The US, UN & Iraq II

I think that Lou Reed is as least as accurate as CNN, but perhaps slightly less objective than the Iraqi ambassador.
Welcome Ketamine, if I haven't said that already. I read those jokes, I didn't think they were offensive but I didn't think they were particularly hilarious either and you are right -- a link giving them context would have helped.
You wrote:
That is precisely on point. What are your views regarding the subject of this thread (which whilst I was away slid into a re-hash of uh, well, hash and the various things which we veterans consumed during our days in the forces. An enjoyable break, however, not what this thread started out to be back in November. That's one long conversation, waitress, more please.)

So why don't you start us again?

Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Minister, who took the honourable step of opposing this war, and made a blistering attack on its folly with his resignation speech, now says enough is enough.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12790012&method=full&siteid=106694

This war is lost.
Time to bring the troops home, alive, not in body bags.

I received a highly offensive reply from gesilgerti (?) who is obviously a member of this website's illuminati for he doesn't seem to be censored. This reeks of hypocisy and double standard. Poor show able2know.com


???????????


Added by timber, 03/31/03 10:12 CST, while wearing his Moderator hat: NO ONE is "Immune" to the requirement to remain within the TOS. The issue is noted and is being addressed. It may be expected that some time will transpire as the matter is dealt with; results are rarely instantaneous. A report to a moderator will achieve superior, more certain results than will carrying an interpersonal squabble onto the public threads. Thanks all for understanding, and for cooperating.

Steve

We'll all hope that nothing happens like in the Mesopotamia Campaign, when during the four years of fighting in the region, more than 31,000 officers and men from the British and Indian armies had died in combat or from disease.


Re History of Iraq in relation to today, I recommend reading this comment in The Observer:

'Liberation' is not freedom


And for those even more interested in this history, 'Archives Hub' is tremendous source:

Archives Hub's Collections of the Month: Iraq

The numbers are in. And I have to ask who are these people?
Newsweek poll reports a jump in Bush numbers. UP not down.....
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892568.asp

Are they reading different news reports than I am? Is there a staff hypnotist at FOX who is somehow distorting reality for it's viewers?

Here in NYC we have the Daily News and the New York Post which of late have less resembled newspapers than they usually do and more resembled blood soaked towels, but the views of the people I know and the ones I overhear talking in the restaurants and bars (while not engaged by the basketball) are overwhelmingly opposed to this administration. Do I need to drive over to the nearest red (R) state and listen in there?

From the University of Wyoming website:

Although "Franks" is a perfectly ordinary name in American and European contexts, in the Muslim world it signifies people who invade, attack and despoil innocent people and families, women and children. "Franks" is the Arab name for the Christian crusaders who invaded the Middle East in the 11th through 14th centuries in attempts to wrest the Holy Land from Muslim sovereignty. The French dominated the first crusade, and so the Muslims called the first crusaders "Franks" and the name stuck through all of the later crusades.

Muslims did not see the Franks as merely invaders and warriors. The Franks were known for being bloodthirsty, for breaking oaths and treaties, and for indiscriminate slaughter of people without consideration of their age, gender or religion. The crusaders often killed Christians and Jews along with Muslims. In one or two famous incidents, a few Franks publicly barbequed human limbs and ate human flesh -- earning all Franks a reputation as cannibals.

So in the Muslim world, when Gen. Franks is mentioned, and his name is frequently in the news these days because of his leadership position, the name conjures up images of the cruelty and unbridled ambition that have been associated with the Franks/crusaders for centuries.

University of Wyoming

Interesting, PDiddie. I had not thought of that.

Thank you, nimh, for the Independent piece, back a ways. Excellent. That newspaper continues to be one of my favorite sources.

Pdiddie: what an interesting slant. History resonates in different ways, here in the semantic reaction to a word. I would recommend that we tell the Iraqis that "Franks" also means Hot Dog but they would ask "How is that any different?"

Why is it that we just can't seem to grant to others, our right to believe?


