THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Re: To Rebel is Easy, to Think is Divine

hobitbob wrote:

DiamondCat wrote:
If I had one political wish ...

I assume youa re referring to the "common narrative," of the triumph of teh brave settelrs over the dastardly savages, etc...

There you go again: ass u me . Razz

0 Replies

Spian to leave Iraq

Quote:

Spanish Leader Pulls Troops From Iraq
By DANIEL WOOLLS

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's prime minister ordered Spanish troops pulled out of Iraq as soon as possible Sunday, fulfilling a campaign pledge and trying to calm his uneasy nation after bombings that killed 191 people in Madrid.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who swept to victory in elections three days after the bombings, said he acted after deciding the United Nations was unprepared to take over the occupation of Iraq - his condition for keeping Spanish troops in the country.

Militants who claimed responsibility for the March 11 Madrid bombings said they were in retaliation for Spain's role in Iraq.

In the announcement, surprising for its timing, Zapatero said he had ordered his defense minister to ``do what is necessary for the Spanish troops stationed in Iraq to return home in the shortest time possible.''

Zapatero spoke just hours after the new Socialist government was sworn in. His party won March 14 general elections and had pledged to bring Spain's 1,300 troops home unless the United Nations took political and military control.

``With the information we have, and which we have gathered over the past few weeks, it is not foreseeable that the United Nations will adopt a resolution'' that satisfies Spain's terms, Zapatero said.

Public remarks by key officials and contacts that Defense Minister Jose Bono made over the past month show no signs that the political and military situation will change to satisfy Spain's demands by the June 30 deadline, Zapatero said.

He noted that most Spaniards opposed the decision by his predecessor, Jose Maria Aznar, to support the war, and said withdrawing the troops had been a longstanding pledge.

``More than anything, this decision reflects my desire to keep the promise I made to the Spanish people more than a year ago,'' he said.

``Driven by the deepest democratic convictions, the government does not want to, cannot and will not act against or behind the backs of the will of the Spanish people,'' he said.

He said the Spanish government would support efforts by the United Nations or European Union to prepare Iraq for elections and the handover of sovereignty, expected June 30.

Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said he would meet Wednesday in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to offer non-military cooperation in Iraq.

Zapatero won parliamentary backing as prime minister on Friday.

With 164 seats in the 350-seat Congress of Deputies, his Socialist party fell 12 seats short of a majority in the election. But small, mainly regional parties holding a total of 19 seats gave Zapatero the necessary cushion to become prime minister.

0 Replies

Is this another indication that the US intends to install a puppet dictator?
Iraqis not able to handle their own security

Quote:

Bremer: Iraqis Not Ready to Run Security

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq's police and armed forces will not have the capability to secure the country from the threat of insurgents by the time the United States hands power to an Iraqi government on June 30, the top U.S. administrator said Sunday.

Elsewhere, five U.S. Marines died in an ambush on the Syrian border, triggering a battle with hundreds of guerrillas and pushing the number Americans killed in combat this month to 99.

At least 25 Iraqis were killed in the fighting that followed Saturday's ambush in Husaybah, 240 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. The city's police chief was among the dead, a hospital official said.

The comments by U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer aimed to defend the continued heavy presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after the occupation officially ends, but also delivered a rare, blunt assessment to the Iraqi people.

``It is clear that Iraqi forces will not be able, on their own, to deal with these threats by June 30 when an Iraqi government assumes sovereignty,'' Bremer said in a statement issued by the U.S. coalition.

``Events of the past two weeks show that Iraq still faces security threats and needs outside help to deal with them. Early this month the foes of democracy overran Iraqi police stations and seized public buildings in several parts of the country,'' he said. ``Iraqi forces were unable to stop them.

In the worst violence in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, U.S. troops have been battling Sunni insurgents in the central city of Fallujah and an uprising by Shiite militiamen in the south.

Across Iraq, Saturday was one of the bloodiest days for U.S. troops since the latest uprising began April 4. Five U.S. troops - in addition to the five Marines - were killed in guerrilla attacks and a sixth died in a tank rollover.

