0
   

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

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 07:52 pm
ican711nm wrote:
One piece of persuasive evidence is that Saddam after hearing Powell's 2/5/2003 speech did not respond with something--something, anything--in an attempt to dissuade the US invasion. Perhaps something like: Fool! Zarkawi is not a leader of those al Qaeda camps. I can't extradite from those camps what ain't in those camps. Get off my back!


Quote:
In an 80-minute presentation, Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with al-Qaeda dating back to the mid-1990s and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq who sits atop a "sinister nexus" of terror. He didn't provide any evidence of the relationship, however.

Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.


source

So, reacting to Powell's speech, "Saddam ... forcefully denied that his government has ... a relationship with al-Qaeda."

Oops, there goes your persuasive evidence.... Try harder, ican.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 07:53 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Propaganda, both false and true, is often repeated endlessly.

Yes!

I of course will repeat my true propaganda endlessly, or at least as long as I am able.

Why not imagine yourself as the elected leader of your country? Imagine 3,000 residents of your country have been murdered by al Qaeda terrorists, terrorists that declared in 1992, 1996, and 1998 that they were going to murder your countrymen where ever they can be found. Further assume the governments of your neighboring countries agreed you should destroy the terrorists based in a 1st country and replace its government, but not the terrorists or government of a 2nd country. Further assume the governments of your neighboring countries had no financial interests to protect in the 1st country, but huge financial investments to protect in the 2nd country.

Propaganda aside, what would you recommend to your legislature?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:13 pm
old europe wrote:
Quote:
...Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.


So, reacting to Powell's speech, "Saddam ... forcefully denied that his government has ... a relationship with al-Qaeda."

Oops, there goes your persuasive evidence.... Try harder, ican.


No it actually strengthens my argument. Try harder, old europe. Smile

The full set of quotes is:
Quote:
Iraqi officials dismissed Powell's case as a collection of "stunts" and "special effects" that relied on "unknown sources" and was aimed at undermining the work of the inspectors.

"What we heard today was for the general public and mainly the uninformed, in order to influence their opinion and to commit aggression on Iraq," said Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam. Al-Saadi, who spoke in Baghdad, was personally vilified in Powell's speech for deceiving inspectors.

Addressing the Security Council after all 15 members spoke, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri dismissed Powell's charges that his country is hiding banned weapons and has links to terrorists.

Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.


In none of these denials is there a specific denial that Zarqawi was a leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq. Why not?

My argument does not even suggest much less claim that Saddam was:
Quote:
hiding banned weapons and has links to terrorists


My argument is again presented here for your convenient review:
Quote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

References:

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:20 pm
ican711nm wrote:
In none of these denials is there a specific denial that Zarqawi was a leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq. Why not?


Because Powell didn't claim that Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:34 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
In none of these denials is there a specific denial that Zarqawi was a leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq. Why not?

Because Powell didn't claim that Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Shocked Surely you know what you just posted here is not true. So try the truth next time!
Powell to UN 2/5/2003 wrote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.
...

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:35 pm
I think Powell's words were extremely carefully chosen. Reread what he said:

Quote:
Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.


Now let's do a little check:

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi"

Apart from leaving open what he meant by "Iraq", namely the part north of the 36th parallel where Baghdad had no influence at all by 2003, Powell didn't even say which network he was talking about.
Naturally, people would assume he was talking about al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, Powell undoubtedly knew that Zarqawi was the head of al-Tawhid. He left that out on purpose, one has to conclude.


"an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants"

Nice words, too. Did he mean "an associate of bin Laden and his lieutenants"? Or did he say "he and his al-Qaeda lieutenants were associates of bin Laden"? Again, people would assume, from context, that Powell had been talking about Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda lieutenants, while the US government could claim afterwards that they had been talking only about Zarqawi.


I'm a little disappointed that your only reference re Zarqawi remains Powell's speech, ican.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:50 pm
old europe wrote:

I'm a little disappointed that your only reference re Zarqawi remains Powell's speech, ican.
Shocked
Wow! That's some counter argument you just posed there. Your dissappointed! Rolling Eyes Oh my! Crying or Very sad

However, there is no need for you to be disappointed on that account. I shall come to your rescue with an additional source, such as it is.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:
Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:57 pm
old europe, you didn't answer my questions yet.

