0
   

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

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 05:38 pm
No chance. LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 05:41 pm
revel, We are not the world's super hero. The majority of the world's population looks upon the US as an aggressor nation without considering international laws. Our reputation went downhill very quickly after 9-11's short lift.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 08:19 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4153543.stm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 09:39 pm
[comments made by me are in boldface underlined]

InfraBlue wrote:
Okay, so you'd rather not address the leaps of logic you've made in your speculations, and wave it off as not worthy of debate. Understood, ican.[Wrong! You don't understand! I'd rather address both what you think are leaps of logic and why you think they are "leaps of logic." Again, I am interested only if you address both the what and the why you think they are "leaps of logic."]

How do you think Saddam could have used his substantial force of men under arms that exceeded the US force that invaded Iraq to remove Ansar al Islam from Northern Iraq if he was barred from movement there by the Joint Task Force's Operation Northern Watch?
[The US asked Saddam three times, twice in 2002 and once in early 2003, to remove the leadership of those critters and deliver that leadership to the US. I think it reasonable to infer the US would have not only given him permission to remove those critters (assuming US permission was required -- which I question, see below) but would have celebrated Saddam's accomplishment if Saddam had succeeded.]

Talking about exercises in futility, air strikes against the Ansar al-Islam camps in 2002, which the US military had proposed to the US administration then, would have been at least as effective and much more cost effective than an all out invasion of the entire country of Iraq for the sake of removing a single camp in the isolated region of Iraq's northern mountain region.[Air strikes to the same end (i.e., removing al Qaeda) did not work in Afghanistan when Clinton tried them. Why do you think they would have worked in Iraq if Bush had tried them?]

In June of 2002 the Pentagon had presented the Bush admin. detailed plans for a military strike on the northeastern Iraqi camp which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allegedly running. The Bush Admin. declined this action in favor of the larger invasion and occupation of Iraq. [You're almost correct. Bush declined because he was in the middle of a negotiation process with the UN trying desperately but futilely to get their support. He committed that blunder thinking he could succeed and didn't want to jeopardize that negotiation at that time by any unilateral US move.]


[The Kurds defeated the al Qaeda affiliate in northern Iraq by 1999. Call 'em the 1999 critters. This al Qaeda affiliate reformed in 2001 under the name of Ansar al Islam. Call 'em the 2001 critters. In 2003, the US removed the 2001 critters because Saddam chose not to.

A few weeks ago, I found the following [boldface emphasis added by me] at brittannica.com:]

Quote:
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.
...
Iraq is divided for administrative purposes into 18 muhafazat (governorates), 3 of which constitute the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Each governorate has a governor, or muhafiz, appointed by the president. The governorates are divided into 91 aqdiyyah (districts), headed by district officers, and each district is divided into nahiyat (tracts), headed by directors. Altogether, there are 141 tracts in Iraq. Towns and cities have their own municipal councils, each of which is directed by a mayor. Baghdad has special status and its own governor. The Kurdish Autonomous Region was formed by government decree in 1974, but in reality it attained autonomy only with the help of coalition forces following the First Persian Gulf War. It is governed by an elected 50-member legislative council.

[Shame on Saddam. Saddam invaded the protected Kurdish Autonomous Region when he felt like it. He only respected the Coalition's control of the so-called autonomous region when he felt like it. For some reason, he never felt like removing the 2001 critters. Seems to me he thereby harbored those 2001 critters. Do you have any evidence, any evidence whatsoever, that Saddam did feel like removing the 2001 critters but just didn't get around to it?]
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 09:57 pm
MILITARY POLICY
Retired General Is Going to Iraq for Full Review
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

Published: January 7, 2005


WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - The Pentagon is sending a highly regarded retired four-star general to Iraq next week to conduct an unusual "open-ended" review of the military's entire Iraq policy, including troop levels, training programs for Iraqi security forces and the strategy for fighting the insurgency, senior Defense Department officials said Thursday.


