THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, We already have too many dead soldiers with their head on the sand of Iraq and Afghanistan. Out of respect for them......

We already have too many dead New yorkers, Bostonians, and DCers with their heads in the sand.

But long before that we already had too many dead Iraqies with their heads in the sand.

Out of respect for all of them, let's not put our heads on the sand; let's put our heads together.

0 Replies

I like your idea of putting our heads together, but I'm not that optimistic in this world political climate.

0 Replies

One thing that hasn't occurred to the bully boys of Bush is we must find some idealogy to compete with the hate engines of the the mosques.

As long as we appear to be the crusaders from the west, iraqis and other Muslims around the world will despise whatever we do.

What we have done by invading Iraq is gin up the al Queda recruitment centers, a mistake, according to some analysts of terrorism, of the first magnitude.

Joe

0 Replies

The public pronouncements by Bush in support of Israel is also seen by Arabs as one-sided and unfair. Even Jordan and Egypt are distancing themselves from Bush in order to keep peace at home. Moderate Arabs are beginning to truly hate the US for their perceptions that we were aggressors against Iraq without justification, and our support of Israel and not Palestinians.

0 Replies

It seems to me that this administration considers what could be the most damaging activity to pursue and then goes ahead and does it. Instead of trying to find ways of building relations with Arab countries, something that might be considered advisable, they act as if they can handle this War on Terror without any Arab country's support. Worse, they try to do it all on the cheap, they invade Afghanistan but without using any Pakistani troops to seal the borders...oops, where's Osama? Where's Mullah Omar?

When they DO send enough Marines in to rid at least the cities of the Taliban, I don't think anyone believes the countryside is in anyway controlled by Kabul, they then send most of the Arab speaking American troops to, guess where?, Iraq. Why? Any terrorists there?
Um..... no.

Meanwhile, they announce that they will build an Afghan army of about 5,000 men. Golly. 5,000. That's about the size of less than half of the nation's warlord's armies, most of the them have about 10,000 men under their command. (See recent reports about the border with Iran.)

Meanwhile, back in Iraq-another good example of underwhelming forces being sent in- we back stabbed all the Iraqi military leaders whom we let know before the invasion that all they had to do was let us get Saddam and they would be okay. We get there and do what? We fire them all and tell them tough nuggies about your pension and rank, oh and by the way, if you were a Baathist you're toast too when it comes to forming the new government. Hmmm I wonder who is behind these well-planned military like attacks?? Could it be..... um, no, we got him. Yippie.

This is what they teach at Yale about building relations?
Maybe to the C students.

Anyway, it's a big mess. And a big dangerous mess. The five billion we are spending a month -jesusgod-five billion!-- would have gone a long way to strengthening our defenses here at home. Homeland Security still is trying to get it's pants on and, without the FBI in it, one pantleg is about sewn shut. Ashcroft continues to prove that he doesn't have a clue when it comes to inspiring confidence in one's government's ability to pursue the "evil-doers'' while not poking a few holes in the Constitution.

Here in NYC, I can tell you, it doesn't feel any safer, and we are looking toward a long summer with a Republican Convention to top it off.

Can this gang shoot straight?

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

It seems to me that this administration considers what could be the most damaging activity to pursue and then goes ahead and does it. Instead of trying to find ways of building relations with Arab countries, something that might be considered advisable, they act as if they can handle this War on Terror without any Arab country's support. ...

Joe, except for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the previous administration earnestly tried everything you have advised here. It didn't work did it? In the first year or so of the current administration, the previous administration was all but emulated. None of that worked either, did it?. Attempts to negotiate with or appease a determined aggressor have never worked for very long. Such efforts at best merely delay the inevitable slaughter of innocents.

The reality is that there exists a large and rapidly growing, cancerous segment of Islam that is determined to convert all of the West as well as the East to their form of Islam regardless of who or how many die in the process. Reread the 1st paragraph of bin Laden's 1998 FATWA if you doubt this. It's time we understand that when bad guys announce to us in writing what they intend to do to us, we must believe them. We must believe that they will attempt to do exactly what they say they will. We must take the necessary immediate action to exterminate them when its cheaper in lives, property, and, yes, in money to accomplish this.

Go back to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for another example. One capital error too many of us citizens of the US made then and are making now is blaming some of ourselves for the hatred others have for us. We better get it straight quick. The blame belongs to the hater not to the hated! The blame belongs to those who would intentionally kill innocents to accomplish their ends. The blame does not belong to those who in their own self-defense risk their own lives (and in deed the lives of others) while killing and pre-emptively killing self-declared current and would be murderous perpetrators .

While there are too many errors in the current approach being taken by the current administration, the most severe is failure to invade enough of Syria and Iran to prevent Syria's and Iran's terrorist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Thankfully, there is still time to rectify this error.

