0
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 12:14 am
A pleasure it is indeed, OE, and thank you for your thoroughness and courtesy.

I won't repeat what I said before because I have posted documentation on this and several other threads (or have agreed with others' posts) to support my statements of what I believe to be fact and on the several points on which we disagree we will likely continue to disagree. I think the record will clearly show that opinions were much closer to my version re Saddams WMD, the frustrations of the inspectors, etc. David McKay who headed the U.N. inspection team at the time of the invasion was absolutely certain the WMD was there and was both bewildered and dismayed when, eight months later, he finally had to conclude they were probably not there in large quantities at the time the U.S. invaded.

All this is water under the bridge, of course, and in light of finding different, though equally urgent circumstances, the mission has changed and may in fact net initially unintended and unexpected wonderful things before it is all over.

I am curious though. If you were old enough to be aware of conditions related to WWII, did you have any sense that Germany was on the wrong side of that war at the time? I can fully understand conflicted emotions in what would be more humane in such a case--short term suffering for the soldier in return for a shortened time of suffering.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 12:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Geli is frankly so off the mark in the correlations he is making with his posts and the truth of the matter, I can't even comment..


I have thought and thought and cannot figure out what this one sentence means ...... can you give me an example? Where have I been less than truthfull or failed to document my statements?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 12:40 am
Thta was a really good discussion - thanks to both of you!

I think the shooting on the car carrying an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers last night, injuring the woman and killing an Italian secret service agent who tried to protect her., belongs more to the unexpected and not so wonderful things because all is over, Fox?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 12:40 am
I have never once expressed sympathy with terrorist.

As far as our leader, he has not earned sympathy or understanding in my eyes, even in the days following 9/11 and most specifically in the days leading up to and after the invasion of Iraq. I mean what President couldn't have said what he said, he said nothing out of ordinary for the extraordinary time that we were in.

The military with the encouragement of it's top leaders has condoned abuses of detainees and prisoners and that is one reason I have lost respect for the leaders of the military. Another is the total lack of competency in handling the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussien.

From the beginning of this lead up to the invasion of Iraq, I have been against it. I am not however against all wars so I am not a pacifist.

I was against the war for two very good reasons, one is that I thought we should have finished the war we were in and two I didn't see the urgency to rush to war with Iraq even if he did have WMD because a lot of countries have WMD and it turns out I was right about the lack of urgency and even more so as there was no WMD.

We are there now and we have made a mess of it with the exception of the Iraqi vote and the capture of Saddam Hussien which are two good things to come out of the whole thing which makes the whole thing at least worthwhile.

However, there is still a lot to be done and the violence has not been slowed down and in fact has increased since the election for Iraqi themselves. They do not seem any closer to picking a PM.

To deny these self evident facts in some kind of misguided loyalty to Bush and the USA is delusional for no useful purpose that fools no one at all.

Lastly, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of the military. I do not say that out of route, but mean it sincerely. I know that I could never in a million years belong to the military. Not because they have to kill people, but simply because I could not take being in such a structured confining place with no easy way out except to wait it out. I would feel like I was in a closed tight box.

I do not blame them for fighting in Iraq and now I hope that they are successful if only to straighten this mess out.

Furthermore, I never did want them to be killed even when I didn't want them to be successful when they first invaded Iraq. And actually I never did want them to be not successful even when I was so very much against war, even then I thought to myself, well, they are there they may as well get Saddam Hussien and was glad when they did. Not as as glad as I would have been if they had gotten Osma Bin Ladden.

I know some military people as well and they do not all feel as the ones that foxfrye knows.

So while I am little insulted and somewhat even hurt by the accusations from those that are so offended by people like me, I do not let that dictate how I feel nor do I am apologize for my views or need someone to excuse them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 12:48 am
Looking at the Italina media today, I could imagine that the anti-war coalition in Italy might mount even more - this has been the friendly-fire incident involving Italians:in 2003, American soldiers in northern Iraq shot at a car carrying the Italian official heading U.S. efforts to recover Iraq's looted antiquities. Pietro Cordone, the top Italian diplomat in Iraq, was unhurt, but his Iraqi translator was killed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 02:23 am
Quote:
UN inspectors: 90 dangerous sites looted in Iraq

05 Mar 2005

Source: Reuters

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 (Reuters) - Some 90 sites in Iraq that the United Nations had monitored for unconventional arms materials have been razed or looted since the U.S. intervention, according to a new U.N. inspection report.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), created to track Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, based its conclusion in a Friday report on satellite imagery from sites with material that had weapons potential.

Repairs and new construction have begun at 10 of the 90 sites, said the report to the U.N. Security Council from Demetrius Perricos, the chief weapons inspector.

UNMOVIC, using photographs and serial numbers, previously reported that the looting of unguarded sites resulted in missile engines turning up among scrap in the Dutch port Rotterdam as well as in Jordan.

But the new report gave more comprehensive figures on how many of the unguarded sites were looted or destroyed in bombing during the U.S. invasion of Iraq two years ago.

Before they left Iraq, U.N. inspectors had examined 411 sites, the report said. After the war, they examined 353 sites and determined that 70 of them were "subjected to varying degrees of bomb damage."