The extraordinary leeway given to the officer, Gen. Gary E. Luck, a former head of American forces in South Korea and currently a senior adviser to the military's Joint Forces Command, underscores the deep concern by senior Pentagon officials and top American commanders over the direction that the operation in Iraq is taking, and its broad ramifications for the military, said members of Congress and military analysts reached for comment.

In another sign that the Iraq campaign is forcing reassessments of Pentagon policies, Army officials are now considering whether to request that the temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers approved by Congress be made permanent. One senior Army official said Thursday that the increase is likely to be needed on a permanent basis if the service is to meet its global commitments - despite the additional cost of $3 billion per year.

At a meeting Thursday with his top military and civilian aides, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instructed General Luck to look at all areas of the operation, identify any weaknesses and report back in a few weeks with a confidential assessment, senior defense officials said.

"He will have a very wide canvas to draw on," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman. Mr. Di Rita emphasized that Mr. Rumsfeld was very satisfied with his commanders in Iraq, but wanted to give them all the help they needed in assessing "the very dynamic situation."

General Luck, who was a senior adviser to Gen. Tommy R. Franks at his war-time headquarters in Qatar during the Iraq campaign in 2003 and knows the operation in Iraq well, will lead a small team of military specialists. A principal focus will be to address one of the biggest problems facing the military in Iraq today: how to train Iraqi soldiers and police officers to replace the 150,000 American troops now securing the country.

The assessment of how rapidly Iraqis can begin shouldering the security burden is driving a separate set of painful, high-level discussions at the Pentagon, where senior officials are calculating how to sustain a large force in Iraq. The number of American military personnel in Iraq rose this month to 150,000, the largest deployment since Baghdad fell.

In another move that could affect hundreds of thousands of members of the National Guard and Reserve, the senior Army official said the Pentagon leadership was also considering whether to change mobilization policy to allow reservists to be called up for more than 24 months of total active service, which is the current limit.

The policy change under consideration would allow the Army to call up members of the National Guard and Reserve for duty as many times as required, but not for more than two years at a time.

With American commanders in Iraq voicing growing concern over the increasingly sophisticated insurgency and gaps in Iraqi leadership, General Luck's assignment is tacit acknowledgement that the Iraq operation, including the training program, has reached a crossroads.

"This is evidence that the training is not going well," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who visited Iraq recently and was an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division.

General Luck, who commanded the XVIII Airborne Corps in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, is a revered figure among soldiers and a mentor to their officers, a senior figure who in a disarming, low-key way makes suggestions and recommendations that do not threaten a commander's authority, say Army officers and other people who know him.

For that reason, defense officials say General Luck's review will cast a wide net. "General Luck has an awful lot of stored knowledge about the operation in Iraq," Mr. Di Rita said. "He will certainly have the opportunity to offer his insights on anything he sees."

Mr. Di Rita said General Luck's assignment was welcomed by Gen. John P. Abizaid and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the two top commanders in the region.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:00 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
so, if there is an election of some kind the insurgency will cease..... yahuh.
NO! If there is "an election of some kind" we will be able to determine how many Iraqis are willing to risk their lives to vote. If that number is as substantial as it was in Afghanistan, 10 million, I'd conclude that the Iraqis want a real democracy not just the sham democracy they had before Saddam took over.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:25 pm
Interesting to note that while the Pentagon is cognizant of the probs in Iraq, the hawks on a2k are not. the rather constant "everythings coming up roses" mantra vs the "Iraq is doomed" mantra of the anti-invasion peeps while making for amusing reading becomes tired and bitter. the hawks repetition of "justification" omits the "on the ground" failures of the invasion. Of course I remain "shoulda never happened, get out now" mantra is even less heard. I read a blog from an Iraqi that said "the americans have destroyed any hope for self-governance" ergo it's absolute fact that Iraqi's want the US out immediately. I guess evidence is where you find it, actual or not.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:26 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
C'mon conservatives. See the light; smell the coffee. Help us out here! ... If you cannot join us in trying to bring our nation back to sanity...at least step out of the way...rather than helping perpetuate the insanity.
You believe all the bad reports! I don't. We've already had a chance to learn that many many of the prisoner abuse accusations are false or terribly exaggerated.

