THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:
Bush is not a moron. He is however ........Was he really the best on offer? I will never doubt the power of advertising again.

Sure says a lot about Kerry. Doesn't it?

possibly, mcg.

i think it says a lot more about fear. Idea

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

possibly, mcg. i think it says a lot more about fear.

BINGO! Perhaps we differ on WHOSE FEAR. I'm afraid the Democs feared Bush and the Repubs feared Kerry.

0 Replies

which left both the conservatives and the liberals out in the cold.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
right.... so then we can look forward to toppling the following for starters;
pakistan
iran
syria
chechnya
the phillipines
suadi arabia
sudan
katar
uae
north ireland
... US ...

I thought everyone understood the obvious difference between al Qaeda located in a country whose government is working to remove and keep them out, and al Qaeda located in a country whose government is working to harbor them and bring them in.

Again, a wise person attempts to remove those governments that harbor and bring in al Qaeda. It is a realistic expectation that if one does that to enough such governments, few if any other governments will harbor and bring in al Qaeda. Perhaps the governments of Syria and Iran will also have to be removed before all of al Qaeda are finally under attack by the governments of every country.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, North Ireland, Sudan, and US governments are all working to remove and keep out al Qaeda. Whereas the Iranian, and Syrian governments are both working to harbor and bring in al Qaeda. I'm not adequately informed whether the Chechnya, Katar, and UAE governments are currently working to remove and keep out, or working to harbor and bring in al Qaeda.

but i did not name afghanistan or iraq, ican. perhaps the phillipine governmant is trying, perhaps the malays, which i forgot to mention. north ireland would be working to quell the i.r.a., but remember that most terrorist organizations help each other with info and materials, even though they may be at odds on ideology.

the others ? i'm not convinced. the saudi's gave pretty lip service until they got whacked. now, hmmm. not really seeing a lot in the way of results that benefit the usa. now here's another thing to reflect on, re; our good friends the saudis; a) were we not asked to leave, and leave behind, a state of the art military base or two? b) hasn't it been reported that several members of the saudi royal family actively and vocally support islamists ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ican, it's not unwise to enforce the existing laws regarding border control. it is unwise to continue soft handling the borders in order to allow illegals to stream across the border to supply cheap and submissive labor.

We are currently enforcing US immigration laws by returning illegal immigrants captured in the act of entering the US, back where they came from.

we are !!!! since when ???

That isn't working well. Nor should any rational person think that such a method would work well. Suppose say 100,000 of the same people try to illegally imigrate into the US each and every month. How many months will it take for say 99% of those illegal imigrants to succeed, if the US continues its present method of capture and return, of say 50% per month? The answer is 7 months. Then suppose another 100,000 try it over the next 7 months ... ?

i can't believe that you, of all people here, think that enforcing the law is a waste of time.

Those that succeed in getting past our border guards are legally rewarded with driver's licences, healthcare, and other welfare benefits. Perhaps we ought to stop those rewards.

great! that's been my position for over 20 years. and while we are at it it, we should scrub the idea that's being put out there about, "work to citizenship". talk about a reward ?!?! "okay, you came here illegally, but if you just sign this piece of paper, work cheap and go stand in that line for 5 or 7 years, all sins are forgiven. you can be a citizen. even though you broke one of the most important laws of our country".

no, ican. a driver's license, healthcare and such don't even begin to hold the same value as american citizenship.

but that's just me being a liberal again...

An unwise person puts up walls to keep al Qaeda away from the civilians al Qaeda wants to murder (e.g., an unwise person hides in closets). Historically, such walls have proven to be expensive to build and maintain, ineffective, and relatively easy to circumvent, tunnel under, blast through, or in some cases of decay simply walk through. Worse, the civilians al Qaeda wants to murder cannot survive huddled behind such walls, because to survive those civilians must make their bread and earn their bread in places that either don't have walls or cannot afford walls.[/quote][/quote]

who said anything about a wall, other than the israelis ?

there's a big difference between a wall and keeping a close eye on who's walking into your front (or back) yard.

sorry if you think i'm unwise. don't really care, though. i still think that preserving america's borders is more important than providing cheap labor. probably because i don't buy into the "they do jobs that americans don't want to, or won't do". but if that is indeed the case, it would probablt do said americans quite a bit of good to do them and see how the other half lives. it certainly opened my eyes to how the world really works.

