0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 06:01 pm
Which countries have provided military support

United States 130,000
Britain 12,000

Albania 70
Australia 1,000
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 470
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 496
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 70
Honduras 370
Hungary 300
Italy 3,000
Japan 1,000
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,100
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 230
Norway 150
Philippines 95 (175 on the way)
Poland 2,400
Portugal 130
Romania 400
Singapore 200
Slovakia 69 (120 on the way)
South Korea 675 (3,000 on the way)
Thailand 443 (30 on the way)
Ukraine 2,000

Just came across it ... - a propos of nothing, really.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 06:06 pm
Or, in short:

United States 130,000 (or 82,3% of total)
Britain 12,000 (or 7,6% of total)
Others 15,868 (or 10,1% of total)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 06:09 pm
But, it does signify support, eh?

Give as you are able, and all...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 06:13 pm
Yeah, you can pretty much use those numbers either way.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 06:13 pm
Only to remind you all, that Nicaragua and Honduras have pulled out.

Nicaragua, for economic reasons.
Honduras, because they were behind the Spanish commander.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 07:17 pm
The Dutch are staying though.

Junior coalition partner Democrats'66 is planning to vote against, but the two main government parties (the Christian-Democrats and right-wing liberal VVD) will scrape by on a slim majority, thanks to the support of the List Pim Fortuyn.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 07:19 pm
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/05-15-2004.gif

Read http://www.daybydaycartoon.com - its cute, aside from the politics.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 07:24 pm
Ican, sometime back, had challenged us all with the prospect of putting forward ideas and concepts that might actually help the Iraqi people in their quest for autonomy and democratic rule. This set me to wondering as to more specific measures that might actually work towards this goal of Iraqi self determination. The following are my thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms. Please feel free, as always, to comment and criticize.

The President of The United State's (POTUS) remarks spoken at the Army War College in Carlisle, PA on 24 May 2004 is probably a good outline to follow in this endeavor, but this invites the first criticism in that these remarks were merely an outline of this administration's intended actions in the immediate future to secure Iraq's nationhood. The entire speech was notable in its paucity of detail. But let's state the outline that POTUS has given:

1). Hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government
2). Help establish security
3). Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.
4). Encourage more international support
5). Move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

Sounds good but the order, as presented by the President, is wrong. None of the above will happen until the second in the list becomes a reality on the ground in Iraq. Security in the form of Law and Order is first and foremost. It really is all "about the security, stupid". Newly elected Iraqi leaders are, of course, important and the ultimate goal but are we to expect any Iraqi to be stupid enough to stick his head up in the current environment and present such an extremely high profile as to invite the same fate of Izzadine Saleem? Why was the chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council waiting in a line of traffic to get to his HQ inside the "Green Zone"? Is this the security promised such leaders?

There is a "tipping point" that must be reached where Iraqis must feel somewhat safe enough to risk their lives for their country, they must feel they have a chance to, at least, serve out their elected term and achieve some of their goals. It would seem the area needs more security, but I was not heartened by the POTUS's "remarks". President Bush admitted:
Quote:
"These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves…These groups…share a goal. They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom…As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal."


Notable in the last part of that quote is the word "more" (describing the level of violence) which implies an "increase thereof". But further along in his speech the President intimates one of the few specifics contained therein:

Quote:
"Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary."


What? Look, its right there; the word increase describing the level of hostile activity not only expected in the future but presently visible. So, how is the U.S. to respond? Well, we will "maintain" present levels of security which have, up to now, resulted in…what? We need more troops, sure, but it's more than that. Needed are administrators, engineers, advisors, and people to train the Iraqi security forces and the proposed Iraqi Army of 35K members (experts assign this effort a realistic timeline of 3 years).

Oh, if we could just get to July 1st when full sovereignty is given to the Iraqis! Then all will be fine. But what will Iraqi citizens see when they wake up on that fateful Thursday? Just a guess, but probably the same number of TMMs and U.S. troops will still be in place, unless some magic is involved.

What to do? Well let's skip to step 4 and invite more international support (it would be hard to get less). The irony of this administration's effort towards multilateral participation is not lost on anyone that has participated in this thread, but its value must be admitted. UN participation is important in Iraq but as Sen. Biden of DE has noted: "UN participation is mandatory but not sufficient." We must get a U.S. "face" off this situation.

