0
   

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

 
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:06 pm
I think we should be wary of over-simplification. What we call the
insurgency is hardly monolithic. It is diverse and changing. There are
nationalist and Ba'athist elements, al-Qaeda elements, and even some
Shi'ites.

Some among them are hard-core terrorist and will be placated by
nothing. I can't read minds, but I suspect they will do everything they
can to sabotage the new government because they see it as allied with
the US. They're going to be around for a while.

There are Sunni elements who may come in from the cold if they can get
enough concessions to assure them a better balance of power.

The Saddam loyalists and high-ranking Ba'athists have no place to go,
especially now that Syria seems to be selling them out. They'll probably
keep at it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Today? It's rather gray.

Ya jumped in front of me ... note the correction
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:11 pm
George, IMHO, the chaos in Iraq become more complex with every day passing. This is the fault of the current administration that failed to listen to the 'experts' who told them we would need 200,000 troops on the ground after the major combat operations are over. Rummy knows best, and he still has his job - everybody else is gone.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:13 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
George, IMHO, the chaos in Iraq become more complex with every day passing. This is the fault of the current administration that failed to listen to the 'experts' who told them we would need 200,000 troops on the ground after the major combat operations are over. Rummy knows best, and he still has his job - everybody else is gone.


I think your opinion needs to be re-thought...

Quote:
Lt. Col. Jim Stockmoe, chief intelligence officer for the First Infantry Division, roared with laughter as he recalled the increasing missteps of the resistance in Iraq in an interview earlier this month with British journalist Toby Harnden, writing for The Spectator.

"There were three brothers down in Baghdad who had a mortar tube and were firing into the Green Zone," Stockmoe said. "They were storing the mortar rounds in the car engine compartment and the rounds got overheated. Two of these clowns dropped them in the tube and they exploded, blowing their legs off."

The surviving brother sought refuge in a nearby house, but the occupants "beat the crap out of him and turned him over to the Iraqi police," Stockmoe told Harnden, "It was like the movie 'Dumb and Dumber.' "

"The nine election day suicide bombers averaged about three victims each, a strike rate so bad that Allah might soon start rationing the virgins to show his displeasure," Harnden wrote.

Stockmoe has heard so many similar stories that he created an Iraqi version of the "Darwin Awards." Created in 1993 by a student at Stanford University, the Darwin awards commemorate those who "contribute to our gene pool by removing themselves from it in a really stupid way."

The number of insurgent attacks has fallen off significantly since the Fallujah offensive last November, and the attacks that are being made are less effective.

There are about 50-60 attacks a day on coalition forces, about half the pre-Fallujah level. Almost all are within the Sunni Triangle, and most are ineffective. "Most of these are ambush-style attacks that result in no casualties," noted StrategyPage.com.

The news media report the attacks, but tend not to report, as StrategyPage does, that "dozens, sometimes over a hundred, of the attackers, or suspects, are arrested every day."

Unbalanced reporting has given Americans a false impression of how the war is going, said Austin Bay, a retired colonel in the Army Reserve who was called to active duty in Iraq last year.

"Collect relatively isolated events in a chronological list and presto: the impression of uninterrupted, widespread violence destroying Iraq," said Bay, who is also a syndicated columnist. "But that was a false impression. Every day coalition forces were moving thousands of 18-wheelers from Kuwait and Turkey into Iraq, and if the insurgents were lucky, they blew up one. However, flash the flames of that one diesel rig on CNN and 'Oh my God, America can't stop these guys' is the impression left in Boston, Boise and Beijing."

It will be some months before the news media recognize it, and a few months more before they acknowledge it, but the war in Iraq is all but won. The situation is roughly analogous to the battle of Iwo Jima, which took place 60 years ago this month. It took 35 days before the island was declared secure, but the outcome was clear after day five, with the capture of Mt. Suribachi.

Proof of this was provided by Sen. Hillary Clinton. Iraq is functioning quite well, she said in a press conference in Baghdad Feb. 19. The recent rash of suicide attacks is a sign the insurgency is failing, she said.

"When politicians like [Clinton] start flocking to Iraq to bask in the light of its success, then you know that the corner has been turned," a reader of his blog wrote to Bay.

More substantive signs abound. The performance of Iraqi security forces is improving, as are their numbers. Nearly 10,000 men showed up at a southern Iraqi military base Feb. 14 to volunteer for 5,000 openings. Only 6,000 had been expected.

Sunni Arab politicians have admitted they made a big boo-boo in boycotting the Jan. 30 election, and are pleading to be included in the political process. Some ex-Baathists are seeking terms for laying down their arms.