0 Replies

At least 'somebody' is doing something...

Blair in push for Mid-East peace

Tony Blair met Iraqi leaders on a surprise visit to Baghdad UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is to hold talks with senior Palestinians and Israelis on Wednesday, on the latest leg of a visit to the Middle East.
He and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are likely to discuss Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and a proposed Middle East conference.

Mr Blair will also meet the Palestinian leadership for talks on next month's presidential elections and reforms.

Meanwhile, Israeli troops raided a Gaza refugee camp blamed for mortar attacks.

Mr Blair's trip to Israel comes the day after his surprise visit to Iraqi leaders in Baghdad.

0 Replies

"Osama bin Laden in 1998 declared war on both civilian and military Americans with the objective of killing all of them wherever they be found," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"President George Bush on 9/11/2001 declared to the National Security Council the United States would not just punish the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans but also those who harbored them," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"President Bush declared to the nation on TV the night of 9/11/2001 that we would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed terrorism against Americans and those who harbor them," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"President Bush declared to Congress and to the nation on TV the night of 9/20/2001 that our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"The al Qaeda are a confederation of multiple terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden's help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam (AaI)," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"There is zero evidence that the Kurd's again attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"There is zero evidence that Saddam's regime attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"There is zero evidence that the US attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq before 2003," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the Kurds to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the US to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq" is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
"Also there is zero evidence that Saddam, after receiving our three requests (including Powell's statement to UN), even so much as cussed and fussed over the fact that the AaI al Qaeda was encamped in his Iraq," is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.
Your speculations, ican, are not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al-Qaeda.

"Al-Qaeda" has not been removed from Iraq as a result of our invasion thereof.

0 Replies

Casualties of the Iraq war. http://icasualties.org/oif/

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

At least 'somebody' is doing something...

Blair in push for Mid-East peace

Tony Blair met Iraqi leaders on a surprise visit to Baghdad UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is to hold talks with senior Palestinians and Israelis on Wednesday, on the latest leg of a visit to the Middle East.
He and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are likely to discuss Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and a proposed Middle East conference.

Mr Blair will also meet the Palestinian leadership for talks on next month's presidential elections and reforms.

Meanwhile, Israeli troops raided a Gaza refugee camp blamed for mortar attacks.

Mr Blair's trip to Israel comes the day after his surprise visit to Iraqi leaders in Baghdad.

dubya wasn't there?

musta lost that pesky "roadmap"...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Blair in push for Mid-East peace

Quote:

Ten more years?

Senior MPs warn British troops will be in Iraq for a decade, as Blair in Baghdad proclaims: 'We are not a nation of quitters'

By Donald Macintyre in Baghdad and Colin Brown
22 December 2004

Tony Blair flew into Iraq yesterday, promising democracy. But, outside the ring of security that escorted him, another day of gruesome violence was unfolding - including a rocket attack on a US base in Mosul that claimed at least 24 lives.

And, against a backdrop of continuing carnage, The Independent has learned a cross-party group of MPs has returned from Iraq convinced British troops may have to be deployed there for at least another 10 years.

Unlike the Prime Minister, the Commons Defence Select Committee was unable to visit Baghdad because the security situation was too dangerous.

One senior member of the committee said: "It will take 10 to 15 years at least [before troops can be fully withdrawn]. It is another Cyprus. The Iraqis just cannot cope with the security situation and won't be able to for years."

As Mr Blair was proclaiming Britain would stay the course, a bloody illustration of the dangers encountered by US and British troops was playing out in the northern city of Mosul.

At about noon yesterday, insurgents hit a dining hall tent at a US base, killing at least two dozen US and Iraqi soldiers and contractors and injuring 60. Amid the screaming and smoke that followed, quick-thinking soldiers turned their lunch tables upside down, placed the wounded on them and carried them to the car park.

