0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 11:46 pm
Can a man that does not keep his promises be considered truthful?


Afghanistan again top heroin source
Washington Times, DC - 40 minutes ago
Afghanistan has re-emerged as the world's leading producer of opium poppies, the
source of heroin, with cultivation spreading throughout the country's remote ...
Arrests hint at Afghan drug exports - Washington Times

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030408-83935464.htm
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 11:55 pm
nimh wrote:
frolic wrote:
Some strange developments.

Quote:
Firefight breaks out in the centre of Nasiriya - it is believed the fighting is between Iraqi groups, possibly between Fedayeen members faithful to Saddam Hussein and people opposed to him.


If the mini coalition doesn't stop this fighting this could become a second phase in the campaign=> A full scale civil war between Shia, Sunni and Kurds. And i dont think Iran, Syria or Turkey will stand on the sideline and watch how their people gets slaughtered or their enemy takes over strategic or important land and oilfields.


Has there been any sign of ethnic/religious strife at all yet?

The incident you quote seems to refer specifically to the kind of political violence you would expect now: conflict between those with a stake in the old regime, fighting for their survival, and those taking the opportunity to get rid of them.

ethnoreligious conflict between kurds, sunnis and shi'ites, which unlike the above could lead to civil war, is quite a different matter. something that's been much feared and discussed, but hasnt actually happened yet, has it?


You are right. My conclusions were a bit hasty. But the situation is a major setback. The clashes in Nasiriya were the result of the arrogance of Chalabi, a rebel leader the US flew in just yesterday with more than 700 of its fighters.

He wanted a parade through the city but the people weren't happy with that because they dont trust the man. And they have reasons to distrust him. Mr Chalabi's credibility has been dented by fraud allegations. The former banker has been sentenced to 22 years of hard labour in Jordan for fraud and embezzlement.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 12:02 am
perception wrote:
Nimh

Thanks for your appraisal of Al Jazeera---the outcome of the clash of the civilizations will depend greatly on who wins the information war and I don't mean just the war of words but the war for the truth. Contrary to what many people believe---Americans are not afraid of the truth and as a matter of fact we welcome it.


the clash of the civilizations? I bet you never read the book.

And about Al-Jazeera: tthe offices in Bagdad have been hit by a US missile, wounding a cameraman. Another employee is missing.

This is the second time the US bombs the offices of Al-Jazeera.
0 Replies
 
hiama
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 01:40 am
Gelisgesti-I know its off topic from Iraq, your news about Afghanistan is very troubling though I don't suppose any of us is surprised. Its the parable of the boiling frog all over again.

You put a frog in boiling water he jumps out, you heat it up slowly ( grow opium etc) and he doesn't notice until he's cooked.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 02:40 am
An American tank has now attacked journalists on 14th floor of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad.

This was not an accident.

Repeat Perception this was not an accident.

Are US forces hoping for more favorable coverage of the war by ripping the limbs off those reporting on it?
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 03:11 am
it should be noted that sniper fire is reported to be coming from that building.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2541677,00.html
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 03:26 am
Surely the easiest way of silencing any honest jounalistic criticism? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 03:51 am
from that Guardian article

Quote:
U.S. troops said snipers were shooting at them from the building


They have to say something. Otherwise it would be American incompetence (all too plausible) or a deliberate attempt to kill non embedded journalists.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 04:23 am
You can read the breaking news here

JOURNALISTS HIT IN HOTEL

Points to note from the article

Quote:
Chater has insisted he heard nothing coming from the Palestine Hotel.


Chater is the Sky news correspondant

Quote:
Chater said the journalists at the hotel had been watching the progress of Coalition troops from their hotel balconies and how forces had surely been aware of their presence.

"They knew exactly what this hotel is. They know the press corps is here. I don't know why they are trying to target journalists."



Maybe they are trying to prevent them from reporting the truth ?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 04:24 am
I am an American soldier, so one would think it'd be easy to guess my bias in these matters. But I think my perspective is actually fairly objective in matters of national pride (definitely not jingoistic) or the relative propriety of actions taken by combatants on this or that "side".

That been said, it really is remarkable the entrenched thinking I see going on, in both directions. Some posting here really want to believe the worst about the servicemen who are bearing weapons in Iraq. Some will believe no wrong about them at all. I see rabid attempts to spin this or that "side" as imbued with either "good" or "evil" attributes.

I can't help but wonder what would be the effect on the level of discourse if people stopped doing so much blindfolded speculation in defense of their own bias. Hell, maybe it'd just be not stimulating enough without all the fatmouthed pejoratives being hurled about, concerning this or that "side". But then again...
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 04:27 am
snood wrote:

That been said, it really is remarkable the entrenched thinking I see going on, in both directions. Some posting here really want to believe the worst about the servicemen who are bearing weapons in Iraq. Some will believe no wrong about them at all. I see rabid attempts to spin this or that "side" as imbued with either "good" or "evil" attributes.