Why not imagine yourself as the elected leader of your country?

Imagine 3,000 residents of your country have been murdered by al Qaeda terrorists, terrorists that declared in 1992, 1996, and 1998 that they were going to murder your countrymen where ever they can be found. Further assume the governments of your neighboring countries agreed you should destroy the terrorists based in a 1st country and replace its government, but not the terrorists or government of a 2nd country. Further assume the governments of your neighboring countries had no financial interests to protect in the 1st country, but huge financial investments to protect in the 2nd country.

Propaganda aside, what would you recommend to your legislature?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:57 pm
Exactly what I said. One way to interprete Powell's speech. And obviously the way the US government wanted people to understand the speech.

Nevertheless, during the last 50 pages or so you haven't been able of coming up with any reference of an US government official saying something like "Zarqawi was the leader of those camps in northern Iraq, and that's why we have to/had to invade Iraq".

Btw: sarcasm is a sad resort for lack of good references.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 09:29 pm
old europe wrote:
... Nevertheless, during the last 50 pages or so you haven't been able of coming up with any reference of an US government official saying something like "Zarqawi was the leader of those camps in northern Iraq, and that's why we have to/had to invade Iraq".


Powell at the time of his speech 2/5/2003, was a government official who said Zarqawi was a leader of those camps. Powell clearly implied in the following we had to invade those camps because Saddam did not attempt to remove them.
Powell to UN wrote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.


old europe wrote:
Btw: sarcasm is a sad resort for lack of good references.
True when that is the actual reason for the sarcasm. However, in my case it served as an excellent humorous relief (to me) from your series of false arguments ending with a complaint implying I need more references. All this, while never yourself providing any additional references to support your contrary opinion. This is all you've presented so far:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. wrote:
The claims were rejected by [Mullah] Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism

Is Mullah Krekar your sole source?

I think I have shown considerable patience in waiting for you to start meeting your own argument criteria to provide more than one reference that Zarqawi was not a leader of the al Qaeda bases in Iraq.

Good night!
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 09:33 pm
Good night, ican!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 05:34 am
old europe wrote:
Good night, ican!


Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 05:35 am
Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials Of Hussein Era

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A01


BAGHDAD, April 17 -- The Shiite Muslim bloc leading the new Iraqi government will demand the removal of all top officials left over from the era of former president Saddam Hussein, a top official said. The move would be part of a purge that U.S. officials fear could oust thousands of the most capable Iraqis from military and intelligence forces the United States has spent more than $5 billion rebuilding.

The Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance also will insist on trials for every former official, soldier or worker suspected of wrongdoing during that time, Hussain Shahristani, who helped form the Shiite alliance, said in an interview that outlined plans for handling members of Hussein's Baath Party in the armed forces and intelligence services.

Shahristani said the alliance would also seek prosecution of what he said were the few thousand leaders of the Sunni Muslim-led insurgency.

For the alliance and the long-persecuted Shiite community it represents, Shahristani said, "justice prevails" over everything else.

Concerns about the purge have drawn a sharp U.S. response. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, flying unannounced to Iraq last week, warned the Shiite-led government not to "come in and clean house" in the security forces.

The Shiite alliance's plan also runs counter to efforts by other Iraqi politicians who say they hope to defuse the insurgency by drawing the disgruntled Sunni minority, routed from power with Hussein, back into the political process. The new president, Jalal Talabani, whose Kurdish bloc is in the governing coalition with the Shiite alliance, has called for an amnesty and government negotiations with some insurgents.

But Shahristani said the Shiite-led alliance believes weapons, not appeasement, will end the insurgency.

"I don't think the insurgency can be beaten by negotiations," said Shahristani, who is close to Iraq's most politically influential religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. "For us in the alliance, we don't think it's serious. We think it's surrender, and the Iraqi people will not accept surrender."

How the purge is handled stands as one of the most potentially divisive and dangerous tasks facing the Shiite-Kurdish coalition brought to power by the Jan. 30 national elections. Adnan Ali Kadhimi, an aide to the incoming prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, said Sunday that he was working to announce Jafari's new cabinet by early next week. Jafari is the country's first Shiite premier in a half-century.

