0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 03:16 pm
In his speech to new air force officers today, Bush said they were fighting the same war as those who battled the Nazis.


I wonder, if he suggested that this would enclose the equal number of casualities - on both sites.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:35 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
So is that to say it is or is not different?

Should it be that if terrorism is carried out in your back yard it would be consdiered global, someone else's back yard ... regional? I would think global would be inclusive of the globe.


Who are you talking to? Me? If you don't understand the difference between regional and global, then you are a freakin' idiot. As you do not seem to be a freakin' idiot, I assume you are playing coy and I do not understand why.

Try www.webster.com if you really do not understand the difference.


In relation to galaxy ESO 269-57 our terrorist problem would appear to be regional, you know .... 'that part of the universe'. To the residents of the milky way galaxy, still regional ... but to the residents of the third planet from the sun, milky way galaxy, it remains, to this observer, totally global in it's relationship to the mental and physical anguish targeted by terrorist with one goal ..... the subjugation of the masses.
Your loose grip on civility as evidenced by how quickly you use name calling in your argument suggest that you may miss the underlying theme in what I said, if so .... my apologies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:43 pm
dyslexia wrote:
perhaps the Bush cabal is still operating under the flat-earth view rendering "global" in a different context.


www.webster.com
Quote:
Main Entry: 1 ca·bal
Pronunciation: k&-'bäl, -'bal
Function: noun
Etymology: French cabale cabala, intrigue, cabal, from Medieval Latin cabbala cabala, from Late Hebrew qabbAlAh, literally, received (lore)
: the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs; also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues


Ok! I'll bite!

What group has Bush secretly united with to bring about an overturn or usurpation?

What group is Bush seeking to overturn or usurp?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:00 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
In his speech to new air force officers today, Bush said they were fighting the same war as those who battled the Nazis.

I wonder, if he suggested that this would enclose the equal number of casualities - on both sites.


Total casualties in WWII numbered in the multi-millions. I bet that had the allies back then not spent so much time in repeated futile attempts to negotiate with and appease the Nazis, Fascists and Shintoists, the Nazis, Fascists and Shintoists could have been removed via preemptive strikes in far less time with far fewer casualties.

Rush Limbaugh reminded me today that after the war, the New York Times repeatedly criticised the multi-year allied occupation efforts to secure liberty in Germany, Italy and Japan. We were informed then as now how much all the occupied people hated us. Thankfully, back then too we had better ways than the New York Times to determine what was really happening. Of course there will always be folks who regardless of the true facts will want to believe the worst about a current administration.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:18 pm
I am looking forward to the period between 30 June 2004 and 31 Jan 2005. This will further clarify two aspects of the Iraq situation. First is the present administration's performance in relation to its stated goals, but this is more important to American politics than the future of Iraq. The second is how earnest the Iraqis feel about actually working and earning their self determination--this will ultimately decide the fate of Iraq. Many have voiced skepticism towards the actual ability of the Middle Eastern mind regarding this possibility.

Simply put, the U.S. has given the Iraqi people only the opportunity to work towards their freedom. America can really do no more. They have their freedom but will they recognize that personal responsibility comes with it? For now the U.S. is responsible for security but the rule of law must be established. However, the law is more than words on paper. Its spirit must be felt and legitimatized by the people it springs from. So, I would submit that the Iraqi people will not be free until they recognize and deal with those who would steal their chance at freedom. Was Ahmed Chalabi on this road of freedom pilfering? Thankfully, we may never know but TMM certainly are. From the point of Iraqis, a lot of these miscreants are outside troublemakers. (An aside: Given the venue and power of the American press and internet etc. transplanted to Iraq, how would Iraqis view those striving to obfuscate a clear path to a better life? What would they write in the OP/Ed columns of the Baghdad Times, Najaf Post, or express on their equivalent of "Hardball" regarding these trouble makers?)

As I have pointed out in the past, we have seen hopeful signs of Iraqis actually trying to eliminate these hooligans. The al Qaeda goal of disruption and the creation of anarchy in the futile search for a greater Islamic Caliphate is hollow and a disservice to Iraq. In all fairness al Qaeda is not entirely to blame, others, with their own agendas, also participate in this theft of freedom, witness Moqtada Sadr and his backers in Iran. Sadr a bad guy? Well, it is a matter of perception. Iraq's future lies in its people's perception of such meddlers.