When we pull out of Iraq we better take all the still living al Qaeda and all the still living would be harborers to a permanent well guarded location. If we don't we will either suffer a dramatic increase in terrorist mass murders here in the states, or we will have to resort to marshall law to secure our lives at the expense of our liberty. For the simpletons among us, marshall law means the suspension of our laws and rule by dictate.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:32 pm
It only takes a small percentage of Iraqis to feel this way to join the insurgents - and they do.
****************************************
Iraqis want Americans to go'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON The alleged leader of an armed militant cell in Baghdad told The Washington Times daily he was proAmerican at the start of the USled occupation, but now he wanted them to go.
His group did not take orders from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda.

In the interview published yesterday, the cell leader, who used the pseudonym Abu Mujahid, decried the crime and chaos after the Gulf war in April, and said US troops were acting "as occupiers and not as liberators. My colleagues and I then voted to fight.

"So we began to meet and plan. None of us is afraid to die, but it is hard. We are just men, workers, not soldiers."

To prove he was a militia leader, Mujahid accurately predicted a mortar attack on the compound of the provisional authority, said the daily, without indicating whether the attack caused casualties.

Mujahid said his group did not seek the return of Saddam, nor did its members admire Osama bin Laden or enjoy fighting the US.

"We actually took a vote at a meeting last week," he laughed. "If the Americans leave and Saddam comes back, we will fight him too."

He said the militias had a loosely organised command structure so no individual knew the overall strategy of the antioccupation force.

Mujahid speculated that the leaders above him were former generals under Saddam who wanted to replace the dictator when the US-led forces left Iraq.

As for Saddam, Mujahid said he believed he was too busy hiding from his US pursuers to have time to lead the anti- occupation forces.

He said there was some coordination between the cells, and he suspected that some of the money to buy weapons came from al-Qaeda. Most of the cells, however, were left to act independently.

"We have to find ways to get our own money to buy weapons," he said.

"I don't like Osama bin Laden, and don't want to fight jihad against America," said the militia leader.

"The Iraqi people just want the Americans to leave our country." Sapa-AP
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:38 pm
"Marshall" law is in "Marshall" Missouri (ok there's a few other "Marshalls) as well (I have to wonder about their (Marshall) zoning regs)
But really folks marshal law should only be available when the US is at war. The US has not declared war since WWII.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 12:21 am
In the speculations you've made that I've quoted, ican, you make assumptions that do not necessarily proceed from the information you quote. Those are logical leaps.

About the air strikes that the US military proposed before our invasion and occupation of Iraq, I was referring to exercises in futility, ican, and air strikes in that regard would have been at least as effective and a whole lot more cost effective than an all out invasion and occupation. What Clinton accomplished was the destruction of those alleged al Qaeda sites in Afghanistan. At the very least, that is what air strikes could have accomplished in Iraqi Kurdistan. Also, at the time the US military proposed its plans to the Bush administration they were fairly certain that Zarqawi was at that camp at the time, and the camp was filled with Ansar members. The chest beating and weapon rattling of the Bush admin. up until the time of our invasion effectively squandered the element of surprise that had been in our favor. By the time we did strike that camp, a day after we started the war, the camp had been evacuated. We are now dealing with the various new groups of terrorists and insurgents that have formed from Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi's group, like Ansar al-Sunnah, which claimed responsibility for the mess hall bombing in Mosul last month.

The Bush admin. didn't care about precision air strikes, ican. Members of the Bush admin. had been advocating a war against Iraq long before the military presented its plans for air strikes, back to the time right before Bush had been elected. The admin. began actual war plans days after the 9/11 attacks. That is what the UN security council opposed, a war, not air strikes.