Those who get their news from the "mainstream" media are surprised by developments in Iraq, as they were surprised by our swift victory in Afghanistan, the sudden fall of Saddam Hussein, the success of the Afghan election and the success of the Iraqi election.

Journalists demand accountability from political leaders for "quagmires" which exist chiefly in the imagination of journalists. But when will journalists be held to account for getting every major development in the war on terror wrong?

link
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
But the police (UN) was deemed to be insignificant. That's the reason why we didn't return to them for their 'support.' Our secretary of state even outlined the locations of those weapons, but they all poo-pooed it, and said a preemptive attack was not justified. I was scared; nobody else listened to my concerns.

I'll expand on my last paragraph.

ican711nm wrote:
If he were to fail to convince the police, he could defend himself by what he perceived was a self-defense killing of his neighbors and take the risk of failing to persuade a jury of his peers (e.g., American voters) his neighbors were a growing threat.


If he were to fail to convince the police that he possessed persuasive evidence, he could defend himself by what he perceived was a self-defense killing of his neighbors and take the risk of failing to persuade a jury of his peers (e.g., American voters) his neighbors were a growing threat. After all his evidence was that his neighbors housed those who at least three times publically threatened to murder him, and in fact had already murdered several of his close acquaintenances. So he thought no sense waiting to persuade the police. He probably would be murdered long before they chose to act. So he acted to defend himself pre-emptively and then trust in the good judgment of a jury of his peers.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:39 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Ican what color is the sky in your world?
BLUE upto and including an altitude of 45,000 feet. I cannot tell the color beyond that because I have not been there yet. Smile However, those I perceive as reliable witnesses have told me it is BLUE up to and including an altitude of 51,000 feet.

Why'd you ask? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:50 pm
If we can believe the pictures, from 193000 miles, the sky is black and the earth is blue. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Does anyone think that other countries may start thinking of AMERICA as an 'imminent threat?'

It would be all the justification they needed, to say so; they certainly don't need anything silly like proof.

Cycloptichorn


I don't know, if this was mentioned already within the last couple of days.

A survey, done by the Jodan University in Amman, shows that public opinion in the Arab area is less lead by religious affiliation than by politics:

First Published 2005-02-23, Last Updated 2005-02-23 10:26:08

Arab-US tensions linger over US policies in region


Quote:
Survey unveils Arab frustration over way US in handling Arab-Israeli, its intentions in Middle East.


AMMAN - Tensions between the Arab world and the United States are not likely to disappear soon amid frustration over US foreign policy and skepticism over US intentions in the Middle East, according to a poll published in Jordan.


The poll was conducted by the University of Jordan's Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) in cooperation with research centers in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the Palestinian territories between March and June 2004.

A total of 9,700 people were surveyed in those places on how they view France and Britain - both long-time colonial powers in the region - and the United States.

"The current conflict is based on deep-seated frustration with Western, and particularly American, foreign policies and a growing distrust of America's underlying regional objectives," according to a copy of the survey received by AFP.

And it warned: "The study provides little evidence that the tensions between the Arab world and the US will soon disappear."

Eighty-six percent of respondents said they were "not satisfied at all" with how the United States is handling the Arab-Israeli conflict, while 75 percent said Washington is not serious about implementing the Middle East "roadmap" for peace.

The roadmap, drafted by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, envisions on independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace.

On Iraq, a majority said the use of force was "not justified at all" while more than two-thirds said they did not believe the US-led coalition will turn Iraq into a model for democracy in the region.

"In this context, Arabs interpret many groups and actions that the West labels as 'terrorist' as legitimate," namely such organisations at Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

The status of Al-Qaeda, Ossama bin Laden's organisation responsible for the September 11 attacks against the United States, was "more controversial".

"Only in Egypt and Jordan did majorities view it as a legitimate resistance organisation," the survey said. In Syria eight percent described it as a "legitimate organisation" while 49 percent did not answer the question.

France fared better than the United States and Britain in Arab opinion.

Only 25 percent of national sample respondents in Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Egypt said they felt "highly positive" or "moderately positive" towards the United States and Britain compared to 57 percent "who felt positively toward France".

In Syria, 75 percent of respondents perceived the United States as "not at all positive"

"In the final analysis the US and the UK have reason to be concerned about the demographic and political trends in the region," where half the population is under 25, the survey said.