It is the above period of time that will give us a much more clarified view of what Iraq wants to become. Will they be willing to work towards the noble goal? Will the U.S. be able to let them? Note that there is no country on the face on this planet like the U.S. and its government. Other democracies? Sure, but not like ours. Britain comes close but this is the wrong perception of democratic evolution. America's government is the evolutionary result stemming from its ancestor, Great Britain. So, we should not expect an Iraqi democracy to look, well, American! Like Parents, everywhere the best America can do is to restore order, create structure, and guarantee law and order. Given this, the rest is up to those Iraqis who so long for grown-up freedom. However, Americans should not view this social adventure a failure just yet. The developments of the German and Japanese Post WWII success stories and the infant Iraqi experiment in democracy, although not directly comparable in all aspects, do share one important and necessary fact: American intervention was the force that broke the log jam of Fascism and dictatorship. Sure we invested all types of capital but who actually constructed the success stories? The answer, of course, is their respective citizens.

JM
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:42 pm
JM, Wise words; we must all wait to see what develops in those six months.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:45 pm
So true, JM.

I have no doubt that millions of Iraqi's have hungered for a better life and more freedom for decades and that is one thing, but quite another that enough Iraqi's who are capable and have a true vision make their way to the new government and/or learn how to support a plan of democracy.

After decades of oppression it must be hard to find people there who can see past today much less years ahead.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:49 pm
JamesMorrison wrote:
I am looking forward to the period between 30 June 2004 and 31 Jan 2005.
...
The developments of the German and Japanese Post WWII success stories and the infant Iraqi experiment in democracy, although not directly comparable in all aspects, do share one important and necessary fact: American intervention was the force that broke the log jam of Fascism and dictatorship. Sure we invested all types of capital but who actually constructed the success stories? The answer, of course, is their respective citizens.


Your entire post is excellently directed to the fundamental issues of the next 8 months. I particularly like the last part that I've repeated here.

Practically speaking all the US must do is help the Iraqi people keep ALL the TMM out of the way of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will then do all else that wants doing.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:56 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
When did the pursuit of a minor cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, for alledged crimes, become more important than the pursuit of those responcible for the murder of three thousand people on 9/11?
Where is this administration leading us?


Who said it did?


X, do you really think they are looking for Bin Ladin in Najaf? Puhleeaze. Troops are killed every day in the attempt to kill or capture a man that may have had something to do with the assasination of a fellow cleric ...... how is that our business? They have Iraqi judges and police in place to deal with domestic wrong doers, American troops need not die.


Furthermore, I have a gut feeling that we really aren't going after Sadr himself, the reason for the soft confrontations with he himself, because we want the interim Iraqi government to snag him rather than just killing him outright ourselves and making a martyr out of him.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:06 pm
Brand X wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
When did the pursuit of a minor cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, for alledged crimes, become more important than the pursuit of those responcible for the murder of three thousand people on 9/11?
Where is this administration leading us?


Who said it did?


X, do you really think they are looking for Bin Ladin in Najaf? Puhleeaze. Troops are killed every day in the attempt to kill or capture a man that may have had something to do with the assasination of a fellow cleric ...... how is that our business? They have Iraqi judges and police in place to deal with domestic wrong doers, American troops need not die.


Furthermore, I have a gut feeling that we really aren't going after Sadr himself, the reason for the soft confrontations with he himself, because we want the interim Iraqi government to snag him rather than just killing him outright ourselves and making a martyr out of him.


You are partly right ............ as the situation is, any resistance has the label of Sadr and as such can be contributed to the fanatical religious element .... an outlaw clergy not a civil war. Iraqis love the Americans, remember?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:10 pm
The gathering storm ....

Wednesday Jun 2 2004. All times are London time.



Published: June 3 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: June 3 2004 5:00

A key Iraqi Shia religious party complained yesterday of "marginalisation and exclusion" from the newly appointed interim government, as US forces continued their efforts to quash a rebellion by Shia fighters in Iraq's south.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations' envoy to Iraq, admitted that the choice of new government to be led by Iyad Allawi, the prime minister designate, was unlikely to please all Iraqis. He called for patience until elections could be held and argued that the 30 officials selected on Tuesday were broadly representative of the country.

Coalition officials have been counting on the co-operation of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), an Iranian-backed party, for help in ending the fighting that has raged throughout Iraq's south.