Joe Nation wrote:

Anyway, it's a big mess. And a big dangerous mess. The five billion we are spending a month -jesusgod-five billion!

Yes, and that will probably have to double to get this situation under control.

Joe Nation wrote:

Homeland Security still is trying to get it's pants on and, without the FBI in it, one pantleg is about sewn shut.

I think you're confusing the previous administration's "wall" betwen the CIA and the FBI with what the current administration is now doing. The Homeland Security Bill tore down that "wall" so that now all the federal agencies responsible for our security, are aggressively helping each other by exchanging and analyzing intelligence data and coordinating their activities.

The 20th century, and now it looks like the 21st century, democracies were/are slow to recognize that the bad guys are truly bad guys and not rectifiable by anything short of death of the bad guys. The sooner we recognize that, stop repeating unworkable behavior, stop grousing about past errors, and join together in exterminating this cultural cancer of part of Islam, the better for us and the better for Islam.

0 Replies

Nothing like a religious' war to appease god. Wink

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nothing like a religious' war to appease god.

Appease God Question

Geez, I thought it was all about self-defense. Exclamation

Does God want to be appeased? Is God appeaseable? How do you know?

0 Replies

Richard Clarke in the NYTimes today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/opinion/25CLAR.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Note what he has to say about the recent changes in the FBI and CIA and the kind of inbred-cover-your-ass-mentality that pervades both. See especially his remark about Tenet.
Note too that is forthright about saying he doesn't have all the answers on the question of ideological change.

Ican711nm: thank you for your measured responses, I agree with most of what you wrote. BTW when Richard Clarke made a similar remark to yours regarding Mein Kampf, how it was nearly identical to bin Ladin's telling us what he intended to do, Clarke was reprimanded by Paul Wolfowitz thus "I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan." Kind of completely misses the point, doesn't he?

These people don't get the idea that this is not nation sponsored terrorism.
They don't have any idea about the ideas they are supposed to be fighting. The Clinton administration's methods in Bosnia proved that there are ways of supporting an Islamic based government without losing it to the radicals of al Queda. Bush and Rice and Cheney and Wolfowitz think they are still fighting some kind of Cold War action against nation-states. "You are either with us or against us."

How do you propose we change them?

Joe

PS I was referring not to the wall between the FBI and CIA but to the fact that neither are under the Homeland Security umbrella. I think they should be, don't you?

0 Replies

George Bush says he's only following god's wishes to bring democracy and freedom to the middle east. The Muslims are fighting to gain the blessings of allah. Seems to me both are doing god's work.

0 Replies

The Orwellian Olsens
April 25, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

It's their reality. We just live and die in it.

In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you
never see the bodies coming home.

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are
important to revere and show the nation, but only in
political ads hawking the president's leadership against
terror.

In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as
long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws
or have any power.

In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.

In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can
express their feelings ("Down With America!") without
having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow
them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down
With America!") without shutting them down.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress
provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and
divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're
not planning.

In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in
being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to
your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get
an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political
purposes.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the
avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the
Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military
guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though
he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by
his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.

In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in
Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president
even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's
plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear
brush.

In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and
money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots,
while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state
separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two
in America.

In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental
president on Earth Day while being the industry president
every other day.

In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going,
even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and
the Taliban are running freely around the border areas,
hiding Osama and delaying elections.

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to
knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea
is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about
is hidden away.

In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether
there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds
that there are W.M.D.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much
to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military
so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the
draft.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by
fighting a war that creates terrorists.

In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice
president and top Defense Department officials whether you
should go to war in Iraq, because they've already
maneuvered you into going to war.

In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and
vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like
the Olsen twins.

In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and
spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand
anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and
unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic
process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes
allies to pull out troops.

In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your
administration does not leak to the press, while you flood
the best-known journalist in Washington with inside
information.

In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as
recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though
it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless
you live in Bushworld.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/opinion/25DOWD.html?ex=1083895819&ei=1&en=422e2e93ede15d8f

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

0 Replies

In Bushworld, it's okay to reduce women's rights in this country while attempting to increase women's rights in Iraq.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

... the FBI and CIA and the kind of inbred-cover-your-ass-mentality that pervades both.

This mentality has existed over several administrations. It may be more evident now that the price of such conduct is so evident and so high to all of us (e.g., 9/11/2001).

Joe Nation wrote:

... thank you ...

You're welcome!

Joe Nation wrote:

Kind of completely misses the point, doesn't he?

Surely, he recognizes his error by now. Shocked

Hitler wrote his book while imprisoned and seemingly no threat to anyone. How myopic not to see the equivalence between the threat of Adolf and the threat of bin Laden (and all the other terrorist group leaders).

Joe Nation wrote:

Bush and Rice and Cheney and Wolfowitz think they are still fighting some kind of Cold War action against nation-states. "You are either with us or against us." How do you propose we change them?