Meanwhile, U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of Iraq's highways. The military announced new closures around Baghdad that severed long stretches of roads into the capital from the north, south and west - a reflection of the damage from a two-week guerrilla onslaught on U.S. supply lines.

Insurgent attacks and kidnappers' roadblocks have forced the military to curtail supply convoys and are part of the reason commanders have boosted ground forces by more than 20,000 U.S. troops. The military has already been tied down since April 1 on fronts in southern and central Iraq in the worst violence since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

0 Replies

House of Broken Toys
April 18, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

When Colin Powell decided that Dick Cheney's crazy "fever,"
as he called the vice president's obsession with linking
9/11 and Saddam, was leading the country into a war it did
not need to fight, he should have bared his heart to the
president and made his case using the Powell doctrine -
with overwhelming force.

Mr. Bush probably wouldn't have listened. He was in Mr.
Cheney's gloomy sway, and Rummy's bellicose sway. And W.
felt competitive with his more popular top diplomat.

But Mr. Powell should have tried. And if the president
didn't listen, the secretary should have quit - not let
himself be used by the vice president and his "Gestapo
office" of Pentagon neocons, as Mr. Powell referred to
them, to put a diplomatic fig leaf on a predetermined war
plan and to present bogus intelligence to the U.N.

He knew his word held enormous weight around the world. And
he knew he was the only one, out of all the officials in on
the clandestine rush to war, who had fought in a war. He
should have spoken up for all those soldiers who would
fight and die and be maimed for Dick Cheney's nutty utopian
dream of bombing the world into freedom, and W.'s dream of
being so forceful with Saddam, the slime bag who survived
his father's war, that he would forever banish his family's
bête noire - the wimp factor.

It would have been much more honorable than playing
Achilles sulking in his Foggy Bottom tent, privately
pouting to Bob Woodward that he had warned the president
about the Pottery Barn effect - break Iraq and "you know
you're going to be owning this place" - and tattling that
his colleagues were engaged in "lunacy."

"At times, with his closest friends, Powell was
semidespondent," his pal Mr. Woodward writes in "Plan of
Attack." "His president and his country were headed for a
war that he thought might just be avoided, though he
himself would not walk away."

Mr. Woodward, who is clearly channeling Mr. Powell, as he
has done to present Mr. Powell's side of the story in past
books, recreates his innermost thoughts: "He saw in Cheney
a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first gulf
war just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy
fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back
to Al Qaeda and trying to nail the connection with Iraq. He
would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell
thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted
uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. It was about the worst
charge that Powell could make about the vice president. But
there it was."

Everyone in Washington has been puzzling over how Mr.
Cheney, a reasonable, cautious, popular man in the first
Bush administration, turned into Pluto, king of the
underworld and proponent of worst-case scenarios and
pre-emption.

But Mr. Powell shared his dread, Cassandra-like, with Mr.
Woodward: "The more Powell dug, the more he realized that
the human sources were few and far between on Iraq's W.M.D.
It was not a pretty picture."

George Tenet comes across in the book as another profile in
cravenness. On Dec. 21, 2002, the C.I.A. chief went to the
Oval Office with an aide to present "The Case" on W.M.D.
Even Mr. Bush, already deeply enmeshed in war plans, was
taken aback at the paucity of it. "Nice try," Mr. Bush
said. "I don't think this is quite - it's not something
that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of
confidence from." Turning to Mr. Tenet, he added: "I've
been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D. and
this is the best we've got?"

When the president asked how confident he was, Mr. Tenet,
premier apple polisher, gave Mr. Bush the answer he wanted
to hear: "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

Just as the Democratic president ducked behind the parsed
line, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," so
the Republican president ducked behind the parsed line, "I
have no war plans on my desk."