At a press conference with the Iraqi interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, Mr Blair declared that Britain was not a "nation of quitters". He was speaking after becoming the first foreign head of government to visit Iraq since the installation of the interim government in June, and the first British premier to go to Baghdad since Winston Churchill.

Mr Blair said that he would not be deterred by the recent and lethal wave of suicide bombings. He declared: "What I feel is that the danger people are facing is coming from the insurgents who are trying to destroy the possibility of the country having democracy. Where do we stand in that fight? On the side of democracy.''

Asked how he felt about his entry under maximum security, 20 months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Mr Blair acknowledged: "Security is very heavy. You can feel the sense of danger, people live in here.''

But he added: "What I feel more than anything else is coming from the terrorists trying to stop this country becoming a democracy.''

Congratulating Mr Allawi, United Nations personnel and other international staff for working towards next month's elections, Mr Blair added: "I just feel that people should understand how precious what is being created here is.''

He added: "Whatever people feel about the conflict, we British are not a nation of quitters. What is obvious to me is the Iraqi people are not going to quit on the task either. They are going to see it through.''

Officially, the Government has continued to raise hopes that normality is returning to Iraq with the clear implication that after the UN mandate runs out with more elections in December next year, the foreign troops may start to be withdrawn.

But MPs who have visited Iraqsay such hopes are wildly optimistic. Mike Gapes, a Labour MP on the committee, used a pre-Christmas debate in the Commons yesterday to warn it could "take years" before British troops could be withdrawn, in spite of the progress he claimed he saw in Iraq.

Mr Gapes said: "My assessment is just as in Kosovo and Bosnia, we are not talking about a commitment of one or two years, but several years. We have to honestly say that we started this business and we have to see it through."

A Tory member of the committee, Richard Ottaway, said: "There will need to be a continuing commitment from foreign forces for 10 years at least." An anti-war Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I don't think there is any hiding place from this. The Prime Minister is there today but there is bloody chaos in Iraq."

Later, on a visit to the Shaiba army base in Basra the Prime Minister climbed on a table to tell about 1,000 assembled British troops: "A big thank you to you all. I know you are going to be away from your family and loved ones over Christmas. I am sorry about that but, my God, it's a job worth doing.'' Mr Blair added that all the troops could be "very proud of what you are doing''.

Source

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Casualties of the Iraq war. http://icasualties.org/oif/

good post c.i. proves that bush isn't going it alone.

righttttt....

0 Replies

Excerpt of Washington Post article: Full story here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17883-2004Dec21.html?nav=rss_nation

New Papers Suggest Detainee Abuse Was Widespread

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 22, 2004; Page A01

The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained.

New documents released yesterday detail a series of probes by Army criminal investigators into multiple cases of threatened executions of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, as well as of thefts of currency and other private property, physical assaults, and deadly shootings of detainees at detention camps in Iraq.

In many of the newly disclosed cases, Army commanders chose noncriminal punishments for those involved in the abuse, or the investigations were so flawed that prosecutions could not go forward, the documents show. Human rights groups said yesterday that, as a result, the penalties imposed were too light to suit the offenses.

The complaints arose from several thousand new pages of internal reports, investigations and e-mails from different agencies, which, with other documents released in the past two weeks, paint a finer-grained picture of military abuse and criminal behavior at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan than previously available.

The documents disclosed by a coalition of groups that had sued the government to obtain them make it clear that both regular and Special Forces soldiers took part in the abuse, and that the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag.

The variety of the abuse and the fact that it occurred over a three-year period undermine the Pentagon's past insistence -- arising out of the summertime scandal surrounding the mistreatment at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison -- that the abuse occurred largely during a few months at that prison, and that it mostly involved detainee humiliation or intimidation rather than the deliberate infliction of pain.

After the latest revelations, including the disclosures that officials in other federal agencies had objected to these actions by soldiers -- to the point of urging, in some cases, war crimes prosecutions -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded yesterday with a promise that President Bush expects a full investigation and corrective actions "to make sure that abuse does not occur again."