Good question! I think it is properly expanded to cover the American people. I think too many of us do not realize that this is WWIII and will require as many allies and take at least as long as WWII to win, since we are fighting a multitude of stateless roving armies (currently 25 are explicitly recognized by the State Department) all supported by multiple, competing nation-states. These supporting states are largely motivated by fear: the fear of losing their own sovereignty, if they withhold that support. Some supporting nation-states also see their support as a way to make some additional money at the expense of the human race.

OK, so how do we change them?

I'm afraid that the first step is failure. We will not wise up until there is sufficient failure to scare us enough to abandon the imagined security of old panaceas (as well as new polemics), and begin to think this new problem through to real solutions. We have the time and resources, if we learn quickly from these failures and do not remain transfixed in further denial and blaming rituals.

Also, I think it imperative to conduct an Iraqi plebiscite: Shall the Americans go or stay and help Iraqies take responsibility for building their own democratic republic? This plebiscite should be conducted as soon as we can provide Iraqi voters a modicum of security while they vote.

If the Iraqies vote we go, then we go and fight the terrorist scourge on a different battleground. If they vote we stay and help, then we stay and help, and they fight for their own independence too just as our forefathers did with the help of another nation (France) starting almost 228 years ago.

Joe Nation wrote:

... not to the wall between the FBI and CIA but to the fact that neither are under the Homeland Security umbrella.

I thought that was accomplished by the Homeland Security Bill, too. I think they are under its umbrella. If I'm wrong, you're right and that better get fixed pronto!.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

George Bush says he's only following god's wishes to bring democracy and freedom to the middle east. The Muslims are fighting to gain the blessings of allah. Seems to me both are doing god's work.

Both have convinced themselves they know what is God's work.

I'm convinced I know what is the President's work-- from our Constitution, Article II, Sections 1 and 2: to "...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", and he "shall be Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ..."

I hope George Bush knows that too.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Orwellian Olsens
April 25, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

Maureen again demonstrates her gift for great friction (sic, ehhh, fiction). Smile

0 Replies

I'll bet a dozen donuts if you asked 100 people if the FBI was moved to the Department of Homeland Security along with the Secret Service and the Coast Guard, they'd all say yes, that is except for the guy in the black suit, shiny black shoes and button down white shirt, the one in the FBI, he'd say "No." and he'd be right.

Just how insular do you think these guys are?
Well, whatever you thought, they are more insular than that.

And the CIA is on a completly different planet altogether.

The CIA, at least, had al Queda on it's mind and pages for the past fifteen years, the FBI didn't even know what a halawa was, didn't seem to appreciate that there were sleeper cells of al Queda here before 9-11(and they are still here) and merely shrugged at reports of a pilot training student who only wanted to learn to fly straight and level.

BTW: how many of the 25 recognized terrorist groups have cells here?
What do want to bet it's 25?

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

BTW: how many of the 25 recognized terrorist groups have cells here? What do want to bet it's 25?

"I'll bet a dozen donuts" Smile

"I'll bet [another] dozen donuts" there are more than two cells per group. Laughing

Joe, in my self-appointed role of skeptic, I did a search on "Homeland Security Act" and found this among other things to again teach me that I shouldn't trust professional news accounts for anything important to me. Thanks for your headsup on this.

www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis

Quote:

SEC. 202. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred to the
Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the
following entities-

(1) the National Infrastructure Protection Center of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer Investigations and
Operations Section), including the functions of the Attorney General
relating thereto;

(2) the National Communications System of the Department of
Defense, including the functions of the Secretary of Defense relating
thereto;

(3) the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the
Department of Commerce, including the functions of the Secretary of
Commerce relating thereto;

(4) the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, including the functions of the Secretary of
Commerce relating thereto;

(5) the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
of the Department of Energy, including the functions of the Secretary
of Energy relating thereto; and

(6) the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General
Services Administration, including the functions of the Administrator
of General Services relating thereto.
[ Analysis ]
SEC. 203. ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

The Secretary shall have access to all reports, assessments, and
analytical information relating to threats of terrorism in the United
States and to other areas of responsibility described in section 101(b),
and to all information concerning infrastructure or other vulnerabilities
of the United States to terrorism, whether or not such information has been
analyzed, that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by any executive
agency, except as otherwise directed by the President. The Secretary shall
also have access to other information relating to the foregoing matters
that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by an executive agency, as
the President may further provide. With respect to the material to which
the Secretary has access under this section-

(1) the Secretary may obtain such material by request, and may
enter into cooperative arrangements with other executive agencies to
share such material on a regular or routine basis, including requests
or arrangements involving broad categories of material;

(2) regardless of whether the Secretary has made any request or
entered into any cooperative arrangement pursuant to paragraph (1),
all executive agencies promptly shall provide to the Secretary-

