Rumsfeld deleted as CEO of Iraq?

topic please. I really am interested in the topic I posted here.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the dead victims of the World Trade center would see the comparison differently -- if they could speak.

We'll never know, but does anyone really imagine the souls of the dead, wherever they are, cheering for torture of innocent Iraqis?

Quote:

I think you guys are hyperventillating over a relatively small issue. The "torture" has stopped and no one was killed.

You have got to be kidding. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface on what was done and we have know way of know it has stopped. Several deaths in prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq have been ruled homicides.

Quote:

Certainly no one condones the stupidity that went on, and nothing excuses the behavior of the insufficiently supervised guards at the prison. However, it is unrealistic to expect that in any large enterprise no mishaps of this order of magnitude might occur. Much worse has occurred in every war in the history of mankind.

Mishaps? Actually, I agree with you that this was entirely anticipated which, in my mind, just confirms my belief that this war was not worth the consequences of fighting it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

topic please. I really am interested in the topic I posted here.

You're right, sorry. I think Rummy's head is on the platter as we speak.

0 Replies

I'll try to do both.

I believe that Rumsfeld is finished with the region politically. He seems to have lost control of the situation somewhat and the allegations of this report don't look good, either. The buck has to stop somewhere...

As for the other....

Quote:

The "torture" has stopped and no one was killed.

Um, no. Might want to research that one a little bit.

Here's a snippet from the Denver Post:

Quote:

The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.

Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents

From the same article, a pentagon official describes the abuses:

Quote:

"Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law."

Twenty-seven of the abuse cases involve deaths; at least eight are believed to be homicides.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2157003,00.html

27 dead, I see, 8 that are homicide investigations. It would seem that quite a few have died because of this.

How about the kids being kept there and the torture being used on them? It's sick.

http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

Quote:

It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets," he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. "Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door and I saw [the soldier's name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform." Hilas, who was himself threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Graib, then describes in horrific detail how the soldier raped "the little kid".

Rumsfeld has a lot to answer for.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

video clip on CNN this afternoon showed General Sanchez saying "Our main mission is to kill or arrest Al Sadr"
and now he not only walks but negotiate treaty's binding on US/Coalition forces.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

video clip on CNN this afternoon showed General Sanchez saying "Our main mission is to kill or arrest Al Sadr"
and now he not only walks but negotiate treaty's binding on US/Coalition forces.

Very sickening indeed.

0 Replies

so who is in charge?
BAGHDAD - By ending the country's most dangerous political standoff after just one brief round of negotiations, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani proved again last week that he is the most powerful political figure in Iraq.

In a single day after returning from medical treatment in London, Sistani halted three weeks of fighting in Najaf, an achievement that had eluded the Iraqi government, the U.S. military and its Iraqi allies, and Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite Muslim cleric who had taken refuge with his fighters at Najaf's Imam Ali mosque.

It wasn't the first time that Sistani, a revered leader of Iraq's 11 million Shiites, had stifled violence. In April, he also negotiated an end to fighting in Najaf.

In October, his intervention put an end to threats by Sadr to draft his own constitution. And Sistani repeatedly thwarted U.S. plans for a transitional government in Iraq while pushing for direct elections at an early date.

0 Replies

dys

Clearly, there's a story for public consumption "we are here to free the Iraqis and bring democracy" and another that isn't just bullshit.

As every reporter or commentator who has a smidgeon of discernment has noted, the 'turnover' of power to the Iraqis is 95% show...the Iraqis are constrained by numerous and critical mandates established by the US, and they are constrained by military/force realities and chain of command issues. The situation on the ground has not changed significantly for Iraqis though perhaps they were more hopeful.

Rumsfeld has all but disappeared from public view because 1) he had become a PR liability and 2) Iraq had become a PR liability...when was the last time anyone saw the term 'green zone'? All of this is just media manipulation and particularly, in aid of the election.

As to future governance in Iraq...American foreign policy history is (from an objective view as opposed to the other where folks have been hit over the head with the flag until they are stunned) a litany of acts of self-interest above principle. It is not at all critical that 'democracy' in the normal sense of that term be achieved in Iraq at all and it is naive to think that ever the real goal.

As the US has supported repressive regimes in all corners of the world (eg Sadaam), then it seems rather more honest to acknowledge that the US won't give a damn if Iraqis fall under a theocracy so long as their strategic interests seem in hand (control of oil, physical military presence in that part of the world, support for Israel).

0 Replies

Dys and Blatham
This latest demonstration of where the real power in Iraq can be found today is in Islam. Always has been; always will be.

Rumsfeld et al can pack up their democracy hopes and go to their rooms.

The nearly 1,000 dead GIs and thousands of Iraqi dead will sing a funeral dirge along the road back to D.C.

BBB

0 Replies

I suspect that given the history of Iraq, those who achieved and maintained some degree of political presence and authority (even if via faith), are likely to be wily fellows indeed. Al Sistani would certainly fall under that description. It's certainly not clear that the military muscle, or the wealth, that the US controls in Iraq presently will be a real counter to local cultural facts.

0 Replies

Dys and Blatham
The next smart move for Al Sistani would be to get control of the employment potential in Iraq. If he can get control of enough money to jump-start Iraqi reconstruction businesses and provide jobs for Iraqis, it's all over for the US and the puppet Iraqi government.

The US will resist any efforts by the Clerics to get control of enough money to put Iraqis back to work. The US's goal was to funnel all US tax payer money into contracts with American company friends of the Bush administration. Therefore, the money will have to be obtained from other sources.

Will Iran provide the money to help Sistani---or al-Sadr? Is it in Iran's interest? If Iran helps Sadr instead of Sistani, then civil war is much more likely because of the split between the Sunnis and Kurds with the Shiites.

Is my understanding correct that Sistani prefers a secular government rather than one like Iran's?

BBB

0 Replies

Rumsfeld deleted as CEO of Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know