Under Hussein, registration in the Baath Party was a requirement for jobs on almost all levels, from army general to teacher. Hussein's armed forces and his nearly two dozen intelligence agencies were responsible for mass killings, imprisonment, uprooting and torture. Members of the Shiite and Kurdish opposition made up hundreds of thousands of the victims.

Politicians say that people responsible for some of those abuses and Baathist die-hards have made their way into the new security forces and should be removed.

But too broad and deep a purge threatens to worsen one of the biggest legacies of Hussein's overthrow and the U.S. occupation: the growing sectarian and ethnic cast to the country's politics.

The perception of Shiite-dominated security forces and intelligence would heighten the sense of siege among some Sunni communities. Kurds and other Shiite groups also might be less willing to disband their militias, seeing them as a last defense to Shiite Islamic ambitions.

Wamidh Nadhmi, the leader of the Arab Nationalist Trend and a spokesman for a coalition of Sunni and Shiite groups that had boycotted the elections, said an aggressive purge of Iraq's security forces would end up riddling them with partisan loyalties, a frequent theme in Iraq's history, as parties vied for power.

"These people are threatening us with a warlord system that will destroy the country," Nadhmi said.

U.S. and many Iraqi leaders say throwing Baath-era officials and officers out of work could encourage them to join the insurgency.

A top U.S. concern is that the purge will go too far in military terms alone, decimating the new forces as they battle the insurgency across the country, a U.S. official in Baghdad said.

If the Shiite-led bloc "is going to do a very hard purge of everybody who ever carried a Baathist registration card, you're going to get rid of people who really have the experience and have proved themselves," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"We're really convinced that they're the key," he said of the Baath-era veterans, citing the performance of mid-level former Baath officers in important battles -- and the American lives and dollars invested in rebuilding Iraq's military.

And in a climate where sectarian and ethnic divisions are sharp, mistakes could gain a momentum of their own, a senior U.S. military official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Parties that come to the table don't come to the table with a great deal of trust for each other," he said. "And so any perceived missteps, any perceived overuse of power or underuse of power, depending on where you sit, I think, is going to be magnified. And so there is a danger just going down this entire process."

He said he saw a risk and a benefit in a purge.

"If you're talking about a purge, you have the very simple fact that you have a force that is gutted so you have a less capable force," he said. "If you don't have a purge, you've got some group that will sit on the side that looks at the members of the security forces and say some number of those should have been purged and that feeds the level of mistrust."

Shahristani pointed to the intelligence services as one of the main battlegrounds, as the Shiite alliance vies with Baath-era holdovers for control of the agencies and files.

Postwar intelligence services are staffed by many Baath officials and agents called back to duty by the CIA, in its search for solid intelligence against insurgents, U.S. and Iraqi officials have said.

"We know that most senior officials in the department are from the previous intelligence department who've been oppressing the Iraqi people," Shahristani said.

Lawmakers of the governing coalition say the Shiite alliance has agreed not to disband the key intelligence services. The question will be who directs and staffs them, they say. Any bloc that holds unchallenged control of national security agencies and their files would have the means, and information, to identify its political enemies.

If Sunni intelligence officials are purged, Shiite hard-liners would be ready to move in intelligence units of Shiite militias including the Badr Brigade, a group formed by Iraqi Shiite leaders when they were in exile in Iran while Hussein was in power.

"You have to assume -- Allawi assumes -- that the Badr Brigade would want to infiltrate security," a top Kurdish official in the coalition with the alliance said, referring to Ayad Allawi, prime minister in the interim government and one of the main officials now working to counter Shiite sectarianism in the new government.

Shahristani said the alliance's take on the purge was only slightly tougher than Allawi's. For the alliance, he said, "de-Baathification does not mean de-Sunnification, nor does it mean every single member of the Baath Party is guilty until proven innocent."

With only 17 Sunni lawmakers in the new 275-member assembly as a result of the Sunni boycott of elections, Sunnis largely have to look to others to represent their interests in the upcoming purge.