(A) all reports, assessments, and analytical information
relating to threats of terrorism in the United States and to
other areas of responsibility described in section 101(b);

(B) all information concerning infrastructure or other
vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or
not such information has been analyzed;

(C) all information relating to significant and credible
threats of terrorism in the United States, whether or not such
information has been analyzed, if the President has provided
that the Secretary shall have access to such information; and

(D) such other material as the President may further
provide; and

(3) the Secretary shall ensure that any material received
pursuant to this section is protected from unauthorized disclosure and
handled and used only for the performance of official duties, and that
any intelligence information shared under this section shall be
transmitted, retained, and disseminated consistent with the authority
of the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence
sources and methods under the National Security Act and related
procedures or, as appropriate, similar authorities of the Attorney
General concerning sensitive law enforcement information.
[ Analysis ]

0 Replies

Joe,
While I was in search mode, I looked up "CIA". Here's some of what is available at their web site:
www.cia.gov/cia/information/info.html

Quote:

About the CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency was created in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act by President Truman. The National Security Act charged the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) with coordinating the nation’s intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence which affects national security.

George J. Tenet was confirmed on July 10, 1997, and is the current Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The DCI serves as the head of the United States Intelligence Community, principal advisor to the President for intelligence matters related to national security, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, and accountable to the American people through the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress.

CIA’s mission is to support the President, the National Security Council, and all officials who make and execute the U.S. national security policy by:

Providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics.

Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security, as directed by the President.

To accomplish its mission, the CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumer-whether Washington policymaker or battlefield commander-receives the best intelligence possible.

As changing global realities have reordered the national security agenda, CIA has met these new challenges by:

Creating special, multidisciplinary centers to address such high-priority issues such as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, international organized crime and narcotics trafficking, environment, and arms control intelligence.

Forging stronger partnerships between the several intelligence collection disciplines and all-source analysis.

Taking an active part in Intelligence Community analytical efforts and producing all-source analysis on the full range of topics that affect national security.

Contributing to the effectiveness of the overall Intelligence Community by managing services of common concern in imagery analysis and open-source collection and participating in partnerships with other intelligence agencies in the areas of research and development and technical collection.

By emphasizing adaptability in its approach to intelligence collection, the CIA can tailor its support to key intelligence consumers and help them meet their needs as they face the issues of the post-Cold War World.

0 Replies

I'm sure (sure I am) that the atmosphere at the FBI has changed since 9-11. Prior to that date a President of any party was never sure if the FBI was telling him all that it knew about any subject.

(Isn't that a most remarkable thing to say about a governmental entity? Especially one in the most democratic nation on earth?)

The history of the FBI is replete with instances of informational evasions, never falsehoods - that would be a crime -, but plenty of ''information is not clear'', ''raw reports have not been fully associated with other data.'' etc. whenever a President asked about a particularly embarrassing subject.

(Usually that meant that the press had asked the President and he had asked the FBI and they didn't know squawt about it. Kind of like when Clinton asked about Aum Shinrikyo in the USA and the FBI said basically "Well, how would we know?"

Members of the President's staff looked them up in the New York City PHONE BOOK!)

So we should all take a deep breath and relax, the FBI will immediately inform Tom Ridge and the DHS on everything they discover.

Yes. Yes, they will.

The atmosphere is different.

Tis.

Joe

0 Replies

Britain has drawn up plans to expand its role in Iraq to help cope with the withdrawal of Spanish troops:

Quote:

UK 'may send more troops to Iraq'
Britain is holding talks with its coalition allies about the possibility of sending more soldiers to Iraq.
It follows an urgent review of troop numbers following Spain's decision to withdraw its 1,300-strong force.

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said Britain was discussing "a range of options" with coalition partners.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams said this could mean deploying extra troops outside the British-controlled south of the country.

Adams said he understood defence officials were due to hold a series of meetings this week to discuss the options.
"Britain has already responded to moments of crisis by sending extra forces for brief periods but circumstances now in Iraq may mean that more drastic steps are being considered," he said.

A gap has opened up following the new Spanish government's decision to pull out its troops.

The Times newspaper said one option being considered in Whitehall was deploying up to 2,000 more troops in the country.

Another option was taking over command of a second multi-national division in central south Iraq, according to the paper.

It said this move would "significantly raise Britain's military and political stake in the country".

Britain already has about 7,500 troops in Iraq.

The speculation follows a week of further violence in Iraq which spread to Basra where a series of suicide bombings blamed on al-Qaeda killed 74 and injured hundreds, including five British soldiers.

On Saturday suicide boat bombings targeting the oil industry forced the closure of Iraq's biggest terminal, losing the country nearly a million barrels a day in exports.

Since the beginning of April, the wave of violence has killed up to 1,200 Iraqis and 111 US troops.

That is nearly as many in 25 days as the 115 Americans who were killed during the two-month invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago.

SOURCE

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know