As Senior Advisor to Paul Bremer, Dan Senor has noted: The main benefit of Iraqi Sovereignty is that they (Iraqis) will be responsible for security. Consequently, any terrorist, Baathist, or al Qaeda action will be perceived as against the Iraqi government and therefore the Iraqi people themselves. However, there is a weakness in this argument. That weakness stems from the critical fact of how and from whom does the Iraqi government, currently in power, obtain the necessary security? If the answer is the American military the entire concept fails. Further, if a sovereign Iraq demands the exodus of the American military…but wouldn't that be suicide? How to get free of this conundrum?

Many have suggested the answer lies with NATO participation, perhaps it might work; The UN as temporary advisor for administrative and political issues and NATO for security. But who comprises NATO? Uh oh, how are we to convince those peaceniks in Europe after their shabby treatment by the present U.S. administration? Good question, perhaps Retired General Anthony Zinni gives us a hint in his answer to what the administration's course of action before the beginning of the present conflict should have been:
Quote:
"Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes… "What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they're gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden"


The preceding questions, asked of NATO members, combined with the notable fact the ME and such spawned groups as al Qaeda is the "soft underbelly" of Europe might give incentive working towards their participation in a GMEI… they will benefit also. Additionally, the heads of many Arab states may want to reconsider how much longer they will want to ride the tiger of Middle Eastern extremism that spawns such terrorists. The era of supporting such groups with the temporary goal of appeasement may be coming to an abrupt end.

But how is it possible to start this UN / NATO ball rolling? Sen. Biden, again, offers his two cents. "The president must lead. His must pick up the phone and call European leaders, set up a Summit Meeting to resolve this problem. Those leaders will answer the phone and the President must use his political capital to invest in the cause towards Iraqi Democracy" (my paraphrase: JM).

I was going to further expound on a vision of a future Iraqi Republic with a strong well trained army of about 35K but, at this point, any further speculation along such lines is merely wishful thinking. Elections before the end of January '05 (step 5) possess the same attribute.

Respectfully,

JM
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 08:55 pm
Looks like the new Iraqi government is taking shape.
*********************
Shahristani to Be Named Iraq Premier, U.S. Sources Say

2 hours, 25 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Carol Giacomo and Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United Nations (news - web sites) is expected to pick Hussain Shahristani, a Shi'ite Muslim nuclear scientist who spent 11 years in Abu Ghraib prison under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), as premier of a new interim Iraqi government, U.S. sources said on Tuesday.


A State Department official said Shahristani was one of three finalists being considered for the key post but other sources said Shahristani was expected to head the new caretaker government when the United States hands over power on July 1.


Asked if U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi had made his choices, one source with close ties to the Bush administration told Reuters: "Shahristani for prime minister."


The State Department official said: "He is one of about three finalists who was being considered for prime minister. I do not know whether he was chosen and actually asked."


"It's pretty obvious it has to be a Shi'ite. It also has to be someone who is not seen to be beholden any particular faction or party and yet not be so much of a technocrat that he has no standing with the parties," he said.


Shahristani fit that profile, he added.


Another U.S. source said he expected Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni Muslim and one-time Iraqi foreign minister, to be president.


Vice presidential choices are expected to be Ibrahim Jaafari, a medical doctor who is spokesman of the Dawa Party, and Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, although it is unclear if Talabani would take the job, the source said.


BRAHIMI CHOICES


The slate of leaders to head the interim government that will administer Iraq (news - web sites) until elections planned for January 2005 is being put together by Brahimi, special envoy of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), with the close assistance of Robert Blackwill, President Bush (news - web sites)'s special adviser on Iraq.


White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Mr. Brahimi will make an announcement when he is ready. It is my understanding that he has not made a final decision on those recommendations at this time."


U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte, who will be the new U.S. ambassador in Baghdad after June 30, declined to comment when asked about Shahristani.


"What do you expect me to say? ... I can't, can't" comment, he told reporters at the State Department.


Brahimi "has talked to a lot of people," Negroponte said.


Shahristani was tortured and imprisoned by Saddam after refusing to work on Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


In a February 2003 interview on CNN, Shahristani said the Iraqi president was hiding weapons of mass destruction underneath the ground in tunnels.


Bush cited Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a prime reason for the Iraq war but none have been found.





In a January 2003 interview with Canadian Television, Shahristani criticized Bush's father for abandoning Iraq's Shi'ite population after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) when he urged them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.