The plans for invading "The House of Broken Toys," as the
C.I.A. referred to Iraq, may not have been sitting on his
desk, but he secretly started planning with Rummy for war
with Iraq in November 2001, and with Tommy Franks starting
the next month. Once they were thick into the planning, the
president couldn't turn back, of course. That would make
him like the loathed Bill Clinton - a lot of bold talk and
not much action - not like "The Man," as Mr. Cheney called
his warrior president.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/opinion/18DOWD.html?ex=1083290921&ei=1&en=f6112c5bfc8433df

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When Bush claimed he's a "uniter and not a divider," exactly what should we have expected? Can you actually support this rhetoric with the reality?

If Bush is failing to unite people, there are at least two logical reasons any rational person setting aside personal bias must consider:

1) Bush is not trying to unite people.

2) Some people are too partisan to be united.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Bush is failing to unite people, there are at least two logical reasons any rational person setting aside personal bias must consider

I particularly appreciate the use of "logical" and "rational" as they are so often used by both sides of the aisle to denote-those that agree with me- vs "illogical and irrational" as used to denote-those that disagree with me.

0 Replies

You too, dys?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
When Bush claimed he's a "uniter and not a divider," exactly what should we have expected? Can you actually support this rhetoric with the reality?

If Bush is failing to unite people, there are at least two logical reasons any rational person setting aside personal bias must consider:

1) Bush is not trying to unite people.

2) Some people are too partisan to be united.

3) He has successfully united the world against him.

Ya missed one ...........

0 Replies

DiamondCat

Welcome!

JM

0 Replies

Take a number ...............

Posted on Sun, Apr. 18, 2004

More troops needed in Afghanistan

By MALCOLM GARCIA

Knight Ridder Newspapers

KABUL, Afghanistan - As the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan intensifies its search for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, anger toward the United States and doubts among average Afghans and Pakistanis that he was behind the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington could undermine the effort to hunt him down.

Bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Egyptian doctor Ayman al Zawahri, are thought to be hiding in the mountainous border region separating Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after nearly three years of searching, coalition forces have failed to find, capture or kill either man.

The United States has had a difficult time creating a stable political climate in Afghanistan, in part because of growing resistance from al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, local warlords and drug traffickers, who all oppose the weak, U.S.-backed central government.

In addition, the Bush administration began diverting attention, money and soldiers from Afghanistan to prepare for an invasion of Iraq before it had defeated al-Qaida and the Taliban, according to senior U.S. military officials and a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

About 2,000 U.S. Marines have been sent to Afghanistan in the past month to strengthen the 10,000 coalition soldiers already in the country, but the mounting insurgency in Iraq threatens to divert additional resources from growing problems in Afghanistan. Myers said the United States might cut its number of troops in Afghanistan after the country holds presidential and parliamentary elections in September.

In a visit to Afghanistan on Friday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, said a stepped-up campaign against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan would succeed in killing or capturing bin Laden.

Myers's stopover in Afghanistan came a day after an audiotape believed to have been recorded by bin Laden offered a truce to European nations if they withdrew from Muslim countries. The tape also threatened continued violence against Israel and the United States, and on Sunday National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warned that terrorists could strike the United States again before November's presidential election.

A March 11 bombing attack on a commuter train in Madrid, believed to have been carried out by Islamic extremists sympathetic to bin Laden, killed 191 people and helped topple the government of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a U.S. ally.

"I think that we do have to take very seriously the thought that the terrorists might have learned, we hope, the wrong lesson from Spain," Rice said on Fox News Sunday.

"I think we also have to take seriously that they might try during the cycle leading up to the election to do something," she said.

With few soldiers who know the mountainous countryside or the local languages and cultures, coalition troops are relying in part on Afghans and Pakistanis to help find bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

But endemic poverty and little reconstruction aid outside of Kabul have raised questions about the true purpose of the American-led ouster of the hard-line Taliban Islamic regime.

