Mujahideen
Hizballah
al-Jihad
Kahane Chai
Kurdistan Worker's Party
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization
National Liberation Army
Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- Shaqaqi Faction
Palestinian Liberation Front -- Abu Abbas Faction
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command
al-Qa'ida
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
Revolutionary Nuclei
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front
Shining Path

The 11 previously designated groups that remain on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations are:


Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
'Asbat al-Ansar
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jemaah Islamiya
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Lashkar I Jhangvi
Real IRA
Salafist Group for Call and Combat
United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov). Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 09:14 am
Disassembled and therefore non-working weapons of mass destruction have allegedly been found all over Iraq.

Gelisgesti wrote:
But a Danish intelligence report dated March 7, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information" that Iraq had working weapons of mass destruction.


Quote:
no "certain information" that Iraq had working weapons of mass destruction.


Quote:
no "certain information"


We foolish Americans foolishly thinking for our foolish selves actually think there is little if any certain information about anything even after anything is allegedly discovered to exist or allegedly discovered not to exist.

Quote:
working weapons of mass destruction


We foolish Americans, foolishly thinking for our foolish selves, actually think that unassembled non-working weapons of mass destruction are an immediate threat. We think that it is highly probable such unassembled weapons of mass destruction, if their disassemblers and assemblers be left undeterred by pre-emptive busy-bodies, can assemble disassembled weapons of mass destruction within a few months, thereby making them working weapons of mass destruction within a few months. We also think that dissassembled weapons of mass destruction are more easily transported and/or hidden by and to those who intend to use them.

We also think that none of the above is certain. However, to us that lack of certainty is small comfort. For example, one 1944 nazi concentration camp resident to another, "They're not really going to gas us to death, are they?" The other responded, "It's not certain." The first then said, "Good, we'll be all right then." Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 11:17 am
ican,
Don't go round the bend on us.

s
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 12:04 pm
sumac wrote:
ican,
Don't go round the bend on us. s


Why not? Beyond this bend is where things truly straighten out. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 12:33 pm
But most people aren't willing to go where they might find the truth. It's too scary a prospect; and many do not wish to admit they are wrong.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 12:34 pm
BTW, I think most suffer from what can be described as "head in the sand syndrome."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 06:45 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
BTW, I think most suffer from what can be described as "head in the sand syndrome."


Ostriches allegedly bury their heads in the sand when threatened. Truth is they lay their heads on the sand when threatened.

Is the UN analogous to a pillow of sand? Ask an ostrich. Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2004 06:49 pm
ican, We already have too many dead soldiers with their head on the sand of Iraq and Afghanistan. Out of respect for them......
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 0.04 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 12:00:32