FIRM VIEWS

"If anybody expects these people to forget all these sufferings and welcome any invading force with open arms to come and loot their oil, I think they are terribly mistaken," Shahristani said in that interview.

More recently, in a February 2004 article in the Wall Street Journal, he sided with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shi'ite cleric, on the issue of elections and questioned whether Washington "understands the Iraqi reality."

At the United Nations, Annan briefed Security Council ambassadors on Brahimi's work, but gave no names of who would be in the new government.

Diplomats said they questioned Annan on how credible the list would be among 20 million Iraqis. They also suggested the new interim government should come to New York before a U.S.-British drafted new Security Council resolution was adopted.

Asked if Brahimi's difficulties would delay an announcement by the end of May, Annan said, "We had indicated that our target date was the end of May, and obviously we are still working toward that date. I hope we will be able to meet that target."

The resolution presented to the Security Council members on Monday is an integral part of Bush's plan for stabilizing Iraq and creating a democratic state there. Bush, facing plunging poll numbers at home in an election year, is striving to gain greater international support for that plan.

It would endorse the formation of a sovereign interim Iraqi government but allow U.S.-led forces to take "all necessary measures" to keep the peace. (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Evelyn Leopold)
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 09:12 pm
Quote:
Read http://www.daybydaycartoon.com - its cute, aside from the politics.


Thanks, nimh. I needed a smile.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 02:28 am
Ican 711- You reprint concerning Whaabism is very imporatant and it starkly outlines the fact that, as far as the radical fringe of Islam is concerned, this is, as you have mentioned before, World War III, and the petty items complained about by the liberal left will pale into insignificance if, God forbid, the Islamic madmen, would strike again at our country.

Then, I would predict, there would be more more caterwauling about money spent for defense and Homeland security. I predict that there would be no more crocodile tears shed about Patriot Acts. The left wing liberals view Iraq and Afghanistan as pawns to be used in the election of November 2nd.

Those how know, as your essay points out, know that there will be a clash lasting many years between civilizations.

The West, on one hand, and the savage Whaabist fringe of Islam on the other.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 04:46 am
Quote:
I am very much afraid that you did nothing to rebut Professor Lewis's statement. The sheep dip analogy is cute but not pertinent.


did you ever think there might be a touch of humour in my remark mporter?

Well I've had time to read Prof Lewis now and I must thank you for that link. Though dated (1990) it contains a great deal of cogent thought. His message seems to be not that there is a clash of civilisations, but that we must be careful not to provoke such a clash. That understanding Islamic society can help moderates to gain influence. Sadly events since 1990 seem to have taken us a lot further down the path that Lewis warns against. His analysis is very interesting however. I would like to comment on a few points

Quote:
Certainly nowhere in the Muslim world, in the Middle East or elsewhere, has American policy suffered disasters or encountered problems comparable to those in Southeast Asia or Central America. There is no Cuba, no Vietnam, in the Muslim world, and no place where American forces are involved as combatants or even as "advisers."


Well there is now!

Quote:
The almost forgotten religion of the Manichees has given its name to the perception of problems as a stark and simple conflict between matching forces of pure good and pure evil.


He was contrasting this approach with Islam and Christianity, but I wondered if G W Bush might be a closet Manichee?


Quote:
If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war "in the path of God," are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state -- and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents -- then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God's army and the enemy is God's enemy. The duty of God's soldiers is to dispatch God's enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them -- that is to say, the afterlife.


As we always suspected, a man with a holy text and a kalashnikov can be quite dangerous


Quote:
Like every other civilization known to human history, the Muslim world in its heyday saw itself as the center of truth and enlightenment, surrounded by infidel barbarians whom it would in due course enlighten and civilize. But between the different groups of barbarians there was a crucial difference. The barbarians to the east and the south were polytheists and idolaters, offering no serious threat and no competition at all to Islam. In the north and west, in contrast, Muslims from an early date recognized a genuine rival -- a competing world religion, a distinctive civilization inspired by that religion, and an empire that, though much smaller than theirs, was no less ambitious in its claims and aspirations. This was the entity known to itself and others as Christendom, a term that was long almost identical with Europe.


I've always thought monotheism a bad idea

Quote:
The Second World War, the oil industry, and postwar developments brought many Americans to the Islamic lands;

The French have left Algeria, the British have left Egypt, the Western oil companies have left their oil wells,


Lewis seems to play down the role of cultural and commercial imperialism, especially over oil "left their oil wells?" I find that difficult to swallow. Presumably what he means is that Western Oil owns the tinpot dictators and governments, which in turn own the local oil.