Many Afghans now say bin Laden isn't a terrorist, and some even suggest that he never existed. Instead, they argue that he was a ploy used by the United States to pursue world domination. No individual, they say, could have successfully organized the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"It was not Osama bin Laden in New York but computer generated images of destruction," said Abdul Ghani, a religious leader in the Haji Yaqub Mosque in Kabul. "The Afghan people say if it was Osama bin Laden who caused this trouble, why did he not continue attacking the United States on September 12th, 13th and 14th? It was just an American plan to capture Afghanistan."

In the teashops of downtown Jalalabad, near the Pakistani border, unemployed workers take little comfort in the international aid that's gone into rebuilding Kabul.

"There is no future here," said Taiq Ahmad, 25. "Osama bin Laden, I think, was a hero. The U.S. says he is the enemy, but they don't have proof. They can't catch him. He is for all of Islam. The U.S. forces are in our streets with guns like they want to start something. Afghan people don't like this."

Similar sentiments are being expressed in Pakistan, said Ijaz Shafi Gilani, chairman of the GALLUP/BRB, a marketing research firm in Islamabad, and the capital.

Most people in Pakistan were appalled by the Sept. 11 attacks because innocent civilians were killed, a violation of Islamic teachings, Gilani said. However, they turned against the United States because they considered the war in Afghanistan an assault against Muslims.

"The U.S. has taken on anti-Muslim context in the eyes of many people," Gilani said. "That generates support for Osama bin Laden by raising questions about U.S. policy. He is seen as standing up to the U.S."

Others argue that dead or alive, bin Laden has achieved his goal of uniting fundamentalist factions of the Muslim world against the United States.

"His death or capture would have a psychological boost for the West, but little other impact," said Mansoor Akbar Kundi, a political science professor at the University of Baluchistan in Quetta, Pakistan. "When he is killed, nothing will change unless U.S. foreign policy changes. One hundred other Osama bin Ladens will follow. They won't have the same face, but they'll have the same purpose."

0 Replies

Another Bush boondoggle that's been discussed ad-nauseum, but half the American People care less, because we have a "War President."

0 Replies

I will return to the long posts above, but can't contain myself. I just watched and listened to "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace interviewing Bob Woodward about the contents, and how they were obtained, in his new book.

It is mind-boggling, extraordinary. Woodward spoke deliberately and slowly, so that every nuance of what he was saying came through.

Since I believe that Cheney is too smart to say something that might come back and haunt the administration, then I must draw the inference that he was not aware of what Bush was telling Woodward. My immediate reaction was that it was Bush himself who told Woodward quotes whenever only Cheney and Bush were present in the room.

Impeachable offense of diverting $800 million to Iraq that had been appropriated by Congress for Afghanistan? The continued references and illusions by Bush for doing the work of a higher authority or father figure? Saving or freeing the world?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another Bush boondoggle that's been discussed ad-nauseum, but half the American People care less, because we have a "War President."

I know this will appear preposterous to you and many others here, but I'll write it anyway.

The half of the American people who "care less", care less because they realize that their lives and the lives of their posterity are heavily dependent on successful establishment of representative democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many like myself are aware of Bush's many many limitations, but cannot find anyone who is more likely to do a better job than Bush. We look at those who have sought the Presidency, those who are seeking the Presidency, and those who may seek the Presidency over the next several months.

If some of you here think we are wrong, then name the current or future candidate you think can do a better job, and explain why you think s/he can do a better job.

Some of you might be tempted to say anyone can do better. Then in response I will say ok vote for me. Then some of you will feel compelled to change your position to almost anyone could do better.

So to avoid that useless cycle please offer a name and reasons why.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Another Bush boondoggle that's been discussed ad-nauseum, but half the American People care less, because we have a "War President."

I know this will appear preposterous to you and many others here, but I'll write it anyway.

The half of the American people who "care less", care less because they realize that their lives and the lives of their posterity are heavily dependent on successful establishment of representative democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many like myself are aware of Bush's many many limitations, but cannot find anyone who is more likely to do a better job than Bush. We look at those who have sought the Presidency, those who are seeking the Presidency, and those who may seek the Presidency over the next several months.