But Sciri yesterday added its voice to that of Daawa, another major Shia religious party, saying that it had reservations about how the new caretaker government had been chosen.

On Tuesday, immediately after the new cabinet was announced, a Daawa official said that the new ministerial posts had been decided behind closed doors.

The two Shia parties are important for their potential to act as counterweights to more radical religious figures such as Moqtada al- Sadr, the Shia cleric who launched an uprising against US troops in April.

Militants loyal to Mr Sadr yesterday clashed with US forces near a mosque in the southern town of Kufa and in Baghdad, and officials said six Iraqis were killed and 40 others wounded. The fighting threatens to end a truce negotiated last week between Mr Sadr's forces and the coalition.

The disgruntled Shia parties have senior posts in Mr Allawi's administration - in the case of Dawa, Ibrahim Jaafari, its leader, as vice-president and, in the case of Sciri, the minister of finance - but they are less widely represented than they were previously under the governing council.

"Will every Iraqi be satisfied with the present government? Definitely not," Mr Brahimi said yesterday in Baghdad the day after the new government was announced.

A senior coalition official said yesterday that the coalition and the UN had been careful to obtain the approval of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shia cleric, in settling upon Mr Allawi, himself a Shia but a prominent secular politician.

The official said that Mr Sistani had been shown a list of names by intermediaries of potential prime ministers and had not objected to Mr Allawi's inclusion on the list.

The issue is a sensitive one for the coalition. In March senior members from the now-defunct Governing Council claimed to have gained Mr Sistani's approval for a temporary administrative law that is now the legal basis for the transitional period until elections can be held.

However, shortly after the document was signed, after several days of intense negotiations, Mr Sistani publicly denounced the law as carrying no legal weight and as an obstacle to arriving at a permanent constitution.

This time around, the Coalition Provisional Authority official said, a number of sources had confirmed that Mr Sistani had no objection to Mr Allawi as prime minister.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 08:13 am
Top leaders in Iraq's interim government are seeking input into a UN draft resolution that determines how much control the interim government will actually have. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he expected to play a role in drafting the resolution. The UN Security Council is scheduled to discuss the proposed plan by the US and UK today. Meanwhile, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful of Iraq's Shiite clerics, backed the UN-appointed interim government set to take control of Iraq at the end of the month, though Sistani expressed some reservations. Sistani emphasized the need for a new UN resolution to restore Iraqi sovereignty and legitimate elections.

Quote:

Iraq demands say in UN resolution

Iraq's interim leaders are demanding input to a United Nations draft resolution, which will set out how much power a new Iraqi government will have.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, speaking in New York, said he expected to "definitely" help shape the motion.


Security Council members are set to discuss the US-UK plan on Thursday.

Iraq's most influential Shia Muslim cleric has called on the newly chosen Iraqi government to press the Security Council for full sovereignty.


Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his cautious approval to the caretaker government but called on it to prove its efficiency.

"The new government should get a clear resolution from the UN Security Council restoring sovereignty to Iraqis - a full and complete sovereignty in all its political, economic, military and security forms and endeavour to erase all traces of the occupation," Ayatollah Sistani said in a statement.

The cleric wields enormous influence over Iraq's 60% Shia majority and correspondents say his approval is necessary to give the interim government legitimacy.

Contradictory statements

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said again that Iraq's new rulers would have no veto over US-led foreign forces.

Sistani wields great influence over Iraqi Shias
He said that while the new government would be sovereign, US and Iraqi troops would be under separate commands after the 30 June transfer of power.

Mr Powell's comments contradict a recent statement by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that individual operations would require the Iraqi government's consent.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says Mr Powell's remarks were the clearest statement so far by the Americans about who is going to be in control of the military operations in Iraq.

The draft gives a US-led multinational force authority to take all necessary measures for security but envisages a date for the end of its mandate when a fully elected Iraqi government is in place in January 2006.

BBC News Online world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says this is being widely interpreted as meaning that the force would withdraw then, but it would be open to the elected government to ask some of the force to stay.

'Fine tuning' needed

Mr Zebari has already held talks with both the US ambassador to the UN John Negroponte and Britain's UN ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, who hosted an evening gathering.

He will meet all 15 council members on Thursday afternoon.

"This is a very important resolution for us," the Iraqi foreign minister said. "And definitely we need to have our own input."