The details of the abuse appeared to catch some administration officials by surprise, although five agencies for weeks have been culling releasable records from their files, under an agreement worked out by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. He was responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by five independent groups seeking anything pertinent to detainee deaths, abuse and transfers to other countries since Sept. 11, 2001.

McClellan said that he did not know whether the White House was informed about the incidents detailed in the documents released on Monday. These included the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the impersonation of FBI agents by military interrogators -- two of many practices that provoked concern among FBI agents stationed there.

"In terms of specifics, this information is becoming public, so we're becoming aware of more information as it becomes public, as you are," McClellan said. He also said that he did not know whether FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has notified the Defense Department about his concerns but that the Pentagon takes abuse allegations "very seriously."

Amrit Singh -- a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the four groups that sued to obtain the documents -- said that she thinks the disclosure requirement will eventually encompass hundreds of thousands of pages of internal administration documents, although only 9,000 pages have been released so far. Yesterday, the judge told the CIA that it could not delay making its own disclosures until an internal probe of the abuse is completed, Singh said.

"What the documents show so far was that the abuse was widespread and systemic, that it was the result of decisions taken by high-ranking officials, and that the abuse took place within a culture of secrecy and neglect," Singh said.

Col. Joseph Curtin, the Army's top spokesman, urged a different view of the documents released yesterday, all drawn from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. In detailing internal probes of 46 cases of misconduct, they show "that the Army does take seriously and investigates any allegation of detainee abuse," he said.

The new documents include several incidents of threatened executions of teenage and adult Iraqi detainees. In one instance, a soldier in a unit that lacked any training in interrogation -- but was nonetheless assigned to process and question detainees -- acknowledged forcing two men to their knees, placing bullets in their mouths, ordering them to close their eyes, and telling them they would be shot unless they answered questions about a grenade incident. He then took the bullets, and a colleague pretended to load them in the chamber of his M-16 rifle........

0 Replies

NYT piece on Americans' feelinga about the war:

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/national/22react.html?ex=1261458000&en=a4e9091457d6d3ac&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

(Sorry to be cutting and pasting - but I think these are relevant to discussion)

Fighting On Is the Only Option, Americans Say
By KIRK JOHNSON

Published: December 22, 2004

DENVER, Dec. 21 - Americans across the country expressed anguish about the devastating attack on a United States military base in Iraq on Tuesday. But it was the question of where the nation should go from here that produced the biggest sigh from Dallas Spear, an oil and gas industry worker from Denver.

"I would never have gone there from the beginning, but that's beside the point now," Mr. Spear said, his jaw clenched. "We upset the apple cart and now there's pretty much no choice. We have to proceed."

Mr. Spear's sentiment was echoed in interviews in shopping malls, offices, sidewalks and homes on a day when the news from Iraq was bleak. With 14 American service members killed and dozens injured, it was apparently the worst one-day death toll for American forces since United States forces defeated Saddam Hussein's regime in spring 2003.

Many people said they were dispirited or angry, but many expressed equal unhappiness about seeing a lack of options.

Whether one supported or opposed the invasion has become irrelevant, many said - there is only the road ahead now, with few signs to guide the way.

One soldier who has been to Iraq and is soon to go back said he believes the war itself has changed, and that guerrilla attacks like the one in the northern Iraq city of Mosul on Tuesday have constricted the view on the ground about how to proceed.

"When we went to war there was a clear-cut enemy," said Specialist Richard P. Basilio, 27, of Philadelphia, who leaves for Iraq after the holidays for a 12- to 18-month deployment as an Army computer technician. It will be his third tour to the Middle East and his second to Iraq. "Now the rules have totally changed. You don't know what's going on," he added. "You just have no idea who's your friend and who's your enemy."

Mr. Basilio's mother, Janet Bellows of Daytona Beach, Fla., said the bombing in Mosul, combined with the prospect of her son's departure, have left her "absolutely devastated."

"It's like watching your son playing in traffic, and there's nothing you can do," Ms. Bellows said. "You can't reach him."