Nadhmi said he suspected that the United States would serve as a check.

"I cannot see that the Americans would allow the total dissolution of a system which they helped and which they initiated," he said. "They will be forced into a lot of compromises."



© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61487-2005Apr17.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 07:53 am
Recently elected Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that he would refuse to sign a death conviction for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein if he is convicted of war crimes.

Quote:
Talabani rules out signing Saddam death warrant
Mon Apr 18, 2005

LONDON (Reuters) - Iraq's new President Jalal Talabani said he would refuse to sign Saddam Hussein's death warrant if the former dictator was convicted of war crimes.
In an interview on Monday with the British Broadcasting Corp, Talabani said he opposed capital punishment on principle.

"Personally, no, I won't sign," he said in an online BBC report of the interview.

"But you know, the presidency of Iraq are three people. These three must decide. So I can be absent. I can go on holiday and let the two others (the vice-presidents) decide."

Talabani, a Kurd, was sworn in this month as Iraq's first democratically elected president in more than 50 years. The vice-presidents are Shi'ite Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sunni Arab tribal elder Ghazi Yawar.

Saddam and 11 aides face trial for war crimes at a special tribunal in Iraq. Trials are not expected to start until later this year at the earliest and the investigation into alleged crimes has been hampered by widespread insecurity.

Talabani said all other members of the new leadership, and the vast majority of Iraqis, favoured a swift execution for the ousted dictator.

"So I think I will be alone in this field, calling for a reprieve," he said.

Talabani, 71, may not be in office to deal with a reprieve. His administration will oversee the drafting of a new constitution by mid-August and hold elections in December. Any trial of Saddam is unlikely to conclude this year.
Source

BBC television interview [recorded video]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:04 am
revel wrote:
Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials Of Hussein Era

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A01


BAGHDAD, April 17 -- The Shiite Muslim bloc leading the new Iraqi government will demand the removal of all top officials left over from the era of former president Saddam Hussein, a top official said. The move would be part of a purge that U.S. officials fear could oust thousands of the most capable Iraqis from military and intelligence forces the United States has spent more than $5 billion rebuilding.

...

"I cannot see that the Americans would allow the total dissolution of a system which they helped and which they initiated," he said. "They will be forced into a lot of compromises."

This article highlights the consequences of the major Bush&Adm blunder in Iraq. Building military and intelligence forces out of Baathists previously responsible for perpetrating or assisting genocide in Iraq, sets up the Iraqi people for a re-establishment of that same genocide once the US leaves Iraq. It also sets up the re-establishment of al Qaeda training bases in Iraq when the US leaves.

That $5 billion US investment was terribly shortsighted. I agree with the Shiite Muslim bloc. Different work should be provided the former genocidal Baathist perpetrators and accomplices than military or intelligence service. How about work in reconstruction and/or maintenance of facilities? There is more than enough opportunity to make a living in that in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:51 am
Old europe, this morning I am beginning to see more humor in our debate.

I trust the word of known gullible, retired general Colin Powell more than I trust the word of known murderer Mullah Krekar.

I infer that you trust the word of known murderer Mullah Krekar more than you trust the word of known gullible, retired general Colin Powell.

So how do we seek to resolve our disagreement over whether Zarqawi was or was not a leader of the al Qaeda bases in northeastern Iraq? Why of course, we begin to search for the word of Saddam Hussein, another known murderer, on this same subject.

But wait it gets better. Zarqawi's role in al Qaeda is not even the real issue. The real issue is why Saddam chose not to respond to Powell's claim that the US requested Saddam to extradite Zarqawi, but did respond to the rest of Powell's speech. Had he responded to Powell's extradition claim, we would at least have the relevant words of another known murderer to go on.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 12:52 pm
That is weird walter, I read the following:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/108/world/Shiite_alliance_Saddam_should_:.shtml

Shiite alliance: Saddam should be executed if convicted

By Jamie Tarabay, Associated Press, 4/18/2005 08:14


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Iraq's most powerful Shiite bloc wants Saddam Hussein put to death if he is convicted of war crimes by a special tribunal, and the interim president should resign if he refuses to sign the execution order, an alliance spokesman told The Associated Press on Monday.