From a blog


My God is not Mohammed, either. On Monday, Imam Mohamad Joban, of the Islamic Center of Olympia, delivered the following opening prayer before the Washington State House of Representatives:

: "We open this session of House of Representatives in the name of Allah the one God Abraham, God of Moses, God of Jesus, and God of Mohammed, peace be upon them all. . . . We ask Allah or God to bless the state of Washington so it may continue to prosper and become a symbol of peace and tranquility for people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds. We pray that Allah may guide this House in making good decisions for the people of Washington.

"At this time, we also pray that America may succeed in the war against terrorism. We pray to God that the war may end with world peace and tranquility."

In response, two lawmakers lawmakers stepped off the chamber floor:

"It's an issue of patriotism," Rep. Lois McMahan, a conservative Republican from Gig Harbor, said of her decision to stand in the back of the room.

"The Islamic religion is so . . . part and parcel with the attack on America. I just didn't want to be there, be a part of that," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

Rep. Cary Condotta, a Republican from East Wenatchee, also left the floor. He said the timing was not a coincidence, but he declined to comment further on why he left, except to say he was talking to another lawmaker and "let's just say I wasn't particularly interested."

McMahan clarified her action, saying she didn't oppose having a Muslim deliver the prayer, but called Islam "the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world." adding, "My god is not Mohammed."

I guess I should be offended, but I'm not. If anything, my opinion is that Joban should have stayed home. This demonstrates why there is so little point in Muslim comunities doing any kind of active outreach to the greater community - it becomes counter-productive. Even without the walkout, did havig Joban deliver the address actually achieve any good?

The energy of Muslims is better spent directed inwards, to their own comunities, to protect ourselves from cancerous infestation from fanatics, rather than try to prove how moderate we are.
posted by Shi'a Pundit | 6.3.03 | Comments


Ashara. The dawn of the new year is a poignant time for a Shi'a, for it heralds the beginning of the ten days of Ashara, the martyrdom of Imam Husain AS. I have chosen to pay homage by reproducing the intro to the book, A Story of Faith, by Rashidabhen Ghadiali of Mumbai, which tells the history and background of this event:

Rasulullah (SAW) himself had declared that the community of Islam would split into seventy-two fragments and one more, before the Day of Judgement. Hardly had Rasulullah passed away, when the first major split occurred when tempted by the wealth and power of the Islamic world, a large group of the Muslims acknowledged Abu Bakr as their leader, choosing to forget that Rasulullah had, in the presence of seventy thousand people sworn that Ali was heir to all that he, Rasulullah, was Maula of. The community of Islam reeled. Rasulullah had died. If that was not catastrophe enough, his companions had already betrayed the pledge. To maintain calm in a time of such distress, Maulana Ali AS refrained from the assertion of his rights, choosing forebearance, telling Maulatena Fatema AS as the muezzin's voice asserted that Rasulullah was the messenger of Islam, "Why do I keep silent? Because if I lifted the sword you would not hear your father's name in the azaan anymore."

Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, died one after another. Maulana Ali had always been leader of the mumineen whether or not he controlled the Islamic empire. But now, he ascended the caliphate for four years until his death. After him, his son, Imam Hasan AS was designated caliph. Muawiya, son of Abu Sufyan, found this unbearable and violently claimed the post. Imam Hasan made peace with Muawiya, appearing to acede to his claim to political leadership while in Medina, he continued with his quiet work. Imam Hasan was poisoned and died a little while later, and Imam Husayn suceeded him as the second Imam of the Shias.

In Damascus, the political centre of the Umaiyyads, Yazid succeeded Muawiya. He was aware that in Medina Imam Husayn still called people to Islam and the Shias continued to follow and revere him whether or not he offered them a chance to rule the world. The deen of Islam showed no signs of weakening and day by day Husayn's strength grew. Incensed, he sent word to Imam Husayn to come to his court and offer him a pledge of allegiance in order to ensure that Imam Husayn would never be a threat to him. Husayn went to Syria and found Yazid drinking wine, playing with dogs, allowing the dancers to entertain him, and enraged and impassioned at the mockery of the faith, Imam Husayn swore that he would never pledge loyalty to this man.

Yazid threatened by the power of the son of Maulana Ali and fearing the wrath of the idealistic Shias, had Imam Husayn slaughtered by Shimr, with his two sons, sixteen other men from the family, and fifty-four others, after starving them all, depriving them of water for three days in the blazing heat, before outnumbering each one by a thousand in one of the most heartrending battles in the history of mankind.