"The continuing examination of the imagery has revealed that approximately 90 of the total 353 sites analyzed containing material of relevance have been stripped and/or razed," Perricos said in the report.

U.N. inspectors were in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 searching for and destroying nuclear, biological and chemical arms and materials as well as long-range missiles after first U.S.-led Gulf war that drove Baghdad's troops from Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein's government let the U.N. inspectors back in late 2002 after a U.S. war threat. But the United States refused to allow them to return after the March 2003 invasion.

The Security Council will discuss the report on Tuesday amid continuing questions over the future of the agency.

Council members since the end of the war have pressed American and British officials to utilize UNMOVIC's vast research and allow the inspectors to complete monitoring work.

The United States said it did not want to take up the issue until its own searches ended, first led by David Kaye, a former International Atomic Energy Agency official, and then Charles Duelfer, also a former U.N. inspector. But there are indications Washington now wants to discuss closing down UNMOVIC.

Friday's report also said the U.N. inspectors agreed with Duelfer, whose CIA-organized Iraq Survey group had expressed concern about biological materials that were unaccounted for since 1991.

Duelfer's report in October said his inspection group found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, President George W. Bush's main reason for the invasion.

The new U.N. report noted that the Iraqis had handed over 90 unopened vials of biological agents to weapons inspectors. But it declared that 13 vials of "seed stock" or strains of microorganisms had been used, some in biological arms programs.

"The issue remains as part of the residue of uncertainty with respect to the continued existence in Iraq of seed stocks that could possibly be used in the future for the production of biological weapons agents," Perricos said in the report.

"Given its unresolvable nature, the issue could best be dealt with through monitoring to detect inter alia any possible future activity associated with biological weapon agent production or significant laboratory research work," he said.
Source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 06:37 am
yahoo
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 06:43 am
In my opinion I think the Pentagon being in charge of investigating these things is a joke of justice.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 07:39 am
Quote:
U.S.-Italy Relations Chilled by Killing of Reporter

Sat Mar 5, 2005 8:23 AM ET

By Philip Pullella

By Philip Pullella
ROME (Reuters) - The United States and its staunch Iraq war ally Italy face their worst falling out in years after U.S. troops killed an Italian secret service agent and wounded an Italian reporter.

The shooting in Iraq on Friday, as the reporter was being whisked to freedom after being held hostage for a month, was sure to fuel anti-war activists in Italy and put pressure on Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Berlusconi, who defied widespread public opposition to the Iraq war and sent 3,000 troops, took the rare step of summoning U.S. ambassador Mel Sembler to his office.

He demanded the United States "leave no stone unturned" in investigating the incident. President Bush was quick to call Berlusconi and promise a full investigation.

The shooting was the worst diplomatic incident between Italy and the United States since 1998, when a U.S. Marines jet flying recklessly low and fast cut a ski lift cable, killing 20 people.

U.S. troops at a checkpoint shot and killed agent Nicola Calipari and wounded journalist Giuliana Sgrena as they rushed to Baghdad airport.

The agent had helped free Sgrena a month after she had been kidnapped and held hostage. Sgrena returned to Rome on Saturday. Calipari's coffin will follow.

NATIONAL RAGE

"The hardest moment was when I saw the person who had saved me die in my arms," Sgrena's long-time companion quoted her as saying on her flight back to Rome.

Such poignant words are fueling national rage.

Berlusconi, whom the opposition accuses of taking orders from Washington, put on a brave face but leading newspaper Corriere della Sera cited political sources as saying he was furious.
"His friendship with Bush did not stop him from getting really ticked off with the White House," it reported.
Even President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, whose role is largely ceremonial and who usually stays above the political fray, on Saturday demanded an explanation.

"Like all Italians, I am waiting for the United States to clear up this painful and tragic episode," he told reporters.

The killing also lays a battleground for Berlusconi at home.

Commentators predicted a clash with the center-left once the joy for Sgrena and grief for Calipari have passed.

"The political poison has started to flow," Corriere della Sera wrote.

More than 20 Italians have been killed in Iraq and commentators said the opposition would make the latest tragedy a rallying cry in their campaign for regional elections next month, seen as a test of strength for Berlusconi's government.

"The idea of someone being killed by those who say they are in Iraq to protect its citizens is absurd," said Piero Fassino, head of the largest opposition party, the Democrats of the Left.

Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini called Calipari's death "a tragedy of destiny" and hoped it would cause no anti-American feeling in Italy.
Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 07:56 am
Walter writes
Quote:
I think the shooting on the car carrying an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers last night, injuring the woman and killing an Italian secret service agent who tried to protect her., belongs more to the unexpected and not so wonderful things because all is over, Fox?


Note to Revel: I would imagine most anti-war people would say they have never supported the terrorists. But motive and appearance are not mutually compatible when it comes to media. When the media projects mostly a negative opinion of the administration, military, activities, the 'occupation' along with statements that the terrorists are just insurgents protesting an unwelcome occupation, etc., it looks very much like sympathies are with the terrorists. Posts on message boards, also accessed by the enemy, can look the same way.