Ali al-Dabagh, a lawmaker from the clergy-led United Iraq Alliance, which received the most votes in Jan. 30 national elections, said everyone in his party believes Saddam should be sentenced to death if convicted of war crimes against Iraqis.

''We feel he is a criminal. He is the No. 1 criminal in the world. He is a murderer,'' al-Dabagh said in an interview with The Associated Press. ''He deserves a trial, and he should be subjected to the law and the court. Whatever the decision, everyone should follow it, even if the president says he cannot sign it.''

The alliance controls 140 seats in Iraq's 275-member National Assembly.

In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Monday, incoming Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said signing a death warrant for Saddam would go against his beliefs as a human rights advocate and opponent of capital punishment.

He said he may abstain from signing any such document and leave the decision to his two deputies.

''I can go to holiday and let the two others decide. I personally signed a call for ending execution throughout the world. And I'm respecting my signature,'' Talabani told the BBC.

''This is one of my problems ... No one is listening to me, to be frank with you. My two partners in the presidency, the government, the House, all of them are for sentencing Saddam Hussein to death before the court will decide. So, I think I will be alone in this field.''

Al-Dabagh, a member of the Shiite majority long oppressed under Saddam's rule, said Saddam's execution was not negotiable.

''This is something that cannot be discussed at all. If the court says he's a criminal, we will follow it,'' al-Dabagh said. ''He (Talabani) is now the president, and he should follow the law. If he doesn't want to sign it, then he should resign the presidency.''

Saddam was captured north of Baghdad in December 2003 and has been in custody with several of his top henchmen at a U.S.-guarded detention facility near Baghdad's international airport.

Saddam and his top lieutenants will be tried before the Iraqi Special Tribunal established in late 2003. The tribunal has given no official dates for starting the trials, although national security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said earlier this month that Saddam could go on trial by the end of the year.

The death penalty was reintroduced in Iraq in August 2004 for crimes including murder, endangering national security and drug trafficking. But it is only meant to be a temporary measure in the effort to stamp out the country's insurgency.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 12:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials Of Hussein Era

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A01


BAGHDAD, April 17 -- The Shiite Muslim bloc leading the new Iraqi government will demand the removal of all top officials left over from the era of former president Saddam Hussein, a top official said. The move would be part of a purge that U.S. officials fear could oust thousands of the most capable Iraqis from military and intelligence forces the United States has spent more than $5 billion rebuilding.

...

"I cannot see that the Americans would allow the total dissolution of a system which they helped and which they initiated," he said. "They will be forced into a lot of compromises."

This article highlights the consequences of the major Bush&Adm blunder in Iraq. Building military and intelligence forces out of Baathists previously responsible for perpetrating or assisting genocide in Iraq, sets up the Iraqi people for a re-establishment of that same genocide once the US leaves Iraq. It also sets up the re-establishment of al Qaeda training bases in Iraq when the US leaves.

That $5 billion US investment was terribly shortsighted. I agree with the Shiite Muslim bloc. Different work should be provided the former genocidal Baathist perpetrators and accomplices than military or intelligence service. How about work in reconstruction and/or maintenance of facilities? There is more than enough opportunity to make a living in that in Iraq.


There are days when I am pleasantly surprised.

I never did really understand why anyone would use the very same people they were getting out myself either.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 09:46 pm
Quote:


comment | Posted April 14, 2005
What I Didn't See in Iraq
by Jim McGovern


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
QUOT-T rust me when I tell you things are so much better in Iraq," said one US military official to me on my recent visit to that war-ravaged country. I didn't know whether to scream or pull the remaining two strands of hair out of my head. I was in Iraq as part of a delegation of eight members of Congress, led by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Everything we have been told about Iraq by the Bush Administration has either been an outright lie or overwhelmingly false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; we have not been greeted as liberators; and the cost in terms of blood and treasure has outpaced even their worst-case scenarios. Trust is something I cannot give to this Administration.

If things in Iraq are so much better, why are we not decreasing the number of US forces there? Why is the insurgency showing no signs of waning? Why are we being told that in a few months the Administration will again ask Congress for billions of dollars more to fight the war? Why, according to the World Food Program, is hunger among the Iraqi people getting worse? It's time for some candor, but candor is hard to come by in Iraq.