If some of you here think we are wrong, then name the current or future candidate you think can do a better job, and explain why you think s/he can do a better job.

Some of you might be tempted to say anyone can do better. Then in response I will say ok vote for me. Then some of you will feel compelled to change your position to almost anyone could do better.

So to avoid that useless cycle please offer a name and reasons why.

Trying to switch the subject huh ..... Why I oughta ..... Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Quote:

"Don't get me wrong, charity is important. But as Jesus said, we are not to be forced into giving. If we give, it should be from the abundance of the heart, or it should not be given at all. Forcing someone to give a good portion of what they worked diligently and wisely for, goes against the very grain of the fabric of real freedom."

Jesus as a conservative Republican! In addition he counseled us towards personal and societal responsibility: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." Was Jesus manifesting some sort of theological political affiliation? No, just good common sensical advice on how to behave in this world--do that and "heaven" will take care of itself.

And this:

Quote:

"If someone gets drunk, they blame the bartender. If someone gets fat, they blame the restaurant. If someone gets cancer from indulging in something they shouldn't have (such as cigarettes), they blame the cigarette company. If someone gets shot by a criminal, they blame the firearm and not the criminal. If an accident happens with a vehicle that happens to use a few more gallons of gasoline per mile, they blame the vehicle and its maker, instead of the driver who was driving recklessly, which caused the wreck in the first place."

To that we could add the Evil McDonalds Chain that has the audacity to sell Hot Coffee and food High in caloric content to individuals that then are surprised when they burn themselves or gain a few pounds. Next they will be selling hamburgers without the Bun! Oh! That's right they already do! In the words of John Stossel: "Give Me A Break".

Again, welcome to A2K.

JM

0 Replies

ican,

About your quest for one good presidential candidate--I listened to Sen. Kerry this morning on Meet the Press and he sounded better, more determined, more serious and did admit that if elected he might have to send more troops. But those, like I, wishing for more specificity would have felt disappointed.

Isn't any body listening to guys like Sen. McCain or Sen. Biden? They have been offering sound advice and actions that would be quite useful in the Iraq thing. I guess no one feels they can become elected if they commit to specifics. That works for the incumbent, somewhat, but I feel I must be convinced if we are to elect any non Bush candidate that he has a plan and if so what is it? I am not going to elect a pig in a poke.

JM

0 Replies

JM, I refuse to vote for a pig in a poke just to get rid of GWBush. Kerry is beginning to bother me as a candidate, because he's making promises to win votes that are dubious at best. trustworthiness is high on my "must" list, and Kerry is losing ground.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Trying to switch the subject huh ..... Why I oughta .....

No, I'm trying to establish a useful subject. I don't know what the current useful subject is. Perhaps the current useful subject is "Why y'all think Bush is no damn good"? But absent identification of a better alternative to Bush, that subject seems to me to not be useful, to be nothing more than a kind of mental masturbation. In other words, Bush is no damn good compared to ????? constitutes a valueless subject.

Well, wait a minute! Come to think of it, perhaps if one were a shill for some terrorist or other anti-american organization, then constant repetition of why Bush is alleged to be no damn good could serve the purpose of that organization. Namely, it could serve the purpose of sapping the will of a majority of the American People no matter who is president; no matter who gets elected in November.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!! Confused

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 2shill
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps short for shillaber, of unknown origin
1 : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler); also : one who makes a sales pitch
2 : PITCH 8a

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

JM, I refuse to vote for a pig in a poke just to get rid of GWBush. Kerry is beginning to bother me as a candidate, because he's making promises to win votes that are dubious at best. trustworthiness is high on my "must" list, and Kerry is losing ground.

So waht are you saying? It is better to vote to keep someone who is a liar, who believes he has been sent by the "allmighty father" to "free the peoples of teh world?"

0 Replies

hobit, Didn't say that, did I? Just because I might not vote for Kerry doesn't mean I'll vote for Bush. Kerry needs to "earn" my vote; not win by default.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know