The events of 1996 in Iraqi Kurdistan are more complex than what you've quoted from Britannica, ican. The two major political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) had been at odds with each other since 1994 when there was an outbreak of fighting between their respective forces.
The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) captured Arbil from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in 1996 with the enlisted help of Saddam's Republican Guard. The PUK invited the support of Saddam. That is the major reason the US did not get involved in the conflict. It was a Kurdish affair. There was intermittent fighting until Washington brokered a peace agreement between the two sides in September of 1998.

By September, 1996, the KDP itself claimed that Arbil was empty of Iraqi troops.

KDP Ankara Press Statements 1996

Iraqi Kurdistan Dispatch
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 02:25 am
dyslexia wrote:

But really folks marshal law should only be available when the US is at war. The US has not declared war since WWII.


excellant point dys.

yet we continue to be involved in them.

good thing god is on our side. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 07:56 am
I wonder though why there wasn't the same hue and cry of 'illegality' and "immoral" and "the US is a big bad bully' in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 10:29 am
I wonder, why you wonder, and how you connect the 'illegality' and 'immoral' here with the Multinational/UN-led operations in these three mentioned countries.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 10:45 am
Ican,

Where is the proof for the following information?

Quote:
You believe all the bad reports! I don't. We've already had a chance to learn that many many of the prisoner abuse accusations are false or terribly exaggerated.


From what I have been reading lately the earlier reports of the abuse were whitewashed as more and more information comes to light.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 10:53 am
Walter, you haven't been paying attention. I will review: anything the UN does even with the help of the USA is bad, anything the USA does on it's own is good. Any reason for intervention used by any group of multinationals, especially if 1) it includes France and 2) doesn't include the USA is suspect. The USA can act in it's own interests or in what it perceives as the interests of any other nation without regard to reason or morality, just because it can. When challenged, or, as it will be, faced with charges before a world judicial body, the USA and it's citizen proponents offer nuanced, plastic and elastic arguments including the words harboring, programs and shrugs.

I hope this helps.

Joe (On my way by I stopped in to say, oh nevermind.) Nation
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 11:07 am
Joe Nation just about explained the top and bottom of how the US acts in this world today. Don't need no permission to attack another country, ignore the Geneva Convention, and let the (ignorant) American People pay the price in both the sacrifice of it's children and treasure. We are so generous....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 11:13 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I wonder, why you wonder, and how you connect the 'illegality' and 'immoral' here with the Multinational/UN-led operations in these three mentioned countries.


Don't bother to wonder, Walter. Fox does it because she help herself. She kneejerk reacts to this kind of stuff.

Most of our American conservatives do.

They've been conditioned!

They have to be.

They're helping steady the hand of people attempting to cut their throats.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 11:16 am
I really forgot about what Joe mentioned for a short moment.
(That's due to my headache, I think, otherwise I'm certainly aware of it.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 11:28 am
Walter, Identified by this fictional piece details the problem of what is wrong with America. Congress has no balls.
***********************
Subject: Deja vu in fiction


Worse Than Fiction
January 7, 2005
By PAUL KRUGMAN

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be
a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains
won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be
hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national
outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about
virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling
habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for
drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug
addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven
by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay
marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will
rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school
bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of
homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been
the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment
set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest
and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up
for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large
settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used
his position of power to - on second thought, that story is
too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will
charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they
will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate
Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan
"support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war
policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the
troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to
the president - won't even bother signing letters to the
families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who
portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will
preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not
ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always
been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created
an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym
Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about
those who claim to be defending the nation against
terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the
right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out
in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget
all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly
symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and,
yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he
played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to
cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear
that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real
piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among
people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and
defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be
wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away
with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't
bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney
general is that doing so will tell the world that America
thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his
confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with
vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man
he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to
oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who
wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss
wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected
newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his
subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about
Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will
mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules
of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling
party. And reality will continue to be worse than any
fiction I could write.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html?ex=1106103695&ei=1&en=25edc622da9b371d

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
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 0.13 seconds on 08/21/2025 at 03:54:04