Guess we have all learned to do this from the US, and to some extent Iraqi administration.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 04:57 am
I get tired of the weasel words of some who are not man enough to face up to the truth.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:04 am
Embarrassment again...Pesticide not WMD (Sarin):

http://truthout.org/docs_03/040903E.shtml
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:13 am
On a more optimistic note, Blair and Bush have just given a press conference in which Bush said

1. The US is committed to publishing and implementing the road map to peace in the middle east leading to a two state ISRAEL PALESTINE solution. (Are you listening Sharon??!!)
2. The UN will have a VITAL role to play in post war Iraq including (though I need to check the transcript as to his exact wording) helping to choose members of the IIA.
3. The Bush administration is going to build upon the good work Clinton did in N Ireland.

So will our support for Bush in Iraq have been worth it if it brings America back from the brink of insanity into the international fold?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:17 am
Fear not, Vietnamnurse, whatever it takes, some will be 'found'. :wink:
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:19 am
After all Blair and Bush still have the reciepts !! Smile
0 Replies
 
VitaminE
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:27 am
Hmmm .......... I think might be too true Gautam!
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:36 am
Snood, I've been guilty of a few angry or unconsidered comments, myself, but I have learned a lot from this thread. I have found strong and well presented arguments from each "side." I wish my own thinking were always as clear as I believe it to be.

I was pleased to see that the discussion here of the war coverage by the media did not turn into a free-for-all. I think we all know, whether we admit it or not, that there are no sources free from "shading," and the reasons for the shading are many. The only hope we have to find the truth is to look at many sources, and my feeling is that, even then, we will know very little until months or years after the war.

If the US finds chem or bio weapons in Iraq, will that change the minds of people who were against the war? I think most of us knew that the regime might be hiding such weapons; they may have stockpiled them for their own self-defense, which is the reason we have them, too, right?

I am surprised to see the continuing commentary about Saddam's cruelty and repression, when this information has been known for decades. I found such knowledge commonplace among my fellow No War on Iraq demonstrators who despised Saddam but did not see this as a reason to make pre-emptive war against a whole country.

The firing on the hotel housing journalists: That had to be a mistake. Does anyone really believe otherwise?

The unfortunate result of this war, which of course the US will win, is that GWB will now see pre-emptive war as a new and successful arrow in his quiver. And the rest of the world will begin to consider following our lead. I see that North Korea is making a predictable statement, that our action against Iraq shows that every nation should have nuclear weapons to defend itself in the future.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:40 am
In front of the cruelty of Saddam Hussein, anti-war could be an injustice.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 05:40 am
Kara wrote:
The unfortunate result of this war, which of course the US will win, is that GWB will now see pre-emptive war as a new and successful arrow in his quiver. And the rest of the world will begin to consider following our lead. I see that North Korea is making a predictable statement, that our action against Iraq shows that every nation should have nuclear weapons to defend itself in the future.


Very true Kara. By their action, the United States and Great Britain have emerged as new bullies on the block. People around the world who always admired America for its principles, for its record of human rights have been disillusioned. America's moral strength has diminished and it will take a long time for it to be restored. In retrospect it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

The United States invaded Iraq for the ostensible reason of 'freeing' the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's despotic rule, to rid the Middle East of terrorism and to bring peace to the region. With their overwhelming military superiority they are well on their way to achieving the first. But it is now highly doubtful whether the overthrow of Saddam will bring any peace to the region or even see the end of terrorism.

Saddam Hussein was believed to have a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction although none have been found so far. Eventually, a few canisters of chemicals will certainly be found. Even if they are the genuine stuff, does the US still expect the world to believe that they constituted a threat to it?

The Iraq war could see the resurgence of nationalism in the Middle East. In fact, the war would be the right fillip for the fundamentalist forces which were lying low after their initial success in the eighties. One should not be surprised to see the spread of militancy and fundamentalism in the Gulf in the next two or three years. The remnants of the Ba'ath party will still be active in Iraq and will be supported by sister organisations in neighbouring Syria and Lebanon. Any puppet regime put in place by the US in Iraq will not only be unpopular but is likely to be overthrown after a couple of years.

The combined US/UK action has dissipated whatever goodwill these countries had in the Gulf. The action has created a crescent of hatred for the West in general and for the United States in particular. Years of respect and credibility have been destroyed to grab a few barrels of oil. Even in moderate and so-far friendly countries like Jordan and Egypt, public opinion may force the regimes to distance themselves from the United States and the Western world.

If Saddam still succeeds in escaping and joining hands with Osama bin Laden they can make things quite tough for the Western world. It would be ironic if the war brings about the very thing which the US wanted to avoid.


<above liberally quoted from a article on an Indian webiste by a retd. Admiral>
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 162
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 10:28:56