Polls show that many Americans were deeply concerned about the course of the war even before Tuesday's attack. Out of 1,002 Americans surveyed last Friday and Saturday by the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 47 percent said, when asked how the United States had handled Iraq during the past year, that things had gotten worse. Twenty percent said the situation had improved and 32 percent said it was about the same.

Some people said that polls themselves were part of the problem.

Charlie Eubanks, a cotton farmer and lawyer from the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, said he supported President Bush but had been lukewarm about going to war. Now, he said there was no choice but to fight on, and that reports on opinion polls were only "aiding and abetting" the enemy by making opponents think the American will is weak.

"We've got to hang in there and get it done," Mr. Eubanks said.

Some people said that part of what they struggle with is how to square the ongoing violence with their beliefs about human nature and decency.

"How to deal with the rebels and the insurgency - I don't know. But I believe that people are inherently good and rational," said Traci Sillick, a financial adviser from Broomfield, Colo. Ms. Sillick said she thought the nation should protect the soldiers, give them a clear mission, and then help the Iraqi people as best it can.

"I still don't see any good coming from this," she said. "I'm saddened and angered."

Mike Lepis, 30, a small-business owner from Portland, Ore., on a visit to Atlanta, said the bombing reinforced the distinction in his mind between the troops fighting the war and the war itself. "I don't agree with the war, but I support the troops," Mr. Lepis said. "It leads me to believe we have less control when we can't guarantee their safety. It's particularly unsettling when you hear about violence in areas that are supposed to be secure."......

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:
We seem to be walking in a dream.
The President is inept. Well, people judged him to be better that the challenger. What???

I am heartily sorry about the new loss of soldiers' lives in Mosul. They were sitting in their mess tent, and they were bombed. I find I am more sorry about that, than about the daily loss of other lives there, and I don't know why that should be. Maybe because, our TV also had contrasting pictures of the same tent messroom, decorated for Thanksgiving and shown in a peaceful setting.

Did you feel the same way when this was happening?

Do you wish it still was?

Were you waiting for the UN to step and do something about it?

These people are still waiting. And dying...

That's in poor taste. And illogical. Don't kid yourself the invasion of Iraq was anything to do with the behaviour of Uday Saddam's son.
Do remember, if you want to remember these things, that Rumsfeld was taking gifts to Saddam while he was massacring Kurds and marsh arabs in his country.

0 Replies

About the only justification I have left for the continuing tragedy is the literature I'm reading that chronicles the horrific rule of Saddam and his sons...ironic isn't it?

0 Replies

dlowan, I read both of those articles this morning. They are well worth posting here. (And it is good to see you... Very Happy

)

Panzade, whom are you quoting in your signature?

0 Replies

French Journalists Freed in Iraq; Some See Link to Antiwar Stand

By CRAIG S. SMITH

Published: December 22, 2004

ARIS, Dec. 21 - Two French journalists, held captive in Iraq since August, were freed in Baghdad on Tuesday, ending months of frustration and soul-searching by a country that has vehemently opposed the American-led war in Iraq.

The two men, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, are expected back in France on Wednesday.

"Our joy will be complete when they are safely back on home soil," France's prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, told the country's Senate, which responded to the news with a standing ovation.

The release, announced by President Jacques Chirac's office, was seen by many people here as a vindication of France's antiwar stance. Dozens of hostages from many countries have been killed in Iraq, often brutally, and during the long months of the two journalists' captivity, confidence was shaken that France's politics could protect its own citizens there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/international/europe/22france.html?th

No surprise that. The insurgents know who their friends and supporters are. France as usual heads the list.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Panzade, whom are you quoting in your signature?

I'm quoting myself...it's an ice-breaker...

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

No surprise that. The insurgents know who their friends and supporters are. France as usual heads the list.

Are you saying that France gives comfort and aid to our enemy?

0 Replies

They probably would if they could. IMO There is nothing the French would like better than to see the US effort in Iraq turn into a dismal failure. They are not our friend and ally and have not been since the end of WW2

0 Replies

What's the antonym of Francophile?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know