Take the unfortunate shooting of the Italian reporter. The account reported objectively indicates the car was speeding toward the checkpoint and was ordered to stop, flagged, waved off. When there was no response, the guards had no choice but to shoot rather than risk still another car bomb exploding in their faces. When they realized the occupants were friends, not foe, they rushed the wounded to the hospital and expressed profound sorrow and regret over the one death. Now that is the way it should have been reported. No thinking person would believe U.S. soldiers would intentionally shoot civilian allies, and I do not for a minute believe the Italian government is made up of unthiking people.

Now compare that with the story Walter posted, obviously intended to be sensational, appearance of a major rift with Italy, yadda yadda. It is reported almost gleefully. I'm not saying Walter is intending to be inflammatory, but the media is wanting to make this look as bad as it possibly can with maximum negative ramifications for the U.S. It is irresponsible and reprehensible.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:06 am
Foxfyre

Obviously you have no idea at all, how this story is covered all over Europe since yesterday.

Until now, no-one can say definately what happened - you quote US-sources, others quote the Italians from inside the car.

However, many really wonder here, why - shooting at the engine block! - the journalist was the aim of the deadly shot.

I'm sure, this will end end up like the previous shootings at control stops: the guards had no choice/didn't know better and the US is sorry. (No sarcasm intended.)

[Sgrena's partner said he could not fault the U.S. soldiers, telling Reuters they were probably "scared boys," and the blame lay with those who had sent them to Iraq.]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:11 am
I've been watching and reading all available sources here Walter. I was commenting on the Reuters piece you posted and it, along with its headline, seemed almost hopeful that this would create a major rift between Italy and the U.S. Some other sources are reporting equally irresponsibly. A few are reporting what happened without the editorial inferences and that is exactly what everybody should be reporting.

And when you're shooting at a potential car bomb, you shoot to stop the car. I'm sure at that point, the soldiers didn't care what else got hit. They were stopping that car. Do you think the soldiers should be trained to be careful not to hit the occupant(s) of the car when shooting to stop a potential or probable car bomb? Rather silly don't you think.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:22 am
Well, I think, at least this shows a big defizite in communication: three secret agents from an ally arrive with a freed hostage - and the (perhaps) first checkpoint isn't alarmed.

Besides, I really have my own thoughts - like you have yours.
Since I've to rely on what is reported, I think, I've to wait for some details until I can post if something was silly or not.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:27 am
It sounds like your gut feeling is that the U.S. soldiers acted improperly, Walter. And I'm quite sure the media reports you are getting are supporting that impression. In other words, some will choose, even want to believe that, rather than what the solders themselves say about it. But to believe that, you have to believe the soldiers intentionally shot people they knew to be friendly.

I cannot and will not believe that.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:32 am
Fox seldom if ever has a basis for her charges ...... she 'imagins' quite a lot, or maybe you have noticed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It sounds like your gut feeling is that the U.S. soldiers acted improperly, Walter. And I'm quite sure the media reports you are getting are supporting that impression. In other words, some will choose, even want to believe that, rather than what the solders themselves say about it. But to believe that, you have to believe the soldiers intentionally shot people they knew to be friendly.

I cannot and will not believe that.


Audiatur et altera pars is an old maxim not only law/justice related.

So, I really do hoipe, people don't only listen to what the soldiers say but e.g. those in the car as well.
Obviously, you ... forget it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:54 am
So Geli, we can assume that you're with Walter and tend to beleive U.S. soldiers were just bored or distracted at that checkpoint and just decided to do some shooting? Or should they have held fire until the car was close enough to blow them up with it? No basis? Perhaps you or Walter would like to say how you know what the soldiers saw, what they were thinking, why they would shoot.

Of course if you believe they intentionally shot unarmed civilians, then that's what you believe. I don't understand that kind of thinking, but I know it exists. I see it posted often enough.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 09:04 am
Quote:
Note to Revel: I would imagine most anti-war people would say they have never supported the terrorists. But motive and appearance are not mutually compatible when it comes to media. When the media projects mostly a negative opinion of the administration, military, activities, the 'occupation' along with statements that the terrorists are just insurgents protesting an unwelcome occupation, etc., it looks very much like sympathies are with the terrorists. Posts on message boards, also accessed by the enemy, can look the same way.


It seems to me that you are saying that my post reveal me to be sympathetic to terrorist by your wording, "most anti-war people would saythey have never supported the terrorist.

You can believe what you like, I can't stop you. However, I prefer news to report the truth however it unfolds. Admittedly I have posted more bad news concerning Iraq but when that is basically all there is with the exception of capture of Saddam Hussien and the elections; you can only go with what is there. I would imagine that to someone who only wants to read good things about the USA and the military any negative reporting is going to appear to be US bashing or treasonous sympathy to terrorist.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 09:08 am
For the record I don't really believe that the US did it intentionally.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 09:09 am
Foxfyre

Would you kindly tell me, from what you got what you alleged me to have said?

I don't know what the soldiers saw, what they were thinking, why they would shoot. I'm not the judge in a trial.

I just want to get more details. And I truely think, people should listen to victims as well.
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 0.07 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 03:37:23