Quote:
One also sometimes gets the impression that the offense of imperialism is not -- as for Western critics -- the domination by one people over another but rather the allocation of roles in this relationship. What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers

The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other faiths, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection


Again monothesism breeds intolerance


Quote:
This is no less than a clash of civilizations -- the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.


A warning unheeded

Quote:
THE movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail. But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves. And in the meantime we must take great care on all sides to avoid the danger of a new era of religious wars, arising from the exacerbation of differences and the revival of ancient prejudices.

To this end we must strive to achieve a better appreciation of other religious and political cultures, through the study of their history, their literature, and their achievements. At the same time, we may hope that they will try to achieve a better understanding of ours, and especially that they will understand and respect, even if they do not choose to adopt for themselves, our Western perception of the proper relationship between religion and politics.


And this immensely delicate and complex task is in the hands of one G W Bush, a man from Texas and unsafe on a bicycle. Thanks mporter, Prof Lewis explains exactly why the world is such a dangerous mess.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 05:11 am
I am glad that you read Lewis, Steve. I am very much afraid that you either missed the most important part of his essay or did not choose to replicate it.

Quote:

In the classical Islamist view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: The House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of unbelief, which it is the duty of moslems TO ULTIMATELY BRING TO ISLAM...."

How do you think the Muslim radicals are going to bring the House of Unbelief to Islam, Steve?

And again, you may have missed this also:

I think it is very important.

quote

"Ultimately, the struggleof tthe fundamentalist is against two enemies, secularism and modernism. THIS IS NO LESS THAN A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS"

Lewis has written more. I have two of his books at my summer home and will try to get those to pull out relevant material. But again, Steve, I am glad that you read Lewis.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 06:42 am
Quote:
How do you think the Muslim radicals are going to bring the House of Unbelief to Islam, Steve?


Well thats a straight question mporter, and I will answer it directly but first a question for you

How do you think the invasion of Iraq has improved matters in this Clash of Civilisations?

Regarding Islamic militants, some will try and kill us and so bring us to Allah's justice. This, in my opinion, is why its important not to supply Islamists like bin Laden with Stinger missiles, nor drive millions of moderate Muslims to his banner by invading countries such as Iraq.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 08:32 am
How do you think the invasion of Iraq by the radical Bush Regime has improved matters in this Clash of Civilisations?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 09:38 am
Thats my point Bill.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 09:40 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I've always thought monotheism a bad idea


Whether one believes in zero gods, one god, a finite number of gods, or an infinite number of gods is not the fundamental basis of contention between religious cultures. What is the fundamental basis is the notion of your gods versus my gods. If there in fact is one god and 6 billion plus humans, then there are perhaps 6 billion plus individual perceptions of the nature of that one god. That is the real contention. What is the nature of god? What is the nature of that to which we choose to pledge our highest individual allegiance? Is it to a tyrannical human or group of humans (e.g., Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Hirohito, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro)? Is it to a tyrannical god or group of gods? Is it to a tyrannical idea or set of ideas? Is it to a benevolent human or group of humans? Is it to a benevolent god or group of gods? Is it to a benevolent idea or set of ideas?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
And this immensely delicate and complex task is in the hands of one G W Bush ...
and those who support him.

Alternatively, it could be in the hands of one J F Kerry ... and those who support him.

Perhaps it's obvious to you that Kerry is the better alternative. It certainly isn't obvious to me!

Perhaps it's obvious to you what would have been a more effective way to prevent the TMM from murderering and maiming us than invading some of the lands where they are bred, financed and/or equipped. It certainly is not obvious to me.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 09:46 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Thats my point Bill.


I know, I was just being a little more poignant - to drive the nail home - so to speak Exclamation Razz
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 10:01 am
BillW wrote:
How do you think the invasion of Iraq by the radical Bush Regime has improved matters in this Clash of Civilisations?

It has at the very least compelled the rest of the civilized world to begin thinking and coping with the idea that they are all at risk of being murdered and maimed by the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers), and that they better start thinking now about how to reduce or end that risk for their respective posterities.

Also, a great many TMMs have been exterminated or incarcerated.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 10:05 am
Sounds like you've bought the sh*t, hook line and stinker....
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 0.05 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:13:52