We were in Iraq for one day--for security reasons, it is US policy that Congressional delegations are not allowed to spend the night. We spent most of our time in the heavily fortified Green Zone, which serves as coalition headquarters. It's the most heavily guarded encampment I've ever seen--and it still gets attacked. I even had armed guards accompany me to the bathroom. The briefings we received from US military and diplomatic officials were, to say the least, unsatisfying. The Nixonian approach that our military and diplomatic leaders have adopted in dealing with visiting members of Congress is aimed more at saving face than at engaging in an honest dialogue. At first, our briefers wanted to get away with slick slide presentations, but we insisted on asking real questions and attempting to get real answers.

During one such briefing, Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus, tasked with overseeing training of Iraqi security forces, informed us that 147,000 Iraqis had been trained. That sounded good to me. Perhaps we could start reducing the number of American forces, I suggested. But upon further questioning, General Petraeus conceded that less than one-fourth of the 147,000 were actually "combat capable." Why didn't he say that to begin with? I asked--respectfully--our military and diplomatic officials what the gap was between the Iraqis we have trained and the number we needed to train in order to draw down the number of US troops. I could not get a straight answer.

During the morning of our visit, US military officials crowed about a recent operation in which Iraqi security forces had killed eighty-five insurgents. By the afternoon, when more reports came in, it was unclear how many insurgents had actually been killed and whether the Iraqi security forces had exaggerated their own actions.

I asked both General Petraeus and our embassy about US plans to build military bases in Iraq, which in my view would indicate a prolonged US presence. I was told--emphatically--that there are no plans to construct military bases. Yet Congress recently passed a huge supplemental wartime appropriations bill that includes, at the request of the Bush Administration, $500 million for military base construction. In Iraq.

Shortly before we traveled to Iraq we visited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who lamented the mistakes the United States has made post-invasion, including the total dissolution of all the Iraqi security forces. He said, "The army you disbanded is now the army you're fighting." But I couldn't get a single US official to acknowledge any mistakes. The standard line remains, "We're moving in the right direction."

It's hard to believe that after a two-year occupation the average Iraqi isn't getting tired of the overwhelming US presence. We met with several Iraqi women leaders, including members of the National Assembly, who told us that there was more electricity available in Iraq before the invasion than afterward. It's also certain that the insurgency uses our presence as an organizing tool to recruit members and weapons. While we can all be encouraged by the turnout in the recent Iraqi elections, it is impossible for the Iraqi people to truly determine their own fate in a climate where there is no security.

And while US officials point to a declining number of coalition casualties, there is still an unacceptably high level of violence in Iraq. One military leader told us they can tell that things are changing for the better because when US helicopters fly over certain areas of Iraq, Iraqis wave. Well, I took a helicopter ride (it's too dangerous to drive) from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone wearing an armored vest and sandwiched between two heavily armed American soldiers who were pointing their guns down at the ground. I suggested to the military leader that perhaps he was confusing a wave with a plea not to shoot.

Our young men and women in uniform are performing their difficult duties extraordinarily well. Indeed, the only honest and direct responses I got from any American in Iraq were from the soldiers. They told me they had been instructed by their superiors not to share any complaints with visitors.

What worries me almost as much as our misguided policy in Iraq is that so many of my colleagues and so many citizens have become resigned to the fact that the war will go on. Congress is not being inundated with letters and phone calls and faxes and e-mails and street protests demanding an end to our presence in Iraq. President Bush's re-election seems to have taken much of the energy out of the antiwar movement. My recent visit to Iraq only strengthened my belief that this war is wrong. And only renewed, passionate dissent by the American people can end it.
...

About/Contact | Media Kit | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2005 The Nation
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:24 pm
Well that's a bit depressing to read, isn't it.

Although I suppose Ican is still smiling.

Worth noting that, in MISSION ACCOMPLISHED Iraq, that not even the road from the airport to the capital is secure.
It's an invasion. It's unpopular. It was a miscalculation. It was a crime.
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 0.21 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 03:35:11