The US, UN & Iraq II

Looks like about 500 according to the link. I really think that number is low, because of all the bombing at the Republican Guard units. My guess would be a couple thousand. c.i.

Thought this may be of interest. Australian news. [..]

'4000 bombers ready to die'

IRAQ has issued a chilling warning to allied forces, claiming 4000 recently-arrived suicide attackers are ready to kill US, British and Australian troops.

Sergeant's suicidal act of war has struck fear into Allied hearts

Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself to destroy his enemies.

Nomani was also a Shia Muslim - a member of the same sect the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq. Even the Iraqi government initially wondered how to deal with his extraordinary action, caught between its desire to dissociate themselves from an event that might remind the world of Osama bin Laden and its determination to threaten the Americans with more such attacks. [..]

President Saddam awarded him the Military Medal (1st Class) and the "Mother of All Battles" medal. The dead man left five children, a widow and a place in the 2,000-year history of Iraqi resistance to invasions. A US spokesman said that the attack "looks and feels like terrorism", although, since Nomani was attacking an occupation army and his target was a military one, no Arab would ever believe this.

Within hours of his death, Taha Yassin Ramadan, the Iraqi Vice-President, was talking like a Palestinian or Hizbollah leader, emphasising the inequality of arms between the Iraqis and the Americans.

"The US administration is going to turn the whole world into people prepared to die for their nations," he said. "All they can do now is turn themselves into bombs. If the B-52 bombs can now kill 500 or more in our war, then I'm sure that some operations by our freedom fighters will be able to kill 5,000."

It was clear what this meant; the Iraqi leadership was just as surprised at Nomani's attack as were his American victims. [..]

In a strange way, therefore, 11 September at last finds a symbolic connection with Iraq. While the attempts to link President Saddam's regime with Osama bin Laden turned out to be fraudulent, the anger that the US has unleashed is real, and has met the weapon the Americans fear most. Most suicide bombers are younger than Nomani and unmarried. But someone must have helped him to rig the explosives in his car, must have taught him how to set off the detonator. And if this was not the Iraqis, as they claim, then was there an organisation involved of which both the Americans and the Iraqis know nothing?

There was some talk by Vice-President Ramadan of "the martyr's moment of sublimity", an expression hitherto unheard of in the Baathist lexicon. General Hazim al-Rawi of the Ministry of Defence recalled that the dead man bore the same name as "the Imam Ali" and announced that the new "martyr Ali has opened the door to jihad".

He said that more than 4,000 volunteers from Arab countries were now in the country and that "martyrdom operations will continue not only by Iraqis but by thousands of Arabs who came to Baghdad".

Suddenly, it seems, Islam has intruded into this very nationalistic war of liberation - for that is what it is called here - against the Americans.

c.i., the Iraq Body Count site only counts the civilian casualties, not the soldiers who've been killed.

'New' Europe distances itself from war
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
01 April 2003


With troops locked in a bloody and unpredictable struggle in Iraq, leaders from "new" Europe are distancing themselves from the war that the US claims they back.

The conflict in the Gulf is unpopular with voters, and support for Washington and London has declined as casualties have mounted. Meanwhile, some countries that never backed war have vented their anger at being listed among America's 45-nation coalition of allies.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minster, began his political retreat before a shot was fired. Mr Berlusconi was a signatory of the Anglo-Spanish letter that backed the US before the conflict begun. That did not translate into concrete military support, however. Last week, Mr Berlusconi was at pains to insist that the deployment in northern Iraq of 1,000 US paratroopers who had been stationed in Italy did not break a pledge that Italian bases would not be used for direct attacks on Saddam Hussein.

Denmark, which has backed the action, had to scale back its small military deployment because of parliamentary opposition. The Netherlands, which did not sign the Anglo-Spanish letter but was sympathetic, has ruled out military involvement, fearful of destabilising negotiations to form a coalition government.

Countries which took a tough, pro-American line are encountering political difficulties. Jose Maria Aznar, the Prime Minister of Spain, which has dispatched 9,000 troops to Iraq for humanitarian work, is under intense pressure from domestic opposition.

The publication of pictures of elite Polish troops posing for photos with US soldiers in Iraq provoked a backlash in Poland. Although Warsaw remains a firm supporter of the US, surveys suggest only 20 per cent of Poles think their troops should be involved in fighting.

The weight of public opposition has forced countries to face in opposite directions. Ireland has made Shannon airport available to the US, but failed to endorse the war.

Across the ex-Communist nations of Europe, identified by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, as part of the "coalition of the willing", sentiment has proved ambivalent. One explanation is that the Anglo-Spanish letter endorsed by three of the applicant nations, and a subsequent declaration by a further 10 eastern European states, did not commit them to supporting hostilities. Some leaders went along with the formulation on the basis that taking a tough line might force President Saddam to back down.

In others the politics have changed: in Czech Republic, which is included in Washington's list of coalition nations, the Anglo-Spanish letter was signed by the outgoing president, Vaclav Havel.

His successor Vaclav Klaus has warned that using force to impose democracy on Iraq is a notion "from another universe" and sets a dangerous precedent.

Several nations provided logistical support because failing to do so would have provoked a diplomatic schism with Washington. Yet these nuances have been brushed aside by a Pentagon in its efforts to present the image of broad support.

Croatia was presented as part of the "coalition of the willing" on the basis that it opened its airspace and bases to US civilian aircraft. But Stipe Mesic, the President, denounced the war as "illegitimate" because it lacked UN backing. Slovenia has also rejected the idea that it backs the conflict.

I heard this morning and also in Tartarin's earlier post about Iraqis that have fled to Jordan now on their way back to "defend their country from American invaders". Since I have heard and seen this from 2 sources it has validity.

Why would these fellows do this? Are they just Patriotic? This might ring true if they had not fled their country to get away from Saddam, which they openly admit they did, but this is not the case. Why would you come back and actively seek to restore the very regime you fled?

What's the Deal with these guys?

Are these fellows just some poor smucks suffering from a severe case of information paucity or is there something else going on here? Is it the "Islam against the Christian/Zionist no matter what" thing? Anybody know their educational background?

If anyone has any info on this or comments please enlighten me.

Just as in Vietnam, too, the wise men in Washington may have underestimated the power of nationalism, even in support of as murderous a regime as Saddam Hussein's. Americans are proud of their patriotism (as nationalism is known here). At times they seem unable to understand other peoples may be stirred by similar feelings when they see their own country's flag, irrespective of who is ruling them.

Nowhere do I see any indication that a quick, easy, bloodless victory over an impotent enemy has been promised by The Real Players.

I am neither happy nor unhappy about them. Al Jazeera is of no consequence to me.

I have formed an opinion based on the available information and facts as I have read them. If you think that opinion is flawed, please point me to evidence you think will change my mind or prove me wrong.

Another American request coming - Sunday 30, March-2003
by Tony Best
Within the next few days, the United States plans to ask Barbados and its Caricom neighbours to help block any attempt to haul Washington before the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Tribunal to answer charges of abuses in Iraq.
With civilian casualties mounting in Iraq and having succeeded in derailing international efforts to switch the Iraqi crisis from the UN Security Council to the UN General Assembly, diplomatic sources in Washington and New York say the Bush Administration plans to press the Caribbean to join in a lobbying effort to oppose any move by Islamic nations and other members of the Non-Aligned Movement, to complain to the UN Human Rights Commission about the way the United States is conducting the war.
http://www.nationnews.com/StoryView.cfm?Record=36030&Section=LO&Current=2003%2D03%2D30%2000%3A00%3A00

...the Italian Prime Minster, began his political retreat before a shot was fired.