"The younger generation and individuals outside of elite business and media circles demonstrate high levels of dissatisfaction with these Western powers," it added.
Source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:10 pm
The summary of that above mentioned is to be found (in PDF) here, while THIS is the link to the full report (PDF as well).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:15 pm
So what else is new. They polled people the vast majority of whom have never experienced a free press, education unfiltered by a particular political agenda, or encouragement to see all sides of an issue and come to an independent decision. And you're polling people who for their entire lives have been consistently taught that the only solution to the Israeli situation is for Israel to cease to exist.

It would be really interesting to see the demographics of the people polled. I would be that 25% favorable came mostly from people who have had opportunity to attend school, live, or work outside their native countries.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:18 pm
Straw man all the way...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It would be really interesting to see the demographics of the people polled. I would be that 25% favorable came mostly from people who have had opportunity to attend school, live, or work outside their native countries.


You can download a free Adobe Reader to read the complete text as well as the shorter summary.

Do US polls publish demograohics of the polled people routinely?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Does anyone think that other countries may start thinking of AMERICA as an 'imminent threat?'

It would be all the justification they needed, to say so; they certainly don't need anything silly like proof. Cycloptichorn


Where have you been? Those based in other countries, for example al Qaeda, have been thinking that for sometime and they didn't "need anything silly like proof." Furthermore, they have proved they had been an imminent threat after they executed their imminent threats.

Al Qaeda declared war on infidels in general and on American civilians in particular in 1992, 1996, and 1998. More recently they again declared war in 2004. Al Qaeda have murdered thousands of civilians including thousands of Americans.

Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan since 1988, prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

Al Qaeda were based in Iraq in 2001 prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and connections fomented the following mass murders of Americans:

1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;

2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;

3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;

4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;

5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;

6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;

7. 9/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans (plus approximately 1500 dead American visitors and immigrants).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:32 pm
Quote:
Those based in other countries, for example al Qaeda


Hate to break it to ya, but Al Qaeda isn't a country. My original post said:

Quote:
Does anyone think that other countries may start thinking of AMERICA as an 'imminent threat?'


I didn't say, 'other terrorist groups.' If you want an excuse to reprint your same information over and over again, use someone else.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:46 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The terrorists don't give a tinkers damn about an occupying force. They aren't even targeting Americans these days. They are targeting anybody who opposes their coming to power and having the ability to exercise their murderous control over the entire population.


I believe this is incorrect. What the insurgents/terrorists want is to negate the effect of the invasion, by undermining anything and everything the occupying force is trying to achieve, and to attack what they see as a puppet government trying to run the country for the benefit of the invaders.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:53 pm
angie wrote:
... finally, you wrote: "We shall see if the present method works or not."

I emphatically agree, we shall see, and upon that agreement, I shall end this particular dialogue. As I said to c.i. above, the music is ending and the dance is over. I am sure someone else here will engage you when the music starts again. Namaste.


Let's sit down , and, while we listen to the music, discuss the two fundamental questions.

Did the US do the right thing by invading Afghanistan?

Did the US do the right thing by invading Iraq?


Whether the Bush or Blair administrations did or did not believe what they alleged to be the growing threats of the governments of these countries, is not relevant to the answers to these two questions.

I allege that the following is all that is relevant to correctly answer the above two boldfaced questions.

Did the governments of both of these countries allow al Qaeda to be based in their respective countries? YES!

Was/is al Qaeda a growing threat to American civilians? YES!

Were the Bush and Blair administrations in several attempts able to convince the UN in a timely manner that the answers to these two questions were Yes? NO!

After we invaded both countries were we able to obtain persuasive evidence that al Qaeda was based in both Iraq and Afghanistan and were/are a growing threat to Americans? YES!


Did the President Bush provide persuasive evidence to a jury of his peers (the American voters) that he did the right thing (whatever he initially believed) when he ordered the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? YES!


Let's dance! Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Those based in other countries, for example al Qaeda


Hate to break it to ya, but Al Qaeda isn't a country. Cycloptichorn
Who said they were? Read my statement again. I was writing not about other countries. I was writing about those based in other countries.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:58 pm
Pretty pictures. More, Ican!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:06 pm
Ican,

Fact

Fact

Fact

Fact

Fact

Fact

Fact
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:20 pm
The al-Qaeda group that was based in Iraq before the invasion was the
Ansar al-Islam. They occupied a string of villages in northern Iraq
(Kurdistan) and were beyond the control of Saddam Hussein. He
encouraged their presence, however, because Ansar al-Islam was
engaged in constant fighting with Peshmerga fighters from the PUK.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 03:22:43