And so Imam Husain was martyred, and that was on 10th Muharram - Yawm - e Ashura. Ya Husain!

I do apologise to any of my Sunni brothers for any offense they may take from these, my beliefs. But I must be true to my convictions and I will not be held back from my assertion of same, especially not during Muharram. This is a time for grief, reflection, and ibadat. Nothing else.

I remain steadfast in my respect of other muslims (except those whose interpretations lead them to violence against innocents. This I will never sanction). I ask that the same respect is accorded to me as well.

Mubarak to everyone for the dawn of this year, 1424 Hijri.
posted by Shi'a Pundit | 4.3.03 | Comments

... in which the overwhelming majority of the population happens to live - for we may have taken hardly any of the Iraqi cities, but we control most of the desert - which should greatly reassure those terrorized by the regime.

(Or: the art of chutzpah).

<sighs> I mean, look - if I may address your president for a moment ;-) - I don't want to see this war drag on either, so sure hope is welcome, but please, can you stop talking to us like we are bloody idiots? that really is one of the most exasperating things about this whole thing - if the campaign doesnt go well, if you're going to be in there for a while more, if the iraqis dont welcome you with flowers, but you still consider this war necessary and benefitial, by all means come out and tell us so, and then we can either agree or disagree - but dont try to continually sell us all this bull, all these halflies and transparant rhetroical tricks - we're not kids, we're not stupid, and neither are your american voters ... are they?

KIFL, Iraq, March 29 -- Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.

Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.

Washington Post

It seems to me that general Shenseki had it pretty close to being correct when he said it'll take 200,000 American troops to maintain the peace after the war. Many angry Iraqis are gonna come out of the woodworks after this war to create havoc for the occupation troops. For a country the size of California, I'm now thinking 200,000 may be too low. c.i.

canada.com has a timeline of iraqi relations since the months before desert storm. I thought these were interesting items on the list:

A P R I L . 1 3 (1993)
Day before former U.S. President Bush is to arrive in Kuwait, 14 arrests are made in alleged plot to assassinate him.

J U N E . 2 7 (1993)
U.S. warships fire 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles at intelligence headquarters in Baghdad in retaliation for Iraq's alleged involvement in assassination plot against former U.S. president. Iraq says eight people are dead.

like father like son, it's like they have a little-man complex. So, through bush1 and clinton we've been bombing them. The sanctions were supposed to be 180 days long. Short term, not for over a decade.

In reading through the timeline and thinking back on what's been going on I've realized that SH isn't a leader of a country. He's more of a king in a kindom. He's never really had full control within his own country - or am I misreading this stuff?

Chronology

Halliburton Out of Running

Gee,. this seems to poke a hole or two in some longstanding arguments.

What's amazing to me about the following is the leak--"unidentified senior Pentagon planner". Things are starting to unravel for Rummy. I'll be interested in observing his mood over the next few days and weeks if things continue to go badly.)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.

Yahoo! News

PDiddie - Maybe he's taking a dive? Becoming the scape goat?

Cic - and many who are children now will harbor ill will as adults.

littlek, the "King in his own country" allegory is apt. Saddam has, or had, through his tight-knit, small team of closest cronies, total control of the Ba'ath Party, which IS the civil authority, and the Iraqi military. The Ba'ath Party has Iron Fisted Control over the populace of Iraq, and disposes one of the largest, most pervasive, most inhumanely brutal internal security forces on the planet. I can't imagine how Saddam could have had more control, short of something involving magic.

Well, it seems almost everyone in this thread and others on A2K is of a mind that this was a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe for the US. But what if....

-The polls continue to be strongly behind shrub, even after the body bags pile up, as the war proceeds and comes to conclusion?

-The national atmosphere becomes even more oppresive toward those who ever dared disagree with the Iraq initiative, cowing Dem candidates and representatives, and the public in general?

-This ultimately becomes a resounding victory for bush and his "ideas", sparking irresistable momentum toward a 2004 reelection, and further marginalizing contrary perspectives, especially opposition on crucial domestic policies?

What are we gonna do then?

move to italy.