He said it was "very odd for such an important resolution to be discussed in New York in the absence of Iraqi representatives", although he did not speak of what changes, if any, he would want to make.

Mr Negroponte indicated that there were no drastic changes afoot, saying that the draft just needed some "fine tuning", and he was confident it would be adopted soon.

"Full exercise of sovereignty will be restored to the people and government of Iraq by June 30. I don't have any doubt about that," he said.

The resolution says the mandate of foreign troops in Iraq will end on "completion of the political process", possibly by the end of 2005.

But French President Jacques Chirac said more work was needed on the text on affirming full sovereignty of Iraq's government, "notably in military matters".

Russia and China, which along with France have a veto at the UN Security Council, have echoed his comments.

China's UN Ambassador, Wang Guangya, said the restoration of "full sovereignty has not been fully reflected" in the text.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 08:29 am
George Tenet just resigned!

He said for personal reasons.

He will be in office til mid July.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:00 am
I think that he personally didn't want to take the fall for all the idiotic mistakes that have gone on.

There have been some indications lately that a ton of heat is coming down on the CIA (non-surprisingly) and Tenet did the smart thing - both for himself, and for the organiztion - by turning over leadership to someone who can effect some change over there without being held back by past accusations.

One less fall guy for the admin, tho.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:03 am
Now, we need another George to resign - maybe as a plea bargain (taking his Dick and Rumps with him) Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:11 am
They should all resign.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
They should all resign.


Who would you recommend for each of their replacements?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 07:51 pm
I wanna be a hundred.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 07:51 pm
Waaahhhh.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:25 pm
Cycloptichorn's post #721376 I suspect is pretty close to the rationale and timing of the DCI's subsequent resignation. I find it hard to believe that Director Tenet did not offer his papers to the President earlier and that the POTUS refused it. This allowed the Director to take the heat for the administration for a little while longer. Resigning now, as Cycloptichorn states, is best for both Mr. Tenet and the Administration. This is a shame. The CIA gets blamed for ideological pressures that began in the 70's and then became Congressional budget cuts and directives and laws that handcuffed operatives and worked against investing in Human Intelligence on the ground in foreign theaters of operation for the next 30 years, we then wonder why our spooks couldn't penetrate a closed Fascist society with both hands tied behind their backs...but I must stop this rant. Perhaps, we should start a thread on the practical vs. moral aspects of such agencies as the CIA and KGB (Anybody remember the OSS? It's celebrating its 62nd anniversary May 2004-- notably established 2 years before the June 6th D Day invasion). OK, I'm done! Well almost:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=113-05242004

In reference to replacing other executives, Ican queried:
Quote:
"Who would you recommend for each their replacements?"

Good question. Just as an exercise I started to try to make that decision on my own. It was then that I realized how little I knew and could contribute towards such an awesome responsibility, this certainly gives one pause.

Good news is Grand Ayatollah Sistani seems to actually care about his people rather then himself. He is gaining respect, at least in my eyes. We must make sure the Hooligans don't take him out. The Iraqis would do well to come up with his ilk in more secular garb. Hopefully, the elections will produce such individuals. But this gets one to thinking about how Islamic clerics garner true respect in the ME whereas actual political leaders in this area tend to be strongmen, in the dictator sense. Does this intimate something about the people? I don't know.

Seems one sticking point in the transfer of sovereignty is who will give the orders to the main security force in Iraq, the U.S. military. The U.S. Secretary of State got it right-- the U.S. will maintain its control over its troops. Well, there you go, its not rocket science. The press seemed to not understand that the only difference between Colin Powell's explanation and all other's of the administration towards control of security forces in Iraq is that The Secretary's lacks spin. Despite this, the French are calling for more such control by the Iraqis. Right, like the French would give up control of their military while in the field (notably the French didn't even field their army, the largest in the world at the time, when Hitler sent a probing battalion into the Rhineland in 1936 and we all know how that turned out). The French are a burr under the saddle of the Iraqi situation which makes them at best a minor irritant, at worst a major distraction. We should treat them like Ike did; smile and ignore. A reading of history makes me want to put Eisenhower up for sainthood regarding his discussions with DeGaul, oh well. I should stop picking on the French, its not crickett to engage such an easy target, bad show, and all that, what.

JM
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 07/08/2025 at 09:53:04