0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:04 pm
allright, allright, allright ... drop it, already, would ya? C'mon folks. Issues, not personal attacks ... I'll make you all a deal ... the next one to screw up puts the whole thread in the penalty box.









issues,
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:07 pm
Ge and Tartarin and whomever - is there a place where the "paper trails" you speak of are gathered together and well elucidated? I am fascinated by all this and really want to get to grips with it all.

(Interestingly I saw a documentary on, of all things, faking of shots from the '69 moon-landing, with candid videos of some of those people settling into the Pentagon. I was terrified, frankly.)
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:45 pm
Dlowan - are you saying that the moonlanding was faked?

Interesting news on npr about terminology. Easrly today the coalition forces were saying they'd gone right through downtown baghdad. Now they are saying that they went into a suburb of baghdad. what is it... 150? reporters in baghdad saying - uhm, no you didn't!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:56 pm
littlek, if you think the Moonlanding news is astounding, just wait 'tll you find out the truth about Professional Wrestling! Even worse, there are troubling revelations regarding not only weight-loss schemes, but "adult" potions and enhancers as well. If stuff like this keeps up, who can know what to believe? Thank goodness for Ms. Cleo.
'
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:58 pm
littlek from what I understand (listening to NPR this morning), a armored movement was made into Baghdad - not downtown - in and out. Their primary objective was to show that they were there and could do what they want. Kinda psych ops I guess.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:58 pm
Yep, I think it was fake.




(This should be fun Twisted Evil )
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:00 pm
Hee hee, did you hear that Elvis isn't really dead - and Bush really does have a brain, this is only a trick they're pulling. He actually can think for himself, as long as the outcome is obvious!
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:02 pm
I don't believe either of those.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:07 pm
I don't believe in noth'n I can't see. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:17 pm
Iraqi exile Kanan Makiya in The New Republic and Die Zeit:

Quote:
March 24 "... those bombs are music to my ears ..."

The bombs have begun to fall on Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers have shot their officers and are giving themselves up to the Americans and the British in droves. Others, as in Nasiriyah and Umm Qasr, are fighting back, and civilians have already come under fire. Yet I find myself dismissing contemptuously all the e-mails and phone calls I get from antiwar friends who think they are commiserating with me because "their" country is bombing "mine." To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears. [..]

There is enough chatter out of Washington to make me apprehensive. Last Wednesday, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Marc Grossman, managed to deliver a long briefing to foreign reporters on "Assisting Iraqis With Their Future, Planning For Democracy" without any specifics on the issue. While Grossman summarized U.S. plans and offered statistical details on economic reconstruction, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian assistance, and the role of the United Nations in all these things, all he could say about the central political question was that the Bush administration "seek[s] an Iraq that is democratic." Why? Does the United States have any ideas on this pivotal subject? [..]


See this thread for more.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:25 pm
They showed the route along which the tanks would have crossed through Baghdad on a map of the city on the news today. (One of those 3D-animation of aerial pictures). Down this highway; at that crossing, if they'd gone right, they'd have driven straight through the government neighbourhood; instead, they went straight ahead, then left to the airport ...

It looked like cutting deeply into the city of Baghdad; not through, but neither far from the city centre.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:27 pm
nimh

Thanks. Very interesting series of posts by this fellow. That his english is better than mine doesn't, as you suggest on the other thread, make his viewpoint invalid nor his observations false.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:43 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Peace is not yet in hand, and itself poses great challenge. Still, it doesn't look good for the War Critics.


If you have been reading the same War Critics I have, I don't see why.

Most critics of this war have criticized and opposed it for the motivations behind it; the unilateralist, 'bully-like' way it was arrived at; the disproportionate damage it did to international legality and co-operation, and to America's standing among both allies and Arab sceptics; and, in consequence, its potential to increase, rather than decrease, terrorism.

All of these criticisms would still stand even if victory was achieved this very day.

Most all the critics of this war I've read on this forum have also noted from the start that they expect the US to win eventually, of course, considering its overwhelming power. What many did argue was that it wasnt going to be the cakewalk Perle predicted; that the Americans werent really going to be spontaneously greeted with flags and flowers only. That argument's been already proven.

As for wanting the US to win asap, now that it did start this war, or to pull out asap instead, war critics here have been divided, but with a majority leaning to the first (see the thread on 'Withdraw from Iraq?'). That majority will be relieved, rather than worried about "looking bad", to see that some of their more angry fears about the "no cakewalk" experience extending into a new Vietnam might just turn out to go unrealised.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:46 pm
blatham wrote:
nimh

Thanks. Very interesting series of posts by this fellow. That his english is better than mine doesn't, as you suggest on the other thread, make his viewpoint invalid nor his observations false.


i didnt suggest that it did, did i? i surely did not mean to!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:59 pm
nimh

No, I'm sorry. Again, my sentence is sloppily ambiguous, and can be read two ways. Your suggestion was that we ought not to disregard this voice.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:36 pm
Shock and Awe (Revised)
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:37 pm
"Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the grand imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, said Saddam Hussein's oppression of his people, and his wars against Iran and Kuwait, had been "terrorism".

But the man seen as the highest religious authority for Sunni Muslims also accused the United States and Britain of waging an "unjust aggression" against the Iraqi people."

"Sheikh Tantawi said the war was not a crusade against Islam and condemned Saddam Hussein for not accepting a call from the United Arab Emirates to resign in order to prevent war."

But, he also says:

"The cleric gave his blessing to any volunteers who wanted to help Iraqis fight the invaders, even potential suicide attackers.

"Whoever wants to go to support the Iraqi people, I welcome that, I welcome that, I welcome that," Sheikh Tantawi said."

BBC

Does that seem like a fair representation of what you all are hearing from muslims in the papers? Seems to me it is.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:45 pm
First I've heard of that littlek, thank you!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:57 pm
BillW - you're welcome.

Here's another bone-chillingly interesting item. A series of responses to the questions "Do you think war has polarised Arab attitudes? What impact will it have on future relations between Arab nations and the West?"

World view

The arrogant simplicity of some of the posts is astounding to me.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 08:27 pm
You all can join Saddam in deep denial-----I'm regrouping for a counterattack.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 150
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/08/2024 at 08:06:32